Cyber Sexual Harassment: A Summary of Current Measures and Implications for Future Research

Abstract

Researchers have described cyber sexual harassment (CSH) as a range of sexually aggressive or harassing images or texts delivered through the use of digital mediums. CSH occurs in high proportions particularly among young populations, but the prevalence varies substantially across studies, largely due to variation in measures used and types of behaviors assessed. We describe the prevalence of CSH by types of CSH assessed, identify the measures used in previous research, and provide recommendations for future assessment. Future research is needed to ensure consistent and comprehensive measures that accurately capture CSH to assess prevalence and consequences.

Keywords

cyber sexual harassment adolescents sexual harassment

Sexual harassment has social implications as a form of gender discrimination and sexual aggression; however, it also poses a serious public health concern for adolescent girls in the United States and worldwide, particularly affecting girls’ mental health and health behaviors such as substance use (Bucchianeri, Eisenberg, Wall, Piran, & Neumark-Sztainer, 2014; Fairchild & Rudman, 2008; Gruber & Fineran, 2008; Madan & Nalla, 2016). Electronic communication technology, such as social networking sites (e.g., Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat) and text messaging, is increasingly a new mechanism through which sexual harassment and coercion is experienced among girls (Henry & Powell, 2015). Technology, including social media and smart phones, has been changing the communication landscape for young people, particularly individuals between the ages of 14 and 34 years (Henry & Powell, 2015). In the United States, about 95% of 12- to 17-year olds use the Internet and 74% have mobile devices (Livingstone & Smith, 2014). These types of cyber technologies facilitate social connections, but also present new ways in which girls experience sexual harassment. Researchers have described cyber sexual harassment (CSH) as a range of sexually aggressive or harassing images or texts delivered through the use of digital mediums (Henry & Powell, 2018; Madigan, Ly, Rash, Van Ouytsel, & Temple, 2018). CSH is unique compared to in-person experiences of sexual harassment in that offenders can more easily target victims across geographic barriers, are able to reach multiple victims at once, can be more difficult to regulate, and can potentially retain their anonymity (Henry & Powell, 2015). Studies indicate that adolescents are at high risk for CSH, with girls and LGBTQ youth being at even greater risk (Henry & Powell, 2018).

Less is clear how pervasive CSH is among adolescent populations. There is substantial variation in prevalence of CSH across studies, from 1-59%, likely due to differences in populations sampled but also due to variation in the range of CSH behaviors being assessed through current measures (see Table 1). More comprehensive measures of ever experiencing CSH conducted with older samples, such as those seen in online polls, have yielded larger estimates, whereas measures assessing past-year CSH and those conducted with younger adolescents and males have reported smaller prevalence estimates. Further complicating the study of CSH, there are various terms used to describe CSH. The use of consistent and comprehensive terminology and measures will be key to assessing the prevalence and consequences of this relatively new public health threat.

Table 1.

Types of Cyber Sexual Harassment: Examples of Items Used to Assess CSH Types and Prevalence Reported.

