ARTICLE

Online sexual experiences and relationship functioning in long

distance relationships
Nazanin Kafaee and Taylor Kohut
Department of Psychology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada

Over the past decade, research has sought to understand sexting behaviour among adolescents and young adults. Much of this work
is atheoretical and harm-focused, and little research has investigated these behaviours in the context of committed adult romantic
relationships. The current study seeks to understand sexting behaviours of adult long distance couples. The context of long distance
relationships (LDRs) may be especially relevant for understanding the potential relational benefits of sexting because romantic part­
ners usually have restricted opportunities to experience physical intimacy in this type of relationship. Adopting the intimacy process
model as a guiding theoretical framework, we expected to find higher levels of perceived interpersonal closeness, sexual communi­
cation, and relationship and sexual satisfaction among long distance couples who practice sexting than those who do not. Results
of the study, however, indicated no association between the frequency of sexting and interpersonal closeness among long distance
couples. Consistent with our hypothesis, higher levels of sexual communication, relationship and sexual satisfaction were found to
be correlated with more frequent sexting practices among these couples. The discussion concerns important theoretical distinctions
between sexual communication and the frequency of sexting. Future research should carefully consider how sexual communication
is expressed both within and outside of sexting encounters when investigating the role of sexting within LDRs.
KEYWORDS: Interpersonal closeness, intimacy, long distance relationship (LDR), sexting, sexual communication, sexual self-disclosure

Sexting, the term for sending and receiving sexually suggestive
texts, images, and videos, has been a controversial topic and has
generated a good deal of research in the last decade. Much of this
research has focused on risks related to this behaviour, especially
among adolescents, where the distribution of sexually sugges-
tive images can involve the creation of illegal child pornography
(Lenhart, 2009; Mitchell et al., 2012). A recent review has report-
ed that between 17%–33% of adolescents have exchanged sexts
via mobile devices or the Internet (Courtice  & Shaughnessy,
2017). Other research concerning attitudes of adolescents to-
wards sexting has reported boys and older youth having more fa-
vorable attitudes compared to girls and younger youth (Gewirtz-
Meydan et al., 2018). Additionally, youth who have experienced
substance use, intentional pornography consumption, and sexu-
al intercourse were shown to be less likely to think sexting would
hurt their friendships/relationships.
Because these behaviours are not limited to adolescents,
emerging research is increasingly focusing on the prevalence
of sexting within adults’ sexual and romantic relationships (see
Henry & Powell, 2018; McDaniel & Drouin, 2015; Mori et al.,
2020; Parker et al., 2013; Stasko & Geller, 2015; Wiederhold,
2011; Wiederhold, 2015). Indeed, a recent meta-analysis esti­
mated the prevalence of sexting to be around 15% in youth and
48% among emerging adults (Mori et al., 2020). Sexting can be
risky for adults as well. In fact, estimated rates of non-consensual
forwarding of messages among emerging adults across various
studies was reported to be as high as 15% (Mori et al., 2020).
The problem is not limited to just the digital forwarding of the
sexts. One study found that between 16–22% of young adults
had shown sexual images to other people, who were not meant
to see them, in person (Henry & Powell, 2018; Lee et al., 2015).
Threats of non-consensual disclosure of sexts can also occur in
romantic relationships. In one report, for example, 1 in 10 in-
dividuals had threatened to disclose intimate images of their ex
partners, of which 60% executed the threat (Henry & Powell,
2018; McAfee, 2013).
However, not all sexting research adopts a harm-focused
approach. Studies of romantic relationships among adults, for
instance, suggest that sexting behaviour is associated with rela­
tional motives and various facets of relationship functioning. For
instance, although hedonism is an important motivation for sex­
ting, the frequency of sexting is also strongly correlated with the

CORRESPONDENCE concerning this article should be addressed to Nazanin Kafaee, Department of Psychology, Western University, 1151 Rich
mond St., London, Ontario, N6A 3K7, Canada. E-mail: nkafaeef@uwo.ca

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(1), 2021, 15–25 • https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2020-0038 15

Nazanin Kafaee and Taylor Kohut
desire for intimacy, and the extent of agreement between part­
ners with respect to issues that are relevant to their relationship
(Parker et al., 2013). Further, results from undergraduate sam­
ples have identified being sexy, initiating sex, and self-expres­
sion as the primary motivations for sexting (Wiederhold, 2011).
Sexting is also shown to be associated with higher sexual satis­
faction (Stasko & Geller, 2015), and it may be related to higher
relationship satisfaction, particularly among individuals with in­
secure attachments (McDaniel & Drouin, 2015). Research in this
area, however, is not without criticism.
According to a recent review, sexting research not only often
lacks guiding theoretical frameworks, but there are also funda­
mental methodological variations across studies (Kosenko et al.,
2017). Of particular relevance, research involving sexting in ro­
mantic relationships often fails to consider the relational context
in which sexting occurs. For example, sexting in a committed ro­
mantic relationship is likely to be perceived differently by partic­
ipants than sexting in a short term or casual relationship, where
individuals may be more concerned about their safety and vul­
nerability. Consequently, it has been argued that the relational
context in which sexting is being studied, which can encompass
expectations about the nature of the future relationship between
sexters, can make considerable differences in understanding this
phenomenon, its motivations, and consequences (Kosenko et al.,
2017). Long distance relationships (LDRs) -situations in which
partners have restricted opportunities for face-to-face interac­
tions and communication because of geographical barriers—
may be a relationship context of particular relevance for under­
standing associations between sexting behaviours and indices of
relationship quality.
Long Distance Relationships
Long distance relationships are now common place, particular­
ly among emerging adults. It has been estimated that approx­
imately 14 million people are currently involved in LDRs in
the United States. Further, it has been reported that as many as
40% to 50% of young adults are involved in LDRs at any given
time (Aylor, 2003; Cionea et al., 2019; Morella, 2010; Stafford,
2005), and approximately 75% of college students are in an LDR
at some point during their education (Crystal Jiang & Hancock,
2013). Moreover, some have suggested that in today’s globalized
world, individuals are relocating more for job opportunities, ed­
ucation, and military duty, further increasing the prevalence of
LDRs (Stafford, 2005; The Center for the Study of Long Distance
Relationships, 2018).
Long-distance relationships face unique challenges. This is
partially because it is more difficult for partners to fulfill each
other’s relationship-related needs when separated by great geo­
graphic distance (Le & Agnew, 2001). Also, these relationships
differ in nature from society’s more typical form (i.e., geograph­
ically close relationships; GCRs) and consequently are expect­
ed to be less successful than GCRs, due to lack of geographic
proximity, frequent face to face interactions, etc. (Stafford, 2005).
Taken together, it is easy to assume that LDRs should be lower in
quality than GCRs.
16 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(1), 2021, 15–25 • https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2020-0038
Despite the perceived vulnerabilities of LDRs, empirical ev­
idence does not necessarily indicate that they are less likely to
succeed than GCRs. For instance, when Kelmer and colleagues
(2013) compared relationship quality between LDRs and GCRs
they found that long distance couples reported higher levels of
relationship quality across a number of dimensions (e.g., rela­
tionship adjustment, love for partner, conversational quality,
etc.) and more dedication to their relationships than geographi­
cally close couples. Other research has indicated similar levels of
satisfaction and extra-dyadic sexual activity among long distance
and geographically close couples (Goldsmith & Byers, 2018).
Moreover, it has been argued that the perceived challenge that
distance imposes can act as a sieve that filters out couples who
are not necessarily suitable for LDRs. Therefore, it is possible that
couples who enter into and maintain their LDRs have potential­
ly stronger connections and better communications skills than
typical couples in GCRs (Kelmer et al., 2013; Sedgwick, 2015).
Communication may be a particularly vital factor in sustain­
ing a long distance relationship in which partners have limited
face to face contact. Telephone time and Internet use among
dating partners has been suggested to be positively associat­
ed with relational success as defined by increased satisfaction,
trust, commitment, and lower jealousy (Dainton & Aylor, 2002;
Stafford, 2005). Merolla (2010) also found that couples who had
more communications while physically seeing one another either
through Skype or frequent physical visitations reported more
satisfaction and commitment which suggests that some modern
modes of telecommunication (e.g., video communication, con­
tact through virtual reality) provide some advantage over more
outdated methods (e.g., letters or audio calls). Other research
has also suggested that individuals are more likely to ask more
personal questions and offer more and deeper self-disclosure in
computer mediated communications than in face to face meet­
ings (Tidwell & Walther, 2002; Stafford, 2005). Taken together,
it appears possible that couples who take advantage of modern
communication channels regularly may self-disclose more, and
potentially benefit from subsequently improved relationship
quality.
Sexting in LDRs
Despite the increasing number of studies investigating the na­
ture of LDRs and the strategies that partners adopt in order to
maintain optimal relationship functioning (Rohlfing, 1995;
Wang, 2015), sexting as a specific communication channel that
couples in LDRs could adopt to maintain sexual aspects of their
relationships has received little empirical attention. Although
the academic community has been relatively silent on this issue,
many popular writers of relationship advice columns (e.g., a new
mode, bustle, the cut) suggest that engaging in sexting can be
of considerable help to partners who are geographically sepa­
rated, by keeping their sexual relationship alive, and increasing
their relationship satisfaction (see Charles, 2015; Chatel, 2016;
Stadtmiller, 2016). On the face, such claims seem plausible be­
cause spouses are likely to feel sexually and emotionally intimate
when they perceive their partners’ communication style as more
 Sexting in long distance relationships

