A Longitudinal Mediation Study of Sexting Motivations and Outcomes in Sexual Minority and Sexual Majority Emerging Adults

Abstract

Sexting—defined as the exchange of sexually suggestive messages via smartphones or other digital devices—has become a common behavior among emerging adults aged 18–29. This trend is particularly prominent among gender and sexual minorities, for whom sexting is often viewed as a normative and socially accepted form of expression. However, these populations also appear to face disproportionate mental health challenges associated with sexting. In a longitudinal online survey, 415 emerging adults (223 women, 171 men, 21 gender-diverse individuals) reported on their sexting behaviors, sexting motivations (autonomous versus controlled), and mental health outcomes across two time points, 6 weeks apart. Structural equation modeling revealed that gender and sexual minorities experienced significantly higher levels of internalizing (β = 0.60, 95 percent CI [0.23–0.97], p = 0.001) and externalizing symptoms (β = 0.69, 95 percent CI [0.29–1.08], p = 0.001) when engaging in sexually suggestive communication, compared to their majority peers. Furthermore, while sexting for autonomous reasons was linked to fewer internalizing symptoms among sexual majority youth (β = 0.12, 95 percent CI [0.03–0.22], p = 0.01), this protective effect did not extend to gender and sexual minorities. Therefore, sexting may carry different implications for gender and sexual minority youth compared to their majority peers, highlighting the need for tailored intervention strategies that account for these distinct experiences.

Keywords

sexting motivations outcomes emerging adults LGBTQ+sexual minorities

Introduction

“Sexting” involves the sending and/or receiving of sexual texts, images, or videos through smartphones or other devices.¹ It is becoming an increasingly popular form of communication, with 48 percent of emerging adults sending and receiving sexts.²

Sexting: Motives and mental health

Emerging adults engage in sexting for a variety of reasons that can be understood through self-determination theory (SDT).³ According to SDT, the extent to which a behavior is aligned with one’s values and sense of self determines where it falls along this continuum. Greater alignment indicates autonomous motivation, while lesser alignment reflects controlled motivation.³ SDT identifies three types of autonomous motivation. Identified motivation occurs when an individual views the behavior as personally meaningful. Integrated motivation reflects full alignment of the behavior with one’s broader values and needs. Intrinsic motivation is the most self-determined, driven by enjoyment or inherent interest. In contrast, controlled motivation includes external regulation, which is driven by tangible rewards or fear of punishment, and introjected regulation, which is driven by internal pressures such as guilt, shame, or anxiety.

Although most sexting research does not explicitly use the SDT framework, findings can be interpreted using this continuum. Many emerging adults engage in sexting for autonomous reasons—they might sext to fulfill sexual and romantic needs, to flirt, to maintain intimacy in long-distance relationships, or to affirm their sexual identity,^4–10 reflecting integrated motivations. Some might sext as a form of self-expression, also demonstrating integrated reasons for sexting. Others might sext for enjoyment or excitement, reflecting intrinsic motivation. Controlled motivations also drive sexting behavior among emerging adults. Approximately 20 percent of emerging adults report sexting due to pressures and feared punishment from partners, often to avoid conflict or prevent breakups—an example of external regulation, indicating external motivation.¹¹ Others sext to seek validation of their attractiveness,^4,12 reflecting introjected motivation, particularly among those with body-image concerns.¹³

Studies that have applied SDT in sexting research revealed that autonomous motivations were linked to positive outcomes, including better mental health, higher relationship quality, and greater satisfaction.^14,15 In contrast, controlled motivations were associated with negative outcomes, including fear, shame, anger, and relationship conflict.^14–18 In addition, sexting behaviors, in general, were found to be associated with poorer mental health, such as anxiety and depression.^2,19,20 However, this negative association of sexting with poorer mental health has not been consistently observed and has especially not been observed in more recent studies.^21,22

Sexting: Motives and mental health in gender and sexual minorities

While gender and sexual minorities may have some distinct sexting experiences from one another,^23,24 they also share many commonalities. For this reason, the present study focuses on comparing these minority groups collectively to heterosexual and cisgender individuals, rather than examining differences within the minority groups themselves.^23,24 Both gender and sexual minorities are more likely to view sexting as a typical and normative part of romantic and sexual communication,^26,27 and are therefore more likely to engage in sexting.^6,25,26 However, the motivations for sexting differ: They engage less in sexting for instrumental or relationship-maintaining purposes but more frequently for appearance- and body-image-related reasons.⁶ From a SDT perspective, this pattern suggests that their sexting behavior may be less autonomously motivated in some domains and more influenced by internalized pressures related to self-presentation or body evaluation. Further, gender and sexual minorities are more likely to experience physical and image-based sexual abuse,^28,29 leading to potentially more severe adverse consequences from negative sexting experiences.³⁰ This enhanced vulnerability is especially concerning as these groups already face higher rates of negative mental health outcomes.^31–34

