Sextortion Among Adolescents: Results From a National Survey of U.S. Youth

Abstract

Sextortion is the threatened dissemination of explicit, intimate, or embarrassing images of a sexual nature without consent, usually for the purpose of procuring additional images, sexual acts, money, or something else. Despite increased public interest in this behavior, it has yet to be empirically examined among adolescents. The current study fills this gap by exploring the prevalence of sextortion behaviors among a nationally representative sample of 5,568 U.S. middle and high school students. Approximately 5% of students reported that they had been the victim of sextortion, while about 3% admitted to threatening others who had shared an image with them in confidence. Males and nonheterosexual youth were more likely to be targeted, and males were more likely to target others. Moreover, youth who threatened others with sextortion were more likely to have been victims themselves. Implications for future research, as well as the preventive role that youth-serving professionals can play, are discussed.

Keywords

sextortion online relationships sexting sexual harassment dating violence

Introduction

Sextortion is a recently established portmanteau of the words “sex” and “extortion.” Generally, extortion occurs when “one person takes advantage of another person against his or her will by means of threat of violence or threat of harm of any kind to the person” (Forsyth & Copes, 2014, p. 266). The harm can be physical (to them or their loved ones) or can target their property or reputation (Konrad & Skaperdas, 1998), typically involving blackmail (Lindgren, 1993; Shavell, 1993)—the threat of sharing damaging secret information, or ransom—where something of value is held until the victim fulfills a specified condition (Alix, 1978; Goldberg, 1986; Konrad & Skaperdas, 1997). A further distinction is typically made between extortion and fraud, where the former requires the use of threats to obtain a desired action, possession, or end, whereas the latter involves benefits gained through deception (Forsyth & Copes, 2014). The term sextortion has emerged to refer to those specific instances of extortion where one is threatening to disseminate sexually explicit images that have been acquired (voluntarily or not).

Although extortion has been analyzed in politics (Jacoby, Nehemkis, & Eells, 1977; McChesney, 1997; Stanley, 2010), gangs (Chin, 2000; Spergel, 1992), and cybersecurity (Cárdenas, Amin, & Sastry, 2008; Salvi & Kerkar, 2016; A. Young & Yung, 1996), it is the workplace connotation that seems most relevant to the current discussion. Considering the centrality of sex in sextortion, it may bring to mind the notion of an employee taking advantage of another via power and threats unless certain sexual favors are provided (Baker, 1995). It also aligns with what has been called “sexual coercion,” where a person elicits “sexual cooperation by putting some kind of pressure on a victim” (Barak, 2005, p. 80). From these conceptualizations of the past, we arrive at the present, where sextortion has evolved into a construct enmeshed in online connectivity and interaction, and inextricably linked to the explosive growth and presence of smartphones, social media, and digital photographs and videos in the lives of adolescents today (Lenhart, Smith, & Anderson, 2015; Madden, Lenhart, Duggan, Cortesi, & Gasser, 2013).

Although many of the publicly known instances of sextortion have involved adults (Wittes, Poplin, Jurecic, & Spera, 2016), the U.S. Justice Department has labeled sextortion as the most important and fastest-growing cyberthreat to children, with “more minor victims per offender than all other child sexual exploitation offenses” (Lynch, 2016, p. 75). The reality of sextortion occurring among children was catapulted into the spotlight in October 2012 with the suicide of 15-year-old Amanda Todd. The British Columbia teen had been convinced by a stranger online to bare her breasts via webcam, which the stranger screen-captured and saved (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015). That stranger then threatened to distribute those images to her classmates if she did not give him more sexual content. After years of online stalking, public humiliation, and cyberbullying associated with this experience, Amanda took her own life. Since then, instances of sextortion—in the United States and abroad—have increasingly come to light (Acar, 2016; Kopecký, 2017; Wittes et al., 2016; Yusuph, 2016), demanding our focused attention and response.

Defining and Understanding Sextortion

We define sextortion as the threatened dissemination of explicit, intimate, or embarrassing images of a sexual nature without consent, usually for the purpose of procuring additional images, sexual acts, money, or something else. This conceptualization aligns with the central tenets of traditional forms of extortion discussed above—simply: threats of harm to receive something of value. In the case of sextortion, the harm threatened involves the disclosure of sexually explicit images. Also relevant are the previously mentioned elements of blackmail (the threat to share personal sexual content), ransom (where sexual content is held and used as leverage until the target does something the aggressor wants), and fraud (where deception is frequently used to obtain the sexual content in the first place).

Although sextortion has not been previously studied among adolescents, it can be considered within the context of other offenses against youth that have been studied extensively over the years. As the offender may be a current or former boyfriend or girlfriend, it may be a manifestation of teen dating violence (Korchmaros, Ybarra, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Boyd, & Lenhart, 2013; Van Ouytsel, Ponnet, & Walrave, 2018; Zweig, Lachman, Yahner, & Dank, 2014), defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2017) as physical, sexual, or psychological/emotional violence that occurs within a dating relationship. According to the 2015 Youth Risk Behavior Survey involving ninth to 12th graders in the United States, 11.7% of girls and 7.4% of boys have experienced some physical form of teen dating violence victimization, while 15.6% of girls and 5.4% of boys have experienced some sexual form of victimization (Kann et al., 2016). Other research has found that 26.3% of youth in dating relationships have experienced some type of “cyber dating abuse victimization” in the prior year (Zweig, Dank, Yahner, & Lachman, 2013)—corroborating other exploratory works underscoring the reality that teens use technology to abuse their partners (Alvarez, 2012; Cutbush, Williams, Miller, Gibbs, & Clinton-Sherrod, 2012; Draucker & Martsolf, 2010). The romantic partner may, for example, threaten to disseminate explicit images that were shared in confidence if the other attempts to break off the relationship, hack into their partner’s social media account to read all of the private messages and demand explanations, or create a hate website to encourage others to post cruel comments and stories (Zweig et al., 2013).

If the extorter is a relative, sextortion could be a form of child sexual abuse where a family member uses the trust relationship to obtain images and to further exploit the child (Kopecký, 2017; Quayle, 2017; Taylor & Quayle, 2003). If the offender is a stranger, it may be viewed as predation and grooming where a child is manipulated over time by a new online friend (Krone, 2004; O’Connell, 2003). Moreover, irrespective of the aggressor/target relationship, sextortion can involve intentional harm repeatedly inflicted through new communications technologies—which fits many definitions of cyberbullying. Commonly conceived of as “willful and repeated harm inflicted through the use of electronic devices” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015, p. 11; Patchin & Hinduja, 2016), cyberbullying victimization occurred in approximately 15% of U.S. high schoolers in 2015 according to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (Kann et al., 2016).

Apart from focusing exclusively on victims or offenders, substantial evidence exists to suggest a third category of participant in these types of behaviors—that of “victim-offenders” or individuals who have experience as both targets and aggressors (Beckley et al., 2018; Jennings, Piquero, & Reingle, 2012; Posick, 2013). This overlap has been found for bullying (Haynie et al., 2001; Salmivalli & Nieminen, 2002; Veenstra et al., 2005), sexual abuse (Hanson & Morton-Bourgon, 2005; Jennings & Meade, 2016; Veneziano, Veneziano, & LeGrand, 2000), cyberbullying (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015; Marcum, Higgins, Freiburger, & Ricketts, 2014; Mishna, Khoury-Kassabri, Gadalla, & Daciuk, 2012), and dating violence (Espelage & Holt, 2007; Yahner, Dank, Zweig, & Lachman, 2015). While more research must be conducted to further parse out whether these offenses occur within a constellation where participation in one increases the likelihood for participation in another, some studies seem to indicate a strong overlap between dating violence, bullying, and cyberbullying, where those who have been involved in one—either as a target or as a aggressor—were very likely to have been involved in the other (Debnam, Waasdorp, & Bradshaw, 2016; Marganski & Melander, 2018; Yahner et al., 2015).

