Next Article in Journal
Sexual Mindfulness and the Libido of Generativity: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Future-Oriented Desire and Couple Well-Being
Previous Article in Journal
Sex Addiction in the Digital Age: Between Moral Panic and Mental Health Diagnosis—A Feminist and Sociocultural Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sexes
Volume 6
Issue 4
10.3390/sexes6040064
sexes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Patterns of Control: A Narrative Review Exploring the Nature and Scope of Technologically Mediated Intimate Partner Violence Among Generation Z Individuals

by
Emily Melvin
and
Satarupa Dasgupta
*
Applied Communication, Ramapo College of New Jersey, Mahwah, NJ 07430, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sexes 2025, 6(4), 64; https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6040064
Submission received: 9 May 2025 / Revised: 10 November 2025 / Accepted: 12 November 2025 / Published: 24 November 2025
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

With most individuals in the U.S. having regular access to an internet connection and/or owning smartphones, digital communication has become an inevitable part of daily life for adults and adolescents. Consequently, forming, maintaining, and ending relationships via digital media is a widespread phenomenon; however, there is also an ongoing risk of technologically facilitated intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration and victimization. The current paper conducts a traditional narrative review to synthesize the extant research on the nature and scope of technologically facilitated IPV among Generation Z individuals. Four hundred and fifty studies were screened, and a total of thirty-eight studies—that met the inclusion criteria—were reviewed for the study. The current paper endeavors to explore the scope and pattern of technologically facilitated IPV. It examines Generation Z individuals’ vulnerability towards technologically facilitated IPV and assesses the impact of generative artificial intelligence on IPV perpetration and mitigation. The study also investigates any scope of association between online and offline violence victimization and perpetration. Finally, the paper also discusses recommendations to enhance violence mitigation programs and support services for younger victims through technologically facilitated means.

1. Introduction

With most individuals in the U.S. having regular access to an internet connection and/or owning smartphones, digital communication has become an inevitable part of daily life for adults and adolescents. Pew Research Center reported in 2024 that 96% of U.S. adults use the Internet, 91% own smartphones, and 98% own cellphones [1]. Consequently, forming, maintaining, and ending relationships via digital media is a widespread phenomenon; however, there is also an ongoing risk of technologically facilitated intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration and victimization. Generation Z, who are one of the primary users of digital technology and social media, are at a unique risk of technologically facilitated violence and abuse, which is a range of violent behaviors and actions that are made possible through the means and misuse of technology [2,3]. Among Generation Z individuals, IPV and sexual assault (SA) are often perpetrated through mobile and web-based technology, social media, and other forms of information communication technology [4].
The current paper describes a traditional narrative review to synthesize the extant research on the nature and scope of technologically facilitated IPV among Generation Z individuals. The study endeavors to find key patterns in technologically facilitated IPV and examine any reciprocal association between online and offline violence victimization and perpetration.

1.1. Generation Z: The Digitally Engaged Generation

Generation Z, often referred to as the digital generation, are individuals born roughly between 1997 and 2012, according to the Pew Research Center Report [2]. Generation Z individuals have vastly different exposure and access to media and technology in comparison with their older counterparts, including the Baby Boomer Generation (born 1946–1964), Generation X (born 1965–1980), and Generation Y (born 1981–1996) [5]. Having one of the highest usage rates of the Internet, members of Generation Z incorporate the globalization of technology in their daily lived experiences. A survey produced by McKinsey Institute shows that more than 50% of Generation Z respondents were more comfortable in expressing themselves on online platforms and communicating through technology—including text, email, chat room, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, TikTok and other messaging platforms—instead of face-to face communication [6]. Coe et al. (2023) also note that Generation Z respondents express greater faith and dependence on social media and technology to connect, communicate, and navigate life. Additionally, the global lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic established and reinforced virtual modes of education and work [7]. Consequently, Generation Z individuals have grown accustomed to relying on technology, which has become an integral part of their lives [8].

1.2. A Brief Description of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

IPV is violence that can occur within the context of dating, intimate, and romantic relationships. It can comprise physical violence like punching, kicking, and hitting; sexual violence, including rape, non-consensual sexual contact, coercive reproduction, and verbal sexual abuse; psychological violence like emotional and verbal abuse; economic violence, including financial control and abuse; and online violence like cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and sextortion [9,10,11]. Prior research indicates that victims of IPV suffer from chronic pain, gastrointestinal disorders, and gynecological ailments; have significantly increased rates of physical injury, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, suicidal ideations and attempts; and have a higher incidence of sexually transmitted infections [12,13]. IPV is viewed internationally as an important public health concern—in need of appropriate mitigation and support services—and the rapid digitalization of communication and interaction exacerbates the health outcomes of IPV.

1.3. The Impact of Social Media Engagement on Relationship Navigation

The utilization of mediated communication has restructured the dynamics of interpersonal relationships among young adults, affecting how they initiate, navigate, and dissolve relationships. McKinsey Institute found that members of Generation Z considered their social media engagement as a positive experience that benefited their mental health [6]. They also utilized social media to find support services and resources, especially during times of a crisis [6]. Importantly, the survey found that almost half of Generation Z respondents check their social media accounts multiple times a day, averaging one hour of daily social media use [6]. Instances of IPV, dating violence and abuse, harassment, and sexual misconduct can be precipitated by and reinforced through online interaction and virtual platforms for many members of Generation Z [6].
Individuals belonging to Generation Z comprises the age group where IPV and SA are most commonly experienced [14]. Women aged between 18 and 24 years are most likely to be abused by an intimate partner, and females aged between 16 and 19 years are four times more susceptible to rape and sexual assault compared to any other age group [14]. Additionally, among members of Generation Z under the age of 18, two out of three victims are ages 12–17, with 82% of victims under 18 being female [14]. Given this context, it is important to explore technology’s role in IPV perpetration and victimization, as well as service provision and advocacy for young adult victims of IPV. IPV support services and mitigation strategies for emerging adults should consider the importance of mediated communication, including the usage of mobile and web-based technology, social media, and other forms of information communication technology.

