Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Young adults increasingly initiate, maintain, and end sexual relationships online, an evolution that has also transformed how sexual violence may be perpetrated. Nonconsensual intimate image dissemination (NCIID) has gained attention in research, policy, and media. Yet, to date, there has been no synthesis of the literature on NCIID victimization. The goals of this review were to: (a) describe the frequency and nature of NCIID victimization, (b) examine the impacts of experiencing NCIID, and (c) identify survivor coping strategies. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest were systematically searched for peer-reviewed qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies published in English by February 1, 2025. A total of 49 studies met the inclusion criteria. The reported frequency of NCIID ranged from 3% to 65%, with higher rates among those who experienced some other form of technology-facilitated sexual violence. Perpetrators were often current or former partners, and content was shared through both private messaging and public platforms. Victim-survivors frequently reported psychological (e.g., depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder), social (e.g., ostracism, victim-blaming), and academic/occupational harms. Help-seeking strategies included disclosing to trusted others, legal action, and content reporting, while coping through avoidance strategies included relocation, withdrawal, or trying to act as if nothing happened. Barriers to help-seeking included stigma, lack of awareness, and prior negative experiences with authorities. Findings highlight the urgent need for survivor-centered support systems, awareness campaigns, and broader conversations about consent in digitally mediated sexual encounters.

Keywords

nonconsensual intimate image dissemination image-based sexual abuse technology-facilitated sexual violence nonconsensual sexting

Sexting refers to the sending of sexual images, videos, and texts using digital media and is fairly common among young adults, with estimates suggesting that as many as 50% sext (Mori et al., 2020). Research shows that sexting often begins during adolescence and tends to become more prevalent in early adulthood (Mori et al., 2020). Sexting also appears to be commonplace across different relationship contexts (e.g., established, casual) and is typically viewed as a form of flirting and a means to express one’s sexual interest or remain sexually engaged with a partner (Mori et al., 2020).

However, similar to face-to-face sexual encounters, sexting may not always be a positive experience, namely when consent is not discussed or honored. Even when intimate content is voluntarily created and consensually shared, consent can still be violated if the recipient shares it with others outside the intended audience, as is the case with nonconsensual intimate image dissemination (NCIID; Henry & Beard, 2024). NCIID is one form of the broader category known as image-based sexual abuse (IBSA), which also encompasses a range of behaviors involving the nonconsensual creation, distribution, or threat of distribution of intimate images. Therefore, in addition to NCIID, IBSA can also refer to cyberflashing (Karasavva et al., 2023a), sextortion (Miguel-Alvaro et al., 2025), sexting coercion (Swanek et al., 2025), and downblousing or upskirting (Fido et al., 2025).

To date, three reviews have surveyed the empirical research on IBSA (Henry & Beard, 2024; Paradiso et al., 2024; Parton & Rogers, 2025). Two of them focused on the predictors and implications of both IBSA perpetration and victimization (Paradiso et al., 2024; Parton & Rogers, 2025). The third review specifically explored IBSA perpetration (Henry & Beard, 2024). Six additional reviews summarized the published research on technology-facilitated sexual violence (TFSV), which, along with IBSA, encompasses behaviors such as cyberstalking, gender- and sexuality-based harassment, and online sexual harassment (Benítez-Hidalgo et al., 2025; Henry et al., 2020; Pak et al., 2024; Patel & Roesch, 2022; Powell & Henry, 2019; Sheikh & Rogers, 2024). A common issue identified across all published reviews is the lack of specificity in defining and measuring IBSA and TFSV.

The wider scope of previous reviews means that the unique experiences, challenges, and help-seeking behaviors of NCIID victim-survivors may be overlooked, emphasizing the need for a more targeted examination of the topic. Indeed, the experience of NCIID victim-survivors and the recourse available to them is likely different than that of a person who was cyberflashed or coerced into sexting. To date, only one systematic review has focused on NCIID victimization, albeit among youth, and found that it is linked with a range of adverse social and mental health impacts (Schmidt et al., 2024). Still, further work on NCIID victimization among adults is needed, as their experiences, legal protections, and help-seeking behaviors are likely different.

This is the first scoping review on NCIID victimization among adults. Findings from this work can provide valuable insights to inform policy and intervention strategies to prevent and address NCIID. Ultimately, such interventions, whether psychological, legal, or social, can meaningfully contribute to creating better recourse for victim-survivors. This review aims to answer three research questions: (1) What is the frequency of NCIID victimization, who is most likely to be affected by it, and in what contexts does NCIID occur? (2) What are the social, financial, and mental health impacts on victim-survivors?, And (3) How do victim-survivors cope?

Method

In this work, we followed the guidelines set out by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

Eligibility Criteria

Included studies had to (a) be published before February 1, 2025, in a peer-reviewed journal; (b) be written in English; (c) be considered an original qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods study; (d) include adult NCIID victim-survivors; (e) address at least one of the research questions. Given the distinct challenges associated with sexually abusive online behaviors targeting children and youth, research focusing on child sexual abuse material or NCIID in minors was not included (e.g., Gámez-Guadix et al., 2022). Finally, studies investigating IBSA or TFSV without distinguishing NCIID from other forms of victimization were also excluded (Borwell et al., 2025; Champion et al., 2022; Cripps & Stermac, 2018).

Search Strategy

The PsycINFO, PubMed, and SCOPUS databases were searched on February 1, 2025. Additionally, the reference lists and citations of included papers, as well as published systematic and scoping reviews on issues related to NCIID (e.g., IBSA and TFSV), were reviewed. In this review, “image” and “content” refer to nude or sexual images or videos, but exclude deepfake, content generated using artificial inntelligence, or other artificially created sexual content. Previous reviews have identified inconsistencies in terminology used to describe NCIID-related topics. To address this, an iterative process was used to develop a broad, comprehensive keyword list. Initially, a set of core terms was identified based on the research questions, including terms like NCIID, IBSA, and TFSV. Terms like “revenge pornography” that have been historically used in NCIID research were also included. Synonyms and related concepts were incorporated in consultation with an academic librarian to help identify any gaps in the search terms. During this process, I initially tested a secondary list of keywords related to “victimization.” However, relevant articles often did not include these terms in their titles, keywords, or abstracts causing them to be excluded from search results. The final set of search terms is presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Search Terms.

String I
“image-based sexual abuse” OR “image-based sexual abuse” OR “intimate image sexual abuse” OR “image-based abuse” OR “intimate image abuse” OR “technology-facilitated sexual violence” OR “non-consensual intimate dissemination” OR “nonconsensual intimate dissemination” OR “non consensual intimate dissemination” OR “non-consensual intimate distribution” OR “nonconsensual intimate distribution” OR “non consensual intimate distribution” OR “revenge porn” OR “nonconsensual porn” OR “non-consensual porn” OR “non consensual porn” OR “non-consensual sexting” OR “nonconsensual sexting” OR “non consensual sexting” OR “sext distribution” OR “sext sharing” OR “sext dissemination” OR “IBSA” OR “TFSV” OR “NCII” OR “NCIID” OR “cyber dating abuse” OR “partner cyber abuse” OR “intimate cyber abuse” OR “cyber intimate partner violence”

String I

“image-based sexual abuse” OR “image-based sexual abuse” OR “intimate image sexual abuse” OR “image-based abuse” OR “intimate image abuse” OR “technology-facilitated sexual violence” OR “non-consensual intimate dissemination” OR “nonconsensual intimate dissemination” OR “non consensual intimate dissemination” OR “non-consensual intimate distribution” OR “nonconsensual intimate distribution” OR “non consensual intimate distribution” OR “revenge porn*” OR “nonconsensual porn*” OR “non-consensual porn*” OR “non consensual porn*” OR “non-consensual sexting” OR “nonconsensual sexting” OR “non consensual sexting” OR “sext distribution” OR “sext sharing” OR “sext dissemination” OR “IBSA” OR “TFSV” OR “NCII” OR “NCIID” OR “cyber dating abuse” OR “partner cyber abuse” OR “intimate cyber abuse” OR “cyber intimate partner violence”

Note. NCIID = nonconsensual intimate image dissemination; TFSV = technology-facilitated sexual violence; IBSA = image-based sexual abuse.

Study Selection

All identified articles were imported into Covidence, to remove duplicates and streamline the screening process. The initial search retrieved 6,541 articles, with 5,362 remaining after duplicate removal. Prior to the title and abstract review, the inclusion criteria underwent pilot testing to ensure clarity and consistency in how reviewers interpret them (Supplemental Appendix A). All reviewers met and each independently screened the same 10 articles to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria. Each article was screened by two independent reviewers during both the title/abstract and full-text review phases. All disagreements were resolved by the first author. After the title and abstract review, 5,211 articles were excluded, followed by the exclusion of 102 articles during the full-text review. As a result, a final sample of 49 articles was retained. The PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1) illustrates this selection process. Consistent with other scoping reviews, due to the limited research on this topic and the main goal of this review being to comprehensively map the available evidence, a critical quality appraisal of the studies was not performed (Henry & Beard, 2024; Parton & Rogers, 2025). The extracted information included the author(s) and year of publication, title, country where data were collected, sample size, methodology, and key findings relevant to the research questions.

Figure 1.

The PRISMA flowchart of included studies.

Results

The 49 articles included in this review (Table 2) were published between 2015 and 2025. Most studies were conducted in Western countries, with 20.4% (n = 10) involving multicountry collaborations across various combinations of the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Canada, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Croatia. Likewise, most single-country studies were conducted in Western nations, primarily in the United States (n = 10, 20.4%), the United Kingdom (n = 6, 12.2%), and Australia (n = 5, 10.2%). The majority of the studies were quantitative (n = 31, 65.3%), followed by qualitative work (n = 15, 30.6%), and mixed methods (n = 3, 6.1%). Two of the included articles contained duplicate data (Gassó et al., 2020, 2021). An overview of the results from all included articles is provided in Table 2.

