Cited by 27Sexual Assault and Victimization StudiesStalking, Cyberstalking, and HarassmentCybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies

Nonconsensual Distribution of Intimate Images: Exploring the Role of Legal Attitudes in Victimization and Perpetration

Open access
Said, Iman, McNealey, Rachel L.·2023·Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Abstract

In the last 10 years, following widespread outcry among legal scholars and activists, 48 states passed legislation explicitly criminalizing the nonconsensual distribution of intimate images (NCDII) or what is colloquially known as “revenge porn.” This increased authority granted to criminal justice agencies, coupled with greater media attention to NCDII incidents, may have influenced patterns of victimization and perpetration. Using a survey recently distributed to a sample of young adults ( N = 713), we find that NCDII perpetration is strongly related to previous victimization, risky online behaviors, and receipt of unsolicited images. Perceptions of police efficacy in addressing NCDII issues is the strongest predictor of attitudes toward both reporting victimization and the belief that perpetrators will experience some punitive consequence. We also conducted an experiment using vignettes with gender varying victim-offender dyads to explore how gender bias influences attitudes toward punishment for NCDII perpetrators as well as perceptions of “revenge porn” in incidents involving same-sex and mixed-sex couples; we find that respondents are less likely to attribute “revenge porn” or to suggest punitive responses when the perpetrator is female regardless of the gender of the victim. Importantly, we find initial evidence of a new typology of NCDII perpetrator that counters existing research on victim–perpetrator gender dyads: women who nonconsensually disseminate unsolicited intimate images sent by men. Collectively, our findings challenge the efficacy of existing criminal statutes, identify new challenges in effectively legislating against NCDII, and contribute to the body of work on gender-based violence, perceptions of police efficacy, and punitive attitudes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/08862605221122834

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several 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).

    “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).”

    From Image-Based Sexual Abuse Perpetration: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as Said and McNealey (2023)

  • Said and McNealy (2023) found having been a victim increased likelihood of nonconsensual distribution perpetration by 50% and having received an unsolicited explicit image increased likelihood of perpetration by 90%.

    “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%.”

    From Image-Based Sexual Abuse Perpetration: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as Said and McNealy (2023)

  • Said and McNealey (2023) found strongest predictors of perpetration were previous victimization, sending explicit images, and receiving explicit images.

    “The results also indicate that the strongest predictors of perpetration were previous victimization, sending explicit images, and receiving explicit images.”