positive (Yoo et al., 2014) and because sexting involves instanc­
es of sexual self-disclosures and such disclosures are known
to be correlated with both sexual and relationship satisfaction
(Byers & Demmons, 1999).
Reis and Shaver’s intimacy process model (1988) may be
helpful for understanding how sexting may impact various as­
pects of relationship quality. According to this theory, expressing
personal self-relevant information to a partner (e.g., sexual likes
and dislikes), which can be influenced by dispositional factors
such as needs, traits, and values (e.g., erotophilia-erotophobia,
religiosity, etc.), or situationally relevant goals (e.g., keeping
the “spark” alive), occurs in a variety of forms, perhaps even
during sexual exchanges commonly known as sexting. When
such self-expressions take place they result in emotional and be­
havioural responses from a partner. If such responses are posi­
tive, the self-expressing individual feels understood, validated,
and cared for, contributing to an increased sense of interpersonal
closeness with their partner. As intimacy develops through this
process other aspects of relationship quality (e.g., satisfaction)
are likely to improve as well.
Additionally, according to Rusbult’s investment model
(Rusbult et al., 1998), both relationship satisfaction and relation­
ship investments contribute to a person’s sense of commitment
to their relationship. Of particular relevance to the current dis­
cussion, investment in this model refers to shared resources that
tie partners to each other and to the relationship. From this per­
spective, sexting a partner could be conceived of as a particular
type of relationship investment because it can involve additional
time and effort spent on the relationship as well as shared per­
sonal information. In partial support of this view, Weisskirch and
Delevi (2011) have previously speculated that attachment avoid­
ant individuals text less because sexting indicates a higher degree
of investment in the relationship. If sexting involves a specific
form of relationship investment, then people in LDRs who en­
gage in more sexting behaviours would report more investment
with their partners. Sexting may also be relevant to Rusbult et
al.’s conceptualization of perceived quality of alternatives, which
has been defined as the extent to which a person’s needs can be
met outside of their existing relationship. It would seem, for ex­
ample, that LDRs may be particularly vulnerable to sexual bore­
dom (see Limarzi, 2019) and mate poaching (Pham et al., 2015).
In this context, sexting may be one mechanism that people could
employ intentionally, or unintentionally, to keep their long dis­
tance partners’ sexually engaged in an effort to prevent straying.
If this is the case, sexting within LDRs should be negatively re­
lated to people’s perceptions of the quality of their relationship
alternatives. Finally, if sexting is related to higher relationship
satisfaction, higher investment, and lower quality of alternatives,
based on the investment model it would be reasonable to expect
that commitment to one’s relationship would be consequently
higher among sexters as well.1
Current Study
In the current study we were specifically interested in examin­
ing the associations between sexting and feelings of interperson­
al closeness among long distance couples. Following Reis and
Shaver’s (1988) process model of intimacy, we hypothesized that
individuals within LDRs who use sexting as a way to stay sexu­
ally connected during separation would report more perceived
interpersonal closeness with their partners than individuals in
non-sexting couples. Moreover, considering previous findings
and popular discussions of sexting among long distance cou­
ples on the internet (Charles, 2015; Chatel, 2016; Limarzi, 2019;
Stadtmiller, 2016), we hypothesized that couples who sext in
LDRs would report more sexual and relationship satisfaction
since they should be engaging in more sexual self-disclosure
(Byers & Demmons, 1999). Finally, given these connections, and
the possibility that sexting itself may constitute a type of relation­
ship investment, and that sexting may be used to keep partners’
sexual attention, further correlations were expected between
sexting and perceptions of relationship investments, quality of
alternatives, and relationship commitment.
Also, while there is less research and theory to draw upon, a
number of relationship and personality factors such as having
higher levels of sexual growth beliefs, better sexual communi­
cation, and higher levels of erotophilia, may be relevant for un­
derstanding which couples are more likely to engage in sexting.
Individuals high in sexual growth beliefs tend to think that sex­
ual satisfaction is attained from hard work and effort rather than
chance alone (Maxwell, 2017). Thus, we expected to see a positive
correlation between sexual growth beliefs and sexting behaviours
because sexting is a purposive and effortful behaviour. Moreover,
as sexting, by definition, requires individuals to explicitly express
their sexual likes/dislikes and needs, factors that facilitate sexual
expression, like erotophilia/erotophobia (Fisher et al., 1988), and
experience or comfort with sexual communication should be re­
lated to willingness to engage in sexting behaviours.
The goal of this study was to advance our understanding of
sexting in several important ways. This study is among the first to
examine relationships between sexting and interpersonal close­
ness. It further seeks to determine if previous results concerning
associations between sexting and relationship and sexual satis­
faction apply to individuals in LDRs specifically. And finally, it
attempts to identify correlates of sexting that may be useful for
understanding not only who sexts and who does not, but also
by extension, how partners may respond to attempts to initiate
sexting, which could be followed up in subsequent research.

