1. International Journal of Developmental Science 14 (2020) 1–7
DOI 10.3233/DEV-190276
IOS Press
Viewpoint
Research on Sexting and Emotion
Regulation Difficulties: A review
and Commentary
Arta Dodaj∗
University of Zadar, Zadar, Croatia
Kristina Sesar
University of Mostar, Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Sexting is recognized as a common public issue as
well as a prominent issue among researchers. Authors
usually define sexting as sending, receiving, or for-
warding sexually explicit messages or nude, partially
nude, or sexually suggestive digital images of one’s
self or others via a cell phone, e-mail, Internet, or
Social Networking Service (Brown, Keller, & Stern,
2009; Calvert, 2009; Corbett, 2009; Dilberto & Mat-
tey, 2009; Halder & Jaishankar, 2014; Jaishankar,
2009; Walker & Moak, 2010).
The prevalence of sexting behaviors increases with
the spread of new technologies (Bianchi, Morelli,
Nappa, Baiocco, & Chirumbolo, 2018). A recent
systematic review and meta-analysis of 39 stud-
2. ies (Madigan, Ly, Rash, van Ouytsel, & Temple,
2018), conducted between 2008 and 2016, exam-
ining the prevalence of sexting among adolescents,
reported that prevalence of sending and receiving sex-
ual explicit content ranged from 14.8% to 27.4%,
∗ Address for correspondence
Arta Dodaj, University of Zadar, Department of Psychology,
Obala
kralja Petra Krešimira IV, no. 2, 23000 Zadar, Croatia. E-mail:
[email protected]
and forwarding content without authorization to
about 12%. The prevalence of sending nude pho-
tos decreases significantly, and in linear manner,
across increasingly older age groups from 19 to 24
years to 50+ years of age (Wysocki & Childers,
2011).
A review of the literature clearly shows that there
are two different ways of “understanding” sexting.
One group of authors describes sexting as a con-
temporary form of intimate communication between
young people (Döring, 2014; Hudson & Marshall,
2018). Accordingly, their view seems to be sup-
ported by the fact that other authors state that sexting
is “normal” in adolescents’ relationships (Mitchell,
Finkelhor, Jones, & Wolak, 2012), or represents con-
sensual behavior in which both sides participate
without coercion (Hasinoff, 2013; Levine, 2013).
According to other researchers, sexting is related to
certain risk factors, but also negative outcomes. Sex-
ting is sometimes used as a tool for blackmailing
young people (Kopecký, 2014) or even as a tool for
revenge on ex-partners (Walker, Sanci, & Temple-
Smith, 2013).
4. ing with their emotional experiences may be more
likely to engage in risky behaviors in an effort to deal
with their negative affect or block out their feelings.
The aim of this viewpoint is to examine the
existing literature on sexting and emotion regula-
tion. To our knowledge, there are no recent reviews
specifically analysing evidence on emotion strategies
or abilities among sexters. Looking at the stud-
ies that examine association between sexting and
emotion regulation across all age categories pro-
vided basis for more definitive conclusions that
cannot be drawn from the data based on a single
study. Moreover, conclusion drawn from synthesis of
data could be informative for future researchers and
practitioners.
Relation between Sexting and Emotion
Regulation Difficulties: A Review of the
Literature
This systematic review was conducted following the
principles set by the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA;
Liberati, Altman, Tetzlaff, Mulrow, & Gøtzsche,
2009). The electronic literature search was car-
ried out using the following databases: EbscoHOST
(PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES), ERIC, ResearchGate,
SCOPUS, and Web of Science database. The search
included any combination of the following terms
in the title, abstract, and keywords: sext*, sexting*,
sex*, nude*, explicit*, image*, photo*, picture*,
message*, video*, control*, rumination*, accep-
tance*, suppression*, problem solving*, avoidance*,
5. reappraisal*, self-compassion*, emotion*, affect*,
mood*, feeling*, regulation*; competence*, aware-
ness*, and tolerance*. The search was performed in
April 2019.
The inclusion criterion was that sexting and aspect
of emotion regulation have been the main focus of the
article. Editorials, commentaries, or letters to the edi-
tor were excluded from the search results, but we went
through their references to check if we missed some
published studies. No exclusion criteria were given
for location, year of publication, and study design.
