Fear and Distress: How Can We Measure the Impact of Technology-Facilitated Abuse in Relationships?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study 1—Youth Qualitative Study
2.1.1. Participants
2.1.2. Procedures
2.1.3. Data Analysis
2.2. Study 2—Practitioner Quantitative Study
2.2.1. Participants
2.2.2. Procedures
2.2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Study 1—Youth Qualitative Study
- Youth favored distress over upset for measuring the impact of TAR behaviors.
“Yeah, I think ‘distress’ would cover traumatized; anxiety. But upset doesn’t”.F6
“I don’t think [upset’s] quite specific enough…”F18
“… I think distress works as a catch-all term… probably works for all of the examples that we’ve said”.M10
“I think upset might be a bit too broad”.F8
“… ‘distress’ sounds like a grander, more serious word”.M9
“I think distress covers some words that are… future based, because distress comes with that kind of emotion of you’re not sure what’s going to happen”.F4
“I think [distress] would be a better fit, because when I hear distress I think more anxiety, more… like an ongoing… I think it’s a more specific mix of emotion than upset”.F8
“… [distress] relates a lot more to anxious… anxiety… panic, you’re sweating… and you can’t think straight… your heart’s beating fast…”.F20
“Upset’s just not strong enough”.F1
“[Upset] weakens how bad this is”.F2
“Upset’s just anything that’s not positive, isn’t it?…it’s a very broad term”.M13
- Fear is relevant for measuring the impact of selected TAR behaviors.
“I think for example fear… it won’t go with all of them, but some of them… I reckon it’s definitely a top thing…”.F5
“… fear… you might need to address the situation a little bit sooner, because it might be personally endangering”.M6
“… the stalking will lead to fear”.M4
“You might not be afraid in every situation”.F14
“Fear… also fear of people finding out… I guess that goes back into the blackmailing, sort of thing. Like holding maybe a conversation or explicit photo or something as ransom, to say, ‘I’ve got you.’”F8
3.2. Study 2—Practitioner Quantitative Study
4. Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Behavior * | Distress | Fear | ||
M | SD | M | SD | |
Threatened on a digital device to physically hurt their partner’s family or friends | 9.44 | 1.25 | 9.41 | 1.28 |
Threatened on a digital device to physically hurt their partner | 9.42 | 1.38 | 9.35 | 1.40 |
Shared a nude photo or video of their partner without their permission | 9.30 | 1.59 | 8.77 | 1.89 |
Threatened to distribute nude image(s) of their partner | 9.27 | 1.62 | 9.02 | 1.77 |
Threatened to distribute embarrassing information about their partner | 9.23 | 1.48 | 8.95 | 1.66 |
Threatened on a digital device to physically hurt themselves if their partner didn’t do what they wanted | 9.22 | 1.50 | 8.95 | 1.70 |
Took a photo or video of their partner naked or during sexual activity without their permission | 9.11 | 1.73 | 8.67 | 1.94 |
Started a social networking page for posting negative information about their partner | 9.11 | 1.65 | 8.75 | 1.87 |
Monitored where their partner is via tracking software | 9.10 | 1.68 | 9.02 | 1.76 |
Told their partner on a digital device to harm themself | 8.98 | 1.73 | 8.63 | 1.96 |
Pressured their partner on a digital device to engage in sexual acts | 8.94 | 1.86 | 8.52 | 2.16 |
Threatened on a digital device to damage things that are important to their partner | 8.93 | 1.56 | 8.75 | 1.70 |
Made their partner feel threatened if the partner ignored their calls or messages | 8.92 | 1.60 | 8.87 | 1.61 |
Edited a photo or video of their partner in an offensive manner and sent it to them | 8.92 | 1.76 | 8.47 | 2.03 |
Pressured their partner to engage in sexual activity via live video | 8.90 | 1.99 | 8.57 | 2.30 |
Taken a video or photo of their partner against their wishes | 8.88 | 1.76 | 8.65 | 1.94 |
Publicly declared their partner’s sexuality via a digital device without their permission | 8.86 | 1.89 | 8.18 | 2.23 |
Threatened on a digital device to emotionally hurt their partner | 8.85 | 1.75 | 8.61 | 2.00 |
Monitored their partner’s internet activity using software | 8.85 | 1.62 | 8.77 | 1.79 |
Arrived uninvited when their partner has published their location online making the partner feel uncomfortable | 8.81 | 1.65 | 8.68 | 1.76 |
Pressured their partner to send nude image(s) of themself | 8.78 | 1.87 | 8.39 | 2.20 |
Sent their partner threatening messages on a digital device | 8.73 | 1.85 | 8.64 | 1.73 |
Used a digital device to damage their partner’s friendship with another person | 8.65 | 1.72 | 7.95 | 2.11 |
Signed their partner onto a pornography site without their permission | 8.61 | 2.05 | 8.02 | 2.34 |
Prevented their partner from using their digital device (against their will) | 8.61 | 1.78 | 8.26 | 1.96 |
