Image-Based Sexual Abuse Perpetration: A Scoping Review

Abstract

Image-based sexual abuse (IBSA) refers to the nonconsensual creating, taking, or sharing of intimate images, including threatening to share images. It can also include coercing someone into sharing intimate images, or sending unwanted intimate images. In recent years, there has been growing attention to the nature, scope, and impacts of IBSA, but comparatively little attention has been paid to the perpetration of these harms. This scoping review consolidates and synthesizes the existing knowledge on the perpetration of IBSA against adults. The review involved a systematic search of scholarly and gray literature across select databases. In total, 26 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were included if they were published in English between 2013 and 2023 and reported on findings of a sample of adults over the age of 16 who admitted IBSA perpetration behaviors. The review found that prevalence of subtypes of IBSA varied significantly across the studies. There was consensus that adults who engage in IBSA perpetration are more likely to be men, younger adults, and LGBTIQ+. Motivations were multifaceted, but tended to relate to social rewards, power dynamics, sexual gratification, and retaliatory impulses. Dark Tetrad traits were found to be positively associated with IBSA perpetration. The research also indicates on overlap between victimization and perpetration, as well as an association with other offending behaviors, such as intimate partner violence. Prevention interventions should be focused on changing the opportunities, affordances, and infrastructures for offending, as well as addressing problematic societal attitudes and norms, with early interventions focused on building resilience and self-esteem, and promoting healthy behaviors and respectful relationships.

Introduction

Image-based sexual abuse (IBSA) is an umbrella term referring to the nonconsensual taking, creating, or sharing of “intimate” (nude or sexual) images (photos or videos), including threatening to share intimate images with others (“sextortion”), pressuring, threatening, or coercing someone into sharing their intimate images (“sexting coercion”), using artificial intelligence (AI) to create fake or digitally altered, sexualized images (“deepfakes”), and the unsolicited and unwanted sharing of sexually explicit images (“cyberflashing”) (Henry et al., 2020). IBSA is a growing problem that can have significant impacts on victim-survivors, including anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and other social, psychological, and physical harms, often co-occurring with other forms of abuse (e.g., McGlynn et al., 2021).

While scholarly interest in this topic has been growing in recent years, much of the focus has been on victimization experiences. This includes national surveys to measure the extent and impacts of IBSA victimization (e.g., Henry et al., 2020; Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2020), as well as qualitative interviews to understand the lived experiences of victim-survivors and their help-seeking needs and actions (e.g., McGlynn et al., 2021). There has also been significant attention to the applicability and desirability of various criminal and civil justice and regulatory responses to IBSA (e.g., Citron & Franks, 2014).

Research on IBSA perpetration prevalence, motivations, and characteristics remains limited, despite the importance of investigating the drivers and characteristics of perpetration, which can help shape interventions for detecting, preventing, and responding to this problem. While several scoping reviews on different forms of technology-facilitated abuse have been published (e.g., Bansal et al., 2024; Rogers et al., 2023), as well as on IBSA more specifically (Paradiso et al., 2023; Walker & Sleath, 2017), the focus of those reviews has been on victimization experiences. Only the systematic review by Paradiso et al. (2023) has summarized key findings on both IBSA victimization and perpetration, yet their review of perpetration studies is brief.

This is the first scoping review focused exclusively on IBSA perpetration. By concentrating solely on IBSA perpetration, we provide a comprehensive synthesis of current research regarding perpetrator characteristics, motivations, and contexts. The findings of this review make a significant contribution to understanding the factors contributing to IBSA perpetration, as well as online abuse more broadly, which is essential for developing targeted interventions and preventative measures. The review identifies key gaps in the existing research literature and outlines potential directions for future studies. The findings have the potential to inform educational programs and other interventions aimed at detecting, preventing, and responding to online harms. Given the differences in pathological profiles and the distinct legal and other consequences associated with abusive online behaviors against children, we have excluded studies examining child sexual abuse material (CSAM) perpetration (see Steel et al., 2021), as well as IBSA against children (see Patchin & Hinduja, 2020).

Method

Scoping reviews are useful for emerging and specialized disciplines, as well as when there is limited existing literature available on a given topic (Peterson et al., 2017). Scoping reviews are also effective for exploring the extent of the literature, identifying boundaries and parameters, mapping key concepts that are reported in a range of studies, and identifying literature gaps (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Levac et al., 2010). In this review, we adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews to ensure the transparent, structured, and comprehensive reporting of literature (Tricco et al., 2018). We used Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) methodological framework for scoping reviews, which includes five main stages: (a) identifying the research question; (b) identifying relevant studies; (c) study selection; (d) charting the data; and (e) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results.

Identifying the Research Question

The aim of the study was to consolidate what is currently known about IBSA perpetration through an examination of empirical literature focusing on the terminology, prevalence, risk factors, offender characteristics, and offender motivations. The goal of the review was to inform research as well as educational and other interventions to better detect, prevent, and respond to IBSA. Our research questions were as follows:

1. What terminology is used to describe IBSA perpetration behaviors?

2. What is the prevalence of IBSA perpetration?

3. What are the characteristics of those who perpetrate IBSA?

4. What are the motivations of those who perpetrate IBSA?

Identifying Relevant Studies

The second stage of our scoping review involved determining a strategy for identifying relevant studies. Based on our knowledge of existing social and psychological sciences databases, we (the two authors) first identified the following suitable databases: Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and ProQuest. Second, we developed a comprehensive list of search terms based on our existing knowledge of the field to ensure a broad coverage of studies, while also restricting the search to studies on IBSA and perpetration to make sure that the search was not too broad. This also helped to refine our inclusion and exclusion criteria and we tested our search terms in Scopus initially to ensure our method was sound. And third, in November 2023, we undertook a comprehensive search of the empirical literature by inputting a combination of key terms and filtering for relevant articles using Boolean logic at the title/abstract level. Two search string were used to capture the wide range of IBSA behaviors: string one included terms relating to the different forms of IBSA; and string two included terms relating to perpetration (see Table 1). In addition to searching the main databases, we also manually searched Google Scholar and relevant gender-based violence and online safety agency websites. Furthermore, we also reviewed reference lists of selected studies to identify additional literature.

Table 1.

Search Terms.

String 1

String 2

“non-consensual sexting” OR “nonconsensual sexting” OR “coercive sexting” OR “sexting coercion” OR “aggravated sexting” OR “unsolicited sexting” OR “online sexual harassment” OR “image-based sexual abuse” OR “image-based abuse” OR “revenge porn*” OR “nonconsensual porn*” OR “non-consensual porn*” OR “non consensual porn*” OR “dick pic*” OR “image-based harassment” OR “deepfakes” OR sextortion OR “sexual extortion” OR “cyber blackmail” OR “unsolicited sharing” OR “cyberflashing” OR “cyber flashing” OR “intimate image abuse” OR “non-consensual distribution of intimate” OR “nonconsensual distribution of intimate” OR “non-consensual dissemination of intimate” OR “nonconsensual dissemination of intimate”

AND perpetrat* OR offender OR offending OR “myex.com” OR “adverse child*” OR “without consent” OR “without permission” OR aggravat* OR malicious OR “dark triad” OR psychopath* OR patholog* OR “third-party” OR “third party” OR “unauthori*”

Study Selection

In the next stage, we undertook (independently from each other) searches of each database to ensure consistency across our search results and identify any issues with the search strategy. Once the search strategy was finalized, we independently undertook title and abstract screening, applying our agreed-on inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Table 2). The initial search extracted 99 potentially relevant articles across the four databases. We independently exported the data from each database into a consolidated spreadsheet and merged the spreadsheets to remove any duplicates to create a master spreadsheet. We then merged our two spreadsheets and removed duplicates, leaving us with a total of 41 studies. We sourced the studies and saved them into a shared folder.