For language, we restrained the search to English
and language mastered by the authors (Croatian,
German, and Italian). Overall, our electronic search
yielded 56 records, and 29 duplicate results have
been excluded (Fig. 1). After additionally exclud-
ing articles as summarized in Figure 1, four articles
remained that have been included and reviewed. After
a thorough and systematic search has been con-
ducted, the classification framework was designed.
Five major themes were identified and coded. Themes
related to sex were coded from A (women) to
B (male); those linked to age were coded with
schemes as adolescents (A), adult (B), and both (C);
methods themes were coded as computer-based (A)
and (paper-and-pencil-questionnaire) survey, while
themes related to measurement (sexting and emotion
regulation) were coded as standardized instrument
(A) or self-developed items (B). Two researchers
analysed separately the content and after that checked
for consistency. The classification framework is pre-
sented in Table 1.
Four studies (Curro, 2017; Houck et al., 2014;
Sesar & Dodaj, 2019; Trub & Starks, 2017) have
6. examined the relation between sexting and emotion
regulation. In sum, three of the studies, have indi-
cated sexting to be related with difficulties in emotion
regulation.
Of the four selected studies, two (Sesar & Dodaj,
2019; Trub & Starks, 2017) included a sample of
young adults (18–29 years), one (Houck et al., 2014)
a sample of early adolescents (12–14 years), and
one (Curro, 2017) a variable sample including ado-
lescents and adults (18–39). In one study (Trub &
2 International Journal of Developmental Science 1-2/2020, 1–7
A. Dodaj and K. Sesar / Viewpoint: Sexting and Emotion
Regulation
Figure 1. Flow of the studies selected through the review
process.
Starks, 2017) respondents were only women in inti-
mate relationship, other included sex mixed samples,
and there were no studies conducted on males only.
All conducted studies were cross-sectional, whereas
two (Houck et al., 2014; Trub & Starks, 2017)
were computer-based studies while other studies fol-
lowed a paper-and-pencil-approach. The majority of
the studies measured sexting as sending, receiving,
or publishing sexually explicit content (messages,
images, and/or videos). In two studies authors used
the Sexting Behavior Questionnaire (Curro, 2017;
Sesar & Dodaj, 2019), in two others sexting was
measured with four (Houck et al., 2014), or three self-
developed items (Trub & Starks, 2017). Emotion reg-
7. ulation difficulties were mainly measured using Gratz
and Roemer’s (2004) Emotional Regulation Scale
(Curro, 2017; Houck et al., 2014; Trub & Starks,
2017). A subscale of the Emotional Regulation Scale
(Gratz & Roemer, 2004) and the Self-Efficacy Ques-
tionnaire for Children (Muris, 2002) were used in
Houck et al. (2014). The Emotional Regulation Ques-
tionnaire (Gross & John, 2003) was used by Sesar and
Dodaj (2019) and the modified version of the Difficul-
ties in Emotion Regulation Scale (Giromini, Velotti,
de Campora, Bonalume, & Cesare Zavattini, 2012)
by Curro (2017).
Relation between Sexting and Emotion
Regulation Difficulties: Research Limitations
Our review identified a number of limitations in
the research of sexting and related emotion reg-
ulation difficulties. Several methodological issues
must be interpreted as serious limitations: a) dif-
ferences across studies in sampling which represent
difficulty in comparing data; b) cross-sectional stud-
ies cannot clarify questions regarding causality; c)
studies used different methods to gather informa-
tion about the relation between sexting and emotion
regulation difficulties: some of the studies collected
data through computer-based questionnaires, others
used paper-and-pencil-questionnaires. While some
studies examined sexting using only few items,
others used multi-item-questionnaires. Regarding
emotion regulation difficulties, various components
International Journal of Developmental Science 1-2/2020, 1–7 3
8. A. Dodaj and K. Sesar / Viewpoint: Sexting and Emotion
Regulation
Ta
bl
e
1
C
ha
ra
ct
er
is
ti
cs
of
In
cl
ud
ed
St
ud
ie
s
in
59. re
ss
in
g
th
em
.”
).
4 International Journal of Developmental Science 1-2/2020, 1–7
A. Dodaj and K. Sesar / Viewpoint: Sexting and Emotion
Regulation
of emotional regulation difficulties were examined
– this limits the opportunity to compare different
studies.