Minority stress theory^35,36 suggests that chronic exposure to stigma, rejection, and identity-related vigilance constrains behavioral choice and increases sensitivity to interpersonal evaluation. Within digital sexual contexts, gender minority individuals face heightened risks of coercion, image misuse, and relational instability, which may shift sexting motivation toward compliance, validation seeking, or fear of relational loss.³⁷ From an SDT perspective, minority stress may frustrate basic psychological needs, particularly autonomy and relatedness, by increasing perceived relational stakes and reducing the felt freedom to refuse or negotiate digital sexual requests. When sexting occurs in contexts of anticipated rejection, body-image concerns, or power imbalance, engagement is more likely driven by external demands or internalized pressure rather than by intrinsic interest or enjoyment. This motivational shift helps explain why gender minority individuals may report similar or higher overall rates of sexting,^6,25,26 yet experience it as less self-endorsed and more psychologically costly.⁶ At the same time, sexting is not inherently maladaptive, and gender and sexual minorities may also experience positive outcomes. Twist et al.²⁶ note that these groups often report clearer norms and expectations regarding acceptable online sexual behavior, which may foster more mutual and consensual sexting experiences. Because mutual consent is consistently associated with more positive sexting outcomes,¹⁵ gender and sexual minorities may be especially likely to experience benefits when sexting occurs in autonomy-supportive and affirming relational contexts.

Current study

Numerous studies have examined the motivations and outcomes behind sexting, including poorer mental health outcomes.^2,19,20 Yet, research has primarily focused on internalizing symptoms, while research on externalizing symptoms remains scarce.^38,39 It is also unclear whether sexting is more strongly linked to mental health in gender and sexual minorities or is influenced by their differing motivations according to SDT. In this study, we aimed to examine differences in sexting motivations and outcomes, while considering both internalizing and externalizing symptoms, between gender and sexual minorities and their majority counterparts.

Thus, we outlined the following hypotheses: H1:

As observed in other cohorts^2,19,20 and in line with minority stress theory,^35,36 we expected gender and sexual minorities to experience more internalizing and externalizing symptoms than their majority peers.

H2:

Given that minority youth experience more negative outcomes because of sexting,³⁰ we expected that sexting behaviors would be more strongly associated with internalizing and externalizing symptoms in gender and sexual minorities than their majority peers.

H3:

Based on SDT,³ autonomous motivations for sexting were expected to be associated with fewer internalizing and externalizing symptoms, while controlled motivations would be associated with increased internalizing and externalizing symptoms, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

H4:

Based on SDT and minority stress theory,⁶ gender and sexual minorities were expected to endorse fewer autonomous but more controlled motivations than their majority peers, reflecting internalized pressures, relational vulnerability, and chronic exposure to stigma and discrimination.

H5:

Finally, we hypothesized that the protective effect of autonomous motivations on internalizing and externalizing symptoms would be less pronounced among gender and sexual minorities than their majority peers, reflecting reduced perceived autonomy in sexting. Conversely, the adverse effect of controlled motivations was expected to be exacerbated among minorities due to heightened exposure to stigma, relational vulnerability, and internalized pressures.

Methods

Participants

Upon receiving approval from a University Institutional Review Board (REB #2023-6708) following the latest Revision of the Declaration of Helsinki, we recruited emerging adults across Canada to participate in the sexting behaviors, motivations, and outcomes study. Recruitment was conducted through social media advertisements, pamphlets distributed at universities, and word of mouth. Inclusion criteria were that participants: (1) have sexted in the last 3 months, (2) live in Canada, (3) read and write in English, (4) be 18–30 years of age, and (5) be in a relationship (committed or casual). After the exclusion of bots and duplicates, 383 participants were included, of which 321 also completed the follow-up survey 6 weeks later (83.8 percent retention).

Procedure

Eligible participants were guided through the informed consent process via the secure software REDCap.⁴⁰ After providing consent, participants completed online surveys that were hosted by REDCap twice within a 6-week interval. No identifying information was collected to protect participants’ confidentiality and anonymity, thereby encouraging honest responses to this sensitive topic.⁴¹ Upon completion of the surveys, participants were reimbursed with up to $40 CAD.

Measures

Quality control

Quality control measures included attention checks throughout the questionnaire as well as the exclusion of participants with unrealistic response times.

Sociodemographic variables

At T1, we collected information concerning the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants: age, gender, sex at birth, to whom they were sexually attracted, ethnicity, relationship status, and relationship length. Emerging adults were considered as gender and sexual minorities if they identified as gender diverse and/or nonstraight.

