875821

research-article2019
VAWXXX10.1177/1077801219875821Violence Against WomenHenry et al.

Research Article
Violence Against Women
2020, Vol. 26(15-16) 1828­–1854
Technology-Facilitated © The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
Domestic and Sexual sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1077801219875821
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219875821
Violence: A Review journals.sagepub.com/home/vaw

Nicola Henry1 , Asher Flynn2,

and Anastasia Powell1

Abstract
This article investigates the phenomenon of domestic and sexual violence against adult
women using digital communications technologies. The article explores terminological
and conceptual challenges and describes the empirical research literature in this field
to date in relation to digital dating abuse, intimate partner cyberstalking, technology-
facilitated sexual assault, image-based sexual abuse, and online sexual harassment.
The article also discusses policy and practice responses to this growing problem, as
well as future directions for research. We argue that research and practice need to
be guided by existing conceptual frameworks that utilize gender and actor–network
theory to understanding the causes and consequences of women’s experiences of
abuse and violence facilitated by digital technologies.

Keywords
technology-faciliated abuse, digital dating abuse, image-based sexual abuse, online
sexual harassment, cyberstalking

Introduction
The launch of the World Wide Web in 1991 is often heralded as a significant turning
point in the creation of a modern, global “network society” (Castells, 1996), and yet,
it was not until 1993 that the first graphical web browsers provided free and widely
accessible public access to the Internet (Faraj, Kwon, & Watts, 2004). Self-described
cyberfeminists were optimistic, although not entirely uncritical, of the capacity of

1RMIT University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

2Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Corresponding Author:
Nicola Henry, Social and Global Studies Centre, RMIT University, 411 Swanston Street, Melbourne,
Victoria 3000, Australia.
Email: Nicola.henry@rmit.edu.au
Henry et al. 1829

the Internet and other digital technologies to contribute to social change that would
provide a fast-track route to gender equality. Prominent writers such as Sadie Plant
(1995) suggested that “women’s liberation is sustained and vitalized by the prolif-
eration and globalization of software technologies” (p. 58). Although such argu-
ments can be critiqued for their tendency toward techno-determinism (Luckman,
1999), there can be little doubt that the global web created a feeling of optimism for
many feminists who envisioned the breaking down of gender hierarchies through the
virtual realities of online space.
At the same time, many feminists remained concerned about the “male centrism”
of computer culture. Carol Adams (1996), for instance, posited that “cyberspace can-
not escape the social construction of gender because it was constructed by gendered
individuals, and because gendered individuals access it in ways that reinforce the sub-
jugation of women” (p. 162). These more ambivalent or even pessimistic views toward
technology were reflective of social determinism, whereby existing social norms,
structures, and inequalities were seen to precede technology and, in turn, shape how
technology was developed, used, and experienced.
A little over 25 years later, and fitting for the 25th anniversary edition of this jour-
nal, the Internet and digital technologies have become integrated into everyday life in
many parts of the world. From the first smartphones in the mid-1990s to integrated
camera–phones and the launch of Facebook in the early 2000s, contemporary societies
have undergone a period of rapid technosocial change in terms of access to informa-
tion and communication exchange. Internet technologies have become enmeshed in
social life through a diversity of personal and household devices (referred to broadly
as the “Internet of Things”). Technologies also enable individuals, governments, and
organizations to access and collate large amounts of personal information, and share it
with a rapidity never before seen, whether using digital images (photos, videos, and
simulated images), Bluetooth, Global Positioning Systems (GPS), radio frequency
identification (RFID), or other means.
The “digital revolution” has given rise to a profusion of new social cultures and
practices. The ubiquity of camera–phones, for instance, is linked to the prominence of
image-based communication or “visual conversations” (Katz & Crocker, 2015), and
the near universal uptake of social media platforms encouraging users to “broadcast
themselves”1 has influenced the blurring divide between public and private life (boyd,
2010). Alongside the vast benefits that digital technologies have bestowed, these same
technologies have facilitated opportunities for the perpetration of criminal harms, such
as computer hacking, online fraud, and identity theft. Although significant attention
has been given to these existing and emerging cybersecurity threats, far less attention
has been paid to the diverse ways in which digital technologies are used by offenders
to perpetrate or continue the harms of interpersonal violence.
This article focuses on the phenomenon of technology-facilitated domestic and
sexual violence.2 It explores the knowledge gleaned within the nascent research litera-
ture and describes a selection of different policy and practice responses to date. We
acknowledge that there are many and varied manifestations of technology-facilitated
abuse, including cyberbullying, trolling, hate-based harassment, and hate speech,
1830 Violence Against Women 26(15-16)

which are influenced by a confluence of racial, gender, sexuality, age, and disability
inequalities that are deserving of equal attention. However, the focus of this article is
squarely on domestic and sexual violence against women. In addition, although we
recognize the serious nature of abuse and violence against children and within a range
of interpersonal dynamics (including against boys and men), in this article, we focus
exclusively on adult women. Our rationale for this scope is twofold: First, we seek to
respond to the theme of this special anniversary issue, and second, we seek to recog-
nize the paucity of research on technology-facilitated abuse against adult women (e.g.,
Citron, 2014; Powell & Henry, 2017), as well as the continuing dearth of literature on
technology-facilitated abuse in intimate partner contexts (e.g., Douglas, Harris, &
Dragiewicz, 2019; Dragiewicz et al., 2018; Harris & Woodlock, 2018; Southworth,
Finn, Dawson, Fraser, & Tucker, 2007; Woodlock, 2017).
The first section of the article explores the terminological and conceptual chal-
lenges in the emerging field of technology-facilitated domestic and sexual violence.
The second section reviews the empirical literature on the prevalence, nature, and
impacts of technology-facilitated domestic and sexual violence. The third section then
discusses a selection of policy and practice responses to this growing problem, as well
as future directions for research. We argue that although it is tempting to exceptional-
ize or sensationalize the role of digital technologies in interpersonal forms of violence
and abuse, or alternatively, to underplay the role of technologies as merely tools or
weapons for motivated perpetrators, it is important to recognize the increasingly
embedded and intertwined nature of the physical, digital, and biological in seeking to
understand this phenomenon. Our analysis is thus informed by technofeminisms
(Wajcman, 2004) and actor–network theory (Latour, 1991, 2005), which see both arti-
facts (including technological artifacts) and humans interacting in complex ways, ren-
dering dichotomies between agency and structure, nature and society, actor and object,
and online and offline, as increasingly unproductive. We also argue that gender theory
is crucial for understanding the causes and consequences of technology-facilitated
domestic and sexual violence, and that future research and practical responses must be
conceptually guided by such frameworks.

A Phenomenon by Many Names

Over the past decade, there has been growing attention to different forms of inter-
personal violence perpetrated through the use of digital communications technolo-
gies. A range of umbrella terms using prefixes such as “technology,” “cyber,”
“digital,” “electronic,” “Internet,” or “online” have been used to describe different
types of harassment, victimization, violence, aggression, and abuse involving tech-
nological devices or platforms. However, there is little consensus among research-
ers as to the most appropriate term to describe the ever-changing patterns of digital
abuse within intimate partner or sexual interaction contexts. Some terms tend
toward specificity of the form of interpersonal violence under investigation, such as
“technology-facilitated sexual violence” (Powell & Henry, 2017), “image-based
sexual abuse” (IBSA) (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2016; Flynn & Henry, 2019;
Henry et al. 1831

McGlynn & Rackley, 2017; Powell & Henry, 2017), “technology-facilitated domes-
tic and family violence” (Douglas et al., 2019), “digital coercive control” (Harris &
Woodlock, 2018), or “technology-facilitated coercive control” (Dragiewicz et al.,
2018). Other scholars use broad terms, despite drawing on definitions that suggest
a narrower focus on particular sexual or intimate partner violence contexts.
Examples include Thompson and Morrison’s (2013) study of “technology-based
coercive behaviour,” which they define as asking someone online for sexual infor-
mation or posting a sexually suggestive message or picture to someone’s online
profile. Another is Gámez-Guadix, Almendros, Borrajo, and Calvete’s (2015) study
of “online victimization,” which they define as “pressure to obtain unwanted sexual
cooperation or the dissemination of a victim’s sexual content through the Internet”
(p. 145). Similarly, Reyns, Burek, Henson, and Fisher (2013) use the term “cyber-
victimization” to refer to receiving sexually explicit images, as well as harassment
and sexual solicitation.
The plethora of different terms is matched by the variety of definitions of what
constitutes online abuse, or abuse involving digital technologies, which creates a
key challenge for researchers and policy makers alike.3 Such differences make it
difficult to compare and contrast studies, particularly those relating to prevalence.
For example, some studies examine specific behaviors (e.g., IBSA or cyberstalking),
whereas others focus on a wider range of behaviors. Broad survey research on online
abuse and harassment represents a further challenge in that the context, significance,
and impacts of the abuse are not always easily captured (Douglas et al., 2019). This
may lead to a misconception that abuse involving digital technologies is not influ-
enced by gender dynamics, when some studies find that prevalence is equally high
for men as it is for women. In effect, without additional context regarding the nature
of the relationship, the presence of other abusive tactics, information on any repeti-
tive and ongoing features of the abuse, and impacts such as fear and psychological
distress of victims, the gendered nature and impacts of such abuse may be over-
looked (Douglas et al., 2019; Dragiewicz et al., 2018).
The nomenclature of prefixing the digital or technological to highlight the role of
the technological artifact in sexual and/or intimate partner violence is not without
challenges and criticism. Fiona Vera-Gray (2017), for instance, has noted that the term
“technology-facilitated” tends toward positioning the technology as the problem,
rather than the broader structural causes of violence against women, such as gender
inequality. It is a point taken up by other researchers in this field. Douglas et al. (2019),
for example, argue that technology-facilitated forms of domestic and family violence
(DFV) “should be understood as a form of coercive control that is inextricably tied to,
rather than separate from, DFV and the broader cultural values and practices that
engender it” (p. 3). Reed, Tolman, and Ward (2016) also note that digital technologies
form part of a “constellation of tactics” within abusive relationships, because they are
used as the tools or means to achieve certain perpetrator goals, such as sexual gratifi-
cation, coercion, retribution, humiliation, and control.
In our work on technology-facilitated sexual violence and IBSA (Powell & Henry,
2017; Powell, Henry, & Flynn, 2018), we have described the ways in which such
1832 Violence Against Women 26(15-16)