One final distinction merits additional commentary. Sextortion should be distinguished from revenge porn, another behavior involving the unauthorized distribution of explicit images that has also garnered significant scrutiny recently (Baker, 2005; Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010; Whitty & Carr, 2006). Known less colloquially as “nonconsensual pornography,” it involves the intentional embarrassment of individuals through the posting of nude images online (Citron & Franks, 2014; Stroud, 2014). Both sextortion and revenge porn are forms of image-based sexual abuse that use explicit or intimate images as the main mechanism of influence or harm-doing (Henry & Powell, 2015). The primary difference between the two, however, is that revenge porn tends to be public while sextortion is usually private (unless threats are ultimately carried out). With revenge porn, the aggressor is seeking to publicly humiliate the target, whereas with sextortion the aggressor is attempting to privately extort something of value from the target. To be sure, sextortion could evolve into revenge porn if images obtained in confidence are later publicly disseminated. Because revenge porn is outward-facing, it has received the lion’s share of attention by legal scholars, politicians, and the press (Citron & Franks, 2014; Wittes et al., 2016). Conversely, sextortion has to date largely avoided significant public attention, in part due to the fact that many victims choose to stay anonymous (Interpol, 2015; Wittes et al., 2016).

Existing Research on Sextortion

The extant literature base on sextortion is quite limited, and the studies that have been done to date have involved reviewing information from publicly known incidents or surveying adults about their experiences in the past. As one example, researchers from the Brookings Institution searched dockets and news stories to find 78 prosecuted criminal cases involving 1,397 known (and untold more unknown) victims of sextortion (Wittes et al., 2016). First, researchers conceptualized sextortion as “old-fashioned extortion or blackmail, carried out over a computer network, involving some threat—generally but not always a threat to release sexually-explicit images of the victim—if the victim does not engage in some form of further sexual activity” (Wittes et al., 2016, p. 11). Next, they systematically searched LexisNexis for the following keywords: “Sextort,” “Sextortion,” “Cyber Sextortion,” “Cyber Sexual Extortion,” “Cyber Sexual Exploitation,” “Online Sexual Extortion,” “Online Sexual Exploitation,” “Non-consensual Pornography,” and “Nonconsensual Pornography.” They then acquired the complaints, warrants, and other court documents to analyze 63 federal, 12 state, and three international sextortion cases.

Most of the cases uncovered in the Brookings Institution review (71%) involved offenders who only targeted individuals who were under the age of 18 at the time of the victimization. This highlights a clear need to explore further the unique vulnerabilities of a youthful population. Almost one fifth (18%) involved a mix of minor and adult victims, and 12% involved only adult victims. The vast majority of victims were female—particularly among the group of adults—but among the child victims, 17% involved boys only and an additional 10% involved both boys and girls. Every single prosecuted perpetrator was male, and often a repeat offender. Almost one third of the cases involved more than 10 victims, 13 involved at least 20 victims, and four others involved more than 100 victims (Wittes et al., 2016).

Among cases involving only minor victims, social media manipulation or misrepresentation (also known as “catfishing”; D’Costa, 2014) was involved in most of the incidents (91%), while hacking of targets’ computers or other devices occurred in 9%. When considering adult-only victimization, 25% involved social media manipulation, while 43% of cases involved some type of computer hacking (it is unclear what was involved in the remainder of cases). This sizable difference here is worth emphasizing: Youth victims appear to be much more likely to voluntarily share the image with the perpetrator after being tricked to do so, whereas adults are more likely to lose control over private images through hacking (Wittes et al., 2016).

In the only other noteworthy investigation into sextortion, Wolak, Finkelhor, Walsh, and Treitman (2018) partnered with a nonprofit organization called Thorn to investigate the behavior using a purposive sample of adults who self-selected to complete a survey by responding to Facebook or Twitter ads formally requesting participation by victims of sextortion. With an eye toward obtaining a diverse sample, researchers also aimed to make sure that respondents were from a variety of demographic groups (LGBTQ [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, queer], racial and ethnic minorities, etc.) by targeting ads to those specific populations on the social media sites.

Wolak et al. (2018) define sextortion as “threats to expose sexual images to coerce victims to provide additional pictures, sex, or other favors” (p. 72). While the perpetrator may be interested in further sexual content or activity, motivations might also include a monetary payment or getting the target to do something else he or she would not normally do (Barak, 2005; Wolak et al., 2018). With regard to the sample, 572 adult respondents stated that they were 17 years of age or younger at the time they faced sextortion, whereas 813 adult respondents stated they were between the ages of 18 and 25. The following details focus on the experiences of those 572 respondents who said they were minors at the time of their incident(s) and excludes those who technically were adults when it happened.

In the Wolak et al. (2018) study, three out of five victims (59%) knew the perpetrator in real life prior to the incident, while the remainder met the person online. This is an important point: Most cases involved a real-world romantic relationship (or interest) where pictures or videos were taken and shared, and then one partner used the images to manipulate or threaten the other. The rest of the cases involved an interaction online which eventually resulted in a personal image sent or received being used to demand further sexual content, activity, or something else of value. In the interactions based on relationships that began online, the respondent indicated that the perpetrator lied about who they were or otherwise gave a false impression in 55% of the cases. Most often, the lies were about wanting a romantic relationship, their age, their gender, or being someone they knew.

It is clear from the research that most sextortion incidents do not occur furtively, for example, through secret recordings, hacking, or the stealing of images and video. Instead, targets tend to voluntarily provide the images (Gross & Acquisti, 2005; Peltier, 2006). About 70% of victims in both face-to-face and online relationships knowingly provided a sexual image to the perpetrator (Wolak et al., 2018). Specific reasons noted were because (a) they were in a relationship, (b) they felt pressured or made to feel bad, (c) they were tricked, (d) they were threatened or forced, (e) they expected to be paid for them, or (f) they thought the images would be used for modeling or acting. In a minority of cases, images were acquired by the perpetrators without the knowledge or consent of the target, for example, by hacking a computer, recording webcam images, or taking them from a mobile phone without permission.

Almost half of those targeted felt uncomfortable or unable to confide in family or friends about what happened. This largely stemmed from feelings of shame, embarrassment, fear of retribution, or a sense that it simply would not do any good. However, of those who did disclose their experience to loved ones, 55% told a friend over 18, 37% told a parent, 35% told a friend under 18, and 17% told an adult family member who was not a parent (percentages do not add to 100 because respondents could select multiple answers; Wolak et al., 2018). Relatedly, only 21% reported the situation to the relevant website or app, and only 16% reached out to the police. Many who contacted law enforcement apparently received negative (“Police told me that it was my fault and to not do things like video chat in the future to avoid this happening again”) or dismissive (“Since he had only threatened and I willingly sent the photos, there was, allegedly, nothing they could do”) responses (Wolak et al., 2018). Parallels can be drawn to the domestic violence literature which warns of the potential for double victimization, where the very people one confides in for help respond with callousness or indifference or by trivializing the situation (Karmen, 2012). Overall, perhaps from the concerns identified above, one in three victims did not tell anyone else about their experience with sextortion (until reporting it anonymously in the survey).

Current Study

While previous research provides some initial insight into the nature of sextortion among those who have experienced it, the current work seeks to build on these efforts by providing a deeper understanding of both sextortion victimization and offending, specifically among early and middle adolescents—something which has not yet been done. Adolescents may be particularly vulnerable to sextortion because of their developmental stage (Ellis et al., 2012). It has long been known that adolescents take more risks than children or adults (Steinberg, 2007), although the precise reasons for this are still subject to debate. Brain development has not necessarily advanced to a degree to equip these youth with the ability to fully control their impulses and desires, especially when it comes to sexual risk-taking (Victor & Hariri, 2016). There could also be significant peer pressure to participate in these behaviors (Vanden Abeele, Campbell, Eggermont, & Roe, 2014). While there is some value in reviewing existing public records that document select sextortion cases (Wittes et al., 2016), and in asking adults to retrospectively report their experiences with sextortion when they were younger (Wolak et al., 2018), surveying youth directly to inquire about their current and recent experiences holds promise in more fully understanding the behavior.

