CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 128Gender, Feminism, and MediaStalking, Cyberstalking, and HarassmentSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Unpacking “Sexting”: A Systematic Review of Nonconsensual Sexting in Legal, Educational, and Psychological Literatures

Krieger, Michelle A.·2017·Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
DOI 10.1177/1524838016659486
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Concerns about sexting are increasingly prevalent in mainstream and academic media despite limited and inconsistent research findings about the practice. Much of this discourse centers around harm and sexting is commonly considered to be a risky behavior. A driving factor in these discussions is the apparent conflation of consensual and nonconsensual acts or sexting behaviors. A systematic review was conducted to determine the extent to which consensual and nonconsensual acts were conflated in the legal, educational, and psychological literatures on sexting, and how nonconsensual sexting was conceptualized within these disciplines. Definitions of sexting varied widely with regard to the inclusion or exclusion of nonconsensual acts. Nonconsensual acts were conceptualized in the following ways: as a risk of sexing, as being the fault of the victim, as bullying, or as a form of violence against women. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1524838016659486

Cites

56 of 56 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Barry J. L., 2010, Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 13, 129
  2. DeMitchell T. A., 2011, Cardozo Public Law, Policy, & Ethics Journal, 10, 1
  3. Hall R, 2004, Hypatia, 19, 1
  4. Kowalczyk W., 2010, Cleveland State Law Review, 58, 685
  5. Levendowski A., 2014, N.Y.U. Journal of Intellectual Property & Entertainment Law, 3, 422
  6. Nunziato D. C., 2012, Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 10, 57
  7. Pellai L. A., 2015, Minerva Pediatrica, 67, 1
  8. Ringrose J., 2012, A qualitative study of children, young people and ‘sexting’
  9. Weis K., 1973, Issues in Criminology, 8, 71
  10. Willard N. E., 2011, Brigham Young University. Education and Law Journal, 1, 75

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 128

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Krieger, M. A.
Affiliations
University of Windsor (CA)
Corresponding author
Krieger, Michelle A.
ORCID
Krieger, Michelle A.
Venue
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2016-07-19
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
593-601
ISSN
  • 1524-8380 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8324
DOI
10.1177/1524838016659486
OpenAlex
W2497505743
Cited by
128
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Trauma Violence & Abuse (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Feminism, and Media
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Keywords
sexting, sexual violence, violence against women, bullying, victim blaming, risk-taking, legal definitions, educational discourse
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Risk-Taking, Sexual Behavior, Sex Offenses, Internet, Cell Phone, Bullying, Text Messaging, Social Media

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