Monitored their partner’s activity by insisting they answer their phone calls and/or messages | 8.61 | 1.69 | 8.45 | 1.76 |
Pressured their partner on a digital device to send sexually explicit messages | 8.56 | 1.98 | 8.05 | 2.35 |
Encouraged others to post negative things about their partner | 8.54 | 1.88 | 7.79 | 2.16 |
Shared private information about their partner on a digital device without their permission | 8.52 | 1.94 | 7.65 | 2.41 |
Checked to see who their partner was communicating with on their digital device, in a way that made the partner feel uncomfortable | 8.51 | 1.78 | 8.02 | 2.07 |
Pressured their partner to engage in phone sex | 8.44 | 2.11 | 7.99 | 2.40 |
Shared their partner’s private conversation on a digital device without their permission | 8.42 | 2.00 | 7.59 | 2.40 |
Edited a photo or video of their partner in an offensive manner and shared it with others on a digital device | 8.41 | 2.03 | 7.71 | 2.31 |
Pressured their partner on a digital device to discuss sexual issues | 8.41 | 2.02 | 7.81 | 2.39 |
Contacted their partner via a digital device to check up on them in a way that made them feel uncomfortable | 8.41 | 1.82 | 8.18 | 2.06 |
Made their partner disclose to them digital conversation(s) they’ve had with another person(s) | 8.39 | 1.87 | 7.92 | 2.10 |
Posted negative comments about their partner | 8.39 | 1.79 | 7.65 | 2.15 |
Read their partner’s digital conversation(s) with other people without their permission | 8.38 | 1.92 | 7.79 | 2.09 |
Taken over their partner’s digital device conversation with another person in a way that made the partner feel uncomfortable | 8.31 | 2.07 | 7.69 | 2.39 |
Sent their partner unwelcome nude images | 8.29 | 2.12 | 7.63 | 2.52 |
Pretended to be their partner on a digital device in a way that made the partner feel uncomfortable | 8.28 | 2.02 | 7.69 | 2.31 |
Made their partner stop interacting with another person(s) on their digital device | 8.28 | 1.89 | 7.69 | 2.20 |
Interacted with their partner on a digital device without informing the partner who they were | 8.27 | 2.00 | 7.95 | 2.19 |
Logged onto their partner’s digital device without their permission | 8.26 | 1.95 | 7.83 | 2.20 |
Posted something negative through their partner’s account without their permission | 8.26 | 1.93 | 7.57 | 2.21 |
Pressured their partner to watch pornography | 8.20 | 2.24 | 7.61 | 2.48 |
Took their partner’s digital device password without their permission | 8.20 | 1.95 | 7.80 | 2.31 |
Made their partner remove or add contact(s) on their digital device | 8.14 | 1.92 | 7.56 | 2.25 |
Shared a hurtful meme about their partner on a digital device | 8.09 | 2.18 | 7.09 | 2.53 |
Changed an aspect of their partner’s online profile without their permission | 7.91 | 2.16 | 7.21 | 2.26 |
Called their partner insulting names on a digital device | 7.86 | 2.07 | 6.87 | 2.30 |
Posted indirect comments that criticized their partner without using their name | 7.80 | 2.14 | 7.06 | 2.42 |
Pressured their partner to share their password(s) with them | 7.70 | 2.19 | 7.51 | 2.26 |
Shared an embarrassing non-sexual photo or video of their partner on a digital device | 7.56 | 2.39 | 6.65 | 2.55 |
Note: Practitioners were requested to rate each behavior on a scale from 1 (Not at all) to 10 (Extremely) based on the extent to which they thought each behavior to be (a) distress-inducing and (b) fear-inducing. * = Behaviors ranked in order of highest to lowest mean Distress ratings. |
References
- Afrouz, Rojan. 2023. The nature, patterns and consequences of technology-facilitated domestic abuse: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 24: 913–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aghtaie, Nadia, Cath Larkins, Christine Barter, Nicky Stanley, Marsha Wood, and Carolina Øverlien. 2018. Interpersonal violence and abuse in young people’s relationships in five European countries: Online and offline normalisation of heteronormativity. Journal of Gender-Based Violence 2: 293–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Almanasreh, Enas, Rebekah Moles, and Timothy F. Chen. 2019. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy 15: 214–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anderson, Kristin. 2008. Is Partner Violence Worse in the Context of Control? Journal of Marriage and Family 70: 1157–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arriaga, Ximena, and Emily Schkeryantz. 2015. Intimate relationships and personal distress: The invisible harm of psychological aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 41: 1332–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barter, Christine, Nicky Stanley, Marsha Wood, Alba Lanau, Nadia Aghtaie, Cath Larkins, and Carolina Overlien. 