behaviors represent extensions of sexual violence, often amplifying the impacts on

victims, rather than representing necessarily a new or unfamiliar harm. We contend
that this nomenclature has the benefit of simultaneously capturing the facilitatory role
that technology plays in the perpetration of violence, without exceptionalizing this
role, or downplaying the sometimes-integral nature of technology in the commission
of the offense or the impacts on victims. This includes the use of digital technologies
for not only abuse solely perpetrated online but also those acts perpetrated outside of
the space of the Internet site, such as secret recording devices installed in the victim’s
home or other location. The prefix “technology-facilitated” does not preclude, we
claim, an analysis of the underlying drivers of the abuse, including gender inequality,
as well as racial, social, and other forms of marginalization and disadvantage. Indeed,
research and practice must be first and foremost guided by conceptual frameworks on
gender, violence, and intersectionality.
Some of the challenges relating to terminology are familiar within broader studies
of violence against women and/or gendered violence. In an article titled, “What’s in a
Name?” Karen Boyle (2019) considers the controversies of naming “domestic abuse,”
“violence against women,” “men’s violence against women,” and “gender-based vio-
lence.” She questions whether “abuse” better encapsulates the “range of physically,
emotionally, financially, and sexually controlling behaviours women experience”
(Boyle, 2019, p. 22). Boyle’s overarching point is that it is a significant challenge to
find the right language to convey the differential nature of women’s lived experiences
of violence, while acknowledging the structural nature of that violence, and the ways
in which transwomen, nonbinary people, and men’s experiences of violence are also
influenced by gendered norms, practices, and structures. Yet, in practice, naming a
phenomenon or harm is imperative not only for researchers but also to ensure that
these issues are identified as requiring further investigation and being the subject of
future legal and policy reform.
Boyle’s (2019) suggestion, adapting and extending Liz Kelly’s (1988) continuum
of sexual violence, is that the field of violence against women, or gendered violence
more broadly, would benefit from additional “continuum thinking” (p. 20). Boyle
highlights the usefulness of thinking through “continuums in the plural” to explore the
connections and structural underpinnings of multiple forms of gendered violence
(p. 21). We suggest that continuum thinking is likewise helpful for interrogating the
role of technology in domestic and sexual violence (Powell & Henry, 2017; also see
McGlynn, Rackley, & Houghton, 2017).
Actor–network theory (Latour, 1991) is another useful lens from which to examine
the integrated nature of human and nonhuman sociality, as well as technofeminism
(Wajcman, 2004), which examines the continued influence of gender relations in
human–technical “hybrid” social systems. Continuum thinking in this context is vital,
as it is no longer accurate to treat technologies as representing a separate sphere of
behaviors, practices, and experiences to those in a material world. Victim experiences
of domestic or sexual violence likewise do not occur in a vacuum in which the techno-
logical is separate from the nontechnological. Rather, the experience is one of a
constellation of abusive tactics, coercive control, and violence, of which
Henry et al. 1833

technology-facilitated stalking, harassment, or sextortion (for example) may consti-

tute one part of the abuse as a whole.
Actor–network theory also draws attention to the active role of nonhuman com-
ponents in an assemblage of abusive tactics, which can be understood as more than
mere tools in the hands of a human perpetrator. For instance, the technological
affordances of social media, such as the “like” and “share” features, represent a
complex system of human and nonhuman agency that enable the “viral” spread of,
for example, nonconsensual intimate images or gender-based hate material, which
becomes algorithmically amplified. In other words, it is a combination of human
agency deciding which hateful or abusive content to “like” and “share,” along with
programs that decide to further distribute, recommend, and “push” content
throughout the network (Powell, Stratton, & Cameron, 2018). This provides fur-
ther justification for treating technology-facilitated domestic and sexual violence
not simply as an extension of “traditional” forms of gendered violence, or as a
striking illustration of the ways in which domestic and sexual violence have
evolved, but also as an exemplification of the complex role that machines and their
human counterparts play in subjugation and violence.

Empirical Studies on Technology-Facilitated Domestic

and Sexual Violence
In this section, we review the empirical literature on technology-facilitated domestic
and sexual violence. In particular, we consider the knowledge to date regarding the
role of digital technologies in dating abuse and domestic violence, sexual assault,
IBSA, and sexual harassment.

Technology-Facilitated Domestic Violence

Romantic and sexual relationships have radically transformed in the last three
decades owing to the proliferation of digital communications technologies, such
as email, texting, smart phones, emoticons, webcams, dating websites and apps,
instant messaging, video chat, and social media (Hobbs, Owen, & Gerber, 2017).
Digital communications technology enables people to seek, commence, maintain,
or end intimate relationships in radically new and innovative ways. Although
many individuals experience these intimate interactions as fun, exciting, and posi-
tive, these same technologies can be used for malicious purposes. Domestic vio-
lence support workers have reported the increasing use of digital technologies in
the tactics and strategies of domestic violence offenders (Henry & Powell, 2015;
Southworth et al., 2007; Woodlock, 2017), and researchers note that it is no longer
accurate to conceptualize intimate partner violence as predominantly a face-
to-face encounter between perpetrator and victim (Marganski & Melander, 2018).4
The empirical literature described below represents a collection of studies that are
focused on intimate partner or dating forms of technology-facilitated abuse, encom-
passing a range of different behaviors, including cyberstalking (surveillance and
1834 Violence Against Women 26(15-16)

monitoring), harassing and threatening messages (online or via cell phone), online
humiliation, and other controlling behaviors involving digital technologies and
Internet accounts.

Digital Dating Abuse

The majority of attention in the literature to date on technology-facilitated domestic
violence has explored “digital dating abuse” among young people. This is defined as
the use of digital technologies to coerce, control, pressure, monitor, harass, or threaten
a dating partner (Reed et al., 2016). Although different terms are used to describe the
same or similar behaviors, many studies examine a collection of behaviors, such as
IBSA (taking, sharing, or threatening to share nude or sexual images), password
access, surveillance and monitoring, and constant contact (e.g., Draucker & Martsolf,
2010; Hellevik, 2019; Reed et al., 2016). There have been fewer studies examining
dating abuse among adults.
According to a recent study with 2,810 Americans aged 15 years and older,
Ybarra, Price-Feeney, Lenhart, and Zickuhr (2017) found that 12% of respondents
reported having experienced at least one form of “intimate partner digital abuse,”
which included “being purposefully embarrassed online, being called offensive
names, and being stalked.” Higher rates were reported in studies by Borrajo, Gámez-
Guadix, and Calvete (2015; n = 433); Burke, Wallen, Vail-Smith, and Knox (2011;
n = 804); and Martinez-Pecino and Durán (2019; n = 219). These studies found that
approximately 50% of college students reported either victimization or perpetration
using communications technology in the context of an intimate partner relationship.
In Marganski and Melander’s (2018) study of college students’ experiences of “inti-
mate partner cyber aggression” (n = 540), nearly three quarters of respondents
reported at least one experience within the past year. Their definition included the
use of socially interactive technologies (e.g., text messaging and social networking)
by one individual to facilitate harassment against another in the context of intimate
partner abuse. They also explored the co-occurrence of “in-person experiences of
psychological, physical, and sexual partner violence,” concluding that, based on
multivariate analyses, “such aggression may be part of a larger violence nexus given
its relation to in-person psychological, physical, and sexual partner violence victim-
ization experiences” (p. 1074).5
Studies on digital dating violence are mixed in terms of the relationship between
gender and victimization. In Ybarra et al.’s (2017) study, women and men were equally
likely to report experiencing some form of digital harassment from a romantic partner.
In Reed et al.’s (2016) study of US college students (n = 365), although men and
women reported equal rates of victimization and perpetration, women reported more
anticipated levels of distress than men (see also Burke et al., 2011). As for age and
sexuality, in Ybarra et al.’s study, respondents below 30 years (22%) were three times
more likely than those above 30 years (8%) to report experiences of victimization.
They also found that 38% of respondents who identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual
(LGB) reported higher rates of abuse than heterosexuals (10%).
Henry et al. 1835

