Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 16971701

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Sexting and adult romantic attachment

Robert S. Weisskirch a,, Raquel Delevi b
a
Liberal Studies Department, California State University, Monterey Bay, 100 Campus Center, Seaside, CA 93955-8001, United States
b
Department of Child and Family Studies, California State University, Los Angeles, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Sexting refers to sending and receiving sexually suggestive images, videos, or texts on cell phones. As a
Available online 16 March 2011 means for maintaining or initiating a relationship, sexting behavior and attitudes may be understood
through adult attachment theory. One hundred and twenty-eight participants (M = 22 and F = 106), aged
Keywords: 1830 years, completed an online questionnaire about their adult attachment styles and sexting behavior
Sexting and attitudes. Attachment anxiety predicted sending texts that solicit sexual activity for those individuals
Adult attachment in relationships. Attachment anxiety also predicted positive attitudes towards sexting such as accepting it
Romantic relationships
as normal, that it will enhance the relationship, and that partners will expect sexting. Sexting may be a
Couples
Computer-mediated communication
novel form for expressing attachment anxiety.
2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction themselves (Sex and Tech, 2008). In contrast, Lenhart (2009)

The infusion of technology into romantic relationships has be-
come endemic. The Internet affords opportunities for relationship
formation, sexual encounters (long term and brief), interaction
with partners at a distance (e.g. through chat or webcam), virtual
relationships (e.g., in Second Life, ones avatar may have relation-
ships with other avatars), relationship termination (e.g. IDump4U.
com) among others. These types of interactions may have evolved
because individuals are using the technology to supplant or aug-
ment face-to-face interactions. For example, the ability to chat/in-
stant message may be used to supplement and maintain
relationships (Ramirez & Broneck, 2009). Recently, the media has
directed a great deal of attention to sexting, where individuals
create, send, and receive sexually suggestive or nude images and/
or sexually suggestive text messages using their cell phones
(Lenhart, 2009; Sex and Tech, 2008). Although sending and
receiving sexually-laden images and messages are not new behav-
iors, what is novel is the use of the cell phone to do so and the ease
with which one can engage in sexting with a cell phone.
Many individuals, particularly youth, readily utilize the features
of cell phones in order to engage in sexting. Most cell phones now
have the capability to capture images and attach these to text mes-
sages that can be sent and received from practically anywhere. For
example, an application for smart phones allows users to exchange
photos by simply bumping cell phones together. One survey of
youth 1326 years old indicated that 20% of teens and 33%
of young adults had sent or posted nude or semi-nude images of
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 831 582 5079.
E-mail address: rweisskirch@csumb.edu (R.S. Weisskirch).
noted that, among cell phone-owning teens in her sample, 4%
had sent a sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude photo of them-
selves. Even among the oldest teens in the sample, 17 year olds,
only 8% had sent a sexual image. Nonetheless, there has been legal
intervention and media attention, particularly for youth engaging
in sexting; however, little attention has been paid to psychological
issues underlying engagement in sexting.
For some youth, the images and text are sent in the context of a
relationship or prelude to a relationship. Sexting could be part of
regular sexual activity, an extension of an existing sexual relation-
ship, or in lieu of face-to-face contact for sexually inexperienced
youth (Lenhart, 2009). The Sex and Tech (2008) survey indicates
that the majority of the sexually suggestive images are sent to boy-
friends and girlfriends, others are sent to casual partners (i.e., those
with whom they want to hook up), and some are sent to people
they only know online. The question remains of how sexting func-
tions in the context of relationships.
Adult attachment theory has emerged as a tool to understand
individual interactions and the formation of romantic relationships
(Fraley & Shaver, 2000). Attachment theory has proposed that the
attachment one forms in infancy to a caregiver may form a basis
for the attachment one forms later with a romantic partner. That
is, an individual may form an attachment to a romantic partner
much in the same pattern that the individual formed an attach-
ment to his/her caregiver as an infant. In addition, the adult
romantic attachment literature has supported similar patterns of
security and insecurity as measured in infancy (Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991). These patterns of attachment have been postu-
lated as representing dimensions of anxiety and avoidance individ-
uals experience in relationships with others. For a review, see
Rholes and Simpson (2004).

