Cyber Dating Abuse (Cda) Evidence From a Systematic Review

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Enquiry Commodity

Cyber-dating abuse in young adult couples: Relations with sexist attitudes and violence justification, smartphone usage and impulsivity

• Rocío Linares,
• María Aranda,
• Marta García-Domingo,
• Teresa Amezcua,
• Virginia Fuentes,
• María Moreno-Padilla

10

• Published: June 21, 2021
• https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pone.0253180

Figures

Abstruse

Technologies take become important for interaction in couples. However, in some cases, decision-making and aggressive behaviors tin can occur in the context of virtual interactions in couples; this is known as cyber-dating abuse (CDA). Identifying factors linked to CDA, as perpetrator and victim, are relevant for its prevention; therefore, more research is needed in this novel field of written report. To contribute to the literature, our start goal was to clarify the associations amidst certain risk factors for CDA perpetration and victimization of, i.due east., sexist attitudes and violence justification, problematic smartphone usage and impulsivity; sexual practice and age were also considered. The 2nd goal was to report whether there were differences in direct aggression and command, from the perpetrator and victim perspectives, with consideration of the higher up-mentioned risk factors. Tertiary, differences in the diverse range of command behaviors and direct aggression between women and men were explored. To this end, 697 immature adults (aged between 18 and 35 years; 548 women) completed self-written report questionnaires that allowed cess of the above-mentioned variables. The results showed that, among the wide range of CDA behaviors, indirect ones such as control behaviors were the near common. The highest level of control was strongly associated with the inability to manage behaviors under certain emotional states, especially negative ones, along with problematic smartphone usage. Sex differences were also observed: men displayed more sexist attitudes and violence justification, and perceived that they were more controlled past their partners. Regarding CDA behaviors, men and women showed differences in command (eastward.g. men considered themselves to exist more controlled in terms of location and status updates), and directly aggression (e.1000. men used more than insults and humiliations than women). The results were discussed in terms of the importance of better understanding these risk factors to attenuate the increasing prevalence of CDA in relationships.

Commendation: Linares R, Aranda Grand, García-Domingo M, Amezcua T, Fuentes Five, Moreno-Padilla Yard (2021) Cyber-dating abuse in immature developed couples: Relations with sexist attitudes and violence justification, smartphone usage and impulsivity. PLoS I 16(six): e0253180. https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pone.0253180

Editor: Peter Karl Jonason, University of Padova, Italy

Received: March 3, 2021; Accepted: May 28, 2021; Published: June 21, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Linares et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Eatables Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in whatsoever medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The master data are available on figshare: https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/CDA_manuscript_sav/14744364/i.

Funding: The authors received funding past the Instituto de Estudios Giennenses (Jaén, Spain) for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

In recent years, information and communications technologies (ICTs) accept served as important tools for interaction and entertainment [1–3]. This is particularly the case in and so-called digital generations, who socialize and interact through virtual platforms. The Internet and social networks provide tools that facilitate the creation of interpersonal relationships. These tools include making calls or video calls, sending text letters, and sharing photos, documents or location the person. Young people utilize many of these digital media tools for dating [4], every bit they facilitate communication between the members of a couple, someday and anywhere. This is particularly important in generations Y and Z (Millennials and Centennials, respectively), who consider the smartphone an indispensable device to communicate with their peers and partner. In fact, members of generation Z (built-in between 1995 and 2010) are referred to as 'digital natives', as the kickoff generation born into an Internet-connected globe [5].

However, despite the benefits of ICTs, negative effects have also been documented. In the context of relationships, smartphone usage, which allows immediate access to the Internet, and social applications and advice tools, make people more accessible and susceptible to existence controlled, and more than at risk of interpersonal intrusion and harassment [4,6]. In turn, this can give rise to a form of violence called partner cyber-violence or cyber-dating corruption (CDA). CDA has been defined as the 'control, harassment, stalking, and corruption of i's dating partner via technology and social media' [7]. It encompasses a wide range of abusive behaviors grouped into two dimensions: directly assailment and control. Straight assailment involves behaviors aimed at harming the victim through direct attacks, such as threats, insults or spreading negative information about the partner or ex-partner, similar to identity theft. Control involves invading the privacy of a partner or surveilling their social relationships, activities, location and associates [viii,9].

Research indicates that CDA is growing worldwide [half dozen]. In item, information technology is important to address this miracle in immature adults, considering the risk of intimate partner violence peaks in that age group [ten], i.e., when people kickoff to engage in more than intimate and serious romantic relationships [11] and use ICTs heavily for communication [12]. Borrajo et al. [13] showed that approximately 50% of higher students have been involved in CDA. In terms of severity, approximately 93% of college students perpetrated, or were victims of, minor CDA (e.g. swearing, insulting), whereas 12%-13% reported astringent CDA (e.g. threats or public humiliation) [xiv] (for a review, meet [15]). Prevalence rates of perpetration and victimization of the unlike types of CDA varied greatly among studies. By and large, it has been concluded that cyber-control behaviors are more frequent than straight aggression through digital tools, such as text letters, emails, mobile phone apps, messages sent through different social networks, and webcams [16]. This indicates that the less explicit nature of command behaviors means that they are more than readily accepted past young people, and may be perceived as a demonstration of honey or romantic jealousy [17,eighteen].

Due to the prevalence and serious consequences of digital violence in couple relationships, obtaining more knowledge about the characteristics of victims and perpetrators, and the underlying factors, is important. Previous studies have shown a relationship between CDA perpetration and normative behavior, violence justification [17], and sexist beliefs [19]. In addition, information technology has been establish that existence a victim of CDA is a risk cistron for perpetration, and vice versa [20,21]. However, there are contradictory results almost the role of other psychosocial variables including age, sex, attitudes (such as gender-based ones), and personality traits such as impulsiveness, specially in the context of problematic smartphone usage, which should be further studied to meliorate sympathize CDA.

Concerning age, there is no consensus about its influence on CDA (both perpetration and victimization). While some studies found that CDA was more frequent among younger people [13], others found no such age difference [4]. This may exist due to the lack of variance in age; the bulk of studies included students who were just xviii years of historic period, with 25% being aged nineteen years). Finally, another study showed opposite results, reporting that older people (> 24 years) were more than probable to be victims of command [22].

The heterogeneous results on sex differences in CDA suggest that sexual activity is an unreliable predictor of engagement in these behaviors. Regarding perpetration, some studies found that a greater proportion of women were perpetrators of control [four,13,22]. Conversely, others have shown lower levels of control and direct aggression in women [23], and college levels of command [24] and direct aggression in men [25]. In terms of victimization, some authors concluded that women were more probable to be victims of control [4,22], while others reported a greater likelihood of men being the victim of intrusiveness, humiliation, hostility and exclusion [26,27]. Other inquiry found that both sexes perpetrate and endure from cyber-violence behaviors, particularly control, in the context of the couple relationship [13,28]. Finally, a contempo study [29] found no sexual activity differences in the perpetration of CDA, reporting that sex activity was a non-significant predictor of these behaviors.