2. Methodology

A traditional narrative review was conducted on (a) the extant research on patterns and scope of technologically facilitated IPV among Generation Z individuals and (b) the extant research on the co-occurrence of online and offline violence and abuse among this population. Different from a systematic review, a narrative review often includes a wide variety of studies and provides an overall summary, with interpretation as well as critique [15]. Manuscripts that were reviewed for this purpose were published between 2000 and February 2025. This time period was selected to coincide with the timelines of Generation Z individuals (typically born between the mid-1990s and early 2010s) and their digital experiences. Studies that were conducted in the US and published in English were selected to ensure cultural and geographical contextuality. The manuscripts were identified in the following databases: (1) Academic Search Premier, (2) Gender Watch, (3) ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, (4) ProQuest Sociology, (5) Google Scholar, (6) JSTOR, (7) Science Direct, (8) Springer Link (9) Wiley Online Library, and (10) World Cat. The narrative review was conducted by utilizing a qualitative software analysis tool, Covidence. (Covidence Systematic Review Software, Veritas Health Innovation, 2025).
Inclusion criteria for the review included (a) studies conducted among populations in the Generation Z age range; (b) studies looking at patterns, scope, and incidence of online IPV among dating and intimate partners who are Generation Z individuals; (c) studies examining any existing co-occurrence of online and offline dating violence and abuse among this population; (d) studies that were conducted in the US and written in English; and (e) studies published between 2000 and February 2025. The inclusion criteria were determined by author 1 and author 2. A total of four hundred and fifty studies were found, and from that data set, eighty studies were initially selected. Next, after removal of duplicates, thirty-eight studies were found to fit the inclusion criteria, and they were selected for this study. The findings of the narrative review are discussed below. A Prisma diagram is provided below.
Sexes 06 00064 i001
In the first stage of the screening process, 80 articles were excluded, as they did not meet the study criteria by having the wrong population (35), having the wrong geographical location and language (17), having the wrong research focus (24), and being from the wrong year (4). In the second stage of the screening process, 18 articles were removed because they were duplicates, and 20 articles did not meet the study criteria, as they had a wrong research focus, i.e., were not focused on patterns, scope, and incidence of technologically mediated IPV (20).

3. Findings

3.1. Types of Technologically Facilitated Violence and Abuse

Technologically facilitated violence and abuse often mirror traditional IPV patterns, but the incorporation of digital tools and leveraging of digital spaces can mean the extension of the perpetrator’s reach and control. Common patterns of technologically facilitated violence and abuse can include harassment and threats, surveillance and monitoring, sexual abuse and exploitation, financial abuse, and digital abuse post relationship dissolution [3,16,17,18]. Online and offline violence and abuse are often interrelated; however, they have their own distinguishing characteristics, and occasionally there is scope of co-occurrence of both types of violence and abuse, both concurrently and over time [3,16,17,18]. While the literature has explored the scope, patterns, and intersection between online and offline violence, it has also been discussed how current research cannot establish an exact co-relation between the two.
A common example of technologically facilitated violence among young adults is digital dating violence (DDV). DDV is a variant of IPV, which comprises multiple and intersecting forms of violence, such as physical, sexual, psychological, economic, and online, occurring within the context of a relationship. Vale et al. (2020, p. 89) noted that DDV encompasses many forms of abuse—ranging from online harassment, hate speech, doxing, cyberstalking, and image-based abuse to gendered disinformation [19]. Primarily, DDV constitutes harmful behavior carried out by one partner towards the other remotely by utilizing technology (such as a smartphone, social media, or a tracking app) to “blackmail, control, coerce, harass, humiliate, objectify or violate,” [20] the other person.
Similarly, technologically facilitated violence can occur when a perpetrator threatens to or actually spreads intimate information (such as photos, videos, misconstrued stories, etc.) about a victim to others via digital mediums or on social media [21]. This is often referred to as the non-consensual distribution of intimate images (NCDII), commonly known as “revenge porn” or “leaking nudes” [22]. The incidence of NCDII remains significantly high among young adults [21]. A 2022 survey among college students in the Midwestern United States found that around 45% of undergraduates have been victims and perpetrators of NCDII [21,23,24]. Another survey on revenge porn among college students found that approximately 10% of the latter—mostly female and freshman—have shared an intimate photo of themselves through the Internet [25]. There is still limited research to understand the impact of NCDII on young adults, strategies for its prevention, and mitigation services for the victims.
DDV can be perpetrated through the phenomenon of sexting, which is “the use of mobile devices or computers to send or receive sexually explicit messages, photographs, or images” [26]. Parti et al. (2023) found that around 50% of teenagers begin sexting at age 16, and around 20% begin sexting before age 15, with a significant number starting as early as age 11 and while they are in middle school [27]. According to the study, cisgender females were more likely to start sexting earlier compared to cisgender males and non-binary people [27]. The study also found that the incidence of adolescent sexting has continued to increase steadily over the years, meaning that a large portion of Generation Z has engaged or will engage in sexting. Adolescent sexting is linked to greater chances and consequences of abuse and harassment online and offline [26,27,28,29]. Sexting is not inherently an indicator of violence, since it can be an outlet of sexual expression and exploration with oneself or one’s partners at any age [26,27,28,29]. However, in view of the fact that many members of Generation Z have experienced DDV while sexting, it still remains an issue that needs support and remedial services for its victims.
As technology continues to advance and be a pivotal part of daily life—especially for adolescents and young adults—new forms of harassment and violence perpetrated through technologically mediated avenues have increased as well and exhibit a complex nature, scope, and patterns. Jaureguizar et al. (2024, p. 2) states that “in recent years, other forms of harassment, control, and abuse have been added, derived from new forms of interaction through mobile phones and social networks,” [30]. The most common forms of abuse are found amongst younger victims, and instances include “direct aggression (threats, insults, and public humiliation through online comments or images) and control (control of partner using the mobile phone or social networks),” [30]. These are perpetrated through several media, such as via phone call, video chatting (or “Facetiming”), texting, messaging, dating apps, social media apps, and email [3]. Perpetrators can comprise a variety of individuals—they can be someone whom the victim is romantically involved with or casually seeing but not romantically pursuing, a friend, a family member, a stranger, or a user behind an anonymous account [30]. Understanding the dynamics between the perpetrators and victims might contribute towards predicting the scope and incidence of online violence, which in turn can help to effectively design violence prevention and mitigation services.