1 With respect to the investment model, we had only initially pre-registered hypotheses that sexting should be related to higher relationship

satisfaction, and higher investment. Post analysis, while drafting this manuscript, but before we tested the relevant associations, it occurred

to us that we had failed to consider the implications of sexting for the remaining constructs in Rusbult’s investment model, namely, quality of

alternatives and relationship commitment. We have added our post-hoc expectations here for the sake of thoroughness but would like to note

that these hypotheses were not pre-registered before the data were analyzed.

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(1), 2021, 15–25 • https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2020-0038 17

Nazanin Kafaee and Taylor Kohut

METHODS TABLE 1. Sample Demographic Information

Sample Demographics Full Sample

Participants
n %
Participants were recruited from various social media platforms
Gender
(e.g. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc.) as well as some psycholo­
gy classes at a Canadian university. The initial eligibility criteria Female 100 77.5
were defined as being over 18, proficient in English and resid­ Male 24 18.6
ing in Canada or the United States, and currently involved in Non-binary / Trans / Agendered 5 3.9
an LDR of at least four months. A total of 376 individuals ac­ Race
cessed the online survey. However, n = 131 were excluded from Caucasian 96 74.4
the sample for various reasons, such as not initiating the survey South Asian 8 6.2
after reading the letter of information (n = 82), failing one of four
East Asian 7 5.4
study eligibility criteria (age 18+, proficiency in English, North
Hispanic or Latino 5 3.9
American resident, being in an LDR of at least four months;
n = 61), failing to respond to questions that assessed study eli­ Black or African American 4 3.1
gibility (n = 9), being involved in more than one LDR (n = 8), Mixed 4 3.1
ambiguities with respect to who was being sexted (n =  18), or Other 3 2.3
failing the attention check question (n = 22).2 Indigenous, American Indian, or 2 1.6
A further n =  116 participant were lost due to missing or Alaskan Native
incomplete data on one or more of the focal variables in this Relationship Status
study resulting in a final analytic sample of n = 129. The major­ Seriously dating 106 82.2
ity of the participants identified as female (77.5%, n = 100), and Engaged 9 7.0
Caucasian (74.4%, n =  96). The mean age of participants was
Married 8 6.2
M = 26.0 (SD = 9.12) years. Two participants indicated that they
were living with their partners but both also indicated living far Other Statuses 3 2.3
apart from their partners and seeing them infrequently. Most Divorced 2 1.6
participants reported their relationship status as seriously dat­ Casually dating 1 0.8
ing (82.2%, n = 106), most identified as monogamous (81.4%, Sexual Orientation
n = 105), and most reported a heterosexual orientation (76.7%, Heterosexual 99 76.7
n =  99). Relationship duration ranged from 4 to 83 months Bisexual 14 10.9
(more than 6 years), the average relationship duration was Other orientations (Pansexual, 10 7.8
M = 18.8 months (SD = 15.3), with Mdn = 13, and mode as five Asexual, Queer, Demisexual,
months. The sample demographics information can be found Heteroflexible)
in Table 1. Homosexual 6 4.7
Sexual Relationship Status
Materials and Procedure Monogamous 105 81.4
This study was approved by Western University’s Research Ethics Other Statuses (Open relationship, 10 7.8
Board. Interested parties followed a link which directed them to in an affair, etc.)
a survey hosted on Qualtrics, where they were presented with Abstinent/ /Not currently engaging 8 6.2
the letter of information and consent. Within the letter of infor­ in a sexual relationship(s)
mation, participants were told that the goal of the study was to Polyamorous 5 3.9
better understand the sexual experiences among long distance Swinger 1 0.8
couples as well as the relationship maintenance strategies they
may use. Participants were then pre-screened before they were Note. Age and relationship duration were also among the demographic vari
ables. Age of the participants ranged from 18 to 59 (M = 25.97, SD = 9.12).
asked for their informed consent to proceed with the study.
Relationship duration ranged from 4 to 83 months (Mb=b18.73, SD = 15.30).
Participation began by completing a short demographic ques­
tionnaire, followed by questionnaires assessing the long distance
relationship characteristics, sexting behaviours and various oth­ included for exploratory purposes and while they will not be
er relationship and sexuality related measures described below. discussed further in this manuscript, they may be examined in a
Notably, such measures also involved indicators of social pres­ separate paper. All study measures and materials are available on
sure, sociosexuality, sexual desire and religiosity which were the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/39xpv/).

2 Because some participants were excluded for more than one reason, the above numbers are not mutually exclusive, and therefore do not sum
to n = 131.

18 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(1), 2021, 15–25 • https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2020-0038

