Talk about It, Don’t Type about It: How In-Person and Technology-Mediated Sexual Self-Disclosure Relate to Sexual Satisfaction
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study investigates sexual self disclosure both in-person and via typed-technology. I found this to be a largely strong study that makes a clear contribution and also sets a nice foundation for future work. I do have a few suggestions for the authors, particularly focusing on elements of the literature review and methods and ways to make these clearer.
On p. 2 line 56 – Try to make clear that SSD hypothesizing comes from SPT, not that they are necessarily the same thing. I think the way this information is presented could be confusing to a reader unfamiliar with SSD and/or SPT.
p. 2: “Given people's tendency to address sexuality in secure contexts, such as in person at a residence, (Byers & Demmons, 1999), it is plausible that people turn to typed-technology 90 for sexual self-disclosure.” I would recommend adding a line to suggest how typed-technology may be perceived as secure; what existing research suggests feelings of security with typed-technology? You may also return to this in the discussion, given your findings.
In section 1.0, I would encourage the authors to focus more on young adults or otherwise highlight more specific findings for this group; it will help with the development of the first RQ and hypothesis. The way this section is currently written, I wasn’t expecting the research to be focused exclusively on young adults.
I would appreciate greater clarity on participant screening: What are some of the reasons for removing 295 participants, beyond the reasons listed for removing other participants?
Did this study undergo any kind of ethical review? This would be helpful to include. I appreciated the inclusion of mental health resources at the end for participants.
I’m really glad to see the authors encouraged and reminded participants to think about a specific sexual partner--I think that gives this study stronger internal and external validity. I also liked the prompts that individuals responded to about their partners.
Overall, I found the results to be clearly presented and the analyses were appropriate. I was able to clearly follow what the findings were, and this extended to the discussion as well. I think this paper is nearly publication ready, with a few adjustments and edits that will hopefully strengthen it further.
Author Response
Comments 1: On p. 2 line 56 – Try to make clear that SSD hypothesizing comes from SPT, not that they are necessarily the same thing. I think the way this information is presented could be confusing to a reader unfamiliar with SSD and/or SPT.
Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion, we have now clarified that SPT and SSD are not the same theory. This revision can be found on page 2, paragraph 2, lines 56-58.
“Social Penetration Theory (SPT; Altman & Taylor, 1973; Hullman et al., 2022), which explains how communication evolves in interpersonal relationships over time and supports the notion that SSD depth and breadth increase as relationships are maintained over time.”
Comments 2: p. 2: “Given people's tendency to address sexuality in secure contexts, such as in person at a residence, (Byers & Demmons, 1999), it is plausible that people turn to typed-technology 90 for sexual self-disclosure.” I would recommend adding a line to suggest how typed-technology may be perceived as secure; what existing research suggests feelings of security with typed-technology? You may also return to this in the discussion, given your findings.
Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. In lines 86-89, we cited articles that indicate why people feel more secure using typed-technology. We changed our previous statement to clarify how a technology-mediated context may be considered secure based on certain affordances. We also clarified that this is different from in-person contexts, which people may also consider as secure. This revision can be found on page 2-3, paragraph 3, lines 93-98.
“In sum, previous research suggests that typed-technology communication affords young adults characteristics that are not available in-person. These affordances may prompt young adults to turn to typed-technology for SSD. At the same time, previous research also suggests that people tend to engage in SSD in-person, at one’s residence because this context is perceived as secure (Faulkner & Lannutti, 2010).”
We return to this idea in the discussion on page 19, paragraph 2 and add an additional statement on lines 631-633.
“Thus, despite affordances that may lead some people to engage in SSD via typed technology, SSD in-person appears to occur more and is more beneficial.”
Comments 3: In section 1.0, I would encourage the authors to focus more on young adults or otherwise highlight more specific findings for this group; it will help with the development of the first RQ and hypothesis. The way this section is currently written, I wasn’t expecting the research to be focused exclusively on young adults.
Response 3: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. As it was the first section, we wanted to discuss SSD more generally so that readers could first understand the concept and recognize this behaviour as something that people of all ages do. We have now highlighted research focused on young adults to emphasize that our sample is mostly young adults. These changes are reflected on Page 2, paragraph 2, lines 66-69; Page 2-3, paragraph 3, lines 90-93.