Sexting behaviors

We measured participants’ sexting behaviors at T1 with the following three items: “I sent a nude or nearly nude photo over the past 3 months,” “I sent a sexually explicit or provocative image or message over the past 3 months,” and “I engaged in a sexually suggestive or flirtatious conversation over the past 3 months.” Participants were asked to identify the frequency of each sexting behavior on a 5-point response scale (1 = 0 times; 2 = 1 or 2 times; 3 = 3–10 times; 4 = 11–20 times; 5 = 20+ times).⁴²

Motivations for sexting

We measured participants’ motivations for sexting at T1 using the revised Sexual Motivation Scale (SexMS). The revised SexMS^15,43 is a 20-item scale measuring five subscales of motivational regulatory styles: intrinsic (e.g., “because sexting is fun”), integrated (e.g., “because sexting brings so much to my life”), identified (e.g., “because I feel it’s important to be open to new experiences”), introjected (e.g., “to prove to myself that I am sexually attractive”), and external (e.g., “to avoid conflicts with my person”). Participants responded using a Likert scale ranging from 1 (does not correspond at all) to 7 (corresponds completely). The internal consistency for the overall scales of the revised SexMS was 0.87 for autonomous motivation and 0.78 for controlled motivation in the original sample.¹⁵

Mental health

Mental health was measured at T2 using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) for young adults.⁴¹ Participants responded to 25 items measured on a 3-point scale (1 = not true, 2 = somewhat true, 3 = certainly true). The SDQ measures overall well-being, including emotions, behaviors, and experiences (e.g., “I get very angry and lose my temper,” “I often offer to help others (family members, friends, colleagues,” “I have at least one good friend”). The SDQ scales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency: emotional symptoms (α = 0.94) and peer relationship problems (α = 0.77) formed the internalizing subscale, while hyperactivity/inattention (α = 0.84) and conduct problems (α = 0.86) comprised the externalizing subscale.⁴⁴

Statistical analyses

First, descriptive statistics of study variables were calculated in R⁴⁵ using version 2023.6.1.524 of RStudio.⁴⁶ Group differences between gender and sexual minority and majority participants were examined using χ² tests for categorical variables and independent-samples t-tests for continuous variables. Second, hypotheses were tested using structural equation modeling via the lavaan package⁴⁷ using full-information maximum likelihood and bootstrapping (with bias-corrected confidence intervals) to account for missing data.⁴⁸ Model fit was assessed using the comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root-mean-squared error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). Values ≥0.95 for CFI and TLI and ≤0.08 for RMSEA and SRMR are considered indicative of good model fit.⁴⁹ Thorough data validity checks were performed. Across the models reported below, CFI values ranged from 0.955 to 1.000, TLI values ranged from 0.840 to 1.000, RMSEA values ranged from 0.000 to 0.076, and SRMR values ranged from 0.004 to 0.027. The model with the comparatively lower TLI value nevertheless showed good fit across the remaining indices.

Results

Demographics and sexting

A total of 383 respondents completed the first survey, and 321 completed the second survey. Of the respondents, 95.3 percent identified as cisgender and 70.5 percent as heterosexual. Of the minority respondents, only 4 (3.4 percent) identified as straight, 2 (1.7 percent) identified as asexual, 58 (49.6 percent) as bisexual, 8 (6.8 percent) as gay, 12 (10.3 percent) as lesbian, 16 (13.7 percent) as queer, 11 (9.4 percent) as pansexual, and 6 (5.1 percent) as another sexual orientation. The respondents were, on average, 23.16 years old (SD = 2.80), 60.1 percent were females, and 80.2 percent were in a committed relationship. The majority (89.3 percent) had sent a nude image in the past 3 months, 94.0 percent had sent a sexually explicit image or message, and 98.2 percent had engaged in sexually suggestive conversation (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Study Sample Characteristics Stratified by Gender and Sexual Minority Status

	Majorities	Minorities	p
Characteristics
Gender
Male	134	19
Female	132	98	<0.001*
Relationship status
Committed	217	90
Casual	49	27	0.36
Age	23.6 (SD 2.69)	22.1 (SD 2.76)	0.30
Sexting behaviors
Nude photo
None	24	17	0.93
1 or 2	77	31
3–10	112	36
11–19	32	19
20+	21	14
Sexually explicit image/Message
None	15	8	<0.01*
1 or 2	69	17
3–10	91	34
11–19	51	23
20+	40	35
Sexually suggestive conversation
None	5	2	0.27
1 or 2	36	12
3–10	65	28
11–19	62	26
20+	98	49
Mental well-being
Internalizing symptoms	8.29 (SD 3.69)	10.50 (SD 3.45)	<0.001*
Externalizing symptoms	7.26 (SD 3.20)	8.13 (SD 3.40)	0.20
Motivations
Autonomous	57.10 (SD 14.50)	52.10 (SD 13.00)	<0.001*
Controlled	32.40 (SD 11.50)	27.50 (SD 11.60)	<0.001*

*p Value <0.05.

