Sexting Behavior by Young Adults: The Correlation between Emotion Regulation and Moral Judgment

Abstract

Young adults explore sexuality through social media, using smartphones to conduct their intimate social relationships. This includes sexting behaviors that may have negative repercussions, such as bullying or non-consensual dissemination of content. Our study examines the connections between emotion regulation, moral judgment, and sexting behavior (with instant messages) among young adults. We tested the research variables—sexting, emotional regulation, and moral judgment—in a sample population of 682 young Israeli adults, ages 18–25. The study’s findings indicate that 45.9% of the sample population of young adults have sent sexual messages and 47.9% have received such messages. No disparities in sexting behavior were found between young men and young women. Higher use of sexting was found among those who were in an intimate relationship. Difficulty in emotion regulation was found to correlate with lower capacity for ethical/humane moral judgment, which in turn signaled a higher likelihood of sexting behavior.

Keywords:

• Young adults
• emotion regulation
• moral judgment
• sexting

Introduction

Young or “emerging” adults, ages 18–25, are in a transitional stage: They are no longer adolescents but are still not fully adult. If becoming an adult is defined by acquiring a profession, achieving financial independence, and leaving the parents’ home, then these conditions are not always met in this interim, post-adolescent stage (Arnett & Emerging adulthood, 2000). In addition, as parental supervision diminishes in post-adolescence, there is greater potential for dangerous (Kırcaburun et al., 2019) behavior for example in problematic social media use and cyberbullying perpetration Sexuality in this age group becomes legitimate (Lei & South, 2021) and along with the lifting of prohibitions and stigmas attached to sexuality during adolescence, there is a new legitimacy for active sexuality (Vasilenko & Lefkowitz, 2018). This life period has been shown to involve sexual exploration, with young adults facing crucial sexual developmental tasks, which may include developing or accepting their sexuality (Astle et al., 2023). Social media plays an important role in this developmental period through reflective experiences in forming a personal identity and in experimentation with different identities (Bjornsen, 2018; Coyne et al., 2013). The internet provides a platform for social experiences, and young adults quickly adopt technologies (Perrin, 2015).

Sexting is defined as sending, receiving, or relaying explicit sexual content aimed to sexually arouse the other side (Klettke et al., 2014; 2018). Described in the research literature as a normative part of a young adult’s development, communication, and sexual content, sexting is very prevalent behavior in this cohort (Sumter et al., 2017; Temple et al., 2019). The young adults’ need for intimacy and romantic connections is reflected in their widespread use of sexting: A meta-analysis conducted among young adults indicates that 38.3% send sexts, 41.5% receive sexts, and 47.7% engage in reciprocal sexting. In addition, a meta-analysis found that a considerable percentage of young adults, 15%, engage in the non-consensual forwarding of sexts (Mori et al., 2020).

That is, along with the legitimacy of sexting among young adults as part of their engagement in sex and sexuality, sexting may also have negative repercussions, including bullying or non-consensual dissemination of content (Krieger, 2017). In addition, sexting may occur as a result of pressure from a partner to receive intimate photographs (Wachs et al., 2021), and women are more likely to be the targets of such pressure (Englander, 2012).

Various studies have tried to compare the use of sexting by women and men, but the results are inconclusive. Some studies show no gender differences in sexting (Hudson & Fetro, 2015; Lenhart, 2009; Madigan et al., 2018, Clancy et al., 2021); other studies indicate that young men tend to engage in sexting more than young women (Mori et al., 2020), while some studies suggest the opposite (Mitchell et al., 2011; Reyns et al., 2014). It seems, therefore, that the correlation between gender and sexting is unclear and should be examined in greater depth.

In regard to family status, it was found that young adults who are married or in a steady relationship perceive sexting as less dangerous than their unmarried peers perceive it (Drouin et al., 2013).