The overall goal of the current study is to provide initial baseline data on the scope of sextortion among a youthful sample by determining its prevalence across key demographic variables, ascertaining the relationship between perpetrators and victims, understanding the degree of harm caused, and determining to whom victims reached out for help. Within this exploratory framework, we hope to paint a preliminary picture of how often sextortion happens, who is involved, and to whom the target reported the incident.

Method

Data

Data for the present study came from a survey administered to a nationally representative sample of English-speaking 12- to 17-year-old middle and high school students residing in the United States (mean age = 14.5 years). A survey was distributed via email between August and October 2016 that examined perceptions of, and experiences with, bullying, cyberbullying, and related teen behaviors.¹ Active parental consent and child assent was obtained for all participants. Three research firms were contracted with to distribute the instrument online through four different sample sources. This cost-effective approach has been utilized by other researchers in recent years (Lenhart et al., 2015; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2014) and seems especially appropriate for exploratory inquiries into relatively new phenomena among youth populations. Nested age, sex, and region quotas were used to ensure a diverse sample of respondents that was representative of students across the nation. The final sample size was 5,569 and the average survey took 23 min to complete. The final response rate for this survey was approximately 15%. Admittedly, this is lower than other methods of data collection and not ideal (Baruch & Holtom, 2008; Kaplowitz, Hadlock, & Levine, 2004), but still satisfactory for a preliminary inquiry to an understudied problem. To be sure, though, the relatively low response rate and limitations to the methodology overall (e.g., email recruitment to participate) should be kept in mind when interpreting the results (Fricker & Schonlau, 2002; Manfreda et al., 2008). The project methodology was approved by the institutional review board of the university of the corresponding author.

Measures

Sextortion

Sextortion victimization was assessed using one item: “Has someone threatened to expose a sexual image of you to make you do something or for other reasons such as revenge or humiliation?” Those who responded “never” were coded as “0,” whereas those who responded “once,” “a few times,” or “many times” were coded as “1.” Sextortion offending was also assessed using one item: “Someone sent you a sext of themselves that you threatened or blackmailed to share with others if that person did or didn’t do something.” The response set for this variable was different but was also dichotomized so that “never” was coded as “0,” whereas “over a month ago” and “within the last month” were coded as “1.” Neither question was presented with a particular timeline in mind, so the understanding is that respondents would report any lifetime experience with these behaviors.

Among those who reported that they had experienced sextortion, additional follow-up questions were asked. Specifically, this subsample was asked the following: (a) “Who threatened to expose the explicit images?” (b) “How did the person who was threatening to expose a sexual image of you harm you?” and (c) “Who did you tell about your experience with someone threatening to expose a sexual image of you?” These questions included not only a variety of categorical responses but also an open-ended “Other” category where respondents could enter any response they wanted.

Demographic variables

As an exploratory study, we are interested in whether sextortion behaviors vary by demographic variables such as age, gender, sexual orientation, and race. Age was included as a continuous variable representing the respondent’s age in years (range = 12–17 years; mean = 14.5 years). With regard to gender, 49.9% identified as female, 49.7% identified as male, and 0.3% identified as transgender (0.1% missing). Missing cases (n = 4) were excluded listwise as well as those who reported as transgender (n = 20) as the subsamples were to small to analyze meaningfully. As such, gender was a dichotomous item where 1 = male and 0 = female. Heterosexual was a dichotomous variable where those who identified as heterosexual were coded 1, whereas all others were coded 0. The sample was 93.1% heterosexual. Comparable to the population of middle and high school students in the United States (Office of Adolescent Health, 2016), 66% of the sample is White/Caucasian, 12.1% is Black/African American, 11.9% is Hispanic/Latin American, and 10% is of another race. One respondent preferred not to report race and was therefore excluded from analysis. Race was a categorical variable where 1 = White, 2 = African American, 3 = Hispanic, and 4 = other.

Analysis

To begin, descriptive statistics for the complete sample were computed and presented. A series of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) models were computed to determine differences by gender, sexual orientation, race, and age (using the F statistic to determine significant differences and eta-squared to assess the effect size of any observed differences). Next, a 2 × 2 cross-tabulation table was calculated to assess the relationship between sextortion victimization, and offending (using chi-square and Cramer’s V). Finally, additional percentages were calculated to examine the nature of who was involved in the sextortion incidents, how they were threatened, and to whom the victim reported it, broken down by gender. Statistical significance was tested using independent-samples t test (with Cohen’s d calculated to assess effect sizes). All statistics (except for Cohen’s d which was hand-calculated) were computed using SPSS (version 18).²

Results

Table 1 presents the proportion of youth who experienced—or participated in—sextortion, disaggregated by gender, race, and age. Overall, 5% of students said they had been the victim of sextortion at some point in their lifetime. Three percent admitted to threatening another person who had shared an explicit image with them. With respect to gender, males were significantly more likely to have experienced sextortion (both as a victim [5.8% compared with 4.1%; $η_{p}^{2} = . 001$ ] and as an offender [4.1% compared with 1.9%; $η_{p}^{2} = . 004$ ]). Students who identified as nonheterosexual were significantly more likely to have been the victim of sextortion (10.9% compared with 4.5%; $η_{p}^{2} = . 005$ ), although there was no difference with respect to sextortion offending behaviors (p = .285). There were also no significant differences in experience with sextortion by race for victimization (p = .548) or offending (p = .178). Finally, there was no significant differences in experience with sextortion victimization by age (p = .066), though there was for offending (p = .005, $η_{p}^{2} = . 003$ ). Post hoc examination of this using Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference), however, revealed no specific statistically significant difference between any of the paired age categories.

Table 1.

Experience With Sextortion.

	Sample size (%)	Sextortion victimization			Sextortion offending
	Sample size (%)	%	F (significance)	η²	%	F (significance)	η²
Total	5,568	5.0			3.0
Male	2,777 (49.9)	5.8	8.32	.001	4.1	21.84	.004
Female	2,791 (50.1)	4.1	(.004)		1.9	(<.001)
Heterosexual	5,183 (93.1)	4.5	31.27	.005	2.9	1.14	.000
Nonheterosexual	385 (6.9)	10.9	(<.001)		3.9	(.285)
White	3,674 (66.0)	5.2	0.71	.0004	3.3	1.64	.001
African American	673 (12.1)	4.5	(.548)		2.1	(.178)
Hispanic	664 (11.9)	4.5			2.3
Other	557 (10.0)	4.3			2.7
12	850 (15.2)	3.5	2.07	.002	2.8	3.37	.003
13	1,008 (18.1)	5.3	(.066)		4.2	(.005)
14	915 (16.4)	3.8			2.2
15	1,016 (18.2)	6.3			4.2
16	938 (16.9)	5.4			2.2
17	841 (15.2)	5.1			2.0

We also found a significant relationship between sextortion victimization and offending, χ² = 1754.7(1), Cramer’s V = .561, p < .001 (see Table 2). Specifically, about half of the students who said they had been the victim of sextortion also admitted to threatening to distribute explicit images of others that were shared in confidence (2.2% out of 5%). Similarly, over two thirds of those who admitted to threatening others in this manner said they had been the victim themselves (2.2% out of 3%).

Table 2.

Relationship Between Sextortion Victimization and Offending (N = 5,568).

		Someone threatened to share an explicit image you shared with them
		No (%)	Yes (%)	Total (%)
Someone sent you a sext of themselves that you threatened or blackmailed to share with others if that person did or didn’t do something	No	94.3	2.7	97.0
	Yes	0.8	2.2	3.0
	Total	95.0	5.0	100.0

Note. χ² = 1754.7(1), Cramer’s V = .561, p < .001.

Tables 3 and 4 present additional results from a subsample of only those students who had been the target of sextortion (N = 276). Here, we compare the experiences of boys and girls with respect to (a) who threatened them, (b) how they were threatened, and (c) who they told about their experience. Overall, boyfriends/girlfriends were the ones most likely to have been the perpetrator for both boys (31.7%) and girls (32.2%). This was followed by other friends in real life (boys: 26.1%; girls: 16.5%) and online-only friends (boys: 19.9%; girls: 11.3%). None of the differences between boys and girls on who threatened them were statistically significant.

