Full length articleIntimate abuse through technology: A systematic review of scientific Constructs and behavioral dimensions
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)
- et al.
Understanding digital dating abuse from an evolutionary perspective: Further evidence for the role of mate value discrepancy
Personality and Individual Differences
(2019) - et al.
The development and validation of the cyber dating abuse questionnaire among young couples
Computers in Human Behavior
(2015) - et al.
Digital dating abuse measures: A critical review
Aggression and Violent Behavior
(2018) - et al.
Cyber dating abuse (CDA): Evidence from a systematic review
Aggression and Violent Behavior
(2019) - et al.
Patterns of childhood maltreatment and intimate partner violence, emotion dysregulation, and mental health symptoms among lesbian, gay, and bisexual emerging adults: A three-step latent class approach
Child Abuse & Neglect
(2019) - et al.
Technological intimate partner violence: Exploring technology-related perpetration factors and overlap with in-person intimate partner violence
Computers in Human Behavior
(2019) - et al.
A systematic review of literature on cyber intimate partner victimization in adolescent girls and women
Computers in Human Behavior
(2019) Teenagers' personal accounts of experiences with digital intimate partner violence and abuse
Computers in Human Behavior
(2019)- et al.
Cross-sectional and temporal associations between cyber dating abuse victimization and mental health and substance use outcomes
Journal of Adolescence
(2018) - et al.
Young adults' use of communication technology within their romantic relationships and associations with attachment style
Computers in Human Behavior
(2013)