Types of CSH	CSH items used across studies	Studies using CSH items (in this column, we provide examples of studies that have used each of these CSH items)	Sample	Prevalence of CSH using items listed^a
General items about sexual harassment experienced online	In the past 12 months, how often have you been sexually harassed (via online interaction)	Ybarra, Mitchell, Palmer, and Reisner (2015)	N = 5,542 Adolescents 13-18 years old from Teen Health and Technology Study in the United States	5.4% total
	Which, if any, of the following have happened to you, personally, online? Been sexually harassed (ever)	Pew Research Center (2014)	N = 2,849 A nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults (18 years of age or older) living in households. Analyses were restricted to respondents who self-identify as Internet users who participate in the panel via monthly self-administered Web surveys.	6% total, 4% among males 7% among females 13% among males ages 18-24, 25% among females ages 18-24
		Pew Research Center (2017)	N = 4,248; A nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults (18 years of age or older) recruited from landline and cellphone RDD surveys. Panelists participate via monthly self-administered web surveys. Panelists who do not have Internet access are provided with a tablet and wireless Internet connection.	6% total, 4% among males 8% among females 6% among males ages 18-24 years 20% among females ages 18-24 years
Unwanted sexual solicitation Major categories include: - Unwanted requests to talk online about sex or for personal sexual information (some measures include pressuring to do these things) - Unwanted requests for sexual photos or to perform sexually over a webcam - Unwanted requests to have sex in-person	Did anyone on the Internet ever ask you sexual questions about yourself or try to get you to talk online about sex when you did not want to talk about those things? In the past year, did anyone on the Internet ever try to get you to talk about sex when you did not want to? In the past year, did anyone on the Internet ask you for sexual information about yourself when you did not want to answer such questions? I mean very personal questions, like what your body looks like or sexual things you have done. In the past year, did anyone on the Internet ask you to do something sexual that you did not want to?	Marret and Choo (2017)	N = 1,364 Adolescents 15-16 years old from public secondary schools in Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia	Reported unwanted requests to talk online about sex, unwanted requests for sexual information, or unwanted requests to do something sexual (past 12 months): 19.1% total, 17.2% male, 20.8% female
		Chang et al. (2016)	N = 2,315High school 10th and 11th-grade students from Taiwan	Reported unwanted requests to talk online about sex or requests to do something sexual online that respondent did not want to do:Of the students who reported no unwanted online sexual solicitation victimization experience in the 10th grade,13.0% had experienced unwanted online sexual solicitation victimization by the 11th grade (incident rate for past 12 months)15.9% for males10.2% for females
		Mitchell, Jones, Finkelhor, and Wolak (2013)	N = 1,501 in 2000, 1,500 in 2005, and 1,560 in 2010Data are from the Youth Internet Safety Surveys (YISS); three cross-sectional, nationally representative telephone surveys of 3,561 youth Internet users in the United States, ages 10-17 years	Reported unwanted requests to talk online about sex (past year)6% (2000),3% (2005),1% (2010)Reported unwanted requests for sexual information (past year):9% (2000),6% (2005),4% (2010)Reported unwanted requests to do something sexual (past year)5% (2000),4% (2005),4% (2010)
		Mitchell, Finkelhor, Wolak, Ybarra, and Turner (2011)	N = 2,051Adolescents 10-17 years old from the National Survey of Children’s Exposure to Violence in the United States	Reported unwanted requests to talk online about sex3% past year5% ever
		Ybarra, Mitchell, and Korchmaros (2011)	N = 1,588 (2006), N = 1,206 (2007), N = 1,159 (2008)Adolescents 10-15 years old from Growing Up with Media Survey in the United States	Reported unwanted requests to talk online about sex, unwanted requests for sexual information, or unwanted requests to do something sexual (past year):14.5% (2006)15.1% (2007)17.6% (2008)
		Mitchell, Wolak, and Finkelhor (2008)	N = 1,500 Adolescents 10-17 years old from U.S. Youth Internet Safety Surveys in the United States	Proportions of CSH were reported by whether participants blogged or reported interacting with others online (CSH in past year):6% (no blogging/no online interaction)11% (blogging/no online interaction)25% (no blogging/online interaction)33% (blogging/online interaction)
		Ybarra and Mitchell (2008)	N = 1,588Adolescents 10-15 years old from Growing Up with Media Survey in the United States	Reported unwanted requests to talk online about sex (past year)11.2%Reported unwanted requests for sexual information (past year):7.2%Reported unwanted requests to do something sexual (past year)11.4%
	Someone has pressured me repeatedly to talk online about sex (past year)	Montiel, Carbonell, and Pereda (2016)	N = 3,897 (1,836 males and 2,049 females)Adolescents 12-17 years old recruited from 39 secondary schools in eastern Spain	Past year:12.2% total,9.6% male,14.6% female
	Repeated and/or unwanted sexual requests online or via email or text message	Powell and Henry (2016)	N = 2,956Adults 18-54 years old from Australia recruited through an online panel provider, Research Now	21.3%