3.2. Generation Z’s Vulnerability Towards Technologically Mediated IPV

Technologically facilitated IPV presents unique challenges for Generation Z due to their high utilization of and dependence on digitally mediated communication and navigation of relationships online. A common form of DDV involves the perpetrator controlling and monitoring the social media of the victim, thus normalizing surveillance and control [31]. Quiroz et al. (2024) states that “Social media often fuels uncertainty and romantic jealousy, a complex emotion activated by a real or perceived threat to the relationship, as it presents people with unlimited, ambiguous, and easily accessible information about their partner’s digital behaviors that is continuously updated.” Features like Snapchat’s “Snap Map” and “Find My Friends” can be misused for stalking and controlling the victim’s movements [32,33].
Additionally, as discussed previously, Generation Z members navigate intimate relationships via online dating apps, a phenomenon that has become much more prevalent through the use of smartphones and apps that were introduced in the early 2010s. Tinder, for example, is the most downloaded dating app in the world, according to Statista.com. According to a report released by Tinder, Generation Z makes up more than 50% of the app’s users [34]. While online dating is accessible and can facilitate the process of meeting prospective partners, it can also unlock the possibility of abuse and violence. A scoping review by Filice et al. (2022) references several studies that reveal the percentages of Tinder and dating app users who have experienced unwanted and non-consensual forms of dating violence (online and then offline when the pair meets up in person) while using the app [35]. The prevalence of dating apps in the lives of Generation Z and future generations has also resulted in exacerbating the incidence of DDV.
Additionally, widespread access to pornography and sexually explicit media in the digital realm can affect interactions in intimate partner relationships among members of Generation Z. Research shows that adolescents and young adults who regularly access sexually explicit media via the Internet are more likely to engage in dangerous and non-consensual sexual actions [36]. Similarly to sexting, interaction with pornography and sexually explicit content can be a healthy outlet for sexuality, but among adolescents and younger adults, an association between consumption of such content and perpetration of non-consensual acts and online and offline violence can occur [37]. Döring et al. (2021) found that 68% of all digital media users have been involved in sexual interaction in digital contexts in some sort of way [38]. This means that over half of all digital media users have been exposed to or participated consensually or non-consensually in online sexual interactions. While further research is warranted, it is reasonable to predict that these numbers will increase over the years, especially for the younger generations.

3.3. Impact of Generative Artificial Intelligence on Technologically Mediated IPV and Scope of Mitigation Services

With the rapid advancement of generative artificial intelligence (AI), there is more opportunity for digitally mediated harm and harassment. IBM defines generative AI as “a technology that can create original text, images, video and other content”, which can be done almost instantaneously [39]. While earlier, AI use was limited to analyzing, interpreting, and predicting scenarios based on already existing data, generative AI takes it up a notch and can create and craft entirely new content [40]. Generative AI can create images through a series of prompts or by uploading other photos, videos, or imagery, and most methods of AI technology are free or easily accessible [39]. Generative AI has unlimited potential to exacerbate phenomena like revenge porn and NCDII. No More, an international nonprofit organization dedicated to ending domestic and sexual violence, reported in 2025 that AI is a tool for harm in gender-based violence and can render the latter more complex and multifaceted [41]. Generative AI is often used as a tool for image-based abuse, as it can make it easier and quicker for predators to create and distribute violent, explicit, non-consensual, and damaging media with little effort [42,43]. No More found that in 2023, 98% of non-consensual “deepfake” content––which comprises digitally fabricated, hyper-realistic forms of digital media, including images, videos, and audio [41]––was sexual in nature, and 99% of those deepfakes were of women [44]. Additionally, generative AI and the use of deepfakes can compromise privacy and security for victims and their family members [44]. As de Silva de Alwis (2024, p. 62) summarizes “The proliferation of deepfakes, AI-generated images, videos, and other media content, against women is another emerging category of violence that must be named in new and revised gender-based violence laws… Pornographic deepfakes reinforces a culture that commodifies and objectifies women’s bodies,” [43]. Deepfake content can be used as a blackmailing tool or an extortion tactic, compelling victims to give up personal information or performing an act against their will [43]. As AI advances and becomes more accessible, it is invaluable to monitor how it is used as a form of violence and take preventive action.
Simultaneously, generative AI also incorporates the potential to help violence survivors in multiple ways. With its ability to efficiently categorize and curate vast amounts of data, artificial intelligence (AI) can help to identify IPV and suggest tailored mitigation resources for survivors [45,46,47]. Recent research indicates AI’s potential to generate informative, accessible, and emotional support for survivors and stakeholders seeking IPV-related advice or resources [45,46,47]. AI can be critical as the first touchpoint in instances where survivors cannot make use of formal or face-to-face interventions. Digitally codifying IPV-related information and action steps like psychosocial literacy, empathic listening, safety measures, legal resources, etc., can be useful for mitigation services. Because of their speed and scalability, conversational AI tools like ChatGPT can be useful as IPV survivor support resources. Yet, reservations about AI’s privacy measures, reliability, misinforming tendencies, and complex emotive abilities are still to be addressed [45,46,47].