Table 2.

Overview of Included Studies.

Author (Year)	Sample (N)	Main Findings
Qualitative studies
Aborisade (2022)	27	Perpetrators were dating partners, exes, roommates, neighbors, strangers, or acquaintances. The content (either self-taken or non-consensually created) was shown in person or via text. NCIID was linked to harms in mental health (e.g., depression, guilt, shame, suicidality), social lives (e.g., public blame, ostracism), education and career (e.g., loss of income or job, expelled or had to leave school). Avoidance coping strategies were described (e.g., relocating, restriction of movement, social withdrawal).
Bailey et al. (2024)	52	Perpetrators were intimate partners. The content was originally voluntarily self-taken or obtained through hacking and was posted publicly to social media. reported severe mental health impacts, including feelings of humiliation, stigma, and repeated revictimization due to the near permanence of online content, making it difficult to remove and easy to reshare.
Bates (2017)	18	Perpetrators were current or former intimate partners or acquaintances. The content was voluntarily self-taken or created without the knowledge/consent of the victim-survivor (e.g., captured through hidden cameras). Dissemination channels included porn websites, eBay, and messaging apps. Victim-survivors experienced severe impacts including PTSD, anxiety, depression, suicidality, reputation loss, job loss, and harassment. Coping included both avoidance (alcohol use, avoidance, denial) and help-seeking (counseling, advocacy work, support systems) strategies.
Campbell et al. (2022).	17	Perpetrators were current or former intimate partners. Alternatively, they were friends or acquaintances. Most took their own pictures. The victim-survivors experienced severe, negative impacts on their mental health (e.g., social anxiety, generalized anxiety, depression, suicidality), social lives (e.g., loss of trust in others, fear of engaging in relationships), and education or career (e.g., loss of job or income). Over half of the victim-survivors pursued legal action as a coping strategy. Those who did not report that they were afraid they would be victim-blamed.
Eaton et al. (2024).	36	This study focused on coping strategies among victim-survivors. Victim-survivors proposed structural solutions to IBSA across five key areas: legal, corporate, educational, technological, and cultural. These included strengthening laws, promoting corporate accountability, expanding IBSA education and support networks, improving platform policies and reporting tools, and shifting cultural norms. Many suggestions were built on existing systems, making them feasible for implementation by educators, policymakers, service providers, and corporations.
Henry et al. (2023a)	30	All perpetrators were current or former intimate partners. Dissemination channels included messaging apps, pornographic websites, social media, chat rooms, and imageboard sites. Commonly, NCIID occurred alongside other forms of abuse (e.g., harassment, sexual assault, IBSA, and emotional abuse). Victim-survivors reported feeling entrapped, isolated, humiliated, and degraded.
Henry et al. (2023b)	25	Perpetrators were current or former intimate partners, friends, or acquaintances. Content was shared via social media, porn sites, and messaging apps. Most victim-survivors had experienced other forms of IBSA. NCIID had severe mental health impacts, including suicidality and hyper-vigilance. Social consequences included mistrust, harassment, and slut-shaming, while life disruptions included being forced to relocate. Avoidance coping involved drinking and isolation; help-seeking included medication and police reporting. Barriers to disclosure included fear of blame or disbelief, threats, prior negative experiences with law enforcement, lack of information, and limited recognition of NCIID as a serious harm.
Huber (2023)	17	Perpetrators included current or former partners (casual or long-term), friends, and coworkers. The NCIID content, initially self-taken, was shared via messaging apps, social media, pornography sites, dating platforms, and IBSA-specific websites. Nearly all participants had clinical diagnoses such as depression, anxiety, agoraphobia, or suicidality, along with other concerns like low self-esteem, worthlessness, paranoia, and fear of future victimization. Victim-survivors reported social losses, academic and work difficulties (e.g., concentration issues, absences), and primarily used avoidance coping (e.g., isolation, restricted movement). Fear of blame was a major barrier to help-seeking and disclosure.
Huber and Ward (2025)	200 NCIID cases	Dissemination channels included social media and websites (e.g., pornography websites, forums, escort websites, IBSA host websites). Technical barriers to reporting were noted, such as lack of cooperation from host websites, and unclear instructions on how to report NCIID content.
McGlynn et al. (2021).	75	The NCIID content that was initially voluntarily or nonconsensually created was distributed via social media, messaging applications, chat rooms, and pornographic websites. Nearly 1/3 of the participants experienced NCIID within broader IPV contexts. Victim-survivors described NCIID as “torture for the soul,” and “life-ruining,” reporting profound social impacts (blame, judgment, isolation), mental health consequences (shame, flashbacks, hypervigilance), and fundamental alterations to their sense of identity and relationship with their bodies.
Mclocklin et al. (2024)	31	Most perpetrators were current/former partners or casual dates, with others being friends/family or acquaintances/strangers. Most sought informal support from friends/family, while fewer accessed formal support (e.g., police, support organizations, or therapists). Key barriers to help-seeking included anticipated stigma, fear of negative reactions, lack of knowledge about services, perceptions that online experiences were not taken seriously, and concerns about anonymity.
Nygård et al. (2024)	20	Images were created through various means (e.g., voluntary self-creation, creation under pressure, nonconsensual creation by others). Distribution was primarily by current or former intimate partners, followed by friends/acquaintances. Impacts included severe mental health consequences (shame, anxiety, depression, self-harm, suicidality), social consequences (distrust, exclusion, harassment), and functional impairments (restriction of movement). Coping strategies included avoidance of public spaces or social settings and talking to friends, family, or therapists. Victims reported significant barriers to recovery, such as victim-blaming, fear of judgment and re-dissemination, and difficulty accessing resources.
Siegel et al. (2024).	36	This study focused specifically on coping strategies employed by victim-survivors. These included avoidance (through distraction, substance use, social withdrawal), controlling reputational damage (removing images, explaining the situation), threatening retaliation against perpetrators, seeking emotional support (from family, friends, online communities, professionals), and pursuing justice.
Vitis (2020)	10 NCIID reports	Examined reports made to a sexual assault service provider in Singapore. Most NCIID content was initially shared consensually, with one case involving hacking and another involving non-consensual photography. Content was distributed by showing to family members, posting on social media, or selling to acquaintances/posting for profit. Perpetrators were primarily current/former intimate partners, with one case involving an acquaintance, one a stranger, and one a female–female relationship.
Quantitative studies
Badenes-Ribera et al. (2024)	999	The frequency was 7.4% (no gender difference, bisexual and pansexual/polysexual participants were more likely to experience NCIID than heterosexual participants, older participants more likely to experience NCIID).
Borrajo et al. (2015)	433	The frequency was 5.1%. Men were more likely to report NCIID than women. Dissemination channels examined included messaging apps (3.4%) and social networks (2.9%).
Branch et al. (2017)	470	The frequency was 10.5%, and most cases involved voluntarily self-taken images sent to current or former intimate partners. Predictors of NCIID victimization included being a woman, younger, and a freshman. Compared to peers with no NCIID experiences, victim-survivors were more likely to be non-White, in a relationship, more impulsive, and have more positive attitudes toward sexting. Almost two-thirds of victim-survivors endorsed feeling angry at themselves.
Brighi et al. (2023)	2,047	The frequency was 3.3%. Sexual minority participants (6.9%) were significantly more likely to experience NCIID than heterosexual participants (2.7%). There was no gender difference. Most victims knew the perpetrator (72.7%), who was often a friend or former/current partner. without consent. To cope, 56.7% of victim-survivors talked to a close friend. Barriers to doing so included not thinking it would help and embarrassment.
Clancy et al. (2021)	1,148	1 in 8 (12.5%) participants reported experiencing NCIID.
Clancy et al. (2023)	2,126	The frequency was 11.0%. Women (13.1%) were significantly more likely to report NCIID than men (8.5%)
Clancy et al. (2020)	691	The frequency was 12.5%. In both Australian and American samples, women were more likely to report NCIID than men.
Colburn et al. (2023)	1,215	The frequency was 12.9%. Reporting rates varied by incident type, with only 6.3% reporting to police and 12.2% to the host website or app. Common reasons for not reporting included perceiving the incident as low intensity, fear or embarrassment, and doubt that reporting would help.
Crapolicchio et al. (2022)	351	All NCIID items described a current or former partner as a perpetrator. Self-objectification moderated the relationship between sexting and NCIID.
Dardis and Richards (2022)	697	The frequency was 17.3% (91% of victim-survivors were women). Insufficient power to compare sexual orientations and races/ethnicities. The perpetrators were current or former intimate partners, friends, acquaintances, strangers, and the NCIID content was initially voluntarily shared (59%), recorded without the consent of the victim-survivor (24.4%), shared after being pressured, coerced, threatened, or tricked (20.5%), or stolen (5.1%). The content was then posted online or shared through messaging apps. Results indicate that NCIID often occurs with a pattern of elevated violence.
Dodaj et al. (2024)	3,674	There was a negative correlation between age and NCIID. NCIID predictors included being a man and social bonding. Lack of awareness or trust in the usefulness of available recourse, ineffective reporting systems, and past negative experiences with disclosure were barriers to help-seeking.
Douglass et al. (2020)	1,007	The frequency was 12.5%. Most victim-survivors confided in friends (63%), told family (10%), or made official reports (7%). Nearly one-third disclosed to no one. Formal reports to institutions or platforms were rare, and very few led to action.
Fahmy et al. (2024)	1,118	The frequency of NCIID was 15.0%. Women (23.0%) were more likely to report NCD (nonconsensual dissemination or threat of dissemination of intimate content) than men (10.1%). Bisexual and pansexual participants (33.3%) reported higher rates than heterosexual participants (18.4%), while gay/lesbian participants did not differ significantly from either group. White (24.9%) and multiracial (26.4%) participants were more likely to report NCD than Black participants (13.2%). Poly-victimization was common, with 81.7% experiencing additional forms of IPV. Among victim-survivors, 34.8% met probable criteria for PTSD and 63.8% for depression.
Finkelhor et al. (2024)	154	In a sample of victim-survivors, 26% of the incidents generated significant and persistent concern about the availability of the NCIID content online. Those who had their images posted online or within the last 3 years reported greater concerns.
Gassó et al. (2021)	1,370	The frequency was 3.1%. Secondary online (20.9%) and offline (11.6%) victimizations were not uncommon among victim-survivors. Victim-survivors had higher psychopathology scores (depression, anxiety, global psychopathology) than those who had not experienced NCIID.
Gassó et al. (2020)	1,370	There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of NCIID among women (3.3%) and men (3.2%). Victim-survivors had significantly higher anxiety and depression than non-victims.
Henry et al. (2019)	4,274	The frequency was 10.6% and men (12.5%) were more likely than women (9.2%) to experience NCIID. Young adults reported the highest rates: 13.3% (ages 16–19), 14.0% (ages 20–29), and 12.7% (ages 30–39), with significantly lower rates among those 40 and older (5.4%). Distribution commonly occurred via messaging apps and social media. Indigenous participants (37%) were more likely than non-Indigenous participants (9%) to report nonconsensual distribution. LGB individuals (21%) were more likely than heterosexual participants (9%) to experience NCIID, with gay and bisexual men reporting the highest rates.
Huiskes et al. (2022)	540	The frequency ranged between 2.1% (image/video of unwanted sexual experience) to 3.8% (nude or sexual image). There were no significant gender differences between men and women. LGB+ participants were more likely to experience NCIID than heterosexual participants.
Karasavva and Forth (2022)	810	The frequency was 28.5%. Being a woman, LGBQ+, having perpetrated NCIID, and scoring higher in psychopathy and sadism were predictors of reporting NCIID victimization. Among victim-survivors, 56.9% named a current or former intimate partner as the perpetrator, 64.3% a friend or family member, and in 15.9% of the cases the perpetrator was unknown.
Lawler and Boxall (2024)	1,555	In a sample of participants who had reported some form TFSV to a dating app platform, 30.8% had experienced NCIID (41.2% of heterosexual men, 42.3% of LGB+ men, 21.2% of heterosexual women, and 26.9% of LGB+ women). Experiences with reporting varied based on the identity of the victim-survivor, with heterosexual men indicating the highest levels of satisfaction and LGB+ women the lowest. Those with better experiences when reporting to the platform were more likely to agree they would report again in the future or pursue legal justice.
Marganski and Melander (2018)	540	The frequency was 6.3%. Multivariate analysis showed that NCIID and cyber-aggression in general often occur at the same time as other forms of in-person psychological, physical, and sexual violence.
Martínez-Bacaicoa et al. (2024)	2,486	Women, sexual minority participants, younger individuals, and those with lower socioeconomic status reported higher rates of NCIID victimization. NCIID was also linked to experiencing multiple forms of abuse, including verbal coercion, digital sexual harassment, and gender or sexual orientation-based online violence. Additionally, NCIID victimization was correlated with perpetrating similar forms of online abuse.
Miguel-Alvaro et al. (2025)	2,748	The frequency was 12.9% and highest among women (13.4%) and individuals aged between 25 and 34 (15.5%). NCIID victim-survivors reported higher rates of depression and anxiety than those with no NCIID experiences.
Murça et al. (2024)	274	The frequency ranged from 2.6% (content posted online) to 6.9% (shared through cell phone or the internet). NCIID victim-survivors tended to be younger and score higher in humiliation, fear of humiliation, concern/worry, anxiety, and depression than those with no NCIID experiences.
Powell and Flynn (2023)	4,562	The frequency was 4.5% and was comparable among women (4.7%) and men (4.3%).
Powell and Henry (2019)	2,956	The NCIID frequency ranged from 8.6% (image/video of an unwanted sexual contact) to 9.3% (nude or seminude image).
Powell et al. (2024)	6,109	Across three countries (the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand), the NCIID frequency was 20.9%, with men reporting higher rates than women (24.1% vs. 18%). Most victim-survivors knew the perpetrator, who was commonly a current (33.5%) or former partner (27.4%) or a friend (15.4%). Women were more likely to be targeted by former partners, while men were more likely to be targeted by friends. Both genders experienced co-occurring abuse, but women more often reported controlling behavior and physical harm, whereas men more frequently reported additional types of IBSA.
Ruvalcaba and Eaton (2020)	3,044	The frequency was 8.3%. Most identified the perpetrator as a current or former partner (71%).Victimization was more common among women (9.2%) than men (6.6%). Gay men and bisexual women reported the highest rates of victimization. Women victim-survivors showed poorer psychological well-being than non-victims, a pattern not observed among men. Help-seeking was rare as 73% of victims disclosed to no one, and only 7.5% contacted the platform where the image was posted. Embarrassment and fear were key barriers, especially for women.
Said and McNealey (2023)	713	The frequency was 25%. Images were shown (23%) or sent (12%) to another person or posted online (2%). In most cases, the perpetrator was a current (17%) or former (34%) intimate partner, a friend (21%), a family member (12%), or unknown (11%). Only 16 filed a report with the police. Individuals who believed in the effectiveness of the police were more likely to support reporting.
Short et al. (2017)	66	In a sample of participants who had experienced NCIID, images were most commonly shared via social media (37%). Over half (57%) experienced secondary abuse related to the images, often following the end of an abusive relationship. Most images were initially taken voluntarily (56%), and most perpetrators were former partners (58%). The social, educational, and psychological impacts were severe: 38% reported damaged relationships, 22% gave up social activities, and 40% felt emotionally cut off. Professionally, 22% said NCIID affected their work performance, 12% had to change jobs, and 5% were fired or demoted. Additionally, 65% experienced persistent anxiety, and 59% self-harmed. Formal help-seeking was low, with only 10% reporting to the police. Instead, most sought support from friends and family (61%),
Snaychuk and O’Neill (2020)	127	17.1% of men and 16.5% of women reported having a nude or seminude image posted online or sent to others without their permission. Participants who experienced TFSV, including NCIID, scored lower in perceived control, social support, and self-esteem and higher in depression.
Sparks et al. (2023)	541	The frequency was 38%. NCIID victim-survivors were nearly three times as likely to also have perpetrated NCIID.
Mixed design studies
França and Quevedo (2020)	141	In a sample of NCIID victim-survivors, 81% knew the perpetrator, with 82% having an affective relationship, like dating (39%) or friendship (31%). Sixty percent of the images were initially voluntarily self-created, though some were coerced or taken without consent. Dissemination occurred primarily via messaging apps, like WhatsApp (70%), followed by social media and pornographic websites. Victim-survivors reported high rates of anxiety (63%), depression (56%), PTSD (33%), and self-harm or suicidal thoughts (32%). The abuse disrupted education and employment, with some forced to leave school (16%) or jobs (6%), while some had to move homes or experienced public harassment. Some victim-survivors pursued civil damages or criminal charges, including slander, threats, and even rape. Social isolation was common (58%), though some received support from mental health professionals, support groups, or friends and family.
Ho et al. (2024)	314	Victim-survivors expressed fear about the lasting digital footprint of NCIID, highlighting how difficult it is to fully erase material once posted online. Many felt blamed or had their experiences minimized. Nearly half (48.7%) reported that campus sexual misconduct harmed their self-esteem and mental health, with additional impacts on peer relationships (40.5%) and academics (13.5%).
Walker et al. (2021)	391	NCIID content was shared using messaging apps, physically shown in person, posted on social media, or on a public website. There was no association between gender and NCIID victimization. However, those who were pressured or coerced to send sexually explicit material were also more likely to experience NCIID.

