Content uploaded by María-Luisa Rodríguez-deArriba
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by María-Luisa Rodríguez-deArriba on May 12, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 58 (2021) 101613
Available online 20 April 2021
1359-1789/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Dimensions and measures of cyber dating violence in adolescents: A
systematic review
María-Luisa Rodríguez-deArriba
a
, AnnaLaura Nocentini
b
, Ersilia Menesini
b
, Virginia S´
anchez-
Jim´
enez
a
,
*
a
Department of Developmental Psychology and Education, Universidad de Sevilla, C/ Camilo Jos´
e Cela s/n., 41018 Seville, Spain
b
Department of Education, Languages, Intercultures, Literatures and Psychology, University of Florence, Via San Salvi 12, Padiglione 26, 50135 Firenze, Italy
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Cyber dating violence
Technology
Systematic review
Measurement
Adolescents
Dating violence
ABSTRACT
The term ‘cyber dating violence’ refers to a new form of interpersonal violence in romantic relationships brought
about via new technologies. In recent years, despite a large number of instruments developed to measure this
phenomenon by the scientic community, there are no systematic reviews that specically compare measures
focused on the adolescent population. The current study aimed to conduct a systematic review on measures and
denitions of cyber dating violence in adolescence: in particular, we examined the dimensions identied, the
characteristics of the population, and the psychometric properties of those measures developed between 2010
and early 2019. The results yielded up to 26 different measures, revealing an apparent lack of inter-measure
coherence. Although the observed theoretical dimensions differ among studies, cyber dating violence comes
across as a multidimensional construct, encompassing behaviors driven by sexual and nonsexual content, and
with control/monitoring reported as the most frequently assessed dimension. However, analyses focused on
measure validation remain scarce. The results highlight essential information when it comes to an understanding
of cyber dating violence and the need to develop and evaluate instruments for measuring this phenomenon in all
its complexity.
1. Introduction
Digital media has emerged as a new channel through which to
engage in and experience violent behaviors in romantic relationships.
According to a recent review, this form of violence in dating relation-
ships has received several labels, such as electronic dating violence, cyber
aggression, online dating abuse, digital dating abuse, and cyber dating abuse,
the latter being the most widely used term (Flach & Deslandes, 2017).
The terms aggression/violence and abuse are used interchangeably, but
they are not the same. Thus, as noted by Geffner (2016), the term abuse
implies not an isolated behavior, but the context, motivation, and con-
sequences for victims. However, these characteristics are not addressed
in the available measures, which are more focused on the analysis of
specic behaviors. Dening the phenomenon represents an ongoing
challenge for researchers, and it represents a clear need for further
studies and understanding. According to the objectives of the present
systematic review, we will use the term cyber dating violence, analyzing
violent behaviors within adolescent romantic relationships, which oc-
curs via technological devices and the Internet. We are dealing with a
new expression of intimate partner violence that attempts to inict harm
on the romantic partner and to affect the victim’s mental health (Flach &
Deslandes, 2017). Cyber dating violence shares some similarities with
face-to-face dating violence as both contexts give rise to different types
of psychological aggressions such as insults, demeans, threats, moni-
toring, emotional manipulation and controlling partner’s social re-
lationships (Foshee, 1996; Williams et al., 2012). However, the online
interaction has particular characteristics that promote and encourage
the use of specic coercive tactics like control and monitoring tactics
(Stephenson et al., 2018). Moreover, the online context facilities new
opportunities for attacking the partner (Stephenson et al., 2018) as is the
case of impersonation (Bennett et al., 2011). The physical proximity
with the victim loses its meaning in the online context, so the aggression
could surface at any time. Also, the victim’s reaction is not so obvious for
the aggressor who can minimize the consequences of their acts (Mu˜
noz-
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mrodriguez76@us.es (M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba), annalaura.nocentini@uni.it (A. Nocentini), ersilia.menesini@uni.it (E. Menesini), virsan@
us.es (V. S´
anchez-Jim´
enez).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Aggression and Violent Behavior
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aggviobeh
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101613
Received 20 December 2019; Received in revised form 10 July 2020; Accepted 6 April 2021
Aggression and Violent Behavior 58 (2021) 101613
2
Fern´
andez & S´
anchez-Jim´
enez, 2020). Finally, the potential audience
increases in the online context, making it a more humiliating experience
for victims (Stonard, 2020) while the aggressor may feel immune to
carry out some coercive tactics under anonymity, such as monitoring
(Utz & Beukeboom, 2011). Therefore, cyber dating violence would not
only encompass the online translation of face-to-face psychological
aggression.
In a relatively short period, research on this topic has resulted in a
large number of instruments aimed at determining the prevalence of this
phenomenon in youth and adults. However, the different denitions of
the phenomenon and measures developed have made it difcult to
identify its dimensions (Brown & Hegarty, 2018). That said, some au-
thors (Stonard et al., 2014) have identied up to six types of abusive
cyber behaviors (psychological/emotional violence; threatening com-
ments; embarrassing/humiliating behaviors; control through harass-
ment or excessive contact; sexual harassment or coercion; and
monitoring or controlling), whereas others have not drawn to similar
conclusions (Brown & Hegarty, 2018).
Furthermore, most cyber dating violence measures have been
implemented or tested on the adult population, transferring the results
to the adolescent population (Brown & Hegarty, 2018; Flach &
Deslandes, 2017; G´
amez-Guadix et al., 2018). However, dating re-
lationships in adolescence present particular characteristics, which are
unique concerning this developmental period. The corresponding liter-
ature has described how adolescent dating relationships differ from
adult ones in terms of commitment and consolidation of conict reso-
lution strategies (Collins et al., 2009), as well as in terms of dating
violence prevalence. Adolescents report higher rates of involvement
than adults and young people in both traditional forms (Fern´
andez-
Gonz´
alez et al., 2014) and online forms of dating violence (Ybarra et al.,
2017). Besides, this is often reported as a risk factor for violence among
adult couples (Capaldi et al., 2012). Despite these differences, to date,
any systematic review has been focused on the exploration of in-
struments measuring cyber dating violence in adolescents. Additionally,
most of the instruments have been developed and tested in young adults,
while the instruments available for the adolescent population are still
scarce. Thus, looking to address this gap in the research, we systemati-
cally examined the cyber dating violence measures developed for the
adolescent population presented in the scientic literature (precisely,
research articles and theses). Particularly, the objectives of our sys-
tematic review were threefold. First, to analyze the theoretical di-
mensions of cyber dating violence underlying the various instruments;
second, to identify the characteristics of the population for which these
instruments were created and subsequently administered; and third, to
ascertain the psychometric properties of these measures.
2. Method
2.1. Search strategy
Five electronic databases were reviewed: PsycINFO, Web of Science,
Scopus, Medline, and PubMed. The keywords referred to the medium
(Online, Cyber, Electronic, Digital, Virtual, ICT); the romantic rela-
tionship (Dating, Intimate, Partner); and the violent behavior (Aggres-
sion, Victimization, Abuse, Violence). Two keywords included the
romantic relationship as well as the behavioral dimension (IPV, Violent
Romantic Relationship). Combinations of these conditions were carried
out, ltering by Title, Abstract, and Keywords for PsycINFO, Web of
Science, Scopus, and Medline; and Title and Abstract for PubMed.
2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Due to the novelty of this topic and the lack of publications before
2010 (Flach & Deslandes, 2017), the systematic search was restricted to
research articles and doctoral theses published from 2010 to March
2019.
