Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence Victimization: Results From an Online Survey of Australian Adults

Abstract

Online forms of sexual harassment and abuse as experienced by adults represent an emerging yet under-researched set of behaviors, such that very few studies have sought to estimate the extent of the problem. This article presents the results of an online survey of 2,956 Australian adult (aged 18 to 54 years) experiences of technology-facilitated sexual violence (TFSV) victimization. The prevalence of TFSV was analyzed in relation to a 21-item scale developed in accordance with prior conceptual research identifying multiple dimensions of TFSV including digital sexual harassment, image-based sexual abuse, sexual aggression and/or coercion, and, gender and/or sexuality-based harassment (including virtual sexual violence). Results revealed significant differences in lifetime TFSV victimization for younger (18-24) and non-heterosexual identifying adults. Lifetime TFSV victimization for men and women was not significantly different, though women were more likely to report sexual harassment victimization and men were more likely to report victimization through the distribution of non-consensual images, as well as gender and/or sexuality-based harassment. The authors conclude that although women and men report experiencing similar overall prevalence of TFSV victimization, the nature and impacts of those experiences differ in particular gendered ways that reflect broader patterns in both gender relations and “offline” sexual harassment.

Keywords

Internet and abuse sexual harassment stalking

Introduction

The use of digital communication technologies for the facilitation of sexual violence and harassment is an increasingly significant phenomenon in studies of interpersonal violence. While there is a large body of literature on various forms of victimization in cyberspace, such as cyberbullying (e.g., Hinduja & Patchin, 2008), cyberstalking (e.g., Reyns, Henson, & Fisher, 2012; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2003), online harassment (e.g., Finn, 2004; Lindsay, Booth, Messing, & Thaller, 2016), and coercive or non-consensual sexting (e.g., Crofts et al., 2015; Patrick, Heywood, Pitts, & Mitchell, 2015), the vast majority of studies on digital forms of sexual victimization specifically concern children and young people (see, for example, Bossler, Holt, & May, 2012; Crofts et al., 2015; Klettke, Hallford, & Mellor, 2014; Lee & Crofts, 2015; Lounsbury, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2011; Mitchell, Finkelhor, Jones, & Wolak, 2012; Patrick et al., 2015; Wolak, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2007; Ybarra, Mitchell, Wolak, & Finkelhor, 2006). As such, little is known about the nature, scope, prevalence, impacts, and experiences among adult victims of technology-facilitated sexual violence (TFSV). Likewise, and in stark contrast to the established data regarding gendered patterns in physical sexual assault, stalking, and sexual harassment victimization (e.g., Australian Human Rights Commission, 2012; Catalano, 2012; World Health Organization, 2011), there is a significant gap in current empirical research regarding gendered patterns in online sexual victimization, as well as the nature and impact of TFSV across potentially intersecting factors such as gender, age, and sexuality. In light of the well-established serious impacts of sexual violence and harassment on adult victims (see, for example, Jordan, Campbell, & Follingstad, 2010; Mason & Lodrick, 2013; Regehr, Alaggia, Dennis, Pitts, & Saini, 2013), as well as emerging recognition of the gaps in legal responses toward digital forms of sexual violence against adults (Henry & Powell, 2016; Powell, 2010; Powell & Henry, 2016), it is crucial that research examines the extent and nature of adult TFSV victimization to inform policy, practice, and legal reform.

The present research is the first empirical study of the prevalence and nature of TFSV among an Australian adult community sample. In exploring TFSV, this article considers multiple dimensions of non-consensual sexual behaviors toward adult victims, occurring either wholly online or facilitated via other digital communications technologies (Henry & Powell, 2015; Powell, 2010). This concept seeks to recognize that rather than existing in a distinct offline/online dualism, contemporary manifestations of sexual violence are increasingly and variously mediated, facilitated, or extended via the Internet and other digital communications and technologies, including the use of images and social media. Furthermore, rather than referring exclusively to digital violence of a sexual nature, the concept of TFSV encompasses violence and harassment against deliberately constructed “sexed” and “gendered” subjects (Connell, 1987; Kelly, 1987, p. 97). This conceptual framing of TFSV enables an acknowledgment that while women and girls may be overrepresented as victims of much sexual violence, where men and boys are victimized their experience is often, nonetheless, sexed and gendered in particular ways. For example, sexual harassment and abuse directed at men and boys often include denigration on the basis of sexual identity and/or perceived sexuality, as well as masculine gender role conformity (see, for example, Carpenter, 2006; Connell, 1987). This conceptual approach furthermore serves to highlight the existing empirical gaps in relation to emerging forms of TFSV (such as image-based sexual abuses also known as “revenge pornography”) as experienced by adults, as opposed to the more common foci of empirical studies on youth cyberbullying and/or cyberstalking, as well as to identify justice gaps in current legislative and policy responses (Henry & Powell, 2015, 2016; Powell, 2010; Powell & Henry, 2014a, 2016). Accordingly, the purpose of the current study was to explore the prevalence, nature, and impacts of TFSV victimization among adults in the Australian context. Before reporting on the conduct and findings of this study, the following section provides an overview of the emerging empirical literature regarding four key dimensions of TFSV behaviors as identified by the authors’ prior research: (a) digital sexual harassment, (b) image-based sexual abuse, (c) sexual aggression and/or coercion, and (d) gender and/or sexuality-based harassment (including virtual sexual violence).¹ By focusing on these dimensions, the literature reviewed here highlights both the gap in existing research into adults’ experiences of TFSV, as well as providing a context to some of the definitional dilemmas and multiple terminology that characterizes this rapidly emerging field of research.

Prevalence and Nature of TFSV

Digital Sexual Harassment

In offline (and often legal) contexts, sexual harassment can be defined as “unwanted or unwelcome sexual behaviour, which makes a person feel offended, humiliated or intimidated” (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2012, p. 27). Digital sexual harassment then can be understood to refer to unwanted or unwelcome sexual behavior conducted by electronic means such as email, voice and/or video calls, text and/or picture messages, and posts in online contexts (including social media, online discussion forums, and virtual worlds). In the international research literature, there is no agreed-upon definition of digital harassment, with few studies further distinguishing sexual harassment specifically, making comparisons between studies and estimates of prevalence extremely difficult (see, for example, Blumenfeld & Cooper, 2010; Finn, 2004; Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Lindsay & Krysik, 2012). There are, however, a number of terms that are used to refer to digital harassment more generally. For instance, Bennett, Guran, Ramos, and Margolin (2011) use the term electronic aggression; Fenaughty and Harré (2013) electronic harassment; Finn (2004) and Lindsay et al. (2016) online harassment; Thompson and Morrison (2013) technology-based coercive behaviour; Gámez-Guadix, Almendros, Borrajo, and Calvete (2015) online victimization; and Reyns et al. (2012) cybervictimization. Azy Barak (2005) describes digital sexual harassment as “uninvited behaviors that explicitly communicate sexual desires or intentions towards another individual,” thus incorporating unwanted sexual requests, and/or sexually explicit images, comments, emails, or messages, and differentiating sexual harassment from harassment generally (p. 78).