Note. NCIID = nonconsensual intimate image dissemination; TFSV = technology-facilitated sexual violence; IBSA = image-based sexual abuse; PTSD = post-traumatic stress disorder.

Research Question 1: What Is the Frequency and Nature of NCIID Victimization?

Frequency

Twenty-eight out of 49 studies (57.1%) measured the frequency of NCIID victimization (Table 3). An additional 13 (26.5%) studies exclusively recruited samples of NCIID victim-survivors. NCIID rates ranged from 3% to 65%, with higher rates observed in samples of TFSV victim-survivors.

Table 3.

Critical Findings.

Prevalence	Reported prevalence of NCIID ranged from 3% to 65%, with higher rates among TFSV victim-survivors. This wide variability is likely due to differences in methodology, sample characteristics, and NCIID definitions.
Demographic factors	Findings related to gender and sexual orientation were mixed. More research is needed on how ethnicity, race, and cultural background shape experiences of NCIID. Young adults in their 20s may be at greater risk of experiencing NCIID.
NCIID context	In many cases, the perpetrator was a current or former intimate partner, although other relationship types were also reported. Content was shared through direct messaging and public platforms, including social media and pornography websites. NCIID content was created in various ways, ranging from consensual self-taken images later shared without permission, to images taken under coercion, or captured without the victim-survivor’s consent.
NCIID impacts	Victim-survivors often experience significant psychological distress, including depression, anxiety, PTSD, and suicidality. Social consequences include ostracism, victim-blaming, and reputational damage. Some also face financial and academic consequences, such as income/job loss or being expelled from school. NCIID rarely occurs in isolation, and victim-survivors are also likely to experience other forms of TFSV or IPV.
Coping strategies	Victim-survivors used a mix of help-seeking and avoidance strategies. Help-seeking included confiding in trusted others, pursuing legal action, reporting content to platforms, journaling, and using humor. Avoidance strategies involved relocating, withdrawing socially, changing schools or jobs, trying to act as if nothing happened, and substance use.
Barriers to help-seeking	Stigma was a major deterrent to seeking support. Many victim-survivors were unaware of their options, and legal or platform reporting processes were often difficult to navigate. Past negative experiences with authorities, such as police, further discouraged help-seeking.

