. 2021 Sep 23;20(2):465–478. doi: 10.1007/s13178-021-00645-z

Table 2.

Bivariate Pearson’s correlations and descriptive statistics on study variables

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	M	SD
1. Biological sex	1														--	--
2. Age	−.05^*	1													24.17	2.75
3. Sexual orientation	.01	−.07^**	1												--	--
4. Dating relationship	.12^***	.14^***	−.06^*	1											--	--
5. Long-distance relationship	.04	−.07^**	−.05^*	.71^***	1										--	--
6. Pandemic-related stress	.15^***	.02	−.03	.07^**	.11^***	1									3.50	1.00
7. COPE Social support	.23^***	−.02	.08^***	.08^***	.08^**	.14^***	1								2.40	0.65
8. COPE Positive attitudes	.01	.01	0.02	.03	.01	−.10^***	.16^***	1							2.55	0.47
9. COPE Avoidance strategies	.03	−.04	.12^***	−.04	−.03	.17^***	.20^***	.07^**	1						1.59	0.36
10. COPE Problem solving	−.07^**	.02	.01	.03	.02	−.07^**	.33^***	.44^***	− .03	1					2.31	0.53
11. COPE Turning to religion	.19^***	.05^*	−.08^**	.05^*	.03	.07^**	.07^**	−.05^*	−.15^***	−.05^*	1				2.39	0.52
12. Experimental sexting	.01	−.11^***	.12^***	.22^***	.34^***	.05	.10^***	.01	.06^**	.05^*	−.10^***	1			1.53	0.92
13. Risky sexting^a	−.19^***	−.03	.17^***	−.07^**	−.02	.02	.01	.02	.14^***	−.02	−.10^***	.30^***	1		1.10	0.34
14. Emotional sexting^a	−.09^***	−.04	.11^***	−.03	.06^**	.09^***	.06^***	−.01	.15^***	−.04	−.11^***	.40^***	.50^***	1	1.25	0.69

Biological sex was coded as 0 = boys; 1 = girls. Sexual orientation was coded as 0 = heterosexual; 1 = LGB+. Dating relationship was coded as 0 = no; 1 = yes. Long-distance relationship was coded as 0 = no; 1 = yes

^aRisky and emotional sexting were log-transformed before performing the analysis, but non -transformed mean scores are reported for improving clarity

^*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001