Many of the empirical studies to date on digital sexual harassment have focused on young people (see, for example, Bossler et al., 2012; Wolak h., 2007; Ybarra et al., 2006), although some data exist on the prevalence of online sexual harassment against adults. For instance, in a study conducted by Goodson, McCormick, and Evans (2001), 16% of their sample of undergraduate students (n = 506) said they had felt sexually harassed during chat-room interactions (24% of women and 8% of men). In a study by Staude-Müller, Hansen, and Voss (2012), 68% of their German sample (n = 9,000) aged between 10 and 50 years reported having experienced online sexual harassment in which they included cyberstalking, “flaming” (referring to the hostile or aggressive expression of strong emotions, see Lea et al., 1992), and denigration. In this study, females were exposed more to online sexual harassment, with men more commonly experiencing impersonation (using a false or hacked account to assume a person’s identity, see, for example, Mann, 2009) and flaming. In another study by Baumgartner, Valkenburg, and Peter (2010), they found that in their sample of Dutch adults (n = 1,026), only 5% of men compared with 7% of women had been sexually solicited online in the past 6 months. This is in contrast to the results of a Pew Research Center (2014) survey of U.S. adult Internet users, which found that women are much more likely than men to experience online sexual harassment (25% compared with 13%), and that young women aged between 18 and 24 experience online sexual harassment (25%) “at disproportionately high levels” (p. 3). While these surveys do not always provide a definition of online sexual harassment to their respondents (sometimes asking simply about whether they had experienced “sexual harassment”), it is likely that the figures on overall prevalence are conservative given that victims do not always label their experiences in this way. This is indicated in studies of offline forms of sexual harassment where, according to one study, one in five people (18%) indicated they had not been sexually harassed but then went on to report having experienced behaviors that constituted sexual harassment according to the legal definition (see Australian Human Rights Commission, 2012).

In the research literature, there is furthermore a lack of clarity and definitional overlap in the use of “sexual harassment” and “cyberstalking” in particular. For instance, some studies include instances of social media “stalking” such as via Facebook (see, for example, Lyndon, Bonds-Raacke, & Cratty, 2011), which might be better understood as a form of “relational monitoring” or “partner monitoring” (see, for example, Darvell, Walsh, & White, 2011; Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2014). Similarly some forms of sexual harassment (e.g., unwanted and/or repeated sexual requests) might represent “intrusive pursuit” (Haugaard & Seri, 2004; Sinclair & Frieze, 2005) or “obsessive relational intrusion” (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2003). Danielle Citron (2014), for instance, states that even though there are distinctions between “cyber harassment” and “cyber stalking,” she discusses the two interchangeably “because they are accomplished by similar means and achieve similar ends” (p. 3). However, some scholars prefer to reserve the term cyberstalking to refer more specifically to unwanted, threatening, and/or surveillance behaviors that are repeated and that cause a person to feel fear. This reflects a definition closer to the legal requirement in many jurisdictions. For the purposes of this article, cyberstalking is not explored as a specific dimension of TFSV, though it is notable that some forms of online sexual harassment (such as intrusive pursuit or obsessive relational pursuit referred to above) may be both repeated and cause fear, thereby meeting common legal thresholds for stalking. This is, however, a further dimension of TFSV currently under investigation in the authors’ continuing works in this field.

Image-Based Sexual Abuse

The distribution of nude or sexually explicit images of another person without his or her consent (also known colloquially as “revenge pornography”) has been the subject of very limited empirical research in the scholarly literature to date. In fact, nearly all of the existing empirical research concerns more broadly “sexting” practices among young people (see, for example, Cooper, Quayle, Jonsson, & Svedin, 2016; Lee & Crofts, 2015; Mitchell et al., 2012; Patrick et al., 2015; Spencer, Olson, Schrager, Tanaka, & Belzer, 2015). The term sexting refers to the sending of intimate or sexually explicit text, still images, and videos from mobile to mobile, or from mobile to Internet sites (see, for example, Lee & Crofts, 2015) although it has more commonly become a shorthand for sexual images. Fewer studies have explored non-consensual or coercive sexting and/or “revenge pornography” among the adult population. One exception is a U.S. study by Drouin, Ross, and Tobin (2015). They conducted a survey on a convenience sample of 480 undergraduate students, finding that one in five had been coerced into sexting. They found that while more women than men engaged in consensual but unwanted (or, obligatory) sexting, such “sexting coercion victimization” was common among both men and women, and that these individuals were also more likely to experience traditional forms of intimate partner violence (see also Drouin & Tobin, 2014). In another survey by Gámez-Guadix et al. (2015) of 873 self-selected Spanish adults aged 18 to 60 years (65% of whom were women), they found that approximately two thirds of the sample had engaged in sexting, and there were no differences between men and women in this practice, though sexting was more common among young people and non-heterosexuals. They also found that “the distribution or dissemination by the perpetrator of sexual images or information of the victim against his/her will” (Gámez-Guadix et al., 2015, p. 146) was more common among women, young and middle-aged adults (e.g., 25-35 years), as well as non-heterosexuals (Gámez-Guadix et al., 2015). In another study meanwhile, 16% of adults reported that they had shared a sexually suggestive message or picture of someone without their consent (Thompson & Morrison, 2013; a rate similar to that reported by Drouin et al. (2015) above.

Sexual Aggression and Coercion

Sexual aggression and coercion facilitated through digital technologies can be defined as constituting essentially three forms of behaviors. The first is sexual coercion or “sextortion,” a form of non-physical coercion where a person procures “sexual cooperation by putting some kind of pressure on a victim” (Barak, 2005, p. 80). This may be in the form of blackmail, bribery, or threats such as demanding that the victim engage in either virtual or in-person sex acts, or demanding the release of intimate images or information. The second form of sexual aggression is the use of digital technologies to perpetrate a contact sexual offense, for example, the use of a dating site or dating app to organize meeting up with a victim in person before then sexually assaulting them. Such cases are emerging in legal proceedings and anecdotal reports from sexual assault services (see Powell & Henry, 2016) but are yet to be examined in empirical research. A third concerns instances where technology is used to extend the harm of a sexual assault, such as by taking and/or distributing images of the assault (Powell, 2010). Empirical studies thus far on online predatory sexual behaviors, however, have focused almost exclusively on children and adolescents. This represents a major gap in current research into online adult sexual victimization.

Gender and Sexuality-Based Harassment

Gender-based harassment “involves unwelcome verbal and visual comments and remarks that insult individuals because of their gender . . . [such as] posting pornographic pictures in public or in places where they deliberately insult, telling chauvinistic jokes, and making gender-related degrading remarks” (Barak, 2005, p. 78). Harassment might occur via chat rooms, forums, as well as through email and social media sites. Sexuality-based harassment then can similarly be understood as constituting unwelcome verbal and visual comments and remarks in relation to a person’s actual or perceived sexuality or sexual identity. Like the other dimensions discussed here, there is little empirical research on either gender or sexuality-based harassment. However, some scholars have discussed the nature and potential impacts of gender and/or sexuality-based harassment in online environments (see, for example, Ballard & Welch, 2017; Fox & Tang, 2014; Jane, 2014; Megarry, 2014; Oksanen, Hawdon, Holkeri, Näsi, & Räsänen, 2014), noting its likely effect of creating a hostile and exclusionary space for women, as well as for gender and sexuality diverse groups. In a study by Oksanen et al. (2014) of 723 Finnish Facebook users, they found that 67% had been exposed to hate material online, most of which (68%) was focused on individuals’ sexual orientation, with no significant differences found between women and men, or by age. Meanwhile, U.S. legal scholar Danielle Citron (2014) has noted that in addition to gender harassment targeting women, male victims of online harassment often experience sexualized harassment involving attacks on their gender, sexuality, or masculinity, thus suggesting that men’s experiences of digital harassment may be “gendered” and/or “sexed” in particular ways, albeit different in nature to women’s experiences. Gender and/or sexuality-based harassment can also be understood as encompassing some instances of virtual sexual violence, referring to simulated or graphic representations of sexual assault and/or unwanted sex acts. Though the practice has been described and examined with respect to legal and ethical implications in prior research (see, for example, Dibbell, 1994; Henry & Powell, 2015), no empirical studies examining this phenomenon could be identified at the time of writing.