	Thinking about your peers, how often have the following things happened to you since the school year started via social networks or via mobile phone without you wanting it to happen? Answer by thinking about those things that have happened to you.Hinted or asked that you send photos of a naked part of your body	Sanchez, Munoz-Fernandez, and Vega-Gea (2017)	N = 601Adolescents 12-16 years old from secondary schools in Seville and Cordoba	23% total (past year)
	Youth who reported experiencing unwanted online sexual solicitation in the past year were asked the following: Did this person ever ask you to send them a sexual picture of yourself?“Unwanted sexual solicitations” were defined as requests to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk or to give personal sexual information that was unwanted or, whether wanted or not, made by an adult.”	Mitchell, Finkelhor, and Wolak (2007)	N = 1,500Adolescents 10-17 years old from Youth Internet Safety Survey (2005) in the United States, a nationally representative telephone survey	4% total (past year)
	Someone has threatened me to pose for sexy pictures in front of the webcam	Montiel et al. (2016)	N = 3,897Adolescents 12-17 years old from 354 randomly selected secondary schools in eastern Spain	Past year:6.7% total6.3% male7% female
	Sexually solicited by an unknown person (online)	Helweg-Larsen, Schütt, and Larsen (2012)	N = 3,707Adolescents 14-17 years old from Danish public and continuation schools	Past year:5.4% boys16.2% girls
	Unwanted solicitations for sex	Olumide, Adams, and Amodu (2015)	N = 653Students from secondary schools who owned a cell phone and/or had access to the Internet for at least 6 months prior to the study, which was conducted in rural and urban areas in Oyo state by multi-stage sampling.	6.8% total
Receiving unwanted sexual messages/photos	Made sexual comments, jokes, or gestures toward you on your social networking profile or via WhatsApp	Sanchez et al. (2017)	N = 601Adolescents 12-16 years old from secondary schools in Seville and Cordoba	33.1% total(no stratification by sex was provided)
	Your partner has sent you sexual photos or naked photos of himself/herself knowing that you didn’t want this. Shown, given or left you sexual pictures, photographs or remarks	Sanchez et al. (2017)	N = 601Adolescents 12-16 years old from secondary schools in Seville and Cordoba	Past 6 months:14% total (no stratification by sex was provided)
	Someone sending you explicit images that you did not ask for?	Pew Research Center (2017)	N = 4,165U.S. adults above the age of 18 years recruited from landline and cellphone RDD surveys	35% total (ever)
	Has anyone sent you a naked picture without you asking?	Choi, Van Ouytsel, and Temple (2016)	N = 450 femalesAdolescents with an average age of 19.02 from public high schools in southeast Texas	13.4% (past year, all females)
	Someone has sent me, without me requesting them, images or videos of people showing their private parts (ever)	Montiel et al. (2016)	N = 3,897Adolescents 12- 17 years old from 354 randomly selected secondary schools in eastern Spain	Past year:24.4% total,24.4% male,23.4% female
	Unwanted sexually explicit images, comments, emails, or text messages	Powell and Henry (2016)	N = 2,956Adults 18-54 years old from Australia recruited through an online panel provider, Research Now	29% (ever)
	In the past year, did you ever open a message or a link in a message that showed you actual pictures of naked people or of people having sex that you did not want?	Jones, Mitchell, and Finkelhor (2011)	N = 1,500Adolescents 10-17 years old from Youth Internet Safety Surveys in the United States	Past year:25% (2000),34% (2005),23% (2010)
	Getting unwanted pornographic messages or pictures (ever)	Finn (2004)	N = 339Undergraduate students from University of New Hampshire	58.7% of the sample reported to have received a message via email18% of the sample received a message over IM
Having sexual messages/images shared without permission	Someone taking and/or sharing sexual pictures or videos of you without your permission	Stop Street Harassment (2018)	N = 2,000Adults above the age of 18 years	Ever:5% male10% female
	Someone sharing explicit images of you without your consent	Pew Research Center (2017)	N = 4,165U.S. adults above the age of 18 years old recruited from landline and cellphone RDD surveys	7% total (ever)
	Publicly posted online an offensive sexual comment about you	Powell and Henry (2016)	N = 2,956Adults 18-54 years old from Australia recruited through an online panel provider, Research Now	13.6% (ever)
	Nude or semi-nude image posted online/sent onto others without permission	Powell and Henry (2016)	N = 2,956Adults 18-54 years old from Australia recruited through an online panel provider, Research Now	9.3% (ever)
	Image/video of an unwanted sexual experience posted online/sent onto others	Powell and Henry (2016)	N = 2,956Adults 18-54 years old from Australia recruited through an online panel provider, Research Now	8.6% (ever)
	In the past 12 months, found that others disseminated sexual pictures/films of them electronically	Priebe and Svedin (2012)	N = 3,432High school adolescents from Sweden	Past 12 months:1.7%
	Inappropriate picture(s) placed on the Internet against your will	Helweg-Larsen et al. (2012)	N = 3,707Adolescents 14-17 years old from public and continuation schools in Denmark	Past year:0.8% boys2.3% girls

