Reviews Included

The description of the 26 included reviews, along with their characteristics and main findings, is presented in Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3 Description of the studiesTable 4 Main Characteristics and Findings of the Included StudiesPopulation

The target age group of this review was adolescents aged 10 to 19 years (Dodaj et al., 2024b; Franceschi et al. 2024; Dominguez-Vásquez & López, 2024; Mori et al., 2022; Doyle et al., 2021; Molla-Esparza et al., 2020; Mori et al., 2019; Madigan et al., 2018; Barrense-Dias et al., 2017; Van Ouytsel et al., 2015) and studies with samples including young adults over 18 and up to 25 years old (Henry & Powell, 2018). Reviews that considered both age ranges were also included (Van den Eynde et al., 2025; Ray & Henry, 2025; Kromann & Flynn, 2025; Pijlman et al., 2024; Barroso et al., 2023; Dully et al., 2023; Mansor et al., 2023; Patel & Roesch, 2022; Patrocino & Bevilacqua, 2021; Souza & Lordello, 2020; Dodaj & Sesar, 2020; Gassó et al., 2019; Anastassiou, 2017; Krieger, 2017; Cooper et al., 2016).

Country of review

The studies analyzed in the 26 included reviews come from diverse geographical contexts, reflecting the international interest in the phenomenon of technology-facilitated sexual violence, sexting, and their implications (see Table 3). Review studies have been conducted in countries such as Australia (Ray & Henry, 2025; Henry & Powell, 2018), Denmark (Kromann & Flynn, 2025), Croatia (Dodaj et al., 2024b), Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (Dodaj & Sesar, 2020), Italy and Spain (Franceschi et al., 2024), Mexico (Domínguez-Vásquez & López, 2024), the Netherlands and Belgium (Pijlman et al., 2024), Portugal (Barroso et al., 2023), the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia (Dully et al., 2023), Malaysia (Mansor et al., 2023), Canada and the United States (Mori et al., 2022), Canada (Patel & Roesch, 2022; Mori et al., 2019; Madigan et al., 2018; Krieger, 2017), Ireland (Doyle et al., 2021), Brazil (Patrocino & Bevilacqua, 2021; Souza & Lordello, 2020), Spain (Molla-Esparza et al., 2020), Spain and Australia (Gassó et al., 2019), Switzerland (Barrense-Dias et al., 2017), the United Kingdom (Anastassiou, 2017), Sweden (Cooper et al., 2016), and Belgium (Van den Eynde et al., 2025; Van Ouytsel et al., 2015). The studies analyzed in these reviews primarily originate in the United States and Europe, particularly Spain and the United Kingdom; however, several studies with samples from Australia and Canada were also identified.

Year of last study included

The studies cited in the reviews that met the inclusion criteria for this review were published over a broad time range (between 2002 and 2024), with the most recent articles reviewed being from 2024, in the studies by Kromann and Flynn (2025) and Van den Eynde et al. (2025) (see Table 3).

Type of reviews: systematic review and scoping review

This RoR includes seven scoping reviews (Van den Eynde et al. 2025; Ray and Henry 2025; Kromann and Flynn 2025; Dodaj et al., 2024b; Franceschi et al. 2024; Pijlman et al. 2024; Anastassiou 2017) and 19 systematic reviews, of which 14 present descriptive evidence (Dominguez-Vásquez & López, 2024; Barroso et al., 2023; Dully et al., 2023; Mansor et al., 2023; Doyle et al., 2021; Patrocino & Bevilacqua, 2021; Dodaj & Sesar, 2020; Souza & Lordello, 2020; Gassó et al., 2019; Henry & Powell, 2018; Barrense-Dias et al., 2017; Krieger, 2017; Cooper et al., 2016; Van Ouytsel et al., 2015), and five include a meta-analysis, where the results of the reviewed studies are quantitatively combined into a single numerical value (Mori et al., 2019, 2022; Patel & Roesch, 2022; Molla-Esparza et al., 2020; Madigan et al., 2018).

OutcomesConceptualization of the phenomenon

Academic reviews agree that the conceptualization of TFSV remains an open issue.

Franceschi et al. (2024) identify a multiplicity of labels used to describe the phenomenon, including “online sexual harassment,” “non-consensual sexting,” “cyber sexual harassment,” or “image-based abuse,” among others, reflecting a lack of standardization in their usage. Similarly, Kromann and Flynn (2025) highlight the umbrella term IBSA, which encompasses the creation, distribution, and threats to distribute intimate images without consent. Given the coexistence of different concepts in the literature and the absence of consensus, Kromann and Flynn (2025) also emphasize the use of the term “non-consensual taking, creating, or distributing intimate images” (NCII) to refer to behaviors involving the dissemination of intimate images. In a similar vein, Van den Eynde et al. (2025) use the term “non-consensual dissemination of sexts” to refer specifically to the non-consensual sharing of intimate or sexual photos or videos of an individual that were previously obtained through sexting.