3.4. Co-Occurrence of Online and Offline Violence

“Technology-driven violence has a shape-shifting quality. It has the effect of blurring the lines between the real and the virtual worlds of violence. Online harassment and abuse spill into the real world, thereby causing both physical and psychological violence,” [43]. Online and offline violence often interact with each other, because digital abuse often coexists with violence in offline spaces, thus forming a continuum of harm. Despite the prevalence of DDV, the incidence of offline violence remains more frequent than the former [30]. Prior research has found that cases of offline violence stemmed from online communication, and often the violence did not occur until in-person interaction began [30]. In one study among college students, it was found that about half (55.4%) of the students admitted to perpetrating violence against a partner online, with the most common action of violence being control, while offline violence was much more common for perpetrators (80.4%), especially verbal violence. Of the self-reported victims, about half of the students (51.6%) experienced online violence, while more (73.7%) had experienced offline violence, with the most common form of violence being verbal [30].
Several studies have reported the co-occurrence of online and offline dating violence [30,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]. Marganski and Melander (2018) note that victims of dating violence in real life noted the incidence of online violence by the same perpetrators [52]. Of specific interest is the observation that “online violence victimization was the strongest predictor of offline violence victimization (i.e., psychological, physical, and sexual). Specifically, in the case of psychological offline violence victimization, the only significant predictor was online violence victimization” [30]. Social media and online interaction have been noted to be vehicles for perpetration of psychological abuse [46,53,54,55]. Studies that have examined the co-occurrence of online and offline violence have also reported “co-occurrence of perpetration and victimization, known as dual violence, reciprocal abuse or bidirectionality of violence,” [30]. Fernández-González et al. (2020) observed that in dating violence, victimization was itself a risk factor for perpetration, and online platforms often provided the vehicles for reciprocal violence [56]. The theory of reciprocal online dating violence perpetration was also observed by Cutbush et al. (2012), Love is Respect [57], Temple et al. (2016), and Zweig et al. (2013). However, as Jaureguizar et al. (2024, p. 16) observe, “the mutual or reciprocal dating violence may also be the result of the presence of common characteristics that increase the odds to be a perpetrator and the victim… Therefore, this only reinforces the need to deepen the knowledge of the individual characteristics of victims and perpetrators,” [30].
Mental health among Generation Z adolescents and adults is an ongoing concern, and victimization in dating violence or IPV can exacerbate their mental health struggles, such as anxiety and depressive symptoms [58]. For instance, Ståhl & Dennhag (2020) found that girls between the ages 12 and 20, on average, reported higher levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms and experienced more online and offline violence than boys [59]. Hence, the mental health issues and experiences of victimization of girls could intersect and worsen their wellbeing. Further, the study found that “although offline harassment is more commonly targeted towards girls, the connection to mental health, when it occurs, is similar for both girls and boys,” [59]. Additionally, study participants who experienced victimization through either online or offline violence expressed their need of peer relationships for support, especially when experiencing violence. This suggests that outreach or mitigation services for young adults and adolescents undergoing victimization through offline and online violence can include fostering friendships and bonds with peers.
In a study by Jaureguizar et al. (2024) half of the participants reported experiencing both online and offline violence perpetration and victimization [30]. It is important to note here that the reviewed research observed a co-occurrence between online and offline violence; however, an observable correlation was not demonstrated in any of the studies. As Jaureguizar et al. (2024, p. 13) observe, “online dating violence (perpetrated and suffered) also entails offline violence, but not all offline violence is associated with online violence…online and offline violence are two different entities and should be treated as such. Future longitudinal studies should further explore the longitudinal nature of online dating violence, which would be of great interest to the design of dating violence prevention programs,” [30]. In spite of the wider prevalence of offline violence, it is important to explore the implications of online violence, take prevention measures, and create safer and more accessible support services for the victims. Additionally, in view of the international recognition of IPV as an important public health concern and the further complexity presented by the rapid digitalization of communication and interaction, it is important to investigate any existing association between offline and online violence perpetration and victimization to improve mitigation programs and support services for younger victims.