Table 2.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

Criteria	Inclusion	Exclusion
Types of sources	Scholarly and gray empirical literature (quantitative and qualitative studies) on IBSA perpetration, including peer-reviewed articles, theses, book chapters, and reports.	Nonempirical studies, including theoretical articles, legal analyses, literature, scoping, or systematic reviews, book reviews, case studies, media analyses, and/or studies reporting on surveys or interviews with victim-survivors or professional stakeholders.
Date	Publications between 2013 and 2023.	Publications prior to 2013.
Language	Publications in English.	Non-English publications.
Concept	Studies reporting on findings in relation to at least one form of IBSA.	Studies that did not differentiate between intimate images and intimate text or studies on visiting/viewing nonconsensual sexual content.
Participants	Empirical studies on at least one form of IBSA perpetration self-reported by adults (for the purposes of this study, adults were those over the age of 16).	Studies that focused on IBSA victimization. Studies that did not focus on self-reported IBSA perpetration (including those which focused on “proclivity,” or those observing perpetrator behavior online). Studies whose samples involved children or adolescents.

In the next stage, we undertook a comprehensive examination of each study’s title and abstract to further determine whether the study met our eligibility criteria based on our research questions. We examined the full text of each study to assess relevance and generate a final list of studies. During this stage, we held multiple meetings to compare the selection of studies and discuss any discrepancies in our selection to ensure consistency. After careful discussion and review, we were left with a total of 26 articles (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Flow Chart of Included Studies.

Charting the Data

In the fourth stage, we used the Garrad (2017) to critically evaluate the articles to compare, contrast, and synthesize each study’s findings (see Table 3). We independently charted the data, discussed the results, and continuously updated the data-charting matrix as an iterative process.

Table 3.

Grand Matrix of Articles: Image-Based Sexual Abuse Perpetration.