Note. NCIID = nonconsensual intimate image dissemination; TFSV = technology-facilitated sexual violence; PTSD = post-traumatic stress disorder.

Demographic Risk Factors

Age

Seven studies examined age as a risk factor for NCIID victimization, yielding mixed results. For instance, Badenes-Ribera et al. (2024) determined that older age increases victimization likelihood, while Douglass et al. (2020) found no significant age effect. However, other work demonstrated that younger age was linked with a greater likelihood of NCIID victimization (Branch et al., 2017; Martínez-Bacaicoa et al., 2024). Four papers examined specific age ranges and NCIID victimization, collectively suggesting that young adults in their 20s and early 30s being particularly vulnerable to NCIID victimization (Finkelhor et al., 2024; Henry et al., 2019; Miguel-Alvaro et al., 2025; Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2020).

Gender

Twenty-three (46.9%) studies explored the link between gender and NCIID. Of these, 9 found that women were more likely to experience victimization (Branch et al., 2017; Clancy et al., 2023; Clancy et al., 2021; Dardis & Richards, 2022; Fahmy et al., 2024; Karasavva & Forth, 2022; Martínez-Bacaicoa et al., 2024; Miguel-Alvaro et al., 2025; Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2020), 6 found that men were more likely (Borrajo et al., 2015; Henry et al., 2019; Lawler & Boxall, 2024; Powell & Henry, 2019; Powell et al., 2024) and 10 reported no gender differences (Badenes-Ribera et al., 2024; Brighi et al., 2023; Clancy et al., 2020; Douglass et al., 2020; Gassó et al., 2020, 2021; Huiskes et al., 2022; Powell & Flynn, 2023; Snaychuk & O’Neill, 2020; Walker et al., 2021). Research on the reported incidents of NCIID found that most included women victim-survivors (Finkelhor et al., 2024; Vitis, 2020). NCIID was often discussed as a form of gendered violence in the included papers, as evidenced by the fact that several recruited samples of only women (Aborisade, 2022; Bailey et al., 2024; Bates, 2017; Crapolicchio et al., 2022; Huber, 2023; Murça et al., 2024; Vitis, 2020). Although transgender, nonbinary, agender, Two-Spirit, and gender-questioning participants were included in 10 studies, their data were either excluded from gender-based analyses or omitted entirely due to the small number of respondents in these groups (Dardis & Richards, 2022; Douglass et al., 2020; Fahmy et al., 2024; Karasavva & Forth, 2022; Lawler & Boxall, 2024; Martínez-Bacaicoa et al., 2024; Miguel-Alvaro et al., 2025; Powell & Flynn, 2023; Powell & Henry, 2019; Powell et al., 2024).

Sexual Orientation

Determining the link between sexual orientation and NCIID presents significant challenges based on the studies included in this review. First, there is limited research available as only 14 (28.6%) papers investigated sexual orientation as a risk factor for NCIID. Furthermore, there is significant inconsistency in the ways that sexual orientation was assessed, which complicates meaningful comparison between studies. Indeed, some researchers grouped all sexual minority participants together when making comparisons with heterosexual participants. Among the studies using this grouping method, six found LGBQ+ participants were more likely to experience NCIID, while two found no significant difference between LGBQ+ and heterosexual participants. More nuanced approaches in two papers compared different sexual orientations separately, and both concluded that bisexual and pansexual/polysexual individuals reported higher rates of NCIID victimization than heterosexual participants (Badenes-Ribera et al., 2024; Fahmy et al., 2024). Ruvalcaba and colleagues found that bisexual women had the highest rates of NCIID victimization, while gay men experienced significantly higher rates than heterosexual men; however, there was no statistical difference between heterosexual and lesbian women. In the sample collected by Henry et al. (2019), gay and bisexual men were the most likely experience NCIID (Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2020).

Race

Only 3 (6.1%) studies tested whether race was a risk factor for NCIID victimization with inconsistent findings. Two found higher rates of NCIID among non-White or Indigenous populations compared to White participants (Branch et al., 2017; Henry et al., 2019), while another study presented mixed results (Fahmy et al., 2024). It also needs to be emphasized, that the majority of studies in this review, including those with multicountry collaborations were conducted in Western, majority-White countries, except four: one in Nigeria (Aborisade, 2022), two in Singapore (Ho et al., 2024; Vitis, 2020), and one in Brazil (França & Quevedo, 2020).

Context of NCIID

Relationship with Perpetrator

Twenty-three (46.9%) studies investigated the relationship between victim-survivors and perpetrators at the time the NCIID incident took place. One study found that 73% had known them for more than a year (Brighi et al., 2023), while another reported that 82% had an emotional relationship with them (França & Quevedo, 2020). All quantitative studies showed that in at least 50% of the cases, the perpetrator was a current or former, casual or long-term intimate partner (Branch et al., 2017; Brighi et al., 2023; Campbell et al., 2022; Dardis & Richards, 2022; França & Quevedo, 2020; Karasavva & Forth, 2022; Powell et al., 2024; Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2020; Said & McNealey, 2023). Two more papers conceptualized NCIID occurring within a pattern of intimate partner violence and asked participants only about NCIID perpetrated by a partner (Borrajo et al., 2015; Crapolicchio et al., 2022).

Victim-survivor and perpetrator relationships also included being roommates, neighbors, acquaintances, coworkers, friends, and family members (see Table 3). Additionally, in most papers, a smaller but present proportion of victim-survivors did not know who the perpetrator was (Aborisade, 2022; Brighi et al., 2023; Dardis & Richards, 2022; França & Quevedo, 2020; Huiskes et al., 2022; Karasavva & Forth, 2022; McGlynn et al., 2021; Mclocklin et al., 2024; Nygård et al., 2024; Powell et al., 2024; Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2020; Said & McNealey, 2023; Short et al., 2017). Importantly, almost all papers addressed primary NCIID victimization, meaning they inquired about the first person to share the NCIID-related content and not all who potentially downloaded and reshared it. In contrast, in a sample of university students where participants were encouraged to report their relationship with everyone who had shared their nude or sexual images without their consent, 57% named a current or former intimate partner and 64% a friend or family member as a perpetrator (Karasavva & Forth, 2022).

Distribution Channels

There was considerable variability among the 18 studies (36.7%) that assessed how the content was shared. First, qualitative studies (Aborisade, 2022; Bailey et al., 2024; Bates, 2017; Henry et al., 2023a, 2023b; Huber, 2023; Huber & Ward, 2025; Huiskes et al., 2022; McGlynn et al., 2021; Vitis, 2020), documented a wide range of distribution channels, offering rich contextual information. These included messaging applications and group chats, social media and forums (including the hacked personal social media of one victim-survivor), as well as being shown to others in person. Host websites such as pornographic websites, dating sites, or websites created for the purpose of posting the victim-survivor’s intimate content were also discussed. In one extreme case, a victim-survivor shared how nude and sexual images that depicted them were sold through eBay auctions (Bates, 2017).

Quantitative studies (Dardis & Richards, 2022; França & Quevedo, 2020; Murça et al., 2024; Powell & Henry, 2019; Said & McNealey, 2023; Short et al., 2017) demonstrated that mobile messaging applications were consistently the most common distribution channel, followed by public sharing on social media or pornographic websites. It is also likely that nonconsensually distributed intimate content is shared across multiple channels, with 40% of victim-survivors in a large, Australian sample reporting that this was their experience (Henry et al., 2019).

Creation of Nonconsensually Distributed Intimate Content

The ways that the content was initially created ranged from voluntarily self-taken to self-taken under pressure or coercion or taken without the consent of the victim-survivor, as demonstrated by eight qualitative studies (Aborisade, 2022; Bailey et al., 2024; Bates, 2017; Campbell et al., 2022; Huber, 2023; McGlynn et al., 2021; Nygård et al., 2024; Vitis, 2020). These results were corroborated by three papers that employed a quantitative or mixed-design study design and found that 56% to 60% of the content was initially provided consensually (Dardis & Richards, 2022; França & Quevedo, 2020; Short et al., 2017). Furthermore, Dardis and Richards (2022) also reported that 21% did so under pressure or threats, while Short et al. (2017) found 14% of victim-survivors were coerced into image creation, and 24% were completely unaware they were being photographed.

Poly-Victimization

Poly-victimization was another significant finding across 12 (24.5%) included papers, which suggested that NCIID may frequently be a part of a broader pattern of violence, both online and in person (Dardis & Richards, 2022). Fahmy et al. (2024), demonstrated this quantitatively, showing that 81.7% of the NCIID victim-survivors in their sample had also experienced some other form of IPV. Many victim-survivors experienced further sexual harassment, abuse, and TFSV as a direct consequence of NCIID, particularly when nude or sexual content was posted on pornographic or dating sites (Aborisade, 2022; Bates, 2017; França & Quevedo, 2020; Gassó et al., 2020; Henry et al., 2023b; Huber, 2023; Marganski & Melander, 2018; McGlynn et al., 2021; Nygård et al., 2024). For instance, one participant in the study recounted how a man who discovered her intimate images online actually came to her home and harassed her (Bates, 2017). Another crucial aspect to consider is the apparent permanence of internet content, which can result in repeated victimization as NCIID materials may be downloaded and reuploaded seemingly indefinitely, creating a cycle of ongoing harm (Bailey et al., 2024).

Research Question 2: What Are the Impacts of NCIID?

Mental Health

Twenty-one (42.9%; 9 quantitative, 2 mixed-method, and 12 qualitative studies) of the reviewed studies showcased the profound harmful impacts of NCIID on the mental health of victim-survivors. As one participant in Campbell et al.’s (2022) study expressed, “I live in fear and despair every day” (p. 9). Overall, victim-survivors reported lower psychological well-being and scored higher in global psychopathology than non-victims (Gassó et al., 2020, 2021; Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2020).

