“Just lmk When You Want to Have Sex”: An Exploratory–Descriptive Qualitative Analysis of Sexting in Emerging Adult Couples

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachement.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript, which reports on a qualitative examination of emerging adults’ sexual communications sent via text message. Findings revealed that participants conveyed humor, past experiences, and desires with their partners to build intimacy, learn about one another, and explore sexual interests. Analyses of sexual communication via text message among this population can refine theoretical models of communication and disclosure (representing the intellectual merit of the research) and inform sexual health interventions (representing the broader impact of the research). The manuscript is professionally written, and the findings are clearly conveyed both in prose and in figures. Below, I offer some inquiries that the authors may choose to address in a revised manuscript.

 

Literature Review

·       The literature review is indeed thorough and well presented. However, many of the cited articles are 5, 10, or more years old. Although I agree that it is important to review seminal work that inspired the current investigation, contextualizing the present research within more contemporary literature may assure readers that the study adds to the current scholarly discourse. Integrating an additional handful of recent studies would suffice.

·       Do the authors believe it would be beneficial to mention some of the dangers of using text messages as a medium for sexual communication? For instance, such text messages could be leveraged against a former partner. These potential consequences are only tangentially relevant to the present investigation, but I wonder if the authors believe it would be beneficial to address such dangers given their subject matter.

·       Given that Knapp’s (1978) model provides the basis for much of the study’s discussion to contextualize the findings, perhaps it would be prudent to review that model in the literature review section.

 

Method

·       The nature of the data examined in this study is quite sensitive, and the methodology is somewhat intrusive (i.e., storing and coding vulnerable text messages among young adults). Given these considerations, it may be beneficial for the authors to further elucidate their procedures for recruitment, informed consent, debriefing, confidentiality, and so on.

·       For instance, it is quite surprising that no participants elected to delete sensitive text messages prior to turning them over to research personnel. The authors might consider describing how they offered participants the option to delete text messages, and how participants indicated that they did not wish to delete any text messages.

·       More broadly, it may be useful to describe the Ecamm Phoneview software in greater detail, including whether the manufacturer of this software stores any of the data. How did the authors ensure confidentiality, especially when linking participants’ demographic characteristics (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, sex) to their text messages?

·       The authors note that participants arrived in the research lab to provide their informed consent to participate in the current research. Were there any breaches in confidentiality such that study personnel knew the participants, and could link their text messages to their identity? I understand that this research received ethics approval from the university IRB; I trust in their review process. However, for transparency and to preempt readers’ concerns, the authors should consider offering greater clarity on these aspects of the study procedures. Was this an exempt review?

·       Did participants download their text messages on their own and in a location of their choosing (e.g., at home) and send them to the research personnel (after considering whether to delete any messages), or did the research personnel copy the text messages themselves when participants arrived in the lab with their phones?

·       Please clarify whether all participants provided informed consent to have the text messages recorded and analyzed, rather than just the partner who provided an iPhone to the research team.

·       Did the authors collect data on relationship length? I understand that all couples had been dating for 6 months or fewer. If the authors collected additional data, providing the mean and standard deviation of relationship length would help to characterize the sample.

·       What was the mean and standard deviation of the number of text messages extracted from each couple? These descriptive statistics can provide additional context for interpreting the study findings and their implications. At what point did the authors reach saturation during the coding process? Did some couples send significantly more text messages than others, and did the number of text messages exchanged between each couple affect the coding process?

 

Results

·       It is unclear how to interpret Figure 1. Is there directionality in the figure (i.e., should there be arrows connecting the themes)? Perhaps a more descriptive caption could clarify the figure in lieu of altering it visually.

·       Did the authors code for gender differences in use of/responses to each of the primary and secondary themes? If not, this could be a direction for future research.

 

Discussion

·       How might participants who volunteered their intimate text message differ from the general population? Does any discrepancy introduce threats to validity?

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review a revised version of the enclosed manuscript. Foremost, the revision addressed my concerns regarding transparency of study procedures. The revision also incorporated additional references to recent research literature, clarified the interpretation of Figure 1, and addressed potential limitations regarding the generalizability of findings.

 

I noticed a minor redundancy that the authors should eliminate. The first paragraph of section 5.1 reads, “On average, couples dated 3.41 months (SD = 1.70).” The second paragraph of section 5.1 repeats this information on line 188.

 

I appreciate the authors’ consideration of reviewer feedback and I thank them for their contribution to the research literature.

Author Response

We have removed the identified redundancy.