4. Technologically Based Violence Mitigation Services

According to the Lancet Commission on Adolescent Health and Wellbeing, adolescent and young adults’ health promotion needs to incorporate multiple health and developmental needs and lived experiences in order to understand preferences in service uptake and address disparities in access [60]. Technology-based violence mitigation services can offer cost-effective and longer-term sustainable solutions to address gaps in support-seeking and service uptake among young adult populations. In 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) proposed a youth-centered digital health intervention framework for planning, developing, and implementing solutions to improve healthcare seeking among young individuals [61]. The WHO health framework notes that young adults globally have a higher ownership of digital devices and tend to seek health information from the Internet. Hence, the potential of systematically studying the use of digital technologies for IPV support provision among young adults cannot be understated.
As Huang et al. (2022, p. 4) note, “The combination use of digital health and implementation strategies/methodologies offers new opportunities to create novel approaches of integrated interventions to disrupt the traditional model of SRH (sexual and reproductive health) access and care to allow for user-friendly solutions,” [62]. Generation Z individuals also use digital mental health programs approximately 50 percent more than Generation X members, and 64 percent of Generation Z digital health app users said they would continue using digital resources in the future [6]. Hence, digitizing IPV mitigation services and incorporating service provision in an online format can render them more user-friendly for Generation Z victims.
Prioritizing technology in support services catering to Generation Z can lead to better access and better rates of violence mitigation service uptake. While a systematic review of digital technologies for IPV support provision among young adults is still lacking, prior research shows that text messaging is one of the most frequently used communication strategies for responding to IPV and seeking out help [60,62]. Recent studies point to more social media-based strategies, including utilization of Facebook, WhatsApp, Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram, for disseminating awareness about online and offline IPV. Even blogs, virtual reality, and online gaming can be utilized successfully for IPV response services among Generation Z victims [63]. The utilization of “interactive technology (e.g., accepting input from the users, interactive video games) or technology with tailored functions,” [62] is more effective among younger adults in promoting attitude and norm changes surrounding IPV and increasing help-seeking and service uptake.
Additionally, another possible outlet for support seeking can be the platforms on which technologically facilitated IPV frequently occurs. While many dating apps can serve as the catalyst for violence—both online and offline—or remain the place where a victim first meets their abuser, they have the potential to be a place of help, too. Bumble, the second-most-downloaded dating app worldwide in 2024 according to Statista, launched its own “complimentary online trauma support program” back in 2021 [64]. The service, called Bloom, is free for its users, and it is specifically designed for individuals who met their perpetrators through the app, or for anyone who is interested in learning more about healthy relationships. While other dating apps like Tinder and Hinge have options to report suspicious activity or harassment, Bumble is currently the only mainstream app that offers online support services to its users [64,65,66]. Bloom was created with Chayn, a UK-based “global nonprofit, run by survivors and allies from around the world, creating resources to support the healing of survivors of gender-based violence,” [67]. Through Bumble and Chayn’s joint service, users are granted access to resources, guides, courses, and one-on-one chat messaging services to discuss and learn about trauma and abuse [64].
While services through dating apps may not be as useful as a crisis hotline or chat function during an in-the-moment emergency, they can be accessible for a wide range of users and may also be an approachable way of learning about pattens of technologically mediated IPV, including DDV. However, it is also essential to note that young individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds may lack the financial means to have adequate access to digital IPV services. For instance, Generation Z minors might not have the financial means or personal freedom to have access to devices or technological services [8]. They also might not have their own funds or freedom to access online payment-required services, especially if the perpetrator is a family member [8,68]. For victims with low English proficiency, virtual platforms of service provision can present multiple difficulties [8,69]. Linguistic barriers can become magnified with technological advances. Also, victims may lack familiarity with and understanding of the latest digital tools, and also, they might prefer to engage in face-to-face interactions [8,29]. There is scope for further research to better understand whether different technology strategies are associated with different levels of engagement and response towards harm and safety issues among young adults.

5. Limitations

The current paper describes a narrative literature review, conducted in order to gain a broader view of the currently available evidence on a complex topic like technologically mediated IPV among Generation Z individuals. However, a detailed, nuanced description and interpretation of such violence—especially regarding its scope, pattern, and mitigation services—can be gained by employing a method such as a systematic literature review. The current paper shows a concurrence and intersection of online and offline violence; however, an observable correlation was not established in any of the studies. The current study shows the need for further research to assess any existing association between offline and online violence perpetration and victimization in order to enhance existing mitigation program modalities, and to develop more targeted and effective support services for younger survivors.