Intimate Partner Cyberstalking

The nature of cyberstalking is constantly shifting owing to the rapid development of
new technologies. Primarily, the term has been used to describe a variety of behaviors
that involve repeated threats or harassment through the use of digital communications
technology, which causes the victim to feel afraid or concerned for his or her safety
(Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2002). Behaviors include gathering information, imperson-
ation, computer hacking, false accusations, or repeated contact to monitor, harass,
intimidate, or threaten the victim in person or via cell phone, email, Internet sites,
drone technology, or other means (Sheridan & Grant, 2007).
In a recent US study, it was found that 8% of respondents reported experiences of
cyberstalking, with women twice as likely as men to report victimization and LGB
respondents almost 4 times as likely to report experiencing cyberstalking (Lenhart,
Ybarra, Zickuhr, & Price-Feeney, 2016).6 In this study, 20% of young women below
the age of 30 years had experienced cyberstalking (Lenhart et al., 2016). Fewer studies
have examined cyberstalking perpetration, although the research indicates a preva-
lence of between 5% (Reyns, 2018; Reyns, Henson, & Fisher, 2012) and up to 50%
(Lyndon, Bonds-Raacke, & Cratty, 2011), based on college student samples.
As pointed out by Bradford Reyns (2018), “these considerable disparities in esti-
mates are likely due to methodological and measurement differences across studies”
(p. 185). Furthermore, the majority of studies on “cyberstalking” capture a broad array
of behaviors perpetrated by both known persons and strangers alike. However, exist-
ing research shows that stalkers are most likely to be potential, current, or former
partners (Alexy, Burgess, Baker, & Smoyak, 2005; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). This
has led several researchers to narrow their focus to cyberstalking in the context of
domestic violence and dating abuse—also referred to as “intimate cyberstalking”
(McFarlane & Bocij, 2003; see also Southworth et al., 2007; Tokunaga, 2007) or
“online obsessional relational intrusion” (Chaulk & Jones, 2011). These studies recog-
nize that the development of digital technologies, alongside intimate knowledge of the
victim, provides perpetrators with easier access to personal information, as well as
avenues to communicate with victims and engage in other stalking behaviors, often
with impunity (Sheridan & Grant, 2007; Smoker & March, 2017).
Overall, there has been little empirical research on intimate partner cyberstalking.
Some exceptions include Robert Tokunaga’s (2007) online questionnaire (n = 51)
with cyberstalking victims to analyze their risk management tactics. In another study,
Chaulk and Jones (2011) focused on the opportunities provided on Facebook to engage
in online obsessive relational intrusion (see also Lyndon et al., 2011). Few studies,
however, have documented the prevalence of either intimate partner cyberstalking per-
petration or victimization. One exception is Smoker and March’s (2017) study (n =
689), in which they found that women were more likely to engage in intimate partner
cyberstalking than men and that “Dark Tetrad” traits (Machiavellianism, narcissism,
psychopathy, and sadism) were predictive factors of perpetration.
There have also been very few qualitative studies on technology-facilitated domes-
tic violence and digital dating abuse. One exception is Dimond, Fiesler, and Bruckman’s
1836 Violence Against Women 26(15-16)

(2011) study, where they conducted interviews with 10 women who were residents at a
domestic violence shelter in the United States. They concluded that digital technologies
are inextricably linked to their domestic violence experiences, which extended beyond
the point of separation with their offenders as an additional factor to escape in a “web
of entanglement” (p. 420). Weathers and Hopson (2015) interviewed 10 female college
students who had previously been in “a digitally abusive heterosexual romantic rela-
tionship.” The aim of the study was rather narrow in that the authors focused on the
communicative experiences and strategies that women adopt to deal with coping with,
and moving on from, an abusive relationship. Another is an Australian study in which
Douglas et al. (2019) conducted interviews with 65 participants about their experiences
of legal system responses to domestic violence. Although participants were not specifi-
cally asked about the role of digital technology, 85% in the first of three sequential
interviews mentioned that technology was a part of the pattern of offending. Examples
included repeated, abusive, and threatening cell phone calls and texts, monitoring and
control of cell phones and Internet accounts, and IBSA (Douglas et al., 2019).
In summary, much of the current research on technology-facilitated intimate partner
or dating abuse has been quantitative, and based on convenience samples, often with
college students. Although there is little consistency in methods, instruments, and defi-
nitions, the research suggests that digital abuse within intimate relationships is rela-
tively common. As noted by Brown and Hegarty (2018) in their review of empirical
research on digital dating abuse, there needs to be more consistency for future survey
research, including clear definitions of key terms, psychometric evidence, and an inves-
tigation of both victimization and perpetration prevalence. Brown and Hegarty (2018)
further note that improvements to survey quality should include an investigation into
the relationship between the victim and perpetrator, clarification of lifetime or time-
based experiences, and investigation into more subtle forms of abuse, as well as the
impacts of digital dating abuse on victims. In addition, there also needs to be more
qualitative research focused on technology-facilitated domestic and dating violence.

Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence

In this section, we focus on the more sexualized behaviors involving digital technolo-
gies. We recognize that these behaviors may or may not be perpetrated alongside oth-
ers in the context of domestic violence and dating abuse.7 Although the literature
review above focused on intimate relational abuse, in this section, we examine sexual
violence as perpetrated by both known persons and strangers alike. We focus on three
subsets of behaviors: technology-facilitated sexual assault; image-based sexual abuse
(IBSA); and online sexual harassment (OSH).

Technology-Facilitated Sexual Assault

Technology-facilitated sexual assault refers to the use of cell phones, email, social
networking sites, chat rooms, online dating sites, and other communications technolo-
gies that are used by sexual predators as a means of procuring rape or sexual assault.
Henry et al. 1837

This might involve the befriending of the victims on an online dating site before
arranging to meet them in person to carry out a sexual assault. Alternatively, it might
involve “rape by proxy,” where the offender posts messages online calling on third
parties to rape or sexually assault the victim (e.g., sometimes pretending to be the
victim; Powell & Henry, 2017). In other cases, the perpetrator uses blackmail to coerce
the victim into engaging in a sexual act—also known as “sextortion.” This can take the
form of eliciting private information or a sexual image and using this material to
blackmail, bribe, or threaten the victim (Powell & Henry, 2017).
Much of the focus in the literature on technology-facilitated sexual assault and
coercion has been on children and adolescents as victims of online sexually predatory
behavior (e.g., Beech, Elliot, Birgden, & Findlater, 2008). To date, very little empirical
research has captured the prevalence of adult sexual victimization using cell phone
apps, dating sites, and other online platforms. Figures from the UK National Crime
Agency (2016) show that the number of people who report being raped on their first
date with someone they met on a dating app has increased sixfold in just five years,
with women representing the majority (85%) of victims of sexual offenses linked to
online dating between 2003 and 2015. This was also evidenced in Powell and Henry’s
(2017) study (n = 5,798) where one in 10 Australian women and nearly 12% of women
in the UK reported that they had an unwanted sexual experience with someone they
first met online. Consistent with the studies mentioned below, Powell and Henry
(2017) found that young women in particular were more likely to report these experi-
ences. For example, in the UK component of the survey (n = 2,842), they found that
young women aged between 20 and 24 years were almost twice as likely (21.1%) to
have had an unwanted sexual experience with someone they first met online as com-
pared with other adult women generally (11.7%).
Other studies have investigated “unwanted sexual solicitation,” which includes
sexual coercion, such as receiving unwanted requests to talk about sex (see also dis-
cussion below on online sexual harassment) or to do something sexual (Ybarra,
Espelage, & Mitchell, 2007). Again, the focus of research has been mainly on children
and adolescents (e.g., Mitchell, Wolak, & Finkelhor, 2008). In a Dutch study,
Baumgartner, Valkenburg, and Peter (2010) (n = 1,765 adolescents; n = 1,026 adults)
investigated the prevalence of unwanted online sexual solicitation. They found among
their adult cohort that 4.6% of males and 6.7% of females reported that they had been
asked to do something sexual when they did not want to, at least once in the past six
months. This was compared with 5.6% of male adolescents and 19.1% of female ado-
lescents who reported having been unwantedly sexually solicited online at least once
in the past six months. In this study, the authors limited “doing something sexual”
exclusively to online behaviors.

Image-Based Sexual Abuse

Image-based sexual abuse (IBSA) has received growing attention over the past few
years (e.g., Citron & Franks, 2014; McGlynn & Rackley, 2017; Powell & Henry, 2017;
Powell, Henry, & Flynn, 2018). This involves three key behaviors: the creation or
1838 Violence Against Women 26(15-16)

