Sexual Cyberbullying Research Summary

Here we define several of the terms found in the literature on sexual cyberbullying that are used in this research summary. In current research, practice, and public discourse, these terms are sometimes used interchangeably, and the distinctions between them are not always clear.¹⁷ Notably, the characteristics and dynamics of bullying, harassment, stalking, and dating abuse are similar regardless of whether they are perpetrated in person or facilitated by technology.

Sexual cyberbullying is an umbrella term for sexually aggressive or coercive behavior facilitated by using technology to intentionally harm, embarrass, threaten, or intimidate another person.[c] Technology can include e-mail, instant messaging, social media, chat rooms, websites, blogs, text messaging, or videos or pictures posted on websites or sent electronically.  

	Online sexual harassment refers to unwanted sexual conduct on any digital platform. This includes non-consensual sharing of images, pressure to send sexual images (sextortion), threatening to publish sexual content, and inciting others to commit sexual violence.18
	Sexting involves “sending sexually explicit (or sexually suggestive) text messages and photos, usually  by cell phone.” Sexting becomes sexual cyberbullying when it is nonconsensual/unwanted.18
	Sextortion involves forcing people to send sexually suggestive images which are then used to blackmail the sender with the threat of public exposure.20
	Cyberstalking involves using technology to repeatedly threaten, harass, and intimidate another person, making them concerned about their safety.21
	Cyberdating abuse involves using technology to direct aggression against or control an intimate partner. The abuse can include sextortion, non-consensual sexting, online sexual harassment, or cyberstalking.22

Prevalence estimates of general cyberbullying vary due in part to differences in how the behavior has been defined and measured. A 2022 Pew Research Center study asked teens about different forms of cyberbullying using a definition of cyberbullying similar to the definition of cyberbullying we use in this brief. That study found that 46 percent of U.S. teens ages 13 to 17 reported ever experiencing at least one of the following cyberbullying behaviors: offensive name calling; being the subject of false rumors; receiving explicit images they did not ask for; having explicit images of them shared without their consent; physical threats; and/or persistent questioning about where they are, what they are doing, or who they are with by someone other than a parent.²³

Sexting prevalence estimates vary depending on the age of young people, when the data were collected, the type of device being used, and whether the sext was consensual.²⁴ For example, there has been an increase in the prevalence of sexting over time and estimates of sexting prevalence are higher when a mobile device is used.²⁴ In one study, 20 percent of nearly 1,300 middle school students reported receiving a sext, and 5 percent reported sending a sext.²⁵ Sexting may be more prevalent among certain subpopulations of youth. In another study, 30 percent of first-time juvenile offenders reported having sent, received, and/or forwarded a sexually suggestive text message or nude or semi-nude picture or video in the past year.²⁶

Some studies have looked specifically at nonconsensual sharing of sexual images or messages.

• A meta-analysis of 39 studies examining the prevalence of multiple forms of sexting behavior among youth under 18 identified five studies that measured forwarding a sext without the sender’s consent. Across those five studies, the prevalence of forwarding a sext without consent was 12 percent of youth.²⁷
• In one study, 25 percent of teen girls and 33 percent of teen boys (13 to 19 years old) reported receiving a sexual image without the original sender’s consent.²⁸
• In another study, 17 percent of 13- to 17-year-olds reported being sent explicit images they did not ask for, and 7 percent reported having explicit images of themselves shared without their consent.²⁹
• That same study found that older teens (15 to 17 years old) are twice as likely as younger teens (13 and 14 years old) to report being sent explicit images they did not ask for (22% vs. 11%) and having explicit images of themselves shared without their consent (8% vs. 4%).³⁰

Cyberdating abuse is about as common among middle school students as among high school students who are in relationships, with roughly one in four students in relationships reporting being the victim of digital dating abuse (e.g., physical, sexual, or psychological/emotional violence that occurs between romantic partners using texting or social media).³¹ One form of cyberdating abuse is routinely checking on a partner’s whereabouts. In one study, older teens (15 to 17 years old) were more likely than younger teens (13 and 14 years old) to report being persistently questioned online about their location and activities (17% vs. 12%).³²

The broader literature on preventing bullying and sexual violence has three implications for successful sexual cyberbullying prevention:

• Online child sexual violence is perpetrated by strangers (65%) and acquaintances (39%).⁶⁵ Hence, youth-supporting professionals should talk with youth about ways to recognize cyberbullying involving sexual behaviors, and identifying adults they can go to for help.
• Preventing sexual cyberbullying requires an integrated approach. Youth-supporting professionals need to understand the ways different aspects of sexual cyberbullying and cyber and in-person sexual violence can occur in a young person’s life.⁶⁶ For example, nonconsensual sexting can occur in the context of abusive dating relationships.⁶⁷
• Sexual cyberbullying is most likely to occur during adolescence when young people begin dating and become involved in their first romantic relationships.⁶⁸ Adolescent bullying perpetration predicts subsequent sexual victimization and dating abuse in adolescence and even adulthood.⁶⁹ Thus, adolescent and early adulthood sexual cyberbullying prevention programs could be critical to preventing interpersonal and sexual violence later in life.^70,71

Service providers can draw information from effective prevention programs that target bullying, child sexual violence, and dating violence to begin considering program components essential for preventing sexual cyberbullying. For example, systematic reviews have found that in-person bullying, sexual violence, and dating violence prevention programs that incorporate the following components can reduce in-person bullying, cyberbullying, and cyberdating violence:⁷²