Mental health and sexting

Of all respondents, 31.6 percent reported an SDQ score of 18 and above, reflecting clinically significant symptomatology. Gender and sexual minorities experienced more internalizing (β = 0.22, 95 percent CI [0.12–0.32], p < 0.001) but not externalizing symptoms (β = 0.08, 95 percent CI [−0.03 to 0.19], p = 0.20) at T2 (see Table 2). Consistent with H1, gender and sexual minorities reported higher internalizing symptoms; however, no group differences were observed for externalizing symptoms. Engagement in sexually suggestive conversations was the only sexting behavior at T1 associated with more internalizing and externalizing symptoms at T2 in gender and sexual minorities (β = 0.60, 95 percent CI [0.23–0.97], p = 0.001 and β = 0.69, 95 percent CI [0.29–1.08], p = 0.001, respectively) but not their majority peers (see Fig. 1). As such, only sexually suggestive conversations were associated with more internalizing and externalizing symptoms in gender and sexual minorities in line with H2, while no differences were observed for other sexting behaviors.

FIG. 1.

Effect of sexting behaviors on mental well-being by minority status.

Table 2.

Structural Equation Model for Internalizing and Externalizing Symptoms

	B	95% CI	SE	z-Value
Internalizing symptoms
Sexting behaviors
Nude images	−0.02	−0.13 to 0.09	0.06	−0.33
Sexually explicit image/Message	0.09	−0.02 to 0.20	0.05	1.68
Sexually suggestive conversations	−0.09	−0.20 to 0.01	0.05	−1.72
Sexting behaviors × MS
Nude images × MS	0.05	−0.23 to 0.34	0.15	0.37
Sexually explicit image/Message × MS	0.19	−0.11 to 0.49	0.15	1.22
Sexually suggestive conversations × MS	0.60	0.29 to 1.08*	0.19	3.18
Sexting behaviors × MS × motives
Nude images × MS × AM	0.05	−0.06 to 0.15	0.06	0.84
Sexually explicit image/Message × MS × AM	0.04	−0.05 to 0.13	0.05	0.87
Sexually suggestive conversations × MS × AM	0.12	0.03 to 0.21*	0.05	2.72
Nude images × MS × CM	−0.07	−0.17 to 0.04	0.05	−1.28
Sexually explicit image/Message × MS × CM	−0.09	−0.19 to 0.01	0.05	−1.82
Sexually suggestive conversations × MS × CM	−0.05	−0.17 to 0.06	0.06	−0.94
Externalizing symptoms
Sexting behaviors
Nude images	0.03	−0.08 to 0.14	0.06	0.49
Sexually explicit image/Message	0.09	−0.03 to 0.20	0.06	1.49
Sexually suggestive conversations	−0.01	−0.12 to 0.11	0.06	−0.08
Sexting behaviors × MS
Nude images × MS	0.19	−0.12 to 0.52	0.16	1.19
Sexually explicit image/Message × MS	0.29	−0.06 to 0.65	0.18	1.61
Sexually suggestive conversations × MS	0.69	−0.29 to 1.08	0.20	3.38
Sexting behaviors × MS × motives
Nude images × MS × AM	0.01	−0.12 to 0.13	0.06	0.93
Sexually explicit image/Message × MS × AM	−0.00	−0.11 to 0.11	0.05	0.93
Sexually suggestive conversations × MS × AM	0.04	−0.07 to 0.14	0.05	0.66
Nude images × MS × CM	−0.03	−0.13 to 0.08	0.05	−0.45
Sexually explicit image/Message × MS × CM	−0.07	−0.18 to 0.05	0.06	−1.15
Sexually suggestive conversations × MS × CM	−0.04	−0.17 to 0.08	0.06	−0.66

*p Value <0.05.

AM, autonomous motivation; CM, controlled motivation; MS, minority status.

Mental health, motives, and sexting

Respondents endorsed both autonomous and controlled motivations for sexting. In line with H3, respondents who highly endorsed autonomous motivations at T1 experienced fewer internalizing (β = −0.34, 95 percent CI [−0.44 to −0.24], p < 0.001) and externalizing symptoms (β = −0.26, 95 percent CI [−0.36 to −0.16], p < 0.001) at T2. Furthermore, controlled motivations for sexting were associated with increased externalizing (β = 0.16, 95 percent CI [0.04–0.29], p = 0.01) but unexpectedly not with increased internalizing symptoms (β = 0.07, 95 percent CI [−0.05 to 0.19], p = 0.25). As hypothesized in H4, gender and sexual minorities endorsed significantly fewer autonomous (β = −0.08, 95 percent CI [−0.20 to −0.01], p = 0.03) motivations. In contrast to expectations, they also reported fewer controlled motivations (β = −0.16, 95 percent CI [−0.26 to 0.06], p = 0.002), compared to the sex and gender majority youth. Among the sexual and gender majority youth, engaging in sexually suggestive conversations for autonomous reasons was associated with fewer internalizing symptoms (b = 0.12, 95 percent CI [0.03–0.22], p = 0.012). Among gender and sexual minorities, engagement in sexually suggestive conversations was associated with increased internalizing symptoms, independent of sexting motivations (see Fig. 2). These results partially support H5, as moderating effects were observed for internalizing symptoms and autonomous motivations, but no moderating effects for externalizing symptoms or controlled motivations.