0747-5632/$ - see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.008
1698 R.S. Weisskirch, R. Delevi / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 16971701
In general, those who are secure (low on attachment anxiety
and on attachment avoidance) have more positive and trusting
relationships than those who are insecure (Guerrero, Farinelli, &
McEwan, 2009; Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Attachment anxiety may
relate to those seeking information from their romantic partner
about intimacy, their partner, and the future of the relationship
(Rholes, Simpson, Tran, Martin, & Friedman, 2007) as well as
engaging in sex to reduce feelings of insecurity about a relationship
and to get emotionally close to the partner (Davis, Shaver, &
Vernon, 2004). Those who are preoccupied (high on anxiety and
low on avoidance) may express more anger and passive aggression
(Guerrero et al., 2009), may cling to relationships, feel lost when
not in a relationship (Domingue & Mollen, 2009), and may look
to others for self-validation and reassurance (Brennan & Bosson,
1998). Those who are fearful-avoidant (high on anxiety and high
on avoidance) want closeness with others but anticipate rejection
and therefore maintain a protective distance from partners
(Bartholomew, 1990). Those who have dismissing-avoidant attach-
ment styles (low on anxiety and high on avoidance) eschew close-
ness in relationships in favor of independence and autonomy
(Fraley, Davis, & Shaver, 1998) and may have limited interest in
knowing their romantic partners thoughts and feelings (Rholes
et al., 2007).
1.1. The present study
The present study was designed to investigate how adult
romantic attachment styles relate to sexting behavior and atti-
tudes. As in face-to-face communication, attachment patterns
may relate to communication via technology. For example, Jin
and Pea (2010) found that attachment avoidance related to lower
duration and frequency of cell phone calls to romantic partners.
Relatedly, Ramirez and Broneck (2009) found that romantic part-
ners used instant messaging to convey relationship maintenance
strategies of assurance and positivity. Given that previous litera-
ture has indicated that attachment anxiety results in more infor-
mation-seeking and assurance about the relationship, we
hypothesize that those high on anxiety will demonstrate more po-
sitive attitudes toward sexting and more engagement in sexting
than those low on anxiety. Attachment avoidance is hypothesized
to be related to more cautious views of sexting and less participa-
tion in sexting because sexting may indicate a level of investment
in a relationship that may not exist for those high on avoidance.
2. Methods
2.1. Procedures
We recruited students enrolled in human development and
family studies classes from two public, state universities to partic-
ipate in an online questionnaire about technology and relation-
ships. Once students provided consent, they were directed to the
questionnaire and received extra credit in their class for participa-
tion. The Institutional Review Boards of both campuses approved
this protocol.
2.2. Sample
One hundred and twenty-eight participants (Males = 22 and Fe-
males = 106) completed the online questionnaire. Their ages ran-
ged from 18 to 30 years (M = 22.77, SD = 2.80), and the ethnic
composition of the sample was 4% African American/Black, 9%
Asian American, 27% Euroamerican/White, 55% Latino, and 6%
Other. Fifty-eight percent of the individuals indicated that they
were in a relationship and 42% indicated they were single at the
time of data collection.
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Demographics
Participants indicated their age, gender, race/ethnicity, indica-
tion of whether they were in a relationship, duration of the rela-
tionship, co-habitation status, and city of residence for the
romantic partner.
2.3.2. Adult attachment
Participants rated 36 items using a scale of 1 = Strongly Disagree
and 7 = Strongly Agree from Fraley, Waller, and Brennans (2000)
Experiences in Close Relationships-Revised measure (ECR-R). The
measure yields dimensional scores on attachment anxiety and
avoidance. Examples of some items are Im afraid that I will lose
my partners love and I am nervous when partners get too close
to me. Cronbachs alpha for anxiety was .92 and for avoidance was
.93.
2.3.3. Sexting behavior
We created ve items specically for this study on sexting
behavior. Although some might think sexting may occur through
a computer, we focused the participants on sexting behaviors via
cell phone only. Participants rated ve items on how often
(1 = Never to 5 = Frequently) they have sent a sexually suggestive
photo or video of themselves, a photo or video of themselves in
underwear or in lingerie, a nude photo or video of themselves, a
sexually suggestive text, and a text message propositioning sexual
activity via their cell phones.
2.3.4. Sexting attitudes
Prior to answering this measure, the following denition of sex-
ting appeared on the screen: Sexting is a term commonly applied
to sending or receiving sexually-laden text messages, sexually sug-
gestive photos or videos, or partially nude or nude photos or videos
via cell phone. Participants rated 19 items specially-designed for
this study on attitudes towards sexting. Since this is a new mea-
sure, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis to ascertain
the underlying constructs. An initial solution indicated that the
items loaded onto three factors, accounting for 56.76% of the vari-
ance. We, therefore, conducted a second principle components fac-
tor analysis with Varimax rotation for the three factors to extract
subscales, retaining items that loaded greater than .40. See Table 1.
We called the three subscales Fun and Carefree, Perceived Risk, and
Relational Expectations, which account for 23.55%, 17.43%, and
15.79%, respectively, of the total variance. Cronbachs alpha for
each of the subscales was .89, .82, and .78, respectively.
3. Results
3.1. Descriptive analysis
Table 2 provides detail on the demographic variables and the
sexting behavior items and the sexting attitudes subscales. Table 3
provides the intercorrelations among the sexting behavior items
and the sexting attitude subscales.
3.2. Attachment dimensions and demographic variables
First, we checked to see if attachment anxiety and avoidance
were related to demographic variables. There were no differences
on anxiety and avoidance by age, gender, ethnicity, or relationship
status (i.e., whether or not they are in a relationship or single).
 R.S. Weisskirch, R. Delevi / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 16971701 1699