Furthermore, it was found that those with permissive sexual attitudes engage in more sexting than those with conservative attitudes (Samimi & Alderson, 2014). Therefore, the use of sexting practices is also influenced by the young person’s religiousness. (Strassberg et al., 2017). It is reasonable to assume that this is because a conservative religious outlook is accompanied by restrictions on behaviors that express sexuality (Dolev-Cohen & Ricon, 2022; Schmitt & Fuller, 2015). However, it appears that sexting via the Internet actually facilitates sexual expression among populations for whom such expression is difficult. For example, it was found that religious women use sexting as a means of nonphysical sexual interaction (Hall et al., 2020).

Moral judgment and sexting

Moral judgment refers to the way we judge an action as good or bad. The way in which people understand themselves, others, and relations with others influences their moral decisions and social behavior (Haidt, 2012).

Sexting exists on the Internet because the online space facilitates uninhibited intimate discourse (Suler, 2020). However, due to the speed and ease of disseminating content, this environment may lead to flawed judgment and dangerous behaviors. The lifting of inhibitions reinforces the feeling that there is no need to take moral responsibility for one’s actions on the Internet (Suler, 2004). Consequently, young adults regard the online space as an environment that is different from the physical environment, and this distinction is liable to diminish their moral judgment (Stephens et al., 2007).

Morality is one of the key guides in human social interaction and can lead to polarity, violence, and hostility when there is a clash of moral values within a group. The values of morality and moral judgment may change as a result of social interactions or other external influences. Moral judgments are sometimes made automatically and based on emotional impulse; they are not necessarily intentional or rational (Haidt, 2012). And this is pertinent to online behavior, which is characterized by disinhibition (Suler, 2004). Indeed, the online media is often accused of instigating a moral decline among young people (Markowitz & Shariff, 2012).

While sexting between young people has become a significant social phenomenon, a central topic of discussion in the media, and a source of concern in legal circles and among policymakers, our knowledge of the sexting practices and attitudes of young people is still relatively limited.

The question of moral judgment in the context of sexting behavior emphasizes the ability to regulate and prevent abuse—for example, what the literature describes as the pressure that operates within individual relationships between sexting participants. This type of pressure within a relationship is also the type that is more likely to become coercive. Coerced texting may occur when one of the partners in a relationship asks for a photograph that the other sends only because they feel obligated to do so for the sake of the relationship, though the sender may still find pleasure in sending it and enjoy the outcome of this communication (Lee & Crofts, 2015).

Emotion regulation and sexting

Emotion regulation is defined as a system of cognitive processes that affect a person’s emotional responses. It is a complex system that includes initiating, inhibiting, or modulating aspects of the emotive function (Gross, 1998). Research on young adults indicates a correlation between sexting and low emotion regulation (Yen et al., 2017) and a lack of emotion regulation was found to be a predictor of sexting (Ševčíková, 2016). The research literature also points to gender differences in choosing an emotion regulation strategy. Young men are more likely to adopt a strategy of expressive suppression – that is, showing no outward signs of emotion (Sesar & Dodaj, 2019), while the cognitive strategy of reappraisal is used equally by both men and women (Gross, 2002; Melka et al., 2011). It seems there is a need to understand how digital technology affects the way young adults (male or female) manage their emotion regulation abilities, and how this regulation (or its absence) may lead to dangerous sexual behavior (Trub & Starks, 2017).

Emotion regulation and moral judgment

Emotions guide and prioritize moral-social decisions and help a person to resolve dilemmas and conflicts (Horberg et al., 2011). Young adults who report difficulties in emotion regulation also report impulsive and non-empathetic behaviors (Schreiber et al., 2012). Various studies have found that self-regulatory abilities are related to pro-social behaviors (such as helping and sharing) and pro-social moral reasoning, as well as low aggression and externalizing problems (Eisenberg, 2010). The question arises is whether young adults who are considered as capable of managing emotion regulation, and their capacity for moral judgment is sufficiently developed, shows more controlled use of sexting?

The current research deals with these connections also in the context of gender and religiousness.

Hypotheses

1. Sexting behavior, emotion regulation, and moral judgment differ by gender and level of religiousness.

2. Difficulties in emotion regulation are positively correlated with sexting, while humane/ethical moral judgment is negatively correlated with sexting.