Attitudes that could lead to acceptance and justification of violence take received attention in the literature on offline dating violence [30]. Co-ordinate to recent data, people with attitudes that justify violence towards a partner are more likely to be perpetrators or victims of CDA in all its forms [22]. Borrajo et al. [17] found that justification of beliefs related to CDA was associated with a college likelihood of being a direct victim of CDA, especially in women. Their study also showed that this justification was significantly linked to a higher likelihood of direct aggression in online dating relationships. Sexism has been shown to be related to ambitious behavior, and justification thereof, in offline relationships [31,32]. Individuals with sexist behavior adopt attitudes towards others based purely on their biological sexual practice [33]. In the context of online relationships, some research has plant an effect of sexist beliefs (e.g. 'women seek to engage men to control them) on cyberbullying behaviors against the partner [24] and CDA [34]. Specifically, Martinez-Pecino and Durán [24] found that males' levels of hostile sexism were related to cyberbullying of their girlfriends. These authors revealed an influence of hostile sexism on cyberbullying (every bit a blazon of cyber aggression) against women in dating relationships. Rodríguez et al. [34] found that cyber aggression was positively related to sexist beliefs among boys, particularly hostile ones, romantic jealousy, and other traditional forms of psychological violence. The role of sexist attitudes in being a victim of CDA has been less well-explored, although there have been some novel findings on this topic. Chivalrous sexist attitudes predicted victimization involving specific forms of aggression [35]. Women who feel certain types of aggression, "under the umbrella of sexism" (p. eight), tend to minimize their situation and normalize it to some caste [35] Among other underlying cerebral mechanisms, it seems that having sexist believes could lead to minimization of the aggression exhibited (from the perpetrator perspective), as well as the aggression received (from the victim perspective) [35,36].

Regarding control behaviors, hostile sexism and other variables, such as relational offline dating violence, accept been shown to predict cyber-control in boys [37]; while romantic myths and verbal-emotional offline dating violence were the primary predictors of cyber-control in girls [37]. Young people, influenced by sure myths about romantic love, come to consider jealousy and control of the partner every bit an expression of love, which makes it difficult for them to recognize that certain behaviors are forms of violence [37–39].

Finally, one of the most of import personality traits in fierce behavior has been shown to exist impulsivity, which is the strongest predictor of both juvenile and adult offending [40,41]. A Portuguese study carried out by Santos and Caridade [42] reported that partner self-control issues (impulsivity/aggressiveness) were among the most widely cited past adolescents every bit the main crusade of dating violence. Impulsivity predicts online deviance, including harassing or threatening posts and illegal hacking amid undergraduate students [43], and has stiff, direct effects on cyberbullying among youths [44]. These authors concluded that both suffering from cyber-victimization and higher impulsivity were adventure factors for condign a cyber-aggressor. These findings suggest that direct aggression may also be the result of an impulsive reaction to a previously experienced ambitious deed (reactive assailment). The widespread availability and use of smartphones can lead to impulsive controlling. This is in line with the finding of Wilmer and Chein [45] that heavier investment of time in a mobile device is related to weaker impulse control. Furthermore, social media users have a greater tendency to prefer smaller but immediate rewards in filibuster-discounting tasks, which besides indicates increased advantage-driven impulsivity [45]. Against this background, Marcum et al. [46] found that university students with lower levels of self-command were more likely to try to infiltrate personal accounts and rail their significant other without the knowledge of that person. Therefore, based on these findings, smartphone abuse may promote impulsive responses to, or the posting of, comments online, thereby facilitating impulsive, not-reflective communications and thus promoting CDA.

Several studies have too reported an association betwixt impulsivity and cyber-victimization. Furthermore, impulsivity has also been related to engaging in high-chance and addictive internet behaviour. According to Álvarez-García et al. [47], impulsivity is a risk factor for being a victim of direct aggression, both directly and indirectly via its effect on loftier-risk internet behaviors. This result is consistent with findings indicating that low self-control is associated with increased levels of cyber victimization [44,48]. However, although the prove about the clan between impulsivity and cyber-assailment/victimization is quite clear, studies focused on this association in the dating context are scarce.

In summary, research on the role of certain factors in CDA is relatively contempo and, in some cases, the data are insufficient to draw definitive conclusions. Therefore, additional research is needed to shed more calorie-free on this topic.

Because being a perpetrator or victim of cyber-aggression and cyber-control in relationships is the result of complex interactions among hazard factors, the first goal of this study was to explore the diverse factors associated with CDA, including sexist attitudes and violence justification, problematic smartphone usage, and impulsiveness, as well equally sex and historic period. No specific hypothesis was formulated given the descriptive and exploratory nature of this analysis. The 2nd goal was to analyze differences in CDA (straight aggression and command) by sexist attitudes and violence justification, problematic smartphone usage, and impulsiveness. Related hypotheses are as follows: a) Sexist attitudes/violence justification hypothesis. Following previous studies, we expected that participants exhibiting sexist attitudes and violence justification would accept higher CDA perpetration and victimization scores (direct assailment and control) than not-sexist participants [22]; b) Smartphone usage hypothesis. Based on previous findings, we expected that participants exhibiting problematic smartphone usage (e.thousand. dependence, meaning corporeality of fourth dimension invested, interference in daily life) would exert and receive more control and direct aggression [6,7,22]; c) Impulsiveness hypothesis. The about impulsive individuals were expected to display more direct aggression and control behaviors [47]. The third goal was to explore whether at that place were differences in the various range of controlling behaviors, every bit well as directly aggression, between women and men. According to the literature [4,22,23], in that location is no consensus on the utility of sexual activity as a predictor of CDA. Nonetheless, in line with previous results, we expected to observe sex differences in control behaviors and direct aggression.

