Electronic Dating Aggression among Middle School Students: Demographic Correlates and Associations with Other Types of Violence

Stacey Cutbush, MA,* Jason Williams, PhD, Shari Miller, PhD, Deborah Gibbs, MPH, Monique Clinton-Sherrod, PhD RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC

Conceptual Model

Data Collection and Study Sample ■ 1,430 7th grade students from 8 schools in 4 states

● 57% parent permission rate (range from 44%-71% across schools)

● 96% survey completion rate among those with parent permission

■ Data collected during the 2010–2011 school year ● Paper-and-pencil questionnaires administered in groups at

school

Participants ■ Mean age = 12.3 years (SD = 0.56)

■ 50.1% female

Percentages of Respondents in Each Racial/Ethnic Group

Teen Dating Violence and Electronic Dating Aggression ■ Teen Dating Violence (TDV)

● defined as physical, sexual, or psychological/emotional violence within a dating relationship, as well as stalking

● can occur in person or electronically ● may occur between a current or former dating partner (CDC, 2012)

■ Electronic dating aggression is psychological abuse victimization and/or perpetration among dating partners via the use of technology or electronic media, including:

● cell phones ● texting ● instant messaging (IM) ● social networking sites

● e-mail ● web chat ● blogs

Prior Studies on Electronic Dating Aggression ■ An online survey by Picard (2007) of 382 teens aged 13 to 18 who

reported having been in a dating relationship found that ● 30% received text messages 10 or more times an hour by a partner

to find out where they are, what they are doing, or who they are with ● 25% were called names, harassed, or put down by their partner

via cell phones and texting ● 22% were asked via cell p hone or the Internet to engage in

sexual activity when they did not want to ● 19% had a partner who used a cell phone or the Internet to

spread rumors about them ● 10% were threatened physically via e-mail, IM, texting, Web chat, etc.

■ However, little is known about this study’s sampling methods ● Difficult to generalize study findings beyond study population

■ A survey conducted by the Associated Press and MTV (2009) of 1,247 individuals aged 14 to 24 from an online panel reported that

● 25% of the respondents in a romantic relationship reported that their partner has checked the text messages on their cell phone without their permission

● 12% reported that a boyfriend or girlfriend has called them names, put them down, or said really mean things to them on the Internet or their cell phone

● 10% have had a boyfriend or girlfriend demand passwords, and approximately the same number have had a partner demand that they “unfriend” former boyfriends/girlfriends on social networks

■ Because this study included young adults, it is not useful for under-standing electronic dating aggression among high school students

■ A survey conducted by RTI (Cutbush et al., 2010) of 4,282 9th grade students who reported having been on a date reported that

● 56.0% and 29.4% reported lifetime prevalence of electronic dating aggression perpetration and victimization, respectively

■ Because this study included high school students, it is not useful for under-standing electronic dating aggression among middle school students

■ Identify prevalence of dating among middle school students in a large, diverse sample

■ Identify prevalence of electronic dating aggression among middle school students in a large, diverse sample

■ Examine associations between electronic aggression among teen dating partners and

● demographic and academic characteristics ● other types of teen dating violence ● other types of relationship violence

■ Our results show that the majority of middle school student had or currently have a boy/girlfriend

■ Consistent with previous studies, our results show that electronic dating aggression among middle school students is common

■ Electronic Dating Aggression perpetration is positively associated with

● Psychological dating abuse perpetration ● Physical dating violence perpetration ● Sexual harassment perpetration

■ Electronic Dating Aggression victimization is positively associated with

● Psychological dating abuse perpetration or victimization ● Physical dating violence perpetration ● Sexual harassment victimization

■ Incorporate health promotion programs into middle schools aimed at ● Promoting healthy dating relationships ● Preventing dating violence

■ Incorporate electronic aggression content into existing dating violence prevention programs

■ Include electronic aggression in existing policies about bullying, sexual harassment, and violence in schools and other settings

■ Evaluate prevention programs to determine what approaches prevent or reduce electronic dating aggression among middle school students

■ Determine whether risk factors for physical and psychological dating violence also increase risk for electronic dating aggression

■ Convenience sample limits external generalizability ■ Cross-sectional data prohibit causal inferences ■ Self-report

● Possible social desirability bias

Dating ■ Lifetime measure of dating using a single item, “Have you ever had

a boyfriend/girlfriend?” ■ Coded dichotomously: yes or no

Electronic dating aggression (Picard, 2007) ■ Past 6-month perpetration (α = .86) or victimization (α = .85) each

measured using eight items, including: ● Called you names, put you down, or said really mean things

to you using a cell phone, email, IM, texting, a blog, or a social networking site like MySpace or Facebook

● Contacted you when you did not want them to, just to make you mad, using a cell phone, email, … or Facebook

● Made you afraid using a cell phone, email, … or Facebook ● Spread rumors about you using a cell phone, email, … or Facebook ● Made you afraid to not respond to them because of what they

might do using a cell phone, email, … or Facebook ● Showed private or embarrassing pictures/video of you to

others using a cell phone, email, … or Facebook ● Threatened to hurt you physically using a cell phone, email, …

or Facebook ● Repeatedly checked up on you to see where you were using a

cell phone, email, … or Facebook ■ Coded dichotomously: 1 or more times for any item(s) vs. none for

all items

Teen dating violence ■ Psychological dating abuse (Foshee et al., 1998)

● Past 6-month perpetration (α = .90) or victimization (α = .90) each measured using 5 items, such as