 Sexting in long distance relationships

Long Distance Relationship Questionnaire Interpersonal closeness

The Long Distance Relationship Questionnaire was developed
by the authors to measure the specifics of participants’ LDR(s).
It consisted of 11 items, measuring how many long distance ro­
mantic relationships participants were involved in, whether they
were in an LDR with their primary partner, as well as the length
of that relationship. Of these 11 items, only three were employed
in the current study. The distance between the partners was as­
sessed using a 5-point scale from Less than 100 km to More than
1000 km. This questionnaire also measured how often individ­
uals see their long distance partner, and on average how often
they have in-person sex with their long distance partner using
a 9-point scale from Every day to Less than once a year, and an
8-point scale from A few times a day to Never respectively. These
items were used largely to ensure that the resulting sample repre­
sented genuine long distance partners (see Participants above).
Relationship duration was also assessed using an open-ended
question where participants indicated the number of years and/
or months of their relationship’s length. This measure was used
for demographic purposes and was employed in an exploratory
moderation analysis of the association between sexting and in­
terpersonal closeness.
Sexting Behaviour Questionnaire
This questionnaire was also created by the authors to collect
information about participants’ sexting experiences. Firstly,
sexting was defined as “sending sexually suggestive texts, pic­
tures, videos, etc. to a partner with the intention of flirting,
getting sexually aroused, masturbating, or as a way to initiate
sex.” Participants were then asked to respond to 25 items that
consisted of 14 close-ended, and 11 open-ended questions.
Only three closed-ended items were employed in the current
study. All participants responded to an item about their gen­
eral frequency of sexting behaviour on an 8-point scale from
1 (Never) to 8 (More than once a day). In n = 9 cases (6.87%),
participants also indicated that they sexted with someone
who was not their primary romantic partner. Because sexting
with non-primary partners should not be relevant to the de­
velopment of intimacy with a primary partner through sexual
self-disclosure we manually adjusted the frequency of sexting
responses for these participants. In such cases, participants
were also asked to clarify what proportion of their total sex­
ting behaviour occurred with their primary romantic partner
(e.g., 20%) and the value they provided was multiplied by their
general frequency of sexting. The result of this product was
rounded to the nearest scale point and these scores were com­
bined with other participants’ general frequency of sexting
responses.
The Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (IOSS; Aron et al., 1992)
was used to measure interpersonal closeness. This single item,
widely used scale measures the perceived closeness to one’s re­
lationship partner using a series of partially overlapping circles
from 1 (“most distant” or two separate circles) to 7 (“closest” or
two overlapped circles). The IOSS has demonstrated alternate
form and test-retest reliability, as well as convergent and diver­
gent validity (Aron et al., 1992).
Sexual satisfaction
Twelve items from the satisfaction subscale of the Quality of Sex
Inventory (QSI) (Shaw, & Rogge, 2016) were used to assess sexual
satisfaction. Participants indicated their degree of agreement with
items such as “I am happy with the quality of sexual activity in our
relationship” using 6-point Likert response scale that ranged from
1 (Not at all true) to 6 (Completely true). This measure demon­
strated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .96), and a
maximum likelihood exploratory factor analysis (MLEFA) con­
firmed a single factor solution (67.57% of variance explained). It
has also previously shown strong convergent and construct valid­
ity (Shaw & Rogge, 2016). Responses were mean-aggregated to
create composite sexual satisfaction scores. The twelve items from
the comparable sexual dissatisfaction subscale were omitted from
this survey due to an administrative oversight.
Relationship satisfaction3
The Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS-4) (Sabourin et al., 2005)
was used to assess relationship satisfaction. Participants re­
sponded to four items of the dyadic satisfaction subscale (e.g.,
“Do you confide in your partner?”) with 6-point Likert scales
that ranged from 0 (Never) to 5 (All of the time). A maximum
likelihood exploratory factor analysis (MLEFA) suggested a sin­
gle factor solution (54.54% of variance explained) and reliabili­
ty was acceptable (Cronbach’s α = .77). Responses to the items
were summed to create an aggregate relationship satisfaction
score. DAS-4 was also found to be highly correlated with the
satisfaction subscale of the investment model described below
(r = .76, p = .000). Further validation information can be found
in Sabourin et al. (2005).
Investment Model Scales
The investment model scales (IM) (Rusbult et al., 1998) were
used to further assess relationship satisfaction, investment,
commitment level and quality of alternatives in one’s relation­
ship. Participants responded to items across four subscales
which measured their satisfaction (3 items, Cronbach’s α = .82;
“Our relationship makes me very happy.”), investment (3 items,

3 This measure was derived from instruments borrowed from a colleague’s study, where six additional items were also included. Therefore,

participants were also asked to indicate their agreement or disagreement to items such as “Right now I am unsure if my relationship with my

partner will last.” using 7-point Likert-like scales ranging from 1 (Very strong disagreement) to 7 (Very strong agreement). However, during the

data analysis we realized that these items did not belong to the DAS-4. Because these items have not been properly validated we deviated from

the preregistered plan, and excluded these six additional items in all of the following analyses.

The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(1), 2021, 15–25 • https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2020-0038 19

Nazanin Kafaee and Taylor Kohut
Cronbach’s α = .85; “I have put a great deal into our relationship
that I would lose if the relationship were to end.”), commitment
(4 items, Cronbach’s α = .93; “I want our relationship to last for­
ever.”) and perceived quality of alternatives (5 items, Cronbach’s
α = .82; “My needs for intimacy, companionship, etc. could eas­
ily be fulfilled in an alternative relationship.”) on 9-point Likert
scales that ranged from 1 (Do not agree at all) to 9 (Agree com­
pletely). An MLEFA suggested a three rather than four factor
solution where satisfaction and investment items clustered close­
ly together. MLEFAs for each separate sub-scale indicated rea­
sonable evidence of unidimensionality for satisfaction (63.55%
of explained variance), investment (68.67% of explained vari­
ance), commitment (78.40% of explained variance), and quality
of alternatives (48.15% of explained variance). The IM subscales
have demonstrated strong convergent and discriminant validity
(Rusbult et al., 1998).
Sexual Self-Disclosure
Sexual communication was operationalized as the extent of sexu­
al self-disclosure using six items from the Sexual Self-Disclosure4
Questionnaire (Byers & Demmons, 1999). In particular, these
items inquired about the extent that the participants had dis­
closed their particular sexual likes to their partner. This ques­
tionnaire begins with the general prompt, “How much have you
told your partner about:”, which is followed by a series of stems
including, “The way(s) you like to be kissed?” and “The way(s)
you like receiving oral sex?” Participants responded to questions
with 7-point response scales that ranged from 1 (Nothing at all)
to 7 (Everything). An MLEFA confirmed a single factor structure
(61.86% of variance explained), and the scale reliability was good
(Cronbach’s α = .90). Responses to the items were mean averaged
to create an aggregate sexual communication score. The dislike
items from this questionnaire were omitted to shorten the survey
because it seemed to us that such details may be less likely to be
shared during sexting encounters.
Destiny vs. Growth Beliefs
The 10-item Sexpectations Scale-Short (SSS; Maxwell et al.,
2017) was employed to assess sexual growth and destiny beliefs.
Assessment of sexual growth beliefs was reflected by items such
as “In a relationship, maintaining a satisfying sex life requires
effort” while assessment of sexual destiny beliefs was reflected
in items such as “Struggles in a sexual relationship are a sure
sign that the relationship will fail.” Participants responded us­
ing 7 point Likert scales ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7
(Strongly agree). The two destiny and growth scales were mean
averaged separately. A two factor solution was indicated by
the exploratory factor analysis, where destiny beliefs explained
22.69%, and the growth beliefs, 24.27% of the total variance.
The SSS showed reasonable internal consistency for both desti­
ny (Cronbach’s α = .78) and growth beliefs (Cronbach’s α = .81).
Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity can be found
in Maxwell et al. (2017).
4 The terms sexual communication and sexual self-disclosure will be used interchangeably for our purposes in this manuscript.
20 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(1), 2021, 15–25 • https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2020-0038
Erotophilia-Erotophobia
The five-item Sexual Opinion Survey (Fisher et al., 1988) was
used to assess approach/avoidance tendencies toward sexual
stimuli. Participants indicated their extent of agreement or dis­
agreement on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (Strongly agree) to
7 (Strongly disagree) to items such as “Masturbation can be an
exciting experience.” An MLEFA suggested a single factor solu­
tion accounting for 20.73% of the variance (Cronbach’s α = .45).
While the psychometric properties of this scale were poor, we
opted to use the items as intended and averaged responses to all
5 items with reverse coding so that higher scores indicated more
erotophilia.
Analytic Plan
To assess the primary hypothesis that LDRs who practice sex­
ting may have higher levels of interpersonal closeness than LDRs
who never or rarely sext, interpersonal closeness was regressed
on reported frequency of sexting with a primary partner. As re­
lated secondary endpoints, we also hypothesized that sexting
should be positively associated with the following indicators of
relationship quality: relationship satisfaction, sexual satisfaction,
relationship investments, quality of relationship alternatives,
and relationship commitment. We further believed that sexual
growth beliefs, extent of sexual communication, and degree of
erotophilia should predispose people to engage in more sexting
behaviour. Each of these secondary hypotheses were examined
with Pearson correlations. The rationale, hypotheses and the an­
alytic plan of the study were pre-registered and can be found on
the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/hf9bx/). Note that
the sample sizes across analyses are non-equivalent because of
increasing participant attrition towards the end of the survey.
There were no obvious violations of statistical assumptions pres­
ent in the data.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Most of the participants indicated they engaged in sexting with
their primary long distance partner (69.80%, n = 90). Frequency
of sexting was reported as more than once a day (3.90%, n = 5),
about once a day (7.0%, n = 9), three to four times a week (15.50%,
n = 20), once or twice a week (19.40%, n = 25), once to three times
a month (16.30%, n = 21), less than once a month (7.80%, n = 10),
almost never (16.30%, n  =  21) and never (14.0%, n =  18), and
no gender differences were observed in the average frequency
(M = 3.85, SD = 2.06, n = 129), t (122) =−1.63, p = .106. No oth­
er significant differences were found in the frequency of sexting
across other demographic variables. Furthermore, all the de­
pendent variables were subjected to gender comparison. No sig­
nificant gender differences were found in the means of the IOS
(M = 5.16, SD = 1.37, n = 129), t (122) = −.85, p = .399; the QSI