Method

Participants

This study enrolled 697 young adults (undergraduates from various departments of the University of Jaén, Spain). The historic period range was 18–35 years (M ± SD = 22.08 ± 2.73 years). Participants aged between eighteen and 22 years were considered as generation Z (63.8%), whereas those aged from 23 and 35 years were considered Millennials (36.two%) [49,50]. Of the participants, 548 (78.6%) were women and 149 (21.4%) were men. All participants were in, or had been in, a relationship (average elapsing of 31.nine months). Those non currently in a relationship were asked to recollect almost their previous one when making their responses. The participants were recruited by emailing professors from various departments of the university. Regarding smartphone usage (number and type of apps, and time invested), most of the participants used only ane instant messaging app (74.9%); use of two or three of this kind of app was less frequent (22.1% and 3%, respectively). 'WhatsApp' was the nearly commonly used application amid participants. Variety was greater with respect to the social networks apps used. Near of the young adults used four (26.8%) or five (21.five%) applications, although substantial proportions also used iii (17.8%) or half-dozen (15.ix%). Fewer people used one or two social networks (1.ix% and five.v%, respectively), or seven (5.7%), eight (2.iv%) or 9 (ane.7%). The well-nigh popular applications were 'Instagram' (92.3%), 'YouTube' (91.8%), 'Spotify' (66.half-dozen%), 'Facebook' (64.four%) and 'Twitter' (58.five%). Regarding the number of hours spent using the smartphone, during weekdays thirteen.one% of the participants reported using their device for an average of i–2 hours/day, versus 37% for two–4 hours, 27.four% for 4–half dozen hours, 10% for six–viii hours, and 12.v% for more than eight hours per mean solar day. During the weekend, the percentage of young adults who reported using their smartphone for half dozen–viii hours or more than eight hours increased (14.6% and 21.1%, respectively), while the proportions of those using it less oft decreased (10.half dozen%, 27.8% and, 25.seven% for 1–2, 2–4 and 4–vi hours, respectively).

Measures

Cyber-dating abuse.

Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire (CDAQ) [8]. The xl items of this instrument measure the frequency with which a wide range of cyberbullying behaviors occurred during the last year of the couple relationship (from 1 ['never'] to 6 ['ever: more than 20 times']). Xx items pertain to victimization, and twenty others to perpetration (e.thousand. 'My partner or ex-partner has controlled the friendships I take on my social networks' and 'I have controlled the friendships of my partner or ex-partner on their social networks'). Both subscales comprise two dimensions: control (i.due east., the utilise of electronic means to control the partner/ex-partner), and direct assailment or interim with a deliberate intention to hurt the partner/ex-partner (i.eastward., sending insulting and/or demeaning messages using new technologies). The total possible score ranges from 9 to 54 for control perpetration and victimization, and from 11 to 66 for direct assailment perpetration and victimization. Higher scores indicate that the individual is a bigger perpetrator or victim of control and direct aggression. Cronbach'due south α is .87 for the command victimization scale, .81 for the command perpetration scale, .84 for the direct aggression victimization scale and .73 for the directly assailment perpetration scale.

Smartphone usage.

Dependency and Addiction to Smartphone Curt-Scale (DASS-18) [51]. This instrument consists of eighteen items with v-point Likert-type responses ranging from 1 ('totally disagree') to v ('totally concur'). It measures the fourth dimension spent using a smartphone and its apps, the anxiety felt when use is interrupted (voluntarily or involuntarily), and the extent of interference in daily life (e.g. 'My family, partner, friends, accept never complained about the fourth dimension I spend looking at my smartphone'). After inverting item 7, higher average scores indicate a greater degree of dependence and addiction. The total possible score ranges from eighteen to 90. Cronbach'southward α is .87.

Impulsivity.

UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Calibration, short Spanish version [52]. This musical instrument comprises 20 items that assess five impulsiveness traits (eastward.1000. 'I normally call up carefully earlier doing anything'): negative urgency, lack of premeditation, lack of perseverance, sensation seeking, and positive urgency. Responses are scored on a 4-signal Likert scale, ranging from one ('strongly agree') to 4 ('strongly disagree'). The full possible score ranges from 4 to sixteen for each scale. College scores indicate greater impulsivity. Cronbach'south α is .68 for the negative urgency scale, .78 for the lack of premeditation scale, .79 for the lack of perseverance scale, .81 for the sensation seeking calibration and .61 for the positive urgency scale.

Sexist attitudes and violence justification.

Attitudes towards Gender and Violence Questionnaire (AGVQ) [53]. This instrument comprises 47 statements (east.k. 'Currently, excessive importance is being given to women victims of gender violence') grouped into 4 factors: Gene 1: sexist beliefs about psychosocial differences and justification of violence as a reaction; Factor two: beliefs about the biological utility of sexism and violence; Cistron 3: conceptualization of gender violence as a private consequence and inevitable problem; and Factor 4: perceptions of women'southward access to economical opportunities, power and responsibility. The responses are scored on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ('Totally disagree') to 7 ('Totally hold'). Afterwards reversing the scoring for the indirect items, higher scores on the start three factors indicate more sexist attitudes and greater acceptance of violence. For the fourth factor, higher scores indicate more than positive perceptions. The total possible score ranges from 28 to 196 for Factor 1, viii to 56 for Factors 2 and 3, and 3 to 21 for Factor 4. Cronbach's α is .93 for Factor i, .69 for Gene ii, .56 for Factor three and .55 for Factor 4.

Sociodemographic variables.

Participants were besides asked almost their sexual practice, age, duration of current or recent relationship, and number and blazon of instant messaging and social network apps used. Specifically, regarding age, we considered two groups, generation Z (xviii–22 years quondam) and Millennials (23–35 years old), in gild to explore if the first generation born into an Cyberspace-connected world differed from the second one in the variables of interest.

Process

Data were collected in 2020. This was an online study; Google Forms was used to generate counterbalanced versions of the questionnaires using the D'Amato algorithm [54]. On the initial screen, participants were informed of the enquiry goals and their rights (eastward.g. voluntary participation, the right to withdraw at any fourth dimension and anonymity).

Regarding upstanding considerations, the 'Ethics Committee for Research with Humans of the University of Jaén' previously approved the project research. No minors participated in the written report. Informed consent was obtained at the beginning of the test; the report only proceeded if the participant checked the option 'yes, I give my consent to participate'. The anonymity of the test and numerical coding of the responses ensured the privacy of the participants.

Statistical analysis

Mean and standard deviation values were generated initially for the variables of interest. To reach the first study goal, multiple correspondence assay (MCA) was applied; this can be used to determine the underlying structure of big datasets. The MCA is a cardinal tool for analyzing relational spaces and units of analysis (categorical variables), and for illustrating and analyzing a multiplicity of relationships. In our study, there were ii categorical variables (age: Z generation vs. Millennials; sex: women vs. men), and four continuous variables (total of 14 dimensions). Analyzing variables co-ordinate to the levels over which the scores are distributed (depression, medium, high) facilitates understanding of how they function. At the start, MCA can be applied to quantitative and qualitative variables [55]. To transform each quantitative variable into a new categorical variable, the interquartile range was used. Thus, MCA is a simple fashion of graphing dissimilar types of coded variables, promoting rapid agreement and interpretation [56]. 2 MCA model dimensions were used. The structure of the relationship between categories of variables was analyzed, and dimensions representing various concepts were identified. Direct assailment (every bit victim and perpetrator) was not included in the MCA, due to low scores and variance that prevented categorization.

