800469

research-article2018
SAXXXX10.1177/1079063218800469Sexual AbusePatchin and Hinduja

Article
Sexual Abuse
2020, Vol. 32(1) 30­–54
Sextortion Among © The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
Adolescents: Results From a sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1079063218800469
https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063218800469
National Survey of U.S. Youth journals.sagepub.com/home/sax

Justin W. Patchin1 and Sameer Hinduja2

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

1University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, USA

2Florida Atlantic University, USA

Corresponding Author:
Justin W. Patchin, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, 105 Garfield Avenue, Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004,
USA.
Email: patchinj@uwec.edu
Patchin and Hinduja 31

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 cybersecu-
rity (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 con-
nectivity and interaction, and inextricably linked to the explosive growth and presence
of smartphones, social media, and digital photographs and videos in the lives of ado-
lescents 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 sex-
tortion 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 embar-
rassing images of a sexual nature without consent, usually for the purpose of procur-
ing additional images, sexual acts, money, or something else. This conceptualization
32 Sexual Abuse 32(1)

aligns with the central tenets of traditional forms of extortion discussed above—sim-
ply: 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 con-
tent), 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 vio-
lence 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 vic-
timization, 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 dis-
seminate 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 oth-
ers 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, irrespec-
tive 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
Patchin and Hinduja 33

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 participa-
tion 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 distin-
guished 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 “non-
consensual 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 some-
thing 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, politi-
cians, and the press (Citron & Franks, 2014; Wittes et al., 2016). Conversely, sextor-
tion 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 sextor-
tion (Wittes et al., 2016). First, researchers conceptualized sextortion as “old-fash-
ioned 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,”
34 Sexual Abuse 32(1)

“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 vulnerabil-
ities 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 misrep-
resentation (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 sam-
ple, 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 popula-
tions 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 perpetra-
tor 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 perpetra-
tor in real life prior to the incident, while the remainder met the person online. This is
Patchin and Hinduja 35

an important point: Most cases involved a real-world romantic relationship (or inter-
est) 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 interac-
tion 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 interac-
tions based on relationships that began online, the respondent indicated that the perpe-
trator 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, embar-
rassment, 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 vic-
timization, 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
36 Sexual Abuse 32(1)

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 ask-
ing 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 vic-
tims, understanding the degree of harm caused, and determining to whom victims
reached out for help. Within this exploratory framework, we hope to paint a prelimi-
nary 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 representa-
tive 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 inqui-
ries into relatively new phenomena among youth populations. Nested age, sex, and
region quotas were used to ensure a diverse sample of respondents that was representa-
tive 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 approxi-
mately 15%. Admittedly, this is lower than other methods of data collection and not
ideal (Baruch & Holtom, 2008; Kaplowitz, Hadlock, & Levine, 2004), but still satisfac-
tory for a preliminary inquiry to an understudied problem. To be sure, though, the rela-
tively 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.
Patchin and Hinduja 37

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 per-
son 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 sextor-

tion 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 meaning-
fully. As such, gender was a dichotomous item where 1 = male and 0 = female. Het-
erosexual 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 pre-
sented. 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
38 Sexual Abuse 32(1)

Table 1.  Experience With Sextortion.

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  

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 threat-
ened, and to whom the victim reported it, broken down by gender. Statistical signifi-
cance 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—sex-
tortion, 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%; η2p = .001 ] and as an offender [4.1% com-
pared with 1.9%; η2p = .004 ]). Students who identified as nonheterosexual were sig-
nificantly more likely to have been the victim of sextortion (10.9% compared with
4.5%; η2p = .005 ), although there was no difference with respect to sextortion offend-
ing 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
Patchin and Hinduja 39

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 No 94.3 2.7 97.0
threatened or blackmailed to share with others Yes 0.8 2.2 3.0
if that person did or didn’t do something Total 95.0 5.0 100.0

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

(p = .066), though there was for offending (p = .005, η2p = .003 ). Post hoc examina-
tion of this using Tukey’s HSD (honestly significant difference), however, revealed no
specific statistically significant difference between any of the paired age categories.
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 admit-
ted 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 oth-
ers in this manner said they had been the victim themselves (2.2% out of 3%).
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.
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 sex-
tortion 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%).
40 Sexual Abuse 32(1)