(M = 19.73, SD = 1.17, n = 120), t (113) =−.43, p = .664; the DAS-4
(M = 22.27, SD = 3.85, n = 116), t (109) =−1.12, p = .265; IM satis­
faction (M = 7.64, SD = 1.41, n = 114), t (107) = −.93, p = .356; in­
vestment (M = 7.55, SD = 1.51, n = 114), t (107) = −.284, p = .777;
commitment (M  =  8.32, SD =  1.33, n =  114), t (107)  =  −.255,
p = .799; quality of alternatives (M = 3.63, SD = 1.80, n = 114),
t (107) = .71, p = .479.
Sexting and Closeness
Results of the linear regression analysis between the frequency of
sexting and interpersonal closeness was not significant, r = .13,
b = .09, F (1, 127) = 2.19, p = .141, indicating that more frequent
sexting behaviours did not seem to be predictive of higher levels
of interpersonal closeness.
Sexting and Other Aspects of Relationship Quality
Unlike our primary interest, sexting among LDRs was related
with some, though not all other aspects of relationship quality,
and in the expected directions. Sexting was most moderately
correlated with sexual satisfaction, r (120) = .43, p < .001. There
was also notable correlation with relationship satisfaction, when
measured by the investment model (IM), r (114) = .30, p = .001
subscale, but not by the DAS-4, r (116) = .17, p = .067, though
the DAS trended in the expected direction. Further, frequency
of sexting was also correlated with the quality of alternatives, r
(114) = −.19, p = .048, but not with the investment, r (114) = .10,
p = .295, or the commitment, r (114) = .13, p = .152, subscales,
of the IM, though again, directions of the resulting Pearson cor­
relations were in keeping with our hypotheses.
Individual Differences in Sexting
As expected, frequency of sexting was positively correlated with
the endorsement of sexual growth beliefs, r (112) = .19, p = .047,
and extent of sexual communication, r (129) = .38, p < .001; how­
ever, contrary to our expectation, sexting was not correlated with
degree of erotophilia, r (106) = .07, p = .459. Although we had
no explicit expectations about sexual destiny beliefs, we found
that sexting was not associated with this variable, r (112) = .16,
p = .092.
Post-Hoc Exploratory Analyses
Further Moderation Analyses
A number of moderation analyses were run to further investigate
whether frequency of face-to-face interactions, relationship du­
ration, and frequency of sex moderates the relationship between
interpersonal closeness and frequency of sexting. In general,
we thought that it might be possible that longer relationships
and higher frequencies of sexual and non-sexual face-to-face
interactions was buffering the effect of sexting on interperson­
al closeness. Unfortunately, however, all of the analyses showed
non-significant results (details of these results can be found here
https://osf.io/sgecp/).
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(1), 2021, 15–25 • https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2020-0038
Sexting in long distance relationships
Sexual Self-Disclosure
Upon further speculation, sexual self-disclosure seemed to be
another appropriate independent variable to consider for fur­
ther investigation. Our rationale for this study was premised
on the assumption that sexual self-disclosure during sexting
would be a mechanism through which partners may become
closer together and previous research has indicated that sexual
self-disclosure is associated with higher relationship and sexual
satisfaction (Byers & Demmons, 1999). Therefore, all the pre­
vious, pre-registered analyses were rerun substituting sexual
self-disclosure for frequency of sexting. Such analyses indicated
significant associations with closeness, r =  .27, b =  0.23, F (1,
127) = 9.90, p = .002; sexual satisfaction, r (120) = .50, p < .001;
both measures of relationship satisfaction, r (116) = .18, p = .047
(DAS-4), r (114) = .19, p = .037 (IM); investment, r (114) = .40,
p < .001; sexual growth r (112) = .36, p < .001, and sexual des­
tiny beliefs r (112) = .27, p = .004; and erotophilia r (106) = .25,
p =  .011. It was not significantly correlated with lower quali­
ty of alternatives, r (114)  =  −.14, p =  .144 and commitment r
(114) =.10, p = .266, though, again, the signs of these associations
were in the expected direction. Such results helped to verify that
one core assumption underlying our rationale, namely that sex­
ual self-disclosures should be related to higher interpersonal
closeness, is tenable. All the correlations can be found in Table 2.
DISCUSSION
Although technology-mediated sexual activities have generated
much research over the last decade, little research has investi­
gated their use among long distance couples. This study sought
to examine the prevalence of sexting and its associations with
interpersonal closeness and a number of relationship quality
measures among individuals in LDRs. Our results suggest that
most individuals (64%) in our sample of LDRs engaged in sex­
ting at least a couple of times a month. In partial support of our
secondary hypotheses, frequency of sexting was found to be cor­
related with relationship and sexual satisfaction, sexual growth
beliefs, and sexual communication. However, the results did not
support our primary hypothesis, in that frequency of sexting
was not correlated with higher levels of interpersonal closeness.
Further exploratory analyses also did not indicate that frequen­
cy of in-person sex, or face-to-face interactions, or relationship
length moderated the lack of a relationship between sexting and
interpersonal closeness.
The lack of association between sexting and interpersonal
closeness was unexpected, and led us to think more about the
issue. A careful consideration of the patterns of association in
this data suggest that the general logic of our expectations was
sound, in that sexting was associated with sexual communica­
tion, which was operationalized as extant of sexual self-disclosure
(r = .38), which in turn was associated with interpersonal close­
ness (r = .27). If all of sexting’s presumed effects on interper­
sonal closeness worked through sexual self-disclosure, and
all of the shared variance between sexting and self-disclosure
was relevant to interpersonal closeness, the magnitude of these
21
Nazanin Kafaee and Taylor Kohut