3. Moral judgment mediates the relationship between difficulties in emotion regulation and sexting, such that higher difficulties in emotion regulation correlate with lower humane/ethical moral judgment, which in turn increases the likelihood of sexting.

Method

Participants

The study was performed using a quantitative method and the participants were sampled in a representative sample. 682 Israelis, ages 18–25 (mean age = 22.44 years, SD = 2.04). Females comprised 53% of the participants; 88% of the participants were unmarried and 61% lived with their parents (Table 1). In terms of religiousness, 51% defined themselves as secular, 29% as religious, and 20% as partly religious. The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee.

Table 1. Background characteristics of the participants (N = 682).

		N	%
Gender	Male	320	46.9
	Female	362	53.1
Family status	Unmarried (single)	601	88.1
	Married	81	11.9
Live	With parents	417	61.1
	Independent	265	38.9
Intimate relationships	Yes	378	55.4
	No	304	44.6
Children	Yes	44	6.5
Religiousness	Secular	346	50.7
	Partly religious	137	20.1
	Religious	199	29.2

It should be noted that 1,333 participants started to fill out the questionnaire, but only 682 (51.2%) completed it; the others decided to drop out after filling in only the initial demographic section of the questionnaire. Several demographic differences were found between those who completed the questionnaire and those who dropped out. First, participants who completed the questionnaire were somewhat older (M = 22.44, SD = 2.04) than those who dropped out (M = 21.95, SD = 2.26) (t (1303.03) = 4.15, p < .001). Second, the dropout rate was lower among those who lived independently (n = 63 of 328, 19.2%), compared to those who lived with their parents (n = 389 of 806, 48.3%) (Z = 9.06, p < .001). Third, the dropout rate was lower among those who were in an intimate relationship (n = 185 of 563, 32.9%), compared to those who were not (n = 267 of 571, 46.8%) (Z = 4.78, p < .001). Finally, consistent with the age discrepancies, the dropout rate was lower among participants who were pursuing or had received an academic degree than among those with lower levels of education (χ²(4) = 16.04, p = .003). No differences were found for gender, family status, or level of religiousness. The participants were recruited in 2021 by internet panel that specializes in recruiting subjects for academic surveys. Participants from database expressed willingness to accept offers to participate in academic studies. Those who met the inclusion criteria for this study (age, Hebrew speakers) were contacted. The request detailed the purpose of the study and invited them to participate in it. Those of them who agreed, click on a link to the full questionnaire. The participation was voluntary and the participants confirmed their consent to participate. All the questionnaires were in Hebrew.

Instruments

Demographics

Participants were asked to specify their age, gender, and marital status.

Sexting

Participants were asked to answer three yes-no questions about their sexting behavior with instant messaging: (1) whether they have sent sexual messages (and to whom), (2) whether they have sent messages containing either nude or seminude images (and to whom), and (3) whether they have received sexual messages containing text or nude/seminude images (and from whom). A fourth question asked the participants to indicate the number of people with whom they have exchanged sexting (none/one/two/three to five/six or more).

Moral judgment

The questionnaire included ten moral dilemmas – five pertaining to conduct in the online space and five dilemmas pertaining to everyday life in the physical world. It was one of three questionnaires composed by Bouhnik and Mor (2014) and was adapted to the digital world of today. Each response to a dilemma was categorized as one of five types of moral judgment: humane/ethical judgment, social-interested judgment, self-interested judgment, double judgment, or no judgment.

Total scores for the online space were arithmetically transformed to a 0–5 scale in order to match the number of items in the physical space. The range for the total scores was thus 0–10. Due to positively skewed distributions for social judgment, self-interested judgment, double judgment, and no judgment, these four types of moral judgment were log transformed. A higher score for each scale represents greater use of the type of moral judgment. Example for a question:

Every time we hang out, Mia gets bullied. Lia and Dana wanted to help her but were afraid that they would be harassed.