taking of nude or sexual images; the sharing or distribution of nude or sexual images;
and threats made to share nude or sexual images; (Powell & Henry, 2017; Powell,
Henry, & Flynn, 2018). Images can be photographs or videos. Perpetrators may be
motivated to engage in such behaviors for the purposes of revenge, sexual pleasure,
power, or to seek enjoyment, entertainment, social status, or monetary gain.
There are diverse manifestations of IBSA. Behaviors include, for example, perpe-
trators surreptitiously photographing or filming the victim without his or her knowl-
edge, in both public and private settings, or recording consensual or nonconsensual
sexual encounters without the consent or knowledge of the victim. It may involve the
production of digitally altered images that depict the victim in a sexual way, referred
to as “fake porn” (or “deepfakes” when involving the use of artificial intelligence;
Chesney & Citron, 2018). Other examples include pressure or coercion on the victim
to share nude or sexual images, or distributing or sharing nude or sexual images via
cell phone, email, social media, and other Internet sites, including so-called “revenge
porn” or “ex-girlfriend” websites, where personal details of victims are posted along-
side their image. In other contexts, domestic violence perpetrators threaten to share
nude or sexual images to force or coerce the victim in some way, or computer hackers
threaten to share stolen images to obtain more images, to force the victim into an
unwanted sexual act, or to extort money.
Some studies have examined the prevalence and impacts of IBSA victimization and
perpetration. The majority have been more broadly on intimate relationships and tech-
nology use or technology-facilitated abuse and, as such, do not comprehensively
investigate the phenomenon (e.g., Branch, Hilinski-Rosick, Johnson, & Solano, 2017;
Dir & Cyders, 2015; Marganski & Melander, 2018). There have been, however, a
small number of studies specifically focused on IBSA (e.g., Cyber Civil Rights
Initiative, 2014; Eaton, Jacobs, & Ruvalcaba, 2018; Lenhart et al., 2016; OeSC, 2017;
Powell, Henry, & Flynn, 2018). It is difficult to compare results across these studies
owing to different methods, definitions, and sample sizes; yet, broadly speaking, the
research indicates prevalence relating to victimization among adults to be between 1
and 12% in relation to the nonconsensual sharing of nude or sexual images. In relation
to threats to share nude or sexual images, existing studies (both broad and more nar-
rowly on IBSA) suggest a victimization rate between 1 and 15% (e.g., Eaton et al.,
2018; Gámez-Guadix et al., 2015; Lenhart et al., 2016; McAfee, 2013; Powell &
Henry, 2017; Powell, Henry, & Flynn, 2018; Powell, Henry, Flynn, & Scott, 2019;
Reed et al., 2016).
To date, very few studies have measured the prevalence of victimization relating to
the nonconsensual taking of nude or sexual images. Our 2016 study (n = 4,274) found
that one in five (20%) participants had experienced someone taking a nude or sexual
image of them without their consent (Powell, Henry, & Flynn, 2018). We also asked
female respondents about their experiences of “upskirting” and “downblousing,” and
found that one in 10 women had experienced someone taking an image of their cleav-
age without their permission, and one in 20 had experienced someone taking an image
up their skirt without their permission. This rate is likely to be an underestimate
because many victims remain unaware that someone has taken images of them.
Henry et al. 1839

Although some studies have found that, similar to other forms of intimate aggres-
sion, women are more commonly the targets of IBSA as compared with men (e.g.,
Eaton et al., 2018; Lenhart et al., 2016; OeSC, 2017), other studies found either similar
victimization rates among both men and women (e.g., Powell & Henry, 2017; Powell,
Henry, & Flynn, 2018; Reed et al., 2016), or somewhat higher victimization rates
among men (e.g., Borrajo et al., 2015; Powell & Henry, 2017; Reed et al., 2016). In a
2017 Australian study on IBSA (n = 4,122), women (15%) were twice as likely as
men (7%) to report experiencing someone sharing nude or sexual images of them
without their consent (OeSC, 2017). Like Lenhart et al.’s (2016) study, this study
found that age and gender were a significant predictor of prevalence, with 24% of
women and 16% of men aged between 18 and 24 years reporting having experienced
someone sharing a nude or sexual image of them without their consent (OeSC, 2017).
In addition to gender and age, this study (OeSC, 2017) found that Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Australians (25%) were twice as likely to have experienced this
form of IBSA in comparison with non-Indigenous Australians (11%). Prevalence was
also high for those who spoke a language other than English at home (19% compared
with 11%) and among LGB participants (19% compared with 11%; see also Lenhart
et al., 2016; Powell, Henry, & Flynn, 2018). In our study (Powell, Henry, & Flynn,
2018), we similarly found that one in two Australians with a disability, one in three
LGB people, one in three young people aged 16-19 years, and one in four people aged
20-29 years reported experiences of IBSA. These findings suggest that IBSA victim-
ization experiences reflect the patterns of abuse and harassment common among vul-
nerable or marginalized groups within the community more broadly.
Few studies have investigated the impacts of IBSA. One exception is the Cyber
Civil Rights Initiative’s (2014) Effects of Revenge Porn Survey (n = 864), which
found that 93% said they had experienced significant emotional distress as a result
of their images being distributed online. In the Australian study conducted by the
Office of the eSafety Commissioner (OeSC, 2017) (n = 4,122), victims said they
felt annoyed (65%), angry (64%), humiliated (55%), depressed (40%), and afraid for
their safety (32%) after their images had been distributed. Furthermore, 42% said
their most recent experience affected their self-esteem and 41% said it affected their
mental health. In our Australian study (n = 4,274; Powell, Henry, & Flynn, 2018),
we found that victims of IBSA were almost twice as likely as nonvictims to report
experiencing high levels of psychological stress, consistent with a diagnosis of mod-
erate to severe depression and/or anxiety disorder. We also found that many victims
reported that they were “very” or “extremely” fearful for their safety as a result of
their IBSA experience, with women victims more likely to report feeling this way
(Powell, Henry, & Flynn, 2018).
Finally, there have been very few quantitative studies on IBSA perpetration, and
like the other research described in this article, prevalence rates are mostly derived
from broader surveys on online abuse.8 Although it is difficult to synthesize the find-
ings given the different sample sizes, definitions, and instruments used, studies indi-
cate an approximate perpetration rate between 12 and 30% of respondents who report
sharing nude or sexual images without the consent of the person depicted in the video
1840 Violence Against Women 26(15-16)

or photograph (e.g., Crofts, Lee, McGovern, & Milivojevic, 2015; Eaton et al., 2018;
Garcia et al., 2016; Morelli, Bianchi, Baiocco, Pezzuti, & Chirumbolo, 2016; Powell
et al., 2019; Thompson & Morrison, 2013).
One problem is that there are inconsistencies with definitions such as “sharing,”
namely, whether or not sharing included showing or sending photographs, texts, or
videos. Furthermore, the majority of studies did not report on gender, age, race, or
sexuality differences in relation to self-disclosed perpetration items. In our survey
on self-disclosed IBSA perpetration (n = 4,274; Powell et al., 2019), we found that
one in 10 respondents reported engaging in at least one IBSA behavior (taking, shar-
ing, or threatening to share nude or sexual photographs or videos). For all individual
IBSA behaviors, we found that men were significantly more likely to report engag-
ing in perpetration than women—which was particularly so for men aged 20-29 and
30-39 years. We also found that LGB participants were more likely than heterosex-
ual participants to self-report perpetration, as well as IBSA victims and those who
had engaged in sexual selfie behaviors (taking and/or sharing nude or sexual images
of themselves).
Overall, the majority of these victimization and perpetration studies have used vari-
able sample sizes, largely convenience populations (such as college student samples),
and few have been exclusively focused on IBSA. Moreover, victimization studies are
likely to underestimate prevalence because they only include reports from victims who
have become aware that their images have been created and/or distributed without
consent. Some studies only asked about sharing images on Internet sites and not
through other means such as via cell phone. A further inconsistency was that some
studies only asked participants about photographs, whereas others asked about text
messages, photographs, and videos. Finally, some studies only asked perpetration or
bystander questions, whereas others only asked about victimization experiences.
Although survey research provides much-needed insight into the scope of the prob-
lem of IBSA, a simple glance at the online websites that host nonconsensual images,
often without the knowledge of the victims depicted in the images, reveals a much
more complex picture (see Hall & Hearn, 2018; Henry & Flynn, 2019; Uhl, Rhyner,
Terrance, & Lugo, 2018). Qualitative research is, therefore, necessary to explore the
different types of IBSA and its associated impacts, as well as the gendered nature of
IBSA, including causes and impacts. The limited qualitative research on IBSA to date
indicates that, increasingly, women are seeking assistance from domestic violence,
sexual assault, and community legal services for advice, support, and legal options, in
response to IBSA (Bates, 2017; Henry & Powell, 2015; Powell & Henry, 2017).
Attention has also been paid to the significant emotional distress that victims experi-
ence when IBSA occurs. For instance, victims may retreat from engaging in both
offline and online social activities and they may suffer anxiety and depression along-
side other social, economic, and psychological problems (Bates, 2017; Citron &
Franks, 2014; Henry & Powell, 2015). Gendered victim blaming was also (unsurpris-
ingly) noted in a number of studies (e.g., Powell, Henry, & Flynn, 2018; Walker, Sanci,
& Temple-Smith, 2013). No qualitative research has yet been published involving
interviews with perpetrators of IBSA.
Henry et al. 1841