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 7 (4.3) 7 (6.1) 0.65 (.518) 0.080
well
 Othera 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 69 (42.9) 47 (40.9) −0.33 (.743) 0.040
phone contact
  Sent a sexual image of you to 41 (25.5) 34 (29.6) 0.75 (.452) 0.092
someone else
  Posted personal information 41 (25.5) 20 (17.4) −1.60 (.112) 0.198
about you online
  Posted a sexual image of you 40 (24.8) 30 (26.1) 0.23 (.816) 0.030
online
  Hacked into one of your online 21 (13.0) 16 (13.9) 0.21 (.835) 0.026
accounts
  Created a fake website or 18 (11.2) 10 (8.7) −0.67 (.502) 0.097
profile with your personal
information
  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
 Otherb 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 8 (5.0) 8 (7.0) 0.70 (.488) 0.084
occurred on
  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
aOther responses included the following: someone from school (3), friend (1), and stranger (1).
bOther 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.
Patchin and Hinduja 41

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
 Othera 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 69 (42.9) 47 (40.9) 0.040
contact
  Sent a sexual image of you to 41 (25.5) 34 (29.6) 0.092
someone else
  Posted personal information about 41 (25.5) 20 (17.4) 0.198
you online
  Posted a sexual image of you online 40 (24.8) 30 (26.1) 0.030
  Hacked into one of your online 21 (13.0) 16 (13.9) 0.026
accounts
  Created a fake website or profile with 18 (11.2) 10 (8.7) 0.097
your personal information
  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
 Otherb 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
aOther responses included the following: someone from school (3), friend (1), and stranger (1).
bOther 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.
42 Sexual Abuse 32(1)

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 addi-
tional 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 character-
istics and examined whether there was a relationship between victimization and
offending behaviors. Finally, we examined more deeply the experience of those vic-
timized 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 partici-
pated 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 non-
heterosexual 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 com-
mon 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 cyberbul-
lied. 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
Patchin and Hinduja 43

(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 authori-
ties, 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 report-
ing 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 experi-
encing these issues (Ashley & Foshee, 2005; Black, Tolman, Callahan, Saunders, &
Weisz, 2008). Aside from general distrust or lack of faith in adults and various profes-
sionals, 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 consider-
ing the clear vulnerability of impressionable youth during this tenuous develop-
mental 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
44 Sexual Abuse 32(1)

that their technology would be taken away (Patchin & Hinduja, 2006). These
concerns can potentially be addressed through research-informed intensive pro-
fessional 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 victimiza-
tion, 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) demon-
strated 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 vic-
tim 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
Patchin and Hinduja 45

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 demo-
graphic characteristics of the sample are relatively consistent with those of U.S.
youth as a whole, there could be uncontrolled differences between those who ulti-
mately 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 repre-
sentative nature of the survey, however, helps to encourage confidence in its find-
ings (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 tar-
geted 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 inti-
mate images, whereas others might be able to more easily dismiss them. Perhaps indi-
vidual 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).
46 Sexual Abuse 32(1)

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 wide-
spread. 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 extor-
tion. While most law enforcement officers and prosecutors have been inclined to han-
dle 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 author-
ity 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 avail-
ability and ability to assist them if they are victimized.

Acknowledgments
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.
Patchin and Hinduja 47

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
1. Additional information about the survey is available upon request.
2. Readers interested in a thorough discussion of how to interpret the various effect sizes
included herein might consult Ferguson (2009).

References
Abreu, R. L., & Kenny, M. C. (2018). Cyberbullying and LGBTQ youth: A systematic lit-
erature 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, R., & 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:10.1080/10926771.201
5.982237
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, A. (2005). Sexual harassment on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 77-
92. doi:10.1177/0894439304271540
Baruch, Y., & Holtom, B. C. (2008). Survey response rate levels and trends in organizational
research. Human Relations, 61, 1139-1160. doi:10.1177/0018726708094863
Beckley, A. L., Caspi, A., Arseneault, L., Barnes, J., Fisher, H. L., Harrington, H., . . . Wertz, J.
(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
Black, B. M., Tolman, R. M., Callahan, M., 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
Brenner, P. S., & DeLamater, J. D. (2014). Social desirability bias in self-reports of physi-
cal activity: Is an exercise identity the culprit? Social Indicators Research, 117, 489-504.
doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0359-y
Campbell, R., & Raja, S. (1999). Secondary victimization of rape victims: Insights from mental
health professionals who treat survivors of violence. Violence and Victims, 14, 261-275.
48 Sexual Abuse 32(1)