1. Lia and Dana were not right but they could not do otherwise because they were afraid of harassment.

2. This is Lia and Dana’s decision, and I don’t disagree with it.

3. Lia and Dana are cowards, they should have protected Mia.

4. In society the strong always take over, if Mia was strong she would also bully others.

5. Lia and Dana should take care of themselves and not others.

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) (Gratz & Roemer, 2004): is a 36-item self-reporting measure that assesses individuals’ typical levels of emotion dysregulation across six domains: non-acceptance of emotional responses, difficulty engaging in goal-directed behavior when distressed, difficulties controlling impulsive behaviors when distressed, limited access to emotion regulation strategies perceived as effective, lack of emotional awareness, and lack of emotional clarity. Respondents rate the extent to which each item applies to them on a five-point Likert-type scale from 1 (almost never) to 5 (almost always). As such, total scores on DERS can range from 36 to 180. DERS has been found to demonstrate good test-retest reliability (ρ I = 0.88, p < 0.01) and adequate construct and predictive validity (Gratz & Roemer, 2004) was translated and validated to Hebrew (Questionnaires for self-report - the professional committee for clinical psychology, Ministry of Health). Items were recoded so that higher scores indicate greater emotion dysregulation, and a sum was calculated. Internal consistencies for the various scales ranged between α = 0.66 and α = 0.88 and was α = 0.93 for the total score. Example question: To what extent does the following sentence best describe you: I am aware of my feelings, but I find it difficult to make sense of my feelings.

Data analysis

Data were analyzed with SPSS (ver. 28). Scale scores were computed from item means or sums and described with means and standard deviations. Pearson correlations were calculated among the study variables. Differences in emotion regulation and moral judgment, by gender and level of religiousness, were examined with a series of t-tests. Differences in sexting by gender and level of religiousness were examined with the z-ratio for the significance of the difference between two independent proportions. A multiple logistic regression was calculated for sexting, with background variables, emotion regulation, and moral judgment. Mediation was evaluated with Hayes’ Process Macro (Hayes, 2018), using Model 4 for parallel mediation and a binary dependent variable. Bootstrapping with 5,000 samples was used, as well as a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval for the effects.

Results

Descriptive results

Nearly half of the participants (45.9%) reported having sent sexual texts and/or photos online; about half of that subsample sent text messages without photos, and half sent photos as well as text. On the receiving end, 47.9% of the participants reported having received sexual texts or photos online. Of those who answered affirmatively when asked whether they had engaged in sexting, 45.5% said they had done this with more than one person. Sexting was usually perceived as based on free will, yet about 15% of the participants felt they had been coerced to engage in this activity. The participants reported that they primarily sent sexts (texts and/or photos) to intimate partners (about 70%), but sometimes to ex-intimate partners (about 20%), other known persons (about 30%), and unknown persons (about 8%). The sexts (texts and/or photos) they received were from intimate partners (43%), ex-intimate partners (16%), other known persons (36%), and unknown persons (40%). The relatively high percentage of participants who reported having received sexts from unknown persons is noteworthy.

Correlations among the study variables were found low to moderate and significant (not in table). A negative relationship was found between difficulties in emotional regulation and humane/ethical judgment (r = −0.26, p < .001), and positive relationships with self interest and double judgment (r = 0.25, and r = 0.17, p < .001, respectively). Humane/ethical judgment was negatively related with sexting (r = −0.14, p < .001), and self interest judgment was positively related with sexting (r = 0.13, p < .001). Difficulties in emotional regulation were unrelated with sexting (r = 0.06, p=.140).

Differences by gender and level of religiousness

Gender differences in the study variables were examined with a Z test for sexting, and with t-tests for emotion regulation and moral judgment (Table 2). Sexting was found to be unrelated to gender, yet several dimensions of difficulties in emotion regulation and moral judgment differed by gender. Difficulty engaging in goal-directed behavior was higher among females than males, while lack of emotional awareness and, to some extent, lack of emotional clarity, were higher among males than females. Humane/ethical moral judgment was higher among females than males, while social judgment, double judgment, and no judgment tended to be higher among males than females.