Thus, the inclusion criteria referred to (1) studies published as of
2010; (2) research articles and doctoral theses; (3) studies on cyber
dating violence using a quantitative measuring instrument; (4) studies
on the adolescent population and/or whose sample mainly comprised
adolescents (data collected at high schools, with a maximum mean age
of 18–19 years or slightly higher); and (5) studies published in English or
Spanish.
The exclusion criteria referred to (1) studies published before 2010;
(2) documents other than research articles and doctoral theses; (3)
studies not including cyber dating violence measures; (4) studies on a
mostly adult population; and (5) studies written in languages other than
English and Spanish.
2.3. Data coding
The rst objective was to analyze coding the theoretical dimensions,
their denitions, and items’ content. To fulll the second objective, we
coded the countries were the measures were administered, and the
characteristics of the sample in terms of race/ethnicity; age (range and
mean); sex; and type of sample (no-risk samples, at-risk, or clinical
population). We dened “at-risk samples” those samples considered
with a high probability of reporting cyber dating violence – i.e. partic-
ipants who had a history of family violence, participant whose mothers
were victims of domestic violence or with a prior history of dating
violence involvement – and “no-risk samples” those samples from gen-
eral population. Regarding the third objective, namely an analysis of the
instruments’ psychometric properties. Specically, the number of items,
the internal consistency, as well as the presence of exploratory or
conrmatory factor analyses. The names of the new instruments were
reported, and the references of the original ones in case of adaptation.
Two independent evaluators were involved in gathering this informa-
tion, reaching an according degree of 100%.
3. Results
The searches yielded 6352 documents, which reduced to 1761
following the automatic removal of duplicates using EndNote software.
Consequently, 58 of 1761 manually analyzed abstracts fullled the in-
clusion/exclusion criteria, which led to a complete reading of these
documents. The 1703 records were excluded for different reasons:
publication year (n =216); no articles or thesis (n =108); no cyber
dating violence measure (n =1307); and adult population (n =72).
After reading the 58 les, 16 were eliminated: documents that were
not a thesis or research article (n =1); no quantitative measure of cyber
dating violence included (n =9); the participants were adults (n =6).
Finally, 42 documents (articles or theses) were included in the present
systematic review (Fig. 1).
The inter-rater assessment was performed to check the decision of
the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Following the removal of duplicates,
three independent evaluators reviewed 30% of the documents, and
strong reliability was reported with Cohen’s kappa coefcients higher
than 0.70 across all comparisons. Specically, Kappa scores of 0.707,
0.781, and 0.782 were obtained. The main discrepancies between the
two raters were due to the difculty in some abstracts, to ascertain the
participants’ age, or to identify the use of technology to exert violence.
These discrepancies were resolved during the second round of
evaluation.
The results were described by objective: (1) to analyze the theoret-
ical dimensions measured through the instruments; (2) to identify the
characteristics of the population where the instruments were developed
or administered; and (3) to identify the psychometric properties of the
measures included in the review.
3.1. Theoretical dimensions
We found 26 instruments focused exclusively on cyber dating
M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 58 (2021) 101613
3
violence among young partners in our dataset.
Accurately, 35% of the instruments reported a one-dimensional
denition of cyber dating violence (n =9). The remaining 65% (n =
17) took a multidimensional view, identifying two or more (Zweig et al.,
2014) dimensions of cyber dating violence (see Table 1).
These multi-dimension instruments differ in terms of the number of
identied dimensions, the labels used, and their denitions, reecting a
lack of consensus when it comes to conceptualizing cyber violence in
young partners. In general, according to the nature of cyber dating
violence, the studies seem to distinguish between two macro-
dimensions. The rst focuses on nonsexual cyber aggressive behaviors,
whereas the second macro-category comprises sexual cyber violence
(Dick et al., 2014; S´
anchez-Jim´
enez et al., 2018; Zweig et al., 2014).
Other studies have conceptualized different dimensions of nonsexual
cyber dating violence. The rst dimension denes the verbal and
emotional forms of cyber dating violence (named as cyber emotional
from now), understood as traditional forms of face-to-face verbal/
emotional violence adapted to the online context. Behaviors under this
dimension include insults, threats, humiliations and blackmails. These
cyber emotional forms have received several names, such as emotional
abuse (Barter et al., 2017; Stonard, 2019); emitted violence (Mu˜
niz,
2017); psychological violence (Morelli et al., 2018); cyber-harassment
(Cava & Buelga, 2018); and harassment (Smith-Darden et al., 2017).
Other authors have labeled these cyber emotional forms as direct acts of
aggression (Quesada et al., 2018; Reed et al., 2017), dening these cyber
behaviors as tactics to directly harm the victim through humiliation,
threats, insults and taunting, privately or publicly. Some examples of
this cyber emotional violence would be the following: “Have any of your
partners ever put you down or sent you any nasty messages?” (Barter et al.,
2017); “Sent a mean or hurtful PRIVATE message”/“Posted a mean or
hurtful PUBLIC message” (Reed et al., 2017); and, “I told my boyfriend/
girlfriend that, if they break up with me, I’ll say or post personal things about
him/her on social networking sites” (Cava & Buelga, 2018).
Relational violence is another dimension covering nonsexual cyber
content. These cyber relational forms would include acts that cause
harm to the victim by manipulating the couple’s relationship (Wright,
2015); relationships with friends (Barter et al., 2017); and, in general,
the victim’s social network (Morelli et al., 2018). For a similar dimen-
sion, other authors have used the term isolation (Barter et al., 2017). The
behaviors describing this cyber relational violence refer to denying or
withholding affection (“I ignore my romantic partner when he/she has hurt
my feelings in some way online or through text messages”, Wright, 2015);
impersonation or use of personal account to manipulate partners’
friendships (“Have any of your partners used mobile phones or social
networking sites to stop your friends liking you, for example, pretending to be
you and sending nasty messages to your friends?”, Barter et al., 2017); and
spreading rumors or humiliating multimedia content (“I spread rumors
about him/her via SMS/mail/Facebook”, Morelli et al., 2018), among
others.
Intentionally provoked jealousy in the online context have received
some attention by researchers, although there is no consensus about its
consideration as a specic dimension (S´
anchez-Jim´
enez et al., 2017; e.
g., “I get jealous when my partner posts provocative photos on their social
network prole”), as a form of cyber relational dimension (“I try to make
Records excluded, with
reasons
(n= 1703)
Publication year = 216
Reference type = 108
No cyber dating violence
measure = 1307
Target population = 72
Screening
Included Eligibility
Records after duplicates removed
(n= 1761)
Full-text articles
assessed for eligibility
(n= 58)
Full-text articles excluded,
with reasons
(n= 16)
Reference type = 1
No cyber dating violence
measure = 9
Target population = 6
Full-text articles included in the
systematic review
(n= 42)
Records identified through database searching
(n= 6352)
Identification
Different measures
(n= 26)
Records screened
(n= 1761)
Fig. 1. Documents selection diagram.
M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 58 (2021) 101613
4
Table 1
Measures of cyber dating violence.
One-dimensional instruments
Measure Psychometric properties Participants
References Measure name Adaptation of
sources
Items Internal
consistency
Validation Country Race/Ethnicity Age % of
girls
Population
type
EFA CFA
Cutbush (2015)
Cutbush and
Williams (2016)
Cutbush et al.
(2018)
– Finkelhor et al.
(2000)
Picard (2007)
8 Yes Yes Yes USA White 26–28% Black/
African American
33–34% Hispanic/
Latino(a) 24–26.5%
Other or Multiple races
12.5–15%
7th grade
50.4%
–
Foshee et al. (2015)
Agnew-Brune
(2016)
Foshee et al.
(2016)
– Picard (2007) 4 – – – USA White 26.9% Black
54.8%
Other 18.3%
12–15
64.06%
Risk
Domínguez-Mora
et al. (2016)
– – 6 – – – Mexico – 12–17
54%
–
Han and Margolin
(2016)
How Friends Treat
Each Other
(Bennett et al., 2011)
Bennett et al.
(2011)
21 Yes – – USA Caucasian 57.6% Black/
African American 17.6%
Hispanic/
Latino(a) 35.2% Asian/
Pacic Islander 5.6%
Multiple ethnicities
19.2%
9–13
46.4%
–
Temple et al. (2016)
Peskin et al.
(2017)
Van Ouytsel,
Torres, et al.
(2017)
Lu et al. (2018)
– Picard (2007)
Zweig et al.
(2013)
12 Yes – – USA White/
Caucasian 27.8–30.6%
Black/African American
24.7–30%
Hispanic 31.9–61%
Asian/Pacic Islander
3.1% Other 8–12.8%
M =
12.4–19.1
44.2%–
63.3%
–
Machimbarrena
et al. (2018)
Cyber Dating Abuse
Questionnaire
(Borrajo et al., 2015)
Borrajo et al.
(2015)
11 Yes – – Spain – 11–21
53.7%
–
Rizzo et al. (2018) Social Networking
and Controlling
Behaviors Survey
– 6 Yes – – USA White 20–25% African
American 33–37%
Hispanic 48–53% Asian
6% American Indian
6–10%
14–17
100%
Risk
Rodríguez-
Domínguez et al.
(2018)
– Buelga and
Pons (2012)
10 Yes – – Spain – 13–20
0%
–
Smith et al. (2018) Cyber Dating Abuse
Questionnaire
Litwiller and
Brausch
(2013)
Stewart et al.
(2014)
8 Yes – – Canada – 14–18
56.4%
–
Multi-dimensional instruments
Measure Psychometric properties Participants
References Measure name Adaptation of
sources
Items Internal
consistency
Validation Country Race/ethnicity Age
% of
girls
Population
type
EFA CFA
Zweig et al.
(2013)
Dank et al.
(2014)
Zweig
et al.
(2014)
Yahner
et al.
(2015)
– Griezel (2007)
Picard (2007)
16
Nonsexual cyber
abuse (12)
Sexual cyber abuse
(4)
Yes – – USA White/ Caucasian
73.7%
Black/African
American 5%
Hispanic/
Latino(a) 8.2%
Asian American 2.2%
Native American
0.7%
Mixed race 10.2%
12–19
52.3%
–
Dick et al.
(2014)
Miller
et al.
(2015)
– Bennett et al.
(2011)
Ybarra et al.
(2007)
7
Nonsexual cyber
dating abuse (4)
Sexual cyber
dating abuse (3)
Yes Yes – USA White 5.2% African
American 27.1%
Hispanic/
Latino(a) 36.5%
Asian 15.5%
Native American/
Pacic Islander 5.1%
Multiracial/Other
10.7%
14–19
76.3%
Clinic
(continued on next page)
M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 58 (2021) 101613
5
Table 1 (continued )
Multi-dimensional instruments
Measure Psychometric properties Participants
References Measure name Adaptation of
sources
Items Internal
consistency
Validation Country Race/ethnicity Age
% of
girls
Population
type
EFA CFA
Wright
(2015)
– Linder et al.
(2002)
Wright and Li
(2013)
5
Cyber relational
aggression (3)
Privacy invasion
(2)
Yes – Yes USA Caucasian 70.9%
Black/African
American 4.1%
Latino(a) 16.2%
Asian 3.4%
Native American
5.4%
M =
17.53
54%
–
Hellevik and
Øverlien
(2016)
Barter
et al.
(2017)
– – 6
Emotional abuse
(3)
Control (1)
Surveillance (1)
Isolation (1)
Yes – – Bulgaria
Cyprus
England
Italy
Norway
– 14–17
50.2% -
82%
–
Reed,
Tolman,
Ward
(2016)
Reed et al.
(2017)
Reed et al.
(2018)
– Bennett et al.
(2011)
Borrajo et al.
(2015)
Cosmogirl.com
National
Campaign to
Prevent Teen and
Unplanned
Pregnancy and
CosmoGirl.com
(2008)
Picard (2007)
Reed, Tolman,
Ward (2016)
Tolman (1999)
Zweig et al.
(2013)
18
Direct digital
aggression (8)
Digital monitoring
/ control (6)
Digital sexual
coercion (4)
Yes – – USA White 72.2–75.6%
Black 7–8%
Hispanic/
Latino(a) 1.3–1.7%
Asian/Pacic
Islander 4.1–6.7%
American Indian/
Alaska Native 0.1%
Middle Eastern
3.6–4.7% Multiracial
5.6–5.7%
13–19
54.3%
–
Van Ouytsel
et al.
(2016)
Van
Ouytsel,
Ponnet,
et al.
(2017)
Van
Ouytsel
et al.
(2018)
Cyber Dating
Abuse
Questionnaire
(Borrajo et al.,
2015)
Borrajo et al.
(2015)
4
Digital controlling
/ monitoring
behaviors (4)
Yes – – Belgium – 16–22
71%
–
Johnson
(2017)
Electronic
Behaviors for
Adolescents in
Relationships
(EBAR)
Borrajo et al.
(2015)
13
Threatening /
coercive behaviors
(6)
Monitoring
behaviors (7)
Yes Yes – USA White 44.9%
Black/African
American 11.3%
Asian 1%
Native Hawaiian/
Pacic Islander 1.5%
American Indian/
Alaskan Native 1.5%
Multiracial 15.5%
Other 24.3%
13–18
66.3%
–
Mu˜
niz
(2017)
Teen dating
violence in social
networks scale
– 10
Emitted violence
(4)
Emitted control
(6)
Yes Yes Yes Spain – 15–18
52.4%
–
S´
anchez-
Jim´
enez
et al.
(2017)
Cyberdating Q_A (
S´
anchez-Jim´
enez
et al., 2015)
S´
anchez-Jim´
enez
et al. (2015)
11
Online Jealousy
(4)
Online Intrusive
Behavior (4)
Online Control (3)
Yes – Yes Spain
Mexico
– 15–21
50%
–
Smith-
Darden
et al.
(2017)
– Finkelhor et al.
(2000)
12
Cyberstalking
(−)
Harassment (−)
Coercive sexting
(−)
Yes – – USA White 60%
Black
Other students of
color
6th &
9th
grade
51%
–
(continued on next page)
M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 58 (2021) 101613
6
my romantic partner jealous when I’m mad at him/her online or through text
messages”, Wright, 2015) or as cyber emotional dimension (e.g., “I wrote
something via SMS/mail/Facebook to make him/her feel jealous”, Morelli
et al., 2018). At this point, some authors argued that emotional and
relational forms of cyber violence would form part of direct acts of cyber
aggression in comparison to indirect forms of cyber aggression such as
control or monitoring behaviors (Reed et al., 2017).