To examination the hypotheses associated with the second goal of this written report, Student's t-tests were performed. Perpetration and victimization of control and direct aggression were considered as dependent variables. The variables were dichotomized into low and loftier levels for loftier discriminability; their associations with the primary effect variable were then assessed. Specifically, the post-obit variables were analyzed: high dependence and addiction to the smartphone (DASS-18), negative urgency, positive urgency (UPPS-P), sexist beliefs most psychosocial differences and justification of violence, beliefs virtually the biological utility of sexism and violence, and conceptualization of gender violence as a individual upshot and inevitable trouble (AGVQ). Finally, to explore the third goal of this study, i.e., the effect of sex on the likelihood of being the perpetrator or victim of command and direct aggression was explored in depth through an item analysis. In both analyses, a critical α level of 0.05 was used for all comparisons. Additionally, Holm–Bonferroni sequential correction was used to decrease type-1 error in the case of multiple comparisons. Holm's adapted blastoff level was calculated via an Excel adding course past Gaetano [57].

Results

Descriptive assay

The hateful and standard divergence data are shown in Table 1. Focusing on the main outcome variable (CDA), it tin be seen that boilerplate scores for direct assailment in the context of the couple human relationship were especially low, from both the victim and perpetrator perspective (score range: xi–66).

Multiple correspondence analysis

The MCA model, which captured the distribution and categories of the variables, showed satisfactory reliability for both dimensions (D1: α = .63, D2: α = .53). These reliability values are in the optimal range for this type of analysis [58]. The distribution of the points in the factorial space of the categories indicated adequate inertia (D1 inertia = .172, D2 inertia = .141). Controlling behaviors, from both the victim and perpetrator perspectives, had a higher saturation index for D1. Problematic smartphone usage, and factors associated with impulsivity, particularly urgency to act nether negative and positive emotions, were besides discriminated more in D1. D2 included participants' sexual activity and the following attitudinal variables: sexist beliefs and justification of violence, beliefs about the utility of sexism and violence, and conceptualization of gender violence equally inevitable and private. Meanwhile, age, lack of premeditation, sensation seeking, and perception of women's admission to power and responsibility showed low levels of saturation (Table 2, Fig 1).

Fig 1. Discrimination indices of the variables for D1 and D2.

*Variables and abbreviations: (a) Problematic smartphone usage = smartphone; (b) Sexist beliefs and violence justification = sexism-violen-simply; (c) beliefs about the utility of sexism and violence = sexism-violen-utilit; (d) Conceptualization of gender violence as inevitable and individual = gender-violen; (e) Perception of women'south admission to ability and responsibleness = women-ability; (f) Negative urgency = neg-urgency; (g) Positive urgency = pos-urgency; (h) Awareness seeking = sen-seeck; (i) Lack of premeditation = lack-prem; (j) Lack of perseverance = lack-pers; (k) Victim of control = control-vict; (50) Perpetrator of command = control-perpet.

https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pone.0253180.g001

The multifactorial analysis organized the categories into quadrants in the factorial plane. Closer proximity on an centrality indicates a stronger clan among variables, while those located further away from each other have weaker associations.

Higher scores for perpetration of control behaviors were associated with a high level of victimization, that is, participants tended to practice as much control over their partners as was exercised over themselves. High scores for the impulsivity traits, especially negative and positive urgency, were located close together on the airplane (with high discriminatory power). The highest scores for problematic smartphone usage were in the same plane. On the contrary, low perpetration and victimization, low impulsivity (mainly reflected in control under negative emotions), and low problematic smartphone usage were grouped. Although further autonomously in vector space, the lowest levels of sexist attitudes and violence justification (except the perception of women's access to power and responsibility) were in the same explanatory dimension as cyber-control behaviors (Fig two).

The two categories of sex (women and men) were on opposite planes in vector space, as were the categories of the other variables adjacent to women and men. Regarding the attitudinal variables included in the model (sexist attitudes and violence justification), in men there was an association with potent sexist beliefs and violence justification, beliefs about the utility of sexism and violence, and conceptualization of gender violence as a private and inevitable trouble. The medium levels of the variables were located about to the fundamental part of the axes and formed a compact set of associations, i.due east., the four factors of the attitudinal variables (sexist behavior and violence justification), dependence and addiction to the smartphone, perpetration and victimization of control, and the 4 factors of impulsivity. The 'woman' category is enclosed within this fix of medium-level variables, located nearly to the eye of the two-dimensional infinite.

With the everyman discriminatory power, the two age cohorts in this study were allocated to the central function of the vector infinite; thus, age was not a particularly relevant discriminatory variable associated with CDA. Even so, the MCA immune us to explore the function of age. The oldest participants (Millennials) were located between the low problematic smartphone usage, depression and medium impulsivity traits, and low and medium victimization and perpetration of control. Meanwhile, beingness younger (Z generation) was associated with a medium level of control perpetration and victimization, as well equally medium levels of the attitudinal variables and impulsiveness.

Comparison of mean values of the dependent variables: CDAQ

The t-tests revealed greater perpetration and victimization of control and directly aggression in those with high levels of problematic smartphone use, and sexist beliefs near psychosocial differences and justification of violence. Participants high in negative urgency were more decision-making of their partner, and were also subject area to more control and direct attacks than those who scored low on this variable. Regarding positive urgency, the results showed that the highest levels were associated with more control behaviors and directly aggression, as well as a perception of existence the victim of directly aggression (Table iii).

The differences in problematic smartphone use levels on perpetration and victimization of control, likewise as differences in sexist beliefs about psychosocial differences and justification of violence levels on perpetration and victimization of control and perpetration of direct assailment survived the Holm-Bonferroni correction (p < .0025).

Sex-related differences in CDAQ: An item analysis

The t-test showed that men scored higher on cyber-control victimization compared with women, t(695) = 2.28, p < .05, M _men = 17.21, SD _men = eight.95, Thousand _women = 15.36, SD _women = 8.78. There were no sexual practice differences in the other CDA subdimensions.

In-depth report of the sexual activity differences showed that, regarding direct aggression, women and men showed differences with respect to acting with the deliberate intention to injure the partner through smartphones and social networks. Women are more probable to be perpetrators of threats to spread secrets or embarrassing data using new technologies, whereas men are more likely to act confronting their partner in terms of the posting of music, poems, phrases, etc., on a social networking site with the intent to insult or humiliate. No sex differences were establish in the context of victimization. Regarding control, men were more likely to perceive their partners to be monitoring their friends on social networks, where they are and with whom, and their status updates on social networks. Men also perceived that they were threatened to answer calls or letters immediately more often than women. No sex differences were found in the context of perpetration (Tables 4 and 5). Notably, simply sexual activity differences in threatening to reply calls or messages immediately using new technologies survived the Holm-Bonferroni correction for multiple testing (p < .028).

Give-and-take

In the present study, nosotros outset aimed to determine the associations of variables related to attitudes (sexist attitudes, violence justification), personality traits (impulsiveness) and problematic smartphone use (dependency and addiction) with command and direct aggression behaviors towards the partner. The associations of age and sex with CDAQ scores were also analyzed. 2nd, differences in cyber-dating corruption co-ordinate to the variables almost strongly associated (in the MCA) with this blazon of behavior were analyzed. Finally, sex differences were explored, i.e., the behaviors specifically displayed by men and women were identified.

