Full length article
Intimate abuse through technology: A systematic review of scientific Constructs and behavioral dimensions

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106861Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We identified 42 constructs and 20 multidimensional behavioral sets.

  • Cyber dating abuse and digital dating abuse tend to be the most prevalent constructs.

  • Digital dating abuse and the initial formulation of cyber dating abuse can be characterized as the most inclusive.

  • Behavioral dimensions should consider a control/monitoring dimension, an aggression dimension and a sexual dimension.

Abstract

In the last decade, research related to intimate abuse through technology has increased exponentially, and numerous scientific constructs have been created to define this phenomenon. These constructs tend to be compared or used interchangeably, but several previous studies have emphasized that this multiplurality of constructs could contribute to the existence of constraints in the interpretation and comparison of results between studies. To address these constraints, we undertook a systematic review with the aims of (1) identifying scientific constructs related to intimate abuse through technology and (2) identifying behavioral dimensions developed to analyze this phenomenon. In our review, we included 126 studies and identified 42 constructs and 20 multidimensional behavioral sets related to intimate abuse through technology. On the basis of our analysis, we recommend that future studies adopt the construct of digital dating abuse or the initial theoretical formulation of cyber dating abuse to analyze this phenomenon since they both provide formal definitions and full-spectrum behavioral dimensions; however, these constructs also present some limitations. We also recommend that future studies consider expanding this research field to different configurations of intimate relationships, considering the inclusion of more diverse age groups.

Introduction

The past decade was a decade of exponential technological developments that contributed to the massification of digital communication. Technological devices (e.g., laptops, mobile phones) are considered an integral part of our lives, facilitating and potentiating communications, especially between intimate partners (Morey, Gentzler, Creasy, Oberhauser, & Westerman, 2013). Intimate partners are individuals that share a close personal relationship, that can be characterized by emotional connectedness, regular contact, ongoing physical contact, sexual behavior and identify as a couple (e.g., dating couples, married couples) (Breiding, Basile, Smith, Black, & Mahendra, 2015). In these relationships, technological developments have contributed to maintain proximity through instant communication and to the consolidation of new relationships (Laliker & Lannutti, 2014; Mosley & Lancaster, 2019; Reed, Tolman, & Ward, 2016). Despite these benefits, scholars have also noticed that these developments may have contributed to a shift in the traditional paradigm of intimate abuse. Before the widespread use of technological devices, intimate abuse tended to occur when the perpetrator and the victim shared some kind of physical proximity (Zweig, Dank, Yahner, & Lachman, 2013). Since technological devices and applications for instant communication are easy to use, intimate abuse through technology can occur instantaneously because perpetrators and victims are “available” at any moment of the day (Harris & Woodlock, 2019; Melander, 2010).

Intimate abuse through technology is a recent phenomenon and extensive research has been published in the last decade. Nonetheless, one critical theoretical issue remains unresolved: there is a lack of academic consensus on how to conceptualize and define this phenomenon (Brown & Hegarty, 2018; Duerksen & Woodin, 2019a; Lara, 2020). Considering that a recent study identified 30 different constructs, this issue is particularly clear (Fernet, Lapierre, Hébert, & Cousineau, 2019). As highlighted by previous reviews, the existence of multiple constructs and this lack of consensus could contribute to the constraint in the comparison of results between different studies (Brown & Hegarty, 2018; Caridade, Braga, & Borrajo, 2019b; Fernet et al., 2019; Flach & Deslandes, 2017; Gámez-Guadix, Borrajo, & Calvete, 2018). As a consequence, prevalence rates for perpetration tend to fluctuate considerably between studies (Brown, Reed, & Messing, 2018; Fernet et al., 2019; Muñoz-Fernández & Sánchez-Jiménez, 2020). As an example, a previous systematic review found that the perpetration rates oscillated between 8.1% and 93.7% (Caridade et al., 2019b). This constraint can also be found in results regarding sex/gender differences since some studies have reported no evidence of sex/gender differences in victimization (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda, & Calvete, 2015c; Hancock, Keast, & Ellis, 2017; Smith et al., 2018; Smith-Darden, Kernsmith, Victor, & Lathrop, 2017; Wright et al., 2015; Wolford-Clevenger et al., 2016), while other studies have reported greater victimization of feminine sex/gender (Dick et al., 2014; Felmlee & Faris, 2016; Hellevik & Øverlien, 2016; Semenza et al., 2019; Yahner et al., 2015; Zweig et al., 2013, 2014) or greater victimization of the masculine sex/gender (Bennett, Guran, Ramos, & Margolin, 2011; Cutbush, Williams, Miller, Gibbs, & Clinton-Sherrod, 2018; Durán & Martínez-Pecino, 2015; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; García-Sánchez, Guevara-Martínez, Rojas-Solís, Peña-Cárdenas, & González Cruz, 2017; Hinduja & Patchin, 2020b). Since the creation of quantitative self-reporting instruments is tied to the authors’ adopted construct and associated behavioral dimensions, a possible explanation for this discrepancy in results could be provided by the instruments developed to measure this phenomenon (Brown & Hegarty, 2018).