On the basis of these limitations, we identified
five key issues in the process of conducting research
with regard to sexting and emotion regulation dif-
ficulties. Sexting was measured very differently in
the reviewed studies: Whereas some researchers used
standardized self-assessment instruments (Curro,
2017; Sesar & Dodaj, 2019), others used direct items
about participation in sexting (Houck et al., 2014;
Trub & Starks, 2017). One of the main issues in
research on sexting is related to the heterogeneity of
defining and measuring sexting.
60. Additionally, age relevant issues have to be
considered. The prevalence of sexting decreases sig-
nificantly and linearly across increasingly older age
groups from 19 to 24 years to 50+ years of age
(Wysocki & Childers, 2011). Studies suggest that
older adults are more motivated to regulate their emo-
tions and are more effective at doing so than young
adults (Birditt & Fingerman, 2005; Blanchard-Fields,
Mienaltowski, & Seay, 2007; Carstensen, Pasupathi,
Mayr, & Nesselroade, 2000). According to the socio-
emotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, Isaacowitz,
& Charles, 1999), older adults’ awareness that life-
time is shrinking motivates them to focus on the
present, emphasizing goals related to emotional sat-
isfaction and meaning. There is also evidence that
older adults are more effective at regulating emotions.
Their self-reported emotional control is higher than
that of young adults (e.g., Gross et al., 1997; Law-
ton, Kleban, Rajagopal, & Dean, 1992), they report
fewer interpersonal tensions (Birditt, Fingerman, &
Almeida, 2005), and they use more effective emo-
tion regulation strategies to deal with interpersonal
tensions (Blanchard-Fields et al., 2007; Blanchard-
Fields, Stein, & Watson, 2004). Thus issues related
to age differences among sexting and emotion regu-
lations skills should be taken into account in future
studies.
For a more complete understanding of sexting and
emotion regulation difficulties it is certainly neces-
sary to consider gender issues. In a review of previous
studies focused on individual determinants of sexting
Sesar, Dodaj, and Šimić (2019) state that men engage
in sexting more often than women. Shaming, social
isolation, and other forms of punishment are frequent
reactions on expressions of girls’ sexuality through
61. the sexting. Women have a more developed ability to
establish emotional communication with their envi-
ronment, they are more successful in understanding
their own emotions and the emotions of other people,
and they act to a greater degree in accordance with
their emotions (Van Deursen, Bolle, Hegner, & Kom-
mers, 2015). Thus, it seems important to take gender
differences into account when examining the relation
between sexting and emotion regulations difficulties.
There are notable differences among the reviewed
studies in the measurement of emotion regulation
skills. Various aspects of emotion regulation were
investigated which could have an effect on the com-
parison of studies. For example, two studies (Curro,
2017; Trub & Starks, 2017) reported that diffi-
culties in controlling impulses is the underlying
mechanism in sexting. A study conducted among
early adolescents from a high-risk sample (Houck
et al., 2014) reported that those who sexts showed
less awareness of emotional states and less per-
ceived self-efficacy in emotion regulation compared
to those who do not sexts. In the study by Sesar
and Dodaj (2019), examining the relation between
sexting and two emotion regulation strategies (cog-
nitive appraisal and expressive suppression), it was
found that there is only difference in cognitive reap-
praisal between participant who post and who do
not post sexually suggestive content. Thus, future
studies should also come to a consensus regard-
ing the measurement of components of emotion
regulation. Gross and John (2003) distinguish two
types of emotion regulation strategies: “antecedent-
focused” and “response-focused“ strategies (Gross &
John, 2003). Antecedent-focused strategies are reg-
62. ulatory processes occurring before the onset of an
emotional reaction, while response-focused strate-
gies occur after the emotional reaction is generated.
Some of the frequently examined antecedent-focused
emotion regulation strategies are: avoidance (situ-
ation selection), problem solving (direct situation
modification), rumination (deployment of atten-
tion toward negative emotions), and reappraisal
(changing the way of thinking about potentially
emotion-eliciting situation). In the category of
response-focused strategies we can distinguish the
following: acceptance (active and conscious decision
to accept situation), self-compassions (being caring
and kind toward oneself in difficult situation), and
suppression (inhibition of ongoing emotion behav-
ior). With regard to effectiveness we can categorize
the strategies as maladaptive (i.e., avoidance, rumi-
nation, suppression) or adaptive (i.e., acceptance,
reappraisal, problem solving, and self-compassion)
(Visted, Vøllestad, Birkeland Nielsen, & Schanche,
2018).