In summary, the vast majority of empirical studies on different dimensions of TFSV focus on children and adolescents with very few examining victimization experienced by adults. Of the existing studies discussed here, few provide estimates of the prevalence of TFSV victimization or its nature with respect to gender, age, and/or sexuality. Much of the existing research is further limited either due to the size and gender composition of participant samples and/or being focused on a restricted sub-set of sexually harassing or coercive behaviors, many of which have not been clearly defined in this body of literature. Where studies have sought to examine adult experiences, most have used convenience samples of college students, and as such their findings may hold less applicability to community samples of adults. Although prevalence rates are difficult to establish, this empirical body of research does suggest that while both women and men may be victims and perpetrators of online sexual violence and harassment, women and non-heterosexual persons may be more likely to be targeted for some forms of digital harassment and abuse over others, and the impacts may also differ for these groups.

In light of the substantial gap in existing research on adult experiences of digital forms of sexual harassment and abuse, a large mixed-method study was designed to explore and examine the prevalence and nature of, as well as legal responses to, TFSV victimization among Australian adults. This article reports on the initial findings from an online survey of TFSV victimization rates among a large adult community sample.

Method

Research Aims

Given the dearth of empirical research, the authors designed a survey to explore the prevalence, nature, and impacts of four dimensions of TFSV victimization among Australian adults, with specific behaviors of interest identified from conceptual and legal literature as well as the results of previous interview research (see Powell & Henry, 2016). The Tech&Me: Survey of Social Experiences Online (hereafter, Tech&Me) sought to address three core research questions:

Research Question 1: What is the prevalence of TFSV victimization among Australian adults?

Research Question 2: What is the nature of TFSV victimization with respect to specific behaviors experienced, sex and relationship to perpetrators, and key victim demographics of gender, age, and sexuality?

Research Question 3: What are the impacts and actions taken in response to TFSV as reported by self-identified victims?

Recruitment and Participants

The Tech&Me survey was developed utilizing a for-profit online survey software program (Qualtrics) and received University Human Research Ethics Committee approval prior to commencing recruitment, consistent with institutional requirements and The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. The survey was described in recruitment materials, information statements, and the project website as a survey exploring the nature, scope, and impact of positive and negative social experiences online and via other communications technologies such as mobile phones, tablets, and gaming devices. Recruitment materials further acknowledged that the survey would ask questions about participants’ experiences of negative, harassing, and abusive behaviors, including some questions relating to sexually based harms, but did not identify the research as focused on “online sexual violence and harassment,” so as to reduce potential recruitment bias. This is also consistent with other research into sexual violence and harassment that finds victims do not often label their experiences in these ways (see, for example, Australian Human Rights Commission, 2012; Kahn, Jackson, Kully, Badger, & Halvorsen, 2003; Weiss, 2011). The target population was Australian adults aged 18 to 54 years, who were recruited via an online panel provider (Research Now, www.researchnow.com.au). Recruitment invitations were sent to 30,732 individuals meeting the target sample criteria. The response rate (n = 3,963) was approximately 13%, which is not unusual in social sciences survey research in community (as opposed to college) populations (see Riggle, Rostosky, & Reedy, 2005; Shih & Fan, 2008). The final sample, excluding screen-outs (due to age and sex quotas and underage respondents), as well as incomplete responses, resulted in 2,956 individual responses included for analyses. As the sampling method was non-probability and respondents were self-selecting from a population of individuals who have agreed to be contacted for research purposes, the sample is likely to incorporate some representative biases as compared with the general population (Baker et al., 2010; Pasek, 2016). Accordingly, two key strategies were employed to improve the generalizability of the results with respect to the general Australian adult (18 to 54 years) population. First, proportional, interlocking quotas were set for sex and age according to Australian census population estimates as at June 2014. Second, benchmarking questions from established government-funded national surveys on technology use were included, and the results from the current sample were compared, with overall consistent results. For example, results on items such as devices most often used to access the Internet compared favorably between the 2014 results from the Australian Media and Communications Authority (Australian Communications and Media Authority [ACMA], 2015) national survey and overall results from our study, whereby the majority of Australians access the Internet via a mobile phone (ACMA = 76%, compared with 73% in our study), laptop (ACMA = 74%, compared with 76% in our study), or desktop computer (ACMA = 67%, compared with 60% in our study).

The final sample (n = 2,956) comprised 1,481 (50.1%) women, 1,451 (49.1%) men, and 24 who identified as transgender or other non-binary gender identity (0.8%). The majority of respondents identified as heterosexual (n = 2,570, 86.9%), with remaining participants identifying as bisexual (n = 156, 5.3%), gay (n = 80, 2.7%), and lesbian (n = 34, 2.7%), or preferring not to specify. Consistent with the quota-sampling frame, participant ages ranged from 18 to 54 years, with the mean age range falling between 30 and 34 and 35 and 39 years. Almost all participants spoke English at home (n = 2,806, 94.9%), with 18.7% also nominating a language other than English. The highest level of education completed among participants included secondary/high school (n = 923, 31.2%), a tertiary diploma or trade certificate (n = 877, 29.7%), an undergraduate university degree (n = 732, 24.8%), and a postgraduate university degree (n = 386, 13.1%). Almost half of participants were working full-time (n = 1,312, 44.4%), with a further 23.5% (n = 696) working part-time or casually, and 11.8% (n = 348) currently studying.

Measures

Technology use

Six questions about respondents’ use of the Internet and communications technologies were adapted from the ACMA national surveys on Australia’s Internet and mobile market (ACMA, 2012). Five questions asked respondents how they access the Internet, what they primarily use the Internet for, how much time they actively spend online each day, what forms of electronic communication they regularly use, and the kinds of people they regularly connect with online. A sixth question comprised a five-item scale asking respondents to indicate how important their online participation was for a range of social, professional, and study activities on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all important, 5 = extremely important).

Negative online behaviors

Twelve questions about negative online social behaviors experienced by respondents were adapted from the Pew Internet Online Harassment Survey (Pew Research Center, 2014), negative experiences online items from the Digital Abuse Survey (Associated Press & MTV, 2009), as well as two additional items regarding online hate speech (based on race and religion) developed by the researchers. Respondents were asked to indicate how serious they thought each of the behaviors were on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all serious, 5 = extremely serious), as well as whether they had personally experienced the behaviors in their lifetime.

TFSV victimization scale

A dichotomous scale was developed by the researchers to explore four conceptually identified dimensions of TFSV: (a) digital sexual harassment, (b) image-based sexual abuse, (c) sexual aggression and/or coercion, and (d) gender and/or sexuality-based hate speech (Table 1). Peer review of the resulting scale items was provided by three scholars external to the research team, each with established expertise in public health, stalking, and sexual violence survey research, who provided comment on the instrument’s face validity, resulting in minor changes to item wording. The final 21-item Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence Victimization (TFSV-V) scale had high internal consistency in the present sample (α = .93), and all items appeared to be worthy of retention, with alphas for all items ranging from .928 to .933.

Table 1.

Lifetime Prevalence of TFSV Victimization (Australia).