Cárdenas, A. A., Amin, S., & Sastry, S. (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.
Carrie N. Baker, Sexual Extortion: Criminalizing Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment, 13 Law &
Ineq. 213 (1995). Available at: http://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol13/iss1/9
Cascardi, M., & 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
Cauffman, E., & Steinberg, L. (2000). (Im)maturity of judgment in adolescence: Why ado-
lescents may be less culpable than adults. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 18, 741-760.
doi:10.1002/bsl.416
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Teen dating violence. Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/teen_dating_vio-
lence.html
Chin, K.-L. (2000). Chinatown gangs: Extortion, enterprise, and ethnicity. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
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.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & 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
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.
Crisma, M., Bascelli, E., Paci, D., & Romito, P. (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
Cutbush, S., Williams, J., Miller, S., Gibbs, D., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (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.
Dank, M., Lachman, P., Zweig, J. M., & Yahner, J. (2014). Dating violence experiences of les-
bian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 846-857.
doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9975-8
Davies, M. (2002). Male sexual assault victims: A selective review of the literature and impli-
cations for support services. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 203-214. doi:10.1016/
S1359-1789(00)00043-4
D’Costa, K. (2014, April). Catfishing: The truth about deception online. Scientific American,
Anthropology in Practice. Retrieved from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropol-
ogy-in-practice/catfishing-the-truth-about-deception-online/
Debnam, K. J., Waasdorp, T. E., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2016). Examining the contemporane-
ous occurrence of bullying and teen dating violence victimization. School Psychology
Quarterly, 31, 76-90. doi:10.1037/spq0000124
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
Dreßing, H., Bailer, J., Anders, A., Wagner, H., & Gallas, C. (2014). Cyberstalking in a
large sample of social network users: Prevalence, characteristics, and impact upon
Patchin and Hinduja 49

victims. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2), 61-67. doi:10.1089/

cyber.2012.0231
Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Whitfield, C. L., Brown, D. W., Felitti, V. J., Dong, M., & 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
Dutton, M. A., & Greene, R. (2010). Resilience and crime victimization. Journal of Traumatic
Stress, 23, 215-222. doi:10.1002/jts.20510
Edwards, K. M., Dardis, C. M., & Gidycz, C. A. (2012). Women’s disclosure of dat-
ing violence: A mixed methodological study. Feminism & Psychology, 22, 507-517.
doi:10.1177/0959353511422280
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
Ellis, B. J., Del Giudice, M., Dishion, T. J., Figueredo, A. J., Gray, P., Griskevicius, V., . .
. 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
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
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
Fernández, J. F. (2015). Sexting: Teens, sex, smartphones and the rise of sextortion and gender
based digital violence. In U. Gasser & S. C. Cortesi (Eds.), Digitally connected: Global per-
spectives on youth and digital media (Berkman Center Research Publication No. 2015-6).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, pp. 22-25.
Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. L. (2005). The victimization of chil-
dren and youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreatment, 10, 5-25.
doi:10.1177/1077559504271287
Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 19, 468-483. doi:10.1177/0886260503262083
Forsyth, C. J., & Copes, H. (2014). Encyclopedia of social deviance. SAGE.
doi:10.4135/9781483340470
Fricker, R. D., & Schonlau, M. (2002). Advantages and disadvantages of Internet research surveys:
Evidence from the literature. Field Methods, 14, 347-367. doi:10.1177/152582202237725
Garvin, M., & LeClaire, S. (2013). Polyvictims: Victims’ rights enforcement as a tool to miti-
gate “secondary victimization” in the criminal justice system. National Crime Victim Law
Institute Victim Law Bulletin. Retrieved from https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/13797-ncv-
lipvvictims-rights-enforcement-as-a-tool-to
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
Goldberg, M. B. (1986). Extortion. American Criminal Law Review, 24, 547-557.
Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social net-
works. 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
Hagman, B., Clifford, P., & Noel, N. (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
50 Sexual Abuse 32(1)