More specifically, depression and anxiety were consistently identified as primary concerns among victim-survivors in both qualitative (Aborisade, 2022; Bates, 2017; Campbell et al., 2022; Henry et al., 2023b; Huber, 2023; McGlynn et al., 2021; Nygård et al., 2024) and quantitative work. Several other studies reported significantly higher depression and/or anxiety scores among NCIID victim-survivors compared to non-victims or the general population (França & Quevedo, 2020; Gassó et al., 2020, 2021; Miguel-Alvaro et al., 2025; Murça et al., 2024; Short et al., 2017). NCIID is a traumatic experience, and accordingly, Fahmy et al. (2024) found that one in three victim-survivors met the probable diagnostic criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Qualitative work also extensively documented experiences with PTSD and trauma-related symptoms, such as flashbacks and hypervigilance (Bates, 2017; Campbell et al., 2022; Henry et al., 2023b; McGlynn et al., 2021; Nygård et al., 2024). Other negative psychological impacts included loss of bodily integrity, decreased self-esteem, sleep disturbances, and fear of going outside (Aborisade, 2022; Bates, 2017; Henry et al., 2023b; Huber, 2023; McGlynn et al., 2021; Murça et al., 2024; Nygård et al., 2024; Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2020; Short et al., 2017). Despite limited direct measurement in quantitative work, suicidal ideation, planning, and attempts were frequently discussed in qualitative work (Aborisade, 2022; Bates, 2017; Campbell et al., 2022; Huber, 2023; Nygård et al., 2024).

Social Functioning

Results from nine studies (18.4%), show that the social functioning of NCIID victim-survivors is significantly impacted (Aborisade, 2022; Bailey et al., 2024; Bates, 2017; Campbell et al., 2022; Gassó et al., 2020; Henry et al., 2023b; Ho et al., 2024; McGlynn et al., 2021; Nygård et al., 2024). Papers with diverse study designs (qualitative, quantitative, mixed-method) consistently found that victim-survivors reported being blamed, judged, and ostracized by their social circle, resulting in lost relationships (Aborisade, 2022; Bates, 2017; Campbell et al., 2022; Gassó et al., 2020; McGlynn et al., 2021; Nygård et al., 2024).

Academic and Work

NCIID was also shown to negatively affect victim-survivors’ work and academic functioning across five studies (10.2%). Short et al. (2017) reported that 22% of victim-survivors felt their job performance was directly impacted, 12% had to change jobs, 5% were fired or demoted, and 35% lost money or incurred significant expenses, such as legal or therapy costs. Qualitative studies also described cases where victim-survivors lost jobs or sources of income (Aborisade, 2022; Bates, 2017; Campbell et al., 2022; França & Quevedo, 2020). For those still in university, some were forced to leave, expelled, or lost scholarships (Aborisade, 2022; França & Quevedo, 2020). Others worried about applying for jobs or choosing where to study and work, fearing that their nonconsensually shared intimate content might become known to future employers or colleagues (Campbell et al., 2022; Henry et al., 2023b).

Research Question 3: How Do NCIID Victim-Survivors Cope?

Help-Seeking Behaviors

Fifteen (30.6%) studies in this review illustrated a wide range of coping strategies of victim-survivors in the aftermath of NCIID. Leaning on trusted friends and family was often a primary source of support (Bates, 2017; Brighi et al., 2023; Douglass et al., 2020; Eaton et al., 2024; Henry et al., 2023b; Mclocklin et al., 2024; Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2020; Siegel et al., 2024). Formal and institutional resources included counseling or therapy and prescription medication (Bates, 2017; Henry et al., 2023b; Siegel et al., 2024). Efforts to pursue justice such as reporting to the police, contacting host websites, or local sexual assault service provider, and submitting content takedown requests were also frequently discussed in both quantitative and qualitative work but rarely used by victim-survivors (Bates, 2017; Brighi et al., 2023; Campbell et al., 2022; Colburn et al., 2023; Eaton et al., 2024; Henry et al., 2023b; Huber & Ward, 2025; Lawler & Boxall, 2024; Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2020; Short et al., 2017; Siegel et al., 2024; Vitis, 2020). In fact, in a sample of 66 adult NCIID victim-survivors in the United Kingdom (Short et al., 2017) and 126 Australian victim-survivors (Douglass et al., 2020), less than 10% turned to formal support services and police reporting. Some victim-survivors also coped by turning to advocacy work and helping others (Bates, 2017; Siegel et al., 2024). Additional coping mechanisms included peer communities, religious communities, writing, and using humor to process (Bates, 2017; Eaton et al., 2024).

Avoidance Behaviors

Many victim-survivors employ various strategies to distance themselves from their experiences with NCIID and protect against potential future harms, as detailed in eight studies (16.3%). Some avoidance strategies entailed victim-survivors removing themselves geographically, like moving, changing work, or schools (Aborisade, 2022; Bates, 2017; França & Quevedo, 2020). Others included social withdrawal both online and offline, including leaving social media altogether (Aborisade, 2022; Bates, 2017; Henry et al., 2023b; Siegel et al., 2024). Avoidance can also take the form of substance and/or alcohol use aimed at forgetting the experience or by immersing oneself in work as a distraction (Bates, 2017; Henry et al., 2023b; Siegel et al., 2024). Quantitative work underscores that avoidance behaviors are not uncommon (Brighi et al., 2023; Douglass et al., 2020; Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2020). In a community sample of over 3,000 participants, nearly three-quarters of victim-survivors did not disclose their experience to anyone (Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2020). Similarly, 7% victim-survivors in a large, community sample of more than 2,000 Italian adults attempted to move on by acting as if nothing happened (Brighi et al., 2023).

Barriers to Help-Seeking

Accessing support can be an arduous process, with victim-survivors encountering numerous, and often compounding, barriers, as detailed in 19 of the included papers (38.8%). Victim-survivors are faced with pervasive social stigma and are blamed, shamed, and judged both by friends and family as well as from authority figures, like police officers (Aborisade, 2022; Bailey et al., 2024; Brighi et al., 2023; Campbell et al., 2022; Eaton et al., 2024; França & Quevedo, 2020; Gassó et al., 2020; Henry et al., 2023b; Ho et al., 2024; McGlynn et al., 2021; Mclocklin et al., 2024; Nygård et al., 2024). Such responses can discourage help-seeking, especially when they are preceded by past negative experiences with disclosure (Dodaj et al., 2024; Eaton et al., 2024; Henry et al., 2023b; Lawler & Boxall, 2024). Stigma may also become internalized by some victim-survivors who described self-blame and minimizing their experiences as a deterrent to help-seeking (Colburn et al., 2023; Henry et al., 2023b; Mclocklin et al., 2024; Nygård et al., 2024; Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2020). In some cases, victim-blaming can even escalate into outright hostility, threats, and so called “honor-based” violence (Henry et al., 2023b). Another major barrier is a lack of knowledge about available resources. This can range from a belief that no meaningful solutions exist, to partial awareness accompanied by skepticism about their effectiveness (Brighi et al., 2023; Dodaj et al., 2024; Fahmy et al., 2024; Henry et al., 2023b; Karasavva & Forth, 2022; Mclocklin et al., 2024; Nygård et al., 2024). Difficulties navigating the legal system can also stop people from reporting (Fahmy et al., 2024). Unfortunately, ineffective or difficult to navigate reporting and content removal systems can make these pathways inaccessible (Dodaj et al., 2024; Fahmy et al., 2024; Ho et al., 2024; Huber & Ward, 2025). Finally, a lack of anonymity and the perceived gendered nature of services were also barriers to reporting, especially among men (Mclocklin et al., 2024).

Discussion

This is the first scoping review on NCIID victimization on its own, rather than as a subset of IBSA or TFSV. In turn, findings from this work can identify gaps in the research literature and provide insights for policy and practice. Table 3 contains an overview of critical findings.

NCIID Frequency

There was notable variation in the ways NCIID was measured spanning scales that prompted participants to consider different forms of victimization to single-item measures. Moreover, some papers studied solely nonconsensual photos, omitting videos, while others discussed only online posts of nonconsensual images but not in-person sharing or distribution via mobile devices. Thus, it is possible that some studies may have captured a narrower gamut of NCIID experiences, potentially underestimating its true frequency. Finally, while all studies included adult participants, some did not delineate when NCIID occurred, meaning they may have reported incidents from the participants’ childhood or adolescence. These methodological differences complicate direct comparisons across studies and highlight the need for more standardized methodological approaches in NCIID research. Finally, although this work did not focus on deepfakes or AI-generated content, it is undeniable that AI-generative models are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Thus, the likelihood of their weaponization trough IBSA perpetration is also increasing. Future research should investigate the potentially devastating impacts of AI-generated nonconsensual sexual content and the recourse available to victim-survivors.

Beyond these methodological differences, it is also important to acknowledge broader challenges in collecting data on sexual and gender-based violence and TFSV. Many may be reluctant to disclose their experiences due to stigma, shame, or fear of not being believed. These barriers can be especially pronounced among male-presenting individuals or those assigned male at birth, who may face additional social pressures to conform to norms of toughness or invulnerability. Furthermore, it remains especially difficult to collect data from trans, nonbinary, agender, and Two-Spirit people. While this review identified 10 studies that included participants outside the gender binary, the sample sizes in all were too small to allow for meaningful statistical comparisons, who may be wary of participating due to prior negative experiences with researchers, misgendering, or concerns about the misuse of their data. These barriers further complicate efforts to accurately estimate prevalence and highlight the need for more inclusive and adequately powered research.