6. Conclusions

Traditional methods of assessing IPV do not differentiate between in-person and online victimization; consequently, by failing to explore and address technology-facilitated abuse, practitioners could overlook critical aspects of their clients’ experiences [70]. Additionally, as some abusive behaviors are more easily detectable in online environments, education on the complexities and nuances of technologically facilitated IPV could further enhance the potential for timely and effective interventions [70]. Future studies need to synthesize relevant research to further examine the prevalence, scope, and patterns of technologically facilitated IPV. Further steps include incorporating prevention and mitigation services for this form of violence within ICT devices and platforms, promulgating legislation and policies regarding technology-based abuse, and facilitating collaboration between researchers, lawmakers, and advocates [70]. Finally, the preference for social media and technologically mediated communication over traditional forms of interaction by members of Generation Z renders it essential to rethink and restructure violence mitigation programs and support services for younger victims. Online platforms, especially those provided by social media, can be utilized to encourage disclosure, help-seeking, and service uptake among Generation Z victims of violence. It is particularly important to build digital practice and infrastructure to reach generations to come as our reliance on virtual and web-based technology increases.
In conclusion, the following can be used as recommendations for researchers and policy-makers: Technology-based intervention and mitigation services can provide discreet safety features [60,62]. For instance, AI-based services especially can be tailored to meet the needs of diverse violence survivor populations [45,47]. AI-based features in violence mitigation can facilitate immediate protection and support services by directing survivors immediately to shelters, legal aid, mental health support, and emergency resources. Technology-based services—including predictive analytics that identify IPV incidence and recurrence—can provide evidence-based data and aid in more robust policy-making in violence prevention. There is also future scope of generating AI-driven educational platforms that can engage in disseminating trauma-informed care, act as a digital therapist or psychoeducational coach, and provide tailored learning on digital violence and safer use of technology, thus the reducing overall incidence of technologically mediated IPV.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: S.D. and E.M.; Methodology: S.D. and E.M.; Validation: S.D. and E.M.; Formal Analysis: S.D. and E.M.; Investigation: S.D. and E.M.; Resources: S.D. and E.M.; Data Curation: S.D. and E.M.; Writing—Review and Editing: S.D. and E.M.; Visualization: S.D. and E.M.; Supervision: S.D. and E.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pew Research Center. Internet, Broadband Fact Sheet; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2024; Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/ (accessed on 8 November 2024).
  2. Dimock, M. Defining Generations: Where Millennials End and Generation Z Begins. Pew Research Center, 2019. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/ (accessed on 15 July 2023).
  3. Rogers, M.M.; Fisher, C.; Ali, P.; Allmark, P.; Fontes, L. Technology-Facilitated Abuse in Intimate Relationships: A Scoping Review. Trauma Violence Abus. 2023, 24, 2210–2226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  4. Perrin, A.; Anderson, M. Share of U.S. Adults Using Social Media, Including Facebook, Is Mostly Unchanged Since 2018; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hecht, E. What Years Are Gen X? A Detailed Breakdown of Generation Age Ranges. USA Today, 2022. Available online: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2022/09/02/what-years-gen-x-millennials-baby-boomers-generation Z/10303085002 (accessed on 12 November 2024).
  6. Coe, E.; Doy, A.; Enomoto, K.; Healy, C. Gen Z Mental Health: The Impact of Tech and Social Media. McKinsey Health Institute, 2023. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/mhi/our-insights/gen-z-mental-health-the-impact-of-tech-and-social-media (accessed on 12 November 2024).
  7. Emezue, C. Digital or digitally delivered responses to domestic and intimate partner violence during COVID-19. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020, 6, e19831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dasgupta, S.; Melvin, E. Technology-Based Intimate Partner Violence Intervention Services for Generation Z Victims of Violence. Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Breiding, M.J.; Chen, J.; Black, M.C. Intimate Partner Violence in the United States—2010; National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  10. Campbell, J.C. Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet 2002, 359, 1331–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Dicola, D.; Spaar, E. Intimate partner violence. Am. Fam. Physician 2016, 94, 646–651. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Decker, M.R.; Peitzmeier, S.; Olumide, A.; Acharya, R.; Ojengbede, O.; Covarrubias, L.; Brahmbhatt, H. Prevalence and health impact of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence among female adolescents aged 15–19 years in vulnerable urban environments: A multi-country study. J. Adolesc. Health 2014, 55, S58–S67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Potter, L.C.; Morris, R.; Hegarty, K.; García-Moreno, C.; Feder, G. Categories and health impacts of intimate partner violence in the World Health Organization multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2021, 50, 652–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. National Statistics Domestic Violence Fact Sheet. 2020. Available online: https://ncadv.org/STATISTICS (accessed on 8 November 2024).