Online Sexual Harassment

Online sexual harassment (OSH) includes offensive, humiliating, or intimidating con-
duct that is unwanted or unwelcome and of a sexual nature (Barak, 2005; Citron, 2014;
Powell & Henry, 2017). OSH is an imprecise term that can include a range of behav-
iors, such as unwanted sexual attention or requests for sex, image-based harassment,
simulated rape, rape threats, sexual coercion, hate speech, and cyberstalking (for an
overview, see Powell & Henry, 2017). In existing quantitative studies specifically on
OSH, or more broadly on online abuse and harassment, there have been varied defini-
tions, with some studies only asking participants whether they have been (or have felt)
sexually harassed (e.g., Ballard & Welch, 2015; Duggan, 2014; Goodson, McCormick,
& Evans, 2001). This is likely to result in underreporting because many victims will
not label their experiences as sexual harassment, even if they would have said yes to
having experienced behaviors that constitute sexual harassment (Australian Human
Rights Commission, 2018). Even among those studies that define OSH and/or ask
behavioral questions about OSH, they do so in diverse ways, no doubt due to the ever-
changing nature of digital interactions. For instance, Staude-Müller, Hansen, and Voss
(2012) define OSH as “receiving pornographic material” or “being asked intimate
questions,” whereas Gámez-Guadix et al.’s (2015) definition is “some type of pressure
through the Internet or mobile phone to obtain unwanted cooperation or sexual contact
and/or the distribution or dissemination by the perpetrator of sexual images or infor-
mation of the victim against his or her will” (p. 145).
Some studies have investigated specific forms of OSH, such as online sexual solici-
tation (Baumgartner et al., 2010). Other studies have more broadly explored rates of
OSH against adults.9 For example, in a recent survey of Australian participants aged
15-29 years (n = 1,272), 34% reported sexual harassment through social media and
26% via phone (Douglass, Wright, Davis, & Lim, 2018). Of those respondents who
had used a dating app in the previous year (n = 537), 57% said they had experienced
sexual harassment (Douglass, Wright, Davis, & Lim, 2018). In our study (n = 5,798;
Powell & Henry, 2017), we found that 20% of Australian participants and 16.6% of
UK respondents reported having experienced OSH in their lifetime, where women
reported experiencing significantly higher rates of OSH than men, and more than 32%
of young women (18-24 years) in both Australia and the United Kingdom reported
having been sexually harassed online.10 The study found the most common types of
OSH were receiving unwanted sexually explicit images, comments, emails, or text
messages, followed by receiving repeated and/or unwanted sexual requests online or
via email or text.
There has been limited investigation of rates of OSH against lesbian, gay, bisex-
ual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Jerry Finn’s (2004) study examined preva-
lence in different sexuality groups, finding that approximately one third of LGBT
respondents (n = 16) reported getting a harassing email from someone they did not
know or barely knew (only 16 people took part in the study, which reduces the sig-
nificance of the finding). In another study examining online abuse experienced by
Australian and British adults aged 18-54 years (n = 5,798), Powell, Scott, and
1842 Violence Against Women 26(15-16)

Henry (2020) reported that transgender participants experienced particularly high

rates of digital harassment and abuse as compared with cisgender heterosexual
adults. The nature of online abuse experienced by transgender adults was signifi-
cantly more likely to include sexual harassment, as well as sexuality- and gender-
based harassment (Powell, Scott, & Henry, 2020). This is consistent with the
finding in Douglass et al.’s (2018) study that transgender, gender diverse, and non-
heterosexual young people are at risk of not only in-person sexual harassment but
also technology-facilitated sexual harassment. Together, what these studies show is
that OSH is a common problem and that some groups experience it at dispropor-
tionate rates. This is perhaps unsurprising given what is known about the rates of
sexual harassment generally.11
Additional qualitative research on OSH is also needed to explore in more detail the
experiences, impacts, and responses of victims and others. Some qualitative studies on
OSH include Jessica Megarry’s (2014) case study on the Twitter #mencallmethings,
which describes the abuse and harassment that women receive online from men (see
also Jane, 2014), and Laura Thompson’s (2018) analysis of sexist abuse and harass-
ment against women by men on dating apps.

Legal Responses, Policy Implications, and Future

Research Directions
It is clear that more quantitative and qualitative research on technology-facilitated
domestic and sexual violence is needed to further investigate prevalence, nature, and
impacts. Although some empirical studies do not specifically investigate the gendered
nature of technology-facilitated abuse, decades of research on domestic and sexual
violence strongly show that gender (and gender inequality) is a key, but not only, fac-
tor in understanding both perpetration and victimization experiences. And, as the few
qualitative studies on technology-facilitated domestic and sexual violence to date have
shown, the gendered context in which such abuse takes place is likewise crucial for
understanding these behaviors. As such, it is important that future research, as well as
practical responses to technology-facilitated sexual and domestic violence, are guided
by existing conceptual frameworks that utilize gender theory to understand the causes
and consequences of this violence. The discusson below focuses on a selection of
practical responses in this field to date, as well as future directions for research.

Legal Responses
In response to the emergence and proliferation of abuse involving the use of digital
technologies, criminal and civil laws have undergone significant reform globally. For
example, in many countries, the nonconsensual distribution of nude or sexual images
has been made a criminal offense. Some jurisdictions also criminalize threats to dis-
tribute intimate images and, in some jurisdictions, the taking or creating of intimate
images without consent (which includes the nonconsensual creation of digitally altered
images) has been made a specific criminal offense.
Henry et al. 1843

There are civil laws in many countries, which may give victims the option of taking
offenders to court (e.g., under sexual harassment, copyright, or privacy laws); how-
ever, the costs associated with civil litigation are prohibitive for many victims. Some
jurisdictions have introduced innovative civil justice approaches to dealing with these
issues. For example, in 2018, Australia introduced a federal civil penalty scheme that
was specifically designed to provide victims of image-based abuse an alternative jus-
tice avenue to the criminal justice system or civil litigation. Under the civil penalty
scheme, the Australian Office of the eSafety Commissioner can issue a takedown
notice or civil penalties for the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, as well as
threats to share images via the Internet, email, and cell phone.
Legislative responses have met several challenges. For example, in many jurisdic-
tions, the laws pertaining to the distribution of nonconsensual intimate images require
the prosecution to prove that the perpetrator intended to cause harm and/or serious
emotional distress to the victim, with some laws requiring evidence of the serious
harms caused to victims. Such laws are problematic because they fail to capture the
diverse motivations for the creation or distribution of intimate images beyond that of
revenge, and will not capture situations where the distributor is deliberately conceal-
ing the sharing of such images (Henry & Flynn, 2019). Other challenges have emerged
in relation to prioritizing the harms of (supposedly) impinging on free speech, versus
the harms of technology-facilitated abuse. In Texas, for example, legislation criminal-
izing IBSA was overturned by the Court of Appeals on the basis that the law was an
“invalid content-based restriction and overbroad in the sense that it violates rights of
too many third parties by restricting more speech than the Constitution permits” (Ex
Parte Jones, Court of Appeals, 12th Court of Appeals Tyler District No 12-17-00,346-
CR). The court held that the law was in violation of freedom of speech provisions in
the First Amendment.
There are also legislative issues in relation to other instances of technology-facili-
tated domestic and sexual violence. In relation to stalking legislation, for instance,
some acts of intimate partner cyberstalking might not meet the legal thresholds for
criminal stalking or harassment in many jurisdictions where there is a requirement that
the victim feel fear or apprehension in relation to a repeated course of conduct by the
perpetrator. In many common law jurisdictions, sexual harassment is only unlawful in
specified areas of public life, which means sexual harassment is not against the law in
private settings. In other words, although online sexual harassment in schools, univer-
sities, workplaces, and other areas of “public life” can be reported, investigated, and
acted upon, technically it is not unlawful to engage in these behaviors in a private
context, unless it crosses a threshold into criminal activity (e.g., where the victim is a
child or adolescent, or where there is blackmail or computer hacking activity).
Finally, a key challenge concerns law enforcement approaches to addressing tech-
nology-facilitated abuse. Our research has demonstrated that although police are
beginning to treat these harms more seriously, there are five key barriers to action.
These include: inconsistent laws, a lack of police resources, evidentiary limitations,
jurisdictional boundaries, and victim blaming or harm minimization attitudes (Powell
& Henry, 2018; Henry, Flynn, & Powell, 2018). Bond and Tyrrell (2018), who
1844 Violence Against Women 26(15-16)

surveyed 738 police and related personnel in England and Wales, have also pointed to
similar problems, including: police knowledge of legislation, their confidence in
responding to cases, and the level of training they had received. They found over-
whelmingly that police had a limited understanding of laws and lacked confidence in
both investigating cases and effectively responding to victims.
One of the greatest challenges across the range of different behaviors (and, indeed,
cybercrime research generally) concerns the cross-jurisdictional barriers that make it
difficult (or in some cases impossible) to detect, apprehend, and prosecute offenders
when they are located in another country or jurisdiction (Henry et al., 2018). Although
intergovernmental and cross-jurisdictional law enforcement measures are often mobi-
lized in relation to child sexual offenses (such as the distribution online of child exploi-
tation material), this is rare in relation to technology-facilitated abuse against adults
(Henry et al., 2018), meaning that other policy and nonlegal approaches are warranted
for responding to and preventing this abuse, as well as more education, training, and
resources for police and the criminal justice system.