NCIID Demographics

This review found mixed findings regarding the link between demographic characteristics (i.e., age, gender, sexual orientation, race) and NCIID victimization. Vulnerability to NCIID may stem more from gender dynamics within relationships rather than from sexual orientation. Thus, future research should also consider the perpetrator's gender as a potential risk factor, rather than the victim-survivor’s sexual orientation. This distinction is especially important for bisexual and pansexual individuals, whose partners may have diverse gender identities. Very few studies examined race and NCIID with inconsistent results. Of note, most of the included papers recruited participants from Western countries. Additionally, in most studies, minority-based identity groups were combined. Nevertheless, references to so-called “honor-based” violence as an additional form of harm survivors may face, highlight the importance of cultural context (Henry et al., 2023b). Future research should investigate how factors such as religion, religiosity, ethnicity, and cultural values (particularly those related to machismo and misogyny) may compound the impact on survivors and deprive them of social support.

Viewing NCIID as gendered forms of violence is supported by the ways it is perpetrated, experienced, and responded to. Men are more likely to perpetrate, excuse, or minimize NCIID (Henry & Beard, 2024; Karasavva et al., 2023b; Paradiso et al., 2024). Common motivations behind NCIID, such as control, sexual trophism, and desire for status, reflect themes of gendered power dynamics (Clancy et al., 2021, 2023; Parton & Rogers, 2025). A potential by-product of these two factors is that many NCIID-host websites allow only content featuring cisgender women (Henry & Flynn, 2019). Moreover, women tend to face harsher public stigma, and are at a heightened risk for secondary victimizations, like harassment or further violence (Amudhan et al., 2024; Parton & Rogers, 2025). At the same time, the findings on gender and rates of NCIID victimization from this review were mixed. It is important to acknowledge both the gendered dynamics of NCIID as well as the reality that people of all genders can be harmed by it. Crucially, there is a gap in the literature on NCIID victimization among individuals beyond the gender binary.

NCIID Context

NCIID is often minimized or excused and victim-survivors face blame, especially when they are deemed “promiscuous,” stressing how sexual double standards and gender dynamics may disproportionately impact female-presenting victim-survivors (Karasavva et al., 2023b; Mckinlay & Lavis, 2020). Victim-blaming stems at least partially from the underlying assumption that victim-survivors voluntarily shared their nude or sexual content and should have anticipated potential consequences (Amudhan et al., 2024). This review found that the reality is far more complex, with many victim-survivors having been pressured, coerced, or tricked into sexting. Others were not aware of or did not consent to their nude or sexual image being taken in the first place. Importantly, even when individuals consent to an intimate content being taken and voluntarily send it to another person, this does not constitute consent for it to be shared with a wider audience. Taken together, these results call attention to the fact that consent must be discussed and honored at every step of a digitally mediated sexual encounter. As well, discussions of NCIID and sexual violence in general frequently focus on what the victim-survivor should have done differently rather than on the violation committed by the perpetrator. Sexting has become a normal part of the sexual repertoire for many, and it carries some risk, as do all other in-person and online sexual encounters. However, the social messaging that is aimed predominantly at assigned female at birth and female-presenting individuals and dictates they abstain from sexting to avoid NCIID is neither fair nor helpful. Instead, we should work on dismantling the stigma surrounding NCIID and placing responsibility squarely on perpetrators.

As implied by its colloquial term “revenge pornography,” NCIID is typically portrayed as being perpetrated by a scorned lover at the end of a relationship. Although most included studies found that victim-survivors were frequently targeted by intimate partners, this was not the full picture. Perpetrators were also other people in the victim-survivor’s life or even strangers. This review also identified several dissemination channels, such as messaging apps, social media, and public websites. Consequently, NCIID introduces additional challenges when pursuing legal action, such as jurisdiction issues when victims and perpetrators are geographically separated and issues with identifying the perpetrator, since identity concealment is easier online.

The Harms of NCIID

There was a clear consensus that the harms of NCIID are severe, extensive, and long-lasting among the included studies. The mental health consequences for victim-survivors are particularly acute, with individuals frequently reporting feelings of fear, anxiety, humiliation, shame, and self-blame. The apparent permanence of online content and the ease with which images can be downloaded, reshared, and reuploaded without the victim-survivor’s consent or knowledge add to the distress. This persistent fear reinforces the trauma and makes it difficult to move on.

In addition to these psychological effects, NCIID significantly disrupts social functioning. Because the perpetrator is often someone the victim-survivor knows, like a current or former intimate partner, the fallout can be complicated. Possibly, others in the victim-survivor’s life may know and have relationships with the perpetrator, potentially leading to tension and divided loyalties. These difficulties are exacerbated by social stigma and victim-blaming surrounding NCIID, reflecting and reinforcing gendered power dynamics. The impacts also extend into academic and professional settings. Thus, converging findings from this review agree that NCIID is a deeply traumatic violation with serious and enduring consequences that permeate many if not all aspects of the victim-survivor’s life. As such, victim-survivors of NCIID represent a high-need population requiring support in multiple areas of functioning.

Coping with NCIID

NCIID victim-survivors face multiple, compounding barriers that collectively exert a significant impact on their likelihood of accessing support (Pijlman et al., 2025). Findings from this review indicate that victim-survivors predominantly seek informal support from trusted friends and family rather than formal services. A barrier to seeking support from people close to victim-survivors was stigma and shame. In some cases, the victim-survivors feared further violence from the people they would disclose to, including so-called “honor-based” violence (Henry et al., 2023b). In response to these real or perceived threats, victim-survivors may adopt avoidance strategies, such as relocating, changing workplaces or schools, and withdrawing socially. While these strategies may provide short-term relief, in the long term, they could lead to increased isolation and emotional distress (Leiner et al., 2012).

NCIID victim-survivors may require specialized attention, particularly technical help in removing the content from the internet. Despite this, few turn to formal support systems as it is not only unappealing but potentially re-traumatizing, particularly for individuals from historically marginalized communities (Decker et al., 2019; Edwards et al., 2023). Perhaps more critically, the authorities often cannot achieve what survivors need most: the removal of their intimate content from the internet (North Yorkshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner, 2021). The options NCIID victim-survivors have at their disposal are highly contingent on their location and legal context. Differences in legislation and enforcement shape both access to recourse and willingness to seek help. In Australia, the eSafety Commissioner can compel social media platforms to remove nonconsensual content, offering a clear and efficient reporting pathway. In contrast, the regulatory landscape elsewhere remains more fragmented. Although Canada criminalized NCIID in 2015 through Bill C-13, enforcement is often difficult. There is no national body with direct removal powers, and survivors typically rely on police or platform-specific reporting tools. These gaps can limit awareness of available remedies. Overall, stronger national and international coordination is needed to ensure consistent support and protection for victim-survivors. Feelings of self-blame and internalized minimization of their experiences may also discourage some from seeking help, particularly if they question whether what they experienced counts as “real” abuse.

Implications

Standardized operationalizations of NCIID are needed that encompass both images and videos, whether voluntarily or non-consensually created, across diverse relationship contexts. Research should also move beyond focusing solely on the initial perpetrator and investigate the role of those who download and reshare the nonconsensually distributed content. Too often, minoritized groups are binned together, masking important differences and insights. Thus, we need more inclusive research that better reflects the diverse identities of NCIID victim-survivors.

From a policy perspective, legal options to combat NCIID may be both complicated and insufficient to fully address them (Karasavva & Noorbhai, 2021; Kolisetty, 2021). Thus, it is imperative to establish consistent criminal and civil statutes that specifically address NCIID. It would perhaps be more effective to promote international legal standards for NCIID that could address jurisdictional challenges and hold hosting platforms to account. For example, pornographic websites could be required to ask for written consent from all individuals depicted in uploaded content. On the technical front, collaboration between different search engines could ensure that nonconsensually distributed intimate images are delisted and not found when searching a victim-survivor’s name.

Educational campaigns can minimize stigma, challenge victim- and self-blame, and raise awareness about the available recourse for victim-survivors. In fact, acknowledging self-blame has been shown to increase engagement with NCIID-related educational campaigns (Pijlman & Burgmeijer, 2024). Education campaigns could also strategically leverage the unique affordances of the internet to empower bystanders to support victim-survivors by speaking up, offering private support, or initiating the reporting and takedown process (Karasavva & Mikami, 2024; Kromann & Flynn, 2025). Public discourse about consent should also evolve to incorporate digitally mediated sexual encounters, like sexting. Finally, specialized training for police, support workers, and therapists could ensure a better experience for those who seek help (Table 4).

Table 4.

Research, Policy, Technical, and Education Recommendations.

Research	Standardize the assessment of NCIID in research.
	Study the impact of NCIID across the lifespan (child/adolescent vs. adult experiences and recourse options).
	Greater diversity in research (e.g., NCIID across the gender binary, sexual orientation, ethnic/racial/cultural background)
	Research reasons why some survivors avoid legal action (e.g., perceived inefficacy or desire to protect the perpetrator).
Policy	Implement specific and consistent criminal and civil statutes to address NCIID.
	Promote international legal standards to address jurisdictional challenges.
	Hold host websites accountable for detecting and removing nonconsensual content.
Technical	Collaborate with search engines (e.g., Google) to delist NCIID content from victim-survivors’ name searches.
Technical	Make reporting and content removal easier for victim-survivors.
Education	Launch awareness campaigns on survivors’ options and counter victim-blaming narratives.
	Incorporate consent education that includes sexting and digitally mediated sexual encounters.
	Provide specialized NCIID training to police, support workers, and therapists.

Note. NCIID = nonconsensual intimate image dissemination.