Control or monitoring is the third nonsexual cyber dimension, which
represents the most frequently assessed behaviors, as they appear in the
majority of the measures considered in the analysis. This type of
violence includes various strategies that allow us to know what the
partner is doing at all time (monitoring), or decide how to act upon this
(control). Some authors have named these behaviors as an invasion of
privacy (Wright, 2015), surveillance (Barter et al., 2017), and cyber-
stalking (Smith-Darden et al., 2017). Moreover, other authors have
differentiated a specic subtype of control/monitoring, that is, repeated
attempts to gain access to the other partner following an argument,
named as online intrusive behavior (S´
anchez-Jim´
enez et al., 2017). In
contrast, other authors have used this label to refer to monitoring be-
haviors (Doucette et al., 2018). In sum, there is a consensus about the
control strategies, but regarding monitoring tactics, differences appear
in terms of terminology and denition. Some examples of control or
monitoring behaviors are the follows: “Had viewed their email messages,
messages on their cell phone, or their account on a social networking site
without their permission” (Van Ouytsel et al., 2018); “Have any of your
partners used mobile phones or social networking sites to try and control who
you can be friends with or where you can go?” (Barter et al., 2017);
“Pressured or insisted you give them your passwords” (Johnson, 2017); and
“When I’m angry, and my partner doesn’t respond, I leave many messages on
his/her social network wall” (S´
anchez-Jim´
enez et al., 2017).
Finally, sexual cyber forms include behaviors like sexual cyber
(dating) abuse (Dick et al., 2014; Zweig et al., 2014); digital sexual
coercion (Reed et al., 2017); and coercive sexting (Kernsmith et al.,
2018; Smith-Darden et al., 2017). This type of violence refers to those
behaviors of sexual nature displayed under pressure or without the
consent of both partners. Specically, these include pressuring the other
Table 1 (continued )
Multi-dimensional instruments
Measure Psychometric properties Participants
References Measure name Adaptation of
sources
Items Internal
consistency
Validation Country Race/ethnicity Age
% of
girls
Population
type
EFA CFA
Cava and
Buelga
(2018)
The scale of Cyber-
violence in
Adolescent
Couples (Cib-VPA)
– 10
Cyber-harassment
(5)
Cyber-control (5)
Yes Yes Yes Spain – 12–18
56.6%
–
Doucette
et al.
(2018)
– Reed et al. (2015) 3
Electronic
Intrusiveness (3)
Yes – – USA White 23.1% Black
32.1%, Hispanic/
Latino(a) 53.8%
Asian 1.3% American
Indian/Alaskan
Native 10.3%
Multiracial/Other
52.6%
14–17
100%
Risk
Kernsmith
et al.
(2018)
– Foshee et al.
(1996)
2
Coercive sexting
(2)
Yes – – USA White students 40%
Students of color
60%
6th &
9th
grade
55%
–
Morelli et al.
(2018)
The cyber dating
violence inventory
Wolfe et al. (2001) 11
Psychological
violence (5)
Relational
violence (6)
Yes Yes Yes Italy – 13–22
65.1%
–
Quesada
et al.
(2018)
Cyber Dating
Abuse
Questionnaire (
Borrajo et al.,
2015)
Borrajo et al.
(2015)
20
Direct aggression
(11)
Control (9)
Yes – – Spain – 14–18
51.7%
–
S´
anchez-
Jim´
enez
et al.
(2018)
Cyber Dating
Abuse survey
(Zweig et al.,
2014)
Zweig et al.
(2014)
9
Non-sexual (9)
Yes – Yes Spain Spanish 96%
European 0.8%
South American 2.7%
African 0.3%
Asian 0.2%
11–19
47.7%
–
Stonard
(2019)
– – 12
Controlling
manipulation (4)
Exploitation (2)
Monitoring
communication
(1)
Isolation (3)
Intimidation (3)
Coercive Pressure
(3)
Identity
devaluation (2)
Monitoring
whereabouts (1)
Emotional abuse
(1)
– Yes – England White British 91% 12–18
57%
–
M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 58 (2021) 101613
7
partner to engage in face-to-face or online sexual encounters, sending
unwanted or unsolicited sexual content to the partner, obtaining sexual
media content following coercion or threats, and posting or forwarding
this content to a broader audience. Statements that may fall under this
category would include: “Pressured to sext” (Reed et al., 2017) and
“pressured to send nude or sexy photos” (Kernsmith et al., 2018). Lastly,
one author (Johnson, 2017) proposed a dimension (Threats/Coercion)
comprising sexual and nonsexual cyber behaviors alike.
3.2. Characteristics of the studies’ population
3.2.1. Country
The instruments were administered in both North America and
Europe. Specically, in different U.S. states (n =13); Mexico (n =2);
Canada (n =1); and European countries such as Spain (n =6); Italy (n =
2); England (n =2); Bulgaria (n =1); Cyprus (n =1); Norway (n =1);
and Belgium (n =1). Two instruments were administered in different
countries (Barter et al., 2017; S´
anchez-Jim´
enez et al., 2017).
3.2.2. Race/ethnicity
The race or ethnicity of the participants were reported in 15 in-
struments (58%). Thirteen were from USA and two were from Europe
(England and Spain). In the United States, the instruments were
administered to an ethnically diverse population. Specically, the races/
ethnicities of these participants were: White/Caucasian, Black/African
American, Hispanic/Latino(a), Asian, Asian American, Pacic Islander,
American Indian, Native American, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian,
Middle Eastern, and other or multiples races. In Europe, the England
study described participants as White British (Stonard, 2020). The
Spanish work (S´
anchez-Jim´
enez et al., 2018) asked about the birthplace
of the participants, being the majority of them Spanish adolescents,
while the others were born in different countries of Europe, South
America, Africa and Asia. See Table 1 for a detailed information.
3.2.3. Participant characteristics
Most studies applied the instruments to males and females, except for
those addressing female at-risk populations (Doucette et al., 2018; Rizzo
et al., 2018) and the study by Rodríguez-Domínguez et al. (2018) which
assessed aggression in males.
3.2.4. Population type
The majority of instruments were administered in no-risk population
(n =22). Two studies worked with clinical population (Dick et al., 2014;
Miller et al., 2015) and three instruments were administered to at-risk
populations, for example, adolescents whose mothers were victims of
domestic violence (Foshee et al., 2015) and girls with a prior history of
dating violence involvement (Doucette et al., 2018; Rizzo et al., 2018).
3.3. Measures and psychometric properties
3.3.1. Number of items
The number of items in the different instruments varied according to
the number of dimensions included. For those instruments with no
identiable dimension (n =9), the number of items ranged from 4
(Foshee et al., 2015) to 21 (Han & Margolin, 2016). For those in-
struments reporting identiable dimensions (n =17), the minimum
number of items per dimension was one (Barter et al., 2017; Stonard,
2019), whereas the maximum was 12 (Zweig et al., 2014).
Notably, the number of items varied, given that in cases where
aggression and victimization were measured, the number of items
increased (Cava & Buelga, 2018; Cutbush et al., 2018; Foshee et al.,
2015; Johnson, 2017; Kernsmith et al., 2018; Morelli et al., 2018;
Quesada et al., 2018; Reed et al., 2017; Rizzo et al., 2018; S´
anchez-
Jim´
enez et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2018; Smith-Darden et al., 2017;
Temple et al., 2016; Van Ouytsel et al., 2016; Van Ouytsel et al., 2018;
Zweig et al., 2014).