	Lifetime
	Total n (%)	Females n (%)	Males n (%)	χ	φ
Digital sexual harassment
Sexually harassed you	563 (20.0)	316 (21.8)	247 (17.7)	7.586*	.05
Unwanted sexually explicit images, comments, emails, or text messages	829 (29.0)	421 (29.1)	420 (28.8)	0.032	.01
Partner has checked up on location/activities multiple times a day	671 (23.3)	334 (22.9)	337 (23.6)	0.203	.01
Repeated and/or unwanted sexual requests online or via email or text message	610 (21.3)	314 (21.6)	296 (20.8)	0.271	.01
Partner gained access to your emails or other online accounts without permission	459 (16.0)	215 (14.8)	244 (17.3)	3.310	.03
Publicly posted online an offensive sexual comment about you	387 (13.6)	181 (12.5)	206 (14.5)	2.451	.03
Posted personal details online saying you are available to have sex	242 (8.6)	108 (7.5)	134 (9.5)	3.701	.03
Image-based sexual abuse
Nude or semi-nude image taken without permission	305 (10.7)	132 (9.1)	173 (12.2)	7.341*	.05
Nude or semi-nude image posted online/sent onto others without permission	262 (9.3)	107 (7.4)	155 (11.0)	11.058*	.06
Nude or semi-nude image threat to post online/send onto others	273 (9.6)	188 (8.1)	155 (10.9)	6.394	.04
Sexual aggression and/or coercion
Image/video of an unwanted sexual experience taken	239 (8.5)	100 (6.9)	139 (9.8)	7.803*	.05
Image/video of an unwanted sexual experience posted online/sent onto others	244 (8.6)	104 (7.2)	140 (9.8)	6.655	.04
Image/video of an unwanted sexual experience threat to post online/send onto others	246 (8.7)	106 (7.3)	140 (9.8)	5.781	.04
Unwanted sexual experience with someone met online	315 (11.1)	147 (10.1)	168 (11.8)	2.181	.02
Unwanted sexual experience with someone met dating site/app	297 (10.5)	135 (9.3)	162 (11.4)	3.336	.03
Gender/sexuality-based harassment
Gender-based offensive and/or degrading messages, comments, or other content	547 (19.5)	259 (17.9)	288 (20.6)	3.304	.03
Sexuality or sexual identity-based offensive and/or degrading messages, comments, or other content	460 (16.4)	156 (10.8)	304 (21.5)	61.650*	.15
Gender-based offensive and/or degrading messages, comments, or other content in virtual world	380 (13.3)	182 (12.5)	198 (13.9)	1.306	.02
Sexually violent threats	293 (10.4)	130 (9.0)	163 (11.5)	4.973	.04
Described or visually represented unwanted sexual act against your avatar or game character	298 (10.6)	126 (8.7)	172 (12.1)	8.963*	.06
Described or visually represented unwanted sexual act against you using an online/email/messages	373 (13.1)	173 (11.9)	200 (14.1)	3.118	.03
Experienced at least one of the above	1819 (62.3)	919 (62.1)	900 (62.0)

Note. TFSV = technology-facilitated sexual violence.

p < .01.

Most recent TFSV experience

An open-ended question was asked of all respondents who reported experiencing at least one form of TFSV, inviting them to describe the experience in their own words.

Nature and impact of TFSV experience

Seven questions about respondents’ most recent experience of TFSV were adapted from the Pew Internet Online Harassment Survey (Pew Research Center, 2014), including when the experience occurred, by which online environments or devices, the victim’s relationship to the perpetrator/s involved, the sex of the perpetrator/s involved, how upsetting the experience was, any actions taken as a result, and the effectiveness of those actions.

Data Analysis

Descriptive univariate analyses examined the lifetime experience of one or more TFSV behaviors as well as overall victimization, by respondent demographic variables. Inferential analyses further examined whether rates of victimization varied significantly by key demographic variables. For these, chi-square tests were performed on lifetime TFSV prevalence by independent demographic variables of gender, age, and sexuality (as identified from the literature). Specifically, chi-square analyses tested the null hypotheses of no association between experiences of various forms of TFSV and gender, no association between experiences of various forms of TFSV and sexuality, and no association between any lifetime experience of TFSV and age. While respondents originally reported age according to eight categories (18-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54), these were collapsed into four categories for the purposes of contingency table analyses (18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54). Post hoc tests, using squared standardized Pearson residuals analyses (see Agresti, 2007; Beasley & Schumacker, 1995) and a Bonferroni corrected alpha, were conducted to determine which age categories accounted for any statistically significant result. Finally, given the potential confounding influence of technology use by age (whereby it might be anticipated that younger age groups spend more time online and therefore might be more frequently exposed to TFSV behaviors), further corrected chi-square analyses tested the null hypothesis that controlling for technology use (measured by respondents’ reported average time spent online each day), there is no relationship between age and any lifetime TFSV victimization. These were again followed by post hoc residuals analyses using a Bonferroni corrected alpha to reduce the likelihood of a Type I error. Additional post hoc comparisons were not performed due to small sample sizes in some sub-groups and to avoid over-interpreting between-group differences.

Results

Lifetime Prevalence of TFSV Victimization

In total, 62.3% of the respondents (n = 1,841) reported having experienced at least one of the TFSV behaviors in their lifetime (Table 1). The most commonly reported forms of TFSV experienced were digital sexual harassment, including receiving unwanted sexually explicit images, comments, emails, or text messages (29%, n = 829); receiving repeated and/or unwanted sexual requests online or via email or text message (21.3%, n = 610); and sexual harassment (20%, n = 563). Also common were intimate partner monitoring behaviors with 16% (n = 459) of respondents reporting a current or former partner had accessed their emails or other online accounts without permission and 23.3% (n = 671) reporting a current or former partner had checked up on them multiple times a day either online or via mobile phone, to find out where they were, who they were with, or what they were doing. Experiences of gender and sexuality-based harassment were also relatively common among survey respondents, with 1 in 5 (19.5%, n = 547) reporting that someone had posted offensive and/or degrading messages, comments, or other content about their gender, and 16.4% (n = 460) reporting such comments or content about their sexuality or sexual identity. Approximately, 1 in 10 respondents reported experiences relating to image-based sexual abuse with 10.7% (n = 305) reporting that someone had taken a nude or semi-nude image of them without their permission, 9.3% (n = 262) reporting that someone had posted such images online or sent them onto others, and 9.6% (n = 273) reporting that someone has threatened to post nude or semi-nude images of them online or send them onto others. More than 1 in 10 respondents also reported experiencing sexual aggression and/or coercion, including having had an unwanted sexual experience with someone they first met online (11.1%, n = 315) or via a dating app (10.5%, n = 297), with a similar proportion reporting forms of virtual sexual violence such as comments, emails, or text messages threatening sexual assault (10.4%, n = 293) or visually representing an unwanted sexual act (13.1%, n = 373).

Characteristics of TFSV Victims

Chi-square tests of independence on individual scale items (Table 1) indicated that females were significantly more likely than males to report experiencing sexual harassment: χ²(1, n = 563) = 7.586, p < .01. Males meanwhile were significantly more likely than females to report experiencing nude or semi-nude images taken without permission, χ²(1, n = 305) = 7.341, p < .01, nude or semi-nude images sent onto others without permission, χ²(1, n = 262) = 11.058, p < .01, images taken of an unwanted sexual experience, χ²(1, n = 239) = 7.803, p < .01, offensive comments about their sexuality or sexual identity, χ²(1, n = 460) = 61.650, p < .01, and visual representations of unwanted sex acts in a virtual world, χ²(1, n = 298) = 8.963, p < .01. Each of these relationships is extremely weak with phi coefficients less than 0.1.

Independence testing on the individual scale items further indicated that non-heterosexual identifying respondents² were significantly more likely to experience three of the following TFSV items: offensive messages about their sexuality or sexual identity, χ²(1, n = 460) = 183.663, p < .01, offensive messages about their gender, χ²(1, n = 547) = 102.391, p < .01, and sexual harassment, χ²(1, n = 563) = 94.041, p < .01. Phi coefficients suggest that each of these relationships is moderately strong (φ = .25, .19, and .18, respectively).

Initial chi-square analyses further supported an association between respondents’ lifetime experience of any TFSV victimization (dependent variable [DV]) and age group (independent variable [IV]: 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54), χ²(3, n = 1,819) = 59.5, p < .001. Examination of the cell frequencies showed that about 72% (482 out of 671) of 18- to 24-year-olds had experienced any TFSV in their lifetime, as compared with about 66% (533 out of 812) of 25- to 34-year–olds, 57% (420 out of 738) of 35- to 44-year-olds, and 54% (384 out of 711) of 45- to 54-year-olds (Table 2). Further post hoc residuals analyses tested for which age groups contributed most to the overall significant result for age (Bonferroni corrected alpha, p < .006). Results indicated that respondents aged 18 to 24 years were significantly more likely to report any TFSV victimization in their lifetime, χ²(3, n = 482) = 35.52, p < .006, than other age groups, while those aged 45 to 54 years were significantly less likely to report any lifetime victimization, χ²(3, n = 384) = 25.70, p < .006. There were no significant independent differences in any lifetime TFSV victimization for respondents aged 25 to 34 and 35 to 44 years.