2017. Young people’s online and face-to-face experiences of interpersonal violence and abuse and its subjective impact across five European countries. Psychology of Violence 7: 375–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batson, C. Daniel, Karen O’Quin, Jim Fultz, Mary Vanderplas, and Alice Isen. 1983. Influence of self-reported distress and empathy and egoistic versus altruistic motivation for helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45: 706–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bennett, Diana, Elise Guran, Michelle Ramos, and Gayla Margolin. 2011. College students’ electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships: Anticipated distress and associations with risky behaviors. Violence and Victims 26: 410–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boateng, Godfred, Torsten Neilands, Edward Frongillo, Hugo Melgar-Quiñonez, and Sera Young. 2018. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health 6: 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borrajo, Erika, Manuel Gámez-Guadix, and Eether Calvete. 2015a. Cyber dating abuse: Prevalence, context, and relationship with offline dating aggression. Psychological Reports 116: 565–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borrajo, Erika, Manuel Gámez-Guadix, Noemi Pereda, and Esther Calvete. 2015b. The development and validation of the cyber dating abuse questionnaire among young couples. Computers in Human Behavior 48: 358–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brod, Meryl, Laura Tesler, and Torsten Christensen. 2009. Qualitative research and content validity: Developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research 18: 1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, Cynthia. 2021. Redefining the Measurement of Technology-Facilitated Abuse in Relationships: The TAR Scale. Ph.D. thesis, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, Cynthia, and Kelsey Hegarty. 2018. Digital dating abuse measures: A critical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior 40: 44–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, Cynthia, and Kelsey Hegarty. 2021. Development and validation of the TAR Scale: A measure of technology-facilitated abuse in relationships. Computers in Human Behavior Reports 3: 100059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, Cynthia, Lena Sanci, and Kelsey Hegarty. 2021. Technology-facilitated abuse in relationships: Victimisation patterns and impact in young people. Computers in Human Behavior 124: 106897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, Cynthia, Michael Flood, and Kelsey Hegarty. 2020. Digital dating abuse perpetration and impact: The importance of gender. Journal of Youth Studies 25: 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burton, Candace, Bonnie Halpern-Felsher, Roberta Rehm, Sally Rankin, and Janice Humphreys. 2013. “It was pretty scary”: The theme of fear in young adult women’s descriptions of a history of adolescent dating abuse. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 34: 803–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calcia, Marilia, David Bonsall, Peter Bloomfield, Sudhakar Selvaraj, Tatiana Barichello, and Oliver Howes. 2016. Stress and neuroinflammation: A systematic review of the effects of stress on microglia and the implications for mental illness. Psychopharmacology 233: 1637–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Caridade, Sónia, Teresa Braga, and Erika Borrajo. 2019. Cyber dating abuse (CDA): Evidence from a systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior 48: 152–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Carpernter, Serena. 2018. Ten steps in scale development and reporting: A guide for researchers. Communication Methods and Measures 12: 25–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cercone, Jennifer, Steven Beach, and Ileana Arias. 2005. Gender symmetry in dating intimate partner violence: Does similar behavior imply similar constructs? Violence and Victims 20: 207–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiang, Jessica, Heejung Park, David Almeida, Julienne Bower, Steve Cole, Michael Irwin, Heather McCreath, Teresa Seeman, and Andrew Fuligni. 2019. Psychosocial stress and C-reactive protein from mid-adolescence to young adulthood. Health Psychology 38: 259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cialdini, Robert, Mark Schaller, Donald Houlihan, Kevin Arps, Jim Fultz, and Arthur Beaman. 1987. Empathy-based helping: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Connell, Janice, Jill Carlton, Andrew Grundy, Elizabeth Taylor Buck, Anju Devianee Keetharuth, Thomas Ricketts, Michael Barkham, Dan Robotham, Diana Rose, and John Brazier. 2018. The importance of content and face validity in instrument development: Lessons learnt from service users when developing the Recovering Quality of Life measure (ReQoL). Quality of Life Research 27: 1893–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Conroy, Nicole. 2016. Young Adult Dating Violence and Coercive Control: A Comparative Analysis of Men and Women’s Victimization and Perpetration Experiences. New York: Syracuse University. [Google Scholar]
- Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. 2014. End Revenge Porn: A Campaign of the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative. Available online: https://www.cybercivilrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/RPStatistics.pdf (accessed on 29 June 2021).
- Davies, Elaine, Jacqueline Clark, and Al-Leigh Roden. 2016. Self-reports of adverse health effects associated with cyberstalking and cyberharassment: A thematic analysis of victims’ lived experiences. Faculty Articles & Research 1: 1–37. [Google Scholar]
- Devellis, Robert. 2017. Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 4th ed. Edited by Leonard Bickham and Debra J. Rog. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
- Diette, Timothy, Arthur Goldsmith, Darrick Hamilton, William Darity Jr., and Katherine McFarland. 2014. Stalking: Does it leave a psychological footprint? Social Science Quarterly 95: 563–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dobash, R. Emerson, and Russell Dobash. 1979. Violence against Wives: A Case against the Patriarchy. New York: Free Press. [Google Scholar]
- Dragiewicz, Molly, Bridget Harris, Delanie Woodlock, Michael Salter, Helen Easton, Angela Lynch, Helen Campbell, Jhan Leach, and Lulu Milne. 2019. Domestic Violence and Communication Technology: Survivor Experiences of Intrusion, Surveillance, and Identity Crime. Sydney: Australian Communications Consumer Action Network. [Google Scholar]
- Dragiewicz, Molly, Delanie Woodlock, Bridget Harris, and Claire Reid. 2018. Technology-facilitated coercive control. In The Routledge International Handbook of Violence Studies. Edited by Walter S. DeKeseredy, Callie Marie Rennison and Amanda K. Hall-Sanchez. London: Routledge, pp. 244–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drouin, Michelle, Jody Ross, and Elizabeth Tobin. 2015. Sexting: A new, digital vehicle for intimate partner aggression? Computers in Human Behavior 50: 197–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duerksen, Kari, and Erica Woodin. 2019. Cyber dating abuse victimization: Links with psychosocial functioning. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 36: NP10077–NP10105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebesutani, Chad, Ashley Smith, Adam Bernstein, Bruce Chorpita, Charmaine Higa-McMillan, and Brad Nakamura. 2011. A bifactor model of negative affectivity: Fear and distress components among younger and older youth. Psychological Assessment 23: 679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenberg, Nancy, Richard Fabes, Paul Miller, Jim Fultz, Rita Shell, Robin Mathy, and Ray Reno. 1989. Relation of sympathy and personal distress to prosocial behavior: A multimethod study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57: 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, Maggie, Emma Howarth, Alison Gregory, Kelsey Hegarty, and Gene Feder. 2014. “Even ‘daily’ is not enough”: How well do we measure domestic violence and abuse? A thinkaloud study of a commonly used self-report scale. Violence and Victims 31: 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiolet, Renee, Cynthia Brown, Molly Wellington, Karen Bentley, and Kelsey Hegarty. 2021. Exploring the impact of technology-facilitated abuse and its relationship with domestic violence: A qualitative study on experts’ perceptions. Global Qualitative Nursing Research 8: 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fishta, Alba, and Eva-Maria Backé. 2015. Psychosocial stress at work and cardiovascular diseases: An overview of systematic reviews. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 88: 997–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flynn, Asher, Anastasia Powell, and Sophie Hindes. 2023. An Intersectional Analysis of Technology-Facilitated Abuse: Prevalence, Experiences and Impacts of Victimization. The British Journal of Criminology. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Follingstad, Diane, and M. Jill Rogers. 2013. Validity concerns in the measurement of women’s and men’s report of intimate partner violence. Sex Roles 69: 149–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groth-Marnat, Gary. 2009. Handbook of Psychological Assessment. Hoboken: Wiley. [Google Scholar]