International Journal of Developmental Science 1-2/2020, 1–7 5
A. Dodaj and K. Sesar / Viewpoint: Sexting and Emotion
Regulation
Conclusion
Although research activities on sexting are increas-
ing, studies mainly focus on determining the
prevalence of sexting or the relation between sex-
ting and the consequences or motivation for sexting.
Very few studies so far have addressed the relation
63. between sexting and emotion regulation.
Our review of the literature and our own experi-
ence with conducting research in the field of sexting
and emotion regulation have led us to identify sev-
eral key considerations for researchers interested in
conducting studies in the future. Most of the ana-
lysed studies suggested sexting might be viewed
as a deviant behavior with negative consequences
on development. However, as there are findings
which do not assert emotion regulation difficul-
ties among sexters we might believe that it could
be a part of normal development. We might inte-
grate the two views by defining sexting as deviant
and normal behavior with regard to context and
outcomes.
References
Bianchi, D., Morelli, M., Nappa, M. R., Baiocco, R., &
Chirumbolo, A. (2018). A bad romance: Sexting motivations
and tee dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
doi:10.1177/0886260518817037
Birditt, K. S., & Fingerman, K. L. (2005). Do we get better at
picking our battles? Age group differences in descriptions
of behavioral reactions to interpersonal tensions. Journals of
Gerontology, 60B, 121-128. doi: 10.1093/geronb/60.3.P121
Birditt, K. S., Fingerman, K. L., & Almeida, D. M. (2005). Age
differences in exposure and reactions to interpersonal ten-
sions: A daily diary study. Psychology and Aging, 20, 330-340.
doi:10.1037/0882-7974.20.2.330
Blanchard-Fields, F., Mienaltowski, A., & Seay, R. B. (2007).
Age differences in everyday problem-solving effectiveness:
64. Older adults select more effective strategies for inter-
personal problems. Journals of Gerontology: Series B:
Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 62B, 61-64.
doi:10.1093/geronb/62.1.P61
Blanchard-Fields, F., Stein, R., & Watson, T. L. (2004). Age
dif-
ferences in emotion-regulation strategies in handling everyday
problems. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 59,
261-269. doi: 0.1093/geronb/59.6.P261
Brown, J. D., Keller, S., & Stern, S. (2009). Sex, sexuality, sex-
ting, and sexed: Adolescents and the media. The Prevention
Researcher, 26, 12-16. doi: 10.1037/e630642009-005
Calvert, C. (2009). Sex, cell phones, privacy, and the first
amend-
ment: When children become child pornographers and the
Lolita effect undermines the law. Common Law Conspectus:
Journal of Communications Law and Policy, 18, 1-65.
Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Mayr, U., & Nesselroade, J. R.
(2000). Emotional experience in everyday life across the adult
life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
644-655. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.644
Carstensen, L. L, Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999).
Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity.
American Psychologist, 54, 165-181. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.79.4.644
Cooper, M. L., Wood, P. K., Orcutt, H. K., & Albino, A. (2003).
Personality and the predisposition to engage in risky or prob-
lem behaviors during adolescence. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 84, 390-410. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.84.2.390
65. Cooper, K., Quayle, E., Jonsson, L., & Svedin, C. G. (2016).
Adolescents and self-taken sexual images: A review of the
literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 706-716. doi:
10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.003
Corbett, D. (2009). Let’s talk about sext: The challenge of find-
ing the right legal response to teenage practice of “sexting.”
Journal of Internet Law, 13, 3-8.
Curro, F. (2017). L’influenza della tecnologia nelle relazioni
inter-
personali: Ilcaso del Sexting. (Unpublished diploma thesis).
Scuola di psicologia, Firenze, Italy.
Delevi, R., & Weisskirch, R. S. (2013). Personality factors as
predictors of sexting. Computers in Human Behavior, 29,
2589-2594. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.10.003
Dilberto, G., & Mattey, E. (2009). Sexting: Just how much of
a danger is it and what can school nurses do about it?