FIG. 2.

Effect of sexting behaviors and motives on mental well-being by minority status.

SDT posits that autonomous motivations are associated with positive outcomes and controlled motivations with negative outcomes. Some findings in the present study did not align with these expectations. Specifically, externalizing symptoms did not differ significantly between groups. This pattern suggests that SDT may not fully capture sexting motivations among gender and sexual minorities, whose behaviors may be shaped by minority stress, safety considerations, and attitudes/beliefs about sexting.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate the association of sexting behaviors, motivations, and mental health outcomes for gender and sexual minorities in a longitudinal framework. This study used an SDT lens,³ which argues that being more self-determined in activities (e.g., sexting) is related to better outcomes. Aligned with the minority stress theory,^35,36 we hypothesized that gender and sexual minorities would experience poorer mental health outcomes related to sexting, potentially due to differences in their motivations for engaging in sexting.

Mental health and sexting

Overall, sexting behaviors were not associated with increases in either internalizing or externalizing symptoms 6 weeks later. While these findings are in contrast with the majority of past research suggesting that sexting is linked to poorer mental health,^{22,23,50–52} they are consistent with other recent longitudinal studies^21,22 suggesting that the impact of sexting on mental health over time may be considerably smaller than what cross-sectional studies have indicated.

Sexually suggestive conversations were the only sexting behavior strongly associated with internalizing and externalizing symptoms in gender and sexual minorities compared to their majority peers, 6 weeks later. Among gender and sexual minorities, sharing explicit images may be more normalized and emotionally neutral,^28,29 which could explain the somewhat unexpected lack of group differences for image-based sexting. In contrast, sexually suggestive or romantic conversations may carry greater emotional significance, introducing heightened vulnerability through deeper self-disclosure and emotional risk. For these minorities, sexting may also involve additional risks, including fear of being outed, cyberbullying, or exploitation,^23,30,53,55 which, combined with broader minority stressors, discrimination, stigma, and societal pressure, may amplify the psychological impact of sexting.^23,30 Consistent with previous research,^31,32 gender and sexual minorities reported more internalizing symptoms, though not externalizing symptoms, likely reflecting the unique stressors they experience, including chronic minority stress, social rejection, and identity-related challenges.^31,33

Sexting for autonomous and controlled motivations

Consistent with past research,^14,15 autonomous motivations for sexting were linked to fewer internalizing and externalizing symptoms, while controlled motivations were associated with increased externalizing, but not internalizing, symptoms. However, findings for gender and sexual minorities diverged from SDT predictions in important ways. As hypothesized (H4), gender and sexual minorities reported fewer autonomous motivations, consistent with the idea that reduced perceived autonomy and minority stress constrain self-determined engagement. Unexpectedly, they also reported fewer controlled motivations compared to the majority of their peers, contrary to SDT expectations that minority stress would increase controlled behaviors. This pattern may reflect unique contextual factors in our sample. Gender and sexual minorities may receive more relational support for sexual expression, given shared experiences of stigma and discrimination. They may also have developed stronger self-regulation skills in navigating social and relational stressors, reducing reliance on externally or internally pressured sexting (controlled motivation).⁵⁶ Moreover, sexting motivations for gender and sexual minorities may be more complex than the autonomous-controlled dichotomy captures, arising from identity exploration, affirmation, and safety considerations. Consequently, SDT’s standard distinction between autonomous and controlled motivation may not fully account for these nuanced drivers in marginalized populations.

Importantly, for gender and sexual minorities, engaging in sexually suggestive conversations was associated with higher internalizing symptoms regardless of motivation, whereas for majority youth, autonomous motivations were protective. Surprisingly, controlled motivations did not exacerbate the impact of sexting on mental health for gender and sexual minorities. This unexpected finding may reflect the unique relational and community contexts of these youth: supportive partners, heightened self-regulation, or motivations beyond simple autonomous vs. controlled categories (e.g., identity exploration, affirmation, or safety). These results indicate that minority stressors, stigma, discrimination, and relational vulnerability may override both the protective effects of autonomy and the potentially harmful effects of controlled motivations, highlighting the need to contextualize SDT frameworks within marginalized populations.