Policy Implications
Criminal and civil remedies are not always the only or most appropriate response to
the harms of technology-facilitated domestic and sexual violence. It is vital that other
nonlegal measures are in place to provide support, advice, and assistance to victims
and practitioners, and to educate the broader public about its prevalence, nature, and
impacts. Some examples of this include increased support and reporting services (e.g.,
the image-based abuse reporting portal in Australia), the creation of advice hotlines
and 24/7 online sites (e.g., the Revenge Porn Helpline in the United Kingdom), as well
as Internet companies, social media platforms, and other website providers introduc-
ing robust policies prohibiting online abuse, and creating efficient and effective online
reporting mechanisms.
In 2015, Microsoft and Google announced new reporting options so that victims
can request to have their intimate images excluded from Bing or Google searches.
Other platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Tumblr, Pornhub, SnapChat,
Instagram, and Flickr (among many others) have also introduced reporting mecha-
nisms for victims of IBSA. In November 2017, Facebook also announced a pilot
trial in partnership with the Australian Office of the eSafety Commissioner that
seeks to prevent IBSA from occurring on its platforms. In May 2018, the trial was
expanded to Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom with partners
including the Revenge Porn Helpline, the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, the National
Network to End Domestic Violence, and the Young Women’s Christian Association
(YWCA). The trial allows people who are concerned that someone might share an
image of them on Facebook (and/or its subsidiaries) to contact the relevant partner
agency and complete an online form. The person will then be sent an email contain-
ing a secure, one-time link, where they can upload the image(s). A community
operations analyst from Facebook accesses the image and creates a “hash” or
unique “digital fingerprint” of it, and the image is then deleted. If someone later
Henry et al. 1845

attempts to upload or share the image on Facebook or its subsidiaries, they will be
automatically blocked, and the image will not be able to be shared. It is important
to note that these measures will not prevent images being shared on other plat-
forms, but it is a unique example of the types of nonlegal responses and technolo-
gies that are being implemented to respond to technology-facilitated abuse.
Within the field more broadly, victim support services (e.g., in the United States, the
National Network to End Domestic Violence; and in Australia, the Women’s Services
Network [WESNET]) have begun creating online toolkits and resources for victims and
practitioners to improve awareness of how and where technology-facilitated abuse
might be happening and ways to respond, including providing tips on changing security
settings, restricting access to location services, and keeping devices safe. These
resources are being rolled out in a range of languages and locations, such as the back of
toilet cubicles, doctors’ offices, apps, and on websites with “quick exit” options (see,
for example, OeSC, 2019).
Further to these developments, there is important policy work needed around the
creation of information resources, such as a website and print materials, for victims,
advising them of their legal and nonlegal options and the development of prevention
strategies through public education campaigns in traditional and digital media,
workplace harassment and antidiscrimination resources, and school curriculum
packages. This is made possible, in part, through governmental policies on violence
against women and children, which are beginning to address the problem of technol-
ogy-facilitated domestic and sexual violence and invest resources in support, educa-
tion, and prevention.
Policy and practice initiatives help to address some of the problematic attitudes
around technology-facilitated domestic and sexual violence, although much more
work needs to be done. In our 2016 Australian survey of IBSA (n = 4,274), we found
harm minimization and victim-blaming views were widespread among respondents
(Powell, Henry, & Flynn, 2018). Prevention strategies, therefore, should include con-
tent that (a) identifies and challenges the gender- and sexuality-based social norms and
cultural practices that underlie the stigma that is directed at victims, (b) redirect
responsibility onto the perpetrators, (c) encourage and provide tools for individuals to
take action as bystanders and to safely call out victim blaming and shaming where they
encounter it, and (d) raise awareness of new legal and support options as they come to
fruition.
Ultimately, the prevention work needed to address technology-facilitated domestic
and sexual violence aligns with that of the primary prevention of domestic and sexual
violence more broadly. Continued policy advocacy (and research, as outlined below)
is needed for women’s experiences of technology-facilitated harms to be taken seri-
ously by criminal justice systems, whether that is through updating legislation to rec-
ognize the harms of such abuse, or educating police agencies to pursue these harms
through existing laws that could apply. In short, by promoting gender equality and
respect in individual attitudes and behaviors, as well as cultural and institutional prac-
tices across all levels of society, we can change the social and structural conditions that
underlie technology-facilitated violence.
1846 Violence Against Women 26(15-16)

Future Research Directions

More empirical research is needed in the field to further investigate the prevalence,
nature, and impacts of victimization and perpetration, and the experiences of victims,
perpetrators, and bystanders. Particular focus should be given to specific instances of
technology-facilitated abuse, as discussed in this article, especially those behaviors
that have not been adequately studied to date, such as technology-facilitated sexual
assault. It is important that there is some consensus on terminology and definitions to
ensure continuity and enable comparative analyses, particularly in relation to preva-
lence. Research is also needed on the experiences and impacts of this phenomenon
among particular minority or marginalized groups, such as immigrant and refugee
women (Douglas et al., 2019; OeSC, 2019), among others.
Another research gap concerns awareness and knowledge of barriers and
enablers to bystander action. In 2017, the Pew Research Center conducted a nation-
ally representative survey of American adults (n = 4,248) and found that 66% of
respondents (86% of those aged 18-29 years) reported having witnessed online
harassment directed at others. Although 60% felt that people who witness online
harassment should step in, only 30% said they had engaged in bystander action
(Pew Research Center, 2017). More recently, a study of 738 college students found
that bystanders were less likely to take the abuse seriously and less likely to inter-
vene where online harassment did not also involve physical violence (Messinger,
Birmingham, & DeKeseredy, 2018). With the rapid uptake of smartphones and
camera-enabled devices in public life, there is likely to be a corresponding increase
in bystanders witnessing technology-facilitated abuse. Yet, there is very little
research that has comprehensively examined bystander perceptions and readiness
to identify, speak out, or engage others in responding to this issue.

Conclusion
Digital technologies provide an important opportunity for social communication and net-
working with friends, families, and others. They are increasingly important to social and
identity development (Valkenburg & Peter, 2011), as well as social and political participa-
tion, information exchange, education, and literacy (Livingstone, 2003). Although digital
technologies provide a wealth of positive uses and influences, there is also a dark side,
with perpetrators of sexual and domestic violence using the opportunities that such tech-
nologies provide to assert their power and control onto others.
The research to date indicates that there are diverse behaviors involving the use of
technology in domestic and sexual violence contexts, including to set up an abusive
act, to perpetrate the offense, and/or to cause multiple harms to victims. We argue that
it is imperative to understand the changing nature of domestic and sexual violence in
a digital era, where technologies are not merely tools of abuse, coercion, and harass-
ment, but also often integral to the perpetuation of harm, suffering, and stigma to vic-
tims. Although technology itself plays an important role in preventing and responding
to technology-facilitated domestic and sexual violence, it is vital that significant
Henry et al. 1847

resources are invested in primary prevention strategies that work to dismantle the
structures, cultures, and practices of gender inequality that underpin all forms of vio-
lence against women and other minorities.
One key and ongoing challenge for research, law reform, and policy and practice in
the field is that digital technologies are rapidly changing. What was prominent a
decade or more ago, might no longer be relevant today. Earlier studies, for instance, of
online harassment focused on receiving repeated email or instant messenger messages,
and yet, a decade and a half later, attention is shifting to other means, such as the use
of GPS tracking, drone technology, or the use of artificial intelligence to create realis-
tic pornographic videos of unsuspecting victims. Indeed, digital tools allow for new
types of harassment that were either not previously possible or take on a fundamen-
tally different character in an online context. As danah boyd (2010) has outlined, cer-
tain characteristics of networked online spaces change the dynamics of interaction on
these platforms. Moreover, the persistence and searchability of online environments
mean that many forms of technology-facilitated abuse, in text, photographic, or video
form, can remain online indefinitely, accessible, and connected with the victim. This,
in turn, can mean that the harms, in some cases, may reoccur across a lifetime, even
without additional or repeated acts by the original perpetrator of the harassment or
abuse.
It is important that we investigate and understand the causes and consequences of
these behaviors, while also seeking to address and prevent these harms from occurring
in the first place. This involves, fundamentally, an appreciation of the ways in which
our lives are (and have always been) deeply entangled with technology, and are inher-
ently gendered, intersecting with other factors, such as age, race, disability, class, and
sexuality.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

ORCID iD
Nicola Henry https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2241-7985

Notes
1. This refers to the tagline of video sharing platform YouTube, which is to “Broadcast
Yourself!”
2. A note on terminology: We use the term “victim” throughout the article, although we rec-
ognize the problems with this term and that “victim-survivor” is preferred for encapsulat-
ing the lived experiences of people and their positionality regarding their experiences.
1848 Violence Against Women 26(15-16)

However, because the article uses a number of cojoined terms (such as “technology-facil-
itated domestic and sexual violence”), we have simplified the language by just using the
former. We also use the terms “violence” and “abuse” interchangeably. Conventional defi-
nitions often treat “violence” as an exclusively physical act, whereas “abuse” is often used
to capture nonphysical acts. The latter term may be a more comfortable label for those
who experience emotional or other nonphysical violations as they may not feel that their
experiences “count” as violence—which may explain underreporting and low help-seeking
behaviors. This is reinforced by criminal justice responses to both domestic and sexual
violence that frequently prioritize physical harms (see Powell & Henry, 2017, for a discus-
sion). Many scholars and organizations use the term “violence” as an umbrella term for a
wide range of physical and nonphysical violations. It is on this basis that we use “violence”
and “abuse” interchangeably to capture a diversity of experiences, and to encourage vic-
tims to choose the language they are most comfortable with.
3. As indicated by Brown and Hegarty (2018), there are a range of similar terms that are
used to describe digital abuse within romantic relationships, such as “electronic dating
violence,” “digital dating abuse,” and “cyber dating abuse.”
4. In this section, we define “domestic violence” to include sexual, physical, psychological,
and/or financial abuse within a range of personal relationships. Domestic violence may be
perpetrated by intimate partners, friends, housemates, carers, parents, guardians, children,
and other family members. However, we focus on both intimate partner and dating abuse,
while recognizing the importance of further attention on other forms of domestic violence,
as well as other nonrelational forms of technology-facilitated abuse (e.g., by strangers).
5. This is consistent with other research on cyberbullying. For instance, studies show that
cyberbullying victims are also more likely to be victims of offline bullying, such as abuse
in the school yard (e.g., Hinduja & Patchin, 2008).
6. The prevalence of stalking more generally has been captured in national surveys. In the
United States, nearly one in six women and one in 17 men have experienced stalking
victimization in their lifetime (Smith, Zhang, Basile, Merrick, Wang, Kresnow, & Chen,
2018). Female victims were stalked most commonly by a current or former intimate part-
ner, whereas men were primarily stalked by an intimate partner or acquaintance. The most
common forms for all victims were repeatedly receiving unwanted telephone calls, voice,
or text messages (Smith et al., 2018). According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics
(2017), one in five Australian women, and one in 13 men have experienced stalking in
their lifetime. For female victims, the stalker was usually a known male, whereas for male
victims, the stalker was equally likely to be female as male.
7. Here, we use the broad term “sexual violence” to include physical acts such as rape and
sexual assault, as well as noncontact offenses such as sexual harassment and coercion
(Powell & Henry, 2017).
8. There has also been limited investigation into bystanders and image-based sexual abuse
(IBSA)—whether people had seen or received nonconsensual nude or sexual images (e.g.,
Gordon-Messer, Bauermeister, Grodzinski, & Zimmerman, 2013). In a 2017 Australian
national survey (OeSC, 2017), almost one fifth of respondents (n = 4,122) had been
bystanders to IBSA because they received a nude or sexual image from someone else
who knew that the person depicted in the image had not consented to it, or were not sure
whether he or she had consented to it.
9. A number of studies have also examined online sexual harassment against children and
adolescents (e.g., Mitchell, Wolak, & Finkelhor, 2008).
Henry et al. 1849