Table 2.

Frequency of Any Lifetime Experience of TFSV by Technology Use and Age.

Average Daily Hours Spent Actively Online	Age Group, n (%) Experienced any TFSV
Average Daily Hours Spent Actively Online	18-24	25-34	35-44	45-54	Total
1 hr or less	13 (72.2)	24 (55.8)	36 (48.6)	57 (53.8)	130 (53.9)
2 to 6 hr	273 (69.5)†	325 (62.9)	295 (55.1)	271 (52.7)	1,164 (59.4)
7 to 10 hr	128 (75.7)	124 (71.3)	59 (65.6)	40 (66.7)	351 (71.2)
11 to 15 hr	45 (71.4)	34 (75.6)	17 (73.9)	13 (56.5)	109 (70.8)
16 hr or more	23 (78.8)	26 (78.8)	13 (81.3)	3 (37.7)	65 (76.5)
Total	482 (71.8)^	533 (65.6)	420 (56.9)	384 (54.0)#	1,819 (62.3)

Note. TFSV = technology-facilitated sexual violence.

†

p < .001, χ²(3, n = 273) = 20.61. ^p < .006, χ²(3, n = 482) = 35.52. #p < .006, χ²(3, n = 384) = 25.70.

Additional chi-square and post hoc residuals analyses of any lifetime experience of TFSV by age controlled for technology use. Technology use was measured by respondents’ reported average time spent online each day across five categorical responses: 1 hr or less, 2 to 6 hr, 7 to 10 hr, 11 to 15 hr, and 16 hr or more. The overall result was significant, χ²(3, n = 482) = 59.514, p < .001, though squared standardized Pearson residuals analyses revealed that it was only the 18 to 24 years age group, who reported spending a daily average of 2 to 6 hr online that contributed to the significant result, χ²(3, n = 273) = 20.61, p < .001. Thus, the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between age and any lifetime TFSV victimization, when controlling for technology use, could not be unreservedly rejected. However, notably, the sample sizes in age sub-groups spending 1 hr or less, and 16 hr or more, online were very small (Table 2), precluding reliable analyses for these sub-groups.

Gendered Nature of TFSV Victimization

Although the overall lifetime prevalence of TFSV was not found to differ significantly by gender, there were some significant differences in the gendered nature of TFSV. These were determined by asking respondents who reported experiencing at least one form of TFSV victimization further questions about their most recent experience in relation to sex of the perpetrator, relationship to the perpetrator, distress caused, actions taken, and outcomes of any actions. Respondents were asked about the sex of the person or persons involved in perpetrating their most recent experience of TFSV (Table 3). Overall, perpetrators of TFSV behaviors were twice as likely to be male than female. Half of respondents (50.4%) reported that the perpetrator/s were male/s only, 21.9% reported that the perpetrator/s were female/s only, and 15.2% reported that the perpetrator/s comprised a mixed group of both males and females. Females were significantly more likely than males to report TFSV perpetration from males only (F = 67.6%, M = 32.9%, p < .001) and significantly less likely to report perpetrators were females only (F = 8.9%, M = 35.5%, p < .001). Female victims were more than twice as likely to have been targeted by a male perpetrator than were male victims. Males, meanwhile, were similarly likely to report experiencing victimization from either males or females as perpetrators of TFSV behaviors. Overall, respondents were most likely to report that the person perpetrating the TFSV behavior was a stranger (28.2%), followed by a friend they knew face-to-face (21.8%), or that they did not know the identity of the person (16.6%). However, males were significantly more likely than females to report that the perpetrator of TFSV was a friend they knew online only (M = 16.7%, F = 9.0%, p < .001), a family member (M = 11.5%, F = 4.9%, p < .001), or a current or past work colleague (M = 9.8%, F = 6.3%, p < .05).

Table 3.

Sex of Perpetrator—Differences Between Males and Females.

	Sex of Respondent
Sex of Perpetrator	Total n (%)	Female n (%)	Male n (%)	χ²	φ
Males only	633 (50.4)	426 (67.6)	207 (32.9)	151.684*	.35
Females only	279 (21.9)	56 (8.9)	223 (35.5)	128.760*	.32
Both males and females	189 (15.2)	78 (12.4)	111 (17.6)	6.841	.07

p < .01.

Overall, one in five (20.0%) of respondents reported the TFSV experience as not at all upsetting (Table 4). A third (33.4%) reported it was somewhat upsetting, with almost half (46.6%) reporting the experience as moderately, very, or extremely upsetting (Table 3). Female respondents (56.1%) were significantly more likely than males (36.6%) to report the TFSV experience as moderately upsetting or more, χ²(1, n = 584) = 48.229, p < .01, with phi correlation coefficient suggesting the relationship is moderately strong (0.20). Chi-square analyses revealed no significant differences rating how upsetting their most recent TFSV experience was for heterosexual/non-heterosexual identifying respondents, nor by age group.

Table 4.

How Upsetting the TFSV Experience Was—Differences Between Males and Females.

	Total n (%)	Females n (%)	Males n (%)	χ²	φ
Not at all upsetting	255 (20.0)	82 (13.0)	171 (27.1)	38.822*	.18
Somewhat upsetting	426 (33.4)	194 (30.8)	229 (36.3)	4.194	.06
Moderately upsetting	302 (23.7)	172 (27.3)	125 (19.8)	9.928*	.09
Very upsetting	182 (14.3)	108 (17.2)	70 (11.1)	9.588*	.09
Extremely upsetting	109 (8.6)	73 (11.6)	36 (5.7)	13.878*	.12

Note. TFSV = technology-facilitated sexual violence.

p < .01.

Finally, respondents were asked when their most recent TFSV experience occurred, any actions taken in response to the experience, and the effectiveness of those actions. Overall, 13.1% of respondents reported that their most recent experience of TFSV was still occurring now, 36.5% said it occurred within the last 12 months, and 50.4% said it occurred more than 12 months ago. Actions taken in response to the TFSV experience are reported in Table 5 below. Just over half of all respondents reported that they ignored the behavior. Females were significantly more likely than males to report that they told the person to stop, χ²(1, n = 482) = 7.623, p < .01), changed their online details or profile settings, χ²(1, n = 253) = 9.843, p < .01, and/or left the site or turned off their device, χ²(1, n = 259) = 5.358, p < .05. A majority of respondents, both males and females, reported that the action they took was effective in improving the situation (54.5%), with 21.1% reporting that their action taken was not effective, and 24.4% reported “I don’t know.”

Table 5.

Actions Taken in Response to TFSV—Differences Between Males and Females.

	Total n (%)	Females n (%)	Males n %	χ²	φ
Ignored the behavior	689 (54.1)	327 (52.0)	353 (55.9)	2.080	.03
Told the person to stop	482 (37.8)	268 (42.6)	208 (33.0)	7.623*	.05
Left the site or turned off device	259 (20.3)	147 (23.4)	109 (17.3)	5.358**	.04
Changed online details/profile settings	253 (19.9)	150 (23.8)	100 (15.8)	9.843*	.06
Made a complaint	191 (15.0)	97 (15.4)	91 (14.4)	0.094	.01
Reported to police	94 (7.4)	42 (6.7)	50 (7.9)	0.897	.02

Note. Multi-response question. TFSV = technology-facilitated sexual violence.

p < .01. **p > .05.