Limitations

A main limitation of this review is that several of the included studies explored broader topics, like IBSA and TFSV. Hence, there was marked variation in the ways that NCIID victimization was assessed, as discussed earlier. Nonempirical work (e.g., theoretical articles, legal analysis, reports, case studies) was excluded from this review. Practically, this could mean that important insights into NCIID were potentially overlooked. In addition, we omitted non-English work, which further limits understanding of NCIID to primarily Western perspectives. Finally, there is limited prior research available for several of the topics addressed in this review, underlining the great need for future work.

Conclusion

This scoping review explored the empirical literature on NCIID victimization. The findings indicate that NCIID is fairly common, can occur across various different relationship contexts, and often takes place along other forms online or in-person abuse. Victim-survivors report a wide array of mental health, social, and academic or work-related challenges. To cope, many turn to trusted friends and family with some seeking professional help or legal action. Avoidance-based coping strategies are also common and can include social withdrawal, relocation, or attempts to try to act as if nothing happened. Several barriers can deter victim-survivors from seeking help, including stigma, lack of awareness about available recourse, and previous negative experiences with self-seeking. Overall, results from this review emphasize the urgent need to prioritize the voices and experiences of victim-survivors. More resources are needed to support them both psychologically and practically (e.g., technical assistance). At a societal level, we must confront the normative practices and harmful attitudes, like sexism, that enable NCIID, and work to expand the public discussion on consent to fully include digitally mediated sexual encounters. Above all, efforts must be grounded in empathy, respect, and a commitment to centering the needs of victim-survivors.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380251383940 – Supplemental material for The Frequency, Nature, Impact, and Coping Strategies of Nonconsensual Intimate Image Dissemination Victimization: A Scoping Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380251383940 for The Frequency, Nature, Impact, and Coping Strategies of Nonconsensual Intimate Image Dissemination Victimization: A Scoping Review by V. Karasavva in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-tva-10.1177_15248380251383940 – Supplemental material for The Frequency, Nature, Impact, and Coping Strategies of Nonconsensual Intimate Image Dissemination Victimization: A Scoping Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tva-10.1177_15248380251383940 for The Frequency, Nature, Impact, and Coping Strategies of Nonconsensual Intimate Image Dissemination Victimization: A Scoping Review by V. Karasavva in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Dr. Samantha Dawson and Dr. Sheila Woody for their thoughtful feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript. I am also grateful to Arella Ng, Kiahna Siy, and Aafreen Siddiqui for their valuable assistance with abstract and full-text screenings.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

ORCID iD

V. Karasavva

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biography

V. Karasavva is a PhD candidate in clinical psychology at the University of British Columbia. Her research explores issues surrounding digital citizenship, including digital sexual consent and technology-facilitated sexual violence. Her graduate studies are supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Vanier scholarship.

References

Aborisade

R. A.

(2022). Image-based sexual abuse in a culturally conservative Nigerian society: Female victims’ narratives of psychosocial costs. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 19(1), 220–232.

Amudhan

Sharma

M. K.

Anand

Johnson

(2024). “Snapping, sharing and receiving blame”: A systematic review on psychosocial factors of victim blaming in non-consensual pornography. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 33(1), 3–12.

Badenes-Ribera

Longobardi

Fabris

M. A.

(2024). Sext dissemination and mental health among young Italian adults. Sexual Health & Compulsivity, 31(3), 189–206.

Bailey

Hulley

Gomersall

Kirkman

Gibbs

Jones

A. D.

(2024). The networking of abuse: Intimate partner violence and the use of social technologies. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 51(2), 266–285.

Bates

(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.

Benítez-Hidalgo

Henares-Montiel

Ruiz-Pérez

Pastor-Moreno

(2025). International prevalence of technology-facilitated sexual violence against women: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 26(4), 668–681.

Borrajo

Gámez-Guadix

Calvete

(2015). Cyber dating abuse: Prevalence, context, and relationship with offline dating aggression. Psychological Reports, 116(2), 565–585.

Borwell

Jansen

Stol

(2025). Exploring the impact of cyber and traditional crime victimization: Impact comparisons and explanatory factors. International Review of Victimology, 31(1), 156–181.

Branch

Hilinski-Rosick

C. M.

Johnson

Solano

(2017). Revenge porn victimization of college students in the United States: An exploratory analysis. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11(1), 128–142.

10.

Brighi

Amadori

Summerer

Menin

(2023). Prevalence and risk factors for nonconsensual distribution of intimate images among Italian young adults: Implications for prevention and intervention. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 23(4), Article 100414.

11.

Campbell

J. K.

Poage

S. M.

Godley

Rothman

E. F.

(2022). Social anxiety as a consequence of non-consensually disseminated sexually explicit media victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(9–10), Np7268–Np7288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520967150

12.

Champion

A. R.

Oswald

Khera

Pedersen

C. L.

(2022). Examining the gendered impacts of technology-facilitated sexual violence: A mixed methods approach. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(3), 1607–1624.

13.

Clancy

E. M.

Hallford

March

Howard

Toumbourou

J. W.

Klettke

(2023). The role of consent and motivations in sext dissemination. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(15–16), 9315–9342.

14.

Clancy

E. M.

Klettke

Crossman

A. M.

Hallford

D. J.

Howard

Toumbourou

J. W.

(2021). Sext dissemination: Differences across nations in motivations and associations. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2429.

15.

Clancy

E. M.

Klettke

Hallford

D. J.

Crossman

A. M.

Maas

M. K.

Toumbourou

J. W.

(2020). Sharing is not always caring: Understanding motivations and behavioural associations with sext dissemination. Computers in Human Behavior, 112, 106460.

16.

Colburn

D. A.

Finkelhor

Turner

H. A.

(2023). Help-seeking from websites and police in the aftermath of technology-facilitated victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(21–22), 11642–11665.

17.

Crapolicchio

Pecini

Di Bernardo

G. A.

Regalia

Andrighetto

Vezzali

(2022). Sexting and the experience of non-consensual dissemination of sexts. The moderator role of self-objectification. Psicologia Sociale, 17(2), 207–224.

18.

Cripps

Stermac

(2018). Cyber-sexual violence and negative emotional states among women in a Canadian university. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 12(1), 171–186.

19.

Dardis

C. M.

Richards

E. C.

(2022). Nonconsensual distribution of sexually explicit images within a context of coercive control: Frequency, characteristics, and associations with other forms of victimization. Violence Against Women, 28(15–16), 3933–3954.

20.

Decker

M. R.

Holliday

C. N.

Hameeduddin

Shah

Miller

Dantzler

Goodmark

(2019). “You do not think of me as a human being”: Race and gender inequities intersect to discourage police reporting of violence against women. Journal of Urban Health, 96, 772–783.

21.

Dodaj

Sesar

Prijatelj

Mandić

Bursać

S. R.

(2024). Risk factors for non-consensual sexting among adolescents and emerging adults: An extension of the routine activity theory perspective. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 53(7), 2583–2596.

22.

Douglass

C. H.

Wright

C. J.

Davis

A. C.

Lim

M. S.

(2020). Non-consensual sharing of personal sexually explicit imagery among young people in Australia: Results from an online survey. Sexual Health, 17(2), 182–186.

23.

Eaton

A. A.

Krieger

M. A.

Siegel

J. A.

Miller

A. M.

(2024). Victim-survivors’ proposed solutions to addressing image-based sexual abuse in the US: Legal, corporate, educational, technological, and cultural approaches. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 24(2), 307–334.

24.

Edwards

K. M.

Mauer

V. A.

Huff

Farquhar-Leicester

Sutton

T. E.

Ullman

S. E.

(2023). Disclosure of sexual assault among sexual and gender minorities: A systematic literature review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(3), 1608–1623.

25.

Fahmy

Piper

C. M.

Dardis

C. M.

(2024). Comparative and combined associations of nonconsensual distribution of sexually explicit materials and interpersonal violence on psychological distress. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241301798.

26.

Fido

Harper

C. A.

Duff

Page

T. E.

(2025). Understanding social judgments of and proclivities to commit upskirting. Sexual Abuse, 37(3), 339–367.

27.

Finkelhor

Turner

Colburn

Mitchell

K. J.

(2024). Persisting concerns about image exposure among survivors of image-based sexual exploitation and abuse in childhood. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 17(Suppl 1), S88–S93. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001815

28.

França

L. A.

Quevedo

J. V.

(2020). Project leaked: 1 research on non-consensual sharing of intimate images in Brazil 2. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 14(1), 1–28.

29.

Gámez-Guadix

Mateos-Pérez

Wachs

Wright

Martínez

Íncera

(2022). Assessing image-based sexual abuse: Measurement, prevalence, and temporal stability of sextortion and nonconsensual sexting (“revenge porn”) among adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 94(5), 789–799.

30.

Gassó

A. M.

Mueller-Johnson

Gómez-Durán

E. L.

(2021). Victimization as a result of non-consensual dissemination of sexting and psychopathology correlates: An exploratory analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(12), 6564.

31.

Gassó

A. M.

Mueller-Johnson

Montiel

(2020). Sexting, online sexual victimization, and psychopathology correlates by sex: Depression, anxiety, and global psychopathology. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(3), Article 1018.

32.

Henry

Beard

(2024). Image-based sexual abuse perpetration: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(5), 3981–3998.

33.

Henry

Flynn

(2019). Image-based sexual abuse: Online distribution channels and illicit communities of support. Violence Against Women, 25(16), 1932–1955.

34.

Henry

Flynn

Powell

(2019). Image-based sexual abuse: Victims and perpetrators. In Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice (pp. 1–19).

35.

Henry

Flynn

Powell

(2020). Technology-facilitated domestic and sexual violence: A review. Violence Against Women, 26(15–16), 1828–1854.

36.

Henry

Gavey

Johnson

(2023a). Image-based sexual abuse as a means of coercive control: Victim-survivor experiences. Violence Against Women, 29(6–7), 1206–1226.

37.

Henry

Gavey

McGlynn

Rackley

(2023b). ‘Devastating, like it broke me’: Responding to image-based sexual abuse in Aotearoa New Zealand. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 23(5), 861–879.