3.3.2. Internal consistency
Internal consistency data were reported in 23 instruments. These
were equal to or higher than 0.60 in most cases, except for the cyber-
stalking aggression scale (
α
=0.47) in Smith-Darden et al. (2017), whose
reliability did not reach adequate levels.
3.3.3. Instrument validity
Three studies reported the structure resulting from the exploratory
factor analyses (Dick et al., 2014; Johnson, 2017; Stonard, 2019), and
seven instruments presented conrmatory factor analyses. Three of
these studies also reported factorial invariance analysis relative to
gender (Cutbush & Williams, 2016; S´
anchez-Jim´
enez et al., 2017),
culture (S´
anchez-Jim´
enez et al., 2017), and administration time
(S´
anchez-Jim´
enez et al., 2018), conrming construct similarity in all
cases. Notably, it took until 2018 to present validations for both
aggression and victimization scales (Cava & Buelga, 2018; Morelli et al.,
2018). Previously, these analyses were only carried out for the aggres-
sion scale (Mu˜
niz, 2017; Wright, 2015). Despite the differences between
the validated instruments, control/monitoring was the most identied
cyber dimension in most cases (Cava & Buelga, 2018; Mu˜
niz, 2017;
S´
anchez-Jim´
enez et al., 2017; Wright, 2015).
No one-dimensional measures were validated, as well as those that
included a cyber sexual dimension.
It should be noted that validated instruments are not the most widely
used. Thus, the instrument developed by Zweig et al. (2014) to be
implemented in adolescents is currently the most used or adapted
measure in this population (Reed et al., 2017; S´
anchez-Jim´
enez et al.,
2018). The Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire (Borrajo et al., 2015) is
another of the instruments to be highlighted. Although it proved its
validity for the adult population, it still needs to be validated in
adolescents.
4. Discussion
This systematic review has identied 26 different measures for
assessing cyber dating violence in adolescents. The oldest article
included in this review was published in 2013 (Zweig et al., 2013), yet
an increase in measures focusing on this phenomenon did not occur until
2016. The recent attention on cyber dating violence highlights not only
the emergence of a new problem that affects boys and girls in their
romantic relationships but also the need for future research to dene the
construct more clearly and comprehensively. The results obtained in this
review support this point of view, giving the high variability sur-
rounding the available instruments in terms of dimensions and
denitions.
This variability can be understood by taking into account the
intrinsic features of the online medium where violence takes place,
which nds itself under continuous development. Thus, enormous ad-
vances unfold over relatively short periods in terms of Internet access
(almost unlimited), a wide range of ever-increasingly sophisticated de-
vices (smartphones, tablets, computers), and almost daily updates of
social networking sites and applications. This continuous change is re-
ected not only in the development of instruments over time but also in
the inclusion of new behaviors, which ultimately represent new op-
portunities for aggression and victimization.
However, a question remains unclear. Can cyber dating violence be
addressed as an online expression of face-to-face psychological aggres-
sion, or should it be considered a new form of violence? (Mu˜
noz-
Fern´
andez & S´
anchez-Jim´
enez, 2020; Stephenson et al., 2018).
Accepting the rst option would justify the exclusion of sexual
violence when it comes to developing new instruments or adapting
traditional psychological measures to the online context, as in Morelli
et al.’s (2018) study. These measures do not consider sexual forms as a
part of cyber dating violence, approaching its study as a separate or
different phenomenon driven by the online medium’s particular char-
acteristics. An example of this would be the study of sexting, understood
M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 58 (2021) 101613
8
as the use of new technologies to send messages or sexually explicit
multimedia content (Backe et al., 2018), shared without the consent of
the partner or under coercion, thus perceived as upsetting (Backe et al.,
2018).
A different approach is that shared by other authors (Peskin et al.,
2017; Zweig et al., 2014), who claim that while cyber dating violence
can be conceptualized as a form of psychological violence, it also pre-
sents unique characteristics that set it apart from face-to-face violence,
creating a qualitatively different experience (Zweig et al., 2014). Thus,
cyber dating violence bears similarities with ofine relational and psy-
chological violence (for example, exposing private information about
one’s partner, exerting control, insults, and threats). However, violence
via technologies does not require physical proximity, which means that
the victim is always exposed to their partner’s aggression, turning it into
a more intense and harmful manifestation of violence (Bennett et al.,
2011) and as a form of psychological violence unlike the traditional type
(Stephenson et al., 2018). An example of this would be isolating be-
haviors. Not only would these behaviors succeed in isolating the partner
from their family network and peers online, but they would also lead to
isolation from online activities via controlling the partners’ social
networking sites. Furthermore, the characteristics of the medium itself
lead to new forms of psychological aggression, such as those involving
sexual content (Stephenson et al., 2018), which surface in both the
public and private domains of the relationship, reaching a wider audi-
ence and, in turn, impacting heavily upon the victim.
As such, we are dealing with violent behaviors resulting from access
to technological devices and platforms, which, acting as a vehicle for
psychological violence (Temple et al., 2016), would exhibit unique
characteristics giving rise to a different behavior (Peskin et al., 2017).
Authors who continue on this premise include sexual behaviors in their
measures of cyber dating violence, either by identifying them as a
dimension (Dick et al., 2014; Reed et al., 2017; Smith-Darden et al.,
2017; Zweig et al., 2014) or including them as part of a global measure
(Peskin et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2018). However, compared to the adult
population (Watkins et al., 2018), there is no knowledge of any vali-
dated instruments that contain a differentiating sexual factor in ado-
lescents, something on which future studies should pay closer attention.
The differences underlying the conceptualization of cyber dating
violence arise from the difculty in identifying the dimensions of the
phenomenon. As demonstrated in this review, we are met with a variety
of instruments, ranging from those that evaluate the phenomenon from a
one-dimensional approach which include a considerable number of
different behaviors (Foshee et al., 2015; Han & Margolin, 2016; Temple
et al., 2016), to multidimensional measures (Reed et al., 2017; Zweig
et al., 2014) that contain specic dimensions comprising just one item
(Barter et al., 2017; Stonard, 2019). Furthermore, although studies have
made considerable efforts to identify nonsexual cyber dimensions such
as control/monitoring (Cava & Buelga, 2018; Johnson, 2017; Morelli
et al., 2018; Mu˜
niz, 2017; Quesada et al., 2018; Reed et al., 2017;
S´
anchez-Jim´
enez et al., 2017; Van Ouytsel et al., 2016), cyber behaviors
of a sexual nature have been less explored. Those studies that have
addressed these cyber sexual behaviors have done so from a macro-
dimensional perspective. Thus, they included behaviors associated
with coercive sexting as previously mentioned (Kernsmith et al., 2018;
Smith-Darden et al., 2017), and the online posting of sexually explicit
multimedia content without the consent of the partner, which goes by
the term revenge porn in the literature (Backe et al., 2018; Franklin,
2014). Therefore, future research should explore whether this sexual
macro-dimension can also be divided into subcategories, as would occur
with nonsexual forms of online violence.
Although nonsexual cyber dating violence has received more atten-
tion, the available instruments have yet to reach a unanimous agreement
on the dimensions to be covered and the corresponding items. The
reasons behind these discrepancies can partly be explained by the high
number of face-to-face instruments adapted to assess cyber dating
violence. Thus, for the authors (Morelli et al., 2018) who adapted Wolfe
et al.’s (2001) Conict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory
(CADRI) to the online context, jealousy falls within the emotional cyber
dimension. However, other works (Ellis et al., 2009; Linder et al., 2002)
share the view that relational violence manipulates and harms the
romantic relationship, meaning that in-person acts of jealousy would
also come under this dimension. The authors who based their work on
this premise (Wright, 2015) included online jealousy in the cyber rela-
tional dimension.