Study	Study Design	Sample	Focus/Aim(s)	Key Findings Relevant to IBSA Perpetration
Barrense-Dias et al. (2020) Switzerland	Survey	(n=5,175); quota sampling; 49.0% women; 24–26 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. To determine the characteristics and motives of young people who shared received intimate images with other people without consent.	The perpetration of nonconsensually shared images was reported by 15.0% of respondents, with perpetration more prevalent among men. The motivations for perpetration included doing it for fun, showing off, and asking for a friend’s opinion.
Clancy et al. (2019) Australia	Survey	(n=505); convenience and snowball; 66.9% women; 31.5% men; 18–55 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. To review personal attitudes and subjective norms concerning sexting behaviors, and self-ratings of Dark Triad traits, to determine their association with engagement in dissemination.	Sext dissemination is a highly normative practice, with nearly one in five (18.6%) respondents having shown or shared a sext with another person without consent. Frequently endorsed motives for sext dissemination were thinking it was not a big deal and as a joke. Dark Triad traits, including Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, were all associated with sext dissemination.
Clancy et al. (2020) Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, United States	Survey	(n=691); convenience; 52.0% women; 47.2% men; 18–35 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. To address the lack of research in motivations for sext dissemination.	Findings reveal that sext dissemination was normalized among young adults, with nearly one in five (17.4%) having disseminated sexts without consent. Dark Triad traits, such as manipulation, power, higher egotism, and lower empathy, were associated with sext dissemination. Men were more likely to endorse social status and prestige motives, while women were most likely to endorse motivations that minimized or normalized the dissemination.
Courtice et al. (2021) Canada	Survey	(n=451); convenience; 73.4% women; 26.6% men; 16–30 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. To examine the role of sexual scripts in other gender-attracted women and men’s nonconsensual and compliant technology-mediated sexual interactions (TSMIs) with romantic partners, known non-partners, and strangers.	Self-reported engagement in nonconsensually sharing or posting someone else’s TSMIs was not very prevalent among respondents (2.7%). More men typically reported sending nonconsensual TMSIs to strangers than women.Comparatively, the study found no gender differences in the sending of nonconsensual TMSIs from committed romantic partners.
Gassó et al. (2022) Spain	Survey	(n=1,370); convenience; 73.6% women; 18–64 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, threats to share intimate images, and sexting coercion. To identify characteristics of IBSA perpetrators.	Results show that 20.7% of respondents reported engaging in a least one IBSA perpetration behavior in the previous year. 63.4% of respondents had forwarded sexual content they had received, while 23.9% pressured someone to receive sexual content. Motivations for perpetration were commonly reported as a joke or to have fun, while those who engaged in IBSA coercion reported higher rates of psychopathological traits.
Gassó et al. (2021) Spain	Survey	(n=1,370); convenience; 73.6% women; 18–64 years	Sexting coercion. To investigate the psychopathological correlates of different sexting coercion behaviors, analyzing differences by gender.	In this study, 6.4% of respondents had engaged in sexting coercion perpetration, with men being more likely to pressure someone to sext than women. The data shows that women perpetrators of sexting coercion typically pressured their current partner to sext, while men perpetrators reported pressuring a friend more frequently.
Hanson (2022) Canada	Mixed methods	(n=1,532); convenience; 72.6% women; 24.0% men; 3.4% non-cisgender; M = 22.4 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. To investigate how the nonconsensual distribution of intimate imagery (NCDII) is conceptualized.	The study found that almost 9.0% of respondents reported NCDII perpetration. The findings suggest an association between gender and rates of nonconsensual sharing, wherein men were more likely to report sharing than women respondents. Sharers of intimate images primarily shared to their friends and own relations, with their motives categorized within a social reward typology.
Henry et al. (2020) Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom	Survey	(n=6,109); quota sampling; 52.1% women; 47.9% men; 16–64 years	Nonconsensual taking of intimate images, nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, and threats to share intimate images. The study aimed to investigate the prevalence, nature, and impacts of IBSA.	Percentages of respondents admitting to IBSA included: 10.6% sharing intimate images without consent, 15.8% taking intimate images without consent, and 8.8% threatening to share intimate images. Lesbian, gay, or bisexual+ respondents and people aged between 16 and 39 were more likely to have engaged in one or more forms of IBSA. Examinations of age and gender revealed that young men aged 20–29 were the most likely age group to admit to engaging in at least one form of IBSA overall. Minority racial and ethnic communities were more likely to report having engaged in IBSA perpetration across all three countries.
Hu et al. (2023) Australia	Survey	(n=1,688); convenience; 52.7% women; 47.3% men; 18–30 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, sexting coercion, and cyberbullying. To explore the associative relationship between nonconsensual sexting, cyber victimization, and cyberbullying perpetration.	Weak but significant associations were found between nonconsensual sexting behaviors, including sext-hassling, nonconsensual sext dissemination, and cyberbullying perpetration. Less than one-tenth of respondents disclosed sext-hassling (4.0%) and nonconsensual dissemination (7.8%).
Karasavva and Forth (2022) Canada	Survey	(n=810); convenience; 72.7% women; 23.3% men; 16–60 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. To examine how demographic characteristics, personality traits, and attitudes predict nonconsensual intimate image (NCII) perpetration and victimization.	In total, 13.7% of respondents reported they had nonconsensually distributed an intimate image of someone else since they were 16, with heterosexual men most likely to disclose perpetration. The majority of perpetrators reported that their victim was female. Narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism were positively associated with NCII perpetration.
Karasavva et al. (2023) Canada	Survey	(n=816); convenience; 72.0% women; 16–60 years	Sending unsolicited intimate images. To examine reasons for cyberflashing and explore how gender, sexual orientation, expected responses from the receiver, and dark personality traits predict cyberflashing.	41.8% of respondents reported that they had sent an unsolicited nude or sexual image to someone at least once. The most frequently endorsed motivation for sending an unsolicited nude/sexual image for both men and women was partner hunting. Cyberflashing perpetration was positively correlated with psychopathy and narcissism.
Klein and Cooper (2018) United States	Survey	(n=812); convenience; 65.3% women; 34.6% men; 18–22+ years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. To examine the most frequent deviant cyber-sexual activities, and the sexual activity/relationship characteristics and social learning variables that predict participation in deviant cyber-sexual activities.	Overall, 8.2% of respondents had sent or forwarded intimate images of someone else. Men had 110% increased likelihood of engaging in deviant cyber-sexual behavior compared to women respondents, and White respondents had a 20% decreased likelihood of engaging in deviant cyber-sexual behaviors compared to non-White respondents. High levels of self-esteem were associated with lower levels of cyber-sexual deviance and “sexting” behaviors.
Maas et al. (2021) United States	Survey	(n=1,867); convenience; 63.0% women; 36.0% men; 18–24 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images and visiting “slutpages.” To investigate the use of “slutpages” and associated demographics and behaviors among a sample of college students in the United States.	Posting nude photos or videos was less common, with only 2.8% disclosing this behavior. Slutpages were more frequently visited by younger men involved in fraternities compared to men not in fraternities, while men who viewed more pornography and participated in “Greek Life” used a vault app to store or share nudes more frequently.
Morelli et al. (2023) Italy, Columbia	Survey	(n=2,931); snowball; 67.6% women; 18–35 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images and sexting. To improve knowledge about sexting in Italian and Colombian young adults before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.	Nonconsensual sexting in a dating relationship was reported by 9.8% of respondents. Columbian youth were more likely than Italian youth to engage in nonconsensual sexting. During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic period, respondents were less involved in nonconsensual sexting than in the pre-pandemic period.
Mortreux et al. (2019) Australia	Qualitative interviews	(n=16); snowball; no gender or age range provided	Nonconsensual taking of intimate images, nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, and threats to share intimate images. To explore and understand the beliefs, motivations, and attitudes of adults who have engaged in IBSA.	Relationship-based IBSA was one of the most prevalent typologies, with men aged 30–40 most likely to perpetrate under this category. Across all typologies, power and control were prominent motivations for perpetrators. Other motivations related to showing off, conforming to social norms, and for social kudos. The findings also highlight perpetrators’ lack of remorse, or tendency to minimize their behavior.
Noorishad and Trottier (2022) Canada	Survey	(n=1,076); snowball; 74.6% women; 24.3% men; 16–83 years	Sexting coercion. To determine if sexters were more likely to experience in-person sexual coercion perpetration or victimization than non-sexters, and the predictors of sexting coercion.	Sexting coercion was reported by 5.8% of respondents, with men more likely than women to disclose pressuring a person to send a photo or video of a sexual nature. Being a man and having prior experiences of in-person sexting coercion perpetration were significant predictors of future sexting coercion.
Oswald et al. (2020) Canada	Survey	(n=1,087); convenience and snowball; 100% men; 16–92 years	Sending unsolicited intimate images. To investigate the relationships among men who send unsolicited “dick pics” and the variables of personality, sexualities, and prevalent motivations.	Nearly half (48.1%) of the men in this study reported sending unsolicited genital images. The most common reasons for sending an unsolicited image generally related to a transactional mindset, followed by partner hunting. Narcissism and hostile sexism were characteristics found among perpetrators of unsolicited “dick pics.”
Powell et al. (2019) Australia	Survey	(n=4,053); quota sampling; 56.0% women; 43.0% men; 16–49 years	Nonconsensual taking of intimate images, nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, and threats to share intimate images. To investigate IBSA perpetration among a community sample of Australian residents aged 16–49 years.	Overall, 11.1% of respondents self-disclosed engaging in one or more IBSA perpetration behaviors. This included: 8.7% taking intimate images without consent, 6.4% sharing intimate images without consent, and 4.9% threatening to share intimate images. Men, LGB respondents, Indigenous respondents, and respondents who reported having a disability were more likely to have engaged in some form of IBSA perpetration. A key finding of this study also relates to the relationship between respondents having experienced IBSA victimization and reporting engaging in IBSA perpetration.
Ruvalcaba and Eaton (2020) United States	Survey	(n=3,044); proportional quota sampling; 53.8% women; 18–97 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. To assess rates of nonconsensual pornography victimization and perpetration among as sample of U.S. adults.	One in 20 (5.1%) reported having perpetrated nonconsensual pornography, with men disclosing higher rates of perpetration. However, findings show that gay men were more likely to report higher rates of perpetration than heterosexual men. Further findings suggest that perpetration of nonconsensual pornography was more likely to be reported during emerging adulthood.
Said and McNealey (2023) United States	Mixed methods	(n=713); convenience; 66.0% women; 32.0% men; M = 20 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. To explore the prevalence of nonconsensual distribution of intimate images (NCDII) victimization and perpetration, patterns of consensual image-sharing of explicit photos, and attitudes toward mainstream institutions.	18.0% of respondents reported having engaged in the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. Women were more likely to report NCDII perpetration compared to men. Having been a victim of NCDII increased the likelihood of NCDII perpetration by 50%.
Schokkenbroek et al. (2023) Belgium	Survey	(n=218); convenience; 73.4% women; 18–76 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. This study set out to explain why people engage in nonconsensual sexting.	The study found that 22.5% of respondents had at least once nonconsensually forwarded a sext of someone without their consent. Respondents who had received nonconsensually forwarded sexts were more likely to nonconsensually share sexts themselves, while respondents who had experienced non-consensual sexting were more inclined to nonconsensually forward a sext themselves, regardless of their attitudes about the risks of sexting.
Sparks et al. (2023) Canada	Survey	(n=541); convenience and general community; 69.0% women; 31.0% men; 18–25 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, sexting coercion, and sending unsolicited intimate images. To explore three IBSA behaviors to examine the degree of victim-perpetrator overlap and what risk factors from the extant sexual violence literature are relevant to each behavior.	In total, 28.0% of respondents reported nonconsensaul sharing of intimate images, 22.0% sexting coercion, and 15.0% sharing unsolicited intimate images. Findings reveal how coerced sexting, cyberflashing, and nonconsensual intimate image dissemination all had some degree of victimization and perpetrator overlap, however, only the latter two showed significant overlap. Cyberflashing victim-perpetrators endorsed a higher level of exhibitionism, as well as higher levels of psychopathic and narcissist traits, while nonconsensual dissemination victim-perpetrators showed a significant, positive relationship with the enjoyment of the behavior and offense-supportive attitudes, such as victim-blaming.
Træen and Kvalem (2022) Norway	Survey	(n=4,148); random sampling; 47.4% women; 52.6% men; 18–60+ years	Sending unsolicited intimate images. To determine the prevalence of sending nude photos/videos in the Norwegian population and investigate gender differences regarding consensual, unsolicited, and coerced experiences.	Among respondents, 67.3% admitted sending unsolicited nudes, and 4.8% coerced nudes. Women were more likely to disclose having sent an unsolicited nude image than men. Respondents who sent unsolicited nude images were characterized as being neither particularly sexually restrained or sexually interested.
Trendell (2019) Canada	Mixed methods	(n=217); convenience; 66.8% women; 30.0% men; 2.7% gender minority; 18–25 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, sexting coercion, and threats to share intimate images. To better understand the risk factors and consequences of inappropriate intimate image-based behaviors (IIIBB) among young adults.	The rate of perpetration for some forms of IIIBB were relatively low: 3.2% for nonconsensual sharing, and 1.6% for threats to share, but higher for sexting coercion (19.7%). Sexual compulsivity was associated with coerced sexting and entertainment-driven distribution of intimate images (EDDII), while EDDII and illegal distribution of intimate images were positively associated with offense-supportive attitudes.
Walker et al. (2021) United Kingdom	Mixed methods	(n=391); convenience; 82.1% women; 17.9% men; 18–25 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. To examine the prevalence and nature of nonconsensual sharing of sexually explicit messages, pictures, and videos and to examine whether this varies according to gender and by role.	Sharing of nonconsensual sexually explicit material was considerably lower than consensual material, with 16.4% of the sample having perpetrated nonconsensual sharing of pictures. The most prevalent motivations for sharing nonconsensual material included doing it to show off. Subjective norms did not predict the perpetration of nonconsensual sharing material, however, an increased agreement that personal sexy messages end up being seen and are not a big deal were significant predictors of perpetration.
Winkelman et al. (2014) United States	Survey	(n=1,652); convenience; 68.0% women; 32.0% men; 18–19 years	Nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. To identify the frequency with which undergraduate college students are sending and receiving sexual text messages and photos to their partners.	Findings reveal that 8.1% of respondents reported sharing nude pics someone else had shared with them. 15.0% of respondents also reported showing nude pics to someone else. While the majority believed there to be potential negative consequences to participating in sexting behaviors, many still engaged in the behavior.

Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting the Results

The final and most extensive stage of our review involved collating, summarizing, and reporting the results of the data recorded in the Grand Matrix. This process involved examining the studies and the information captured, with the goals of addressing the four research questions, applying meaning to the results, and considering the implications of findings within the context of informing research, policy, and practice. We did not undertake a critical quality appraisal of the studies because our aim was to map the evidence and be as inclusive as possible of both scholarly and gray literature (given that this is an understudied phenomenon). This is consistent with the approach of other scoping reviews (Pham et al., 2014).

Results

Interest in IBSA perpetration is growing. Between 2013 and 2018, only two studies investigated IBSA perpetration, compared to 2019 to 2023, where 24 studies have been published on this topic. Below we discuss our key findings on the terminology, prevalence, motivations, and characteristics related to IBSA perpetration.

Terminology

Among the studies included in this review, we found a range of different terms used to describe the misuse or abuse of intimate imagery. In total, there were 15 studies that examined only one behavior, compared with 11 studies that examined a range of behaviors. Among those 11 studies that examined a range of behaviors, the most common umbrella term used was “image-based sexual abuse” (or “image-based abuse”) to refer to one or more behaviors (n = 6), including taking, creating, sharing, threatening to share, or pressuring to share intimate images, or sending unwanted or unsolicited intimate images (Gassó et al., 2022; Henry et al., 2020; Maas et al., 2021; Mortreux et al., 2019; Powell et al., 2019; Sparks et al., 2023). Another study used the term “non-consensual technology-mediated sexual interaction” to refer to the sending and/or receiving of nonconsensual sexually explicit content (Courtice et al., 2021), and another used “inappropriate intimate image-based behaviours” to include coercive sexting, sextortion, as well as the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images (Trendell, 2019). One study used the term “deviant cyber activities,” to refer to sending or forwarding someone else’s nude or sexual images (Klein & Cooper, 2019), and another “unsolicited and coerced sending of nude images” to capture coercive sexting and nonconsensual sharing (Træen & Kvalem, 2023). Finally, one study did not use a specific label, but instead referred more broadly to “sexting” (Winkelman et al., 2014).

The other 15 studies in the review focused on just one form of IBSA. In total, 11 examined the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. While none of those studies used the more controversial term “revenge porn,” other terms used included: “nonconsensual pornography” (Ruvalcaba & Eaton, 2020); “non-consensual sexting,” “abusive sexting,” or “aggravated sexting” (Barrense-Dias et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2023; Morelli et al., 2023; Schokkenbroek et al., 2023); “non-consensual dissemination of intimate images” or “non-consensual distribution of intimate images” (Clancy et al., 2019, 2020; Hanson, 2022; Karasavva & Forth, 2022; Said & McNealey, 2023); and “nonconsensual sharing of private sexually explicit material” (Walker et al., 2021). There were also four studies referring to behaviors other than nonconsensual sharing, including: “sexting coercion” or “coercive sexting” to refer to pressuring, coercing, or threatening someone to share their intimate images (Gassó et al., 2021; Noorishad & Trottier, 2022); and those that used the terms “cyberflashing,” “dick pics,” or “photographic exhibitionism” to refer to sending unsolicited nude or sexual images (Karasavva et al., 2023; Oswald et al., 2020).

Prevalence and Demographic Risk Characteristics

The second question we sought to address concerned the prevalence of different IBSA perpetration behaviors. Below we describe the key findings from different quantitative studies on a subset of IBSA behaviors.

The Nonconsensual Taking or Creating of Intimate Images

Only two studies investigated prevalence relating to the nonconsensual taking or creating of intimate images. ¹ This includes photographing or filming someone in the nude, in a state of undress, or engaged in sexual act—either without them knowing about it, and/or without their consent. It also includes creating fake or digitally altered sexual or nude imagery—including images made using AI—also known as “deepfake pornography.” In our review, no studies had explored the prevalence of creating digitally altered or “deepfake” intimate images, and only two studies investigated the nonconsensual taking of intimate images, with prevalence ranging from 8.7% to 15.8%. First, Powell et al. (2019) found that 8.7% of Australian respondents reported that they had taken nude or sexual photos or videos of someone else without their permission (n = 4,053). This was highest for men compared to women (12.0% vs. 6.2%), and lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) compared to heterosexual respondents (17.2% vs. 7.5%). Second, in the study by Henry et al. (2020), they found 15.8% of respondents reported taking an intimate image of another person without their permission (n = 6,109). Their study found that self-reported perpetration of this form of IBSA was higher for the following groups: New Zealanders (18.1%) compared to Australians (14.8%) or those from the United Kingdom (14.6%); men compared to women (20.6% vs. 11.4%); LGB individuals compared to heterosexuals (25.5% vs. 14.6%); Indigenous and BAME (Black, Asian, and minority ethnicity) compared to White, European, or Pākehā individuals (19.9% vs. 14.4%); and those aged 20 to 29 (23.0%) compared to those aged 16 to 19 (20.4%), 30 to 39 (19.3%), 40 to 49 (11.9%), and 50 to 64 (7.8%).

The Nonconsensual Sharing of Intimate Images

Twenty studies in our review measured the prevalence of sharing intimate images without consent. Rates significantly varied across the studies between 2.7% and 28.0% (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Percentage of Respondents Reporting Nonconsensual Sharing Perpetration.

Study	Prevalence (%)	n
Courtice et al. (2021)	2.7	451
Maas et al. (2021)	2.8	1,867
Trendell (2019)	3.2	630
Ruvalcaba and Eaton (2020)	5.1	3,044
Powell et al. (2019)	6.4	4,053
Hu et al. (2023)	7.8	1,688
Winkelman et al. (2014)	8.1	810
Hanson (2022)	8.7	1,532
Klein and Cooper (2019)	8.2	812
Morelli et al. (2023)	9.8	2,931
Henry et al. (2020)	10.6	6,109
Karasavva and Forth (2022)	13.7	810
Barrense-Dias et al. (2020)	15.1	5,175
Gassó et al. (2022)	14.4	1.370
Walker et al. (2021)	16.4	391
Clancy et al. (2020)	17.4	691
Said and McNealey (2023)	18.0	713
Clancy et al. (2019)	18.6	505
Schokkenbroek et al. (2023)	22.5	169
Sparks et al. (2023)	28.0	541

Among the studies that examined the prevalence of nonconsensual sharing, not all reported on gender differences. Seven studies found that men respondents were more likely than women or non-cisgender respondents to indicate having engaged in this behavior, whereas four studies found that women were more likely than men to engage in the nonconsensual sharing of other people’s intimate images, although the difference was small in Hu et al. (2023) and Clancy et al. (2019) (see Table 5). ²

Table 5.

Nonconsensual Sharing of Intimate Images: Gender Differences.

Study	Prevalence (men) (%)	Prevalence (women) (%)	Prevalence (non-cisgender) (%)	n
Maas et al. (2021)	6.5	0.8		1,867
Hu et al. (2023)	6.5	8.5		1,688
Ruvalcaba and Eaton (2020)	7.3	3.3		3,044
Morelli et al. (2023)	7.4	18.8		2,931
Powell et al. (2019)	9.1	4.4		4,274
Hanson (2022)	13.6	7.0	7.7	1,532
Henry et al. (2020)	14.3	7.2		6,109
Said and McNealey (2023)	16.7	18.9		713
Clancy et al. (2019)	17.0	18.9		505
Barrense-Dias et al. (2020)	21.1	8.9		5,175
Winkelman et al. (2014)	23.0	11.0		810

Higher rates for self-reported perpetration for women are shown in bold.

Regarding age as a risk demographic for perpetration, as most studies relied on convenience sampling of college or university students, it was difficult to discern what age groups were more likely to engage in the perpetration of nonconsensual sharing of intimate images (e.g., Clancy et al., 2019). However, in the few studies surveying the broader community, younger age was positively correlated with self-reported perpetration. For instance, Henry et al. (2020) found that age was a factor, with those aged 18 to 19 being the most likely age group to report this behavior (17.2%), followed by those aged 20 to 29 (16.5%), 30 to 39 (14.4%), 40 to 49 (7.1%), and 50 to 64 (2.6%). These findings are consistent with Ruvalcaba and Eaton’s study (2020), which found that people in emerging adulthood (aged 18–29) were the most likely group to self-report this behavior (statistics were not provided).