Note. CSH = cyber sexual harassment; IM = instant messaging; RDD = random-digit-dial.

Some prevalence estimates combine several items of CSH, as indicated in the table.

Thus, the objective of this research note is to summarize the CSH literature to date to better understand what types of CSH are being measured and reported. Specifically, we will describe the prevalence of CSH by types of CSH assessed, identify the measures used in previous research, and provide recommendations for future assessment.

Measures Used for Each Type of CSH and Implications for Future Research

In Table 1, we outline the types of CSH that are most commonly identified in studies, examples of measures used, as well as the prevalence reported, with the goal of supporting clarity on how best to measure CSH in future research. The types of CSH most commonly reported in studies have included the following:

Unwanted sexual solicitation

Receiving unwanted sexual messages/images

Having sexual texts/images shared without permission

Unwanted Sexual Solicitation

Sexual solicitation involves requests to engage in sexual behaviors that are unwanted by the recipient (e.g., Helweg-Larsen, Schütt, & Larsen, 2012; Marret & Choo, 2017; Mitchell, Wolak, & Finkelhor, 2008). Items pertaining to CSH include unwanted solicitation to exchange sexual messages/images, to have sex in-person, and to perform sexually over a webcam (Table 1). Unwanted requests to talk about sex and unwanted requests for sexual information/images were measured in most studies (e.g., Chang et al., 2016; Mitchell, Jones, Finkelhor, & Wolak, 2013; Ybarra, Espelage, & Mitchell, 2007). Researchers used questions such as “In the past year, did anyone on the Internet ever try to get you to talk about sex when you did not want to?” and “In the past year, did anyone on the Internet ask you for sexual information about yourself when you did not want to answer such questions? I mean very personal questions, like what your body looks like or sexual things you have done?” Furthermore, questions to measure unwanted solicitation to have sex in-person, send sexual photos, or pose sexually via a webcam included “In the past year, did anyone on the Internet ask you to do something sexual that you did not want to?,” “[unwanted] hinting or asking you to send photos of a naked part of your body,” and if “someone has threatened you to pose for sexy pictures in front of the webcam.” However, the most commonly used measures asked about unwanted requests to talk online about sex, unwanted requests for sexual information, and unwanted requests to do something sexual. Prevalence estimates have varied given that some studies reported a combined prevalence (usually 20% or less) of these and a few reported the prevalence of each of these separately over the past year. (See Table 1 for examples of sexual solicitation and prevalence estimates.) Studies that assessed unwanted requests to send naked/sexual photos had especially high proportions (more than 20%) reporting these incidents; however, it is difficult to compare across different contexts and age groups.