Table 3.

Characteristics of Sextortion Incidents (N = 276).

	Male (%)	Female (%)	t (significance)	Cohen’s d
Who threatened to expose the explicit image?
Boyfriend/girlfriend	51 (31.7)	37 (32.2)	0.09 (.931)	0.010
Other friend in real life	42 (26.1)	19 (16.5)	−1.89 (–.059)	0.235
Online-only friend	32 (19.9)	13 (11.3)	−1.91 (–.058)	0.238
Relative	19 (11.8)	12 (10.4)	−0.35 (–.724)	0.044
Someone online you don’t know well	7 (4.3)	7 (6.1)	0.65 (.518)	0.080
Other^a	1 (0.6)	1 (0.9)	0.24 (.811)	0.034
How did the person who was threatening to expose a sexual image of you harm you?
Repeated unwanted online or phone contact	69 (42.9)	47 (40.9)	−0.33 (.743)	0.040
Sent a sexual image of you to someone else	41 (25.5)	34 (29.6)	0.75 (.452)	0.092
Posted personal information about you online	41 (25.5)	20 (17.4)	−1.60 (.112)	0.198
Posted a sexual image of you online	40 (24.8)	30 (26.1)	0.23 (.816)	0.030
Hacked into one of your online accounts	21 (13.0)	16 (13.9)	0.21 (.835)	0.026
Created a fake website or profile with your personal information	18 (11.2)	10 (8.7)	−0.67 (.502)	0.097
Stalked or harassed you	14 (8.7)	27 (23.5)	3.47 (.001)***	0.387
The person did not harm you	1 (0.6)	4 (3.5)	1.76 (.080)	0.205
Other^b	20 (12.4)	17 (14.8)	0.57 (.572)	0.070
Who did you tell about your experience with someone threatening to expose a sexual image of you?
A friend who is younger than 18	74 (45.3)	45 (39.1)	−1.03 (.306)	0.125
Mom or dad	46 (28.6)	48 (41.7)	2.29 (.023)*	0.274
A friend who is 18 or older	33 (20.5)	18 (15.7)	−1.02 (.308)	0.125
Adult relative that isn’t a parent	20 (12.4)	15 (13.0)	0.15 (.879)	0.018
Adult at school	17 (10.6)	14 (12.2)	0.42 (.677)	0.050
Police	11 (6.8)	8 (7.0)	0.04 (.968)	0.008
Reported to app or site it occurred on	8 (5.0)	8 (7.0)	0.70 (.488)	0.084
I didn’t tell anyone	26 (16.1)	26 (22.6)	1.35 (.177)	0.164
Told parent, police, or school	56 (34.8)	54 (47.0)	2.05 (.042)*	0.249

Other responses included the following: someone from school (3), friend (1), and stranger (1).

Other responses included the following: “Claimed they had a picture that they didn’t and attempted to blackmail me into sending nudes,” “My ex wanted me back and then when I said no he hacked my accounts, started following me,” “Repeatedly text me,” “Said image was me but it wasn’t,” and “Threatened to share with a family member.”

p < .05. ***p < .001, t test.

Table 4.

Characteristics of Sextortion Incidents (N = 276).

	Male (%)	Female (%)	Cohen’s d
Who threatened to expose the explicit image?
Boyfriend/girlfriend	51 (31.7)	37 (32.2)	0.010
Other friend in real life	42 (26.1)	19 (16.5)	0.235
Online-only friend	32 (19.9)	13 (11.3)	0.238
Relative	19 (11.8)	12 (10.4)	0.044
Someone online you don’t know well	7 (4.3)	7 (6.1)	0.080
Other^a	1 (0.6)	1 (0.9)	0.034
How did the person who was threatening to expose a sexual image of you harm you?
Repeated unwanted online or phone contact	69 (42.9)	47 (40.9)	0.040
Sent a sexual image of you to someone else	41 (25.5)	34 (29.6)	0.092
Posted personal information about you online	41 (25.5)	20 (17.4)	0.198
Posted a sexual image of you online	40 (24.8)	30 (26.1)	0.030
Hacked into one of your online accounts	21 (13.0)	16 (13.9)	0.026
Created a fake website or profile with your personal information	18 (11.2)	10 (8.7)	0.097
Stalked or harassed you	14 (8.7)	27 (23.5)***	0.387
The person did not harm you	1 (0.6)	4 (3.5)	0.205
Other^b	20 (12.4)	17 (14.8)	0.070
Who did you tell about your experience with someone threatening to expose a sexual image of you?
A friend who is younger than 18	74 (45.3)	45 (39.1)	0.125
Mom or dad	46 (28.6)	48 (41.7)*	0.274
A friend who is 18 or older	33 (20.5)	18 (15.7)	0.125
Adult relative that isn’t a parent	20 (12.4)	15 (13.0)	0.018
Adult at school	17 (10.6)	14 (12.2)	0.050
Police	11 (6.8)	8 (7.0)	0.008
Reported to app or site it occurred on	8 (5.0)	8 (7.0)	0.084
I didn’t tell anyone	26 (16.1)	26 (22.6)	0.164
Told parent, police, or school	56 (34.8)	54 (47.0)*	0.249

Other responses included the following: someone from school (3), friend (1), and stranger (1).

p < .05. ***p < .001, t test.

When it came to how the target was threatened, most said it involved repeated unwanted online or phone contact (boys: 42.9%; girls: 40.9%). Also common was “sent a sexual image of you to someone else” (boys: 25.5%; girls: 29.6%), “posted personal information about you online” (boys: 25.5%; girls: 17.4%), and “posted a sexual image of you online” (boys: 24.8%; girls: 26.1%). Girls were significantly more likely to say that they were stalked or harassed (boys: 8.7%; girls: 23.5% [Cohen’s d = 0.387]).

Finally, Tables 3 and 4 show the proportion of boys and girls who report their sextortion experiences to others. Boys were most likely to report the incident to a friend who was under the age of 18 (45.3%), whereas girls were most likely to tell a parent (41.7%). It is also noteworthy that girls were significantly more likely than boys to tell a parent (boys: 28.6%; girls: 41.7% [Cohen’s d = 0.274]) or any authority figure in their lives (parent, police, or someone at school) (boys: 34.8%; girls: 47.0% [Cohen’s d = 0.249]). Few boys or girls reported the incident to a website or app (boys: 5.0%; girls: 7.0%).

Discussion

Sextortion, where threats are made to disseminate nude or otherwise sexually explicit images of another without his or her consent unless payment or provision of additional sexual content or acts is made, is occurring among a nonnegligible proportion of youth (5%). This is in line with findings from two previous studies—one of which involved a review of adult sextortion cases (Wittes et al., 2016) and the other a sample of self-selected adult sextortion victims recruited through social media ads (Wolak et al., 2018). The current work builds upon this earlier work through its focus on the experiences of 12- to 17-year-old students in the United States. We first clarified how experience with sextortion differed by various demographic characteristics and examined whether there was a relationship between victimization and offending behaviors. Finally, we examined more deeply the experience of those victimized by attempting to assess the ways in which harm occurred and how they chose to respond after the incident.

In terms of prevalence, 5% of youth had been the target of sextortion, while 3% admit they had done it to others. Males were significantly more likely to have participated in sextortion both as a victim (5.8% vs. 4.1%) and as an offender (4.1% vs. 1.9%) than females. This first finding (that males are more likely to be a victim of sextortion) is somewhat surprising given most attention has focused on female victims (Wittes et al., 2016). There was no difference in sextortion experiences by race and no consistent difference with respect to age (though 15-year-olds were generally more likely to be involved compared with other age groups). Youth who identified as nonheterosexual were more than twice as likely to be the victim of sextortion (10.9% compared with 4.5%). This is consistent with other forms of online abuse, including cyberbullying and electronic dating violence, which research has shown is more common among those who do not identify as heterosexual (Abreu & Kenny, 2018; Dank, Lachman, Zweig, & Yahner, 2014).