Hanson, R. K., & Morton-Bourgon, K. E. (2005). The characteristics of persistent sexual offend-
ers: A meta-analysis of recidivism studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
73, 1154-1163. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.73.6.1154
Haynie, D. L., Nansel, T., Eitel, P., Crump, A. D., Saylor, K., Yu, K., & Simons-Morton, B.
(2001). Bullies, victims, and bully/victims: Distinct groups of at-risk youth. The Journal of
Early Adolescence, 21, 29-49. doi:10.1177/0272431601021001002
Henry, N., & Powell, A. (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
Hertlein, K. M., & Stevenson, A. (2010). The seven “as” contributing to Internet-related inti-
macy problems: A literature review. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research
on Cyberspace, 4(1), Article 3. Retrieved from https://cyberpsychology.eu/article/
view/4230/3273
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and respond-
ing to cyberbullying (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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-%20
Sextortion%20Q%20and%20A.pdf
Jacoby, N. H., Nehemkis, P., & Eells, R. S. F. (1977). Bribery and extortion in world business:
A study of corporate political payments abroad. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Jenkins, P. (2004). Moral panic: Changing concepts of the child molester in modern America.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Jennings, W. G., & Meade, C. (2016). Victim–offender overlap among sex offend-
ers. In The Oxford handbook of sex offences and sex offenders (p. 183). doi:1093/
oxfordhb/9780190213633.013.4
Jennings, W. G., Piquero, A. R., & Reingle, J. M. (2012). On the overlap between victimiza-
tion and offending: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 16-26.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.09.003
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
Kann, L., McManus, T., Harris, W. A., Shanklin, S. L., Flint, K. H., Hawkins, J. D., . . . Zaza,
S. (2016). Youth risk behavior surveillance—United States, 2015. Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report, 65(6), 1-174. doi:10.15585/mmwr.ss6506a1
Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail survey
response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 94-101. doi:10.1093/poq/nfh006
Karmen, A. (2012). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. Cengage Learning. Boston,
MA.
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
Kokkinos, C. M., & Kipritsi, E. (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
Konrad, K. A., & Skaperdas, S. (1997). Credible threats in extortion. Journal of Economic
Behavior & Organization, 33, 23-39. doi:10.1016/S0167-2681(97)00019-X
Konrad, K. A., & Skaperdas, S. (1998). Extortion. Economica, 65, 461-477. doi:10.1111/1468-
0335.00141
Kopecký, K. (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
Patchin and Hinduja 51

Korchmaros, J. D., Ybarra, M. L., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Boyd, D., & Lenhart, A. (2013).
Perpetration of teen dating violence in a networked society. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking, 16, 561-567. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0627
Krone, T. (2004). A typology of online child pornography offending. Australian Institute of
Criminology. Retrieved from https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi279
Lenhart, A., Smith, A., & Anderson, M. (2015). Teens, technology and romantic relationships:
From flirting to breaking up, social media and mobile phones are woven into teens’ roman-
tic lives. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/10/
PI_2015-10-01_teens-technology-romance_FINAL.pdf
Lindgren, J. (1993). The theory, history, and practice of the bribery-extortion distinction.
University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 141, 1695-1740. Retrieved from https://scholar-
ship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol141/iss5/6
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
Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U. (2013). Teens and technol-
ogy 2013. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2013/
PIP_TeensandTechnology2013.pdf
Manfreda, K. L., Bosnjak, M., Berzelak, J., Haas, I., Vehovar, V., & Berzelak, N. (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
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
Marganski, A., & Melander, L. (2018). Intimate partner violence victimization in the cyber
and real world: Examining the extent of cyber aggression experiences and its associa-
tion with in-person dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 1071-1095.
doi:10.1177/0886260515614283
McChesney, F. S. (1997). Money for nothing: Politicians, rent extraction, and political extor-
tion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Mishna, F., Khoury-Kassabri, M., Gadalla, T., & Daciuk, J. (2012). Risk factors for involve-
ment in cyber bullying: Victims, bullies and bully–victims. Children and Youth Services
Review, 34, 63-70. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.032
Montada, L. (1994). Injustice in harm and loss. Social Justice Research, 7, 5-28. doi:10.1007/
BF02333820
Mulford, C., & Giordano, P. C. (2008). Teen dating violence: A closer look at adolescent
romantic relationships. National Institute of Justice Journal, 261, 34-40.
The National Center for Victims of Crime. (2012). Stalking laws. Stalking Resource Center.
Retrieved from https://victimsofcrime.org/our-programs/stalking-resource-center/stalk-
ing-laws
O’Connell, R. (2003). A typology of child cybersexploitation and online grooming practices.
Preston, UK: University of Central Lancashire.
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
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2006). Bullies move beyond the schoolyard: A pre-
liminary look at cyberbullying. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 148-169.
doi:10.1177/1541204006286288
52 Sexual Abuse 32(1)

Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2016). Bullying today: Bullet points and best practices. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Patterson, D. (2011). The linkage between secondary victimization by law enforce-
ment and rape case outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 328-347.
doi:10.1177/0886260510362889
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
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
Posick, C. (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
Quayle, E. (2017). Over the internet, under the radar: Online child sexual abuse and exploita-
tion [Brief]. Retrieved from http://www.barnardos.org.uk/over_the_internet__under_the_
radar_literature_review.pdf
Salmivalli, C., & Nieminen, E. (2002). Proactive and reactive aggression among school bullies,
victims, and bully-victims. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 30-44. doi:10.1002/ab.90004
Salter, A. (2004). Predators: Pedophiles, rapists, and other sex offenders. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
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.
Sapouna, M., & Wolke, D. (2013). Resilience to bullying victimization: The role of individ-
ual, family and peer characteristics. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 997-1006. doi:10.1016/j.
chiabu.2013.05.009
Seals, D., & Young, J. (2003). Bullying and victimization: Prevalence and relationship to gen-
der, grade level, ethnicity, self-esteem, and depression. Adolescence, 38, 735-747.
Seetharaman, D., Nicas, J., & Olivarez-Giles, N. (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-misinfor-
mation-and-harassment-1479218402
Seimer, B. S. (2004). Intimate violence in adolescent relationships recognizing and intervening.
MCN: The American Journal of Maternal/Child Nursing, 29, 117-121.
Shavell, S. (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
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (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
Spergel, I. A. (1992). Youth gangs: An essay review. Social Service Review, 66, 121-140.
Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/30012453
Stanley, W. (2010). The protection racket state: Elite politics, military extortion, and civil war
in El Salvador. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Steinberg, L. (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
Patchin and Hinduja 53

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:10.1080/089005
23.2014.917976
Symonds, M. (1975). Victims of violence: Psychological effects and aftereffects. The American
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 35, 19-26. doi:10.1007/BF01248422
Taylor, M., & Quayle, E. (2003). Child pornography: An internet crime. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Vanden Abeele, M., Campbell, S. W., Eggermont, S., & Roe, K. (2014). Sexting, mobile porn
use, and peer group dynamics: Boys’ and girls’ self-perceived popularity, need for popular-
ity, and perceived peer pressure. Media Psychology, 17(1), 6-33. doi:10.1080/15213269.2
013.801725
Van Ouytsel, J., Ponnet, K., & Walrave, M. (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
Veenstra, R., Lindenberg, S., Oldehinkel, A. J., De Winter, A. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J.
(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
Veneziano, C., Veneziano, L., & LeGrand, S. (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
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
Walsh, W. A., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (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.
Whitty, M. T., & Carr, A. N. (2006). Cyberspace romance: The psychology of online relation-
ships. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wittes, B., Poplin, C., Jurecic, Q., & Spera, C. (2016). Sextortion: Cybersecurity, teenagers,
and remote sexual assault. Brookings Institution. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.
edu/research/sextortion-cybersecurity-teenagers-and-remote-sexual-assault/
Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2011). Sexting: A typology. Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/
ccrc/pdf/CV231_Sexting%20Typology%20Bulletin_4-6-11_revised.pdf
Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., & 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
Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., 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
Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Walsh, W. A., & Treitman, L. (2018). Sextortion of minors:
Characteristics and dynamics. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62, 72-79. doi:10.1016/j.jado-
health.2017.08.014
Yahner, J., Dank, M., Zweig, J. M., & Lachman, P. (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
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
54 Sexual Abuse 32(1)

Young, A., & Yung, M. (1996). Cryptovirology: Extortion-based security threats and coun-
termeasures. 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
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
Yusuph, K. (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.
Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (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
Zweig, J. M., Lachman, P., Yahner, J., & Dank, M. (2014). Correlates of cyber dating abuse
among teens. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 1306-1321. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-
0047-x