Regarding the third and nal objective of this review, few studies
offered an analysis of the validity of the developed scales, and, to a lesser
degree, about their factorial invariance across different populations.
Each validated instrument focused on two dimensions of cyber dating
violence, albeit with specic differences. As such, the control/moni-
toring component promises to be a robust dimension as it is identied by
several studies (Cava & Buelga, 2018; Mu˜
niz, 2017; Wright, 2015).
Only two instruments (Cava & Buelga, 2018; Morelli et al., 2018)
assessed both aggression and victimization, meaning that to date, we
have very little information about violence perpetrated and received by
the same participants and under the same behaviors (Brown & Hegarty,
2018).
To summarize, there is a clear need for further research that attempts
to dene the dimensions which encompass cyber dating violence, in
order to develop robust and valid instruments that enable us to identify
and compare the prevalence data and to gain a more comprehensive
understanding of the phenomenon, thus promoting possible prevention
and intervention programs (Backe et al., 2018). This research is espe-
cially relevant for the adolescent population, which seems to be the most
vulnerable group to the effects of being involved in violent dating re-
lationships (Flach & Deslandes, 2017).
Our study has several limitations. First, violence via new technolo-
gies is an emerging phenomenon that lacks internationally terminology.
Because of the plethora of terms available, documents using different
labels from those selected in this review may have not been identied.
Furthermore, by limiting our search to documents written in English and
Spanish, this excludes other-language research studies that perhaps lend
important information. The next limitation is directly linked to the
analysis of the measures. Due to the emergence of new violent behav-
iors, in some cases, it is difcult to identify their nature and underlying
intentions. For example, partner impersonation on social media can be
understood as controlling behavior whether it is done to obtain infor-
mation about one’s partner, as well as relational if the intention is to
disrupt the partner’s peer relationships. In order to facilitate under-
standing, future measures must include a detailed description of the
measured behaviors.
5. Conclusions
To conclude, this systematic review has attempted to gather known
information about the available instruments used to measure adolescent
cyber dating violence. Besides, it provides a summary of the dimensions
identied to date, discussing them according to the population type, to
instrument implementation, and their psychometric properties, thus
serving as a reference when other scholars will develop new cyber dating
violence measures.
According to the measures, cyber dating violence could be consid-
ered a multidimensional construct with sexual and nonsexual behaviors
grouped into different dimensions. This analysis contributes to the un-
derstanding of cyber dating violence as an extension of face-to-face
dating violence, allowing the expression and rening of new behaviors
like control/monitoring, cyber sexual violence, or public aggression.
Lastly, in line with other authors (Brown & Hegarty, 2018; Geffner,
2016), the literature at times uses the terms aggression, abuse, and
violence interchangeably. Authors must dene these terms in their
measures and the theoretical framework adopted. Accepting the term
abuse in their denitions should qualitatively modify the instruments
since the aggressions would be accompanied by a specic context
M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 58 (2021) 101613
9
(intents to hurt the partner and the presence of imbalance of power
between the partners). In this case, mutual abuse would be less frequent,
nding higher prevalence rates in boys (Geffner, 2016). It is funda-
mental to delimit if we measure aggression, abuse, or violence among
teenagers. For example, insulting a partner once via technology can be
interpreted as aggression but not considered abuse. It would need to
occur several times to be considered abuse, as in face-to-face dating
abuse. By contrast, aggression could be considered abuse if it has severe
consequences for the victim and if the intention to hurt the partner is
clearly stated. For example, the public broadcast of a video with sexual
content as a form of revenge porn. Future research should also deep
whether the public or private exposure to certain behaviors modulates
the perception of aggression or abuse.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
María-Luisa Rodríguez-deArriba: Conceptualization, Methodol-
ogy, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Visualization. AnnaLaura
Nocentini: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
Ersilia Menesini: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. Vir-
ginia S´
anchez-Jim´
enez: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing –
review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding
acquisition.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no conicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
Funding
The project leading to these results has received funding from the
Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (Nacional Grant PSI-2017-
86723-R) and from “la Caixa Foundation”, under agreement (LCF/PR/
SR19/52540005) awarded to V.S.J. Spanish Ministry of Science and
Innovation nanced the fellowship of M.L.R.A. (PRE2018-083510).
References
Agnew-Brune, C. B. (2016). “It’s a bad thing… but it’s a good thing too”: A mixed-methods
examination of technology use and cyber dating abuse perpetration in adolescent romantic
relationships (doctoral dissertation). United States: The University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill.
Backe, E. L., Lilleston, P., & McCleary-Sills, J. (2018). Networked individuals, gendered
violence: A literature review of cyberviolence. Violence and Gender, 5(3), 135–146.
https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2017.0056
Barter, C., Stanley, N., Wood, M., Lanau, A., Aghtaie, N., Larkins, C., & Øverlien, C.
(2017). Young people’s online and face-to-face experiences of interpersonal violence
and abuse and their subjective impact across ve European countries. Psychology of
Violence, 7(3), 375–384. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000096
Bennett, D. C., Guran, E. L., Ramos, M. C., & Margolin, G. (2011). College students’
electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships: Anticipated distress
and associations with risky behaviors. Violence and Victims, 26(4), 410–429. https://
doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.26.4.410
Borrajo, E., G´
amez-Guadix, M., Pereda, N., & Calvete, E. (2015). The development and
validation of the cyber dating abuse questionnaire among young couples. Computers
in Human Behavior, 48, 358–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.063
Brown, C., & Hegarty, K. (2018). Digital dating abuse measures: A critical review.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 40, 44–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
avb.2018.03.003
Buelga, S., & Pons, J. (2012). Agresiones entre Adolescentes a trav´
es del Tel´
efono M´
ovil y
de Internet. Psychosocial Intervention, 21(1), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.5093/
in2012v21n1a2
Capaldi, D. M., Knoble, N. B., Shortt, J. W., & Kim, H. K. (2012). A systematic review of
risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 231–280. https://doi.
org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231
Cava, M. J., & Buelga, S. (2018). Propiedades psicom´
etricas de la Escala de Ciber-
Violencia en Parejas Adolescentes (Cib-VPA). Suma Psicol´
ogica, 25(1), 51-61. doi:
10.14349/sumapsi.2018.v25.n1.6.
Collins, W. A., Welsh, D. P., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent romantic relationships.
Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 631–652. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
psych.60.110707.163459
Cutbush, S. (2015). Teen dating violence perpetration among middle school youth: The role of
bullying, sexual harassment, and gender (doctoral dissertation). United States: The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Cutbush, S., & Williams, J. (2016). Teen dating violence, sexual harassment, and bullying
among middle school youth: Examining measurement invariance by gender. Journal
of Research on Adolescence, 26(4), 918–926. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12244
Cutbush, S., Williams, J., Miller, S., Gibbs, D., & Clinton-Sherrod, M. (2018).
Longitudinal patterns of electronic teen dating violence among middle school
students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886260518758326
Dank, M., Lachman, P., Zweig, J. M., & Yahner, J. (2014). Dating violence experiences of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43
(5), 846–857. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9975-8
Dick, R. N., McCauley, H. L., Jones, K. A., Tancredi, D. J., Goldstein, S., Blackburn, S., …
Miller, E. (2014). Cyber dating abuse among teens using school-based health centers.