Although numerous constructs have been created to define this phenomenon, cyber dating abuse (CDA) tends to be the most prevalent construct in scientific publications (Caridade et al., 2019b). CDA is defined as the “control, harassment, stalking and abuse of one's dating partner via technology and social media” (Zweig, Lachman, Yahner, & Dank, 2014) and originally compromised the behavioral dimensions of sexual cyber abuse (e.g., pressuring a partner to send sexual or naked photos) and nonsexual abuse (e.g., using a partner social networking account without permission) (Zweig et al., 2013). With the development of a quantitative instrument (Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire - CDAQ), Borrajo et al. (2015c) proposed the behavioral dimensions of direct aggression (e.g., writing a comment on a social network to insult or humiliate a partner) and monitoring/control (e.g., controlling a partner status updates on social networks). Digital dating abuse is another example of a construct developed to define this phenomenon. DDA is defined as “a pattern of behaviors that control, pressure, or threaten a dating partner using a cell phone or the Internet” (Futures Without Violence, 2009; Reed et al., 2016) and considers the behavioral dimensions of digital sexual coercion (e.g., pressuring a partner to sext), digital direct aggression (e.g., sending threatening messages to a partner) and digital monitoring/control (e.g., monitoring the whereabouts and activities of a partner) (Reed, Tolman, & Ward, 2017). Considering the definitions of CDA and DDA, and according to Reed et al.‘s (2016) conceptualization of intimate abuse through technology, this phenomenon can be characterized as a triadic phenomenon composed of the following elements: i) a digital element (e.g., encompassing all possible means of digital communication); ii) a dating element (e.g., the behaviors occur in a current or former intimate relationship); and iii) an abusive element (e.g., the existence of behavioral patterns that harm an intimate partner) (Reed et al., 2016). Even though the definitions of CDA and DDA are similar and both constructs analyze the behavioral multidimensionality of this phenomenon, it is possible to identify one conceptual difference in the behavioral dimensions; namely, Borrajo et al. (2015c) multidimensional behavioral set does not consider a dimension related to behaviors of intimate sexual abuse through technology.

Following previous studies’ recommendations related to the pertinence of adopting or creating a homogeneous construct to analyze this phenomenon, with this systematic review, we aim to contribute to the solidification of the theoretical knowledge related to intimate abuse through technology. As such, we aim to i) identify and analyze the multiple constructs created to define the phenomenon of intimate abuse through technology and ii) identify and analyze the behavioral dimensions associated with these constructs. Although several reviews were published in the last couple of years, those reviews considered different objectives, such as describing and reviewing the instruments created to measure intimate abuse through technology (Brown & Hegarty, 2018), analyzing prevalence rates, instruments and risk factors (Calvalcanti & Coutinho, 2019), identifying quantitative study findings and methodological characteristics (Caridade et al., 2019b), analyzing results related to the victimization of individuals of feminine sex/gender (Fernet et al., 2019) and identifying how the literature defined the phenomenon (Flach & Deslandes, 2017). Although the objective of the last cited article resembles our first objective, the authors only focused on summarizing the definitions of the identified constructs.

Section snippets

Search strategies

As search strategy, we outlined combinations of keywords based on pre-established keywords (Table 1). These pre-established keywords are related to the three elements that constitute intimate abuse through technology. The primary keywords are associated with the digital element, the secondary with the dating element and the tertiary with the abusive element.

By combining the pre-established keywords, we obtained a total of 24 combinations of research keywords (e.g., cyber dating abuse, digital

Scientific constructs

From our review, we were able to identify 42 scientific constructs to analyze and define the phenomenon of intimate abuse through technology (Table 3).

