Sexting

Open Access: No.

Abstract

Researchers have increasingly explored the negative consequences of Non-Consensual Sharing of Intimate Images (NCSII) for victims, though less work has considered the factors associated with offending, particularly among youth populations. Few have explored offending using criminological frameworks, calling to question how well existing models of offending may account for this behaviour. This study attempted to address this gap in the literature through an assessment of youth participation in non-consensual sharing of images in a sample of 864 South Australian youth. Using binary logistic regression modelling, this study examined the relationship between self-control, opportunity and youth involvement in NCSII. The implications for our understanding of both image abuse and criminological theory were examined in detail.

Relevance

The results indicated significant relationships between non-consensual sending of intimate images and low self-control, time spent in online forums, and all forms of online deviance (e.g.,  sexual, fraud, and hacking behaviors). Viewing pornography, sending images of oneself, lying about your identity, tricking people into sharing information, accessing other’s devices and online accounts without permission were all associated with non-consensual sharing of images.

“The bivariate correlations suggested that non-consensual dissemination of images was meaningfully related to self-control, and all online opportunity factors, including activities and deviant behaviours included in the study. However, these relationships did not remain significant in multivariate statistical analyses. Specifically, self-control was significant when included individually, though this relationship was mediated by the presence of opportunity factors. This finding supports the first and fourth hypotheses,” namely, “Those with low self-control should be more likely to engage in NCSII” (non-consensual sharing of intimate images) and “Self-control will be rendered non-significant when controlling for opportunity measures.”

The analysis partially supported the second hypothesis that opportunity factors are more salient predictors for the non-consensual dissemination of images than self-control. (H2 was: “Technology use measures, particularly social media, pornography use, and sharing images should be associated with NCSII behaviours.”)

The finding that “Those who viewed pornography and were involved in sending images frequently were more likely to engage in NCSII” was “consistent with prior research.”

“There were no significant relationships observed between NCSII and youth involvement in cyberdeviant behaviours such as fraud and hacking behaviours. Though these variables were correlated in the univariate analysis, this relationship did not hold in multivariate analyses…It may be that these behaviours are relatively uncommon among large samples of youth and may only be evident in purposively designed qualitative sample populations. Further research is needed with both youth and adult samples to better examine these relationships… It should also be noted that there was no relationship observed between race and gender.”

“This study noted that self-control alone is not significant when examining NCIIS, rather it is the access and opportunity that is salient. Prevention policies and programmes that focus solely on individuals’ activities will not be sufficient in reducing these behaviours. Structural interventions through technological platforms may also reduce the opportunities for harm. Specifically, improved privacy settings, detection measures and reporting frameworks may remove barriers for those who have experienced NCSII.”

“Such structural interventions, coupled with digital literacy, can offer more effective approaches to reducing non-consensual sharing of content.”

Citation

Holt, K., Holt, T. J., Brewer, R., Cale, J., Logos, K., & Goldsmith, A. (2026). An examination of self-control and opportunity in Non-Consensual Intimate Image Sharing offending among youth. Journal of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1177/26338076261455620