10. The authors defined online sexual-, gender-, and sexuality-based harassment as including
any of the following behaviors: unwanted sexually explicit images, comments, emails,
or text messages; repeated and/or unwanted sexual requests online or via email or text;
gender-based offensive and/or degrading messages, comments, or other content; publicly
posted online offensive sexual comments; sexuality- or sexual identity–based offensive or
degrading messages, comments, or other content; threats of sexual assault via comments,
emails, or text (Powell & Henry, 2017).
11. For instance, a national survey of more than 10,000 Australians found women more likely
than men to experience sexual harassment. The rates were even higher among those who
identified as nonbinary or a gender other than male or female, lesbian, gay, or bisex-
ual (LGB); having a disability; as well as young people aged between 18 and 29 years
(Australian Human Rights Commission, 2018).

References
Adams, C. J. (1996). “This is not our fathers’ pornography”: Sex, lies, and computers. In C.
Ess (Ed.), Philosophical perspectives on computer-mediated communication (pp. 147-170).
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Alexy, E. M., Burgess, A. W., Baker, T., & Smoyak, S. A. (2005). Perceptions of cyberstalking
among college students. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 5, 279-289.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). Personal safety survey. Canberra, Australia: Author.
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2018). Everyone’s business: Fourth national survey on
sexual harassment in Australian workplaces. Canberra, Australia: Author.
Ballard, M. E., & Welch, K. M. (2015). Virtual warfare cyberbullying and cybervictimization
in MMOG play. Games and Culture, 12, 466-491.
Barak, A. (2005). Sexual harassment on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23,
77-92.
Bates, S. (2017). Revenge porn and mental health: A qualitative analysis of the mental health
effects of revenge porn on female survivors. Feminist Criminology, 12, 22-42.
Baumgartner, S. E., Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2010). Unwanted online sexual solicitation
and risky sexual online behavior across the lifespan. Journal of Applied Developmental
Psychology, 31, 439-447.
Beech, A. R., Elliot, I. A., Birgden, A., & Findlater, D. (2008). The Internet and child sexual
offending: A criminological review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 216-228.
Bond, E., & Tyrell, E. (2018). Understanding revenge pornography: A national survey of police
officers and staff in England and Wales. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online
publication. doi:10.1177/0866260518760011
Borrajo, E., Gámez-Guadix, M., & Calvete, E. (2015). Cyber dating abuse: Prevalence, context,
and relationship with offline dating aggression. Psychological Reports: Relationships &
Communications, 116, 565-585.
Boyd, D. (2010). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and impli-
cations. In Z. Papacharissi (Ed.), A networked self: Identity, community, and culture on
social network sites (pp. 39-58). New York: Routledge.
Boyle, K. (2019). What’s in a name? Theorising the inter-relationships of gender and violence.
Feminist Theory, 20, 19-36.
Branch, K., Hilinski-Rosick, C. M., Johnson, E., & Solano, G. (2017). Revenge porn victimiza-
tion of college students in the United States: An exploratory analysis. International Journal
of Cyber Criminology, 11, 128-142.
1850 Violence Against Women 26(15-16)

Brown, C., & Hegarty, K. (2018). Digital dating abuse measures: A critical review. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 40, 44-59.
Burke, S. C., Wallen, M., Vail-Smith, K., & Knox, D. (2011). Using technology to control
intimate partners: An exploratory study of college undergraduates. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27, 1162-1167.
Castells, M. (1996). The information age: Economy, society, and culture. Volume I: The rise of
the network society. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Chaulk, K., & Jones, T. (2011). Online obsessive relational intrusion: Further concerns about
Facebook. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 245-254.
Chesney, R., & Citron, D. (2018). Deep fakes: A looming crisis for national security, democ-
racy, and privacy? Washington, DC: Lawfare Blog.
Citron, D. K. (2014). Hate crimes in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Citron, D. K., & Franks, M. A. (2014). Criminalizing revenge porn. Wake Forest Law Review,
49, 345-391.
Crofts, T., Lee, M., McGovern, A., & Milivojevic, S. (2015). Sexting and young people. London,
England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. (2014). End revenge porn: A campaign of the Cyber Civil Rights
Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.cybercivilrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/
RPStatistics.pdf
DeKeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (2016). Thinking sociologically about image-based sex-
ual abuse: The contribution of male peer support theory. Sexualization, Media, & Society,
2(4), 1-8. doi:10.1177/2374623816684692
Dimond, J., Fiesler, C., & Bruckman, A. (2011). Domestic violence and information communi-
cation technologies. Interacting with Computers, 23, 413-421.
Dir, A., & Cyders, M. (2015). Risks, risk factors, and outcomes associated with phone and
Internet sexting among university students in the United States. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 44, 1675-1684.
Douglas, C. H., Harris, B. A., & Dragiewicz, M. (2019). Technology-facilitated domestic and
family violence: Women’s experiences. British Journal of Criminology, 59, 551-570.
doi:10.1093/bjc/azy068
Douglass, C. H., Wright, C. J. C., Davis, A. C., & Lim, M. S. C. (2018). Correlates of in-
person and technology-facilitated sexual harassment from an online survey among young
Australians. Sexual Health, 15, 361-365.
Dragiewicz, M., Burgess, J., Matamoros-Fernández, A., Salter, M., Suzor, N. P., Woodlock, D.,
& Harris, B. (2018). Technology facilitated coercive control: Domestic violence and the
competing roles of digital media platforms. Feminist Media Studies, 18, 609-625.
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.
Duggan, M. (2014). Online harassment: Summary of findings. Pew Research Center. Retrieved
from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/
Eaton, A. A., Jacobs, H., & Ruvalcaba, Y. (2018). 2017 Nationwide online study of non-
consensual porn victimization and perpetration: A summary report. Retrieved from
https://www.cybercivilrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CCRI-2017-Research-
Report.pdf
Ex Parte Jones, Court of Appeals, 12th Court of Appeals Tyler District No 12-17-00346-CR.
Retrieved from https://orinkerrblog.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/17-346-cr-ex-parte-
jones-apr-182c18.pdf
Henry et al. 1851

Faraj, S., Kwon, D., & Watts, S. (2004). Contested artifact: Technology sensemaking, actor
networks, and the shaping of the Web browser. Information Technology & People, 17,
186-209.
Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 19, 468-483.
Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a
national study of college women. Criminology & Public Policy, 1, 257-308.
Flynn, A., & Henry, N. (2019). Image-based sexual abuse. In H. N. Pontell (Ed.), Oxford
research encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1-23). Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/978019264079.013.534
Gámez-Guadix, M., Almendros, C., Borrajo, E., & Calvete, E. (2015). Prevalence and associa-
tion of sexting and online sexual victimization among Spanish adults. Sexuality Research
and Social Policy, 12, 145-154.
Garcia, J. R., Gesselman, A. N., Siliman, S. A., Perry, B. L., Coe, K., & Fisher, H. E. (2016).
Sexting among singles in the USA: Prevalence of sending, receiving, and sharing sexual
messages and images. Sexual Health, 13, 428-435.
Goodson, P., McCormick, D., & Evans, A. (2001). Searching for sexually explicit materials on
the Internet: An exploratory study of college students’ behavior and attitudes. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 30, 101-118.
Gordon-Messer, D., Bauermeister, J. A., Grodzinski, A., & Zimmerman, M. (2013). Sexting
among young adults. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 301-306.
Hall, M., & Hearn, J. (2018). Revenge pornography: Gender, sexualities and motivations. New
York: Routledge.
Harris, B. A., & Woodlock, D. (2018). Digital coercive control: Insights from two landmark
domestic violence studies. British Journal of Criminology, 59, 530-550. doi:10.1093/bjc/
azy052
Hellevik, P. M. (2019). Teenagers’ personal accounts with digital intimate partner violence and
abuse. Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 178-187.
Henry, N., Flynn, A., & Powell, A. (2018). Policing image-based sexual abuse: Stakeholder
perspectives. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 19, 550-581.
Henry, N., & Flynn, A. (2019). Image-based sexual abuse: Online distribution channels and
illicit communities of support. Violence Against Women, 25, 1932-1955. doi:10.1177/
1077801219863881
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.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related
to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129-156.
Hobbs, M., Owen, S., & Gerber, L. (2017). Liquid love? Dating apps, sex, relationships and the
digital transformation of intimacy. Journal of Sociology, 53, 271-284.
Jane, E. A. (2014). “Your a ugly, whorish, slut”: Understanding e-bile. Feminist Media Studies,
14, 531-546.
Katz, J. E., & Crocker, E. T. (2015). Selfies and photo messaging as visual conversation:
Reports from the United States, United Kingdom and China. International Journal of
Communication, 9, 1861-1872.
Kelly, L. (1988). Surviving sexual violence. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Latour, B. (1991). Society is technology made durable. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters:
Essays on power, technology, and domination (pp. 103-131). New York: Routledge.
1852 Violence Against Women 26(15-16)