While insightful, the most frequently used questions (unwanted requests to talk online about sex, unwanted requests for sexual information, and unwanted requests to do something sexual) may not adequately capture unwanted requests for or being pressured to send sexual messages or images, yet such scenarios have been reported in high proportions (Choi, Van Ouytsel, & Temple, 2016; Lippman & Campbell, 2014; Montiel, Carbonell, & Pereda, 2016). Nonconsensual sexting, which can include being pressured to send sexual images as well as to have sexual images shared without consent, has been identified in several studies on sexting (Drouin, Ross, & Tobin, 2015; Madigan et al., 2018; Reed et al., 2019; Walrave, Heirman, & Hallam, 2014). Based on these existing studies, CSH measures also need to specifically capture the prevalence of experiencing pressure or coercion to send sexual messages and/or images, as well as how often sexting occurs as a result of being pressured or coerced. While multiple studies have reported poor health outcomes related to sexting, particularly among adolescent girls, these consequences may be largely a result of high proportions reporting being pressured into sexting (Choi et al., 2016; Reed et al., 2019; Van Ouytsel, Walrave, Ponnet, & Heirman, 2015; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2014). Additional aspects that should be further explored to inform future measures include the perpetrator type and the contexts of sexual solicitations, such as on which digital platforms these occurrences are happening most often (e.g., texting, online messaging, video chat) and the ways in which images/videos may be shared and create vulnerability. In summary, most studies used items to assess unwanted requests to talk online about sex, unwanted requests for sexual information, and unwanted requests to do something sexual; however, items are also needed to specifically assess pressure or coercion to send sexual messages and/or images (Table 2).

Table 2.

Brief Summary of Recommendations for Measuring Cyber Sexual Harassment in Future Research.

Types of CSH	Summary/needs for future measurement
Unwanted sexual solicitation:- unwanted requests or pressure/coercion to send sexual messages/images- unwanted requests to talk about sex or for sexual information- unwanted requests to do something sexual online or in-person	Most studies used items to assess unwanted requests to talk online about sex, unwanted requests for sexual information, and unwanted requests to do something sexual.Items are also needed to specifically assess pressure or coercion to send sexual messages and/or images, including experiencing pressure/coercion to sext as well as whether sexting occurred as a result of being pressured/coerce.
Receiving unwanted sexual messages/images	Items need to assess and clarify the following:- context (private versus group message)- whether or not sender is sharing a personal sexual photo (e.g., “dick pic”);- consent (whether recipient consented to receive sexual messages/images) and/or whether receipt of the sexual message was unwanted.
Having sexual messages/images shared without permission	Future research should assess incidents when sexual messages/images are shared by others and specify whether this was without permission.

Note. CSH = cyber sexual harassment.

Receiving Unwanted Sexual Texts or Images (“Unwanted Sexts”)

Another examined area of CSH involves assessing the receipt of unwanted sexts (e.g., Finn, 2004; Jones, Mitchell, & Finkelhor, 2011; Ybarra, Mitchell, & Korchmaros, 2011; Table 1). This measure encompasses events such as getting unwanted sexually explicit pictures, emails, text messages, or comments. An example of questions asked include “Has anyone sent you a naked picture without you asking?” As with sexual solicitation, the prevalence ranges substantially based on how this question is asked and especially whether the question implied that the message was sent privately versus a group email as well as whether it was a sexual photo taken of the sender or some other pornographic material, for example (see Table 1).