  15. Greenhalgh, T.; Thorne, S.; Malterud, K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur. J. Clin. Investig. 2018, 48, e1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Donato, S.; Eslen-Ziya, H.; Mangone, E. From offline to online violence: New challenges for the contemporary society. Int. Rev. Sociol. 2022, 32, 400–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Grimani, A.; Gavine, A.; Moncur, W. An evidence synthesis of covert online strategies regarding intimate partner violence. Trauma Violence Abus. 2022, 23, 581–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Henry, N.; Flynn, A. Image-based sexual abuse: Online distribution channels and illicit communities of support. Violence Against Women 2019, 25, 1932–1955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vale, A.M.; Pereira, F.; Matos, M. Adolescents’ digital dating abuse and cyberbullying. In Adolescent Dating Violence: Outcomes, Challenges and Digital Tools; Caridade, S.M.M., Dinis, M.A.P., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  20. Henry, N.; Powell, A. Embodied harms: Gender, shame, and technology-facilitated sexual violence. Violence Against Women 2015, 21, 758–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Said, I.; McNealey, R.L. Nonconsensual distribution of intimate images: Exploring the role of legal attitudes in victimization and perpetration. J. Interpers. Violence 2023, 38, 5430–5451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Deslandes, S.F.; Silva, C.V.C.D.; Reeve, J.M.; Flach, R.M.D. Nude Leaking: From moralization and gendered violence to empowerment. Vazamento de Nudes: Da moralização e violência generificada ao empoderamento. Cienc. Saude Coletiva 2022, 27, 3959–3968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hanson, S. “Weaponized Sexuality” to the Normalization of Sexual Violence: Rape Culture and the Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Imagery (NCDII). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  24. Mooney, R.; Batko, W. Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Empathy, and Judgements of Non-Consensual Distribution of Intimate Image (NCDII) Victims. J. Concurr. Disord. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Branch, K.; Hilinski-Rosick, C.M.; Johnson, E.; Solano, G. Revenge porn victimization of college students in the United States: An exploratory analysis. Int. J. Cyber Criminol. 2017, 11, 128–142. [Google Scholar]
  26. Klettke, B.; Hallford, D.J.; Mellor, D.J. Sexting prevalence and correlates: A systematic literature review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2014, 34, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Parti, K.; Sanders, C.E.; Englander, E.K. Sexting at an Early Age: Patterns and Poor Health-Related Consequences of Pressured Sexting in Middle and High School. J. Sch. Health 2023, 93, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gracia-Leiva, M.; Puente-Martínez, A.; Ubillos-Landa, S.; González-Castro, J.L.; Páez-Rovira, D. Off-and online heterosexual dating violence, perceived attachment to parents and peers and suicide risk in young women. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Reed, L.A.; Tolman, R.M.; Ward, L.M. Snooping and sexting: Digital media as a context for dating aggression and abuse among college students. Violence Against Women 2016, 22, 1556–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jaureguizar, J.; Dosil-Santamaria, M.; Redondo, I.; Wachs, S.; Machimbarrena, J.M. Online and offline dating violence: Same same, but different? Psicol. Reflexão Crítica 2024, 37, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Quiroz, S.I.; Ha, T.; Anderson, S.F. “You liked that Instagram post?!” Adolescents’ jealousy and digital dating abuse behaviors in reaction to digital romantic relations. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2024, 153, 108111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dragiewicz, M.; Woodlock, D.; Harris, B.; Reid, C. Technology-facilitated coercive control. In The Routledge International Handbook of Violence Studies; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2018; pp. 244–253. [Google Scholar]
  33. O’Brien, W.; Maras, M.H. Technology-facilitated coercive control: Response, redress, risk, and reform. Int. Rev. Law Comput. Technol. 2024, 38, 174–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tinder Pressroom. The Future of Dating Is Fluid. 2024. Available online: https://www.tinderpressroom.com/futureofdating#:~:text=This%20shift%20toward%20honesty,of%20Tinder%20is%20Gen%20Z (accessed on 6 October 2024).
  35. Filice, E.; Abeywickrama, K.D.; Parry, D.C.; Johnson, C.W. Sexual violence and abuse in online dating: A scoping review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2022, 67, 101781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Adarsh, H.; Sahoo, S. Pornography and its impact on adolescent/teenage sexuality. J. Psychosexual Health 2023, 5, 35–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ballester-Arnal, R.; Garcia-Barba, M.; Castro-Calvo, J.; Gimenez-Garcia, C.; Gil-Llario, M.D. Pornography consumption in people of different age groups: An analysis based on gender, contents, and consequences. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 2023, 20, 766–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Döring, N.; Krämer, N.; Mikhailova, V.; Brand, M.; Krüger, T.H.; Vowe, G. Sexual interaction in digital contexts and its implications for sexual health: A conceptual analysis. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 769732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. IBM Report. What Is Artificial Intelligence (AI)? IBM: Armonk, NY, USA, 2025; Available online: https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/artificial-intelligence (accessed on 8 November 2024).
  40. Houssami, N.; Kirkpatrick-Jones, G.; Noguchi, N.; Lee, C.I. Artificial Intelligence (AI) for the early detection of breast cancer: A scoping review to assess AI’s potential in breast screening practice. Expert Rev. Med. Devices 2019, 16, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Swan, T. Bias in the Bot: Ai’s Relationship to Gender-Based Violence. NO MORE, 2025. Available online: https://www.nomore.org/bias-in-the-bot-ais-relationship-to-gender-based-violence/ (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  42. Del Becaro, T. Generative artificial intelligence and gender biases: Between new tools and human rights. Stud. Soc. Sci. J. 2024, 17, 136–142. [Google Scholar]
  43. de Silva de Alwis, R. A rapidly shifting landscape: Why digitized violence is the newest category of gender-based violence. Rev. Juristes Sci. Po 2024, 25, 62. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4648409# (accessed on 12 November 2024).
  44. Stanford Newsroom Report. Dangers of Deepfake: What to Watch For. University, IT, 2024. Available online: https://uit.stanford.edu/news/dangers-deepfake-what-watch (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  45. Lindqvist, L. Book review: Digital Health and Technological Promise: A Sociological Inquiry. Eur. J. Women’s Stud. 2022, 29, 116S–125S. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zweig, J.M.; Dank, M.; Yahner, J.; Lachman, P. The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. J. Youth Adolesc. 2013, 42, 1063–1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, Y.; Fang, J.; Luo, X.; Lindsay, D.; Madre, N.; Paredes, J.; Penna, A.; Melley, E.; Garcia, T. Exploring the efficacy of ChatGPT in understanding and identifying intimate partner violence. Fam. Relat. 2025, 74, 1233–1249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Afrouz, R.; Vassos, S. Adolescents’ Experiences of Cyber-Dating Abuse and the Pattern of Abuse Through Technology, A Scoping Review. Trauma Violence Abus. 2024, 25, 2814–2828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Borrajo, E. Cyber dating abuse and relational variables. In Adolescent Dating Violence: Outcomes, Challenges and Digital Tools; Caridade, S.M.M., Dinis, M.A.P., Eds.; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  50. Caridade, S.; Braga, T.; Borrajo, E. Cyber dating abuse (CDA): Evidence from a systematic review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2019, 48, 152–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Cutbush, S.; Williams, J.; Miller, S.; Gibbs, D.; Clinton-Sherrod, M. Electronic dating aggression among middle school students: Demographic correlates and associations with other types of violence. In Proceedings of the American Public Health Association, Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 27–31 October 2012; pp. 27–31. [Google Scholar]