Only three studies examined the relationship between race/ethnicity and perpetration. Hanson (2022) found there was no significant relationship according to race. Henry et al. (2020) found that Indigenous or BAME respondents were more likely to report this behavior compared to White, European, or Pākehā respondents (15.0% vs. 9.0%), and Barrense-Dis et al. (2020) found higher rates among foreign-born Swiss respondents (statistics were not provided).

Similarly, few studies explored sexual identity. Powell et al. (2019) found that LGB respondents were more likely to report sharing intimate images without consent than heterosexual participants (13.7% vs. 5.4%). Similarly, Henry et al. (2020) found that LGB respondents were more likely to report this behavior (20.8% vs. 9.3%). ³ Ruvalcaba and Eaton (2020) explored gender and sexuality together, finding that bisexual men (11.0%) were the most likely to report perpetration, followed by gay men (10.8%), heterosexual men (6.4%), bisexual women (4.9%), and heterosexual women (2.7%).

Threats to Share Intimate Images

In relation to “sextortion” behaviors, defined broadly as threats made to share someone’s intimate images, four studies measured prevalence, with a range between 1.6% and 8.8%. This includes: Trendell (2019), who found a low rate (1.6%) (n = 630); Powell et al. (2019), who found that 4.9% reported this behavior, which was more common for men than women (7.0% vs. 3.3%), and more common for LGB (9.5%) than heterosexual respondents (9.5% vs. 4.3%) (n = 4,274); and Gassó et al. (2022), who found that 6.7% of respondents had threatened to share someone’s intimate images (we calculated the percentage manually as it was not provided in the paper) (n = 1,370). In another study, Henry et al. (2020) found that 8.8% of respondents reported threatening to share an intimate image of another person (n = 6,109). Their study found that this form of IBSA perpetration was higher for the following groups: New Zealanders (10.5%) compared to Australians (7.6%) and those from the United Kingdom (8.2%); men compared to women (12.0% vs. 5.8%); LGB individuals compared to heterosexuals (16.2% vs. 7.8%); Indigenous and BAME compared to White, European or Pākehā individuals (13.0% vs. 7.2%); and those aged between 16 and 19 (14.5%) compared to those aged 20 to 29 (14.2%), 30 to 39 (11.7%), 40 to 49 (6.3%), and 50 to 64 (1.5%).

Pressure or Coercion to Share Intimate Images

We define sexting coercion as threatening, pressuring, or coercing someone into sharing their intimate images. This is distinct from sextortion, which involves threats to disseminate intimate images. Six studies in our review investigated the prevalence of “sexting coercion.” Across the different studies on sexting coercion, perpetration ranged from 4.0% and 22.0%. Hu et al. (2023) found that 4.0% of respondents had engaged in “sext hassling,” which was more prevalent among men compared to women (7.6% vs. 0.7%) (n = 1,688). Similarly, Træen and Kvalem (2023) found that 4.8% of respondents engaged in “coerced sending” of nudes (more women than men—6.5% vs. 3.2%) (n = 4,148).

Gassó et al. (2021) found 5.5% of their sample (n = 1,370) had pressured another person to sext, and 1.3% had threatenend another person into sexting. In contrast to Træen and Kvalem (2023), they also found that men were more likely to pressure someone to sext than women (14.4% vs. 2.2%), although they did not find any differences between genders for threatening someone into sexting. Noorishad and Trottier (2022) found that 5.8% of respondents (who were “sexters”) reported engaging in sexting coercion (“continuous pressure” on someone “to send a message, a picture, or a video of a sexual nature”), which again was higher for nonbinary people (22.2%), followed by men (11.3%), and then women (4.0%) (n = 585). It is important to note, however, that their findings relate to both images and text, rather than just images (as in the other studies reported here). Higher rates (19.7%) were found in Trendell (2019) (31.7% men vs. 14.7% women), with more heterosexuals than sexual minorities (20.9% vs. 16.0%) admitting to sexting coercion (n = 630). Finally, in the study by Sparks et al. (2023), a high number (22.0%) of respondents reported sexting coercion (but no breakdown of gender reported) (n = 908).

Sending or Sharing Unsolicited and Unwanted Nude or Sexual Images

Finally, four studies in our review investigated the sending or sharing of unsolicited and unwanted nude or sexual images (“cyberflashing”), with a range between 15.0% and 67.3%. Sparks et al. (2023) found that 15.0% had engaged in cyberflashing (sending an “unsolicited sexually explicit image or video”) (n = 908). Oswald et al. (2020) found that 48.0% of heterosexual men had sent unsolicited “dick pics” (n = 1,087). Karasavva et al. (2023) found that among mostly women undergraduate students that they surveyed, 41.8% reported sending “an unsolicited nude or sexual image of themselves at any point in their lives since they were 16” (n = 816). Finally, Træen and Kvalem (2023) found that 67.3% of respondents reported sending unsolicited nude or sexual images, which was higher for men compared to women (77.1% vs. 57.3%) (n = 4,148). None of these studies differentiated between wanted and unwanted unsolicited images.

Motivations and Characteristics

Few quantitative and qualitative studies on IBSA perpetration have explored offender motivations and characteristics. Some studies only investigated characteristics or motivations and not both. One study found a correlation between myth-acceptance of IBSA, as well as self-image behavior (e.g., taking one’s own nude or sexual “selfie”) (Powell et al., 2019), however did not report on these correlations for individual IBSA behaviors. Below we describe key findings in relation to each form of IBSA.

The Nonconsensual Taking or Creating of Intimate Images

For the nonconsensual taking or creating of intimate images, only Henry et al. (2020) investigated motivations for this form of IBSA. They found that the most common motivation identified by Australian, New Zealand, and UK respondents was to be funny or sexy (61.2%), followed by: to control the person (45.2%), to embarrass or get back at the person (38.0%), or to impress friends or trade in the images (37.8%). These findings were roughly equivalent across age, gender, race, and sexuality, with the exception of 50 to 64-year-olds for the following motivations: impress friends, control the person, and get back at the person.

The Nonconsensual Sharing of Intimate Images

Several studies have explored motivations for the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. Hanson (2022) found that the primary reasons for sharing sexual images without consent were to do with “social rewards” or “individual benefits.” For instance, the top two selected responses from respondents were “I thought it was amusing” (36.4%) and “I thought others would want to see it” (36.4%). These responses suggest the use of nonconsensual sexual imagery as a means-end for personal and social rewards. Similarly, Barrense-Dias et al. (2020) found that 54.4% of their respondents who had nonconsensually shared an intimate image once, and 66.3% of respondents who had done so several times, did so “for fun or as a joke.” Men were more likely to share an intimate image to “show off” to other young men. Henry et al. (2020) found that the most common motivation for the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images was: to be funny or sexy (58.3%), followed by controlling the person (57.5%), impressing friends/trading the images (55.4%), and embarrassing or getting back at the person (51.8%). These motivations were less frequently reported for LGB and 50- to 64-year-olds compared to the other sexuality and age categories.

Clancy et al. (2020) similarly found that the most popular reasons for sharing intimate images without consent was because “the person was hot” (44.2%), “as a joke, to be funny” (28.3%), or “it was not a big deal” (23.3%). Other reasons selected by study respondents included: bragging (22.7%), gossiping (16.7%), and attention-seeking (15.0%). Few respondents gave reasons of revenge or harm (5.8%). They also found that men were more likely than women to endorse reasons related to attractiveness (60.4% vs. 31.3%), as well as improving social status (18.9% vs. 2.9%), and motivations related to bragging (26.4% men vs. 9.0% women). These findings were consistent with their previous study (Clancy et al., 2019), where “it was no big deal” or “as a joke, to be funny” were the most frequently endorsed reasons, and men being more likely to agree that sext dissemination can enhance social status (40.7% vs. 5.0%).

Regarding specific behavioral or attitudinal characteristics, first, several studies have explored correlations between alcohol, drug, and/or pornography use. Maas et al. (2021) found that among their survey respondents, those who used alcohol or viewed pornography more frequently were more likely to post nonconsensual nude images online. Trendell (2019) found that sexual compulsivity was positively correlated with the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. And Clancy et al. (2020) found that those who were sexually active were more likely to engage in the behavior than those who were not (17.0% vs. 1.6%).

Second, some studies have explored the relationship between personality traits and offending behaviors, most commonly the “Dark Tetrad” of personality—which refers to the “sub-clinical” traits of sadism (cruelty, pleasure from inflicting pain or humiliation), psychopathy (lacking in empathy/remorse, impulsivity), narcissism (grandiosity, self-centeredness), and Machiavellianism (manipulation, self-interest). Trendell (2019) found a positive association between those who were motivated by sharing nonconsensual intimate images (NCII) for entertainment with offense-supportive attitudes (e.g., victim-blaming), interpersonal conflict, and narcissism. This aligns with the motivations mentioned above where the sharing of intimate images may be to brag, show off, or be admired, and as such may be proxy behaviors for Dark Tetrad traits. Sparks et al. (2023) found that all four Dark Tetrad traits showed a significant positive relationship with nonconsensual dissemination behaviors. Karasavva and Forth (2022) found that all Dark Tetrad personality traits, except for Machiavellianism, were associated with the nonconsensual dissemination of intimate images. Moreover, they found that both sexual and aggrieved entitlement correlated with perpetration. Respondents who had higher acceptance of IBSA-related myths were also more likely to have perpetrated the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images (this was also a finding in Walker et al., 2021). Conversely, Clancy et al. (2020) found that disseminating an intimate image “for fun, or as a joke” was significantly associated with Machiavellianism, but not psychopathy or narcissism.

Third, some studies have explored the relationship between the nonconsensual dissemination of intimate images and other forms of abuse. Hu et al. (2023) found that respondents who engaged in nonconsensual image dissemination were 77% more likely to perpetrate cyberbullying. They also found that those same respondents were more likely to report engaging in intimate partner violence.

Finally, some studies established a correlation between victimization and perpetration, including: Henry et al. (2020), Karasavva and Forth (2022), Said and McNealey (2023), Schokkenbroek et al. (2023), and Sparks et al. (2023). In Sparks et al. (2023), victims of nonconsensual dissemination were nearly three times as likely to have perpetrated that behavior. Similarly, Said and McNealy (2023) found that having been a victim increased the likelihood of nonconsensual distribution perpetration by 50% and having received an unsolicited explicit image increased the likelihood of perpetration by 90%. The results also indicate that the strongest predictors of perpetration were previous victimization, sending explicit images, and receiving explicit images. Powell et al. (2019) also found that those who had had intimate images of themselves shared with others without consent had 135% greater odds to report perpetration. The association between victimization and perpetration, however, was not found in the study by Clancy et al. (2020).

Qualitative studies with perpetrators currently remain extremely limited, with only one study identified in our review. In that study, Mortreux et al. (2019) undertook semi-structured interviews with 16 adult perpetrators of IBSA. They found that participants were motivated to share intimate images to obtain, exert, or reclaim power and control. They found that few were aware that their behavior was against the law, instead viewing their behavior as normalized among their peers. The study also found that participants often downplayed and minimized their behavior, blamed the victims, and demonstrated little remorse.

Threats to Share Intimate Images

Only one study included in this review examined motivations for sextortion perpetration. In their study, Henry et al. (2020) found that the most common motivation for making threats to share intimate images with others included: controlling the person (63.1%), embarrassing or getting back at the person (61.4%), to be funny or sexy (55.4%), or impressing friends/trading the images (54.7%). These motivations were less frequent for LGB and 50- to 64-year-olds. Also, in the study by Powell et al. (2019), they found that respondents who had been threatened themselves had 367% greater odds to self-report IBSA perpetration compared to those who had not experienced this.

Pressure or Coercion to Share Intimate Images

Only one study explored motivations for sexting coercion. Gassó et al. (2022) found that the most common motivation for sexting coercion was to flirt (55.7%), or for fun (41.0%). In relation to offender characteristics, in Trendell (2019), all Dark Tetrad traits were positively correlated with coerced sexting. Sexual compulsivity and voyeurism were also associated. Furthermore, Gassó et al. (2021) found that respondents who pressured or threatened someone to share “sexts” showed greater global psychopathology and depression. Finally, in relation to other experiences of either perpetration or victimization, Hu et al. (2023) found that respondents who engaged in sext-hassling were almost three times as likely to engage in cyberbullying perpetration. Noorishad and Trottier (2022) further found that having prior experiences of in-person sexual perpetration was a predictor of perpetration.

Sending or Sharing Unsolicited and Unwanted Nude or Sexual Images

Several studies have explored offender motivations and characteristics for behaviors relating to sharing unsolicited nude or sexual images. According to Oswald et al. (2020), the most common reason for sending an unsolicited sexual image generally related to a transactional mindset (44.0%) (e.g., the hope to receive sex or a “sexy pic” in return). Another common motivation was “partner hunting” (33.0%) (e.g., “to let someone know I have a sexual interest in them”). Many respondents also expressed the expectation or hope that the person on the receiving end would feel “sexual excitement” (82.0%) or feel attractive (50.0%). In contrast, few senders indicated that they hoped to provoke negative emotions, including shock (17.0%), fear (15.0%), or disgust (11.0%). Karasavva et al.’s (2023) study uncovered similar motivations, including partner hunting (64.3%) or to express sexual interest in the receiver (50.0%). Over 25% endorsed that they sent an unsolicited image in the hopes of getting a sexual image in return. Furthermore, 44.4% of the sample endorsed having sent an unsolicited image for their own personal or sexual gratification, including 40.0% who sent the image to show off their body.

In relation to offender characteristics, Karasavva et al. (2023) and Sparks et al. (2023) found that cyberflashing perpetrators had higher levels of psychopathic and narcissistic traits. Karasavva et al. (2023), for example, reported that cyberflashers who scored higher in narcissism were more likely to endorse personal and sexual gratification as motivations for perpetration. Similarly, in Oswald et al. (2020), men who sent unsolicited “dick pics” demonstrated higher levels of narcissism and endorsed ambivalent and hostile sexism compared to men that had not sent these images. In line with other research, respondents who sent unsolicited dick pics had higher levels of narcissism along with exhibitionism and erotophobia (negative views of sex and sexuality). This suggests that men who have the desire to expose their genitals to strangers hold more sex- or genital-related concerns, such as fear of sexuality, fear of sexual intercourse, or low genital-esteem.

Finally, in relation to other factors, Sparks et al. (2023) found a significant victim-perpetrator overlap between cyberflashing and the nonconsensual dissemination of intimate images. They also found that cyberflashing victims were roughly four times more likely to report being a perpetrator of cyberflashing.

Discussion

This is the first comprehensive scoping study dedicated exclusively to IBSA perpetration. The review investigated terminology, prevalence, demographic risk characteristics, personality traits, and motivations for perpetration behaviors. The findings of this review not only highlight critical gaps in the research literature but also provide important insights for law, policy, and practice (see Table 6). Overall, our review clearly demonstrates that interest in IBSA perpetration is growing; however, still very little remains known about IBSA perpetrators, and more research is sorely needed. Although the majority of studies examined prevalence, with most reporting on gender differences in self-reported perpetration, most studies did not examine other demographic risk factors (e.g., race/ethnicity, sexual identity, age, or disability). Only a small number of studies examined motivations or personality, behavioral, or attitudinal characteristics. Moreover, the focus of the current literature was predominantly on the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, and other forms of IBSA have received significantly less attention.

Table 6.

Critical Findings.