    From Image-Based Sexual Abuse Perpetration: A Scoping Review (2024) · cites this paper as Said and McNealey (2023)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. Bond E. Tyrell K. (2021). Understanding revenge pornography: A national survey of police officers and staff in England and Wales. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5–6), 2166– 2181. 29475417
  2. Branch K. Hilinski-Rosick C. M. Johnson E. Solano G. (2017). Revenge porn victimization of college students in the United States: An exploratory analysis. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11(1), 128– 142.
  3. Bustamente D. (2017). Florida joins the fight against revenge porn: Analysis of Florida’s new anti-revenge porn law. FIU Law Review, 12(2), 357– 390.
  4. Calvert C. (2014). Revenge porn and freedom of expression: Legislative pushback to an online weapon of emotional and reputational destruction. Fordham Intellectual Property Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 24(3), 673- 702.
  5. Citron D. K. Franks M. A. (2014). Criminalizing revenge porn. Wake Forest Law Review, 49(2), 345– 392.
  6. Cohen A. I. (2015). Nonconsensual pornography and the first amendment: A case for a new unprotected category of speech notes. University of Miami Law Review, 70(1), 300– 347.
  7. DeKeseredy W. S. Schwartz M. D. (2016). Thinking sociologically about image-based sexual abuse: The contribution of male peer support theory. Sexualization, Media, and Society, 2(4), 1– 8.
  8. Dir A. L. Cyders M. A. (2015). Risks, risk factors, and outcomes associated with phone and internet sexting among university students in the United States. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(6), 1675– 1684. 25358950 PMC6834346
  9. Dir A. L. Coskunpinar A. Steiner J. L. Cyders M. A. (2013). Understanding differences in sexting behaviors across gender, relationship status, and sexual identity, and the role of expectancies in sexting. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(8), 568– 574. 23675996
  10. Dodge A. (2021). Trading nudes like hockey cards: Exploring the diversity of ‘revenge porn’ cases responded to in law. Social & Legal Studies, 30(3), 448- 468.
  11. Eaton A. A. Jacobs H. Ruvalcaba Y. (2017). Nationwide online study of nonconsensual porn victimization and perpetration: A summary report. Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, 7(2), 1-28.
  12. Fay M. (2018). The naked truth: Insufficient coverage for revenge porn victims at state law and the proposed federal legislation to adequately redress them. Boston College Law Review, 59(5), 1839– 1871.
  13. Franks M. A. (2017). Revenge porn reform: A view from the Front Lines. Florida Law Review, 69(5), 1251– 1338.
  14. Franks M. A. (2018). Fearless speech. First Amendment Law Review, 17, 294– 342.
  15. Gau J. (2014). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A test of measurement and structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 187– 205.
  16. Halder D. Jaishankar K. (2013). Revenge porn by teens in the United States and India: A socio-legal analysis. International Annals of Criminology, 51(1–2), 85– 111.
  17. Hall M. Hearn J. (2017). Revenge pornography: Gender, sexuality, and motivations. Routledge.
  18. Hearn J. Hall M. (2019). ‘This is my cheating ex’: Gender and sexuality in revenge porn. Sexualities, 22(5–6), 860– 882.
  19. Henry N. Flynn A. Powell A. (2018). Policing image-based sexual abuse: stakeholder perspectives. Police Practice and Research, 19(6), 565– 581.
  20. Hsieh H. F. Shannon S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative health research, 15(9), 1277– 1288. 16204405
  21. Humbach J. A. (2014). The constitution and revenge porn. Pace Law Review, 35(1), 215– 259.
  22. Jacobs A. (2013). Fighting back against revenge porn: A legislative solution. Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, 12(1), 69– 91.
  23. Johansen K. B. H. Pederson B. M. Tjørnhøj-Thomsen T. (2018). Visual gossiping: Non-consensual ‘nude’ sharing among young people in Denmark. Culture, Health, and Sexuality, 21(9), 1029– 1044. 30516442
  24. Karasavva V. Forth A. (2021). Personality, attitudinal, and demographic predictors of non-consensual dissemination of intimate images. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1– 25. PMC9554400 34507500
  25. Mitchell K. J. Finkelhor D. Jones L. M. Wolak J. (2012). Prevalence and characteristics of youth sexting: A national study. Pediatrics, 129(1), 13– 29. 22144706
  26. Nagin D. S. Tremblay R. E. (2005). Developmental trajectory groups: Fact or useful statistical fiction? Criminology, 43(4), 873– 904.
  27. Patton R. B. (2015). Taking the sting out of revenge porn: Using criminal statutes to safeguard sexual autonomy in the digital age. Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law, 16(2), 407– 444.
  28. Ringrose J. Harvey L. (2015). BBM is like Match.com: Social networking and the digital mediation of teens’ sexual cultures. In Bailey J. Steeves V. (Eds.), eGirls, eCitizens (pp. 199–226). University of Ottawa Press.
  29. Ruvalcaba Y. Eaton A. A. (2019). Nonconsensual pornography among U.S. adults: A sexual scripts framework on victimization, perpetration, and health correlates for women and men. Psychology of Violence, 10(1), 68– 78.
  30. Salter M. Crofts T. (2015). Responding to revenge porn: Challenging online legal impunity. In Comella L. Tarrant S. (Eds.), New views on pornography: Sexuality, politics, and the law (pp. 233–256). Praeger Publisher.
  31. Sampson R. J. Laub J. H. (2006). Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology, 41(3), 555– 592.
  32. Short E. Brown A. Pitchford M. Barnes J. (2017). Revenge porn: Findings from the harassment and revenge porn (HARP) survey – Preliminary results. Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine, 15, 161– 166.
  33. Stanley N. Barter C. Wood M. Aghtaie N. Larkins C. Lanau A. Överlien C. (2016). Pornography, sexual coercion and abuse and sexting in young people’s intimate relationships: A European study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(19), 2919– 2944. 26951609
  34. Thompson M. P. Morrison D. J. (2013). Prospective predictors of technology-based sexual coercion by college males. Psychology of Violence, 3(3), 233– 246. 24073356 PMC3780450
  35. West C. Zimmerman D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender & Society, 1(2), 125– 151.
  36. Wood M. Barter C. Stanely N. Aghtaie N. Larkins C. (2015). Images across Europe: The sending and receiving of sexual images and associations with interpersonal violence in young people’s relationships. Children and Youth Services Review, 59, 149– 160.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Said, I., & McNealey, R. L.
Affiliations
Pennsylvania State University (US)
Corresponding author
Said, Iman
Venue
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Published
2022-09-09
Volume
38
Issue
7-8
Pages
5430-5451
ISSN
  • 0886-2605 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6518
OpenAlex
W4296250167
Cited by
27
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2
FWCI
6.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Interpersonal Violence (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
Keywords
revenge porn, victimization, perpetration, legal attitudes, punitiveness, gender bias, gender-based violence, criminal legislation, young adults, same-sex couples, heterosexual couples, women offenders
MeSH terms
Intimate Partner Violence, Attitude, Female, Humans, Male, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Partners, Crime Victims, Young Adult, Sexism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review