Limitations and Future Research

Strengths of the current study include the longitudinal design and the recruitment of a geographically, sexually, and ethnically/racially diverse sample with varied sexting experiences. The use of anonymous online surveys, which did not collect identifying information, may have enhanced confidentiality and encouraged honest responses, particularly on sensitive topics like sexuality.⁵⁷ Yet, several limitations should be noted. First, we collected limited information on participants’ characteristics, such as personality traits, self-esteem, resilience, and digital literacy, which may have constrained our ability to fully interpret the relationship between sexting and mental health outcomes. Second, several mechanisms discussed in the article, including the normalization of sexting, emotional vulnerability, and enhanced self-regulation, were not directly measured. As such, interpretations regarding these processes are necessarily speculative, and future research should include direct assessments to empirically test these proposed mechanisms. Third, sexting behaviors and motivations were measured at different conceptual levels—behaviors capturing frequency and motivations reflecting internal regulation—which may introduce some ambiguity in interpreting moderation effects. Fourth, minority status was grouped as a broad category, which may obscure important differences across specific identities and lived experiences. Due to the small sample size, we were also unable to examine the effects of gender and sexual minority status separately, though nearly all gender minorities in this study also identified as sexual minorities, indicating substantial overlap. Future research should consider using an intersectional research design to explicitly measure how a person’s different identities, such as gender and sexuality, may interact to produce unique motivations and outcomes for sexting. Fifth, the follow-up period was relatively short (i.e., 6 weeks); future research should consider longer timeframes with multiple assessment points to better understand the temporal dynamics between sexting and mental health. Finally, the use of nonprobability sampling limits generalizability, and attrition may have introduced bias if participants who discontinued differed systematically from those who completed the study.

Implications and Conclusion

The findings from this study highlight several important clinical implications, particularly for professionals working with gender and sexual minorities. Given the heightened vulnerability to mental health issues associated with sexting in this population, mental health professionals should be aware of the unique risks that sexting may pose, such as cyberbullying, exploitation, and fear of being outed.^23,30,52,54 Yet, it is equally important for clinicians to foster healthy approaches to forming romantic relationships, particularly within the complex social context that often challenges partner-seeking among gender and sexual minorities. Clinicians should consider discussing the motivations behind sexting behaviors with clients, as motivations driven by autonomy may be less harmful than those driven by controlled motivations,^58,59 but less so in gender and sexual minorities.

In conclusion, while sexting is generally linked to poorer mental health outcomes in previous research, this study suggests that its impact on mental health, particularly for gender and sexual minorities, may be more complex. Factors such as motivations for sexting and the unique stressors experienced by this group can shape the mental health consequences of sexting behaviors. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for developing effective mental health interventions and promoting well-being in gender and sexual minority populations.

Authors’ Contributions

E.B.: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. A.S.: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, writing—review and editing. S.M.-D.: Investigation, writing—review and editing. J.L.M.: Investigation, writing—review and editing.M.C.: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, writing—review and editing. S.D.: Data curation, formal analysis, methodology, writing—review and editing. S.H.S.: Funding acquisition, investigation, writing—review and editing. J.B.: Funding acquisition, investigation, writing—review and editing. N.O.R.: Data curation, investigation, writing—review and editing. J.C.: Data curation, investigation, writing—review and editing. S.M.M: Conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, funding acquisition, investigation, methodology, project administration, resources, supervision, writing—review and editing.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participants for their important contributions to our study as well as the entire PROSIT laboratory for their support.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

This research was supported by Dalhousie University’s Department of Psychiatry Research Fund (DPRF), the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) (award number 38835), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) (award number 950-232098) and the Canadian Research Chairs (CRC) of Drs. Meier and Stewart (award numbers 1024586 and 202200284).

References

1. Dir

, Coskunpinar

, Steiner

, et al. Understanding differences in sexting behaviors across gender, relationship status, and sexual identity, and the role of expectancies in sexting. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2013;16(8):568–574; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0545

2. Mori

, Cooke

, Temple

, et al. The prevalence of sexting behaviors among emerging adults: A meta-analysis. Arch Sex Behav 2020;49(4):1103–1119; doi: 10.1007/s10508-020-01656-4

3. Ryan

, Deci

. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications; 2017.

4. Bianchi

, Morelli

, Baiocco

, et al. Sexting as the mirror on the wall: Body‐esteem attribution, media models, and objectified‐body consciousness. J Adolesc 2017;61(1):164–172; doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.10.006

5. Bianchi

, Morelli

, Baiocco

, et al. Individual differences and developmental trends in sexting motivations. Curr Psychol 2021;40(9):4531–4540; doi: 10.1007/s12144-019-00398-4

6. Currin

, Hubach

. Motivations for non-university-based adults who sext their relationship partners. J Sex Marital Ther 2019;45(4):317–327; doi: 10.1080/0092623X.2018.1526837

7. Drouin

, Vogel

, Surbey

, et al. Let’s talk about sexting, baby: Computer-mediated sexual behaviors among young adults. Comput Human Behav 2013;29(5):A25–A30; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.12.030

8. Drouin

, Tobin

. Unwanted but consensual sexting among young adults: Relations with attachment and sexual motivations. Comput Human Behav 2014;31:412–418; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.11.001

9. Henderson

. Sexting and sexual relationships among teens and young adults. McNair Scholars Research Journals 2011;7(1):31–39.

10.

10. Thorne

, Babchishin

, Fisico

, et al. Sexting in young adults: A normative sexual behavior. Arch Sex Behav 2024;53(2):593–609; doi: 10.1007/s10508-023-02728-x

11.

