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 | [email protected]
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)
Recommended