Table 2. Sexting, emotion regulation, and moral judgment, by gender (N = 619–682).

	Total N (%)	Male N (%)	Female N (%)
Sent text or photo(s) (yes)	313 (45.9)	148 (46.3)	165 (45.6)	Z = 0.17 (p = .861)
Emotion regulation:	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Non-acceptance of emotional responses	2.32 (0.95)	2.25 (0.93)	2.38 (0.98)	t(617) = −1.61 (p = .108)
Difficulty engaging in goal-directed behavior	3.05 (0.88)	2.90 (0.85)	3.17 (0.88)	t(617) = −3.91 (p < .001)
Impulse control difficulties	2.22 (0.89)	2.16 (0.91)	2.28 (0.86)	t(617) = −1.59 (p = .113)
Lack of emotional awareness	2.32 (0.76)	2.45 (0.77)	2.20 (0.73)	t(617) = 4.12 (p < .001)
Limited access to emotion regulation strategies	2.30 (0.86)	2.28 (0.89)	2.32 (0.83)	t(617) = −0.62 (p = .533)
Lack of emotional clarity	2.20 (0.71)	2.26 (0.74)	2.14 (0.67)	t(617) = 2.10 (p = .036)
Total DERS score	2.39 (0.63)	2.37 (0.66)	2.40 (0.60)	t(617) = −0.73 (p = .466)
Moral judgment:
Humane/ethical judgment	6.83 (2.02)	5.83 (1.94)	6.63 (1.65)	t(576.38) = −5.52 (p < .001)
Social judgment	1.44 (1.22)	1.37 (1.13)	1.15 (1.00)	t(634) = 2.30 (p = .022)
Self-interested judgment	0.47 (0.82)	0.50 (0.83)	0.37 (0.64)	t(876.99) = 1.70 (p = .089)
Double judgment	1.05 (1.07)	1.08 (1.00)	0.88 (0.98)	t(634) = 2.66 (p = .008)
No judgment	1.21 (1.31)	1.23 (1.26)	0.96 (1.07)	t(634) = 2.64 (p = .008)

Differences in the study variables by level of religiousness were examined with a Z test for sexting, and with t-tests for emotion regulation and moral judgment (Table 3). The rate of sexting was found to be higher among secular participants than among religious or partly religious participants. Several dimensions of moral judgment were found to differ by level of religiousness as well – mainly humane/ethical moral judgment, which was higher for religious or partly religious participants than for secular participants. Likewise, a lack of moral judgment (the “no judgment” type) was found to be higher for secular participants in comparison to religious or partly religious participants. Self-interested judgment, non-acceptance of emotional responses, and difficulty engaging in goal-directed behavior tended to be higher among secular participants in comparison to religious or partly religious participants.

Table 3. Sexting, emotion regulation, and moral judgment, by level of religiousness (N = 619–682).

	Total N (%)	Partly religious, religious N (%)	Secular N (%)
Sent text or photo(s) (yes)	313 (45.9)	128 (38.1)	185 (53.5)	Z = 4.03 (p < .001)
Emotion regulation:	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)
Non-acceptance of emotional responses	2.32 (0.95)	2.24 (0.91)	2.40 (0.99)	t(612.60) = −2.05 (p = .040)
Difficulty engaging in goal-directed behavior	3.05 (0.88)	2.98 (0.84)	3.12 (0.91)	t(617) = −2.04 (p = .041)
Impulse control difficulties	2.22 (0.89)	2.19 (0.86)	2.26 (0.91)	t(617) = −0.96 (p = .340)
Lack of emotional awareness	2.32 (0.76)	2.32 (0.78)	2.31 (0.74)	t(617) = 0.17 (p = .862)
Limited access to emotion regulation strategies	2.30 (0.86)	2.24 (0.83)	2.37 (0.89)	t(617) = −1.95 (p = .052)
Lack of emotional clarity	2.20 (0.71)	2.19 (0.68)	2.21 (0.74)	t(617) = −0.43 (p = .667)
Total DERS score	2.39 (0.63)	2.34 (0.62)	2.43 (0.64)	t(617) = −1.82 (p = .070)
Moral judgment:
Humane/ethical judgment	6.83 (2.02)	6.51 (1.88)	6.01 (1.76)	t(634) = 3.51 (p < .001)
Social judgment	1.44 (1.22)	1.20 (1.02)	1.31 (1.11)	t(634) = −0.99 (p = .321)
Self-interested judgment	0.47 (0.82)	0.38 (0.72)	0.48 (0.75)	t(633.33) = −1.98 (p = .049)
Double judgment	1.05 (1.07)	0.97 (0.94)	0.97 (1.04)	t(634) = 0.42 (p = .671)
No judgment	1.21 (1.31)	0.94 (1.17)	1.23 (1.15)	t(634) = −3.83 (p < .001)