38.

M. H.

Gupta

Lee

Wadhwa

(2024). Detrimental to our digital well-being: campus sexual misconduct and technology-facilitated sexual violence among university students in Singapore. Violence Against Women. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012241283498

39.

Huber

(2023). ‘A shadow of me old self’: The impact of image-based sexual abuse in a digital society. International Review of Victimology, 29(2), 199–216.

40.

Huber

A. R.

Ward

(2025). Non-consensual intimate image distribution: Nature, removal, and implications for the Online Safety Act. European Journal of Criminology, 22(1), 30–50.

41.

Huiskes

Dinis

M. A. P.

Caridade

(2022). Technology-facilitated sexual violence victimization during the COVID-19 pandemic: Behaviors and attitudes. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 31(9), 1148–1167.

42.

Karasavva

Brunet

Smodis

Swanek

Forth

(2023a). Putting the Y in cyberflashing: Exploring the prevalence and predictors of the reasons for sending unsolicited nude or sexual images. Computers in Human Behavior, 140, 107593.

43.

Karasavva

Forth

(2022). Personality, attitudinal, and demographic predictors of non-consensual dissemination of intimate images. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(21–22), NP19265–NP19289.

44.

Karasavva

Mikami

(2024). I’ll be there for you? The bystander intervention model and cyber aggression. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 18(2), 1–25.

45.

Karasavva

Noorbhai

(2021). The real threat of deepfake pornography: A review of Canadian policy. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(3), 203–209.

46.

Karasavva

Swanek

Smodis

Forth

(2023b). From myth to reality: Sexual image abuse myth acceptance, the Dark Tetrad, and non-consensual intimate image dissemination proclivity. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 29(1), 51–67.

47.

Kolisetty

(2021). Gaps in the law on image-based sexual abuse and its implementation: Taking an intersectional approach. In The Palgrave Handbook of Gendered Violence and Technology (pp. 507–527).

48.

Kromann

S. B.

Flynn

(2025). Bystander intervention in image-based sexual abuse: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380251343191

49.

Lawler

Boxall

(2024). User experiences of reporting dating app facilitated sexual violence to dating platforms. In Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice (pp. 1–17).

50.

Leiner

A. S.

Kearns

M. C.

Jackson

J. L.

Astin

M. C.

Rothbaum

B. O.

(2012). Avoidant coping and treatment outcome in rape-related posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(2), 317.

51.

Marganski

Melander

(2018). Intimate partner violence victimization in the cyber and real world: Examining the extent of cyber aggression experiences and its association with in-person dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(7), 1071–1095.

52.

Martínez-Bacaicoa

Sorrel

M. A.

Gámez-Guadix

(2024). Development and validation of technology-facilitated sexual violence perpetration and victimization scales among adults. Assessment, 31(8), 1580–1597.

53.

McGlynn

Johnson

Rackley

Henry

Gavey

Flynn

Powell

(2021). ‘It’s torture for the soul’: The harms of image-based sexual abuse. Social & Legal Studies, 30(4), 541–562.

54.

Mckinlay

Lavis

(2020). Why did she send it in the first place? Victim blame in the context of ‘revenge porn’. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 27(3), 386–396.

55.

Mclocklin

Kellezi

Stevenson

Mackay

(2024). Disclosure decisions and help-seeking experiences amongst victim-survivors of non-consensual intimate image distribution. Victims & Offenders. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2024.2329107

56.

Miguel-Alvaro

Martínez-Bacaicoa

Wachs

Gámez-Guadix

(2025). Sextortion, nonconsensual pornography, and mental health outcomes across the lifespan: The moderating role of gender, age, and sexual orientation. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 22(3), 1645–1656.

57.

Mori

Cooke

J. E.

Temple

J. R.

Anderson

Rash

Madigan

(2020). The prevalence of sexting behaviors among emerging adults: A meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49, 1103–1119.

58.

Murça

Cunha

Almeida

T. C.

(2024). Prevalence and impact of revenge pornography on a sample of Portuguese women. Sexuality & Culture, 28(1), 96–112.

59.

North Yorkshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner. (2021). Suspension of police officers from duty procedure. https://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/north-yorkshire-police/our-policies-and-procedures/professional-standards/suspension-of-police-officers-from-duty-procedure–-2.pdf

60.

Nygård

Kvalem

I. L.

Træen

(2024). “It spread like wildfire, as these things do”: Exploring mechanisms of harm in young norwegians’ experiences of image-based sexual abuse. The Journal of Sex Research, 62(4), 582–599.

61.

Pak

S. H. L.

Choi

E. P. H.

Chau

P. H.

Bradbury-Jones

(2024). Measuring technology-facilitated sexual violence and abuse: A scoping review protocol of existing measurements. British Medical Journal Open, 14(12), Article e089296.

62.

Paradiso

M. N.

Rollè

Trombetta

(2024). Image-based sexual abuse associated factors: A systematic review. Journal of Family Violence, 39(5), 931–954.

63.

Parton

L. E.

Rogers

M. M.

(2025). The predictors, motivations and characteristics of image-based sexual abuse: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380251320992.

64.

Patel

Roesch

(2022). The prevalence of technology-facilitated sexual violence: A meta-analysis and systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(2), 428–443.

65.

Pijlman

Burgmeijer

(2024). Using A/B testing to study engagement with Snapchat advertisements promoting help-seeking after image-based sexual harassment and abuse victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 158, 108312.

66.

Pijlman

Eichelsheim

Pemberton

Waardt

M. d.

(2025). “I did not want to make a bigger deal out of it than it was”: A mixed-method study on the help-seeking behavior of victims of image-based sexual harassment and abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 40(5–6), 1325–1359.

67.

Powell

Flynn

(2023). Technology-facilitated abuse victimization: A gendered analysis in a representative survey of adults. Feminist Criminology, 18(5), 435–458.

68.

Powell

Henry

(2019). Technology-facilitated sexual violence victimization: Results from an online survey of Australian adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(17), 3637–3665.

69.

Powell

Scott

A. J.

Flynn

McCook

(2024). A multi-country study of image-based sexual abuse: Extent, relational nature and correlates of victimisation experiences. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 30(1), 25–40.

70.

Ruvalcaba

Eaton

A. A.

(2020). Nonconsensual pornography among US adults: A sexual scripts framework on victimization, perpetration, and health correlates for women and men. Psychology of Violence, 10(1), 68.

71.

Said

McNealey

R. L.

(2023). Nonconsensual distribution of intimate images: Exploring the role of legal attitudes in victimization and perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(7–8), 5430–5451.

72.

Schmidt

Varese

Larkin

Bucci

(2024). The mental health and social implications of nonconsensual sharing of intimate images on youth: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(3), 2158–2172.

73.

Sheikh

M. M. R.

Rogers

M. M.

(2024). Technology-facilitated sexual violence and abuse in low and middle-income countries: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(2), 1614–1629.

74.

Short

Brown

Pitchford

Barnes

(2017). Revenge porn: Findings from the harassment and revenge porn (HARP) survey–preliminary results. Annual Review of CyberTherapy and Telemedicine, 15, 161–166.

75.

Siegel

J. A.

Miller

A. M.

Krieger

M. A.

Eaton

A. A.

(2024). “Anything I could do to not have it paralyze me was welcome”: Coping strategies employed by survivors of image-based sexual abuse. Psychology of Violence, 15(1), 66–75.

76.

Snaychuk

L. A.

O’Neill

M. L.

(2020). Technology-facilitated sexual violence: Prevalence, risk, and resiliency in undergraduate students. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 29(8), 984–999.

77.

Sparks

Stephens

Trendell

(2023). Image-based sexual abuse: Victim-perpetrator overlap and risk-related correlates of coerced sexting, non-consensual dissemination of intimate images, and cyberflashing. Computers in Human Behavior, 148, 107879.

78.

Swanek

Karasavva

Brunet

Sohail

Forth

(2025). “It’s not that serious”: Individual and situational factors that influence perceptions of online versus in-person sexual coercion. Computers in Human Behavior, 172, 108745.

79.

Vitis

(2020). Private, hidden and obscured: Image-based sexual abuse in Singapore. Asian Journal of Criminology, 15(1), 25–43.

80.

Walker

Sleath

Hatcher

R. M.

Hine

Crookes

R. L.

(2021). Nonconsensual sharing of private sexually explicit media among university students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(17–18), NP9078–NP9108.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

The Frequency,Nature,Impact,and Coping Strategies of Nonconsensual Intimate Image Dissemination Victimization: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Keywords

Method

Eligibility Criteria

Search Strategy

Study Selection

Results

Research Question 1: What Is the Frequency and Nature of NCIID Victimization?

Frequency

Demographic Risk Factors

Age

Gender

Sexual Orientation

Race

Context of NCIID

Relationship with Perpetrator

Distribution Channels

Creation of Nonconsensually Distributed Intimate Content

Poly-Victimization

Research Question 2: What Are the Impacts of NCIID?

Mental Health

Social Functioning

Academic and Work

Research Question 3: How Do NCIID Victim-Survivors Cope?

Help-Seeking Behaviors

Avoidance Behaviors

Barriers to Help-Seeking

Discussion

NCIID Frequency

NCIID Demographics

NCIID Context

The Harms of NCIID

Coping with NCIID

Implications

Limitations

Conclusion

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380251383940 – Supplemental material for The Frequency, Nature, Impact, and Coping Strategies of Nonconsensual Intimate Image Dissemination Victimization: A Scoping Review

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-tva-10.1177_15248380251383940 – Supplemental material for The Frequency, Nature, Impact, and Coping Strategies of Nonconsensual Intimate Image Dissemination Victimization: A Scoping Review

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Supplemental Material

Author Biography

References

Supplementary Material