11. Drouin

, Ross

, Tobin

. Sexting: A new, digital vehicle for intimate partner aggression? Comput Human Behav 2015;50:197–204; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.001

12.

12. Burkett

. Sex(t) talk: A qualitative analysis of young adults’ negotiations of the pleasures and perils of sexting. Sex Cult 2015;19(4):835–863; doi: 10.1007/s12119-015-9295-0

13.

13. Timko

, Juarascio

, Martin

, et al. Body image avoidance: An under-explored yet important factor in the relationship between body image dissatisfaction and disordered eating. J Contextual Behav Sci 2014;3(3):203–211; doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2014.01.002

14.

14. Bragard

, Fisher

. Associations between sexting motivations and consequences among adolescent girls. J Adolesc 2022;94(1):5–18; doi: 10.1002/jad.12000

15.

15. Le

, Goegan

, Daniels

. The impact of autonomous and controlled sexting motivations on subjective well-being and relationship quality. Arch Sex Behav 2023;52(1):243–254; doi: 10.1007/s10508-022-02361-0

16.

16. Currin

. Linking sexting expectancies with motivations to sext. Eur J Investig Health Psychol Educ 2022;12(2):209–217; doi: 10.3390/ejihpe12020016

17.

17. Parti

, Sanders

, Englander

. Sexting at an early age: Patterns and poor health‐related consequences of pressured sexting in middle and high school. J Sch Health 2023;93(1):73–81; doi: 10.1111/josh.13258

18.

18. Wachs

, Wright

, Gámez-Guadix

, et al. How are consensual, non-consensual, and pressured sexting linked to depression and self-harm? The moderating effects of demographic variables. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2021;18(5):2597; doi: 10.3390/ijerph18052597

19.

19. Medrano

, Lopez Rosales

, Gámez-Guadix

. Assessing the links of sexting, cybervictimization, depression, and suicidal ideation among university students. Arch Suicide Res 2018;22(1):153–164; doi: 10.1080/13811118.2017.1304304

20.

20. Yisa

, Orji

. Hidden desires, echoed distress: Dissecting Nigeria’s sexting landscape and its ties to depression. Comput Human Behav 2024;161:108420; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108420

21.

21. Borgogna

, Meyer

, Trussell

, et al. Further understanding the correlations between sexting and mental health: Considerations for sex and sexual identity. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2023;26(5):323–331; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2022.0312

22.

22. Frøyland

, Tokle

, Burdzovic Andreas

, et al. Sexting and mental health in adolescence: A longitudinal study. J Adolesc Health 2024;75(4):584–590; doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2024.04.018

23.

23. Van Ouytsel

, Walrave

, De Marez

, et al. A first investigation into gender minority adolescents’ sexting experiences. J Adolesc 2020;84:213–218; doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.09.007

24.

24. Ybarra

, Mitchell

. The authors reply. J Adolesc Health 2015;57(1):129; doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.04.014

25.

25. Howard

, Klettke

, Clancy

, et al. Body image self-consciousness and sexting among heterosexual and non-exclusively heterosexual individuals. New Media Soc 2021;23(5):1217–1235; doi: 10.1177/1461444820909469

26.

26. Twist

, Belous

, Maier

, et al. Considering technology-based ecological elements in lesbian, gay, and bisexual partnered relationships. Sex Marital Ther 2017;32(3–4):291–308; doi: 10.1080/14681994.2017.1397945

27.

27. Hertlein

, Shadid

, Steelman

. Exploring perceptions of acceptability of sexting in same-sex, bisexual, heterosexual relationships and communities. J Couple Relash Ther 2015;14(4):342–357; doi: 10.1080/15332691.2014.960547

28.

28. Pampati

, Lowry

, Moreno

, et al. Having a sexual photo without permission and associated health risks: A snapshot of nonconsensual sexting. JAMA Pediatr 2020;174(6):618–619; doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.0028

29.

29. Fedina

, Bender

, Tibbits

, et al. Dating abuse and harassment among sexual and gender minority U.S. college students. LGBT Health 2023;10(S1):S79–S88; doi: 10.1089/lgbt.2023.0109

30.

30. Wright

, Wachs

. Longitudinal associations between different types of sexting, adolescent mental health, and sexual risk behaviors: Moderating effects of gender, ethnicity, disability status, and sexual minority status. Arch Sex Behav 2024;53(3):1115–1128; doi: 10.1007/s10508-023-02764-7

31.

31. Hatzenbuehler

, Lattanner

, McKetta

, et al. Structural stigma and LGBTQ+ health: A narrative review of quantitative studies. Lancet Public Health 2024;9(2):e109–e127; doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(23)00312-2

32.

32. Helminen

, Scheer

, Ash

, et al. Discrimination, depression, and anxiety among sexual minority and heterosexual young adults: The role of self-compassion. LGBT Health 2023;10(4):315–323; doi: 10.1089/lgbt.2022.0079

33.