Participants who reported being in an intimate relationship were found to be more involved in sexting (n = 213, 56.3%) in comparison to participants who reported not being in an intimate relationship (n = 100, 32.9%) (Z = 6.11, p < .001). Furthermore, participants involved with sexting tended to be slightly older (M = 22.71 years, SD = 1.85) than participants who were not involved with sexting (M = 22.21 years, SD = 2.16) (OR = 1.13, 95%CI = 1.05, 1.22, p = .001). Other correlations with sexting were not significant.

Sexting, emotion regulation, and moral judgment: multiple logistic regression

A multiple logistic regression was calculated for sexting (sending text or photos). In light of the hypotheses and the results presented above, control variables were gender (1-male, 0-female), level of religiousness (1-secular, 0-religious or partly religious), involvement in an intimate relationship (1-yes, 0-no), and age. The total score for difficulties in emotion regulation was used as the independent variable since the dimensions of emotion regulation were highly interrelated. Humane/ethical judgment and self-interested judgment were entered as the mediators because they were the dimensions of moral judgment that significantly correlated with sexting. The model of the logistic regression (Table 4) was significant (χ²(7) = 62.34, p < .001), explaining about 13% of the variance (Nagelkerke’s R² = 0.128). Significant background variables were religiousness and intimate relationship, showing that secular participants and those who were in an intimate relationship were significantly more likely to be involved with sexting than others. In addition, lower humane/ethical judgment correlated with a greater likelihood for sexting. However, difficulties in emotion regulation and self-interested judgment were unrelated to the propensity to engage in sexting.

Table 4. Multiple logistic regression for sexting with background variables, difficulties in emotion regulation, and moral judgment (N = 619).

	B	SE	OR (95%CI)	p
Gender (male)	0.14	0.18	1.15 (0.81, 1.64)	.423
Religiousness (secular)	0.46	0.17	1.59 (1.13, 2.23)	.007
Intimate relationship (yes)	0.94	0.18	2.56 (1.80, 3.66)	<.001
Age	0.11	0.09	1.12 (0.94, 1.34)	.216
Emotion regulation	0.06	0.09	1.06 (0.89, 1.27)	.486
Humane/ethical judgment	−0.22	0.10	0.80 (0.65, 0.98)	.035
Self-interested judgment	0.13	0.10	1.14 (0.94, 1.38)	.197

The mediation model was examined with the Hayes Process Macro (Model 4) for parallel mediation and a binary dependent variable (Hayes, 2018). Continuous variables were standardized, and the model was set in accordance with the logistic regression in Table 4. The total indirect effect was found to be significant (effect = 0.09, SE = 0.03, 95%CI = 0.04, 0.16), yet mediation was significant for humane/ethical judgment (95%CI = 0.01, 0.12), and not for self-interested judgment (95%CI = −0.02, 0.09), as may be expected from the results of Table 4. Higher difficulties in emotion regulation correlated with lower humane/ethical moral judgment, which in turn indicated an increased likelihood of sexting behavior (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The mediating role of moral judgment between difficulties in emotion regulation and sexting. Note: Values alongside arrows: coefficients (SE); values inside rectangles: R², C′: direct effect. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