National Association of School Nurses, 24, 262-267. doi:
10.1177/1942602X09348652
Döring, N. (2014). Consensual sexting among adolescents:
Risk prevention through abstinence education or safer sex-
ting? Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on
Cyberspace, 8, 1-16. doi: 10.5817/CP2014-1-9
Giromini, L., Velotti, P., de Campora, G., Bonalume, L., &
Zavattini, G.C. (2012). Cultural adaptation of difficulties in
emotion regulation scale: Reliability and validity of an Italian
version. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68, 989-1007. doi:
10.1002/jclp.21876
Gordon-Messer, D., Bauermeister, J. A., Grodzinski, A.,
66. & Zimmerman, M. (2013). Sexting among young
adults. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 301-306. doi:
10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.05.013
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of
crime.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional
assessment of emotion regulation and dysregulation: Devel-
opment, factor structure, and initial validation of the
difficulties in emotion regulation scale. Journal of Psy-
chopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 26, 41-54. doi:
10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94
Gratz, K. L., Weiss, N. H., & Tull, M. T. (2015). Examining
emotion regulation as an outcome, mechanism, or target of
psychological treatments. Current Opinion in Psychology, 3,
85-90. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.02.010
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation:
An
integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2, 271-299.
doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
Gross, J. J., Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Tsai, J.,
Gotestam-
Skorpen, C., & Hsu, A. Y. C. (1997). Emotion and aging:
Experience, expression, and control. Psychology and Aging,
12, 590-599. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.12.4.590
6 International Journal of Developmental Science 1-2/2020, 1–7
A. Dodaj and K. Sesar / Viewpoint: Sexting and Emotion
67. Regulation
Gross, J. J., & John, O. P. (2003). Individual differences in two
emo-
tion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships,
and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
85, 348-362. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Halder, D., & Jaishankar, K. (2014). Teen sexting: A critical
analy-
sis on the criminalization vis-a-vis victimization conundrums.
The Virtual Forum Against Cybercrime Review, 1, 26-43.
Hasinoff, A. A. (2013). Sexting as media production:
Rethinking
social media and sexuality. New Media & Society, 15, 449-465.
doi: 10.1177/1461444812459171
Houck, C. D., Barker, D., Rizzo, C., Hancock, E., Norton,
A., & Brown, L. K. (2014). Sexting and sexual behav-
ior in at-risk adolescents. Pediatrics, 133, 276-282. doi:
10.1542/peds.2013-1157
Hudson, H. K., & S. Marshall, A. (2018). Consequences and
predictors of sexting among selected southern undergradu-
ates. International Journal of Sexual Health, 38, 20-27. doi:
10.1080/19317611.2017.1404540
Jaishankar, K. (2009). Sexting: A new form of victimless crime?
International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3, 21-25.
Kopecký, K. (2014). Cyberbullying and other risks of internet
communication focused on university students. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 260-269. doi:
10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1163
68. Lawton, M. P., Kleban, M. H., Rajagopal, D., & Dean, J.
(1992). Dimensions of affective experience in three age
groups. Psychology and Aging, 7, 171-184. doi: 10.1037/0882-
7974.7.2.171
Levine, D. (2013). Sexting: A terrifying health risk. . . or the
new
normal for young adults? Journal of Adolescent Health, 52,
257-258. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.01.003
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche,
P.
C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen,
J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting
systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate
health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS
Medicine, 6, e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
Madigan, S., Ly, A., Rash, C. L., Van Ouytsel, J., & Temple, J.
R. (2018). Prevalence of multiple forms of sexting behav-
ior among youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
JAMA Pediatrics, 172, 327-335. doi: 10.1001/jamapedi-
atrics.2017.5314
Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., Jones, L. M., & Wolak, J. (2012).
Prevalence and characteristics of youth sexting: A national
study. Pediatrics, 129, 13-20. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-1730
Muris, P. (2002). Relationships between self-efficacy and symp-
toms of anxiety disorders and depression in a normal
adolescent sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 32,
337-348.
Sesar, K., & Dodaj, A. (2019). Sexting and emotional regula-
tion strategies among young adults. Mediterranean Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 7. doi: 10.6092/2282-1619/2019.7.2008
69. Sesar, K., Dodaj, A., & Šimić, N. (2019). Motivational determi-
nants of sexting: Towards a model integrating the research.
Psychological Topics, 28. (in press).
Trub, L., & Starks, T. J. (2017). Insecure attachments: Attach-
ment, emotional regulation, sexting and condomless sex among
women in relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 71,
140-147. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.052
Van Deursen, A., Bolle, C., Hegner, M., & Kommers, P. A. M.
(2015). Modeling habitual and addictive smartphone behavior:
The role of smartphone usage types, emotional intelligence,
social stress, self-regulation, age, and gender. Computers in
Human Behavior, 45, 411-420. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.039
Visted, E. V., Vøllestad, J. J. …