Henry and Powell (2018) propose the term “image-based sexual exploitation,” which covers two behaviors: coercive sexting and engagement in unwanted sexual activity involving photos, messages, or explicit videos. This definition is related to that proposed by Gámez-Guádix et al. (2015), examined in the same review, which uses the term “online sexual victimization” to refer to pressure exerted through the internet or mobile phones (such as sending sexually explicit photos) to obtain unwanted sexual contact or to the perpetrator’s distribution of sexual images or personal information about the victim against their will.

Many studies focus exclusively on sexting, described as the sending, receiving, or forwarding of sexually explicit or suggestive images, videos, or messages via digital media (Mori et al., 2022; Doyle et al., 2021; Mori et al., 2019; Cooper et al., 2016). However, this general definition is insufficient to capture the complexity of the phenomenon, particularly when no distinction is made between consensual and non-consensual contexts, which may involve coercion or violence, behaviors that fall under TFSV and constitute forms of IBSH and IBSA.

The treatment of consent remains one of the main issues in current definitions. Some studies do not explicitly include it, while others clearly distinguish between consensual and non-consensual practices. For instance, in Krieger’s (2017) review, some of the studies analyzed consider non-consensual acts as part of sexting, whereas others restrict the term only to consensual acts. Complementarily, Ray and Henry (2025) also discuss the definition of “sextortion”, understood as a form of coercion based on threats related to intimate images, which falls within the scope of non-consensual sexting behaviors. Barroso et al. (2023), for example, differentiate between consensual sexting, associated with romantic relationships, emotional stability, and sexual desire, and non-consensual sexting, characterized by pressure, coercion, blackmail, or violent dynamics. This distinction is echoed by Mansor et al. (2023), who propose the categories “primary sexting” (consensual) and “secondary sexting” (non-consensual), marking a clear distinction between voluntary experiences and those involving victimization. Ringrose et al. (2012), reviewed by Cooper et al. (2016), argue that sexting should be understood as an online extension of the sexual harassment girls experience in their daily lives. This perspective is shared by Franceschi et al. (2024), who situate non-consensual sexting within the broader spectrum of online sexual harassment, particularly when it involves the unauthorized dissemination of intimate images.

Finally, the reviews analyzed also highlight the heterogeneity in how the concept is operationalized across studies, warning that the lack of consensus in defining behaviors associated with TFSV, such as IBSH and IBSA, has led to the use of diverse instruments, some standardized and others designed ad hoc. All this makes it difficult to compare results across studies (Henry & Powell, 2018; Dodaj & Sesar, 2020).

Perception of the phenomenon

The perception of TFSV has mainly focused on studies addressing how adolescents and young adults perceive sexting, both positively and negatively, influenced by sociocultural, gender, and social norms. According to Cooper et al. (2016); Dodaj et al., 2024b; Barroso et al. (2023), some adolescents perceive sexting positively, interpreting it as an expression of intimacy or as a strategy for maintaining emotional connection in a romantic relationship or with friends, and they regard sexting as a common aspect within current affective-sexual dynamics.

On the other hand, the normalization of non-consensual forwarding is evidenced in studies such as those by Madigan et al. (2018) and Mori et al. (2022). Dully et al. (2022), Domínguez-Vásquez and López (2024), and Cooper et al. (2016) also emphasize how such practices are normalized in certain adolescent contexts, often as a joke or to gain peer recognition. As a result, non-consensual forwarding is not perceived as problematic or violent, but rather as an expected practice, contributing to the reproduction of symbolic and sexual violence in digital environments. This gender double standard is another central aspect in the literature. Barroso et al. (2023), Dully et al. (2022), and Cooper et al. (2016) agree that the sharing of sexual content among boys is seen as a normal behavior, even admired by their peers, to the point of being considered a symbol of power, as this highlights boy’s ability to exert control over girl’s bodies (Van den Eynde et al., 2025). In contrast, girls who send sexual content are labeled as “easy” and suffer much harsher public punishment.

The findings reported in Anastassiou’s (2017) study highlight the experimental and playful nature of sending erotic images and videos, showing that adolescents aged 15 to 18 perceive it as a pastime and consider explicit photographs amusing. For younger adolescents, it is often viewed as a means of experimentation.