Again, given the high prevalence of all of these scenarios reported, this area warrants attention. In developing improved measures for the future, items need to be explicit in terms of whether the sexual image/message was sent as part of a mass email versus a personal message, as well as whether the sexual images were of the sender (versus something found online), as these may differ in terms of the sender’s intent and impact on the respondent. In addition, items also need to be better operationally defined to focus on communication that is unwanted to clarify the coercive nature of these behaviors. To summarize, future measures are needed to better assess context (private versus group message), content (e.g., whether or not sender is sharing a personal sexual photo), and consent, as sharing personal images with mutual consent may be a normal part of a sexual relationship (Table 2). These distinctions will allow researchers to better identify the scenarios that have a negative impact on recipients. In addition, like all CSH measures, the types of relationships between the recipient and sender (e.g., intimate or dating partner, friend, someone met online) as well as the varied digital platforms used will also be important to assess.

Sexual Texts/Images Shared Without Sender’s Permission (Also Known as Nonconsensual Sexting and “Revenge Porn”)

Another type of CSH involves disseminating sexual comments or pictures to the public or to other people without the sender’s approval (e.g., Helweg-Larsen et al., 2012; Jones et al., 2011; Priebe & Svedin, 2012; Table 1). An example of a question to measure this includes having a “nude or semi-nude image posted online/sent to others without permission.” Another examples is “Someone sharing explicit images of you without your consent.” Technology makes this behavior have a high potential for negative impact. Lifetime prevalence was usually assessed (versus past year) and most estimates were just below 10%.

Notably, few CSH studies have assessed this, and among those that did, some lacked specific assessment regarding whether the photos were shared without permission/consent. For example, questions that ask about whether sexual photos were shared by others need to detail whether this was done without the sender’s approval. In most online platforms, there is an expectation that anything posted publicly can be shared by others and usually remains under control (e.g., can be deleted) by the person who posted the content initially. As electronic communications evolve, the distinction between “public” and “private” communications requires careful delineation. Inaccurate assessment could conflate and confuse sharing of sexual images from CSH, impeding recognition of the coercive and abusive nature of CSH. Thus, in summary, future research should use measures to assess incidents when sexual messages/images are shared by others without permission/consent (Table 2).

Summary and Next Steps

Table 1 illustrates the wide range of CSH prevalence estimates, indicating that CSH is occurring in high proportions, but also warranting the need for consistent and comprehensive measures. While many studies included two to three of the above CSH types, only a minority of studies captured incidents of receiving unwanted sexual messages/images or when sexual messages/images are shared without permission, despite that these types of scenarios were prevalent (e.g., Chang et al., 2016; Lwin, Li, & Ang, 2012; Montiel et al., 2016). Furthermore, while multiple measures captured unwanted requests to talk about sex or for sexual information, more work is needed that specifically asks about incidents of being pressured or coerced to send sexual messages/images as well as to assess the proportion of sexual messages/images that are sent as a result of feeling pressured or coerced. Future research may also be needed to assess specific scenarios of cyber sexual solicitation, including requests for sexual webcam interactions and in-person sexual engagement, which was measured less frequently. Important to note for future research and measurement development is that some of these forms of cyber sexual solicitation may have implications for girls’ risk of sexual victimization off-line. Furthermore, the perpetrator type and platforms (e.g., video chat, texting, online messaging) in which the various types of CSH incidents are experienced across the population is largely unknown, but will be important in designing intervention approaches.

While decades of research has measured in-person experiences of sexual harassment, CSH is a new and emerging threat, often involving different scenarios and perpetrators. This relatively new research on CSH may not only highlight similarities between in-person and CSH but also identify unique aspects of each of these.

In summary, we identified the need for CSH items to include (a) receiving unwanted sexual messages/images, (b) having sexual messages/images shared without permission, and (c) unwanted sexual solicitation, which includes unwanted requests or pressure/coercion to send sexual messages/images, unwanted requests to talk about sex or for sexual information, and unwanted requests to do something sexual online or in-person. As part of studying CSH types and prevalence, it will be important for future research on sexting to distinguish scenarios that involve coercive or abusive sexting, including sharing sext messages without permission of the sender as well as the use of coercion to solicit sexual messages/images from others. Given the high proportion of these scenarios occurring, previous findings highlighting the relation between sexting and poor health outcomes may be due, in part, to the high proportion of sexting that is nonconsensual. The use of clear, operationally defined scenarios and behaviors are imperative to ensure the individual understands the question being asked and all the CSH behaviors it entails. Like other forms of sexual harassment and violence, CSH measures need to be sensitive to norms that promote sexual exploitation disproportionately among certain subgroups (e.g., as a result of gender or sexuality) and consider how stigma may influence CSH reporting. Finally, future work is needed to assess the prevalence of CSH perpetration and victimization, as well as the identification of perpetrators most commonly involved by CSH type.