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford,

UK: Oxford University Press.
Lenhart, A., Ybarra, M., Zickuhr, K., & Price-Feeney, M. (2016). Online harassment, digital
abuse, and cyberstalking in America. Data & Society Research Institute. Retrieved from
https://www.datasociety.net/pubs/oh/Online_Harassment_2016.pdf
Livingstone, S. (2003). Children’s Use of the Internet: Reflections on the Emerging Research
Agenda. New Media & Society, 5, 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444803005002001
Luckman, S. (1999). (En)gendering the digital body: Feminism and the internet. Hecate, 25, 36-47.
Lyndon, A., Bonds-Raacke, J., & Cratty, A. D. (2011). College students’ Facebook stalking of
ex-partners. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 711-716.
Marganski, A., & Melander, L. (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.
Martinez-Pecino, R., & Durán, M. (2019). I love you but I cyberbully you: The role of hostile
sexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 812-825.
McAfee. (2013). Lovers beware: Scorned exes may share intimate data and images online.
Retrieved from http://www.mcafee.com/au/about/news/2013/q1/20130204-01.aspx
McFarlane, L., & Bocij, P. (2003). An exploration of predatory behaviour in cyberspace:
Towards a typology of cyberstalkers. First Monday, 8(9), 1-10.
McGlynn, C., & Rackley, E. (2017). Image-based sexual abuse. Oxford Journal of Legal
Studies, 37, 534-561.
McGlynn, C., Rackley, E., & Houghton, R. (2017). Beyond “revenge porn”: The continuum of
image-based sexual abuse. Feminist Legal Studies, 25, 25-46.
Megarry, J. (2014). Online incivility or sexual harassment? Conceptualising women’s experi-
ences in the digital age. Women’s Studies International Journal, 47, 46-55.
Messinger, A., Birmingham, R., & DeKeseredy, W. S. (2018). Perceptions of same-gender
and different gender intimate partner cyber-monitoring. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0866260518787814
Mitchell, K. J., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2008). Are blogs putting youth at risk for online
sexual solicitation or harassment? Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 277-294.
Morelli, M., Bianchi, D., Baiocco, R., Pezzuti, L., & Chirumbolo, A. (2016). Sexting, psycho-
logical distress and dating violence among adolescents and young adults. Psicothema, 28,
137-142.
Office of the eSafety Commissioner (OeSC). (2017). Image-based abuse: National survey:
Summary report. Author. Retrieved from https://www.esafety.gov.au/-/media/15469f65e
05e4d02b994010def7af3bb.pdf
Office of the eSafety Commissioner (OeSC). (2019). eSafety for women from culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds: Summary report. Retrieved from https://www.esafety.
gov.au/about-the-office/research-library/technology-facilitated-abuse
Pew Research Center. (2017). Online harassment 2017. Pew Research Centre. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/online-harassment-2017/
Plant, S. (1995). The future looms: Weaving women and cybernectics. Body & Society, 1,
45-64.
Powell, A., & Henry, N. (2017). Sexual violence in a digital age. London, England: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Powell, A., & Henry, N. (2018). Policing technology-facilitated sexual violence against adult
victims: Police and service sector perspectives. Policing and Society, 28, 291-307.
Henry et al. 1853

Powell, A., Henry, N., & Flynn, A. (2018). Image-based sexual abuse. In W. DeKeseredy
& M. Dragiewicz (Eds.), Handbook of critical criminology (pp. 305-3015). New York:
Routledge.
Powell, A., Henry, N., Flynn, A., & Scott, A. J. (2019). Image-based sexual abuse: The extent,
nature, and predictors of perpetration in a community sample of Australian residents.
Computers in Human Behavior, 92, 393-402.
Powell, A., Scott, A. J., & Henry, N. (2020). Digital harassment and abuse: Experiences of
sexuality and gender minority adults. European Journal of Criminology, 17, 199-223.
doi:10.1177/1477370818788006
Powell, A., Stratton, G., & Cameron, R. (2018). Digital criminology: Crime and justice in digi-
tal society. New York: Routledge.
Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., & Ward, L. M. (2016). Snooping and sexting: Digital media as a
context for dating aggression and abuse among college students. Violence Against Women,
22, 1556-1576.
Reyns, B. W. (2018). Online pursuit in the twilight zone: Cyberstalking perpetration by college
students. Victims & Offenders, 14, 183-198. doi:10.1080/15564886.2018.1557092
Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2012). Stalking in the twilight zone: Extent of
cyberstalking victimization and offending among college students. Deviant Behavior,
33, 1-25.
Reyns, B. W., Burek, M. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2013). The unintended consequences
of digital technology: Exploring the relationship between sexting and cybervictimization.
Journal of Crime and Justice, 36, 1-17.
Sheridan, L. P., & Grant, T. D. (2007). Is cyberstalking different? Psychology, Crime & Law,
13, 627-640.
Smith, S.G., Zhang, X., Basile, K.C., Merrick, M.T., Wang, J., Kresnow, M., & Chen, J. (2018).
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NIPSV): 2015 Data brief—Updated
release. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.
pdf
Smoker, M., & March, E. (2017). Predicting perpetration of intimate partner cyberstalking:
Gender and the Dark Tetrad. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 390-396.
Southworth, C., Finn, J., Dawson, S., Fraser, C., & Tucker, S. (2007). Intimate partner violence,
technology, and stalking. Violence Against Women, 13, 842-856.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of the
emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 64-86.
Staude-Müller, F., Hansen, B., & Voss, M. (2012). How stressful is online victimization? Effects
of victim’s personality and properties of the incident. European Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 9, 260-274.
Thompson, L. (2018). “I can be your Tinder nightmare”: Harassment and misogyny in the
online sexual marketplace. Feminism & Psychology, 28, 69-89.
Thompson, M. P., & Morrison, D. J. (2013). Prospective predictors of technology-based sexual
coercion by college males. Psychology of Violence, 3, 233-246.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2007). Cyber-intrusions: Strategies of coping with online obsessive relational
intrusion (Doctoral dissertation). University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa, Honolulu, HI.
Uhl, C. A., Rhyner, K. J., Terrance, C. A., & Lugo, N. R. (2018). An examination of non-
consensual pornography websites. Feminism & Psychology, 28, 50-68.
UK National Crime Agency. (2016). Emerging new threat in online dating: Initial trends in
internet dating-initiated serious sexual assaults. Retrieved from https://www.west-info.eu/
online-dating-safety-advice/file-7
1854 Violence Against Women 26(15-16)

Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2011). Online communication among adolescents: An inte-
grated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. Journal of Adolescent Health,
48, 121-127.
Vera-Gray, F. (2017). “Talk about a cunt with too much idle time”: Trolling feminist research.
Feminist Review, 115, 61-78.
Wajcman, J. (2004). TechnoFeminism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Walker, S., Sanci, L., & Temple-Smith, M. (2013). Sexting: Young women’s and men’s views
on its nature and origins. Journal of Adolescent Health, 52, 697-701.
Weathers, M. R., & Hopson, M. C. (2015). “I define what hurts me”: A co-cultural theoreti-
cal analysis of communication factors related to digital dating abuse. Howard Journal of
Communications, 26, 95-113.
Woodlock, D. (2017). The abuse of technology in domestic violence and stalking. Violence
Against Women, 23, 584-602.
Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2007). The co-occurrence of Internet harass-
ment and unwanted sexual solicitation victimization and perpetration: Associations with
psychosocial indicators. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S31-S41.
Ybarra, M. L., Price-Feeney, M., Lenhart, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2017). Intimate partner digital
abuse. Data & Society Research Institute. Retrieved from https://datasociety.net/pubs/oh/
Intimate_Partner_Digital_Abuse_2017.pdf

Author Biographies
Nicola Henry is an associate professor and Vice-Chancellor’s Principal Research Fellow in the
Social and Global Studies Centre at RMIT University. Her research investigates the prevalence,
nature, and impacts of sexual violence and harassment, with a focus on technology-faciliated
abuse and legal and nonlegal responses to these behaviors.
Asher Flynn is an associate professor of Criminology and a Director of the Social and Political
Sciences Graduate Research Program at Monash University. Asher’s research is particularly
interested in how people access justice in a world increasingly dominated by social media, arti-
ficial intelligence, and digital technology, with a specific focus on gendered violence and
AI-facilitated abuse.
Anastasia Powell is an associate professor of Criminology and Justice Studies, and Program
Manager of the Graduate Certificate in Domestic and Family Violence, at RMIT University.
Anastasia’s research examines the intersections of technology, gender, violence, justice and
digital culture.