TABLE 2. Correlation Matrix of the Dependent and Independent Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Frequency of sexting _
Interpersonal closeness .13 _
Sexual satisfaction .43*** .37*** _
DAS-4 .17 .56*** .54*** _
Relationship satisfaction .30*** .47*** .58*** .76*** _
(IM)
Investment .10 .20* .32*** .16 .30** _
Commitment .13 .39*** .47*** .68*** .73*** .34*** _
Quality of alternatives −.19* −.14 .29** −.16 −.31** −.22* −24* _
Sexual communication .38*** .27** .49*** .18* .19* .39*** .10 −.13 _
Sexual growth beliefs .19* .02 .30 .04 .00 .30** .01 −.00 .36*** _
Sexual destiny beliefs .16 −.03 .03 −.17 −.11 .04 −.17 −.10 .27** .01 _
Erotophobia-erotophilia .07 −.08 .18 .03 .09 .03 .06 .2* .25* .26** −.11 _
*p < .05. **p < .01. *** p < .001.

correlations suggests a very modest, r ~ .10, indirect effect of sex­
ting and interpersonal closeness at best, which is quite compa­
rable to the correlation we found between sexting and closeness
in this study (r = .13). The current study, with only n = 129 par­
ticipants for this analysis, was not adequately powered to detect
such a small effect (the probability of detecting such an effect us­
ing a one-tailed, α = .05, test with only n = 129 is .30). Therefore,
one possibility is that the current study, despite its efforts to re­
cruit a larger sample, was simply not powerful enough to detect
the effect of interest. Alternatively, it could be the case that our
theorizing was misguided and no associations exist between sex­
ting and interpersonal closeness; a possibility that is corroborat­
ed by a recent study of Belgian adolescents, which reported that
intimacy and closeness were not significantly associated with
sexting (Van Ouytsel et al., 2017).
However, if sexting can in fact increase interpersonal close­
ness in LDRs, issues related to our conceptual and operational
definitions of these constructs may have further obscured their
apparent association in the current study. While we believe that
sexting may provide an avenue for sexual self-disclosures, sexual
communication and sexting are not synonymous constructs. Of
particular relevance, sexual self-disclosure may take many forms
including the sharing of memories, the exchange of fantasies, the
elaboration of sexual likes and dislikes, and the discussion of sex­
ual health issues (Clark-Lepard, 2019; Tannebaum, 2018). Based
on the definition of sexting provided in the survey (i.e., “sending
sexually suggestive texts, pictures, videos, etc. to a partner with
the intention of flirting, getting sexually aroused, masturbating,
or as a way to initiate sex.”), it is plausible that our measure of
sexting frequency may have captured some (e.g., expression of
sexual likes), but not all (e.g., sharing of private memories) rele­
vant instances of sexual self-disclosures in LDRs.
In addition to the omission of possibly relevant sexual
self-disclosures during sexting, it is also conceivable that the fre­
quency of sexting, which reflects the rate at which such events
occur, does not adequately reflect the depth or extent of sexu­
al self-disclosure during these experiences that is theoretically
necessary to engage in intimacy processes that contribute to
feelings of interpersonal closeness (Reis & Shaver, 1988), and
consequent relationship satisfaction (Byers & Demmons, 1999;
Clark-Lepard, 2019; Macneil & Byers, 2005). That is, a single sex­
ting encounter that discloses a great deal of personal and private
self-relevant information that leaves one open and vulnerable to
negative evaluations (e.g., disclosure of a private kink, fetish, or
interest), may be much more important for intimacy processes
than 10 sexting encounters in which self-produced nude imag­
es are simply exchanged. Further research in this area should
consider the degree that sexual self-disclosures occurs in typical
sexting exchanges in terms of the depth and quality of such dis­
closures, in addition to the amount of sexting that takes place in
romantic relationships.
Another important factor to consider in the current results is
the reciprocity of sexting exchanges among couples. According to
Reis and Shaver’s intimacy process model (1988), self-disclosing
information should be positively responded to by the receiver
for the interpersonal closeness to take place. Thus, it seems rea­
sonable to expect that sexting exchanges will only be correlated
with interpersonal closeness if they are positively received and
reciprocated by both partners. Unfortunately, reciprocity was
not quantitatively assessed in the current study, therefore, we
were not able to determine if a lack of reciprocity could explain
our null results. Aside from the issue of closeness, the current
findings corroborate reports from multiple studies that sexting
is correlated with higher sexual satisfaction (Galovan et al., 2018;
Stasko & Geller, 2015; Van Ouytsel et al., 2017), extending this
basic observation to LDRs. The results with respect to sexting
and relationship satisfaction are also consistent with the pre­
vious literature which tends to suggest mixed support for such
associations (Currin et al., 2016; Galovan et al., 2018; Jeanfreau
et al., 2019; McDaniel & Drouin, 2015). In this context, it is not