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: The preparation of this manuscript was funded by a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (PI: Raj, Anita).

ORCID iD

Anita Raj

Author Biographies

Elizabeth Reed, ScD, is associate professor at San Diego State University School of Public Health and affiliated with the Center on Gender Equity and Health at the University of California, San Diego. Her research focuses on social and economic determinants of gender-based violence and its effects on sexual/reproductive health among women and girls.

Alice Wong is a graduate student at San Diego State University School of Public Health.

Anita Raj, PhD, is a Tata Chancellor professor of Medicine and the Director of UC San Diego’s Center on Gender Equity and Health in the Department of Medicine. She is also a Professor of Education Studies in the Division of Social Sciences. Trained as a developmental psychologist, Dr. Raj’s research includes epidemiologic and qualitative assessment of gendered, social, and cultural vulnerabilities for reproductive, maternal, neonatal, child, and adolescent health (RMNCH+A) concerns across national settings.

References

Bucchianeri

M. M.

Eisenberg

M. E.

Wall

M. M.

Piran

Neumark-Sztainer

(2014). Multiple types of harassment: Associations with emotional well-being and unhealthy behaviors in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54, 724-729. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2013.10.205

Chang

Chiu

Miao

Chen

Lee

Chiang

(2016). Predictors of unwanted exposure to online pornography and online sexual solicitation of youth. Journal of Health Psychology, 21, 1107-1118.

Choi

Van Ouytsel

Temple

J. R.

(2016). Association between sexting and sexual coercion among female adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 53, 164-168.

Drouin

Ross

Tobin

(2015). Sexting: A new, digital vehicle for intimate partner aggression? Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 197-204. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.04.001.

Fairchild

Rudman

L. A.

(2008). Everyday stranger harassment and women’s objectification. Social Justice Research, 21, 338-357. doi:10.1007/s11211-008-0073-0

Finn

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

Gruber

J. E.

Fineran

(2008). Comparing the impact of bullying and sexual harassment victimization on the mental and physical health of adolescents. Sex Roles, 59(1-2), 1-13. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9431-5

Helweg-Larsen

Schütt

Larsen

(2012). Predictors and protective factors for adolescent Internet victimization: Results from a 2008 nationwide Danish youth survey. Acta Paediatrica, 101, 533-539.

Henry

Powell

(2015). Embodied harms: Gender, shame, and technology-facilitated sexual violence. Violence Against Women, 21, 758-779.

10.

Henry

Powell

(2018). Technology-facilitated sexual violence: A literature review of empirical research. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 19, 195-208.

11.

Jones

Mitchell

Finkelhor

(2011). Trends in youth internet victimization: Findings from three Youth Internet Safety Surveys 2000–2010. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 179-186.

12.

Lippman

J. L.

Campbell

S. W.

(2014). Damned if you do, damned if you don’t . . . if you’re a girl: Relational and normative contexts of adolescent sexting in the United States. Journal of Children and Media, 8, 371-386.

13.

Livingstone

Smith

(2014). Annual Research Review: Harms experienced by child users of online and mobile technologies: The nature, prevalence and management of sexual and aggressive risks in the digital age. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55, 635-654.

14.

Lwin

Ang

, (2012). Stop bugging me: An examination of adolescents’ protection behavior against online harassment. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 31-41.

15.