The descriptive assay performed previously showed that the prevalence of cyber-command behavior was higher than that of cyber-aggression. This finding is in line with other research on this topic [8,22], and is supported by the justification and normalization of control behaviors commonly seen in immature people. A report past de Miguel [59] found that i in three young people consider control of the partner to exist an inevitable behavior, and that decision-making beliefs proves one's love and trust of the partner.

The MCA allowed us to decide the multiple associations among several variables, and the extent to which they were amassed together on the axial map (first study goal). The distributions of the variables on the plot indicated that the highest levels of victimization and perpetration of command were closely associated, suggesting that existence the victim of and performing these types of behaviors co-occur inside the aforementioned couple. Víllora et al. [20,21] previously found that being a victim of CDA was a take chances factor for perpetration, and vice versa. The map of the variables described to a higher place could explicate this result: controlling behaviors were linked with impulsivity traits, particularly the tendency to lose control in the context of both negative and positive emotions. In addition, problematic smartphone usage was linked to control of one's partner. In the contrary plane, the lowest levels of victimization and perpetration of control (which likewise appeared together) were closely associated with the capacity to manage behaviors nether the influence of negative and positive emotional states. Regarding age, although the results revealed that historic period is not especially relevant to control behaviors, there was a tendency toward some differences between Z generation and Millennials. While the youngest participants showed medium or high levels of command, the oldest tended to bear witness medium or low levels of controlling behaviors. The same pattern was seen for smartphone usage and impulsivity traits. The results obtained by previous studies are heterogeneous, which makes drawing definitive conclusions difficult. Some authors found no differences in CDA among university students co-ordinate to age [4,60,61]. However, other studies showed that the prevalence of CDA increases as age decreases [17], although in 1 report a higher likelihood of being the victim of control was seen with increasing age [half dozen,22], and in another the prevalence of CDA was lower in older couples [62]. Most of the research reviewed focused on a specific age range, and was conducted from a developmental perspective, thereby mainly including adolescents or young people, or both. Considering generational cohorts from a "technological" perspective, due to the extensive influence of technologies on communication and interactions, is another important consideration. Interpreting online behaviours and, specifically, CDA in this context could exist useful [63]. In this regard, our results pertaining to age are valuable given the scarcity of data on the association of age with CDA.

The position of the sex activity variable on the map indicated that women were most probable to evidence medium levels of control, both as recipients and actors. Nevertheless, female person participants scored lower for sexist attitudes and violence justification than men. Overall, the inability to command beliefs under the influence of both positive (e.g. not thinking most the consequences of ane's actions when feeling happy or encouraged) and negative emotional states (e.g. acting without thinking when feeling irritated), forth with problematic smartphone usage (excessive fourth dimension invested, interference with daily life and feet when the device cannot be used), were of import risk factors. Meanwhile, existence able to command behavior in the context of certain emotional states and good for you smartphone usage were protective factors. As concluded by some other authors, the inability to regulate emotions and delay responses nether their influence can lead to behaviors that offend others [twoscore,41], even including one's own partner [42]. Impulsivity could also explain, in office, why being a victim and being a perpetrator appear together. As Vazsonyi et al. [44] suggested, cyber-aggression could be the outcome of an impulsive reaction to a previously experienced aggressive act.

The findings on differences in CDA according to individual characteristics supported and extended the above-mentioned results (second study goal). Participants with a greater tendency to lose command under positive and negative emotional states scored higher for perpetration of control and direct aggression. These results add to the scarce data on the importance of impulsivity to CDA [47]. Impulsive individuals would likely have problems in managing their impulse to command their partner, due to difficulty in thinking about the consequences before acting when they feel anxious, angry, or even excited. Furthermore, cyberspace may exist an surround that encourages people to act rashly, without thinking. Finally, as previous literature has shown, at that place is a link between impulsivity and problematic smartphone usage [64,65]. In summary, a person who shows intense smartphone use (i.e., to communicate with their partner) experiences peckish when its use is not possible, which is associated with difficulties in managing his or her behavior under positive or negative emotions; this could lead to controlling, or even offensive, behavior toward the partner through the smartphone.

Our results too showed that individuals with greater dependence on smartphones scored higher for victimization and perpetration of command and direct aggression, which confirms that the smartphone can be used as a tool to control, and even offend, the partner. These findings concord with those of Víllora et al. [22], who found that mobile phone misuse was associated with higher levels of perpetration and victimization of command and directly aggression. Other studies likewise concluded that greater use of technological devices [viii] and problematic Internet use [66] are associated with greater levels of CDA.

Sexist attitudes and violence justification showed a moderate association with CDA in this written report; however, comparison of the mean values of participants with the lowest and highest levels of this attitudinal variable revealed meaning differences. Participants who had stronger sexist behavior (east.g. men are superior at performing the tasks that they have traditionally been associated with; women should go along to perform tasks that have been traditionally considered every bit feminine) and violence justification (due east.g. the victim is responsible) presented along with college levels of victimization and perpetration of both control and direct assailment. In addition, those who considered sexism impossible or difficult to overcome due to man nature and biological gender differences felt more controlled by their partner. Regarding smartphone use, as these devices provide access to the Net, social networks and communication apps anywhere and at any time, they have go a means for the expression of sexist attitudes. Moreover, the features of ICTs and their potential for enhancing socializing could make smartphones in particular a vehicle for expressing sexism [67], such equally hostile sexism [68]. Therefore, overuse of this device could lead to increases in sexist attitudes since [69], every bit we said above, it seems to facilitate the subtle expression of certain controlling behaviors.

In line with the above-mentioned results, as men scored higher for sexist attitudes and violence justification, one would await them to perpetrate more than CDA [xix,24,69]. However, in terms of cyber-command victimization, male participants perceived themselves as beingness more controlled by their partners. The level of sexism, along with other factors not evaluated in this study, probable played a role in this finding. While male participants showed sexist attitudes, they could rationalize their ain control behaviors, and were likewise more aware of being the recipients thereof [70]. These results may indicate a difference in the perception and interpretation of CDA behaviors between women and men. In the literature, at that place is no consensus regarding sex activity differences in the prevalence of CDA. In accordance with our results, Bennett et al. [26] also constitute that men more often report existence the victim of online intrusion from their partners than women, also as hostility, humiliation and exclusion, which could all be classified as forms of directly assailment. In the aforementioned vein, Kellerman et al. [27] found that men reported higher levels of online victimization, although they did non specify the category of CDA. Other studies institute no sex differences in command or direct aggression [25], although in ane study women were more likely to be the victims of control [four]. The key to the heterogeneity in these results may lie, every bit nosotros pointed out, in the mediating role of sexism and violence justification.