There also appears to be a connection between offending and victimization, with those involved in one role being more likely to be also involved in the other. This is consistent with other forms of aggression (Jennings et al., 2012), including online variants (Marcum et al., 2014). For example, Marcum and her colleagues (2014) found that university students who had been cyberbullied were significantly more likely to report participating in cyberbullying compared with those who had not been cyberbullied. While we can only speculate at this point with regard to motivations, one possible explanation for this connection could be that the target is pursuing revenge against the original offender. Alternatively, experience with victimization could normalize the behavior, encouraging victims to participate in similar behaviors in the future (Perkins, Craig, & Perkins, 2011).

The study also found that most sextortion experiences occurred within the context of an existing friendship (romantic or otherwise). Relatively rarely was the person targeted by someone not well known to the target, in keeping with the extant literature on familiarity in the relationship context involving teen dating violence (Giordano, Soto, Manning, & Longmore, 2010; Mulford & Giordano, 2008), child sexual abuse (Finkelhor, Ormrod, Turner, & Hamby, 2005), child predation and grooming (Jenkins, 2004; Salter, 2004), cyberbullying (Smith et al., 2008), and cyberstalking (Dreßing, Bailer, Anders, Wagner, & Gallas, 2014; Finn, 2004).

Victims of sextortion were harmed in a variety of ways, including being stalked or harassed (9.7% of males and 23.5% of females), being contacted repeatedly online or via a phone (42.9% of males and 40.9% of females), or having a fake online profile created about them (11.2% of males and 8.7% of females). Most notably, 24.8% of males and 26.1% of females who were sextorted said the offender posted the sexual image of them online, while 25.5% of male victims and 29.6% of female victims said the offender sent the sexual image of them to someone else without their permission. In short, threats made were ultimately carried out in some way, and some of these instances may indeed be more accurately characterized as revenge porn.

Few victims of sextortion reported the experience to parents or other adult authorities, although significantly more females informed their parents than did males. Research is clear that males report certain types of victimization (e.g., sexual assault and abuse) much less than females (Davies, 2002; Dube et al., 2005), often because of barriers to disclosure like the stigma related to expected gender norms and roles, or even because they believe that limited support is available to them (Allen, Ridgeway, & Swan, 2015; S. M. Young, Pruett, & Colvin, 2016). Only 6.8% of males and 7.0% of females reached out to law enforcement, although many of the cases involved what could be considered criminal stalking, a crime in every state in the United States (The National Center for Victims of Crime, 2012). In keeping with the findings from Wolak et al. (2018) and observations by Acar (2016), perhaps the reputation of sometimes negative and dismissive responses by law enforcement disinclines victims from reporting their experiences. If we conceptualize sextortion as a form of dating violence, prior research is clear that youth are generally hesitant to reach out to adults when experiencing these issues (Ashley & Foshee, 2005; Black, Tolman, Callahan, Saunders, & Weisz, 2008). Aside from general distrust or lack of faith in adults and various professionals, adolescents also fear retaliation, struggle with shame, wish to keep it a secret, attempt to minimize the incident, do not know who can truly come through for them, and often do not know where to turn (Crisma, Bascelli, Paci, & Romito, 2004; Edwards, Dardis, & Gidycz, 2012; Seimer, 2004).

The unfortunate reality is that even when youth disclose victimization that occurs within a romantic relationship, they often receive very limited assistance (Crisma et al., 2004; Kidd & Chayet, 1984; Wolak et al., 2018). When considering the clear vulnerability of impressionable youth during this tenuous developmental stage, we must do all we can to prevent “secondary victimization” (Montada, 1994; Symonds, 1975) where targets feel re-violated due to responses (both verbal and nonverbal) by authority figures through coldness, indifference, a lack of sympathy, victim blaming, or other biased attitudes (Campbell & Raja, 1999; Garvin & LeClaire, 2013; Patterson, 2011). This was observed in early research on cyberbullying more broadly where fewer than 20% of those targeted reported the incident to an adult, mostly due to fear that they would be blamed or that their technology would be taken away (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). These concerns can potentially be addressed through research-informed intensive professional development for law enforcement, educators, and youth workers and relevant and vigilant messaging strategies that clearly convey the ways in which support is available. This approach has borne fruit with cyberbullying victimization, as research shows an increasing likelihood of students seeking help from school personnel and other adults (Hinduja & Patchin, 2015).

In addition, very few sextortion victims reported it to the site or app it occurred on (5% of males and 7% of females). This could be more a function of the fact that not many images were posted on websites or apps (this is another question future research should explore). Social media sites generally aim to block sexually explicit images (especially of minors) and prevent harassment on their platforms (Seetharaman, Nicas, & Olivarez-Giles, 2016). Under the auspices of corporate social responsibility, they seemingly would respond with all deliberate speed by removing offensive or explicit content if alerted and by liaising with law enforcement. The availability of swift and certain assistance from these players should be made known so that those targeted can take advantage of specialized personnel, resources, and actions and get the help they desperately need.

As another point, the Brookings Institution study (Wittes et al., 2016) demonstrated that youth were susceptible to catfishing and other forms of social media manipulation and misrepresentation at a much higher rate than adults. The current study suggests, however, that sextortion occurred most often in the context of an existing or former relationship of some kind (friend or romantic partner). As such, surreptitious trickery is perhaps less a concern when it comes to the disclosure of intimate images than was previously thought. Nevertheless, youth should continue to be cautious when it comes to how much trust they extend to others, and parents and other adults who work with teens should cultivate in them a healthy dose of skepticism about the sharing of personal, sexual content. Youth may fall prey to victimization more readily than adults because of the naïveté that stems from a simple lack of experience in the ways of life and love (Cauffman & Steinberg, 2000; Wolak, Finkelhor, Mitchell, & Ybarra, 2008).

Limitations and Implications

Although the current work sheds some initial light on the understudied problem of sextortion among youth, it is not without limitations. The measures used for sextortion were single-item dichotomous questions (one each for victimization and offending). This is appropriate for a preliminary effort, but future studies should consider more sophisticated means of assessing these behaviors. For example, researchers might include separate questions for still images and video content, attempt to determine the frequency and recency of these experiences (e.g., how many times—and when—did it happen), and seek to better understand the nature of the relationship between the victim and offender when sexual content was initially shared and when the threats were made (e.g., how old each were or the length of their relationship; did the threats come while the parties were in a romantic relationship or after; how long did the incidents last). In addition, if the target did not share the experience with anyone else, what prevented them from doing so?

We also did not include follow-up questions to learn more about the motivations for offending behaviors (from the perspective of the offender). It would be helpful to know why those who engaged in sextortion did so. It has been suggested that there are two primary motivations to engage in sextortion. The first is to subdue the will of the victim (e.g., coerce sexual concessions, prolong a relationship, or obtain personal or professional secrets) and the second is to obtain money (Fernández, 2015). Are these reasons exhaustive and/or exclusive? Which occurs more often, and why? Future research should also inquire about the reach of aggressors; how many victims did they target, and on how many occasions? Also of interest is to learn how frequently is it done within the context of a romantic relationship (or at least done to someone known well by the offender), versus strangers targeting random people online. Finally, as many who were targeted also targeted others, collecting longitudinal data to determine whether sextortion victimization or offending more often occurs first would help to clarify the temporal etiology of these behaviors.

Other general methodological limitations of our study warrant acknowledgment. We sought to obtain a nationally representative sample of middle and high school students across the United States, but can never be certain of the generalizability of the sample of youth who ultimately completed the surveys. Although the demographic characteristics of the sample are relatively consistent with those of U.S. youth as a whole, there could be uncontrolled differences between those who ultimately agreed to complete our survey and those who did not. This is of particular concern given the relatively low response rate (15%). The large, nationally representative nature of the survey, however, helps to encourage confidence in its findings (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000; Johnson & Wislar, 2012). In addition, some have argued that data stemming from individuals’ recollection about the past are inherently unreliable because of the tendency for them to misrepresent or distort facts from a previous time period (Brenner & DeLamater, 2014). The current study is potentially a better representation of experiences among youth, though, as it targeted youth (as opposed to surveying adults about experiences that may have occurred many years prior).