22 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(1), 2021, 15–25 • https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2020-0038


surprising that more distal measures of relationship quality (e.g.,
investment and commitment) were also not associated with sex­
ting in the current study.
This study was also the first to reveal that sexting is correlated
with sexual growth beliefs. This may be an important association
deserving more attention. Those who are high in sexual growth
beliefs believe that good relationships require the effortful ex­
penditure of time and energy (Maxwell, 2017), so they may be
more likely to introduce sexting in their long distance relation­
ships as a relationship maintenance strategy. Such people also
seem to maintain higher quality relationships when sexual ideals
between partners are not aligned (Balzarini et al., 2021). Likely
this is because those who are higher in growth beliefs are more
willing to accommodate their partners’ sexual needs even when
such needs do not align with their own sexual ideals. If this is
the case, individuals who hold more sexual growth beliefs may
be more receptive to sexts initiated by their partner. Future re­
search should consider whether those with high growth beliefs
are better positioned to capitalize on potential relational benefits
if sexting is introduced into their long distance relationships.
Limitations
This research is subject to several limitations, including a rela­
tively small convenience sample of predominantly women who
were Canadian or American residents, which can limit the gen­
eralizability and reliability of the results. The cross-sectional
design also precludes true mediation analysis and causal infer­
ences. The small sample size is perhaps the largest issue in this
study. As the number of participants used in the analyses was
much less than the target sample size that was pre-registered, this
undoubtedly affected the power of our analyses, that could also
pose an issue for reliability of our results (Button et al., 2013).
Aside from these features, using an unstandardized measure to
assess sexting behaviour for our purposes may also be another
shortcoming of this study. Unfortunately, lack of generalizable
validated measures seems to be a broader problem in cybersex
research which can further magnify the methodological vari­
ations across studies and potentially negatively influence the
reliability of studies’ results (Kohut et al., 2020; Kosenko et al.,
2017; Shaughnessy & Byers, 2013). Low internal consistency of
the Sexual Opinion Survey (SOS) in the current data, was also
an unfortunate surprise, as this would have limited the extent
that it would correlate with other measures in this study. This,
we believe, is why sexting was not significantly correlated with
erotophilia-erotophobia in the current study.
Implications and Future Directions
Although we cannot make casual inferences considering the cor­
relational nature of this study, it appears that higher frequencies
of sexting among long distance couples accompanies a num­
ber of positive relationship qualities including higher relation­
ship and sexual satisfaction and more sexual communication.
Gaining an understanding of the direction of such associations
may prove important for promoting relationship quality and
health among long distance couples. This could be accomplished
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(1), 2021, 15–25 • https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2020-0038
Sexting in long distance relationships
in future research through experiments in which couples’ sexting
behaviour could be manipulated. With respect to the issue of in­
terpersonal closeness specifically, the current study needs to be
replicated using a larger and more diverse sample. It is possible
that there is no relationship between sexting and interperson­
al closeness, yet at the same time, it would appear that a larger
sample would be needed to provide an adequate test of this asso­
ciation. Additionally, our findings and analysis of unsupported
hypotheses suggest the importance of understanding how sexual
communication takes place within sexting encounters. Crucially,
this issue may hold the key for determining ways that sexting
may positively impact interpersonal closeness and perhaps other
elements of relationship quality in long distance relationships.
ORCID ID
Nazanin Kafaee https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7353-7624
REFERENCES
Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other
in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596–612.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596
Aylor, B. A. (2003). Maintaining long-distance relationships. In
D. J. Canary & M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships
through communication: Relational, contextual, and cultural
variations (pp. 127–139). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum As­
sociates.
Balzarini, R. N., Muise, A., Dobson, K., Kohut, T., Raposo, S., &
Campbell, L. (2021). The detriments of unmet sexual ide­
als and buffering effect of communal strength. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pspi0000323. Medline:33539155
Button, K. S., Ioannidis, J. P., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, B. A., Flint, J.,
Robinson, E. S., & Munafò, M. R. (2013). Power failure: Why
small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience.
Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14(5), 365–376. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nrn3475. Medline:23571845
Byers, E. S., & Demmons, S. (1999). Sexual satisfaction and
sexual self-disclosure within dating relationships. Journal of
Sex Research, 36(2), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/002244
99909551983
The Center for the Study of Long Distance Relationships. (2018).
Long distance relationship frequently asked questions 2018.
http://www.longdistancerelationships.net/faqs.htm#How_
common_are_long_distance_relationships
Charles, E. (2015). 9 secrets to make a long distance relationship
work [Web log post]. http://www.anewmode.com/dating­
relationships/make-a-long-distance-relationship-work/
Chatel, A. (2016, May 6). How to stay sexually connected in a
long-distance relationship [Web log post]. https://www.bustle.
com/articles/159172-how-to-stay-sexually-connected-in-a­
long-distance-relationship
23
Nazanin Kafaee and Taylor Kohut
Cionea, I. A., Wilson Mumpower, S. V., & Bassick, M. A. (2019).
Serial argument goals, tactics, and outcomes in long-distance
and geographically close romantic relationships. Southern
Communication Journal, 84(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1041794X.2018.1531915
Clark-Lepard, E. (2019). Sext me tender: Sexting frequency, sex­
ual communication, and sexual satisfaction in canadian young
women [Master’s Thesis]. The University of Guelph.
Courtice, E. L., & Shaughnessy, K. (2017). Sexual and relationship
therapy technology-mediated sexual interaction and relation­
ships: A systematic review of the literature. Sexual and Rela­
tionship Therapy, 32(3–4), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/1
4681994.2017.1397948
Crystal Jiang, L., & Hancock, J. T. (2013). Absence makes the
communication grow fonder: Geographic separation, inter­
personal media, and intimacy in dating relationships. Journal
of Communication, 63(3), 556–577. https://doi.org/10.1111/
jcom.12029
Currin, J. M., Jayne, C. N., Hammer, T. R., Brim, T., & Hubach,
R. D. (2016). Explicitly pressing send: Impact of sexting on re­
lationship satisfaction. American Journal of Family Therapy, 44
(3), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2016.1145086
Dainton, M., & Aylor, B. (2002). Patterns of communication
channel use in the maintenance of long‐distance relation­
ships.  Communication Research Reports, 19(2), 118–129.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090209384839
Fisher, W. A., White, L. A., Byrne, D., & Kelley, K. (1988). Ero­
tophobia‐erotophilia as a dimension of personality. Journal of
Sex Research, 25(1), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/002244
98809551448
Galovan, A. M., Drouin, M., & McDaniel, B. T. (2018). Sexting
profiles in the United States and Canada: Implications for in­
dividual and relationship well-being. Computers in Human
Behavior, 79, 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.017
Gewirtz-Meydan, A., Mitchell, K. J., & Rothman, E. F. (2018).
What do kids think about sexting? Computers in Human Be­
havior, 86, 256–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.007
Goldsmith, K. M., & Byers, E. S. (2018). Perceived and reported
romantic and sexual outcomes in long-distance and geograph­
ically close relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sex­
uality, 27(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2018-0016
Henry, N., & Powell, A. (2018). Technology-facilitated sexual
violence: A literature review of empirical research. Trauma,
Violence, & Abuse, 19(2), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1524838016650189. Medline:27311818
Jeanfreau, M. M., Wright, L., & Noguchi, K. (2019). Marital
satisfaction and sexting behavior among individuals in re­
lationships. The Family Journal, 27(1), 17–21. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1066480718819868
Kelmer, G., Rhoades, G. K., Stanley, S., & Markman, H. J. (2013).
Relationship quality, commitment, and stability in long-distance
relationships. Family Process, 52(2), 257–270. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1545-5300.2012.01418.x. Medline:23763685
24 The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(1), 2021, 15–25 • https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2020-0038
Kohut, T., Balzarini, R. N., Fisher, W. A., Grubbs, J. B., Campbell,
L., & Prause, N. (2020). Surveying pornography use: A shaky
science resting on poor measurement foundations. The Jour­
nal of Sex Research, 57(6), 722–742. https://doi.org/10.1080/00
224499.2019.1695244. Medline:31821049
Kosenko, K., Luurs, G., & Binder, A. R. (2017). Sexting and sexu­
al behavior, 2011–2015: A critical review and meta-analysis of
a growing literature. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communi­
cation, 22(3), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12187
Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2001). Need fulfillment and emotional
experience in interdependent romantic relationships. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(3), 423–440. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0265407501183007
Lee, M., Crofts, T., McGovern, A., & Milivojevici, S. (2015). Sex­
ting and young people. Basingstoke.
Lenhart, A. (2009). Teens and sexting. Pew Internet & American
Life Project, 1(December), 1–26.
Limarzi, W. (2019, May 22). How to keep sexual intimacy burning
in long-distance relationships [Web log post]. https://www.limar
zicounselling.ca/keep-sexual-intimacy-long-distance-relation­
ships/
MacNeil, S., & Byers, E. S. (2005). Dyadic assessment of sexual
self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction in heterosexual dating
couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(2),
169–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407505050942
Maxwell, J. (2017). Great sexpectations: How implicit theories of
sexuality shape sexual and relationship well-being [Doctoral
dissetation]. University of Toronto.
Maxwell, J. A., Muise, A., MacDonald, G., Day, L. C., Rosen, N.
O., & Impett, E. A. (2017). How implicit theories of sexual­
ity shape sexual and relationship well-being. Journal of Per­
sonality and Social Psychology, 112(2), 238–279. https://doi.
org/10.1037/pspi0000078. Medline:27808534
McAfee. (2013). Lovers beware: Scorned exes may share intimate
data and images online. http://www.mcafee.com/au/about/
news/2013/q1/20130204-01.aspx
McDaniel, B. T., & Drouin, M. (2015). Sexting among married
couples: Who is doing it, and are they more satisfied? Cyberpsy­
chology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(11), 628–634.
https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.0334. Medline:26484980
Merolla, A. J. (2010). Relational maintenance and noncopres­
ence reconsidered: Conceptualizing geographic separation in
close relationships. Communication Theory, 20(2), 169–193.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01359.x
Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., Jones, L. M., & Wolak, J. (2012).
Prevalence and characteristics of youth sexting: A nation­
al study. Pediatrics, 129(1), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1542/
peds.2011-1730.Medline:22144706
Mori, C., Cooke, J. E., Temple, J. R., Ly, A., Lu, Y., Anderson,
N., Rash, C., & Madigan, S. (2020). The prevalence of sexting
behaviors among emerging adults: A meta-analysis. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 49(4), 1103–1119. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10508-020-01656-4. Medline:32072397

