Abstract
Despite over 10 years of research, we still know very little about people’s sexting behaviours and experiences. Our limited and, at times, conflicting knowledge about sexting is due to re-searchers’ use of inconsistent conceptual definitions of sexting, dubious measurement practices, and atheoretical research designs. In this article, we provide an overview of the history of sex-ting research and describe how researchers have contributed to the ‘moral panic’ narrative that continues to surround popular media discourse about sexting. We identify four key problems that still plague sexting research today: (1) imprudent focus on the medium, (2) inconsistent conceptual definitions, (3) poor measurement practices, and (4) a lack of theoretical frameworks. We describe and expand on solutions to address each of these problems. In particular, we focus on the need to shift empirical attention away from sexting and towards the behavioural domain of technology-mediated sexual interaction. We believe that the implementation of these solu-tions will lead to valid and sustainable knowledge development on technology-mediated sexual interactions, including sexting.
Highlights
We review four key problems with the research on sexting: (1) imprudent focus on the medium, (2) inconsistent conceptual definitions, (3) poor measurement practices, and (4) a lack of theoretical frameworks
To improve upon and unify our understanding of the essential behaviour at the core of all these specific terms, we propose that researchers adopt the behaviourally-focused conceptual definition of technology-mediated sexual interaction
Early sexting researchers did not take the time to agree upon a universal conceptual definition of sexting nor to develop and consistently use measures with strong construct validity
Summary
Many researchers have turned their attention to people’s use of communication technology for the purpose of sexual interactions. In the context of broad social pressures such as those created by moral panics, researchers must take additional precautions to consider the potential far-reaching harms to stakeholders prior to undertaking research (including exploratory research) It is the responsibility of sexting researchers to not conduct and present research from a more balanced perspective, and promote a balanced perspective amongst policy makers, legislators, educators, and the general public. The initial moral panic around sexting introduced researchers from multiple disciplines (e.g., psychology, communications, law) to a new area of study that required attention and information, especially in order to offset any potential harms. It is time for researchers to face and rectify these issues
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