Apart from remedying these issues, future research should more deeply examine the extent of harm experienced because of sextortion. Some targets might be more significantly affected (psychologically or emotionally) by the threats to disclose intimate images, whereas others might be able to more easily dismiss them. Perhaps individual characteristics such as self-esteem (Cascardi & O’Leary, 1992; Seals & Young, 2003), self-efficacy (Egan & Perry, 1998; Kokkinos & Kipritsi, 2012), and resilience (Dutton & Greene, 2010; Sapouna & Wolke, 2013) are important predictors of the nature of the harm experienced. Understanding these dynamics might contribute to the development of meaningful programming in schools, families, and communities to cultivate necessary protective factors in teenagers that can buffer against the harm experienced via this type of victimization (Patchin & Hinduja, 2016).

To be sure, parents, educators, youth service providers, and adolescents themselves would benefit from a deeper understanding of the nature and extent of sextortion among teens. The current study found that sextortion is not rare and also not widespread. Expressing to youth that these behaviors do occur might empower those who are experiencing it to come forward with their own stories. At the same time, however, reminding youth that very few engage in sextortion (only about 3% of students) can serve to reaffirm that it is atypical behavior, and perhaps increase awareness and induce compliance with widespread social norms of nonparticipation (Craig & Perkins, 2008; Hagman, Clifford, & Noel, 2007; Perkins et al., 2011). School resource officers or other law enforcement personnel who intersect with schools should familiarize themselves with current laws regarding the distribution of explicit content and extortion. While most law enforcement officers and prosecutors have been inclined to handle consensual distribution of explicit images between minors informally (Walsh, Wolak, & Finkelhor, 2013; Wolak, Finkelhor, & Mitchell, 2012), criminal prosecution is more likely when threats of harm or nonconsensual dissemination are involved (Henry & Powell, 2015; Wolak & Finkelhor, 2011). In short, those who work with adolescents must broach the reality of sextortion with students in an effort to open up the lines of communication to both prevent the behaviors from occurring in the first place and prompt expedited intervention to minimize harm when it does.

Conclusion

The current study found that 5% of 12- to 17-year-old students in the United States have been the victim of sextortion, while 3% admit to threatening to share an explicit image of someone else. Males were more likely to report that they had experienced sextortion (both as a victim and as an offender), while there was no difference across race and no clear pattern of involvement by age. In addition, more females reached out to adults for help than males, but generally it appears that youth simply do not have much confidence in the ability of parents, educators, law enforcement, or other authority figures to meaningfully assist or support them. These preliminary findings serve as a foundation for future research to understand better the nature and extent of sextortion behaviors among adolescents. In that way, those who work with youth can be better equipped to address the problem by educating students about the risks associated with sharing explicit or otherwise embarrassing digital content and demonstrating the availability and ability to assist them if they are victimized.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors take responsibility for the integrity of the data, the accuracy of the data analyses, and have made every effort to avoid inflating statistically significant results.

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 research was made possible through a grant from the Digital Trust Foundation.

Notes

References

Abreu

R. L.

Kenny

M. C.

(2018). Cyberbullying and LGBTQ youth: A systematic literature review and recommendations for prevention and intervention. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 11, 81-97. doi:10.1007/s40653-017-0175-7

Acar

K. V.

(2016). Sexual extortion of children in cyberspace. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 10, 110-126. doi:10.5281/zenodo.163398

Alix

E. K.

(1978). Ransom kidnapping in America, 1874-1974: The creation of a capital crime. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. doi:10.1086/227273

Allen

C. T.

Ridgeway

Swan

S. C.

(2015). College students’ beliefs regarding help seeking for male and female sexual assault survivors: Even less support for male survivors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 24, 102-115. doi:10.1080/10926771.2015.982237

Alvarez

A. R.

(2012). “IH8U”: Confronting cyberbullying and exploring the use of cybertools in teen dating relationships. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68, 1205-1215. doi:10.1002/jclp.21920

Ashley

O. S.

Foshee

V. A.

(2005). Adolescent help-seeking for dating violence: Prevalence, sociodemographic correlates, and sources of help. Journal of Adolescent Health, 36, 25-31. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2003.12.014

Baker

A. J.

(2005). Double click: Romance and commitment among online couples. New York, NY: Hampton Press.

Barak

(2005). Sexual harassment on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 77-92. doi:10.1177/0894439304271540

Baruch

Holtom

B. C.

(2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational research. Human Relations, 61, 1139-1160. doi:10.1177/0018726708094863

10.

Beckley

A. L.

Caspi

Arseneault

Barnes

Fisher

H. L.

Harrington

. . . Wertz

(2018). The developmental nature of the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Developmental and Life-Course Criminology, 4, 24-49. doi:10.1007/s40865-017-0068-3

11.

Black

B. M.

Tolman

R. M.

Callahan

Saunders

D. G.

Weisz

A. N.

(2008). When will adolescents tell someone about dating violence victimization? Violence Against Women, 14, 741-758. doi:10.1177/1077801208320248

12.

Brenner

P. S.

DeLamater

J. D.

(2014). Social desirability bias in self-reports of physical activity: Is an exercise identity the culprit? Social Indicators Research, 117, 489-504. doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0359-y

13.

Campbell

Raja

(1999). Secondary victimization of rape victims: Insights from mental health professionals who treat survivors of violence. Violence and Victims, 14, 261-275.

14.

Cárdenas

A. A.

Amin

Sastry

(2008, July 29). Research challenges for the security of control systems. Paper presented at proceedings of Hot Topics in Security, HotSec’08, San Jose, CA.

15.

Baker

Carrie N.

, Sexual Extortion: Criminalizing Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment, 13 Law & Ineq. 213 (1995). Available at: http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol13/iss1/9

16.

Cascardi

O’Leary

K. D.

(1992). Depressive symptomatology, self-esteem, and self-blame in battered women. Journal of Family Violence, 7, 249-259. doi:10.1007/BF00994617

17.

Cauffman

Steinberg

(2000). (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why adolescents may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18, 741-760. doi:10.1002/bsl.416

18.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Teen dating violence. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/teen_dating_violence.html

19.

Chin

K.-L.

(2000). Chinatown gangs: Extortion, enterprise, and ethnicity. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

20.

Citron

D. K.

Franks

M. A.

(2014). Criminalizing revenge porn (University of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-1). Wake Forest Law Review, 49, 345-391.

21.

Cook

Heath

Thompson

R. L.

(2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web-or internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 821-836. doi:10.1177/00131640021970934

22.

Craig

D. W.

Perkins

H. W.

(2008). Assessing bullying in New Jersey secondary schools: Applying the social norms model to adolescent violence. Paper presented at the National Conference on the Social Norms Approach, July 22 2008, San Francisco, CA.

23.

Crisma

Bascelli

Paci

Romito

(2004). Adolescents who experienced sexual abuse: Fears, needs and impediments to disclosure. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 1035-1048. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.03.015

24.

Cutbush

Williams

Miller

Gibbs

Clinton-Sherrod

(2012, October 27-31). Electronic dating aggression among middle school students: Demographic correlates and associations with other types of violence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Public Health Association, San Francisco, CA.

25.

Dank

Lachman

Zweig

J. M.

Yahner

(2014). Dating violence experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 846-857. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9975-8

26.

Davies

(2002). Male sexual assault victims: A selective review of the literature and implications for support services. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 203-214. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(00)00043-4

27.

D’Costa

(2014, April). Catfishing: The truth about deception online. Scientific American, Anthropology in Practice. Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/catfishing-the-truth-about-deception-online/

28.

Debnam

K. J.

Waasdorp

T. E.

Bradshaw

C. P.

(2016). Examining the contemporaneous occurrence of bullying and teen dating violence victimization. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 76-90. doi:10.1037/spq0000124

29.

Draucker

C. B.

Martsolf

D. S.

(2010). The role of electronic communication technology in adolescent dating violence. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23, 133-142. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00235.x

30.