- Hamby, Sherry. 2016. Self-report measures that do not produce gender parity in intimate partner violence: A multi-study investigation. Psychology of Violence 6: 323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, Bridget, and Delanie Woodlock. 2018. Digital coercive control: Insights from two landmark domestic violence studies. The British Journal of Criminology 59: 530–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harris, Bridget, and Delanie Woodlock. 2022. Spaceless violence: Women’s experiences of technology-facilitated domestic violence in regional, rural and remote areas. In Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice; Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hegarty, Kelsey, Mary Sheehan, and Cynthia Schonfeld. 1999. A multidimensional definition of partner abuse: Development and preliminary validation of the Composite Abuse Scale. Journal of Family Violence 14: 399–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henry, Nicola, and Anastasia Powell. 2016. Sexual violence in the digital age: The scope and limits of criminal law. Social and Legal Studies 25: 397–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henry, Nicola, Asher Flynn, and Anastasia Powell. 2019. Responding to ‘Revenge Pornography’: Prevalence, Nature and Impacts; Edited by Australian Institute of Criminology. Canberra: Criminology Research Advisory Council.
- Hinson, Laura, Lila O’Brien-Milne, Jennifer Mueller, Vaiddehi Bansal, Naome Wandera, and Shweta Bankar. 2019. Defining and Measuring Technology-Facilitated Gender-Based Violence. Edited by International Center for Research on Women (ICRW). Washington, DC: International Center for Research on Women. [Google Scholar]
- Hoff, Dianne, and Sidney Mitchell. 2009. Cyberbullying: Causes, effects, and remedies. Journal of Educational Administration 47: 652–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jouriles, Ernest, and Akihito Kamata. 2016. Advancing measurement of intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence 6: 347–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kessler, Ronald, Gavin Andrews, Lisa Colpe, Eva Hiripi, Daniel Mroczek, S-LT Normand, Ellen Walters, and Alan Zaslavsky. 2002. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine 32: 959–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kogler, Lydia, Veronika Müller, Amy Chang, Simon Eickhoff, Peter Fox, Ruben Gur, and Birgit Derntl. 2015. Psychosocial versus physiological stress—Meta-analyses on deactivations and activations of the neural correlates of stress reactions. NeuroImage 119: 235–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liamputtong, Pranee. 2011. Focus group methodology: Introduction and history. In Focus Group Methodology: Principles and Practice. Cambridge, MA: University Press, pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
- Lindsay, Megan, Jaime Booth, Jill Messing, and Jonel Thaller. 2016. Experiences of online harassment among emerging adults: Emotional reactions and the mediating role of fear. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 31: 3174–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathur, Maya, Elissa Epel, Shelley Kind, Manisha Desai, Christine Parks, Dale Sandler, and Nayer Khazeni. 2016. Perceived stress and telomere length: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and methodologic considerations for advancing the field. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 54: 158–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matias, Andreia, Mariana Gonçalves, Cristina Soeiro, and Marlene Matos. 2020. Intimate partner homicide: A meta-analysis of risk factors. Aggression and Violent Behavior 50: 101358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Messing, Jill, Meredith Bagwell-Gray, Megan Lindsay Brown, Andrea Kappas, and Alesha Durfee. 2020. Intersections of stalking and technology-based abuse: Emerging definitions, conceptualization, and measurement. Journal of Family Violence 35: 693–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitchell, Kimberly, David Finkelhor, Lisa Jones, and Janis Wolak. 2012. Prevalence and characteristics of youth sexting: A national study. Pediatrics 129: 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mumford, Elizabeth, Poulami Maitra, Jackie Sheridan, Emily Rothman, Erica Olsen, and Elaina Roberts. 2023. Technology-facilitated abuse of young adults in the United States: A latent class analysis. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace 17: 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Office of the eSafety Commissioner. 2017. Image-Based Abuse National Survey: Summary Report; Edited by Office of the eSafety Commissioner. Canberra: Australian Government.