Discussion

The present study found that TFSV and harassment victimization is highly prevalent among Australian adults (aged 18 to 54 years) surveyed. These results represent a unique contribution to the existing literature by estimating the extent, nature, and impacts of TFSV as experienced by adult victims. Consistent with many previous studies examining online harassment generally (e.g., Baumgartner et al., 2010; Bennett et al., 2011; Pew Research Center, 2014), as well as online sexual harassment and intrusional pursuit (e.g., Haugaard & Seri, 2004; Sinclair & Frieze, 2005; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2003), the findings described here found that, overall, women and men were similarly likely to report experiencing any TFSV victimization in their lifetime. Men were however significantly more likely to report experience of five of the 21-TFSV scale items in particular, namely, nude or semi-nude images taken without permission, nude or semi-nude images sent onto others without permission, images taken of an unwanted sexual experience, offensive comments about their sexuality or sexual identity, and visual representations of unwanted sex acts in a virtual world although, notably, the effect sizes for these analyses were very weak. In the open-ended question, men were also more likely to describe their recent experiences of harassment or abuse as receiving “spam” emails as well as pornographic advertising, as compared with women who typically described receiving unsolicited personal sexual requests and explicit images (such as “dick pics”). Women were also significantly more likely than men to report experiencing sexual harassment specifically. This suggests that unwanted sexual experiences facilitated by online and digital communications differ for men and women, despite the finding that they both experience similar overall proportions of TFSV behaviors.

Non-heterosexual identifying respondents were significantly more likely than heterosexual identifying respondents to report experiencing online sexual harassment, as well as both gender and sexuality-based harassment. This is perhaps unsurprising in light of previous research finding that sexuality-based harassment in particular constitutes a large proportion of young adults’ exposure to online hate (Oksanen et al., 2014). Finally, young adults aged 18 to 24 years were significantly more likely than older age groups (35-44, 45-54) to report any lifetime experience of TFSV victimization. This finding is relatively consistent with overall trends in sexual harassment and sexual violence victimization in offline contexts in which young people are routinely overrepresented as victims (e.g., Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012). However, when controlling for technology use, the result only remained significant for young people aged 18 to 24 years who reported spending an average 2 to 6 hr online each day.

It is notable that women were significantly more likely than men to report their experience as moderately to extremely upsetting. Unfortunately, the survey did not ask respondents about the sex of the perpetrator or how upsetting their experience was for each individual TFSV scale item. As such, it is not possible from the data available to gain further insight into male and female experiences of the impacts of key TFSV victimization items that did differ significantly in prevalence by gender. Nonetheless, women’s reported experience of online sexual violence and harassment as moderately to extremely upsetting may in turn reflect their differential status in society relative to men. For example, as noted by Lindsay et al. (2016), for women who have experienced past violence (such as sexual violence, intimate partner violence, or offline harassment), online sexual violence and harassment may cause additional distress. In addition, for those women who have not personally experienced violence in the so-called “offline” world, digital forms of harassment and abuse may, nonetheless, cause them to “feel vulnerable in a different way than men due to the history of violence against women in the larger social context” (Lindsay et al., 2016, p. 16). Moreover, the impacts of some TFSV behaviors may be more adverse for women due to the sexual double standards that continue to exist regarding female and male sexuality and sexual expression (see, for example, England & Bearak, 2014; Reid, Elliott, & Webber, 2011; Rudman, Fetterolf, & Sanchez, 2013). For instance, research has suggested that the impacts of so-called “revenge pornography” for women particularly include shame, humiliation, and reputational damage, which in turn has been associated with relational breakdown, loss of employment, and community isolation (Bates, 2015).

Male respondents meanwhile indicated a range of experiences of non-consensual images, gender and/or sexuality-based harassment, and comments or representations of sexual violence that merit further consideration. Indeed, the findings reported here suggest that gender and sexuality-based TFSV against males, including some forms of online harassment and the sharing of images without consent, is a significant social phenomenon. Furthermore, some scholars have described online “rape threats” and sexually aggressive vitriol (or “e-bile,” see Jane, 2014) as so common as to have become par for the course, an observation supported somewhat by the findings here that, generally speaking, men were “not at all” or only “somewhat” upset by their most recent experience of TFSV. Nonetheless, men’s experiences of digital forms of particularly gender and sexuality-based harassment may carry as yet relatively unexplored meanings and significance in online interactions. The survey items reported here did not elaborate on the precise context of each TFSV experience; thus, it is unclear the extent to which men’s self-reported victimization based on gender represents sexist and/or misandrist harassment directed at them as men, or harassment they encountered that attacked their masculinity or male identity as compared with women. Given the findings that men were similarly likely to experience TFSV from males, females, or mixed groups of male and female perpetrators (as compared with women who were significantly more likely to report male perpetration of TFSV), it appears that a substantial proportion of the gender harassment men experience comes from other men. Related gender harassment items including virtual sexual violence, which male respondents also experienced relatively prevalently, may likewise reflect similar patterns. This is not to undermine the significance of men’s experiences of gender or sexuality-based harassment in digital contexts. Rather, it serves to highlight the potential backdrop of gender and sexuality-based aggression that occurs between men, as well as that directed by men toward women.

Study Limitations and Future Research

The present study has some limitations that have to be taken into consideration. Foremost, as one of the first empirical studies of TFSV, the survey was necessarily exploratory in nature, with many of the specific behaviors of interest not having been the subject of survey research previously. As such, some of the items developed for this study may require further refinement and testing with subsequent diverse populations. Second, the results are based on an opt-in online panel sample, and thus the findings are not unreservedly generalizable to the general Australian community. Nonetheless, certain measures including quota sampling (based on Australian census data for age and sex) and the inclusion of comparative benchmarking questions from major national surveys (such as those regarding technology use) suggest that a cautious interpretation of the findings as holding relevance to the general Australian adult community is possible. Third, while the survey included demographic questions allowing respondents to identify diverse sexual and gender-identity characteristics, numbers reporting in these categories were small, precluding confident analyses of difference in TFSV experiences for non-heterosexual and non-binary gender groups.

Finally, the 21-TFSV items were constructed to be both inclusive and value-neutral in relation to sexually based harmful behaviors, allowing respondents to more subjectively report on their experiences. However, there are limitations that may be associated with this particular conceptually informed approach. For example, the survey did not include “caused fear” as a feature of some questions, which might have led to a conflation of digital harassment and cyberstalking experiences. In a similar manner, survey items on non-consensual images did not include an indication of the severity of the image-based violation. For example, a semi-nude image might include an image in swimwear while at the beach, the circulation of which to others might have a very different impact to an image that is sexually explicit (e.g., an image of a person’s genitals or of a person engaged in a sex act). Likewise, males might have reported shirtless images in response to this item, which may carry a different social meaning to topless images of women. Unfortunately, survey items did not explore further the context in which nude or semi-nude images were shared without permission, for example, whether the images were shared by a partner or former partner, family member, friend, acquaintance, or person/s unknown; whether they were shared with malicious intent; and/or whether the images were accompanied by personal or identifying information to shame, humiliate, or solicit others to harass the victim. While sharing any nude or semi-nude image without permission of the person depicted can be considered a harmful behavior, the context surrounding the image itself and the circumstances in which it is shared can increase the severity of the harm and the impact on the victim. This is an important consideration for future research into seeking to understand the prevalence and nature of the harm of non-consensual imagery.