Dreßing

Bailer

Anders

Wagner

Gallas

(2014). Cyberstalking in a large sample of social network users: Prevalence, characteristics, and impact upon victims. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2), 61-67. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0231

31.

Dube

S. R.

Anda

R. F.

Whitfield

C. L.

Brown

D. W.

Felitti

V. J.

Dong

Giles

W. H.

(2005). Long-term consequences of childhood sexual abuse by gender of victim. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 430-438. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2005.01.015

32.

Dutton

M. A.

Greene

(2010). Resilience and crime victimization. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 23, 215-222. doi:10.1002/jts.20510

33.

Edwards

K. M.

Dardis

C. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2012). Women’s disclosure of dating violence: A mixed methodological study. Feminism & Psychology, 22, 507-517. doi:10.1177/0959353511422280

34.

Egan

S. K.

Perry

D. G.

(1998). Does low self-regard invite victimization? Developmental Psychology, 34, 299-309. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.34.2.299

35.

Ellis

B. J.

Del Giudice

Dishion

T. J.

Figueredo

A. J.

Gray

Griskevicius

. . . Volk

A. A.

(2012). The evolutionary basis of risky adolescent behavior: Implications for science, policy, and practice. Developmental Psychology, 48, 598-623. doi:10.1037/a0026220

36.

Espelage

D. L.

Holt

M. K.

(2007). Dating violence & sexual harassment across the bully-victim continuum among middle and high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 36, 799-811. doi:10.1007/s10964-006-9109-7

37.

Ferguson

C. J.

(2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clinicians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 40, 532-538. doi:10.1037/a0015808

38.

Fernández

J. F.

(2015). Sexting: Teens, sex, smartphones and the rise of sextortion and gender based digital violence. In Gasser

Cortesi

S. C.

(Eds.), Digitally connected: Global perspectives on youth and digital media (Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2015-6). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, pp. 22-25.

39.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

Turner

Hamby

S. L.

(2005). The victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreatment, 10, 5-25. doi:10.1177/1077559504271287

40.

Finn

(2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 468-483. doi:10.1177/0886260503262083

41.

Forsyth

C. J.

Copes

(2014). Encyclopedia of social deviance. Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483340470

42.

Fricker

R. D.

Schonlau

(2002). Advantages and disadvantages of Internet research surveys: Evidence from the literature. Field Methods, 14, 347-367. doi:10.1177/152582202237725

43.

Garvin

LeClaire

(2013). Polyvictims: Victims’ rights enforcement as a tool to mitigate “secondary victimization” in the criminal justice system. National Crime Victim Law Institute Victim Law Bulletin. Retrieved from https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/13797-ncvlipvvictims-rights-enforcement-as-a-tool-to

44.

Giordano

P. C.

Soto

D. A.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

(2010). The characteristics of romantic relationships associated with teen dating violence. Social Science Research, 39, 863-874. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.03.009

45.

Goldberg

M. B.

(1986). Extortion. American Criminal Law Review, 24, 547-557.

46.

Gross

Acquisti

(2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2005 ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, November 2005 (pp. 71-80). Retrieved from https://www.heinz.cmu.edu/~acquisti/papers/privacy-facebook-gross-acquisti.pdf

47.

Hagman

Clifford

Noel

(2007). Social norms theory-based interventions: Testing the feasibility of purported mechanism of action. Journal of American College Health, 56, 293-298. doi:10.3200/JACH.56.3.293-298

48.

Hanson

R. K.

Morton-Bourgon

K. E.

(2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offenders: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1154-1163. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154

49.

Haynie

D. L.

Nansel

Eitel

Crump

A. D.

Saylor

Simons-Morton

(2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 21, 29-49. doi:10.1177/0272431601021001002

50.

Henry

Powell

(2015). Beyond the “sext”: Technology-facilitated sexual violence and harassment against adult women. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 48, 104-118. doi:10.1177/0004865814524218

51.

Hertlein

K. M.

Stevenson

(2010). The seven “as” contributing to Internet-related intimacy problems: A literature review. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 4(1), Article 3. Retrieved from https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/view/4230/3273

52.

Hinduja

Patchin

J. W.

(2015). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

53.

Interpol. (2015). Sextortion: Questions and answers. Retrieved from https://www.interpol.int/content/download/24615/340944/version/14/file/2015.09.16%20-%20E%20-%20Sextortion%20Q%20and%20A.pdf

54.

Jacoby

N. H.

Nehemkis

Eells

R. S. F.

(1977). Bribery and extortion in world business: A study of corporate political payments abroad. New York, NY: Macmillan.

55.

Jenkins

(2004). Moral panic: Changing concepts of the child molester in modern America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

56.

Jennings

W. G.

Meade

(2016). Victim–offender overlap among sex offenders. In The Oxford handbook of sex offences and sex offenders (p. 183). doi:1093/oxfordhb/9780190213633.013.4

57.

Jennings

W. G.

Piquero

A. R.

Reingle

J. M.

(2012). On the overlap between victimization and offending: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 16-26. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.09.003

58.

Johnson

T. P.

Wislar

J. S.

(2012). Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys. Journal of the American Medical Association, 307, 1805-1806. doi:10.1001/jama.2012.3532

59.

Kann

McManus

Harris

W. A.

Shanklin

S. L.

Flint

K. H.

Hawkins

J. D.

. . . Zaza

(2016). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2015. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 65(6), 1-174. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6506a1

60.

Kaplowitz

M. D.

Hadlock

T. D.

Levine

(2004). A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 94-101. doi:10.1093/poq/nfh006

61.

Karmen

(2012). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. Cengage Learning. Boston, MA.

62.

Kidd

R. F.

Chayet

E. F.

(1984). Why do victims fail to report? The psychology of criminal victimization. Journal of Social Issues, 40, 39-50. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1984.tb01081.x

63.

Kokkinos

C. M.

Kipritsi

(2012). The relationship between bullying, victimization, trait emotional intelligence, self-efficacy and empathy among preadolescents. Social Psychology of Education, 15, 41-58. doi:10.1007/s11218-011-9168-9

64.

Konrad

K. A.

Skaperdas

(1997). Credible threats in extortion. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 33, 23-39. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(97)00019-X

65.

Konrad

K. A.

Skaperdas

(1998). Extortion. Economica, 65, 461-477. doi:10.1111/1468-0335.00141

66.

Kopecký

(2017). Online blackmail of Czech children focused on so-called “sextortion”(analysis of culprit and victim behaviors). Telematics and Informatics, 34, 11-19. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.004

67.

Korchmaros

J. D.

Ybarra

M. L.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Boyd

Lenhart

(2013). Perpetration of teen dating violence in a networked society. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 561-567. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0627

68.

Krone

(2004). A typology of online child pornography offending. Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved from https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi279

69.

Lenhart

Smith

Anderson

(2015). Teens, technology and romantic relationships: From flirting to breaking up, social media and mobile phones are woven into teens’ romantic lives. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/10/PI_2015-10-01_teens-technology-romance_FINAL.pdf

70.

Lindgren

(1993). The theory, history, and practice of the bribery-extortion distinction. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 141, 1695-1740. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol141/iss5/6

71.

Lynch

L. E.

(2016). The national strategy for child exploitation prevention and interdiction: A report to congress. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/psc/file/842411/download

72.

Madden

Lenhart

Duggan

Cortesi

Gasser

(2013). Teens and technology 2013. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_TeensandTechnology2013.pdf

73.

Manfreda

K. L.

Bosnjak

Berzelak

Haas

Vehovar

Berzelak

(2008). Web surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rates. Journal of the Market Research Society, 50, 79-104. doi:10.1177/147078530805000107

74.

Marcum

C. D.

Higgins

G. E.

Freiburger

T. L.

Ricketts

M. L.

(2014). Exploration of the cyberbullying victim/offender overlap by sex. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 538-548. doi:10.1007/s12103-013-9217-3

75.

Marganski

Melander

(2018). Intimate partner violence victimization in the cyber and real world: Examining the extent of cyber aggression experiences and its association with in-person dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 1071-1095. doi:10.1177/0886260515614283

76.