- O’Leary, K. Daniel, Heather Foran, and Shiri Cohen. 2013. Validation of Fear of Partner Scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 39: 502–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olson, E. Carolyn, Bonnie Kerker, Katharine McVeigh, Catherine Stayton, Gretchen Van Wye, and Lorna Thorpe. 2008. Profiling risk of fear of an intimate partner among men and women. Preventive Medicine 47: 559–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ortega-Barón, Jéssica, Irene Montiel, Juan Manuel Machimbarrena, Liria Fernández-González, Esther Calvete, and Joaquín González-Cabrera. 2020. Epidemiology of cyber dating abuse victimization in adolescence and its relationship with health-related quality of life: A longitudinal Study. Youth & Society 54: 711–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, Filipa, Brian Spitzberg, and Marlene Matos. 2016. Cyber-harassment victimization in Portugal: Prevalence, fear and help-seeking among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior 62: 136–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Powell, Anastasia, and Nicola Henry. 2016. Policing technology-facilitated sexual violence against adult victims: Police and service sector perspectives. Policing and Society 28: 291–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pruessner, Jens, Katarina Dedovic, Najmeh Khalili-Mahani, Veronika Engert, Marita Pruessner, Claudia Buss, Robert Renwick, Alain Dagher, Michael Meaney, and Sonia Lupien. 2008. Deactivation of the limbic system during acute psychosocial stress: Evidence from positron emission tomography and functional magnetic resonance imaging studies. Biological Psychiatry 63: 234–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Randa, Ryan. 2013. The influence of the cyber-social environment on fear of victimization: Cyberbullying and school. Security Journal 26: 331–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, Lauren, Kourtney Conn, and Karin Wachter. 2020. Name-calling, jealousy, and break-ups: Teen girls’ and boys’ worst experiences of digital dating. Children and Youth Services Review 108: 104607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, Lauren, Richard Tolman, and L. Monique Ward. 2016. Snooping and sexting digital media as a context for dating aggression and abuse among college students. Violence against Women 22: 1556–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, Lauren, Richard Tolman, and L. Monique Ward. 2017. Gender matters: Experiences and consequences of digital dating abuse victimization in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Adolescence 59: 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reidy, Dennis, Megan Kearns, Debra Houry, Linda Valle, Kristin Holland, and Khiya Marshall. 2016. Dating violence and injury among youth exposed to violence. Pediatrics 137: e20152627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rocha-Silva, Tiago, Conceição Nogueira, and Liliana Rodrigues. 2021. Intimate abuse through technology: A systematic review of scientific constructs and behavioral dimensions. Computers in Human Behavior 122: 106861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, Michaela, Colleen Fisher, Parveen Ali, Peter Allmark, and Lisa Fontes. 2022. Technology-facilitated abuse in intimate relationships: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 24: 2210–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Signorelli, Marcos, Abgela Taft, Deirdre Gartland, Lisa Hooker, Christine McKee, Harriet MacMillan, Stephanie Brown, and Kelsey Hegarty. 2020. How valid is the question of fear of a partner in identifying intimate partner abuse? A cross-sectional analysis of four studies. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 37: 2535–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith-Darden, Joanne, Poco Kernsmith, Bryan Victor, and Rachel Lathrop. 2017. Electronic displays of aggression in teen dating relationships: Does the social ecology matter? Computers in Human Behavior 67: 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spencer, Chelsea, and Sandra Stith. 2020. Risk factors for male perpetration and female victimization of intimate partner homicide: A meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 21: 527–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stark, Evan. 2007. Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Stonard, Karlie. 2019. Explaining ADVA and TAADVA: Risk factors and correlates. Advances in Developmental and Educational Psychology 1: 23–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stonard, Karlie. 2020. “Technology was designed for this”: Adolescents’ perceptions of the role and impact of the use of technology in cyber dating violence. Computers in Human Behavior 105: 106211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sze, Jocelyn, Anett Gyurak, Madeleine Goodkind, and Robert Levenson. 2012. Greater emotional empathy and prosocial behavior in late life. Emotion 12: 1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tabachnick, Barbara, and Linda Fidell. 2013. Using Multivariate Statistics. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education. [Google Scholar]