Nature and Scope of IBSA Perpetration Nature and scope of IBSA	Interest in IBSA perpetration is growing but knowledge about perpetrators remains limited, hampering prevention and response efforts.
Methods of analysis	Most studies are quantitative, drawing on survey methodologies. Most studies have used convenience sampling. Only one study to date has involved qualitative interviews with perpetrators of IBSA.
Terminology	A range of different terms are used to describe the misuse and abuse of intimate images and as such, there is currently no agreed-on term or definition, although “image-based sexual abuse” appears to be the most widely used. Researchers tend to use this term to describe a subset of behaviors, including: the nonconsensual taking, creating, or sharing of intimate images; threats to share intimate images with others; pressuring, coercing, or forcing someone into sharing their intimate images; or sharing unsolicited and unwanted nude or sexual images.
Extent of IBSA perpetration	Most attention has been paid to the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images. Significantly less attention has been on other forms of IBSA, including nonconsensual filming/recording intimate images, creating nonconsensual, AI-generated intimate images (“deepfake pornography”or AI-IBSA), and “sextortion.”
Prevalence	Prevalence varies significantly across different behaviors and across different studies. This is most likely due to different survey methodologies, instruments, and sample characteristics.
Demographic risk factors	Gender and age are important risk factors, with higher rates of self-reported perpetration among men and younger adults. Other demographic factors, such as race, sexual identity, and disability not always been investigated, have been neglected, although some studies have shown a correlation.
Motivations and characteristics	Among the few studies which have examined perpetrator motivations, the research shows that the most common motivations relate to social rewards or individual benefits (e.g., seeking social validation from peers, bragging, making a joke, having fun, or being “sexy”). The research also shows a positive relationship with other behavioral or attitudinal factors, including personality traits and endorsement of rape or IBSA myths.
Correlates of perpetration	Studies have shown an overlap between IBSA victimization and perpetration, highlighting the need for targeted intervention and support services.

The findings of this scoping review shed light on the diverse range of terms used to describe the phenomenon of intimate image abuse in this field. Some studies used the broader umbrella term of “image-based sexual abuse” to examine a subset of behaviors, such as taking, creating, sharing, or threatening to share intimate images without consent, while others focused exclusively on one form of IBSA, such as the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, utilizing terms such as “nonconsensual pornography” and “non-consensual sexting.” Interestingly, none of the studies used the term “revenge pornography.” This is most likely because of the rejection of this term by scholars, victim-survivors, practitioners, and victim-advocates alike. Not only is “revenge porn” a misnomer that fails to capture other perpetrator motivations beyond that of revenge, but it also conflates nonconsensually-produced or distributed intimate images with commercially-produced pornography (Citron & Franks, 2014; Henry et al., 2020).

A related issue concerns the use of different language within survey instruments. Some studies asked respondents about both nonconsensual text and images, making it difficult to disentangle image-based abuse from text-based abuse. Other studies asked respondents only about nonconsensual photos (or “pictures”) and not videos. Some studies asked respondents about posting nonconsensual images online, and did not investigate “showing” images to others in person or sending images via mobile phone or other means. Some studies asked only about sexually explicit or sexually graphic images, which could potentially exclude images that are nude but not sexually explicit. Finally, in relation to sharing unsolicited nude or sexual images, one study asked only about “dick pics,” while others were not specific as to the type of unsolicited images. Furthermore, none of the cyberflashing studies reviewed differentiated between unsolicited wanted images and unsolicited unwanted images.

In addition to language and terminology, the review also examined prevalence and demographic risk characteristics associated with different IBSA behaviors. Most of the attention has been focused on the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, with very little research on other forms of IBSA, especially the nonconsensual creation of fake or digitally altered images (including AI-generated IBSA or “deepfake pornography”) or threatening to share someone’s intimate images (also known as “sextortion”). This is despite heightened media attention to these two emerging forms of IBSA, and the significant impacts that such acts can have on victim-survivors.

Across the different behaviors, prevalence varied considerably. This may in part be explained by the different terminology used in survey instruments (see discussion above), as well the temporal markers used, such as lifetime experiences versus experiences in the past 12 months. Moreover, some studies had small sample sizes, or relied on convenience sampling, such as with college or university students, or surveyed mostly women and/or young people. Consequently, the findings of those studies may not be reliable or generalizable to the broader population. Despite this, factors such as gender, age, race/ethnicity, and sexuality emerged as important demographic risk characteristics associated with different forms of IBSA perpetration.

Of the studies that did examine demographic risk factors, most reported higher rates of perpetration among men and younger adults. Fewer studies explored sexuality or race/ethnicity as risk factors, with some studies finding that sexual and racial/ethnic minorities were more likely to admit to engaging in the nonconsensual taking or sharing of intimate images, or threats to share intimate images, although those studies also showed victimization to be higher among these groups. These findings are consistent with those on sextortion against minors, with studies finding that boys are more likely to be perpetrators of sextortion than girls (e.g., Gámez-Guadix et al., 2022; Patchin & Hinduja, 2020), and that sextortion offending is higher among sexual minorities (Patchin & Hinduja, 2020). Very little research, however, has explored disability as a risk factor for IBSA perpetration, although Powell et al. (2019) did find that respondents with a disability had 106% greater odds to report any form of IBSA perpetration.

There are several possible reasons for the higher rates of IBSA perpetration among men, young people, and LGBTIQ+ people. These groups might be more likely to participate in online gaming, online dating, or be part of online subcultures where abuse is rife (Gámez-Guadix et al., 2022; Gámez-Guadix et al., 2023). Another explanation is that men are also more likely to perpetrate sexual harms more broadly due to sociocultural norms and values, particularly around masculinity and sexuality. Intimate images are also commonly used as a weapon for domestic abuse perpetrators, where men are also more likely to be perpetrators (Henry et al., 2020). Finally, IBSA is often a normalized practice of homosocial masculine bonding—as part of what is commonly referred to as “lad culture”—where leaked images of (some) men may be seen as humorous, and which may have less stigmatization and affect precisely because of the sexual double standards that continue to exist for women and non-binary people compared to men (Ringrose et al., 2022). While not all studies explored perpetrator motivations, characteristics, or experiences, among those that did, a key finding is that motivations underlying different IBSA perpetration behaviors were often related to individual, social, and cultural factors. Regardless of the subtype of IBSA perpetration behaviors, the most common motivations were those related to social rewards or individual benefits (Hanson, 2022), including seeking social validation (e.g., impressing friends), making a joke, having fun, or being “sexy.” Motivations related to bragging or improving social status were more likely to be reported by men compared to women according to one study (Clancy et al., 2019). While motivations such as exerting power and control, seeking sexual gratification, and retaliating against perceived slights or rejections, were still expressed, in other studies, the motivations associated with revenge or punishment were less commonly reported. For instance, in the studies we reviewed on unsolicited images, respondents were mostly motivated by receiving an intimate image in exchange for theirs, or expressing sexual interest in the receiver or showing themselves off in the hope of impressing the other person.

The results on perpetrator motivations, at least for some forms of IBSA, should be interpreted with caution as they rely on self-reporting of people engaging in these behaviors. It should also be acknowledged that motivations to impress, or be funny or sexy can still be consistent with motives of power and control, or certain personality traits lacking in empathy or thought for others and self-centeredness. Indeed, there was consensus among the studies we reviewed about the different forms of IBSA perpetration which had a positive relationship to other behavioral or attitudinal factors, including endorsement of rape or IBSA myths, higher sexual activity (e.g., pornography use or sexual compulsivity), or personality traits. In particular, several studies found a positive association between IBSA perpetration with Dark Tetrad traits (i.e., sadism, psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism), although not all studies found all four personality traits to be associated. More research is needed to understand the role of personality traits, mental health issues, as well as rape and IBSA myth endorsement in IBSA perpetration. Several studies also showed a correlation between IBSA and other forms of violence and abuse, such as sexual violence or intimate partner violence, and more research is also needed here.

Overall, the findings from this review are broadly supportive of existing theories about gender inequality as a driver of gender-based violence. Gender inequality perpetuates discrimination and unequal power relationships, and is a product of problematic attitudes, stereotypes, beliefs, norms, and values about gender and sexuality (Our Watch, 2021). These societal attitudes shape sexual-double standards, which are the different expectations about sexuality, including promiscuity, sexual expression, and virginity based on a person’s gender and/or their race/ethnicity, class, age, and other markers of “difference.” Problematic norms contribute to ideas of masculine entitlement—the belief or expectation that cisgender, heterosexual men are deserving of opportunities, power, privilege, and resources, including access to women’s bodies. As mentioned above, this is a plausible explanation for why men, particularly young men, are more likely to engage in IBSA behaviors than women and nonbinary people.

