Influential Factors on Young Adult Cyber Dating Abuse

Using communication technologies to threaten, harass, or control one’s romantic partner, or cyber dating abuse, has become a significant health concern among young adults. Previous research has shown that romantic partners use text messaging to promote emotional and relational connectedness and find texting to be an important emotional resource in their relationship. However, the growth of social technologies has also expanded the number of outlets for those involved in dating violence to harass, control, and abuse their partners The most common forms of cyber dating abuse occur when technology is used to exert control over one’s partner (e.g., monitoring where one’s partner is or what he/she does, putting one’s partner down) and unwanted invasion of privacy (e.g., the use of social network passwords without the partners permission, pretending to be one’s partner through a technology platform). Given the considerable amounts of aggression in U.S. college aged romantic relationships and the increasing amount of reciprocal partner aggression, the previous research on cyber dating abuse calls for a closer look at how varying levels of influence may play a role in the experience of those involved. Therefore, the current study explored the overarching question: how do multiple levels of influence (individual, partner, family) impact the experience of cyber dating abuse? More specifically, this study tested models of cyber dating abuse perpetration and victimization by examining partner attachment, family environment, and emotion regulation as predictors. Emotion regulation was also examined as a mediator between two predictors (partner attachment and family environment) and cyber dating abuse perpetration and victimization. The study sample consisted of 320 participants, recruited from undergraduate courses at a large public university, who reported being in a serious romantic relationship. The results of this study indicate that emotion regulation mediates the relationship between family environment, partner attachment and cyber dating abuse perpetration. Additionally, these findings suggest that although emotion regulation seems to predict cyber dating abuse victimization, it does not mediate the link between family environment or partner attachment and victimization. The results of the current study lend important information to clinicians, educators, and policy makers who should look to target funding and intervention efforts at critical, attachment-forming periods of development that might impact later involvement in cyber dating abuse. Clinicians can help those who are already involved in abuse by providing psychoeducation about the way internal working models of the world, established early in life, inform attitudes and behavioral decisions in adulthood. Additionally, the substantial overlap between those reporting they have been victims and those reporting they are also perpetrating the abuse suggests that couples therapy should include discussions about couple interactional cycles (e.g., pursue-withdrawal cycles) that emphasize emotion as a driving force. Based on this study, future research should develop and test interventions for cyber abuse that specifically involve bolstering emotion regulation skills in participants and that bring awareness to the five aspects of emotion regulation the extended process model suggests individuals are able to utilize in romantic relationships. Further, social norms regarding appropriate interpersonal communication and behavior within the online sphere should be empirically explored and perhaps discussed in therapeutic and educational settings with those experiencing cyber dating abuse. Altogether, by exploring the role that emotion regulation plays in influencing cyber dating abuse outcomes for young adults in romantic relationships, professionals may have another tool to promote inter- and intrapersonal well-being within this population.