To farther explore differences not but in the quantity, but too the form, of CDA between the sexes, a CDAQ item analysis was performed (third study goal). Regarding specific behaviors related to direct aggression, women were more than probable to threaten to spread secrets or embarrassing information through ICTs, whereas men were more probable to post music or phrases on social networks aimed at insulting or humiliating their partner. Regarding control behaviors, men felt more than controlled than women. This control is perceived by men in the context of social networks, i.due east., in terms of their friends and status updates. Men besides reported more pressure to answer calls or letters immediately. As illustrated by the above, men and women differ specifically in terms of the degree to which they feel controlled by their partners, with men showing higher scores. Previous studies have likewise analyzed possible sex differences in the various behaviors captured by the questionnaires used in this study, such as that of Piquer et al. [28]; however, that study but reported frequency information; statistical analysis was not carried out to compare the sexes.

The present written report had some limitations that necessitate caution when interpreting the results. First, some results did not survive to the Holm-Bonferroni correction. This method deals with familywise error when conducting multiple hypothesis tests. Yet, it substantially reduces statistical power and thus the probability of detecting pregnant furnishings, thereby increasing Type II errors [71]. Second, studies on psychological factors that use cocky-report measures may be affected past social desirability bias. This is particularly relevant for variables that capture morally reprehensible behaviors or attitudes, such every bit CDA. Information technology is assumed that the measures used in the study were developed under the assumption that some respondents may consciously or unconsciously nether-study undesirable behaviors. To minimize social desirability bias, psychometric analysis of the cocky-report measures was performed, as well as both validation and reliability tests. To deal with social desirability, in hereafter research both CDA and reaction fourth dimension-based measures, such as the implicit association test (IAT) [72,73] and priming tasks [74], could be used together to direct and indirectly assess the construct. Third, the homogeneity of the sample (all university students), analysis of a single culture, and greater number of women may reduce the validity and generalizability of the results. Fourth, this study focused on electric current and past relationships, so possible memory biases in the second condition were not controlled for and may take affected the participants' responses. Finally, we cannot dominion out random responding considering questions designed to assess attention were not included. Thus, in future research it would be also interesting to explore this topic in not-university couples, as well as to include more men in the sample. In addition, only some risk factors were analyzed in this study. Exploring the role of other variables in CDA could lead to more accurate characterization of perpetrators and victims of control and direct aggression. In the aforementioned vein, it is also of import to uncover the psychological motivations for perpetrating CDA, for before detection of CDA and more than effective educational programs to forestall this increasingly prevalent phenomenon.

Despite its limitations, the present study provides novel and specific information about the variables associated with CDA. First, it was found that smartphones are often used to command the partner, although the incidence of cyber-assailment was overall very low. 2d, the results immune us to create a "map" of risk factors. Specifically, control beliefs perpetrators are likely to prove a greater degree of problematic smartphone use, a tendency to lose control in the context of positive and negative emotions, sexist beliefs near psychosocial differences, and violence justification. The same factors were also associated with existence a victim of CDA. Perpetration of direct aggression was too associated with impulsivity (negative and positive urgency) and the abovementioned sexist behavior. Therefore, to prevent and minimize these types of cyber behaviors in the relationships, identifying the sexist beliefs and romantic myths that contribute to the perception of some control behaviors beingness normative in the context of a romantic relationship seems important [36]. Moreover, equally the smartphone can be used for control and surveillance [3,75,76], and because problematic use thereof has been shown to be linked to CDA, educational programs promoting salubrious smartphone use are needed. Some aspects of impulsivity were linked with a propensity to control the partner in this report. Therefore, skills promoting the control of beliefs in the context of sure emotional states, especially negative ones, may exist crucial to mitigate negative furnishings.