Madan

Nalla

M. K.

(2016). Sexual harassment in public spaces. International Criminal Justice Review, 26, 80-97. doi:10.1177/1057567716639093

16.

Madigan

Rash

Van Ouytsel

Temple

(2018). Prevalence of multiple forms of sexting behavior among youth. JAMA Pediatrics, 172, 327-335. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5314

17.

Marret

Choo

W. Y.

(2017). Factors associated with online victimization among Malaysian adolescents who use social networking sites: A cross-sectional study. BJM Open, 7(6). doi:10.1136/bjmopen-2016-014959

18.

Mitchell

Finkelhor

Wolak

(2007). Online requests for sexual pictures from youth: Risk factors and incident characteristics. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 196-203.

19.

Mitchell

Finkelhor

Wolak

Ybarra

Turner

(2011). Youth internet victimization in a broader victimization context. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 128-134.

20.

Mitchell

Jones

Finkelhor

Wolak

(2013). Understanding the decline in unwanted online sexual solicitations for U.S. youth 2000–2010: Findings from three Youth Internet Safety Surveys. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 1225-1236.

21.

Mitchell

Wolak

Finkelhor

(2008). Are blogs putting youth at risk for online sexual solicitation or harassment? Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 277-294.

22.

Montiel

Carbonell

Pereda

(2016). Multiple online victimization of Spanish adolescents: Results from a community sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 52, 123-134.

23.

Olumide

Adams

Amodu

(2015). International Note: Awareness and context of cyber-harassment among secondary school students in Oyo state, Nigeria. Journal of Adolescence, 39, 10-14.

24.

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

25.

Pew Research Center. (2017, July). Online harassment 2017. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/online-harassment-2017/

26.

Powell

Henry

(2016). Technology-facilitated sexual violence victimization: Results from an online survey of Australian adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1-29.

27.

Priebe

Svedin

(2012). Online or off-line victimisation and psychological well-being: A comparison of sexual-minority and heterosexual youth. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 21, 569-582.

28.

Reed

Salazar

Behar

A. I.

Agah

Silverman

J. G.

Minnis

A. M.

Rusch

M. L.

Raj

, (2019). Cyber sexual harassment: Prevalence and association with substance use, poor mental health, and STI history among sexually active adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescence, 75, 53-62.

29.

Sanchez

Munoz-Fernandez

Vega-Gea

(2017). Peer sexual cybervictimization in adolescents: Development and validation of a scale. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 17, 171-179.

30.

Stop Street Harassment. (2018). The facts behind the #MeToo movement: A national study on sexual harassment and assault. Retrieved from http://www.stopstreetharassment.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Full-Report-2018-National-Study-on-Sexual-Harassment-and-Assault.pdf

31.

Van Ouytsel

Walrave

Ponnet

Heirman

. (2015). The association between adolescent sexting, psychosocial difficulties, and risk behavior. Journal of School Nursing, 31, 54-69.

32.

Walrave

Heirman

Hallam

(2014). Under pressure to sext? Applying the theory of planned behaviour to adolescent sexting: Erratum. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33, 302-303.

33.

Ybarra

Espelage

Mitchell

(2007). The co-occurrence of Internet harassment and unwanted sexual solicitation victimization and perpetration: Associations with psychosocial indicators. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 31-41.

34.

Ybarra

Mitchell

(2008). How risky are social networking sites? A comparison of places online where youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. Pediatrics, 121, e350-e357.

35.

Ybarra

Mitchell

(2014). “Sexting” and its relation to sexual activity and sexual risk behavior in a national survey of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 55, 757-764. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.07.012

36.

Ybarra

Mitchell

Korchmaros

(2011). National trends in exposure to and experiences of violence on the Internet among children. Pediatrics, 128, e1376-e1386.

37.

Ybarra

Mitchell

Palmer

Reisner

(2015). Online social support as a buffer against online and offline peer and sexual victimization among U.S. LGBT and non-LGBT youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 39, 123-136.