  52. Marganski, A.; Melander, L. Intimate partner violence victimization in the cyber and real world: Examining the extent of cyber aggression experiences and its association with in-person dating violence. J. Interpers. Violence 2018, 33, 1071–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Stonard, K.E. “Technology was designed for this”: Adolescents’ perceptions of the role and impact of the use of technology in cyber dating violence. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 105, 106211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Stonard, K.E.; Bowen, E.; Walker, K.; Price, S.A. “They’ll always find a way to get to you”: Technology use in adolescent romantic relationships and its role in dating violence and abuse. J. Interpers. Violence 2017, 32, 2083–2117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Temple, J.R.; Choi, H.J.; Brem, M.; Wolford-Clevenger, C.; Stuart, G.L.; Peskin, M.F.; Elmquist, J. The temporal association between traditional and cyber dating abuse among adolescents. J. Youth Adolesc. 2016, 45, 340–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Fernández-González, L.; Calvete, E.; Orue, I. The role of acceptance of violence beliefs and social information pro cessing on dating violence perpetration. J. Res. Adolesc. 2018, 29, 763–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Love is Respect. Types of Abuse. Available online: https://www.loveisrespect.org/resources/types-of-abuse/ (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  58. Centers for Disease Control Prevention. Youth Risk Behavior Survey Data, Summary & Trends Report: 2013–2023; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, USA, 2024.
  59. Ståhl, S.; Dennhag, I. Online and offline sexual harassment associations of anxiety and depression in an adolescent sample. Nord. J. Psychiatry 2020, 75, 330–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hegarty, K.; Tarzia, L.; Valpied, J.; Murray, E.; Humphreys, C.; Taft, A.; Glass, N. An online healthy relationship tool and safety decision aid for women experiencing intimate partner violence (I-DECIDE): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet Public Health 2019, 4, e301–e310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. World Health Organization (WHO). Youth-Centered Digital Health Interventions: A Framework for Planning, Developing and Implementing Solutions with and for Young People. 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240011717 (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  62. Huang, K.Y.; Kumar, M.; Cheng, S.; Urcuyo, A.E.; Macharia, P. Applying technology to promote sexual and reproductive health and prevent gender based violence for adolescents in low and middle-income countries: Digital health strategies synthesis from an umbrella review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2022, 22, 1373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gabarron, E.; Wynn, R. Use of social media for sexual health promotion: A scoping review. Glob. Health Action 2016, 9, 32193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ceci, L. Most Popular Dating Apps Worldwide 2024, by Numbers of Downloads. Statista, 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1200234/most-popular-dating-apps-worldwide-by-number-of-downloads/#:~:text=Most%20popular%20dating%20apps%20worldwide%202024%2C%20by%20number%20of%20downloads&text=With%20over%206.1%20million%20monthly,2.8%20million%20monthly%20downloads%2C%20respectively (accessed on 5 October 2024).
  65. Hinge. Safe Dating Advice. Available online: https://help.hinge.co/hc/en-us/articles/360007194774-Safe-Dating-Advice (accessed on 8 November 2024).
  66. Tinder. Reporting Profiles and Content. Available online: https://www.help.tinder.com/hc/en-us/articles/115003822043-Reporting-profiles-and-content (accessed on 20 October 2024).
  67. Chayn. About Us. Available online: https://www.chayn.co/about (accessed on 12 November 2024).
  68. Hebert, M.; Daspe, M.È; Lapierre, A.; Godbout, N.; Blais, M.; Fernet, M.; Lavoie, F. A meta- analysis of risk and protective factors for dating violence victimization: The role of family and peer interpersonal context. Trauma Violence Abus. 2019, 20, 574–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Gámez-Guadix, M.; Borrajo, E.; Calvete, E. Partner abuse, control and violence through internet and smartphones: Characteristics, evaluation and prevention. Psychol. Pap. 2018, 39, 218–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Brown, M.L.; Reed, L.A.; Messing, J.T. Technology-based abuse: Intimate partner violence and the use of information communication technologies. In Mediating Misogyny: Gender, Technology, and Harassment; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 209–227. [Google Scholar]
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Melvin, E.; Dasgupta, S. Patterns of Control: A Narrative Review Exploring the Nature and Scope of Technologically Mediated Intimate Partner Violence Among Generation Z Individuals. Sexes 2025, 6, 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6040064

AMA Style

Melvin E, Dasgupta S. Patterns of Control: A Narrative Review Exploring the Nature and Scope of Technologically Mediated Intimate Partner Violence Among Generation Z Individuals. Sexes. 2025; 6(4):64. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6040064

Chicago/Turabian Style

Melvin, Emily, and Satarupa Dasgupta. 2025. "Patterns of Control: A Narrative Review Exploring the Nature and Scope of Technologically Mediated Intimate Partner Violence Among Generation Z Individuals" Sexes 6, no. 4: 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6040064

APA Style

Melvin, E., & Dasgupta, S. (2025). Patterns of Control: A Narrative Review Exploring the Nature and Scope of Technologically Mediated Intimate Partner Violence Among Generation Z Individuals. Sexes, 6(4), 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/sexes6040064

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop