Online Sexual Harassment in Adolescence: A Scoping Review

Vol.:(0123456789) 1 3 Sexuality Research and Social Policy https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-023-00869-1 Online Sexual Harassment inAdolescence: AScoping Review FranceschiAngela1 · Rodríguez‑deArribaMaría‑Luisa2· NocentiniAnnalaura1· MenesiniErsilia1 Accepted: 12 August 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract Introduction Sexual harassment is a complex behavior to study since it is characterized by various dimensions and definitions. Analyzing the characteristics and manifestations of this behavior in the online context, at such a vulnerable time as adolescence, is important to fully understand its nature, characteristics, and consequences. Aims and Method This work aims to systematize the information available in the literature, identify labels used to refer to online sexual harassment in the adolescent population, describe the definition of online sexual harassment taking into consideration specific criteria that emerge from the studies, and describe the operationalization of online sexual harassment. The literature search was conducted in November 2021 through four scientific databases: Scopus, PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. The initial search led to 20958 results: after eliminating duplicates, screening, and reading of full-texts, 65 papers were included in the review. Results The type of relationship between aggressor and victim, the use of abusive connotations, and the time frame of occurring behaviors are investigated in included studies. Moreover, different typologies of abuse have been described, by differentiating between studies that focus on the victim's point of view and studies that focus on the perpetrator’s point of view. Conclusion Online sexual harassment covers a wide range of behaviors using digital content (images, videos, posts, messages). Through this scoping review, it is possible to identify some key characteristics of this phenomenon: online sexual harassment has an abusive connotation, as it is perceived as unwanted by the victim, it can occur in three main typologies (verbal, visual, cybersex) and even a single episode is enough to experience victimization. In terms of relational behaviors, online sexual harassment includes unwanted sexual solicitations and non-consensual sharing. Keywords Online· Cyber· Sexual· Harassment· Victimization· Adolescence Introduction Nowadays the Internet, Social Networks, and the media are part of adolescent’s daily life. Teens use the virtual context and social media to keep in touch with friends, improve their socialization and make new friends. Social Networks play an important role, in fostering important developmental tasks: having a social support network and building one's own identity, social and sexual (Van Gool etal., 2015). Improving their peer status, expressing themselves and their creativity, and engaging in sexual forms of self-introduction are some of the reasons teens use social media (Sheldon & Newman, 2019; Van Ouytsel etal., 2020). Thus, teenagers are particularly disposed to share personal or intimate information with their peers, but it is more difficult for them to understand the potential risks underlying these behaviors (Albert & Steinberg, 2011; Veenstra etal., 2012). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – CDC (2019) "sexual violence can occur in person, online, or via technology, as in the cases of posting or sharing sexual pictures of someone without their consent, or non-consensual sexting". Following this definition, sexual harassment behaviors can easily be reproduced in the online context, but the two environments have different characteristics that should be noticed (Burnay etal., 2019; Van Royen etal., 2017). The online environments make aggressive behavior more easily adopted, as it suggests a (false) sense of anonymity and privacy (Gámez-Guadix etal., 2015). Also, there are no temporal and/or geographical * Franceschi Angela angela.francesc[email protected] 1 Department ofEducation, Languages, Interculture, Literature andPsychology, University ofFlorence, Via di San Salvi, 12, Complesso di San Salvi Padiglione 26, 50135Florence, Italy 2 Department ofDevelopmental Psychology andEducation, Universidad de Sevilla, C/Camilo José Cela s/n., 41018Seville, Spain Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1 3 limits and the communication takes place indirectly, being easier to establish contact, even with strangers (Gámez- Guadix etal., 2015). In addition, there are many varying manifestations of how abuse can be facilitated by technology (Henry etal., 2020). Technology has made it possible to have an audience anywhere and anytime, and it is getting easier and easier to incriminate someone with images and/ or videos. In this sense, the Internet facilitates the spread of sexual violence and sexual harassment (Project DeShame, 2017). In addition, people behave less defensively because of the online disinhibition effect. The online disinhibition effect is defined as a reduction in behavioral inhibitions in the online environment (Suler, 2004). Factors explaining this effect include anonymity, invisibility, and asynchrony—all characteristics of the virtual world (Joinson, 2003). As a result, some aggressive behaviors that would hardly be implemented in a face-to-face environment are more easily implemented in an online environment, such as insults, hate speech, cyberbullying, and comments on public posts (Lapidot-Lefler & Barak, 2012). In a world where relationships are often mediated by new technologies, sexual relationships have also become mediated by information and communication technologies and virtual contexts. Adolescence is a period of great vulnerability, characterized by emotional and behavioral instability, and pubertal and sexual development. Puberty begins the construction of one's sexual and gender identity, which is now much more flexibly conceptualized (Aringolo & Gambino, 2007). If managing romantic relationships is already a complicated evolutionary task for adolescents, the advent of the Internet it has made it even more urgent to talk about consent, respect and sexualization, because it is extremely easy to exchange information and encounter contents of a sexual nature online (Project DeShame, 2017). Sharing sexual information as a way to explore sexual identity is a habit that has always existed— for example through letters or direct conversation; this is a normative behavior, which allows the development of sexual expression (Walrave etal., 2018). However, when this exploration of sexuality is carried out without consent or under pressure, they can become aggressive and have unpleasant experiences. This scenario would require a more in-depth study of the sexual aggressions that take place in the online context. However, the first barrier is found in the labels to talk about these aggressions. Many different labels have been used to define harassment, victimization, violence, and abusive behaviors on the Internet: "digital", "internet", "cyber" or "online" are the most common (Henry etal., 2020; Powell & Henry, 2017). Also, there is no clear definition of online sexual harassment (Powell & Henry, 2017; Reed etal., 2019). Online sexual harassment includes several types of behavior, such as requests for sex, image-based harassment, sexual coercion, and hate speech (Powell & Henry, 2017). An early study dealing with sexual harassment identified certain categories of behavior as verbal requests, verbal remarks, and nonverbal displays (Gruber, 1992; Till, 1980). Fitzgerald etal. (1995), proposed a three-dimensional conceptualization of online sexual harassment, related to each other and non-overlapping: gender harassment, sexual coercion, and unwanted sexual attention. According to Barak (2005), these three types of offline sexual harassment also exist online. This author proposed a model for the online context that identifies two dimensions of sexual harassment: active and passive. The active form of sexual harassment refers to abusive sexual messages that are explicitly directed at a victim. In the passive forms, however, the aggressor does not refer directly to a target victim but, rather, to potential recipients. It is therefore less intrusive. This disparity between the forms identified has affected the rates of involvement reported in the studies, being very different from each other varying from 1 to 59% (Henry etal., 2020; Reed etal., 2020). In a recent report across Denmark, Hungary, and the UK, 9% of respondents aged 13–17years say they have received sexual threats online from people their own age in the last year. The prevalence rises significantly when other types of behavior are considered: 24% of the respondents, for example, received comments of a sexual nature on their photo (Project DeShame, 2017). The large variety of labels, definitions, and measures existing in the literature makes it difficult to compare data relating to the prevalence and incidence of online sexual harassment. Despite numerous studies on the topic, there is still no agreement among scholars on the definition and description of online sexual harassment and as far as we know, there are no studies that systematically report information on online sexual harassment. Systematizing the information available in the literature is the first step towards increasing scientific knowledge in this area and defining keys for its prevention. The present study advances in this regard through the following aims: 1. To identify labels used to refer to online sexual harassment in the adolescent population. 2. To describe the definition of online sexual harassment, considering specific criteria that emerge from the studies (the nature of relationship between aggressor and victim, the use of abusive connotations, and the time frame in which the behaviors occur). 3. To describe different typologies of abuse in which online sexual harassment occurs, differentiating between studies that focus on the victim's point of view and studies that consider the perpetrator’s point of view into account. Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1 3 Method To conduct a rigorous scoping review, we followed the PRISMA guidelines (Moher etal., 2009; Page etal., 2021). The stages are summarized in the flowchart reported in Fig.1. Identification The search was conducted in four scientific databases: Scopus, PubMed, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. We used the following keywords, about four areas: (1) online context (keywords: online, cyber, digital, internet, virtual, "social media", "social network"); (2) sexual connotation of behavior (keywords: sex* – “sexual” in PubMed, as the database does not allow asterisk searches on words under four characters); (3) aggressive connotation of behavior (keywords: harassment, abuse, aggression, victimization, coerci*, pressure, offen*, solicitation, violence, assault); (4) age of the sample (keywords: adolescen*, youth, teen*). An example of search combinations used is: “online AND sex* AND harassment AND adolescen*”. Screening Overall, the search in all four databases included 20958 articles. Duplicates were excluded both automatically and manually using Zotero software, and the final literature search included 3797 records. The screening of abstracts and titles was done by two researchers, with an eye for the following inclusion criteria: (1) studies in English, Italian, and Spanish; (2) empirical research; (3) studies that include a definition and/or measure of online sexual harassment; (4) average age of participants between 11 and 19. The exclusion criteria are the following: (1) studies not in English, Fig. 1 Flow-chart of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion of studies 26 Screening Records identified through database searching (n = 20958) Records after duplicates removed and screened for the abstract text (n = 3797) Record excluded (n=3545) due to: 1. Studies not in English, Spanish, Italian (n=5). 2. Dissertation theses, full books, congress abstract, reviews, and meta-analysis (n=476). 3. Thematic not focus (n=2976). 4. Age of the participants (n=88). noitacifitnedI Duplicates removed (n= 17161) Eligibility Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n =252) Full text excluded (n=186) due to: 1. Studies not in English, Spanish, Italian (n=5). 2. Dissertation theses, full books, congress abstract, reviews, and meta-analysis (n=31). 3. Thematic not focus (n=125). 4. Age of the participants (n=10). 5. Papers not available in full text (n=15) Included Included Studies (n =66) N=1 study removed after the quality assessment Included Studies (n =65) Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1 3 Italian, Spanish; (2) dissertation theses, full books, congress abstracts, reviews, and meta-analysis; (3) studies that doesn’t include a definition and/or measure of online sexual harassment; (4) average age of the participants lower than 11 and higher than 19. The inter-rater assessment was performed to check the decision of the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Two independent evaluators reviewed 30% of the documents, and reliability was reported with Cohen’s kappa coefficient of .70. Discrepancies were resolved by comparison. Eligibility The full text of the papers was downloaded and rated. We removed any papers not available in full text and kept the ones focused on unwanted behavior (3). Finally, 66 papers were included. Quality Assessment Given many papers included we decided to measure the quality of the studies. Following the recommendations from the NHS Centre for reviews and dissemination (2008), we used a validated checklist designed for quantitative and qualitative studies (Kmet etal., 2004). The original checklist comprehends 14 criteria. However, since the present study does not evaluate interventions, three of them did not apply to the designs of our study – specifically, criteria 5, 6, and 7 (random allocation, blinding of investigators, blinding of the subject) were removed from the checklist. To assess interrater reliability scores, a random selection of 30% of the papers was double-coded. It resulted in a very large agreement (95%). Discrepancies were resolved by comparison. For each criterion, researchers should rate the studies with a reference table (see Table1) and give a rating between 0 (No), 1 (Partial), and 2 (Yes). Criteria that are “not applicable” to a particular study were excluded from the calculation of the total score. For each study evaluated, the total score is obtained by adding the evaluation for each criterion and then dividing by the total possible score (e.g. evaluating, as in this case, 11/14 criteria, the total possible score was 22). Most of the items included were evaluated as more than Table 1 QualSyst Tool – Kmet etal. (2004) Quantitative Studies 1. Question / objective clearly described? 2. Design evident and appropriate to answer study question? (If the study question is not given, infer from the conclusions) 3. Method of subject selection (and comparison group selection, if applicable) or source of information/input variables (e.g., for decision analysis) is described and appropriate 4. Subject (and comparison group, if applicable) characteristics or input variables/information (e.g., for decision analyses) sufficiently described? 5.If random allocation to treatment group was possible, is it described? 6.If interventional and blinding of investigators to intervention was possible, is it reported? 7.If interventional and blinding of subjects to intervention was possible, is it reported? 8. Outcome and (if applicable) exposure measure(s) well defined and robust to measurement / misclassification bias? Means of assessment reported? 9. Sample size appropriate? 10. Analysis described and appropriate? 11. Some estimate of variance (e.g., confidence intervals, etc.) is reported for the main outcomes (i.e., those directly addressing the study objective upon which the conclusions are based)? 12. Controlled for confounding? 13. Results reported in sufficient detail? 14. Do the results support the conclusions? Qualitative Studies 1. Question / objective clearly described? 2. Design evident and appropriate to answer study question? (If the study question is not clearly identified, infer appropriateness from results/ conclusions.) 3. Context for the study is clear? 4. Connection to a theoretical framework / wider body of knowledge? 5. Sampling strategy described, relevant and justified? 6. Data collection methods clearly described and systematic? 7. Data analysis clearly described, complete and systematic? 8. Use of verification procedure(s) to establish credibility of the study? 9. Conclusions supported by the results? 10. Reflexivity of the account? Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1 3 adequate in their quality (final score > .70), except for one paper which, due to the very low score obtained (.40), was not taken into consideration for the review. Consequently, 65 papers were used for data extraction. Coding Strategy First of all, information about geographical information, study design, average age, gender, and ethnic composition of the sample was checked. Then, to respond to the aims of our study, information about labels (1), type of relationship between aggressor and victim, the use of abusive connotations, time frame of occurring behaviors (2), typologies of online sexual harassment, associated behaviors and focus on victimization and/or perpetration (3) were checked. The information was extracted by two independent researchers, and the agreement rate was evaluated with Cohen’s kappa coefficient (.90). Discrepancies were resolved by comparison. In Table2, it is indicated what information was extracted from the studies for coding. Results General Characteristics ofIncluded Studies The 65 studies included were published between 2001 and 2021, and most were cross-sectional (N = 50 out of 65; 77%); some studies had a longitudinal design (N = 6 out of 65; 9%) and some were qualitative studies (N = 9 out of 65; 14%). The sample size ranged from 18 to 20834 participants. Regarding the composition of the sample, all studies were well balanced in terms of gender differences, with a range between 44% and 63.1% of females—only one study had a small percentage of females in the sample (22%). A minor proportion of studies (N = 5 out of 65; 7.7%) considered a sample of solely females, and one study did not report this information. The average age of the analyzed samples ranged from a minimum of 12years to a maximum of 18.8years old. Some of them (N = 23 out of 65; 35%) also reported the ethnic composition of the sample (see Table3). Geographically, the included studies were mainly conducted in Europe (N = 31 out of 65; 48%) and the United States of America (N = 26 out of 65; 40%), but some were conducted in other countries, such as Turkey (N = 2 out of 65; 3%), Australia (N = 1 out of 65; 1.5%), Chile (N = 1 out of 65; 1.5%), Cyprus (N = 1 out of 65; 1.5%), Malaysia (N = 1 out of 65; 1.5%), Taiwan (N = 1 out of 65; 1.5%), Thailand (N = 1 out of 65; 1.5%). The general characteristics of the included studies are reported in detail in Table3. Labels It was immediately evident that there was a great variety of labels used (reported in Table4). The most common label was Online (Unwanted) Sexual Solicitation (N = 23 out of 65; 35%). Other commonly used labels were Online Sexual Harassment (N = 8 out of 65; 12%) and Online Sexual Victimization (N = 6 out of 65; 9%). Finally, a small percentage used the label (Nonconsensual) Sexting (N = 3 out of 65; 5%), Online Sexual Experience (N = 2 out of 65; 3%), and Cyber Sexual Harassment (N = 2 out of 65; 3%). Criteria forDefinition Concerning the type of relationship between aggressor and victim, in these 65 studies, we identified three different clusters: (a) papers focused on online sexual harassment among peers – (OSH-P); (b) papers focused on online sexual harassment in adolescents in the context of an unspecified relationship between victim and aggressor – (OSH); (c) papers focused on online sexual solicitation (OSS). This last group of papers was included because, although the term solicitation refers, at least theoretically, to an attack by an adult on a minor, this is often nonspecified by the items described. Between this last cluster, most (N = 14 out of 23; 61%) did not specify the relationship between victim and aggressor. One study defined the aggressor as an unknown person, but some studies (N = 8 out of 23; 35%) assessed the relationship with a direct question. Most of the studies (N = 31 out of 65; 48%) investigated online sexual harassment in the context Table 2 Extraction Table Coding Extracted Information Labels The name used to refer to the construct Type relationship between aggressor and victim Who is the aggressor (where specified), an adult or an adolescent? Use of abusive connotations What terms are used to describe the behavior? Time frame of occurring behaviors For what period of time is the behavior verified? Typologies of online sexual harassment and associated behaviors What are online sexual harassment behaviors? What kinds of modality is used to victimize a person? Focus on victimization and/or perpetration Does the study investigate the point of view of the victim or the aggressor? Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1 3 Table 3 General characteristics of included studies References Study Design Country N Age: Mean/Range %Female Ethnic Composition Álvarez-García etal. (2016) CS SPA 3148 M = 14.01 (SD = 1.39) 48,1% NR Álvarez-García etal. (2017) CS SPA 3159 M = 14.01 (SD = 1.39) 48% NR Barroso etal. (2021) CS PRT 4281 M = 14.51 (SD = 1.83) 53% NR Baumgartner etal. (2010) CS DE 2092 Early M = 12.49(SD = .51) Mid M = 14.49 (SD = .50) Late M = 16.46 (SD = .50) 49% NR Boer etal. (2021) CS NLD 20834 12–16 (n = 4846) 17–24 (n = 15988) 49,4% D 85%, T 2,4%, M 2,1%, S 3%, A 1,2%, O 6,4% Chang etal. (2014) L TWN 2315 Grade 10 and 11 NR NR Dahlqvist and Gådin (2018) CS SE 1193 14–16 52% NR Dönmez and Soylu (2019) CS TUR 189 M = 15.07 (SD = 1.18) NR NR Dönmez and Soylu (2020) CS TUR 99 M = 14.8 (SD = 1.3) 75% NR Festl etal. (2019) CS DE 1033 M = 17 (SD = 1.9) 44% NR Gámez-Guadix and Incera (2021) CS SPA 1779 M = 13.92 (SD = 1.27) 50.92% SP 89.43%, L 7.14%, AS 1.52%, E 0.9%, AF 0.51%, USA 0.17% Guerra etal. (2021) CS CHN 18872 M = 14.54 (SD = 1.42) 50.8% 96.4% C, 3.1% SA, 0.2% in CA 0,3% O Helweg-Larsen etal. (2012) CS DK 3707 M = 15.2 (SD = .6) 49,4% NR Holt etal. (2016) CS USA 439 9 grade 50% 79.3% W Hunehäll Berndtsson(2021) Q SE 18 13–16 22% NR Jewell etal. (2015) CS USA 308 M = 15 51% 59% W, 12% B, 11% L, 7% AS, 11% O Jones etal. (2012) CS USA 3561 YISS-1, 2, 3 YISS-1, 2, 3 YISS-1, 2, 3 Jonsson etal. (2019) CS SE 5715 M = 17.97 (SD = .63) 55% NR Karayianni etal. (2017) CS CY 1080 15–18 76% NR Leemis etal. (2018) L USA 3549 M = 12.8 (SD = 1.08) 50,2% 32.2% W, 46.2% B, 5.4% L, 2.3% AS, 7.9% O Longobardi etal. (2020) CS ITA 229 M = 15 (SD = 1.40) 100% NR Longobardi etal. (2021) CS ITA 310 M = 12.09 (SD = .89) 46.8% NR Maas etal. (2017) CS USA 312 M = 15.21 (SD = 1.23) 100% 46% W, 45% B, 8% MR, 0.5% L, 0.5% NA Mandau (2020) Q DK 157 M = 13.63 (SD = 1.33) 100% NR Marret and Choo (2017) CS MY 1487 15–16 53.9% 69.6% Malay, 16.7% Indian, 13.6% Chinese 0.2% Other McHugh etal. (2017) Q USA 68 M = 14.79 (SD = 1.30) 63% 73% W, 13% B, 5% L, 3% AS, 5% O Méndez-Lois etal. (2017) CS SPA 615 M = 15 (42,9%) M = 16 (26,2%) 52% NR Michikyan etal. (2014) Q USA 245 M = 16 53,1% 45.3% W, 20.8% B, 5.7% AS, 3.7% L, 9.4% MR, 4.1% O Mitchell(2001) CS USA 1501 (Yiss1) M = 14 (SD = 2) 47% 73% W Mitchell etal. (2004) CS USA 1501 (Yiss1) M = 14 (SD = 2) 47% 73% W, 10% B, 3% NA, 3% AS, 2% L, 7% O, 2% NR Mitchell etal. (2007a) CS USA 1500 (Yiss2) M = 14 (SD = 2) 51% 73% W, 13% B, 9% NA, 3% AS, 3% L, 1% O, 3% NR Mitchell etal. (2007b) CS USA YISS-1, 2 YISS-1, 2 YISS-1, 2 YISS-1, 2 Mitchell etal. (2007c) CS USA YISS-1, 2 YISS-1, 2 YISS-1, 2 YISS-1, 2 Mitchell etal. (2008) CS USA 1500 (Yiss2) M = 14 (SD = 2) 51% 73% W, 13% B, 9% NA, 3% AS, 3% L, 1% O, 3% NR Mitchell etal. (2011) CS USA 1500 (Yiss2) M = 14 (SD = 2) 51% 73% W, 13% B, 9% NA, 3% AS, 3% L, 1% O, 3% NR Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1 3 NR Not Reported; Ethnicity: B Black, W White, L Latinos, AS Asian, O Other, MR Multiracial, NA Native americans, H Hawaiian, D Dutch, T Turkish, M Moroccan, S Surinamese, A Antillean, SP Spain, E European, AF Africa, USA NorthAmerica, C Chilean, SA SouthAmerca, CA Central America;Study Design: CS Cross Sectional, L Longitudinal, Q Qualitative, MM Mixed Method Table 3 (continued) References Study Design Country N Age: Mean/Range %Female Ethnic Composition Mitchell etal. (2013) CS USA 3561 YISS-1, 2, 3 YISS1,2,3 YISS-1, 2, 3 Mitchell and Stulhofer (2020) L HR 477 M = 15.8 (SD = 0.48) 100% NR Montiel etal. (2016) CS SPA 3897 M = 14.45 (SD = 1.59) 52,7% NR Morelli etal. (2017) CS ITA 610 M = 16.8 (SD = 1.63) 63.1% NR Naezer and van Oosterhout (2020) Q NLD 21 15–17 = 72% 60% NR Ojanen etal. (2015) CS THA 1234 M = 18.8 (SD = 2.49) 45% 94.4% Thai, 2.4% Chinese, 2.6% Mixed Penado etal. (2019) CS SPA 602 M = 14.92, SD = 1.59 52.8% NR Priebe and Svedin (2012) CS SE 3432 M = 18.3 53,6% NR Priebe etal. (2013) CS USA 1560 10–17 NR NR Reed etal. (2019) CS USA 159 M = 17 (SD = 1.1) 100% 14,6% W,17,6% AS,2,5% NA, 3,1% B, 8,2% MR, 53, 4% O Rice etal. (2015) CS USA 1831 M = 15 48,2% 0,29% NA, 3,8% AS, 11,67% B, 71,73% L, 2,66% H, 8,62% W, 1,22% MR Ringrose etal. (2021a) Q UK 144 M = 15 61% NR Ringrose etal. (2021b) Q UK 144 M = 15 61% NR Sánchez-Jimenez etal. (2015) CS SPA 268 M = 14.22 (SD = 1.44) 52,5% NR Sánchez-Jimenez etal. (2017) CS SPA 601 M = 14.06 (SD = 1.25) 52% NR Sklenarova etal. (2018) CS DE 2238 M = 15.5 (SD = 1.1) 53,90% Foreign Nationality = 20,6% Soo etal. (2012) CS EE 780 M = 13.7 (SD = 1.7) 50,2% NR Ståhl and Dennhag (2020) CS SE 594 M = 15.73 (SD = 1.77) 61% NR Taylor etal. (2019) L USA 1184 M = 12–14 = 39.2% 47% 79% W Van Ouytsel etal. (2019) CS BEL 3109 M = 13.01 (SD = .83) 53.5% NR Van Ouytsel etal. (2021) CS BEL 1306 M = 14.97 (SD = 1.97) 50.5% NR Van Royen etal. (2015) Q BEL 83 12–18 NR NR Ybarra etal. (2004) CS USA 1501 (Yiss1) M = 14 (SD = 2) 47% 73% W, 10% B, 3% NA, 3% AS, 2% L, 7% O, 2% NR Ybarra etal. (2007) CS USA 1588 M = 13.2 50% 74% W, 13% B, 13% L, 7% MR, 6% O Ybarra and Mitchell (2008) CS USA 1588 M = 13.2 50% 74% W, 13% B, 13% L, 7% MR, 6% O Ybarra etal. (2011) L USA 1588 M = 13.2 50% 74% W, 13% B, 13% L, 7% MR, 6% O Ybarra etal. (2015) CS USA 5907 13–18 94% (cis) Ybarra and Petras (2020) L USA 870 M = 16.7 (SD = 1.7) 49,8% 73,9% W, 12,6% L Walrave etal. (2014) Q AUS 33 15–21 55% NR Walsh etal. (2013) CS USA 1560 (Yiss3) M = 14 50% 67% W, 13% B, 10% NA, 3% AS, 3% L, 2% O, 2% Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1 3 of an unspecified relationship between the victim and the aggressor (OSH), and only a small percentage (N = 11 out of 65; 17%) focused on online sexual harassment between peers (OSH-P). Almost all of the included studies used specific words to describe the abusive connotation of this behavior, such as unwanted, "without consent", “without permission”, unsolicited, nonconsensual, and “under pressure”. Most of the studies, in addition to the word “unwanted”, used a more specific theoretical formulation: "unwanted and/or performed by an adult". Only two studies used a formulation such as “behaviors that make you feel uncomfortable” or “make you feel bad”. Other words used were covertly and coerced. Some of the studies that did not use a specific connotation (N = 7 out of 65; 11%), checked for this with the following questions (See Table5). Regarding the time frame of these behaviors, most of the papers (N = 32 out of 65; 49%) investigated how often it happened, measuring the response on a Likert scale. Of these studies, most ask to refer for the past 12months (N = 15 out of 32; 47%), some ask to refer for the last six months (N = 6 out of 32; 19%), or do not specify the reference period (N = 6 out of 32; 19%). A smaller proportion of studies ask to refer to the past 3months (N = 2 out of 32; 6%) or to the last school year (N = 2 out of 32; 6%) and only one uses the last week as a reference period. Other studies (N = 23 out of 65; 35%) did not investigate the frequency of perpetration or victimization, but whether one has ever been a victim or not, measuring the response in a dichotomous way (i.e., Yes/No). Most of these, ask to refer to the past 12months too and only one refers to the last 6months. Some papers did not report information about the frequency of assessment (N = 10 out of 65; 16%) (See Table5). Operationalization ofTypology ofAbuse Three main typologies of online sexual harassment emerged: visual, verbal, and cybersex. Within the verbal typology, all harassment behaviors that use texts or vocal notes or talking about sex, etc., have been included. The Table 4 Labels Labels References Online sexual Solicitation Baumgartner etal. (2010), Chang etal. (2014), Dahlqvist and Gådin (2018), Dönmez and Soylu (2019), Dönmez and Soylu (2020), Jones etal. (2012), Karayianni etal. (2017), Marret and Choo (2017), McHugh etal. (2017), Mitchell (2001), Mitchell etal. (2004), Mitchell etal. (2007a, b, c), (2008), (2011), (2013), Rice etal. (2015), Sklenarova etal. (2018), Ybarra etal. (2004), Ybarra etal. (2007), Ybarra and Mitchell (2008), Walsh etal. (2013) Online Sexual Harassment Guerra etal. (2021), Michikyan etal. (2014), Mitchell and Stulhofer (2020), Ojanen etal. (2015), Ringrose etal. (2021b), Sklenarova etal. (2018), Soo etal. (2012), Van Royen etal. (2015), Ybarra etal. (2015) Online Sexual Victimization Festl etal. (2019), Gámez-Guadix and Incera (2021), Longobardi etal. (2020), Longobardi etal. (2021), Montiel etal. (2016), Taylor etal. (2019), (Nonconsensual) Sexting Hunehäll Berndtsson (2021), Morelli etal. (2017), Van Ouytsel etal. (2019), Van Ouytsel etal.(2021), Walrave etal. (2014) Unwanted Internet Experience Priebe and Svedin (2012), Priebe etal. (2013) Cyber Sexual Harassment Leemis etal. (2018), Reed etal. (2019) Image-Based Sexual Abuse (IBSA) Mandau (2020), Ringrose etal. (2021a) Online Sexual Experience Maas etal. (2017), Ybarra etal. (2011) Cyber Aggression Álvarez-García etal. (2016) Cyber Victimization Álvarez-García etal. (2017) Abusive Sexting Barroso etal. (2021) Unwanted Exposure to sext Boer etal. (2021) Internet Victimization Helweg-Larsen etal. (2012) Online Sexual Conversation Holt etal. (2016) Potentially Offensive Sexual Behaviors (POSB) Jewell etal. (2015) Online Sexual Abuse Jonsson etal. (2019) Violencia 2.0 Méndez-Lois etal. (2017) (Non consensual) Sharing Naezer and van Oosterhout (2020) Intimate Image Diffusion Penado etal. (2019) Sexual Cyber Behavior Sánchez-Jimenez etal. (2015) Peer Sexual Cyber Victimization Sánchez-Jimenez etal. (2017) Sexual Violence Perpetration Ybarra and Petras (2020) Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1 3 Table 5 Criteria for definitions References Cluster Relation quality between victim and aggressor Abusive connotation Frequency Álvarez-García etal. (2016) OSH – P Peer-to-peer Without permission, Unwanted In the last three months R: 1 = never, 4 = always Álvarez-García etal. (2017) OSH Unspecified Without permission, Unwanted In the past three months R: 1 = never, 4 = always Barroso etal. (2021) OSH Unspecified Non-consensual Have you ever…? R: Y/N Baumgartner etal. (2010) OSS Unspecified Unwanted How often in the past six months? R: 0 = never, 4 = six times or more Boer etal. (2021) OSH Unspecified Unwanted, Non-consensual In the last 6months R: 1 = never, 3 = more than once Chang etal. (2014) OSS Unspecified Unwanted In the last year? R: never, ever before a year, seldom, sometimes, usual Dahlqvist and Gådin (2018) OSS Unspecified Unwanted In the last six months R: at least one or more Dönmez and Soylu (2019) OSS Unspecified Unwanted (or performed by an adult) In the last year…? R: Y/N Dönmez and Soylu (2020) OSS Unspecified Unwanted (or performed by an adult) In the last year…? R: Y/N Festl etal. (2019) OSH Unspecified Unwanted Not specified period R: 0 = never, 4 = 7 or more times Gámez-Guadix and Incera (2021) OSH Unspecified Unwanted, Feel bad In the last 12months R: 0 = Never, 3 = 5 times or more Guerra etal. (2021) OSH-P Peer-to-peer Feel uncomfortable, Unwanted In the last 12months R: 1 = never, 6 = each day Did you ever? Helweg-Larsen etal. (2012) OSH Unspecified Not specified During the past year R: Y/N Holt etal. (2016) OSH Unspecified Unwanted During the past 12months R: 1 = never, 5 = 10 or more times Hunehäll Berndtsson(2021) OSH-P Peer-to-peer Non-consensual \ Jewell etal. (2015) OSH-P Peer-to-peer Not specified Not specified period R: never, a few times, often, daily Jones etal. (2012) OSS Controlled by specific questions Unwanted (or performed by an adult) In the last year…? R: Y/N Jonsson etal. (2019) OSH Unspecified Coerced During the last 12months R: N, Y, yes once, yes several times Karayianni etal. (2017) OSS Unknown person Unwanted How often during the last year or the occurrence or not before the last year Leemis etal. (2018) OSH-P Peer-to-peer Unwanted In the last school year R: not sure, never, rarely, occasionally, often Longobardi etal. (2020) OSH Unspecified Unwanted In the previous year R = never, occasionally, often, always Longobardi etal. (2021) OSH Unspecified Unwanted (or performed by an adult) In the previous year R: 1 = never, 4 = always Maas etal. (2017) OSH Unspecified Unwanted Not specified period R: 0 = never to 4 = very often Mandau (2020) OSH Unspecified Non consensual, Unsolicited \ Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1 3 As the results of this work show, in order to address online sexual harassment among adolescents, studies must take into account certain characteristics that make it possible to define and understand the phenomenon as a whole, differentiating it from others such as the harassment of minors by adults: the format of the shared content (visual, verbal), the type of relationship that exists between the victim and the perpetrator and the type of content sharing (sending, forwarding, non-consensual sharing). Perhaps there are so many definitions of online sexual harassment because there are so many things’ people can do online, and each platform and/or digital tool offers different possibilities. In addition, digital tools are evolving rapidly, and this is reflected not only in the conceptualizations of online sexual harassment but also in the labels that are used to refer to it. The different terminology present in the literature may be due to the rapid development of the social devices, the social media, etc. which makes this a living issue that is likely to change in the next few years. We should consider online sexual harassment as a form of sexual interaction via digital technology (Döring etal., 2021) – i.e., people experiencing a computer-mediated interpersonal sexual interaction via sexually explicit text-based, photo-based, audio-based, or video-based communication with each other; but the behavior is described as "unwanted by the victim". Thus, the key aspect that defines online sexual harassment is consent. Online sexual harassment is any interpersonal interaction involving sexually explicit content, that is sent or forwarded through the use of digital technology and is perceived as unwanted by the victim. Limits andFuture Directions This work has some limitations: first, only empirical works in English, Spanish and Italian were included, excluding gray literature: it is, therefore, possible that some works with important results have been excluded. Moreover, we used only four databases for our research. Additionally, we mainly focused on the analysis of the theoretical and descriptive aspects of online sexual harassment in adolescence. Furthermore, contextual, and individual factors that can contribute to the definition of the phenomenon in adolescence have not been examined (e.g., attitudes towards violence and aggression, peer’s norms, etc.). Future studies might investigate psychometric properties of scales and measures used for investigating the phenomenon and consider also the specific dynamics of adolescence and the online context, to learn more about the phenomenon, to raise awareness among young people and help them deal with the possible negative consequences. Concerning cyberspace, it is important to better analyze the characteristics of online sexual harassment highlighting the differences with the face-to-face context. The lack of agreement in the literature for definition and measurement of online sexual harassment makes it particularly difficult to have a clear picture of its prevalence and incidence within the adolescent population. Considering that one of the characteristics of online sexual harassment is that it may happen only once, distinguishing between different levels of severity is fundamental to be able to raise awareness and prevent the most negative consequences. It is necessary to understand whether online sexual harassment is a similar phenomenon to sexual cyberbullying or whether it is possible to identify specific characteristics. For example, online sexual harassment may occur only once: like cyberbullying, a single episode is enough to generate many repetitions of victimization, due to no temporal or geographical limits (Menesini etal., 2012). Future studies should investigate the phenomenon of online sexual harassment by taking into consideration all the behaviors that characterize it, to know its prevalence and better understand the phenomenon about gender, age, and the association that may exist with sexual cyberbullying. Acknowledgements Thanks to the collaboration of Dr.ssa Ludovica di Paola, PhD, who helped us in the quality assessment procedure. Authors' Contributions A. Franceschi performed the research of the articles, reviewed titles and abstracts, analyzed and interpreted the results, and wrote the paper. M. Rodríguez-deArriba performed the research of the articles and reviewed titles and abstracts. A. Nocentini and E. Menesini coordinated the research, did the critical revision of the article, and gave final approval of the article. All the authors revised the manuscript. Funding Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Firenze within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. Availability of Data and Material Not applicable. Code Availability Not applicable. Declarations Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1 3 References Asterisks indicate included studies in this review Albert, D., & Steinberg, L. (2011). Judgment and decision making in adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), 211– 224. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1532- 7795. 2010. 00724.x *Álvarez-García, D., Barreiro-Collazo, A., Núñez, J. C., & Dobarro, A. (2016). Validity and reliability of the Cyber-Aggression Questionnaire for Adolescents (CYBA). The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 8(2), 69–77. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ejpal. 2016. 02. 003 *Álvarez-García, D., Núñez, J. C., Barreiro-Collazo, A., & García, T. (2017). Validation of the Cybervictimization Questionnaire (CYVIC) for adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 270–281. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2017. 01. 007 Aringolo, K., & Gambino, C. (2007). La sessualità in adolescenza: Definizione e caratteristiche. GIMSeR, 14, 133–146. Barak, A. (2005). Sexual Harassment on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23(1), 77–92. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1177/ 08944 39304 271540 *Barroso, R., Ramião, E., Figueiredo, P., & Araújo, A. M. (2021). Abusive sexting in adolescence: Prevalence and characteristics of abusers and victims. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 610474. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2021. 610474 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(1), 22–42. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 15570 85116 654565 *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(6), 439–447. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. appdev. 2010. 07. 005 *Boer, S., Erdem, O., de Graaf, H., & Götz, H. (2021). Prevalence and correlates of sext-sharing among a representative sample of youth in the Netherlands. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1514. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2021. 655796 Burnay, J., Bushman, B. J., & Larøi, F. (2019). Effects of sexualized video games on online sexual harassment. Aggressive Behavior, 1–10.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ab. 21811 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – CDC. (2019). Available on: https:// www. cdc. gov/ viole ncepr event ion/ sexua lviol ence/ fastf act. html *Chang, F. C., Chiu, C. H., Miao, N. F., Chen, P. H., Lee, C. M., & Chiang, J. T. (2014). Predictors of unwanted exposure to online pornography and online sexual solicitation of youth. Journal of Health Psychology, 21(6), 1107–1118. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 13591 05314 546775 Courtice, E. L., & Shaughnessy, K. (2021). Four problems in sexting research and their solutions. Sexes, 2, 415–432. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ sexes 20400 33 *Dahlqvist, H. Z., & Gådin, K. G. (2018). Online sexual victimization in youth: Predictors and cross-sectional associations with depressive symptoms. European Journal of Public Health., 28(6), 1018–1023. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ eurpub/ cky102 *Dönmez, Y. E., & Soylu, N. (2019). Online sexual solicitation in adolescents;Socio-demographic risk factors and association with psychiatric disorders, especially post-traumatic stress disorder. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 117, 68–73. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jpsyc hires. 2019. 07. 002 *Dönmez, Y. E., & Soylu, N. (2020). The relationship between online sexual solicitation and internet addiction in adolescents. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 29(8), 911–923. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10538 712. 2020. 18413 55 Döring, N., Krämer, N., Mikhailova, V., Brand, M., Krüger, T. H. C., & Vowe, G. (2021). Sexual Interaction in Digital Contexts and Its Implications for Sexual Health: A Conceptual Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 769–732. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2021. 769732 *Festl, R., Reer, F., & Quandt, T. (2019). Online sexual engagement and psychosocial well-being: The mediating role of sexual victimization experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 102–110. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2019. 04. 010 Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K., & Wolak, J. (2000).Online victimization: A report on the nation's youth. Virginia: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(4), 425–445. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1207/ s1532 4834b asp17 04_2 Gámez-Guadix, M., Almendros, C., Borrajo, E., & Calvete, E. (2015). Prevalence and association of sexting and online sexual victimization among Spanish adults. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 12, 145–154. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13178- 015- 0186-9 *Gámez-Guadix, M., & Incera, D. (2021). Homophobia is online: Sexual victimization and risks on the internet and mental health among bisexual, homosexual, pansexual, asexual, and queer adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 119.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2021. 106728. Gruber, J. E. (1992). A typology of personal and environmental sexual harassment: Research and policy implications for the 1990s. Sex Roles, 26, 447–464. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ BF002 89868 *Guerra, C., Pinto-Cortez, C., Toro, E., Efthymiadou, E., & Quayle, E. (2021). Online sexual harassment and depression in Chilean adolescents: Variations based on gender and age of the offenders. Child Abuse & Neglect, 120, 105219. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chiabu. 2021. 105219 *Helweg-Larsen, K., Schütt, N., & Larsen, H. B. (2012). Predictors and protective factors for adolescent Internet victimization: Results from a 2008 nationwide Danish youth survey. Acta Pediatrica, 101(5), 533–539. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1651- 2227. 2011. 02587.x Henry, N., Flynn, A., & Powell, A. (2020). Technology-Facilitated Domestic and Sexual Violence: A Review. Violence against Women, 26(15– 16), 1828–1854. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10778 01219 875821 Hill, G., & Kearl, H. (2011). Crossing the Line: Sexual Harassment at School. American Association of University Women. Available on: http:// www. aauw. org/ resea rch/ cross ingthe- line/ *Holt, T. J., Bossler, A. M., Malinski, R., & May, D. C. (2016). Identifying predictors of unwanted online sexual conversations among youth using a low self-control and routine activity framework. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32(2), 108–128. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10439 86215 621376 *Hunehäll Berndtsson, K. (2021). “Something you just don’t talk about”: An analysis of teenage boys’ experiences of non-consensual sexting in lower secondary school. The Journal of Men’s Studies. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10608 26521 10427 94 *Jewell, J., Spears, B. C., & Perry, B. (2015). All my friends are doing it: Potentially offensive sexual behavior perpetration within adolescent social networks. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(3), 592–604. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jora. 12150 Joinson, A. N. (2003). Understanding the psychology of internet behavior: Virtual worlds, real lives. Palgrave Macmillan. *Jones, L. M., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2012). Trends in youth internet victimization: Findings from three youth internet safety surveys 2000–2010. Journal of Adolescent Healt, 50(2), 0–186. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jadoh ealth. 2011. 09. 015 Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1 3 *Jonsson, L. S., Fredlund, C., Priebe, G., Wadsby, M., & Svedin, C. G. (2019). Online sexual abuse of adolescents by a perpetrator met online: a cross-sectional study. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 13(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s13034- 019- 0292-1 *Karayianni, E., Fanti, K. A., Diakidoy, I. A., Hadjicharalambous, M. Z., & Katsimicha, E. (2017). Prevalence, contexts, and correlates of child sexual abuse in Cyprus. Child Abuse & Neglect, 66, 41–52. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chiabu. 2017. 02. 016 Kmet, L. M., Cook, L. S., & Lee, R. C. (2004). Standard Quality Assessment Criteria for Evaluating Primary Research Papers from a Variety of Fields. https:// doi. org/ 10. 7939/ R37M0 4F16 Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47, 2025–2047. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11135- 011- 9640-9 Lapidot-Lefler, N., & Barak, A. (2012). Effects of anonymity, invisibility, and lack of eye-contact on toxic online disinhibition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 434–443. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2011. 10. 014 *Leemis, R. W., Espelage, D. L., Basile, K. C., Mercer Kollar, L. M., & Davis, J. P. (2018). Traditional and cyber bullying and sexual harassment: A longitudinal assessment of risk and protective factors. Aggressive Behavior. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ab. 21808 *Longobardi, C., Fabris, M. A., Prino, L. E., & Settanni, M. (2020). The role of body image concerns in online sexual victimization among female adolescents: The mediating effect of risky online behaviors. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 14(1), 51–60. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40653- 020- 00301-5 *Longobardi, C., Fabris, M. A., Prino, L., & Settanni, M. (2021). Online sexual victimization among middle school students: Prevalence and association with online risk behaviors. International Journal of Developmental Science, 15, 1–8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3233/ DEV- 200300 *Maas, M. K., Bray, B. C., & Noll, J. G. (2017).A latent class analysis of online sexual experiences and offline sexual behaviors among female adolescents. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 1–17.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jora. 12364 *Mandau, M. B. H. (2020).“Snaps”, “screenshots”, and self-blame: A qualitative study of image-based sexual abuse victimization among adolescent Danish girls. Journal of Children and Media, 1–17.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17482 798. 2020. 18488 92 *Marret, M. J., & Choo, W. Y. (2017). Factors associated with online victimization among Malaysian adolescents who use social networking sites: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 7(6).https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmjop en- 2016- 014959 *McHugh, B. C., Wisniewski, P. J., Rosson, M. B., Xu, H., & Carroll, J. M. (2017). Most Teens Bounce Back. Using diary methods to examine how quickly teens recover from episodic online risk exposure. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 1–19. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 31347 11 Menesini, E., etal. (2012). Cyberbullying definition among adolescents: A comparison across six European countries. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15(9), 455–463. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1089/ cyber. 2012. 0040 *Méndez-Lois, M. J., Varela, M. V., & Fernández, F. B. (2017). Observar la violencia 2.0: Comportamiento cómplice, de la adolescencia gallega, en función del género. Innovación Educativa, 27, 121–131. https:// doi. org/ 10. 15304/ ie. 27. 4351 *Michikyan, M., Lozada, F. T., Weidenbenner, J. V., & Tynes, B. M. (2014). Adolescent coping strategies in the face of their “Worst Online Experience.” International Journal of Gaming and Computer-Mediated Simulations, 6(4), 1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4018/ ijgcms. 20141 00101 *Mitchell, K. J. (2001). Risk factors for and impact of online sexual solicitation of youth. JAMA, 285(23), 3011–3014. ht tps:// doi. org/ 10. 1001/ jama. 285. 23. 3011 *Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2004). Victimization of youths on the internet. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 8(1–2), 1–39. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1300/ j146v 08n01_ 01 *Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2007a). Online requests for sexual pictures from youth: Risk factors and incident characteristics. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(2), 0–203. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jadoh ealth. 2007. 03. 013 *Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2007b). Youth internet users at risk for the most serious online sexual solicitations. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(6), 0–537. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. amepre. 2007. 02. 001 *Mitchell, K. J., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2007c). Trends in youth reports of sexual solicitations, harassment and unwanted exposure to pornography on the internet. Journal of Adolescent Health, 40(2), 0–126. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jadoh ealth. 2006. 05. 021 *Mitchell, K. J., Wolak, J., & Finkelhor, D. (2008). Are blogs putting youth at risk for online sexual solicitation or harassment? Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(2), 277–294. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chiabu. 2007. 04. 015 *Mitchell, K. J., Finkelhor, D., Wolak, J., Ybarra, M. L., & Turner, H. (2011). Youth internet victimization in a broader victimization context. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48(2), 0–134. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jadoh ealth. 2010. 06. 009 *Mitchell, K. J., Jones, L. M., Finkelhor, D., & Wolak, J. (2013). Understanding the decline in unwanted online sexual solicitations for U.S. youth 2000–2010: Findings from three Youth Internet Safety Surveys. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(12), 1225–1236. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chiabu. 2013. 07. 002 *Mitchell, K., & Stulhofer, A. (2020). Online sexual harassment and negative mood in Croatian female adolescents. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry., 30, 225–231. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00787- 020- 01506-7 Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). PRISMA Group: Methods of systematic reviews and meta-analysis: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 62, 1006–1012. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclin epi. 2009. 06. 005 *Montiel, I., Carbonell, E., & Pereda, N. (2016). Multiple online victimization of Spanish adolescents: Results from a community sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 52, 123–134. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chiabu. 2015. 12. 005 *Morelli, M., Bianchi, D., Baiocco, R., Pezzuti, L., & Chirumbolo, A. (2017). Sexting behaviors and cyber pornography addiction among adolescents: The moderating role of alcohol consumption. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14(2), 113–121. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s13178- 016- 0234-0 Mori, C., Temple, J. R., Browne, D., & Madigan, S. (2019). Association of Sexting with Sexual Behaviors and Mental Health Among Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(8), 770–779. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1001/ jamap ediat rics. 2019. 1658 *Naezer, M., & van Oosterhout, L. (2020). Only sluts love sexting: Youth, sexual norms and non-consensual sharing of digital sexual images. Journal of Gender Studies, 30(1), 79–90. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09589 236. 2020. 17997 67 NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. (2008).CRD’S guidance for undertaking reviews in health care, Available on: https:// www. york. ac. uk/ media/ crd/ Syste matic_ Revie ws. pdf *Ojanen, T. T., Boonmongkon, P., Samakkeekarom, R., Samoh, N., Cholratana, M., & Guadamuz, T. E. (2015). Connections between online harassment and offline violence among youth in Central Thailand. Child Abuse & Neglect, 44, 159–169. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chiabu. 2015. 04. 001 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., etal. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1 3 systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10, 89. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s13643- 021- 01626-4 *Penado, M., Rodicio-García, M. L., Marcos Cuesta, M., & Corrás, T. (2019). Construction and validation of the intimate images diffusion scale among adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1485. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2019. 01485 Powell, A., & Henry, N. (2017). Sexual violence in a digital age. Palgrave Macmillan. *Priebe, G., & Svedin, C. G. (2012). Online or off-line victimisation and psychological well-being: A comparison of sexual-minority and heterosexual youth. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatr, 21(10), 569–582. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s00787- 012- 0294-5 *Priebe, G., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2013).To tell or not to tell? Youth’s responses to unwanted Internet experiences. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 7(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 5817/ CP2013- 1-6 Project DeShame. (2017). Young people’s experiences of online sexual harassment: a cross country report. Available on: https:// www. child net. com/ ourproje cts/ proje ctdesha me *Reed, E., Salazar, M., Behar, A. I., Agah, N., Silverman, J. G., Minnis, A. M., Rusch, M. L. A., & Raj, A. (2019). Cyber sexual harassment: Prevalence and association with substance use, poor mental health, and STI history among sexually active adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescence, 75, 53–62. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. adole scence. 2019. 07. 005 Reed, E., Wong, A., & Raj, A. (2020). Cyber sexual harassment: A summary of current measures and implications for future research. Violence against Women, 26, 1727–1740. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10778 01219 880959 *Rice, E., Winetrobe, H., Holloway, I. W., Montoya, J., Plant, A., & Kordic, T. (2015). Cell phone internet access, online sexual solicitation, partner seeking, and sexual risk behavior among adolescents. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(3), 755–763. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10508- 014- 0366-3 *Ringrose, J., Regehr, K., & Whitehead, S. (2021a). Teen girls’ experiences negotiating the ubiquitous dick pic: Sexual double standards and the normalization of image based sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 85, 558–576. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1007/ s11199- 021- 01236-3 *Ringrose, J., Regehr, K., & Whitehead, S. (2021b). ‘Wanna trade?’: Cisheteronormative homosocial masculinity and the normalization of abuse in youth digital sexual image exchange. Journal of Gender Studies, 1(19), 243–261. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09589 236. 2021. 19472 06 Rinken, S., Pasadas-del-Amo, S., Rueda, M., etal. (2021). No magic bullet: Estimating anti-immigrant sentiment and social desirability bias with the item-count technique. Quality & Quantity, 55, 2139–2159. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11135- 021- 01098-7 *Sánchez-Jimenez, V., Muñoz-Fernández, N., & Vega, E. (2015). Cyberdating in adolescence: The risks and the emotional harm of sexual cyberbehavior. Psychology, Society & Education., 7, 227–240. *Sánchez-Jimenez, V., Muñoz-Fernández, N., & Vega-Gea, E. (2017). Peer sexual cybervictimization in adolescents: Development and validation of a scale. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 17(2), 171–179. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijchp. 2017. 04. 001 Shariff, S. (2014). Sexting and Cyberbullying. Cambridge University Press. Shaughnessy, K., Byers, S., & Thornton, S. J. (2011). What is cybersex? Heterosexual students’ definitions. International Journal of Sexual Health, 23(2), 79–89. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 19317 611. 2010. 546945 Sheldon, P., & Newman, M. (2019). Instagram and American teens: Understanding motives for its use and relationship to excessive reassurance-seeking and interpersonal rejection. The Journal of Social Media in Society, 8, 1–16. *Sklenarova, H., Schulz, A., Schuhmann, P., Osterheider, M., & Neutze, J. (2018). Online sexual solicitation by adults and peers – Results from a population based German sample. Child Abuse & Neglect, 76, 225–236. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chiabu. 2017. 11. 005 Smahel, D., etal. (2020). EU Kids Online 2020: Survey results from 19 countries. EU Kids Online. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21953/ lse. 47fde qj01o fo *Soo, K., Ainsaar, M., & Kalmus, V. (2012). Behind the curtains of e-State: Determinants of online sexual harassment among Estonian children. Shock, 4, 35–48. *Ståhl, S., & Dennhag, I. (2020). Online and offline sexual harassment associations of anxiety and depression in an adolescent sample. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 21, 1–6. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08039 488. 2020. 18569 24 Suler, J. (2004). The Online Disinhibition Effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1089/ 10949 31041 291295 *Taylor, B. G., Liu, W., & Mumford, E. A. (2019). Profiles of youth inperson and online sexual harassment victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6(13–14), 6769–6796. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08862 60518 820673 Till, F. J. (1980). Sexual harassment: A report on the sexual harassment of students. Report of the National Advisory Council of Women's Educational Programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2011). Online communication among adolescents: An integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. Journal of Adolescent Health, 48, 121–127. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jadoh ealth. 2010. 08. 020 Van Gool, E., Van Ouytsel, J., Ponnet, K., & Walrave, M. (2015). To share or not to share? Adolescents’ self-disclosure about peer relationships on Facebook: An application of the Prototype Willingness Model. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 230–239. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2014. 11. 036 *Van Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., & Ponnet, K. (2019). An exploratory study of sexting behaviors among heterosexual and sexual minority early adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 65(5), 621–626. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jadoh ealth. 2019. 06. 003 Van Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., Ojeda, M., Del Rey, R., & Ponnet, K. (2020). Adolescents’ sexy self-presentation on instagram: An investigation of their posting behavior using a prototype willingness model perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health., 17(21), 8106. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ ijerp h1721 8106 *Van Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., De Marez, L., Vanhaelewyn, B., & Ponnet, K. (2021). Sexting, pressured sexting and image-based sexual abuse among a weighted-sample of heterosexual and LGB-youth.Computers in Human Behavior, 117.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2020. 106630 *Van Royen, K., Vandebosch, H., & Poels, K. (2015). Severe sexual harassment on social networking sites: Belgian adolescents’ views. Journal of Children and Media, 9(4), 472–491. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17482 798. 2015. 10893 01 Van Royen, K., Poels, K., Vandebosch, H., & Adam, P. (2017). “Thinking before posting?” Reducing cyber harassment on social networking sites through a reflective message. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 345–352. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2016. 09. 040 Veenstra, S., Vandebosch, H., & Walrave, M. (2012). Cyberbullying: Defining, understanding and intervening. In E. R. Leukfeldt & P. Stol (Eds.), Cybersafety: An introduction (pp. 217–226). Eleven International Publishing. Walker, K., & Sleath, E. (2017). A systematic review of the current knowledge regarding revenge pornography and non-consensual Sexuality Research and Social Policy 1 3 sharing of sexually explicit media. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 36, 9–24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. avb. 2017. 06. 010 *Walrave, M., Heirman, W., & Hallam, L. (2014). Under pressure to sext? Applying the theory of planned behavior to adolescent sexting. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(1), 86–98. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01449 29x. 2013. 837099 Walrave, M.,Van Ouytsel, J.,Ponnet, K., & Temple, J.R. (2018) Sexting: Motives and risk in online sexual self-presentation, Eds. Palgrave Studies in Cyberpsychology. *Walsh, W. A., Wolak, J., & Mitchell, K. J. (2013). Close relationships with people met online in a national U.S. sample of adolescents. Cyberpsychology, 7(3).https:// doi. org/ 10. 5817/ cp2013- 3-4 World Health Organization. (2003). Guidelines for medico-legal care of victims of sexual violence. Geneva. Available on: http:// apps. who. int/ iris/ bitst ream/ handle/ 10665/ 42788/ 92415 4628X. pdf? seque nce=1 *Ybarra, M. L., Leaf, P. J., & Diener-West, M. (2004). Sex differences in youth-reported depressive symptomatology and unwanted Internet sexual solicitation. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 6(1), 49–70. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2196/ jmir.6. 1. e5 *Ybarra, M. L., Espelage, D. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2007). The cooccurrence of internet harassment and unwanted sexual solicitation victimization and perpetration: Associations with psychosocial indicators. Journal of Adolescen Health, 41(6).https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jadoh ealth. 2007. 09. 010 *Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2008). How risky are social networking sites? A comparison of places online where youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. Pediatrics, 121(2), 350–357. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1542/ peds. 2007- 0693 *Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., & Korchmaros, J. D. (2011). National trends in exposure to and experiences of violence on the internet among children. Pediatrics, 128(6), 1376–1386. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1542/ peds. 2011- 0118 *Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., Palmer, N. A., & Reisner, S. L. (2015). Online social support as a buffer against online and offline peer and sexual victimization among U.S. LGBT and non-LGBT youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 39, 123–136. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chiabu. 2014. 08. 006 *Ybarra, M. L., & Petras, H. (2020). Groups of sexual violence perpetration in a national sample of youth 13–25 years of age. Prevention Science, 22(2), 205–215. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11121- 020- 01172-w Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.