Table 1 Table 2
Factor loadings of sexting attitude items. Description of demographic variables and means and standard deviations of sexting
behaviors and sexting attitudes.
Fun and Perceived Relational
Carefree Risk Expectations Demographic variables
M (SD) Range
Sexting is just part of irting .79 .02 .11
Age 22.78 18.62
There is no harm in sexting .73 .13 .24
(2.80) 30 years
Sexting is fun .92 .00 .11
years
Sexting is exciting .88 .05 .08
Sexting is part of being in a .73 .03 .32 Ethnicity
relationship African American/Black 4%
Sexting is a regular part of romantic .49 .28 .37 Asian American 9
relationships nowadays Euroamerican/White 27
Sexting is no big deal .56 .28 .30 Latino 55
I think that sexting may cause me .36 .65 .06 Other 6
problems in the future
Relationship status
Sending sexually suggestive texts is .37 .80 .04
In a relationship 58%
risky
Single 42
Sending sexually racy pictures leaves .03 .64 .02
me vulnerable Duration of relationship (for those in a relationship)
Sending sexually suggestive photos or .02 .87 .02 1 year or less 15%
videos is risky 1 year or more 31
You have to be careful about sexting .00 .76 .08 Partnered or married 10
I share the sexts I receive with my .19 .15 .52 Live with romantic partner (for those in a relationship)
friends Yes 27%
I share the sexts I send with my .20 .17 .61 No 73
friends Sexting behaviors M (SD)
My romantic partners expect me to .15 .11 .80 How often have you sent a sexually suggestive photo 1.46 (.65)a
send sexually racy texts or video of yourself using your cell phone?
My romantic partners expect me to .07 .20 .82 How often have you sent a photo or video of yourself in 1.48 (.67)
send sexually racy photos or your underwear or in lingerie using your cell
videos phone?
Sexting improves my relationship or .39 .02 .70 How often have you sent a nude photo or video of 1.26 (.57)
potential relationship yourself using your cell phone?
How often have you sent a sexually suggestive text 2.42 (1.08)
Note: Bolded items indicate those that loaded greater than .40 and were retained in
message?
the subscales.
How often have you sent a text message 2.13 (1.18)
propositioning sexual activity?
3.3. Sexting behavior and demographic variables Sexting behavior scales M (SD)
Fun and Carefree 2.47 (.90)b
On the sexting behavior items, there were no associations by age Perceived Risk 3.56 (1.08)
Relational Expectations 1.52 (.66)
or differences by gender, and ethnicity. However, there were signif-
icant differences by relationship status on two of the sexting behav- a
1 = Never, 2 = rarely, 3 = sometimes, 4 = very often, 5 = frequently.
b
ior items. Individuals who reported being in a relationship (M = 2.58, 1 = Not at all true, 2 = rarely true, 3 = somewhat true, 4 = mostly true, 5 = fre-
quently true.
SD = 1.06) were more likely to have sent a sexually suggestive text, F
(1, 124) = 4.19, p < .05, Cohens d = .37, than those who reported
being single (M = 2.19, SD = 1.08). In addition, those in relationships
(M = 2.32, SD = 1.19) were more likely to have sent a text message Table 3
Intercorrelations among the sexting behavior items and sexting attitudes scales.
propositioning sexual activity than those who were single
(M = 1.89, SD = 1.12), F (1, 125) = 4.18, p < .05, Cohens d = .37. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Sexually suggestive .70*** .72*** .53*** .43*** .47*** .14 .31***
photo or video
3.4. Attachment styles and sexting behavior 2. Photo or video in .67*** .46*** .45*** .25** .03 .05
underwear or lingerie
To examine if attachment styles predicted sexting behavior, sep- 3. Nude photo or video .40*** .27** .31** .13 .20*
arate multiple regression analyses were conducted on each of the 4. Sexually suggestive text .71*** .62*** .12 .29**
5. Text message propositioning .46*** .01 .18*
sexting behavior items. For the two items where there were signi-
sexual activity
cant differences between those who are single and those in relation- 6. Fun and Carefree .17 .48***
ships, we dummy coded the relationship status variable and entered 7. Perceived Risk .04
it into the equation. Only attachment anxiety for those in couples 8. Relational Expectations
signicantly predicted sending a text message propositioning sexual *
p < .05.
activity. See Table 4. The rst hypothesis was partially supported. **
p < .10.
***
p < .001.

3.5. Attachment styles and sexting attitudes

On the sexting attitudes subscales of Fun and Carefree, Per-
ceived Risk, and Relational Expectations, there were no signicant
associations with age or differences by gender, ethnicity, or rela-
tionship status. Separate multiple regression analyses were con-
ducted with attachment anxiety and avoidance as predictors and
the subscale scores as the outcome variables. Attachment anxiety
signicantly predicted Relational Expectations scores on attitudes
towards sexting, which means that anxiety may relate to expecta-
tions of sexting to please the partner. See Table 5. There were no
other signicant relationships between attachment styles and atti-
tudes toward sexting.
4. Discussion
Individuals use a variety of technological means to maintain or
initiate communication with romantic partners or potential
1700 R.S. Weisskirch, R. Delevi / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 16971701

Table 4 behaviors included in sexting. In addition, the data is cross-

Regression model of sexting behavior: sending a text message propositioning sexual
activity and anxious and avoidant attachment styles.
B SE
Model 1
Attachment anxiety .21 .11
Attachment avoidance .11 .11
Model 2
Attachment anxiety .23 .10
Attachment avoidance .03 .11
In a relationship .66 .24
Note: R2 = .03 for Model 1; DR2 = .06 (p < .01).
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
Table 5
Regression model of sexting attitudes subscale: Relational Expectations and anxious
and avoidant attachment styles.
B SE
Model 1
Attachment anxiety .21 .06
Attachment avoidance .02 .06
Note: R = .36, R2 = .13, p < .001.
romantic partners. Recently, media attention has focused on youth
sextingsending and receiving sexually provocative images and
texts. However, to date, there has been little research on the psy-
chological processes that may underlie sexting behavior and atti-
tudes. Attachment theory may help explain sexting in the
context of relationships.
In this study, attachment anxiety related to sending a text mes-
sage propositioning sexual activity but only for those in a relation-
ship. Sending a text message soliciting sex may be a way of
eliciting a response from the partner. Previous research has indi-
cated that individuals high on anxiety engaged in unwanted sex
to reduce tension and keep their partners interest in the relation-
ship (Impett & Peplau, 2002), to reduce relational insecurity
(Schachner & Shaver, 2004), and to please ones partner and in-
crease intimacy (Impett, Gordon, & Strachman, 2008). Given the re-
search on sexual behavior and attachment anxiety, sexting may be
a new manifestation of reassurance-seeking behavior. By sending a
text proposing sexual activity, individuals may alleviate some of
their internal tension created by their anxious attachment.
Attachment anxiety was associated with Relational Expecta-
tions of sexting. Those individuals high on anxiety may want to
please their partners and anticipate that romantic partners will
want them to provide sexually explicit images, texts, and videos.
At the same time, it may be that they anticipate that sexting will
enhance their relationship. These attitudes are consistent with pre-
vious research on the kinds of activities those high on attachment
anxiety will do to maintain their relationships. Perhaps, the cell
phone is affording new ways for anxious attachment behavior to
emerge.
4.1. Limitations
The present results should be interpreted in light of several
important limitations. First, the sample is comprised mostly of wo-
men, which may have affected the representation of attachment
styles as well as attitudes toward sexting. Second, we created
and utilized a measure of sexting attitudes that has not been
widely validated as accurately reecting the extent of sexting
behaviors and attitudes. Both qualitative and quantitative research
into sexting may help shed light on the kinds of attitudes and
sectional, which may not accurately reect the overall pattern of
attachment over time or sexting behavior and attitudes. Longitudi-
b nal research may aid in further substantiating patterns in behavior.
Fourth, the self-report data may not accurately reect participants
.21 attitudes and behaviors. The study would be strengthened by hav-
.11 ing an objective measure of the respondents sexting behavior,
such as the recipient of sexting or objective review of the cell
.23* phone call and texting history.
.03
.28**
4.2. Conclusions
Despite these limitations, this study is one of the rst to inves-
tigate underlying psychological issues relating to attitudes and
behaviors involved in sexting. The ubiquity of cell phone owner-
ship and connectivity makes engaging in sexting easy. For some,
sexting may be part of the relationship formation process as a tech-