We also assessed the mediation model with the dimensions of difficulties in emotion regulation. Mediators were, as before, humane/ethical moral judgment and self-interested judgment. All total indirect effects were found to be significant, and in all cases, as with the total score (Figure 1), only the mediation with humane/ethical moral judgment was found significant: non-acceptance of emotional responses: 95%CI = 0.01, 0.09; difficulty engaging in goal-directed behavior: 95%CI = 0.002, 0.07; impulse control difficulties: 95%CI = 0.001, 0.11; lack of emotional awareness: 95%CI = 0.01, 0.09; limited access to emotion regulation strategies: 95%CI = 0.001, 0.10; and lack of emotional clarity: 95%CI = 0.01, 0.11. That is, experiencing greater difficulty in the various dimensions of emotion regulation correlated with lower humane/ethical moral judgment, which thus correlated with an increased likelihood for sexting.

Discussion

The study examines the connections between emotion regulation, moral judgment, and sexting behavior among young adults. This three-way connection in the mediation model has yet to be explored in the literature. The study also tries to shed light on the developmental processes underlying the patterns of sexting conduct.

The study’s findings indicate that 45.9% of the sample population of young adults have sent sexual messages and 47.9% have received such messages; other studies of sexting among young adults have found a similar level of prevalence (Dir et al., 2013). However, sexting was found to be less prevalent among religious young adults in comparison to their secular counterparts. This finding reinforces those of previous studies that found that religious populations tend to view sexting in a more negative way (Holmes et al., 2021; Reed et al., 2020). It appears that traditional populations, which perceive sexuality more conservatively, also view sexting as an expression of sexuality in the online space in a more conservative way (Joubran, 2008).

In regard to gender, no disparities in sexting behavior were found between young men and young women. This finding is supported by other studies that similarly found no gender differential (Dake et al., 2012; Dolev-Cohen & Ricon, 2020; Madigan et al., 2018; Springston, 2017). Studies that indicate gender differences tend to attribute this to motives and assert that young people use sexting to attract potential partners. However, young people may use sexting to preserve the relationship with their current partner, or because they feel pressure from their partner to engage in sexting (Walker et al., 2013). Liong and Cheng (2017) found that men have a more positive attitude toward sexting and thus engage in this activity more than women do. Studies also have indicated that men are more frequent recipients of content with sexual innuendos intended for someone else, without necessarily being part of the exchange.

The fact that this study did not find gender-related differences in sexting activity may be attributable to the way that dating apps (for example, Bumble) encourage women to initiate communication. In the context of this social change, women allow themselves to send more sexting. Another explanation may be that the data were collected after the outbreak of the global coronavirus pandemic, and a correlation has been found between social isolation and the sending of sexts (Thomas et al., 2022). Thus, during the pandemic-induced period of social isolation, both genders may have felt a need for intimacy that outweighed their need for privacy or for preserving social-cultural values of modesty.

The research results showed a higher use of sexting among those who were in an intimate relationship. This may be seen as part of the intimate communication in which partners share sexual content, exploring sexuality in the context of a trusting and safe relationship (Wolak et al., 2012). In this light, sexting is viewed as safe within a relationship, in contrast to the perceived dangers of sexting with someone outside of a steady relationship (Mori et al., 2020). For those who are in relationship, sexting may have positive sexual or even emotional consequences that enhance the intimacy of the relationship (Sesar & Dodaj, 2019).

In a study conducted by Holmes et al. (2021), the participants reported that sexting activity led to a wide range of positive results for them, such as pleasure, advantages in relationships, and enhanced security, along with a wide range of negative results, such as guilt feelings, and a sense of revulsion or hurt after unwanted sexting. Moreover, the research in the field indicates that sexting activity increases with age, as the older segment of young adults enter intimate relationships and explore their sexuality. It is evident that awareness of the potential negative legal repercussions of sexting also increases with age. This awareness may affect the motivation for sexting and its prevalence. Young adults who are aware of the legal implications of improper sexting tend to engage less in sexting than their peers who are unaware of these implications (Dodaj & Sesar, 2021).