Analyzing our results, it was possible to verify that the constructs of cyber dating abuse (CDA) (n = 43), digital dating abuse (DDA) (n = 15), technology-assisted adolescent dating violence and abuse (TAADVA) (n = 6), cyber dating violence (CDV) (n = 6), cyber intimate partner victimization (CIPV) (n = 4) and ciber-violencia de pareja (CVP)

Discussion

In the present systematic review, we identified 42 constructs and 20 multidimensional behavioral sets related to intimate abuse through technology. Only 21 constructs provided some form of definition to contextualize the construct, and only 10 constructs had an original formal definition created by the authors that conceptualized the construct. Comparing our results with previous reviews (Brown & Hegarty, 2018; Caridade et al., 2019b; Fernet et al., 2019; Flach & Deslandes, 2017; Gámez-Guadix

Limitations

As for this study's limitations, our delineated objectives could be considered a limitation since we only aimed to identify the constructs and the behavioral dimensions related to intimate abuse through technology and did not analyze the selected study findings.

With regard to our discussion on the importance of analyzing this phenomenon under multiple configurations of intimate relationships, we would like to address that our choice of secondary keywords (“dating” and “intimate”) can be thought

Conclusions

To achieve the goal of homogenizing this field of study, our results suggest that the constructs of digital dating abuse and Zweig et al.‘s (2013) CDA formulation can be characterized as the most inclusive and holistic for analyzing this phenomenon since both take into account the existence of the three core elements of intimate abuse through technology: i) a digital element; ii) a dating element; and iii) an abusive element. Additionally, both provide robust formal definitions and adopt

Authorship statement

Conceptualization: Rocha-Silva, T., Rodrigues, L. Data curation: Rocha-Silva, T. Formal analysis: Rocha-Silva, T. Funding acquisition: Non applicable. Investigation: Rocha-Silva, T. Methodology: Rocha-Silva, T., Rodrigues, L. Project administration: Rocha-Silva, T. Resources: Rocha-Silva, T. Software: Rocha-Silva, T. Supervision: Nogueira, C., Rodrigues, L. Validation: Rocha-Silva, T., Rodrigues, L. Visualization: Rocha-Silva, T. Roles/Writing - original draft: Rocha-Silva, T. Writing - review

References (123)

  • N. Muñoz-Fernández et al.

    Cyber-aggression and psychological aggression in adolescent couples: A short-term longitudinal study on prevalence and common and differential predictors

    Computers in Human Behavior

    (2020)
  • A. Murray et al.

    Teen dating violence: Old disease in a new world

    Clinical Pediatric Emergency Medicine

    (2019)
  • L.A. Reed et al.

    Name-calling, jealousy, and break-ups: Teen girls' and boys' worst experiences of digital dating

    Children and Youth Services Review

    (2020)
  • L.A. Reed et al.

    “It was a joke:” Patters in girls' and boys' self-reported motivations for digital dating abuse behaviors

    Children and Youth Services Review

    (2021)
  • L.A. Reed et al.

    Gender matters: Experiences and consequences of digital dating abuse victimization in adolescent dating relationships

    Journal of Adolescence

    (2017)
  • J.P. Smith-Darden et al.

    Electronic displays of aggression in teen dating relationships: Does the social ecology matter?

    Computers in Human Behavior

    (2017)
  • K. Smith et al.

    Cyber dating violence: Prevalence and correlates among high school students from small urban areas in Quebec

    Journal of Affective Disorders

    (2018)
  • V.D. Attewell

    Exploring cyber-based dating aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: Past, present and future

    ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

    (2013)
  • E.L. Backe et al.

    Networked individuals, gendered violence: A literature review of cyberviolence

    Violence and Gender

    (2018)
  • D.C. Bennett et al.

    College students' electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships: Anticipated distress and associations with risky behaviors

    Violence & Victims

    (2011)
  • E. Borrajo et al.

    Abuso “online” en el noviazgo: Relación con depresión, ansiedad y ajuste diádico

    Psicologia Conductual: Revista Internacional Clínica y de la Salud

    (2016)
  • E. Borrajo et al.

    Cyber dating abuse: Prevalence, context and relationship with offline dating aggression

    Psychological Reports: Relationships & Communications

    (2015)
  • E. Borrajo et al.

    Justification beliefs of violence, myths about love and cyber dating abuse

    Psicothema

    (2015)
  • M. Branson et al.