Parker, T. S., Blackburn, K. M., Perry, M. S., & Hawks, J. M. (2013).
Sexting as an Intervention: Relationship satisfaction and mo­
tivation considerations. American Journal of Family Therapy,
41(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2011.635134
Pham, M. N., Barbaro, N., & Shackelford, T. K. (2015). Devel­
opment and initial validation of the coalitional mate retention
inventory. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 1, 4–12. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40806-014-0001-5
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal
process. In S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M.
Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory,
research and interventions (pp. 367–389). John Wiley & Sons.
Rohlfing, M. E. (1995). Doesn’t anybody stay in one place any­
more? An exploration of the understudied phenomenon of
longdistance relationships. In J.T. Wood & S. Duck (Eds.), Un­
derstudied relationships: Off the beaten track (Vol. 6, pp. 173–
196). Sage.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment
Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level,
quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relation­
ships, 5(4), 357–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.
tb00177.x
Sabourin, S., Valois, P., & Lussier, Y. (2005). Development
and validation of a brief version of the dyadic adjustment
scale with a nonparametric item analysis model. Psychologi­
cal Assessment, 17(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040­
3590.17.1.15. Medline:15769225
Sedgwick, S. (2015). An examination of long-distance romantic
relationships [Doctoral dissertation]. San Diego, CA: Alliant
International University, California School of Professional
Psychology.
Shaughnessy, K., & Byers, E. S. (2013). Seeing the forest with the
trees: Cybersex as a case study of single-item versus multi-item
measures of sexual behaviour. Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 45(3),
220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031331
Shaw, A. M., & Rogge, R. D. (2016). Evaluating and refin­
ing the construct of sexual quality with item response the­
ory: Development of the Quality of Sex Inventory. Archives
of Sexual Behavior, 45(2), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10508-015-0650-x. Medline:26728053
The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 30(1), 2021, 15–25 • https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2020-0038
Sexting in long distance relationships
Stadtmiller, M. (2016, November 4). When it’s okay to date your
phone [Web log post]. https://www.thecut.com/2016/11/how­
to-communicate-when-youre-in-an-ldr.html
Stafford, L. (2005). Maintaining long-distance and cross-residential
relationships. Erlbaum.
Stasko, E. C., & Geller, P. A. (2015). Reframing sexting as a pos­
itive relationship behavior. Drexel University, Department of
Psychology.
Tannebaum, M. (2018). College students’ use of technology to
communicate with romantic partners about sexual health is­
sues. Journal of American College Health, 66(5), 393–400.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2018.144058
Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer‐mediated com­
munication effects on disclosure, impressions, and interper­
sonal evaluations: Getting to know one another a bit at a time.
Human Communication Research, 28(3), 317–348. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00811.x
Van Ouytsel, J., Ponnet, K., Walrave, M., & D’Haenens, L. (2017).
Adolescent sexting from a social learning perspective. Telemat­
ics and Informatics, 34(1), 287–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tele.2016.05.009
Wang, M. A. (2015). The iHuman experience: Redefining what it
means to be connected at a distance. A qualitative study [Doctor­
al dissertation]. The Wright Institute.Weisskirch, R. S., & Delevi,
R. (2011). “Sexting” and adult romantic attachment. Computers
in Human Behavior, 27(5), 1697–1701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2011.02.008
Wiederhold, B. K. (2011). Should adult sexting be considered for
the DSM? Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking,
14(9), 481. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.1522
Wiederhold, B. K. (2015). Does sexting improve adult sexual re­
lationships? Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
18(11), 627–627. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2015.29014.
bkw. Medline:26544783
Yoo, H., Bartle-Haring, S., Day, R. D., & Gangamma, R. (2014).
Couple communication, emotional and sexual intima­
cy, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Sex and Mari­
tal Therapy, 40(4), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/009262
3X.2012.751072. Medline:24111536
25
Copyright of Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality is the property of University of Toronto
Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.