Social norms also play a decisive role. Dully et al. (2023) show how sending and receiving unsolicited photos is perceived as an expectation in certain heterosexual relationships, where girls may feel pressured to send sexual content to please their partners or maintain the bond. The exchange of photographs is understood as a “proof of love” or a way to avoid conflicts with one’s partner. In this sense, these practices are not always carried out freely and voluntarily but may be influenced by pressure or coercion from the partner or by the fear of not adjusting to peer group dynamics (Dully et al., 2022; Souza & Lordello, 2020; Cooper et al., 2016).

Attitudes and motivations toward the phenomenon

Attitudes toward TFSV among adolescents and young adults are linked to gender stereotypes, relational dynamics, and motivations.

Authors such as Anastassiou (2017) and Dully et al. (2022) show that while some adolescents value the sending and receiving of erotic-sexual images positively in consensual contexts, such as stable or long-distance romantic relationships, as a way to maintain intimacy (Barroso et al., 2023; Cooper et al., 2016), others reject it, as they fear negative consequences such as loss of control over the images or damage to their reputation. This is closely related to risk perception, which is especially present among girls, who fear being judged or stigmatized if the content is shared. Girls, in particular, are subject to much harsher moral judgments and social sanctions than boys, reproducing traditional patriarchal structures that blame the victim instead of the perpetrator. By contrast, boys tend to underestimate these risks and display a more positive attitude toward the practice, reinforcing differences in the perception of the danger associated with it (Patrocino & Bevilacqua, 2021; Krieger, 2017; Cooper et al., 2016). This inequality is also reflected in coercive dynamics, as girls are more likely to be pressured into sending images. Cooper et al. (2016) found that adolescents often internalize social norms that legitimize pressure to engage in sexting, particularly in contexts where heteronormative norms and traditional gender roles are reinforced.

However, some studies point to a growing rejection of non-consensual sexting and its consequences. Pijlman et al. (2024) indicate that when images are shared without consent, the general attitude is condemnation, although this does not always translate into supportive behaviors toward the victim. In the case of girls, feelings of rejection are even stronger, as the consequences of image dissemination fall primarily on them (Van Ouytsel et al., 2015; Cooper et al., 2016). Conversely, Van Ouytsel et al. (2015) show how adolescents with a positive attitude toward the exchange of sexually explicit content are more likely to engage in the practice, especially when they perceive that their peers are doing so.

Among the motivations underlying the phenomenon are the search for romantic attention, sexual desire, peer pressure, or even strategies to gain popularity. 66% of girls and 60% of boys reported having sent sexual images for flirting or fun. In 66% of cases, images were sent within a romantic relationship, often in response to a partner’s request (Cooper et al., 2016). For girls, image exchange often occurs among them to obtain feedback on their appearance, whereas boys are more motivated by sexual pleasure or entertainment (Anastassiou, 2017). In the case of boys, unsolicited images such as “dick pics” are often sent with the expectation of receiving sexual content in return from girls (Dully et al., 2022).

Peer pressure is another key determinant of engaging in IBSH and IBSA behaviors. Studies indicate that when adolescents observe peers engaging in these practices, their likelihood of engaging in them increases significantly (Mansor et al., 2023; Barrense-Dias et al., 2017). This not only fosters consensual sexting practices but also normalizes non-consensual forwarding as a form of entertainment or a way for boys to gain status within their peer group (Van den Eynde et al., 2025; Dully et al., 2022; Anastassiou, 2017).

Behaviors associated with the phenomenon

The 26 reviews analyzed show that behaviors of TFSV are widespread among adolescents and young adults, although most reviews focus on sexting.

Mori et al. (2022) indicate that sending, receiving, and forwarding erotic-sexual content is a frequent behavior among adolescents and young adults, and its prevalence increases with age. This meta-analysis updates the data from Madigan et al. (2018), which analyzed studies from 2009 to 2015. Both studies analyze three main modalities: sending and receiving explicit sexual content and forwarding such content without consent.

The meta-analysis conducted in the systematic review by Madigan et al. (2018) reveals that 14.8% of participants sent a sext and 24.7% received one. For both behaviors, prevalence increases with age and is higher among mobile phone users. In the results obtained from Mori et al.’s (2022) meta-analysis, which analyzes studies from 2016 to 2020, there is a stabilization in the prevalence of sending and receiving erotic-sexual content compared to the previous meta-analysis by Madigan et al. (2018). Regarding the forwarding of explicit sexual content without consent, the results of Madigan et al.’s meta-analysis indicate that 12% of young adults had forwarded such content without consent, and 8.4% had seen their erotic-sexual content forwarded to others. This figure is consistent with that reported by Patel and Roesch (2022) in their meta-analysis, which found that 8% of adolescents had seen their private photos shared without their consent. In Mori et al.’s (2022) meta-analysis, 14.5% had forwarded explicit sexual content without consent, while 12% had seen their erotic-sexual content forwarded to others without consent. Mori et al.’s review also reveals that girls are particularly vulnerable to receiving unwanted explicit sexual content, especially from strangers.

In Barrense-Dias et al.’s (2017) review, prevalence rates for passive sexting behaviors in adolescents, which include being asked to send and receiving sexual content, ranged from 7.1 to 60%. In the case of active sexting, which includes behaviors such as creating, sending, showing, or forwarding explicit sexual content, the prevalence ranged from 2.5 to 27.6%.

Longitudinal data from Molla-Esparza et al.’s (2020) meta-analysis confirm that receiving sexual images is more common than sending or forwarding them and that these practices are becoming increasingly frequent among adolescents. In 2019, the prevalence of these behaviors increased compared to 2009, with sending rates of 0.07 in 2009, 0.16 in 2014, and 0.33 in 2018; receiving rates of 0.16 in 2009, 0.34 in 2014, and 0.58 in 2018; and forwarding rates of 0.03 in 2009, 0.08 in 2014, and 0.20 in 2018. No significant gender differences were detected in participation. However, differences emerged in patterns of engagement: boys were more likely to forward content, whereas girls were more likely to receive unwanted messages.

Furthermore, the phenomenon of sextortion, which involves threats to share erotic-sexual content, shows victimization prevalence between 2.6% and 5% and perpetration prevalence between 0.7% and 3% in young adults. (Ray & Henry, 2025). In 60–70% of cases, sextortion is carried out by known individuals, with current or former partners being the most common perpetrators, as relationship breakups can trigger revenge dynamics, and in most cases, the perpetrators are male (Ray & Henry, 2025; Anastassiou, 2017).

Risk factors

The risk factors associated with TFSV cover different dimensions. Regarding personal characteristics, these factors are linked to sensation-seeking, impulsivity, low self-control, narcissism, and difficulties in emotion regulation (Dodaj & Sesar, 2020; Barroso et al., 2023; Cooper et al., 2016).

In this context, the concept of the “cyber-self” is introduced, which occurs when adolescents adopt a “digital self” that allows them to behave differently than they would in person, facilitating the sending or requesting of sexual images (Anastassiou, 2017). Also, using secondary or private accounts further increases the risk of engaging in these behaviors (Van den Eynde et al., 2025).

Age is also an important factor to consider. Several studies observed that involvement in sexting, and consequently in violent behaviors derived from the practice, increases with age, with prevalence being higher among older adolescents and young adults (Domínguez-Vásquez & López, 2024; Barroso et al., 2023; Mori et al., 2022; Molla-Esparza et al., 2020; Madigan et al., 2018; Barrense-Dias et al., 2017).

Impact and consequences of technology-facilitated sexual violence

TFSV, which includes behaviors of IBSH and IBSA, can have significant effects on adolescents’ mental health, emotional well-being, and social life, generating negative impacts and consequences.

Also, Patel and Roesch (2022) document that receiving or sending unwanted sexts is associated with high levels of stress, depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem. The study emphasizes that these consequences are particularly severe in contexts where institutional support is lacking or where revictimization from the social circle or educational system is frequent.

The sending, receiving, and forwarding of sexually explicit images, according to Cooper et al. (2016), triggers multiple forms of emotional suffering, both for those who send them and those who receive or are exposed to them without consent. Dodaj et al. (2024b) highlight a direct relationship between non-consensual sexting and deterioration of mental health, particularly when it occurs in contexts of peer pressure or violence. Studies agree that victimization through the non-consensual dissemination of sexts is associated with higher levels of anxiety, depression, stress, suicidal ideation, and self-harm (Van den Eynde et al., 2025). Gassó et al. (2019) indicate that 21% of adolescents who create explicit sexual images and 25% of those who receive them report feeling embarrassed, disappointed, or scared after the experience. Furthermore, adolescents who send sexual images under pressure or coercion exhibit higher anxiety levels and those who have been victims of non-consensual sexting show increased depressive symptoms, self-harm, and suicide attempts (Gassó et al., 2019; Cooper et al., 2016). Victimization has also been linked to low self-esteem and difficulties in emotion regulation (Dodaj & Sesar, 2020).

The sending, receiving, or forwarding of sexually explicit images affects not only the individual but also the social domain. Girls involved in these practices are subject to greater social punishment, blame, and stigmatization from their peers (Dully et al., 2022; Krieger, 2017). Victim stigmatization is well documented. Souza and Lordello (2020) and Anastassiou (