Pediatrics, 134(6), e1560–e1567. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-0537
Domínguez-Mora, R., Vargas-Jim´
enez, E., Castro-Casta˜
neda, R., & Nu˜
nez-Fadda, S. M.
(2016). Impacto de la comunicaci´
on familiar en la victimizaci´
on por internet en
parejas adolescentes. Una perspectiva de g´
enero. Opci´
on, 32(13), 979–1000.
Doucette, H., Collibee, C., Hood, E., Gittins Stone, D. I., DeJesus, B., & Rizzo, C. J. (2018).
Perpetration of electronic intrusiveness among adolescent females: Associations with
in-person dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–21. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0886260518815725
Ellis, W. E., Crooks, C. V., & Wolfe, D. A. (2009). Relational aggression in peer and dating
relationships: Links to psychological and behavioral adjustment. Social Development,
18(2), 253–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2008.00468.x
Fern´
andez-Gonz´
alez, L., O’Leary, K. D., & Mu˜
noz-Rivas, J. M. (2014). Age-related
changes in dating aggression in Spanish High School Students. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 29(6), 1135–1152. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886260513506057
Finkelhor, D., Mitchell, K. J., & Wolak, J. (2000). Online victimization: A report on the
nation’s youth. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Missing & Exploited Children.
Flach, R. M. D., & Deslandes, S. F. (2017). Cyber dating abuse in affective and sexual
relationships: A literature review. Cadernos De Saude Publica, 33(7), e00138516.
https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00138516
Foshee, V. A. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types
and injuries. Health Education Research, 11(3), 275–286. https://doi.org/10.1093/
her/11.3.275-a
Foshee, V. A., Beneeld, T., Chen, M. S., Reyes, L. M., Dixon, K. S., Ennett, S. T., …
Bowling, J. M. (2016). The effects of the moms and teens for safe dates program on
dating abuse: A conditional process analysis. Prevention Science, 17(3), 357–366.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0617-0
Foshee, V. A., Beneeld, T., Dixon, K. S., Chang, L. Y., Senkomago, V., Ennett, S. T., …
Bowling, J. M. (2015). The effects of moms and teens for safe dates: A dating abuse
prevention program for adolescents exposed to domestic violence. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 44(5), 995–1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0272-6
Foshee, V. A., Linder, G. F., Bauman, K. E., Langwick, S. A., Arriaga, X. B., Heath, J. L., …
Bangdiwala, S. (1996). The Safe Dates Project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design,
and selected baseline ndings. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(5), 39–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(18)30235-6
Franklin, Z. (2014). Justice for revenge porn victims: Legal theories to overcome claims
of civil immunity by operators of revenge porn websites. California Law Review, 102
(5), 1303-1336. doi:10.15779/Z389J8H.
G´
amez-Guadix, M., Borrajo, E., & Calvete, E. (2018). Partner abuse, control and violence
through internet and smartphones: Characteristics, evaluation and prevention.
Psychologist Papers, 39(3), 218-227. doi:10.23923/pap.psicol2018.2874.
Geffner, R. (2016). Partner aggression versus partner abuse terminology: Moving the
eld forward and resolving controversies. Journal of Family Violence, 31(8), 923–925.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-016-9898-8
Griezel, L. (2007). Out of the schoolyard and into cyber space: Elucidating the nature and
psychosocial consequences of traditional and cyber bullying for Australian secondary
students. Unpublished honours thesis, University of Western Sydney, Sydney.
Han, S. C., & Margolin, G. (2016). Intergenerational links in victimization: Prosocial
friends as a buffer. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma, 9(2), 153–165. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40653-015-0075-7
Hellevik, P., & Øverlien, C. (2016). Teenage intimate partner violence: Factors associated
with victimization among Norwegian youths. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health,
44(7), 702–708. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494816657264
Johnson, S. E. (2017). Teen digital dating abuse: Development and validation of a self-report
measure. Northeastern University: Doctoral dissertation.
Kernsmith, P. D., Victor, B. G., & Smith-Darden, J. P. (2018). Online, ofine, and over the
line: Coercive sexting among adolescent dating partners. Youth & Society, 50(7),
891–904. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X18764040
Linder, J. R., Crick, N. R., & Collins, W. A. (2002). Relational aggression and
victimization in young adults’ romantic relationships: Associations with perceptions
of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality. Social Development, 11(1), 69–86.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9507.00187
Litwiller, B. J., & Brausch, A. M. (2013). Cyber bullying and physical bullying in
adolescent suicide: The role of violent behavior and substance use. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence, 42(5), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9925-5
Lu, Y., Van Ouytsel, J., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., & Temple, J. R. (2018). Cross-sectional
and temporal associations between cyber dating abuse victimization and mental
health and substance use outcomes. Journal of Adolescence, 65, 1–5. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.adolescence.2018.02.009
Machimbarrena, J., Calvete, E., Fern´
andez-Gonz´
alez, L., ´
Alvarez-Bard´
on, A., ´
Alvarez-
Fern´
andez, L., & Gonz´
alez-Cabrera, J. (2018). Internet risks: An overview of
M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al.
Aggression and Violent Behavior 58 (2021) 101613
10
victimization in cyberbullying, cyber dating abuse, sexting, online grooming and
problematic internet use. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 15(11), 2471–2485. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15112471
Miller, E., Goldstein, S., McCauley, H. L., Jones, K. A., Dick, R. N., Jetton, J., …
Tancredi, D. J. (2015). A school health center intervention for abusive adolescent
relationships: A cluster RCT. Pediatrics, 135(1), 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1542/
peds.2014-2471
Morelli, M., Bianchi, D., Chirumbolo, A., & Baiocco, R. (2018). The cyber dating violence
inventory. Validation of a new scale for online perpetration and victimization among
dating partners. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 15(4), 464–471.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17405629.2017.1305885
Mu˜
niz, M. (2017). Online teen dating violence, family and school climate from a gender
perspective/Violencia de pareja online en la adolescencia, clima familiar y escolar
desde la perspectiva de g´
enero. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 40(3), 572–598. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02103702.2017.1341101
Mu˜
noz-Fern´
andez, N., & S´
anchez-Jim´
enez, V. (2020). Cyber-aggression and
psychological aggression in adolescent couples: A short-term longitudinal study on
prevalence and common and differential predictors. Computers in Human Behavior,
104, 106191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106191
National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy and CosmoGirl.com.
(2008). Sex and tech: Results from a survey of teens and young adults. Recovered from
https://www.dibbleinstitute.org/pdf/SexTech_Summary.pdf Accessed 25 July 2019.
Peskin, M. F., Markham, C. M., Shegog, R., Temple, J. R., Baumler, E. R., Addy, R. C., …
Emery, S. T. (2017). Prevalence and correlates of the perpetration of cyber dating
abuse among early adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(2), 358–375.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0568-1
Picard, P. (2007). Tech abuse in teen relationships. Chicago, IL: Teen Research Unlimited.
Recovered from. https://www.breakthecycle.org/sites/default/les/pdf/survey-lina
-tech-2007.pdf.
Quesada, S., Fernandez-Gonzalez, L., & Calvete, E. (2018). Sexting in adolescence:
Frequency and association with the victimization of cyberbullying and dating
violence. Behavioral psychology, 26(2), 225–242.
Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., & Safyer, P. (2015). Too close for comfort: Attachment
insecurity and electronic intrusion in college students’ dating relationships.
Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 431–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2015.03.050
Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., & Ward, L. M. (2016). Snooping and sexting: Digital media as
a context and tool for dating violence among college students. Violence Against
Women, 22, 1556–1576. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216630143
Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., & Ward, L. M. (2017). Gender matters: Experiences and
consequences of digital dating abuse victimization in adolescent dating
relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 59, 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
adolescence.2017.05.015
Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., Ward, L. M., & Safyer, P. (2016). Keeping tabs: Attachment
anxiety and electronic intrusion in high school dating relationships. Computers in
Human Behavior, 58, 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.019
Reed, L. A., Ward, L. M., Tolman, R. M., Lippman, J. R., & Seabrook, R. C. (2018). The
association between stereotypical gender and dating beliefs and digital dating abuse
perpetration in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518801933
Rizzo, C. J., Joppa, M., Barker, D., Collibee, C., Zlotnick, C., & Brown, L. K. (2018).
Project date SMART: A dating violence (DV) and sexual risk prevention program for
adolescent girls with prior DV exposure. Prevention Science, 19(4), 416–426. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11121-018-0871-z
Rodríguez-Domínguez, C., Dur´
an-Segura, M., & Martínez-Pecino, R. (2018).
Ciberagresores en el noviazgo adolescente y su relaci´
on con la violencia psicol´
ogica,
el sexismo y los celos. Health and Addictions, 18(1), 17–27.
S´
anchez-Jim´
enez, V., Mu˜
noz-Fern´
andez, N., Lucio, L. A., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2017).
Ciberagresi´
on en parejas adolescentes: un estudio transcultural Espa ˜
na-M´
exico.
Revista Mexicana de Psicología, 34(1), 46–54. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.
org/articulo.oa?id=243056045005.
S´
anchez-Jim´
enez, V., Mu˜
noz-Fern´
andez, N., & Ortega-Rivera, J. (2018). Efcacy
evaluation of“ Dat-e Adolescence”: A dating violence prevention program in Spain.
PLoS One, 13(10), Article e0205802. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0205802
S´
anchez-Jim´
enez, V., Mu˜
noz-Fern´
andez, N., & Ortega-Ruíz, R. (2015). “Cyberdating Q_
A”: An instrument to assess the quality of adolescent dating relationships in social
networks. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 78–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2015.01.006
Smith, K., C´
enat, J. M., Lapierre, A., Dion, J., H´
ebert, M., & Cˆ
ot´
e, K. (2018). Cyber dating
violence: Prevalence and correlates among high school students from small urban
areas in Quebec. Journal of Affective Disorders, 234, 220–223. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jad.2018.02.043
Smith-Darden, J. P., Kernsmith, P. D., Victor, B. G., & Lathrop, R. A. (2017). Electronic
displays of aggression in teen dating relationships: Does the social ecology matter?
Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chb.2016.10.015
Stephenson, V. L., Wickham, B. M., & Capezza, N. M. (2018). Psychological abuse in the
context of social media. Violence and Gender, 5(3), 129–134. https://doi.org/
10.1089/vio.2017.0061
Stewart, R. W., Drescher, C. F., Maack, D. J., Ebesutani, C., & Young, J. (2014). The
development and psychometric investigation of the Cyberbullying Scale. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 29(12), 2218–2238. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0886260513517552
Stonard, K. E. (2019). Technology-assisted adolescent dating violence and abuse: A factor
analysis of the nature of electronic communication technology used across twelve
types of abusive and controlling behaviour. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(1),
105–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1255-5
Stonard, K. E. (2020). “Technology was designed for this”: adolescents’ perceptions of
the role and impact of the use of technology in cyber dating violence. Computers in
human behavior, 105, Article 106211. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2019.106211.
Stonard, K. E., Bowen, E., Lawrence, T. R., & Price, S. A. (2014). The relevance of
technology to the nature, prevalence and impact of adolescent dating violence and
abuse: A research synthesis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 390–417. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.06.005
Temple, J. R., Choi, H. J., Brem, M., Wolford-Clevenger, C., Stuart, G. L., Peskin, M. F., &
Elmquist, J. (2016). The temporal association between traditional and cyber dating
abuse among adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(2), 340–349. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0380-3
Tolman, R. M. (1999). The validation of the psychological maltreatment of women
inventory. Violence and Victims, 14, 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/t02499-000
Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2011). The role of social network sites in romantic
relationships: Effects on jealousy and relationship happiness. Journal of Computer-
Mediated Communication, 16(4), 511–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-
6101.2011.01552.x
Van Ouytsel, J., Ponnet, K., & Walrave, M. (2017). Cyber dating abuse: Investigating
digital monitoring behaviors among adolescents from a social learning perspective.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517719538
Van Ouytsel, J., Ponnet, K., & Walrave, M. (2018). Cyber dating abuse victimization
among secondary school students from a lifestyle-routine activities theory
perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(17), 2767–2776. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0886260516629390
Van Ouytsel, J., Ponnet, K., Walrave, M., & Temple, J. R. (2016). Adolescent cyber dating
abuse victimization and its associations with substance use, and sexual behaviors.
Public Health, 135, 147–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2016.02.011
Van Ouytsel, J., Torres, E., Choi, H. J., Ponnet, K., Walrave, M., & Temple, J. R. (2017).
The associations between substance use, sexual behaviors, bullying, deviant
behaviors, health, and cyber dating abuse perpetration. The Journal of School Nursing,
33(2), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840516683229
Watkins, L. E., Maldonado, R. C., & DiLillo, D. (2018). The cyber aggression in
relationships scale: A new multidimensional measure of technology-based intimate
partner aggression. Assessment, 25(5), 608–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1073191116665696
Williams, C., Richardson, D. S., Hammock, G. S., & Janit, A. S. (2012). Perceptions of
physical and psychological aggression in close relationships: A review. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 17(6), 489–494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.06.005
Wolfe, D. A., Scott, K., Reitzel-Jaffe, D., Wekerle, C., Grasley, C., & Straatman, A. L.
(2001). Development and validation of the conict in adolescent dating relationships
inventory. Psychological Assessment, 13, 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-
3590.13.2.277
Wright, M. F. (2015). Cyber aggression within adolescents’ romantic relationships:
Linkages to parental and partner attachment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44
(1), 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-014-0147-2
Wright, M. F., & Li, Y. (2013). The association between cyber victimization and
subsequent cyber aggression: The moderating effect of peer rejection. Journal of
Youth & Adolescence, 42(5), 662–674. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9903-3
Yahner, J., Dank, M., Zweig, J. M., & Lachman, P. (2015). The co-occurrence of physical
and cyber dating violence and bullying among teens. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 30(7), 1079–1089. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514540324
Ybarra, M., Espelage, D. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2007). The co-occurrence of Internet
harassment and unwanted sexual solicitation victimization and perpetration:
Associations with psychosocial indicators. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41(6),
S31–S41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.010
Ybarra, M., Price-Feeney, M., Lenhart, A., & Zickuhr, K. (2017). Intimate partner digital
abuse. Center for Innovative Public Health Research. https://innovativepublichealth.
org/publications/intimate-partner-digital-abuse/ (Accessed 25 July 2019).
Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse
among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 42(7), 1063–1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-
9922-8
Zweig, J. M., Lachman, P., Yahner, J., & Dank, M. (2014). Correlates of cyber dating
abuse among teens. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(8), 1306–1321. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10964-013-0047-x
M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al.