Finally, the finding from different studies about the overlap between victimization and perpetration of IBSA suggests a complex interplay between experiences of harm and either prior or subsequent offending behaviors. Victims of IBSA were found to be at increased risk of perpetrating similar behaviors, highlighting the cyclical nature of victimization and the need for targeted intervention and support services. As noted by Gámez-Guadix et al. (2023), the victim-offender overlap might be due to the prevalence of reciprocal online abuse on particular sites or forums. Reciprocal sexting is another explanation. For instance, intimate images are shared consensually by both partners in a romantic relationship, but at the end of the relationship, one person shares without consent, or threatens to share, which leads the other person to retaliate in kind (Sparks et al., 2023).

Limitations

This study had several limitations. First and foremost, the studies that we reviewed relied on self-reports on perpetration of IBSA, which may contribute to a distortion of the nature and extent of such behaviors, since even in an anonymous survey, respondents will still underreport or minimize their offending behavior. Second, our inclusion and exclusion criteria meant that we did not include studies on perpetrators of CSAM, nor did we include studies examining perspectives of victims, stakeholders, or bystanders on perpetrators. Further research should explore perpetrator characteristics and motivations relying on nonperpetrator perspectives, since perpetrators are a difficult population to access, especially in qualitative research. Relatedly, a third limitation was that we did not include qualitative studies that have observed IBSA perpetrator behaviors in online contexts. These studies offer invaluable insights into the interactions that offenders have with other offenders, or the ways in which they justify their actions and the language they use (see e.g., Hall & Hearn, 2019; Henry & Flynn, 2019). Fourth, the review only included studies in English. We ran the search again in Scopus excluding English publications to discover how many studies were excluded, finding that there was only one study that we did not include because it was in German and not in English (Dekker & Koops, 2017). And finally, we did not include studies that focused on proclivity to perpetrate IBSA (e.g., Pina et al., 2017), or those studies which only focused on viewing or storing nonconsensual images (e.g., visiting “slutpages” or storing nonconsensual images in an app or on a Cloud drive).

Implications

The findings from this review have important implications for research, policy, and practice (see Table 7). First, our findings highlight the need for standardized terminology to facilitate clearer communication and comparability across research studies on this topic. Despite many of the studies using the broader umbrella term “image-based sexual abuse,” there was no evidence of uniformity in how these terms were defined across the studies. We suggest that a broad definition IBSA be applied to capture a range of behaviors. Establishing a broader definition would also allow researchers to consider new ways that these forms of abuse are being perpetrated. It is important, however, that researchers also explore prevalence and risk characteristics in relation to the specific subset of IBSA behaviors. We suggest that future studies consider using the terms “image-based sexual abuse” or “image-based abuse” when investigating different behaviors. For those studies focusing on a single form of IBSA, we suggest the following terms: “sexual extortion” (or “sextortion”) for threats to share intimate images; “sexting coercion” for pressuring, threatening, or coercing someone into sharing their intimate images; “deepfake abuse” or “AI-generated IBSA” for nonconsensual images created using AI tools; nonconsensual synthetic intimate images for digitally created or altered images (using AI or non-AI tools); and “cyberflashing” for the unsolicited and unwanted sharing of nude or sexual images.

Table 7.

Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice.

Implications for Policy
• Adopt a standardized and broad definition to capture different forms of (IBSA). • Strengthen collaboration across jurisdictions to combat IBSA perpetration. • Turn the spotlight on perpetrators, and ensure that significant resources are invested in primary prevention of gender-based violence (especially early intervention), as well as digital literacy and digital violence prevention. • Ensure that technology-facilitated abuse is a key policy priority and is considered in light of policies on preventing gender-based violence.
Implications for Practice • Develop educational interventions addressing attitudes, beliefs, and gendered practices to prevent IBSA perpetration across various demographic groups. • Develop targeted interventions to address the drivers or risk factors associated with IBSA perpetration, including the infrastructure, affordances, and structural conditions that facilitate, excuse, justify, or tolerate this form of abuse. • Strengthen therapeutic interventions to address IBSA. • Provide comprehensive training for justice sectors to effectively navigate and understand the motivations and characteristics of IBSA perpetrators.
Implications for Research • More comprehensive quantitative and qualitative studies on IBSA perpetration, exploring self-reported motivations, characteristics, beliefs, and attitudes of perpetrators, with a focus on understanding the intersection of demographic risk factors. • More research examining non-perpetrator perspectives on IBSA perpetration, including victims, bystanders, and stakeholders. • More focus on the perpetration of IBSA in intimate, relational contexts to better inform prevention and intervention efforts. • More focus on other forms of IBSA beyond the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, especially filming/recording intimate images without consent, “sextortion,” and “deepfake abuse.”

Second, our review highlights how little is still empirically known about perpetrators of IBSA. There is a need for more comprehensive research exploring the motivations, characteristics, and attitudes of IBSA perpetrators. This includes further exploration of the overlap between victimization and perpetration to better understand the potential risk factors that might differentiate this group from those who have only perpetrated. Our review also highlights the need for more research on perpetration in diverse contexts, including in intimate relational contexts, as well as research exploring demographic risk factors, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, sexuality, and disability (and how they might intersect).

Third, we emphasize the need for targeted interventions to address the drivers or risk factors associated with IBSA perpetration. One limitation with survey research is the focus on individual-level factors, such as offender attitudes, motivations, and personality traits, which means that broader structural factors (e.g., socioeconomic, racial, and gender inequalities) that underpin or drive the behavior, or technological affordances and infrastructures that make offending not only easier but possible, are not always adequately or easily investigated. Future research is needed to provide a better understanding of these sociocultural and technological drivers and factors. Early intervention in particular needs to address individual predispositions (genetic and/or environmental) and societal attitudes and norms, and such interventions should be part of broader prevention efforts around gender-based violence. One prominent finding across the literature related to perpetrators nonconsensually sharing intimate images for fun or as a joke, revealing that the general public might not be fully aware of the harms and impacts associated with IBSA. Regarding gender, findings also demonstrate that men and boys are more likely to nonconsensually share intimate images for personal or social reward. These findings reinforce the need for greater educative initiatives to address problematic gendered norms, beliefs, and attitudes.

Conclusion

A scoping review was undertaken to examine empirical research findings on perpetrators of IBSA. The findings of this review demonstrate a confusing array of different terms used to describe not only the nonconsensual sharing of intimate images, but also other behaviors relating to taking, creating, or threatening to share intimate images, as well as coercing someone into sharing their intimate images, or sending unsolicited and unwanted intimate images. The study shed light on the prevalence of different forms of IBSA, although these rates varied considerably owing to different terminology, instruments, and samples. There was consensus that IBSA is more likely to be perpetrated by younger adults, men, as well as LGBTIQ+ people, and that Dark Tetrad personality types, as well as previous experiences of either perpetration or victimization, are associated with IBSA offending.

These important findings can help shape future research, policy, and practice. In particular, we need more research on IBSA perpetration. Without this research, prevention and response efforts are significantly hampered. Relatedly, more resources are needed to provide comprehensive primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention interventions, and while this needs to be predicated on addressing gender inequality and hostile sexism, it also needs to address the normative practices of younger and older people in sharing intimate content, as well as address more individual-level factors that might emerge in early childhood, including personality traits associated with a lack of empathy, self-centeredness, and concern for others. These intervention efforts also need to be focused on respect and consent, and navigating online interactions in ethical ways.

Author Biographies

Nicola Henry (she/her) is a Professor and Australian Research Council (ARC) Future Fellow in the Social Equity Research Centre at RMIT in Melbourne, Australia. Her research focuses on the prevalence, nature, and impacts of gendered violence, including legal and nonlegal responses to addressing and preventing violence. Her current research is focused on technology-facilitated abuse and image-based sexual abuse.

Gemma Beard (she/her) is a PhD Candidate in the Social Equity Research Centre at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia. Her doctoral thesis is investigating criminal legal responses to image-based sexual abuse in Australia and is centered on the voices, experiences, and help-seeking pathways of victim-survivors. Gemma’s other contributions and works have focused on the detection, prevention, and responses to image-based sexual abuse.