    Dangerous dating in the digital age: Jealousy, hostility, narcissism, and psychopathy as predictors of Cyber Dating Abuse

    Computers in Human Behavior

    (2021)
  • M.J. Breiding et al.

    Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements

    (2015)
  • M.J. Brem et al.

    Alcohol problems, jealousy, and cyber dating abuse perpetration among men and women: Toward a conceptual model

    Journal of Interpersonal Violence

    (2019)
  • M.J. Brem et al.

    A longitudinal examination of alcohol problems and cyber, psychological, and physical dating abuse: The moderating role of emotion dysregulation

    Journal of Interpersonal Violence

    (2019)
  • C. Brown et al.

    Digital dating abuse perpetration and impact: The importance of gender

    Journal of Youth Studies

    (2020)
  • C. Brown et al.

    Development and validation of the TAR scale: A measure of technology-facilitated abuse in relationships

    Computers in Human Behavior Reports

    (2021)
  • M.L. Brown et al.

    Technology-based abuse: Intimate partner violence and the use of information communication technologies

  • J.I. Cantu et al.

    Unique, additive, and interactive effects of types of intimate partner cybervictimization on depression in hispanic emerging adults

    Journal of Interpersonal Violence

    (2020)
  • F.P. Cárdenas et al.

    Uso problemático de internet, cyberbullying y ciber-violencia de pareja en jóvenes universitarios

    Diversitas: Perspectivas en Psicologia

    (2018)
  • S.M. Caridade et al.

    The Portuguese version of the cyber dating abuse questionnaire (CDAQ): Adapting and psychometric properties

    Análise Psicológica

    (2019)
  • S. Caridade et al.

    Youth cyber dating abuse: A meta-analysis of risk and protective factors

    Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace

    (2020)
  • S. Caridade et al.

    Cyber and offline dating abuse in a Portuguese sample: Prevalence and context of abuse

    Behavioral Science

    (2020)
  • M.J. Cava et al.

    Propriedades psicométricas de la Escala de Ciber-Violencia en Parejas Adolescentes (Cib-VPA)

    Suma Psicológica

    (2018)
  • M.J. Cava et al.

    Relations among romantic myths, offline dating violence victimization and cyber dating violence victimization in adolescents

    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

    (2020)
  • J.G. Cavalcanti et al.

    Abuso digital nos relacionamentos amorosos: uma revisão sobre prevalência, instrumentos de avaliação e fatores de risco

    Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana

    (2019)
  • J.G. Cavalcanti et al.

    Psychometric properties of the cyber dating abuse questionnaire

    Psico-USF

    (2020)
  • J.G. Cavalcanti et al.

    Abuso digital nas relações amorosas: Um estudo das representações sociais com universitários brasileiros

    Ciencias Psicológicas

    (2020)
  • M.J. Cava et al.

    Loneliness, depressive mood and cyberbullying victimization in adolescent victims of cyber dating violence

    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

    (2020)
  • T.R. Curry et al.

    A multi-theoretical perspective on cyber dating abuse victimization and perpetration within intimate relationships: A test of general strain, social learning, and self-control theories

    Victims and Offenders

    (2020)
  • S. Cutbush et al.

    Longitudinal patterns of electronic teen dating violence among middle school students

    Journal of Interpersonal Violence

    (2018)
  • M. Dank et al.

    Dating violence experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth

    Journal of Youth and Adolescence

    (2014)
  • H. Deans et al.

    Perpetrating cyber dating abuse: A brief report on the role of aggression, romantic jealousy and gender

    Current Psychology

    (2017)
  • R.N. Dick et al.

    Cyber dating abuse among teens using school-based health centers

    Pediatrics

    (2014)
  • H. Doucette et al.

    Perpetration of electronic intrusiveness among adolescent females: Associations with in-person dating violence

    Journal of Interpersonal Violence

    (2018)
  • K.N. Duerksen et al.

    Cyber dating abuse victimization: Links with psychosocial functioning

    Journal of Interpersonal Violence

    (2019)
  • M. Durán et al.

    Ciberacoso mediante teléfono móvil e internet en las relaciones de noviazgo entre jóvenes

    Comunicar

    (2015)
  • F. Espinobarros-Nava et al.

    Co-ocurrencia de distintas violencias en el noviazgo en una muestra de jóvenes mexicanos procedentes de zona rural

    Summa Psicológica

    (2018)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text