Comments 4: I would appreciate greater clarity on participant screening: What are some of the reasons for removing 295 participants, beyond the reasons listed for removing other participants?
Response 4: We have now listed the reasons why these participants were removed. This revision can be found on Page 5, paragraph 1, lines 204-206.
“These participants were removed for completing less than 50% of the survey, responding incorrectly to more than half of the directed questions, or spending less than two seconds responding to each survey item.”
Comments 5: Did this study undergo any kind of ethical review? This would be helpful to include. I appreciated the inclusion of mental health resources at the end for participants.
Response 5: Yes, the study was conducted in accordance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement of the Government of Canada and approved by the University of Ottawa Research Ethics Board (H-10-19-4993, approved 30/10/2019). These Canadian ethical guidelines are consistent with the Declaration of Helsinki.
We have included part of this information on Page 11, paragraph 2, lines 332-333.
“This study was conducted in accordance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement of the Government of Canada and approved by a Canadian University’s Research Ethics Board.”
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a well-written paper that requires a minor revision. The term "type-technology" requires further elaboration in terms of what it stands for and its various forms or formats. If this term relates to electronic discourse, there should be information regarding the qualities of digitally mediated texts (e.g., the use of different semiotic modes to disclose one's SSD), context (e.g., extra-situational contexts that affect the SSD disclosure), and actions/affordances (e.g., synchronicity - asynchronicity that shows particular ways SSD is disclosed within this so-called 'type-technology' context.
Such information and explanation are required to strengthen the discussion of findings and the overall message that the paper aims to convey to the audience.
1. What is the main question addressed by the research?
To what extent cisgender/transgrander (cis/trans) women’s and cis/trans men’s in-person and typed- technology SSD differ in frequency and breadth, and how this relates to sexual rewards, costs, and in turn sexual satisfaction?
2. What parts do you consider original or relevant for the field? What
specific gap in the field does the paper address?
The differences mentioned above.
3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published
material?
Again, the differences mentioned above.
4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the
methodology? What further controls should be considered?
No specific improvement and no further controls are required.
5. Please describe how the conclusions are or are not consistent with the
evidence and arguments presented. Please also indicate if all main questions posed were addressed and by which specific experiments.
The conclusions address ALL the questions and hypotheses through ALL the instruments and measurements used in the study.
6. Are the references appropriate?
Yes.
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures and
quality of the data.
No additional comments.
Author Response
Comments 1: This is a well-written paper that requires a minor revision. The term "type-technology" requires further elaboration in terms of what it stands for and its various forms or formats. If this term relates to electronic discourse, there should be information regarding the qualities of digitally mediated texts (e.g., the use of different semiotic modes to disclose one's SSD), context (e.g., extra-situational contexts that affect the SSD disclosure), and actions/affordances (e.g., synchronicity - asynchronicity that shows particular ways SSD is disclosed within this so-called 'type-technology' context.
Such information and explanation are required to strengthen the discussion of findings and the overall message that the paper aims to convey to the audience.
Response 1: Thank you for this recommendation as we believe it helps emphasize how typed-technology is different from an in-person context. We have clarified the affordances of typed-technology in the introduction page 2 and added an additional statement to highlight these affordances on page 2, paragraph 1, lines 93-96.
“In sum, previous research suggests that typed-technology communication affords young adults characteristics that are not available in-person. These affordances may prompt young adults to turn to typed-technology for SSD.”
We have also provided information about the qualities of typed-technology on Page 2, paragraph 3, lines 71-75.
“Typed-technology refers to one type of technology-mediated communication, where people use words and symbols within text-based applications to communicate with others. Text-based communication includes but is not limited to e-mail, instant messaging, and SMS messages. Typed-technologies are characterized by degrees”
We have also provided more information about contexts that of SSD that may influence how people sexually self-disclose via typed-technology on Page 18, paragraph 3, lines 584-588.
"In other words, additional contexts may determine how people sexually self-disclose via typed-technology such as their immediate environment (e.g., what application is used, whether there are people around them physically; e.g., Karnowksi & Jandura, 2014) and extra-situational factors (e.g., social and cultural influences; e.g., Mutheu, 2024).”