References

1. one. Baker CK, Carreño PK. Understanding the role of engineering science in adolescent dating and dating violence. J Child Fam Stud. 2016;25:308–320.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
2. ii. Gámez-Guadix Thou. Depressive symptoms and problematic Net employ amidst adolescents: Analysis of the longitudinal relationships from the cognitive–behavioral model. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2014;17(11):714–719. pmid:25405784
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
3. iii. Ortega-Barón J, Buelga-Vasquez S, Cava-Caballero Thousand. The influence of school climate and family unit climate among adolescents victims of cyberbullying. Comunicar. 2016;46:57–65.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. Shush SC, Wallen M, Vail-Smith Chiliad, Knox D. Using technology to command intimate partners: An exploratory written report of college undergraduates. Comput Human Behav. 2011;27(3):1162–1167.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
5. five. Turner A. Generation Z: Technology and social interest. J Individ Psychol. 2015;71(2):103–113.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
6. half-dozen. Van Ouytsel J, Ponnet K, Walrave M. Cyber dating abuse: Investigating digital monitoring behaviors among adolescents from a social learning perspective. J Interpers Violence. 2017;35(23–24):5157–5178. pmid:29294845
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Zweig JM, Lachman P, Yahner J, Chilly M. Correlates of cyber dating abuse amid teens. J Youth Adolesc. 2014;43(8):1306–1321. pmid:24198083
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
8. viii. Borrajo E, Gámez-Guadix M, Pereda N, Calvete E. The development and validation of the cyber dating abuse questionnaire amongst immature couples. Comput Human Behav. 2015;48:358–365.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Cava MJ, Buelga Southward. [Psychometric properties of the Cyber-Violence Scale in Adolescent Couples (Cib-VPA)]. Propiedades psicométricas de la Escala de Ciber-Violencia en Parejas Adolescentes (Cib-VPA) Suma Psicol. 2018;25(i):51–61. Spanish.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
10. 10. Capaldi DM, Knoble NB, Shortt JW, Kim HK. A systematic review of take chances factors for intimate partner violence. Partner abuse. 2012;3(2):231–280. pmid:22754606
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
11. eleven. Arnett JJ. Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. Am Psychol. 2000;55(v):469–480. pmid:10842426
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Kohut A, Keeter S, Doherty C, Dimock Thousand, Christian 50. Assessing the representativeness of public stance surveys. Washington, DC: Pew Research Cyberspace Project; 2012.
13. 13. Borrajo E, Gámez-Guadix M, Calvete Eastward. Cyber dating abuse: Prevalence, context, and human relationship with offline dating aggression. Psychol Rep. 2015;116(2): 565–585. pmid:25799120
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Leisring PA, Giumetti GW. Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, But Abusive Text Letters Likewise Hurt. Partner Abuse. 2014;5(3):323–341.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. xv. Rodríguez-Domínguez C, Pérez-Moreno PJ, Durán Thousand. Cyber dating violence: A Review of Its Research Methodology. An de Psicol. 2020;36(2):200–209.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
16. 16. Caridade S, Braga T, Borrajo E. Cyber dating corruption (CDA): Prove from a systematic review. Aggress Violent Behav. 2019;48:152–168.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Borrajo Due east, Gámez-Guadix Grand, Calvete E. Justification behavior of violence, myths about love and cyber dating abuse. Psicothema. 2015;27:327–333. pmid:26493569
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
18. eighteen. Ollen EW, Ameral VE, Palm Reed Thousand, Hines DA. Sexual minority college students' perceptions on dating violence and sexual assault. J Couns Psychol. 2017;64(1):112–119. pmid:27854441
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
19. 19. Rodríguez-Domínguez C, Durán Segura Yard, Martínez Pecino R. Cyber aggressors in dating relationships and its relation with psychological violence, sexism and jealousy. Wellness and Addictions. 2018;18(1):17–27.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Víllora B, Yubero S, Navarro R. Associations betwixt feminine gender norms and cyber dating abuse in female person adults. Behav Sci. 2019;nine(four):35. pmid:30934928
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Víllora B, Yubero South, Navarro R. Cyber dating corruption and masculine gender norms in a sample of male person adults. Future Cyberspace. 2019;11(4):84.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Víllora B, Navarro R, Yubero S. [Cyber dating abuse and its relationship with mobile phone corruption, acceptance of violence and myths nigh love]. Abuso online en el noviazgo y su relación con el abuso del móvil, la aceptación de la violencia y los mitos sobre el amor. Suma Psicol. 2019;26:46–54. Spanish.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Deans H, Bhogal MS. Perpetrating cyber dating abuse: A brief report on the role of assailment, romantic jealousy and gender. Curr Psychol. 2019;38(5):1077–1082.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Martínez-Pecino R, Durán M. I love you simply I cyberbully you: The part of hostile sexism. J Interpers Violence. 2019;34(4):812–825. pmid:27118344
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Borrajo Due east, Gamez-Guadix M. [Cyber dating corruption: Its link to low, anxiety and dyadic aligning]. Abuso "online" en el noviazgo: relación con depresión, ansiedad y ajuste diádico Psicol Conductual. 2016;24(2):221–235. Spanish.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Bennett DC, Guran EL, Ramos MC, Margolin Thou. Higher students' electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships: Anticipated distress and associations with risky behaviors. Violence Vict. 2011;26(four):410–429. pmid:21882666
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Kellerman I, Margolin G, Borofsky LA, Baucom BR, Iturralde E. Electronic aggression amidst emerging adults: Motivations and contextual factors. Emerg Adulthood. 2013;one(four):293–304.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Piquer B, Castro J, Giménez C. [Violence of young couples through the net]. Violencia de parejas jóvenes a través de internet. Ágora de Salut. 2017;iv: 293–301. Spanish.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Branson M, March E. Unsafe dating in the digital historic period: Jealousy, hostility, narcissism, and psychopathy as predictors of Cyber Dating Abuse. Comput Hum Behav. 2021;119:106711.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
30. xxx. Muñoz-Rivas MJ, Gámez-Guadix M, Graña JL, Fernández L. Relationship betwixt dating violence and utilise of booze and illegal drugs in Spanish adolescents and immature adults. Adicciones. 2010;22:125–134. pmid:20549147
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Chiung-Tao Shen A, Yu-Lung Chiu M, Gao J. Predictors of dating violence among chinese adolescents: the role of gender-function beliefs and justification of violence. J Interpers Violence. 2012;27:1066–1089. pmid:22328647
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Ovejero A, Yubero Southward, Larrañaga Due east, Navarro R. [Sexism and bullying beliefs in adolescents] Sexismo y comportamiento de acoso escolar en adolescentes. Psicol Conductual. 2013;21(1):157–171. Spanish.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Expósito F, Moya G, Glick P. Ambivalent sexism: Measurement and correlates. J Soc Psychol. 1998;13(ii):159–169.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Rodríguez C, Durán M, Martínez R. Cyber aggressors in dating relationships and its relation with psychological violence, sexism, and jealousy. Health Addict. 2018;18:17–27.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
35. 35. Fernández-Antelo I, Cuadrado-Gordillo I, Martín-Mora Parra K. Synergy between acceptance of violence and sexist attitudes as a dating violence gamble cistron. Int J Environ Res Public Wellness. 2020;17(14): 5209. pmid:32707658
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Corral S. [Fierce behaviors in young couples: prevalence and cerebral profile associated with the exercise of violence]. Conductas violentas en parejas jóvenes: Prevalencia y perfil cognitivo asociado al ejercicio de la violencia [dissertation]. University of Deusto;2006. https://dkh.deusto.es/comunidad/thesis/recurso/conductas-violentas-en-parejas-jovenes/6e863daf-3621-4c97-abb7-8894cb0da723.
37. 37. Cava MJ, Martínez-Ferrer B, Buelga Due south, Carrascosa Fifty. Sexist attitudes, romantic myths, and offline dating violence as predictors of cyber dating violence perpetration in adolescents. Comput Hum Behav. 2020;111:106449.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Carrascosa L Cava MJ, Buelga Due south. [Psychosocial adjustment in adolescents frequent victims and occasional victims of intimate partner violence]. Ajuste psicosocial en adolescentes víctimas frecuentes y víctimas ocasionales de violencia de pareja. Ter Psicol. 2016;34(2):93–102. Spanish.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Díaz-Aguado MJ, Carvajal MI. [Equality and prevention of gender violence in adolescence]. Igualdad y prevención de la violencia de género en la adolescencia Centro de Publicaciones del Ministerio de Sanidad, Política Social eastward Igualdad. 2011. https://www.mscbs.gob.es/va/ssi/violenciaGenero/publicaciones/colecciones/PDFS_COLECCION/libro8_adolescencia.pdf.