33. Pellicane

, Cooks

, Ciesla

. Longitudinal effects of social media experiences on depression and anxiety in LGB+ and heterosexual young adults. J Gay Lesbian Ment Health 2021;25(1):68–93; doi: 10.1080/19359705.2020.1776805

34.

34. Russell

, Fish

. Mental health in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2016;12:465–487; doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093153

35.

35. Meyer

. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol Bull 2003;129(5):674–697; doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674

36.

36. Brooks

. Minority stress and lesbian women. Lexington (MA): Lexington Books; 1981.

37.

37. Lauckner

, Truszczynski

, Lambert

, et al. “Catfishing”, cyberbullying, and coercion: An exploration of the risks associated with dating app use among rural sexual minority males. J Gay Lesbian Ment Health 2019;23(3):289–306; doi: 10.1080/19359705.2019.1587729

38.

38. Lunde

, Burén

, Reinholdsson

, et al. Sexting experiences and motivations among adolescents with ADHD and ASD. Comput Human Behav 2023;140:107595. p; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107595

39.

39. Mariamo

, Martin-Storey

, Déry

, et al. Conduct problems and sexting: Gender differences. Comput Human Behav 2024;154:108152; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108152

40.

40. Garcia

, Abrahão

. Research development using REDCap software. Healthc Inform Res 2021;27(4):341–349; doi: 10.4258/hir.2021.27.4.341

41.

41. Schroder

, Carey

, Vanable

. Methodological challenges in research on sexual risk behavior: II. Accuracy of self-reports. Ann Behav Med 2003;26(2):104–123; doi: 10.1207/S15324796ABM2602_03

42.

42. Trub

, Starks

. Insecure attachments: Attachment, emotional regulation, sexting and condomless sex among women in relationships. Comput Hum Behav 2017;71:140–147; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.052

43.

43. Gravel

, Reissing

, Pelletier

. Global, relational, and sexual motivation: A test of hierarchical versus heterarchical effects on well-being. J Happiness Stud 2019;20(7):2269–2289; doi: 10.1007/s10902-018-0047-3

44.

44. Liang

, Yang

, Yao

. Measurement equivalence of the SDQ in Chinese Adolescents: A horizontal and longitudinal perspective. J Affect Disord 2019;257:439–444; doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2019.06.049

45.

45.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria; 2023.

46.

46.Posit team. RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit team. RStudio: Posit software, PBC: Boston, MA; 2023.

47.

47. Rosseel

. lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J. Stat. Soft. [Internet] 2012;48(2):1–36. Available from: https://www.jstatsoft.org/index.php/jss/article/view/v048i02

48.

48. Shrout

, Bolger

. Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychol Methods 2002;7(4):422–445; doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422

49.

49. Schreiber

, Nora

, Stage

, et al. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. J Educ Res 2006;99(6):323–338. Available from: https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/27548147

50.

50. Benotsch

, Snipes

, Martin

, et al. Sexting, substance use, and sexual risk behavior in young adults. J Adolesc Health 2013;52(3):307–313; doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.06.011

51.

51. Gassó

, Klettke

, Agustina

, et al. Sexting, mental health, and victimization among adolescents: A literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2019;16(13):2364; doi: 10.3390/ijerph16132364

52.

52. Mori

, Temple

, Browne

, et al. Association of sexting with sexual behaviors and mental health among adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr 2019;173(8):770–779; doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1658

53.

53. Martin-Storey

, Lapointe

, Girouard

, et al. The online environments of sexual and gender minority youth: Contexts of risk and resilience. J Family Strengths 2022;21(1):7; doi: 10.58464/2168-670X.1445

54.

54. Van Ouytsel

, Walrave

, Ponnet

. An exploratory study of sexting behaviors among heterosexual and sexual minority early adolescents. J Adolesc Health 2019;65(5):621–626; doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.06.003

55.

55. Mink

, Lindley

, Weinstein

. Stress, stigma, and sexual minority status: The intersectional ecology model of LGBTQ health. J Gay Lesbian Soc Serv 2014;26(4):502–521; doi: 10.1080/10538720.2014.953660

56.

56. Bonet

, Wells

, Parsons

. A positive look at a difficult time: A strength-based examination of coming out for lesbian and bisexual women. J LGBT Health Res 2007;3(1):7–14; doi: 10.1300/j463v03n01_02

57.

57. McNeeley

. Sensitive issues in surveys: Reducing refusals while increasing reliability and quality of responses to sensitive survey items. In: Handbook of survey methodology for the social sciences. ( Gideon

. ed) Springer: New York, NY; 2012: pp. 377–396; doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3876-2_22

58.

58. Van Dijck

, Van den Eynde

, Enzlin

. The bright side of sexting: A scoping review on its benefits. Comput Human Behav 2025;164:108499; doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2024.108499

59.

59. Tin

, Williams

, Montano

. Potential benefits of sexting among long-term monogamous romantic partners. Jcssw 2021;3(2):30–38; doi: 10.34296/03021053