In consideration of the limitations discussed above, future research on TFSV victimization should consider incorporating impact elements (such as fear for one’s safety), and severity elements (such as sexually explicit images, or images that made a person feel violated) in the items surveyed. This would provide more nuance in understandings of the harmfulness of different TFSV behaviors. Also, while it was not the intention of this study to consider any relationship between TFSV behaviors and cyberstalking, it would appear that further research investigating TFSV behaviors that may either constitute or occur within stalking contexts would be relevant to understanding the severity of different behaviors. Importantly, it is also potentially relevant to ask about a broader range of affectual impacts of TFSV than “causes fear,” for example, emotional or psychological distress, shame, reputational damage, and/or humiliation. A further important consideration for future research is to attempt to recruit adequate representation of sexuality and gender-diverse groups, so as to further explore the differential prevalence, nature, and impacts of TFSV for these populations. Finally, while the current study addresses a clear gap in current research focused on TFSV victimization, even fewer studies exist that investigate the perpetration of multiple dimensions of sexual violence and harassment against adults in digital contexts. There is scope then to refine the current TFSV victimization scale and then consider how these items might be adapted to future research into TFSV perpetration.

Conclusion

To date, little research has examined digital sexual harassment and other forms of online sexual victimization of adults. In particular, few studies have focused on multiple dimensions of TFSV and sought to estimate the prevalence and nature of these emerging harms among adult populations. The results presented here, based on a sample of Australian adults, find that TFSV victimization is common. Overall, the data presented here are consistent with key findings within the emerging body of literature on digital forms of harassment and abuse. In short, while lifetime prevalence of any TFSV victimization is similar for males and females, the experiences of such abuses are sexed and gendered in particular ways. Women surveyed report significantly higher rates of digital sexual harassment, while men report higher rates of other online victimization, including nude or semi-nude images taken or sent onto others without permission, images taken of an unwanted sexual experience, offensive comments about their sexuality or sexual identity, and visual representations of unwanted sex acts in a virtual world although these findings in relation to men’s experiences in particular warrant further investigation due to the weak effect sizes observed. Overall, the study suggests that further research is warranted to understand better the extent of both women’s and men’s experiences of these particular sexual, sexuality, and gender-based harms. Indeed, much scholarly attention has been focused on the nature of cultural support and/or tolerance for sexual violence (often referred to as “rape culture,” see Powell & Henry, 2014b), and these findings suggest that men’s experiences of digital sexual, gender, and sexuality-based harassment may serve to further elucidate the contribution of online settings to such cultural practices. Furthermore, while to date little has been known about the nature and impacts of TFSV on adult victims, this study suggests, similar to previous studies examining digital harassment generally, that women are significantly more likely to report experiencing negative impacts as a result of victimization. Respondents’ experiences of TFSV also suggest that perpetration may be gendered, with women significantly more likely than men to experience victimization from a male perpetrator. These findings indicate that although overall rates of TFSV may be similar for both men and women, these experiences, nonetheless, differ in particular gendered ways. Future studies into TFSV experiences among adults should explore the specific contexts and impacts of digital sexual harassment and seek to further differentiate between unwanted online behaviors and those behaviors that cause individuals to experience various forms of distress, humiliation, and/or fear. Although the estimates of the extent of TFSV presented here do not capture the myriad of factors that might influence victimization rates, they provide some indication of the prevalence and nature of this emerging social problem, which may be vital for advocacy and development of policy, practice, and legal reform proposals as well as the conduct of much-needed future research.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Australian Research Council with a Discovery Projects Grant [DP130103094].

Notes

Author Biographies

Anastasia Powell is a senior lecturer in justice and legal studies at RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia. Her research explores the intersections of gender-based violence, technology, justice, and digital culture. She has published widely in the cross-disciplinary fields of sexual and domestic violence, criminal justice, crime policy, and technology, including numerous refereed articles as well as her books: Sex, Power and Consent: Youth Culture and the Unwritten Rules (Cambridge University Press, 2010); Preventing Sexual Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Overcoming a Rape Culture, co-edited with Nicola Henry (Palgrave, 2014); Rape Justice: Beyond the Criminal Law, co-edited with Nicola Henry and Asher Flynn (Palgrave, 2015); and Sex, Violence and Justice in the Digital Era, co-authored with Nicola Henry (Palgrave, in press). She was chief investigator on an Australian Research Council Discovery Project examining technology-facilitated sexual violence (2013 to 2015).

Nicola Henry is a senior lecturer in crime, justice and legal studies at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. Her research focuses on justice responses to sexual violence in international and domestic spaces, and she has published widely in this field including her books War and Rape: Law, Memory and Justice (Routledge, 2011); Preventing Sexual Violence: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Overcoming a Rape Culture, co-edited with Anastasia Powell (Palgrave, 2014); Rape Justice: Beyond the Criminal Law, co-edited with Anastasia Powell and Asher Flynn (Palgrave, 2015); and Sex, Violence and Justice in the Digital Era, co-authored with Anastasia Powell (Palgrave, in press). She was chief Investigator on an Australian Research Council project on technology-facilitated sexual violence (2013 to 2015).

References

Agresti

(2007). An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.

Associated Press, & MTV (2009). Digital abuse study. Retrieved from http://www.athinline.org

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Personal Safety Survey. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2012). Communications report 2011–12 series: Report 2—Australia’s progress in the digital economy. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian Communications and Media Authority. (2015). Communications report 2014-15. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2012). Working without fear: Results of the Sexual Harassment National Telephone Survey 2012. Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission.

Baker

Blumberg

S. J.

Brick

J. M.

Couper

M. P.

Courtright

Dennis

J. M.

Zahs

. (2010). Research synthesis AAPOR report on online panels. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 711-781.

Ballard

M. E.

Welch

K. M.

(2017). Virtual warfare: Cyberbullying and cyber-victimization in MMOG play. Games and Culture, 12, 466-491.

Barak

(2005). Sexual harassment on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 77-92.

10.

Bates

S. L.

(2015). “Stripped”: An analysis of revenge porn victims’ lives after victimization (Doctoral dissertation). Arts & Social Sciences, School of Criminology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

11.

Baumgartner

S. E.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2010). Unwanted online sexual solicitation and risky sexual online behavior across the lifespan. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 439-447.

12.

Beasley

T. M.

Schumacker

R. E.

(1995). Multiple regression approach to analyzing contingency tables: Post hoc and planned comparison procedures. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 79-93.

13.

Bennett

D. C.

Guran

E. L.

Ramos

M. C.

Margolin

(2011). College students’ electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships: Anticipated distress and associations with risky behaviors. Violence and Victims, 26, 410-429.

14.

Blumenfeld

W. J.

Cooper

R. M.

(2010). LGBT and allied youth responses to cyberbullying: Policy implications. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(1), 114-133.

15.

Bossler

A. M.

Holt

T. J.

May

D. C

. (2012). Predicting online harassment victimization among a juvenile population. Youth & Society, 44, 500-523.

16.

Carpenter

R. C.

(2006). Recognizing gender-based violence against civilian men and boys in conflict situations. Security Dialogue, 37, 83-103.

17.

Catalano

(2012). Stalking victims in the United States–Revised. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

18.

Citron

D. K.

(2014). Hate crimes in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

19.

Connell

R. W.

(1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

20.

Cooper

Quayle

Jonsson

Svedin

C. G.

(2016). Adolescents and self-taken sexual images: A review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 706-716.

21.

Crofts

Lee

McGovern

Milivojevic

(2015). Sexting and young people. New York, NY: Springer.

22.

Darvell

M. J.

Walsh

S. P.

White

K. M.

(2011). Facebook tells me so: Applying the theory of planned behavior to understand partner-monitoring behavior on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 717-722.

23.

Dibbell

(1994). Rape in cyberspace or how an evil clown, a Haitian trickster spirit, two wizards, and a cast of dozens turned a database into a society. Annual Survey of American Law, 3, 471-490.

24.

Drouin

Tobin

(2014). Unwanted but consensual sexting among young adults: Relations with attachment and sexual motivations. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 412-418.

25.

Drouin

Ross

Tobin

(2015). Sexting: A new, digital vehicle for intimate partner aggression? Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 197-204.

26.

England

Bearak

(2014). The sexual double standard and gender differences in attitudes toward casual sex among U.S. university students. Demographic Research, 30, 1327-1338.

27.