• Peer engagement and role-playing⁷³
• Problem-solving skills⁷⁴
• Assertiveness, self-efficacy, and resistance to peer pressure⁷⁵
• Empathy, perspective-taking, and difference appreciation⁷⁶
• Training to identify “trusted helpers” and overcome barriers to help-seeking⁷⁷
• Parent/caretaker involvement^78,79

Another core component of effective programs that target cyber violence against children and dating violence is providing young people with knowledge relevant to bullying and sexual violence. Knowledge may include (1) being able to identify warning signs of cyberbullying; (2) understanding norms of healthy relationships; (3) knowing their rights and responsibilities; and (4) laws pertaining to sexual cyberbullying.^80-82

Comprehensive sexual education programs for young people can also reduce physical and sexual aggression — in particular, homophobic bullying and dating and partner violence.^83-85 Comprehensive sexual education programs guide students in identity development, healthy self-esteem, and body confidence. These concepts significantly influence one’s sense of self, thereby decreasing the risk of students engaging in bullying or becoming victims of bullying.⁸⁶ Finally, programs effective at preventing cyberbullying teach young people about the effects of drugs because intoxication can reduce inhibitions. A review found substance abuse education is one of the most reliable components of successful in-person and cyberbullying prevention programs.⁸⁷

Evaluations of prevention programs have typically involved high-income or school-based samples and thus may not apply to all populations.⁸⁸ However, a recent meta-analysis of studies that focus on young people at increased risk of domestic violence perpetration found that dating violence prevention programs can similarly reduce physical and sexual violence perpetration and physical domestic violence victimization.⁸⁹ It is unclear if evaluated programs are equally effective for youth who have experienced the child welfare and/or juvenile justice systems, homelessness, and/or disconnection from school and work.

Sexual violence emerged as a priority topic during the 2023 Activate Needs Assessment. After identifying a need, we conducted a high-level literature scan to identify topics related to sexual violence. We summarized our findings and then engaged Research Alliance members to define the scope of the review. First, we had conversations with Research Alliance members to review the needs assessment findings and to understand which topics were relevant to their work and priorities for a research summary and Activate resource. Second, we shared the findings from the research review and solicited feedback during a Research Alliance meeting discussion group. These activities highlighted important considerations for this resource, including:

• Research Alliance members reported that cyberbullying and cyberdating abuse were the most common forms of sexual violence experienced by the young people with whom they work.
• Research Alliance members reported that young people often do not have the language to label their experiences as cyberbullying or cyberdating abuse.
• Research Alliance members reported that young people struggle with how to communicate appropriately about their romantic interactions and relationships with peers and partners.
• Research Alliance members reported that youth-supporting professionals need more concrete supports and resources to help young people process their feelings when sexual cyberbullying occurs.
• Research Alliance members reported that youth-supporting professionals need more information about a variety of topics including the laws on online sexual behavior, youth rights related to online sexual behavior, talking with youth about these topics safely, responding when youth report being victimized by these behaviors, and preventing revictimization.

After identifying the need we then conducted a supplemental literature scan focused on various forms of sexual cyberbullying. We searched research databases (Academic Search Complete and OmniFile Full Text Select) as well as Google Scholar using terms like cyberbullying, trolling, doxing, cyberdating abuse, and cyberstalking with population terms specific to Activate’s youth populations. Research articles needed to be published in English after 2013, and the research needed to be conducted using a sample from the United States. Ultimately, we exported 223 potentially relevant articles; we subsequently dropped 139 articles determined to be off-topic or based on data collected outside the United States. We identified an additional 103 articles by manually reviewing the articles and their reference lists. Altogether, our review included 156 articles.

The full list of references are included in the PDF of this report: https://activatecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/AR2-25_Sexual-Cyberbullying-Research-Summary_R25final2.pdf

The authors thank the many contributors to this resource. Experts who informed the resource include: Barbara Ball, PhD, Research Scientist, Texas Institute for Child & Family Wellbeing, University of Texas at Austin; Lindsay White, Clinical Services Assistant Director – LifeSet, Youth Villages; Sarah Gonzalez, MPP, Associate Director for Workplace and Economic Justice, FUTURES Without Violence; Amandalyn Stallings, Young Fellow, Jim Casey Initiative; Eddie Sumlin, First Place for Youth; Karla Vargas, BA, Young Fellow, Opportunity Youth United; Rebecca Gudeman, JD, Senior Director of Health, National Center for Youth Law. Thank you also to the several youth-supporting professionals and young people who contributed but are not named here. We also thank other Activate project team members who assisted in the development of this resource including (Mindy Scott, Principal Investigator, Jan DeCoursey, Project Director, Matthew Rivas-Koehl, project team member, and Dane Rivas-Koehl, design advisor). We are grateful for the contributions of other Child Trends and Chapin Hall staff who contributed to this resource including Amy Dworsky, Co-Principal Investigator. Finally, a special thank you to the Child Trends communications staff, especially Olga Morales, Catherine Nichols, Brent Franklin, Stephen Russ, and Ana Maria Pavic.

About the Authors

Colleen Schlecht, MPP, is a Senior Researcher at Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.

Amanda M. Griffin, MS, PhD, PhD, is a Researcher at Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.

Rachel Rosenberg, MSW, PhD, is a Senior Research Scientist at Child Trends.