- Thoits, Peggy. 2010. Stress and health: Major findings and policy implications. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 51: S41–S53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, David. 2006. A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation 27: 237–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Todd, Chris, Joanne Bryce, and Virginia Franqueira. 2020. Technology, cyberstalking and domestic homicide: Informing prevention and response strategies. Policing and Society 31: 82–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Turecki, Gustavo, and Michael Meaney. 2016. Effects of the social environment and stress on glucocorticoid receptor gene methylation: A systematic review. Biological Psychiatry 79: 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Vogler, Stefan, Rachel Kappel, and Elizabeth Mumford. 2023. Experiences of technology-facilitated abuse among sexual and gender minorities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 38: 11290–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Walby, Sylvia, Jude Towers, Susan Balderston, Consuelo Corradi, Brian Joseph Francis, Markku Heiskanen, Karin Helweg-Larsen, Lut Mergaert, Philippa Olive, and Catherine Emma Palmer. 2017. The Concept and Measurement of Violence against Women and Men. Bristol: Policy Press. [Google Scholar]
- Waters, Allison, Brendan Bradley, and Karin Mogg. 2014. Biased attention to threat in paediatric anxiety disorders (generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, specific phobia, separation anxiety disorder) as a function of ‘distress’ versus ‘fear’diagnostic categorization. Psychological Medicine 44: 607–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wirtz, Petra, and Roland von Känel. 2017. Psychological stress, inflammation, and coronary heart disease. Current Cardiology Reports 19: 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woodlock, Delanie, Mandy McKenzie, Deborah Western, and Bridget Harris. 2019. Technology as a weapon in domestic violence: Responding to digital coercive control. Australian Social Work 73: 368–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Worsley, Joanne, Jacqueline Wheatcroft, Emma Short, and Rhiannon Corcoran. 2017. Victims’ voices: Understanding the emotional impact of cyberstalking and individuals’ coping responses. SAGE Open 7: 2158244017710292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Szde. 2017. Using mixed methods to understand the positive correlation between fear of cyberbullying and online interaction. In Violence and Society: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice. Hershey: IGI Global, pp. 150–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zamanzadeh, Vahid, Maryam Rassouli, Abbas Abbaszadeh, Hamid Alavi Majd, Alireza Nikanfar, and Akram Ghahramanian. 2014. Details of content validity and objectifying it in instrument development. Nursing Practice Today 1: 163–71. [Google Scholar]
Behavior | Ranked in Top 10 Most Distress-Inducing | Ranked in Top 10 Most Fear-Inducing |
---|---|---|
Threatened on a digital device to physically hurt their partner’s family and friends | 1 | 1 |
Threatened on a digital device to physically hurt their partner | 2 | 2 |
Shared a nude photo or video of their partner without their permission | 3 | 9 |
Threatened to distribute nude image(s) of their partner | 4 | 4 |
Threatened on a digital device to physically hurt themselves if their partner didn’t do what they wanted | 6 | 5 |
Monitored where their partner is via tracking software | 9 | 3 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Brown, C.; Hegarty, K. Fear and Distress: How Can We Measure the Impact of Technology-Facilitated Abuse in Relationships? Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010071
Brown C, Hegarty K. Fear and Distress: How Can We Measure the Impact of Technology-Facilitated Abuse in Relationships? Social Sciences. 2024; 13(1):71. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010071
Chicago/Turabian StyleBrown, Cynthia, and Kelsey Hegarty. 2024. "Fear and Distress: How Can We Measure the Impact of Technology-Facilitated Abuse in Relationships?" Social Sciences 13, no. 1: 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13010071