Fenaughty

Harré

(2013). Factors associated with distressing electronic harassment and cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 803-811.

28.

Finn

(2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 468-483.

29.

Fox

Tang

W. Y.

(2014). Sexism in online video games: The role of conformity to masculine norms and social dominance orientation. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 314-320.

30.

Gámez-Guadix

Almendros

Borrajo

Calvete

(2015). Prevalence and association of sexting and online sexual victimization among Spanish adults. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 12, 145-154.

31.

Goodson

McCormick

Evans

(2001). Searching for sexually explicit materials on the Internet: An exploratory study of college students’ behavior and attitudes. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30, 101-118.

32.

Haugaard

J. J.

Seri

L. G.

(2004). Stalking and other forms of intrusive contact among adolescents and young adults from the perspective of the person initiating the intrusive contact. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 37-54.

33.

Henry

Powell

(2016). Sexual violence in the digital age: the scope and limits of criminal law. Social & Legal Studies, 25(4), 397-418.

34.

Henry

Powell

(2015). Embodied harms gender, shame, and technology-facilitated sexual violence. Violence against women, 21(6), 758-779.

35.

Hinduja

Patchin

J. W.

(2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129-156.

36.

Jane

E. A.

(2014). “Your a Ugly, Whorish, Slut” Understanding e-bile. Feminist Media Studies, 14, 531-546.

37.

Jordan

C. E.

Campbell

Follingstad

(2010). Violence and women’s mental health: The impact of physical, sexual, and psychological aggression. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 607-628.

38.

Kahn

A. S.

Jackson

Kully

Badger

Halvorsen

(2003). Calling it rape: Differences in experiences of women who do or do not label their sexual assault as rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 27, 233-242.

39.

Kelly

(1987). The continuum of sexual violence. In Maynard

Hanmer

(Eds.), Women, violence and social control (pp. 46-60). New York, NY: Springer.

40.

Klettke

Hallford

D. J.

Mellor

D. J.

(2014). Sexting prevalence and correlates: A systematic literature review. Clinical Psychology Review, 34, 44-53.

41.

Lea

O’Shea

Fung

Spears

(1992). “Flaming” in computer-mediated communications: Observations, explanations, implications. In Lea

(Ed.), Contexts of computer-mediated communication (pp. 89-112). New York, NY: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

42.

Lee

Crofts

(2015). Gender, pressure, coercion and pleasure: Untangling motivations for sexting between young people. British Journal of Criminology, 55, 454-473.

43.

Lindsay

Booth

J. M.

Messing

J. T.

Thaller

(2016). Experiences of online harassment among emerging adults: Emotional reactions and the mediating role of fear. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 3174-3195. doi: 10.1177/0886260515584344

44.

Lindsay

Krysik

(2012). Online harassment among college students: A replication incorporating new Internet trends. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 703-719.

45.

Lounsbury

Mitchell

K. J.

Finkelhor

(2011). The true prevalence of “sexting.” Durham, NH: Crimes Against Children Research Center.

46.

Lyndon

Bonds-Raacke

Cratty

A. D.

(2011). College students’ Facebook stalking of ex-partners. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 711-716.

47.

Mann

B. L.

(2009). Social networking websites—A concatenation of impersonation, denigration, sexual aggressive solicitation, cyber-bullying or happy slapping videos. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 17, 252-267.

48.

Mason

Lodrick

(2013). Psychological consequences of sexual assault. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 27, 27-37.

49.

Megarry

(2014). Online incivility or sexual harassment? Conceptualising women’s experiences in the digital age. Women’s Studies International Forum, 47, 46-55.

50.

Mitchell

K. J.

Finkelhor

Jones

L. M.

Wolak

(2012). Prevalence and characteristics of youth sexting: A national study. Pediatrics, 129, 13-20.

51.

Muise

Christofides

Desmarais

(2014). “Creeping” or just information seeking? Gender differences in partner monitoring in response to jealousy on Facebook. Personal Relationships, 21, 35-50.

52.

Oksanen

Hawdon

Holkeri

Näsi

Räsänen

(2014). Exposure to online hate among young social media users. Sociological Studies of Children & Youth: Vol. 18. Soul of society: A focus on the lives of children & youth (pp. 253-273). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing Group.

53.

Pasek

(2016). When will nonprobability surveys mirror probability surveys? Considering types of inference and weighting strategies as criteria for correspondence. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 28(2), 269-291. Advance online publication.

54.

Patrick

Heywood

Pitts

M. K.

Mitchell

(2015). Demographic and behavioural correlates of six sexting behaviours among Australian secondary school students. Sexual Health, 12, 480-487.

55.

Pew Research Center. (2014). Online harassment. Washington, DC: U.S. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

56.

Powell

(2010). Configuring consent: Emerging technologies, unauthorized sexual images and sexual assault. Australian & New Zealand journal of criminology, 43(1), 76-90.

57.

Powell

Henry

(2014a). Blurred lines? Responding to ‘sexting’and gender-based violence among young people. Children Australia, 39(2), 119-124.

58.

Powell

Henry

(2014b). Framing Sexual Violence Prevention. In Henry

Powell

(Eds.), Preventing Sexual Violence (pp. 1-21). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

59.

Powell

Henry

(2016). Policing technology-facilitated sexual violence against adult victims: police and service sector perspectives. Policing and Society, 1-17.

60.

Regehr

Alaggia

Dennis

Pitts

Saini

(2013). Interventions to reduce distress in adult victims of rape and sexual violence: A systematic review. Research on Social Work Practice, 23, 257-265.

61.

Reid

J. A.

Elliott

Webber

G. R.

(2011). Casual hookups to formal dates refining the boundaries of the sexual double standard. Gender & Society, 25, 545-568.

62.

Reyns

B. W.

Henson

Fisher

B. S.

(2012). Stalking in the twilight zone: Extent of cyberstalking victimization and offending among college students. Deviant Behavior, 33, 1-25.

63.

Riggle

E. D.

Rostosky

S. S.

Reedy

C. S.

(2005). Online surveys for BGLT research: Issues and techniques. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(2), 1-21.

64.

Rudman

L. A.

Fetterolf

J. C.

Sanchez

D. T.

(2013). What motivates the sexual double standard? More support for male versus female control theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 250-263.

65.

Shih

T. H.

Fan

(2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20, 249-271.

66.

Sinclair

H. C.

Frieze

I. H.

(2005). When courtship persistence becomes intrusive pursuit: Comparing rejecter and pursuer perspectives of unrequited attraction. Sex Roles, 52, 839-852.

67.

Spencer

Olson

Schrager

Tanaka

Belzer

(2015). 40. Sexting and Adolescents: A descriptive study of sexting and youth in an urban population. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(2), S22.

68.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Cupach

W. R.

(2003). What mad pursuit? Obsessive relational intrusion and stalking related phenomena. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8(4), 345-375.

69.

Staude-Müller

Hansen

Voss

(2012). How stressful is online victimization? Effects of victim’s personality and properties of the incident. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 260-274.

70.

Thompson

M. P.

Morrison

D. J.

(2013). Prospective predictors of technology-based sexual coercion by college males. Psychology of Violence, 3, 233-246.

71.

Weiss

K. G.

(2011). Neutralizing sexual victimization: A typology of victims’ non-reporting accounts. Theoretical Criminology, 15, 445-467.

72.

Wolak

Mitchell

K. J.

Finkelhor

(2007). Does online harassment constitute bullying? An exploration of online harassment by known peers and online-only contacts. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6), S51-S58.

73.

World Health Organization. (2011). Violence against women—Intimate partner and sexual violence against women. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.

74.

Ybarra

M. L.

Mitchell

K. J.

Wolak

Finkelhor

(2006). Examining characteristics and associated distress related to Internet harassment: Findings from the Second Youth Internet Safety Survey. Pediatrics, 118, e1169-e1177.