In the literature and in this study, sexting is also connected to difficulties in emotion regulation), including difficulty identifying and expressing emotions, poor impulse control, and problems with emotional intensity and reactivity. Difficulty in regulating emotions, and emotional problems in general, have proven to be predicators of sexting and dangerous sexual behavior among young people (Ševčíková, 2016). Young people with certain personal traits (such as sensory-seeking, impulsiveness, extroversion, etc.) are more inclined to engage in sexting than those who demonstrate high regulation abilities. An ability to self-regulate enables the cognitive capacity of moral judgment to find practical expression. In this study, as in the study by Schreiber et al. (2012), young adults who reported difficulties in emotion regulation also reported impulsive behaviors that are self-centered rather than directed toward someone else (Schreiber et al., 2012). Some studies have also suggested that sexting may serve as a coping mechanism for adolescents who struggle with emotional dysregulation, allowing them to seek validation and support from others in a way that feels safer and more controlled (Sesar & Dodaj, 2019). The research in the field of moral judgment abilities and sexting is very limited. It seems that those who engage in sexting exhibiting lower levels of moral reasoning abilities and a greater tendency to use moral disengagement strategies (Califano et al., 2022).

The social domain theory (Smetana et al., 2014; Turiel, 1983) views moral judgment as the ability to discern how people should treat each other in relationships and interactions (Brenick et al., 2020). The theory is also instructive in the context of social volition, or abusive behavior. Moral thinking enables a person to consider the potential harm in unregulated behavior—such as the impulsive dissemination of texting beyond the direct addressee, or coercive sexting. What is perceived to be an acceptable social norm or an errant one ultimately determines whether the behavior is judged to be moral or immoral (Smetana et al., 2014). The current study presents difficulties in emotion regulation and the capacity for moral judgment as predictors of sexting behavior. This is consistent with other studies on unsafe relations as a predictor of improper use of sexting, and its connection to developing the capacity for empathy that underlies moral judgment (Brenick et al., 2020).

Sexting behavior among young adults can also be viewed through the lens of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory because the behavior places the individual in the center, surrounded by various systems, and because part of the individual’s behavior is also determined by different factors in the social surroundings (Dodaj & Sesar, 2021). The behavior of young adults, who are no longer in a compulsory educational framework and are moving away from open communication with the home environment, is perhaps influenced more by factors within the individuals themselves; their internal compass and social-moral norms determine the person’s place in the range between enjoyable-appropriate use and endangerment.

The mediation research model presented in the current study attempts to link the characteristics of young adults with their sexting behavior, which is viewed in light of their abilities and difficulties in emotion regulation, as mediated by their capacity for moral judgment. Experiencing difficulty in emotion regulation was found to correlate with lower capacity for ethical/humane moral judgment, which in turn signaled a higher likelihood of sexting behavior.

In light of the current findings, the research model does not address characteristics such as gender or religiousness – despite the fact that they were measured. This is because the differences diminish over time, as also shown in the research literature in the field (Madigan et al., 2018). The focus on the personal characteristics related to sexting behavior by young adults also steers researchers in the field toward the intervention required and a discussion of the more problematic forms of sexting (such as sextortion, coerced/non-consensual sexting, etc.). The focus on prevention may help young adults better understand their abilities to regulate their emotions and how to better protect themselves when sexting, along with fostering greater empathy and protection for the other and a better understanding of the potential dangers of this form of communication. Educational processes and the justice system can help protect young adults who engage in sexting.

The study’s limitations and recommendations for future studies:

The research sample is based on subjects who expressed willingness to participate in surveys and to receive payment for doing so. This sampling has advantages, but the fact that the subjects chose to respond to survey questionnaires as a source of supplementary income may suggest that they share similar personal characteristics or socio-economic backgrounds. In addition, the current study examined Jewish young adults in Israel. Since Israel is multi-cultural, there is room to study the Arab population, which is generally more conservative, and examine how the same variables are expressed in Arab society. Further, caution should be exercised when interpreting the results of the mediation model, as it is based on cross-sectional data.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.