◆ “Insulted them in front of others” ◆ “Threatened to hurt you”

● Coded dichotomously: 1 or more times for any item(s) vs. none for all items

■ Physical dating violence (Foshee et al., 1998) ● Past 6-month perpetration (α = .90) or victimization (α = .90)

each measured using 5 items, such as ◆ “Scratched or slapped them” ◆ “Hit you with their fist or something else hard”

● Coded dichotomously: 1 or more times for any item(s) vs. none for all items

● Sexual dating violence measures were not included in the study instrument

Other relationship violence ■ Sexual harassment (American Association of University Women

Educational Foundation, 2001) ● Past 6-month perpetration (α = .81) or victimization (α = .77)

each measured using 6 items, such as ◆ “Spread sexual rumors about someone” ◆ “Touched, grabbed or pinched you in a sexual way [when you

did not want them to]” ● Coded dichotomously: 1 or more times for any item(s) vs. none

for all items ■ Bullying (Espelage & Holt, 2001)

● Past 6-month perpetration (α = .86) or victimization (α = .88) each measured using 10 items, such as

◆ “Left someone out from your group of friends” ◆ “scared you”

● Coded dichotomously: 1 or more times for any item(s) vs. none for all items

Demographic and academic characteristics ■ Gender ■ Parent education ■ Last-semester student grades

3. Methods

1. Background 2. Objectives

6. Discussion

8. Implications

7. Limitations

4. Measures

■ Calculated percentages of teens reporting electronic dating aggression perpetration or victimization

■ Conducted separate multiple logis-tic regression analyses predicting electronic dating aggression perpetration or victimization

■ Both regression models ● Accounted for school-level

clustering (SAS PROC GLIMMIX)

Multi-level Multiple Logistic Regression Predicting Electronic Dating Aggression Perpetration among Middle School Students

Independent variable OR [95% CI]

Gender 1.09 [0.67, 1.76]

Parent’s education

Years of college > 4 years Ref RefCollege graduate 0.84 [0.38, 1.69]Some college 0.92 [0.39, 2.16]Graduated high school/Vocational 0.84 [0.37, 1.90]Did not graduate high school 1.90 [079., 4.54]Don’t know 1.25 [0.57, 2.75]

Student grades

A+, A, or A- average Ref RefB+, B, or B- average 0.95 [0.50, 1.79]C+, C, or C- average 1.48 [0.70, 3.14]D or less than a D average 0.48 [011, 2.01]Don’t know/Missing 0.94 [0.51, 1.72]

Psychological dating abuse

Perpetration 5.14* [3.10, 8.54]Victimization 1.59 [0.97, 2.60]

Physical dating violence

Perpetration 3.75* [2.04, 6.91]Victimization 1.59 [0.87, 2.89]

Sexual harassmentPerpetration 2.30* [1.34, 3.94]Victimization 1.07 [0.60, 1.90]

BullyingPerpetration 1.85 [0.77, 4.44]Victimization 0.70 [0.30, 1.64]

*p<0.05.

Multi-level Multiple Logistic Regression Predicting Electronic Dating Aggression Victimization among Middle School Students

Independent variable OR [95% CI]

Gender 1.34 [0.91, 1.98]

Parent’s education

Years of college > 4 years Ref RefCollege graduate 1.05 [0.59, 1.33]Some college 1.00 [0.51, 1.60]Graduated high school/Vocational 1.06 [0.56, 2.00]Did not graduate high school 0.75 [0.35, 1.60]Don’t know 0.70 [0.36, 1.33]

Student grades

A+, A, or A- average Ref RefB+, B, or B- average 0.83 [0.50, 1.37]C+, C, or C- average 1.22 [0.65, 2.28]D or less than a D average 0.58 [0.18, 1.83]Don’t know/Missing 1.00 [0.61, 1.63]

Psychological dating abuse

Perpetration 2.58* [1.37, 4.56]Victimization 4.33* [2.96, 6.36]

Physical dating violence

Perpetration 2.50* [1.37, 4.56]Victimization 1.19 [0.70, 2.02]

Sexual harassmentPerpetration 1.43 [0.91, 2.25]Victimization 1.62* [1.05, 2.50]

BullyingPerpetration 0.93 [0.47, 1.83]Victimization 1.67 [0.90, 3.08]

*p<0.05.

5. Analyses

Acknowledgments ■ This project was supported

by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The interpretations and conclusions do not necessarily represent the official position of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

■ Thank you to all the participants, field staff, and RTI technical staff, especially Jason Williams, for making this presentation possible.

More Information*Presenting author: Stacey Cutbush919.316.3942 | scutbush@rti.org

RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Presented at: the 140th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association, San Francisco, CA, October 27–31, 2012

www.rti.org RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.

Electronic aggression among adolescent dating

partners

Other types of adolescent dating violence • Psychological • Physical

Demographic characteristics • Gender • Parent’s education • Student grades

Other types of violence • Bullying • Sexual Harassment

Hispanic 34%

African-American 30%

White 24%

Other, Multiple, or Unknown

12%

75.0%

25.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ever hadboy/girlfriend

Never hadboy/girlfriend

18.4% 31.5%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Perpetration Victimization

Prevalence of Dating among Middle School

Students (Percentage

Reporting Lifetime Dating)

Prevalence of Electronic Dating

Aggression among Middle

School Students (Percentage

Reporting Past 6-month Electronic Dating Aggression)