40. xl. Krueger RF, Markon KE, Patrick CJ, Benning SD, Kramer MD. Linking antisocial beliefs, substance use, and personality: an integrative quantitative model of the adult externalizing spectrum. J Abnorm Psychol. 2007;116(iv):645–666. pmid:18020714
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. White JL, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Bartusch DJ, Needles DJ, Stouthamer-Loeber Grand. Measuring impulsivity and examining its relationship to delinquency. J Abnorm Psychol. 1994;103(two):192. pmid:8040489
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Santos R, Caridade Southward. [Adolescents intimate relationships: From abusive dynamics to (de) psychosocial adjustment]. Vivências amorosas em adolescentes: Das dinâmicas abusivas ao (des)ajustamento psicossocial Revista Psique. 2017;13: eighteen–39. Portuguese.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
43. 43. Donner CM, Marcum CD, Jennings WG, Higgins GE, Banfield J. Low self-command and cybercrime: Exploring the utility of the general theory of crime beyond digital piracy. Comput Human Behav. 2014;34:165–172.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
44. 44. Vazsonyi AT, Machackova H, Sevcikova A, Smahel D, Cerna A. Cyberbullying in context: Directly and indirect effects by depression self-command across 25 European countries. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2012;ix(2):210–227.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
45. 45. Wilmer HH, Chein JM. Mobile technology habits: patterns of clan among device usage, intertemporal preference, impulse control, and reward sensitivity. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016;23(5): 1607–1614. pmid:26980462
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Marcum CD, Higgins GE, Nicholson J. I'm watching you: Cyberstalking behaviors of university students in romantic relationships. AmericAm J Crim Justice. 2017;42(two):373–388.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Álvarez-García D, Núñez JC, González-Castro P, Rodríguez C, Cerezo R. The effect of parental command on cyber-victimization in adolescence: the mediating role of impulsivity and high-risk behaviors. Forepart Psychol. 2019;10:1159. pmid:31178790
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. Bossler AM, Holt TJ. The outcome of self-command on victimization in the cyber world. J Crim Justice. 2010;38:227–236.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
49. 49. Cilliers EJ. The challenge of teaching generation Z. PEOPLE: Int j soc sci. 2017;three(1):188–198.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
50. 50. Twenge JM. iGen: Why today's super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy—and completely unprepared for adulthood—and what that means for the rest of us. Simon & Schuster; 2017.
51. 51. García-Domingo M, Pérez-Padilla J, Fuentes V, Aranda M. EDAS-eighteen: validation of the dependency and addiction to smartphone calibration brusk-course. Ter Psicol. 2020;38(3):339–361.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
52. 52. Cándido A, Orduña Eastward, Perales JC, Verdejo-García A, Billieux J. Validation of a short Castilian version of the UPPS-P impulsive behaviour calibration. Trastor Adict. 2012;14(3):73–78.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
53. 53. Díaz-Aguado MJ. [Questionnaire of Attitudes towards Gender and Gender Violence]. Cuestionario de Actitudes hacía el Género y la Violencia de Género. In Díaz-Aguado K. J., Prevenir la violencia contra las mujeres. Construyendo la igualdad (pp. 242–247). Madrid: Programa Educación Secundaria. 2002. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255992976_Creencias_y_actitudes_del_alumnado_de_Enfermeria_sobre_la_violencia_de_genero.
54. 54. Ramos MM, Catena A, Trujillo HM. [Manual of Inquiry Methods and Techniques in Behavioral Sciences]. Manual de métodos y técnicas de investigación en ciencias del comportamiento. Biblioteca Nueva. 2004.
55. 55. Leguina A. [Methodological drawbacks of correspondence analysis for the treatment of mixed variables. Solutions applied to the study of social stratification in Chile]. Inconvenientes metodológicos del análisis de correspondencias para el tratamiento de variables mixtas. Soluciones aplicadas al estudio de la estratificación social en Chile. XXVII Congreso de la Asociación Latinoamericana de Sociología. Asociación Latinoamericana de Sociología, Buenos Aires. 2009.
56. 56. Greenacre M. Correspondence analysis in practice (2 ed.). Chapman & Hall/CRC. 2007.
57. 57. Gaetano J. Holm-Bonferroni sequential correction: an EXCEL calculator (ane.1) [Microsoft Excel workbook]. 2013, vol. x.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
58. 58. Figueras S. [Correspondence analysis] Análisis de Correspondencias [online resource]. 2003. http://www.5campus.com/leccion/correspondencias.
59. 59. De Miguel V. Social perception of gender violence in adolescence and youth]. Percepción social de la violencia de género en la adolescencia y la juventud [Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales due east Igualdad. 2015. https://bit.ly/3tXrNTH.
60. sixty. Melander L, Hughes V. College partner violence in the digital historic period: Explaining cyber aggression using routine activities theory. Partner Abuse. 2018;9:158–180.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
61. 61. Caridade S, Braga T.Youth cyber dating corruption: A meta-analysis of risk and protective factors. Cyberpsychology. 2020;14.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
62. 62. Rubio-Garay F, Carrasco MA, Amor MA, López-González PJ. The prevalence of dating violence: A systematic review. Papeles del Psicol. 2015;38(2):135–147.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
63. 63. Dimock M. Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. 2018;17(1):ane–7.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
64. 64. Horwood S, Anglim J. Emotion Regulation Difficulties, Personality, and Problematic Smartphone Use. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2020;1–11. pmid:33090002
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
65. 65. Peterka-Bonetta J, Sindermann C, Elhaim JD, Montag C. Personality Associations with Smartphone and Internet Use Disorder: A Comparing Study Including Links to Impulsivity and Social Anxiety. Front end Public Wellness. 2019;seven:one–12.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
66. 66. Machimbarrena JM, Calvete East, Fernández-González L, Álvarez-Bardón A, Álvarez-Fernández 50, González-Cabrera J. Net Risks: An Overview of Victimization in Cyberbullying, Cyber Dating Abuse, Sexting, Online Grooming and Problematic Internet Use. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15:one–15. pmid:30400659
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
67. 67. Rodríguez-Sánchez F, Carrillo-de-Albornoz J, Plaza L. Automated Classification of Sexism in Social Networks: An Empirical Report on Twitter Data. IEEE Access. 2020; viii:219563–219576.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
68. 68. Flim-flam J, Cruz C, Lee JY. Perpetuating online sexism offline: Anonymity, interactivity, and the furnishings of sexist hashtags on social media. Comput Hum Behav. 2015;52:436–442.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
69. 69. Cava MJ, Buelga Southward, Carrascosa L, Ortega-Barón J. Relations among Romantic Myths, Offline Dating Violence Victimization and Cyber Dating Violence Victimization in Adolescents. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:i–15. pmid:32121215
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
70. 70. Durán M, Martínez-Pecino R. [Cyberbullying trough mobile phone and the Internet in dating relationships amongst youth people]. Ciberacoso mediante teléfono móvil due east Net en las relaciones de noviazgo entre jóvenes Comunicar. 2015;22(44):159–167.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
71. 71. Rothman KJ. No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology. 1990;43–46. pmid:2081237
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
72. 72. Greenwald AG, Nosek BA, Banaji MR. Understanding and using the implicit clan test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;85(2):197. pmid:12916565
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
73. 73. Nosek BA, Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: Ii. Method variables and construct validity. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005;31(ii):166–180. pmid:15619590
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
74. 74. Molden DC. Understanding priming effects in social psychology: What is "social priming" and how does information technology occur? Soc Cogn. 2014;32:one–11.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
75. 75. Burgess-Proctor A, Patchin JW, Hinduja S. Cyberbullying and online harassment: Reconceptualizing the victimization of boyish girls. Female person crime victims: Reality reconsidered. 2009;153–175.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
76. 76. Tejedor-Calvo S, Pulido-Rodríguez CM. [Challenges and risks of Cyberspace use past children. How to empower them?]. Retos y riesgos del uso de Cyberspace por parte de los menores. ¿Cómo empoderarlos? Comunicar. 2012;20(39):65–72.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

humphreysnalis1954.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0253180

Share this post