McChesney

F. S.

(1997). Money for nothing: Politicians, rent extraction, and political extortion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

77.

Mishna

Khoury-Kassabri

Gadalla

Daciuk

(2012). Risk factors for involvement in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully–victims. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 63-70. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.032

78.

Montada

(1994). Injustice in harm and loss. Social Justice Research, 7, 5-28. doi:10.1007/BF02333820

79.

Mulford

Giordano

P. C.

(2008). Teen dating violence: A closer look at adolescent romantic relationships. National Institute of Justice Journal, 261, 34-40.

80.

The National Center for Victims of Crime. (2012). Stalking laws. Stalking Resource Center. Retrieved from https://victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center/stalking-laws

81.

O’Connell

(2003). A typology of child cybersexploitation and online grooming practices. Preston, UK: University of Central Lancashire.

82.

Office of Adolescent Health. (2016). Current population survey: Projected population by single year of age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin for the United States: 2014 to 2060. Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/facts-and-stats/changing-face-of-americas-adolescents/index.html

83.

Patchin

J. W.

Hinduja

(2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A preliminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 148-169. doi:10.1177/1541204006286288

84.

Patchin

J. W.

Hinduja

(2016). Bullying today: Bullet points and best practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

85.

Patterson

(2011). The linkage between secondary victimization by law enforcement and rape case outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 328-347. doi:10.1177/0886260510362889

86.

Peltier

T. R.

(2006). Social engineering: Concepts and solutions. Information Systems Security, 15(5), 13-21. doi:10.1201/1079.07366981/45802.33.8.20060201/91956.1

87.

Perkins

H. W.

Craig

D. W.

Perkins

J. M.

(2011). Using social norms to reduce bullying: A research intervention among adolescents in five middle schools. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 703-722. doi:10.1177/1368430210398004

88.

Posick

(2013). The overlap between offending and victimization among adolescents: Results from the second international self-report delinquency study. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29, 106-124. doi:10.1177/1043986212471250

89.

Quayle

(2017). Over the internet, under the radar: Online child sexual abuse and exploitation [Brief]. Retrieved from http://www.barnardos.org.uk/over_the_internet__under_the_radar_literature_review.pdf

90.

Salmivalli

Nieminen

(2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies, victims, and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 30-44. doi:10.1002/ab.90004

91.

Salter

(2004). Predators: Pedophiles, rapists, and other sex offenders. New York, NY: Basic Books.

92.

Salvi

M. H. U.

Kerkar

M. R. V.

(2016). Ransomware: A cyber extortion. Asian Journal of Convergence in Technology, 2. Retrieved from http://asianssr.org/index.php/ajct/article/view/55/37 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1212/ajct.v2i2.55.

93.

Sapouna

Wolke

(2013). Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individual, family and peer characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 997-1006. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.05.009

94.

Seals

Young

(2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relationship to gender, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38, 735-747.

95.

Seetharaman

Nicas

Olivarez-Giles

(2016, November). Social-media companies forced to confront misinformation and harassment. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/social-media-companies-forced-to-confront-misinformation-and-harassment-1479218402

96.

Seimer

B. S.

(2004). Intimate violence in adolescent relationships recognizing and intervening. MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing, 29, 117-121.

97.

Shavell

(1993). Economic analysis of threats and their illegality: Blackmail, extortion, and robbery. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 141, 1877-1903. Retrieved from http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:13632941

98.

Smith

P. K.

Mahdavi

Carvalho

Fisher

Russell

Tippett

(2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 376-385.doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01846.x

99.

Spergel

I. A.

(1992). Youth gangs: An essay review. Social Service Review, 66, 121-140. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/30012453

100.

Stanley

(2010). The protection racket state: Elite politics, military extortion, and civil war in El Salvador. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

101.

Steinberg

(2007). Risk taking in adolescence: New perspectives from brain and behavioral science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(2), 55-59. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00475.x

102.

Stroud

S. R.

(2014). The dark side of the online self: A pragmatist critique of the growing plague of revenge porn. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 29, 168-183. doi:10.1080/08900523.2014.917976

103.

Symonds

(1975). Victims of violence: Psychological effects and aftereffects. The American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 35, 19-26. doi:10.1007/BF01248422

104.

Taylor

Quayle

(2003). Child pornography: An internet crime. New York, NY: Routledge.

105.

Vanden Abeele

Campbell

S. W.

Eggermont

Roe

. (2014). Sexting, mobile porn use, and peer group dynamics: Boys’ and girls’ self-perceived popularity, need for popularity, and perceived peer pressure. Media Psychology, 17(1), 6-33. doi:10.1080/15213269.2013.801725

106.

Van Ouytsel

Ponnet

Walrave

. (2018). Cyber dating abuse victimization among secondary school students from a lifestyle-routine activities theory perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 2767-2776. doi:10.1177/0886260516629390

107.

Veenstra

Lindenberg

Oldehinkel

A. J.

De Winter

A. F.

Verhulst

F. C.

Ormel

(2005). Bullying and victimization in elementary schools: A comparison of bullies, victims, bully/victims, and uninvolved preadolescents. Developmental Psychology, 41, 672-682. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.4.672

108.

Veneziano

LeGrand

(2000). The relationship between adolescent sex offender behaviors and victim characteristics with prior victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 363-374. doi:10.1177/088626000015004002

109.

Victor

E. C.

Hariri

A. R.

(2016). A neuroscience perspective on sexual risk behavior in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 28, 471-487. doi:10.1017/S0954579415001042

110.

Walsh

W. A.

Wolak

Finkelhor

(2013). Sexting: When are state prosecutors deciding to prosecute? The third national juvenile online victimization study (NJOV-3). Durham, NH: Crimes against Children Research Center.

111.

Whitty

M. T.

Carr

A. N.

(2006). Cyberspace romance: The psychology of online relationships. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

112.

Wittes

Poplin

Jurecic

Spera

(2016). Sextortion: Cybersecurity, teenagers, and remote sexual assault. Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/sextortion-cybersecurity-teenagers-and-remote-sexual-assault/

113.

Wolak

Finkelhor

(2011). Sexting: A typology. Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/pdf/CV231_Sexting%20Typology%20Bulletin_4-6-11_revised.pdf

114.

Wolak

Finkelhor

Mitchell

K. J.

(2012). How often are teens arrested for sexting? Data from a national sample of police cases. Pediatrics, 129(1), 4-12. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2242

115.

Wolak

Finkelhor

Mitchell

K. J.

Ybarra

M. L.

(2008). Online “predators” and their victims: Myths, realities, and implications for prevention and treatment. American Psychologist, 63, 111-128. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.111

116.

Wolak

Finkelhor

Walsh

W. A.

Treitman

(2018). Sextortion of minors: Characteristics and dynamics. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62, 72-79. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.08.014

117.

Yahner

Dank

Zweig

J. M.

Lachman

(2015). The co-occurrence of physical and cyber dating violence and bullying among teens. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 1079-1089. doi:10.1177/0886260514540324

118.

Ybarra

M. L.

Mitchell

K. J.

(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

119.

Young

Yung

(1996). Cryptovirology: Extortion-based security threats and countermeasures. Paper presented at the SP’96 Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE Conference on Security and Privacy, Oakland, CA. doi:10.1.1.121.3120&rep=rep1&type=pdf

120.

Young

S. M.

Pruett

J. A.

Colvin

M. L.

(2016). Comparing help-seeking behavior of male and female survivors of sexual assault: A content analysis of a hotline. Sexual Abuse, 30, 454-474. doi:10.1177/1079063216677785

121.

Yusuph

(2016). Sextortion in education sector and response to criminal legal system in Tanzania-A. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, Arts & Sciences, 3(1), 56-63.

122.

Zweig

J. M.

Dank

Yahner

Lachman

(2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1063-1077. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9922-8

123.

Zweig

J. M.

Lachman

Yahner

Dank

(2014). Correlates of cyber dating abuse among teens. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1306-1321. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0047-x