nological form of irting. For others, sexting may be just another
form of engaging communication within a relationship. On the
b
other hand, some individuals, particularly those with anxious
attachments, may feel that they need to sext in order to preserve
.39
.04 a relationship or maintain the interest of the romantic partner.
The cell phone, then, may be providing a novel technological
means for individuals with attachment anxiety to express that anx-
iety through sexting.
In the future, it may be useful to explore sexting behaviors by
their level of explicitness and amount of coercion in sexting. Send-
ing racy text messages may be considered irtatious at the outset
of a relationship but sending images of ones genitalia may be trea-
ted with greater caution. What is considered too much exposure
leaving individuals feeling vulnerable merits greater study. Also,
individuals may coerce others into sending explicit pictures and
may be coerced into doing so as well. Understanding the role of
coercion in the behavior may also yield useful ndings for the
management of sexting and intervention strategies.
References
Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 147178. doi:10.1177/
0265407590072001.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults:
A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61,
226244.
Brennan, K. A., & Bosson, J. K. (1998). Attachment-style differences in attitudes
toward and reactions to feedback from romantic partners: An exploration of the
relational bases of self-esteem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24,
699714.
Davis, D., Shaver, P., & Vernon, M. (2004). Attachment style and subjective
motivations for sex. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 10761090.
doi:10.1177/0146167204264794.
Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult romantic attachment: Theoretical
development, emerging controversies, and unanswered questions. Review of
General Psychology, 4, 132154.
Fraley, R., Davis, K., & Shaver, P. (1998). Dismissing-avoidance and the defensive
organization of emotion, cognition, and behavior. Attachment theory and close
relationships (pp. 249279). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item-response theory analysis
of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 78, 350365.
Domingue, R., & Mollen, D. (2009). Attachment and conict communication in adult
romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 678696.
doi:10.1177/02655407509347932.
Guerrero, L., Farinelli, L., & McEwan, B. (2009). Attachment and relational
satisfaction: The mediating effect of emotional communication.
Communication Monographs, 76, 487514. doi:10.1080/03637750903300254.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment
process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511524.
Impett, E., Gordon, A., & Strachman, A. (2008). Attachment and daily sexual goals: A
study of dating couples. Personal Relationships, 15, 375390. doi:10.1111/
j.1475-6811.2008.00204.x.
Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2002). Why some women consent to unwanted sex
with a dating partner: Insights from attachment theory. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 26, 359369.
 R.S. Weisskirch, R. Delevi / Computers in Human Behavior 27 (2011) 16971701
Jin, B., & Pea, J. F. (2010). Mobile communication in romantic relationships: Mobile
phone use, relational uncertainty, love, commitment, and attachment styles.
Communication Reports, 23, 3951. doi:10.1080/08934211003598742.
Lenhart, A. (2009). Teens and sexting: How and why minor teens are sending
sexually suggestive nude or nearly nude images via text messaging. Retrieved
from Pew Internet & American Life Project website. <http://
www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2009/Teens-and-Sexting.aspx>.
Ramirez, A., & Broneck, K. (2009). IM me: Instant messaging as relational
maintenance and everyday communication. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 26, 291314. doi:10.1177/0265407509106719.
1701
Rholes, W., & Simpson, J. (2004). Adult attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
implications. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Rholes, W. S., Simpson, J. A., Tran, S., Martin, A. M., & Friedman, M. (2007).
Attachment and information seeking in romantic relationships. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 422438. doi:10.1177/0146167206296302.
Schachner, D., & Shaver, P. (2004). Attachment dimensions and sexual motives.
Personal Relationships, 11, 179195. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00077.x.
Sex and Tech: results from a survey of teens and young adults. (2008). Retrieved from
the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy website.
<http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/sextech/PDF/SexTech_Summary.pdf>.