Is This WhatsApp Conversation Aggressive? Adolescents’ Perception of Cyber Dating Aggression

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Sage in Journal of Interpersonal Violence, available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211028011 To cite this article: Sánchez-Jiménez, V., Rodríguez-deArriba, M.-L., & Muñoz-Fernández, N. (2022). Is This WhatsApp Conversation Aggressive? Adolescents’ Perception of Cyber Dating Aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(19-20), NP17369-NP17393. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211028011 Is this WhatsApp conversation aggressive? Adolescents’ perception of cyber dating aggression Abstract This study investigated adolescents’ understanding of cyber dating aggression in terms of frequency and aggressiveness: how prevalent they perceived cyber dating aggression among adolescents and how aggressive they perceived such behaviours to be. To do so, different WhatsApp scenarios were presented to adolescents, controlling for the typology of cyber dating aggression (verbal/emotional, controlling or sexual) and its publicity (public or private cyber dating aggression). The moderating effect of gender and moral disengagement was also analysed. A total of 262 adolescents (56.5% girls; mean age of 14.46 years) participated in the study and answered a computer-based questionnaire. General linear models revealed that adolescents consider cyber dating aggression to be present in most adolescent romantic relationships. Controlling online behaviour was perceived as the most frequent and the least aggressive behaviour. Adolescents rated private cyber aggression as more frequent and less aggressive than public cyber aggressions. Controlling for gender, girls reported that cyber dating aggression was more common and more severe than boys. Moreover, participants with high levels of moral disengagement perceived cyber dating aggressions to be less aggressive than participants with medium-low moral disengagement. This study reveals the significance of this type of cyber dating aggression, the public/private dimension, gender and moral disengagement as variables that influence adolescent understanding of cyber dating aggression. These results have implications not only for the design of cyber dating aggression prevention programmes but also for future research on cyber dating aggression. Keywords: Cyber dating aggression; adolescents; perceived frequency; aggressiveness; moral disengagement Is this WhatsApp conversation aggressive? Adolescents’ perception of cyber dating aggression Cyber dating aggression has been defined as the use of new technologies to hurt and harass a romantic partner (Zweig et al., 2013). Although the research to date is relatively recent (Korchmaros et al., 2013), it is considered a public health issue (Niolon et al., 2017; Patton et al., 2014) with significant consequences for young people’s socio-emotional development and well-being (Reed et al., 2017; Stephenson et al., 2018). Studies conducted on adolescent populations are scarce (Peskin et al., 2017), and there is no clear consensus about typologies of cyber dating aggression or its prevalence. Some studies analyse cyber dating aggression as a general construct without considering particular types of aggression (Cutbush & Williams, 2016). Other studies analyse specific types of cyber aggression, such as digital monitoring or cyberstalking (Reed et al., 2016; Smith- Darden et al., 2017), and still others differentiate between direct forms of cyber dating aggression and control (Quesada et al., 2018), between psychological and relational cyber dating aggression (Morelli et al., 2018), or between sexual and non-sexual forms of aggression (Dick et al., 2014; Zweig et al., 2013). Despite this variety in studies, the most studied types of cyber dating aggression are 1) verbal/emotional cyber dating aggression, namely, the use of new technologies to insult, harass and/or threaten the partner (Quesada et al., 2018; Reed et al., 2017); 2) controlling online behaviour, such as behaviours aimed at monitoring the partner, maintaining surveillance of their activities and violating the partner’s privacy (Korchmaros et al., 2013; Sánchez-Jiménez et al., 2017); and 3) cyber sexual aggression, which includes sexual coercion, sexual pressure (Dick et al., 2014; Reed et al., 2017; Smith-Darden et al., 2017), sexual and verbal insults and comments (Zweig et al., 2014), and the interchange of undesired sexual material (Morelli et al., 2016). To date, cyber dating aggression prevalence rates vary from 8% to 80% (Cutbush et al., 2021; Kernsmith et al., 2018; Morelli et al., 2018; Sánchez-Jiménez et al., 2017; Yahner et al., 2015). Cyber sexual aggression is less frequent than other types of cyber dating aggression (Dick et al., 2014; Reed et al., 2017; Zweig et al., 2013), and the results for verbal/emotional aggression and control are inconclusive. Some studies have found similar prevalence rates for both forms of aggression (Korchmaros et al., 2013), whereas others have shown higher rates of verbal/emotional cyber aggression than of controlling online behaviour (Smith-Darden et al., 2017), or vice versa (Reed et al., 2017). This disparity in the results should also be understood in light of rapid technological changes, which favour a new form of cyber dating aggression that remains unclear. Consequently, it is difficult to know not only how these behaviours are present in adolescents' lives but also how adolescents themselves interpret these new forms of aggression. This work aims to expand on this line of research by trying to answer the following questions. Do young people think that cyber dating aggression is present in adolescent romantic relationships? How aggressive are cyber dating aggressions, such as control, verbal/emotional assault, and sexual aggression, to adolescents? Are there specific characteristics of the online context that modulate the perceived aggressiveness of cyber dating aggressions? Are there personal variables that can influence the understanding of these behaviours? Adolescents' perception of cyber dating aggression Studies about how adolescents perceive cyber dating aggression are still scarce and have mostly been conducted using qualitative methodologies such as directly asking adolescents and young adults about their perception of a range of online behaviours (Baker & Carreño, 2016; Baker & Helm, 2010; Lucero et al., 2014; Rueda et al., 2015; Stonard et al., 2017; Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). These studies suggest that the perception of cyber dating aggression varies, from behaviours that are perceived as annoying but not aggressive to those considered aggressive and severe (Baker & Helm, 2010). In one of the first studies on this topic, Picard (2007) concluded that adolescents rated certain verbal/emotional aggressions as severe, such as insulting or spreading rumours. Similarly, Reed et al. (2020) asked adolescents about their worst cyber dating experiences and found that insults, non-sexual rumours and threats were negative behaviours experienced at these ages. Studies with university students described a similar pattern. Bennett et al. (2011) asked university students how they would feel if their partner harassed them online in various ways. The results showed that young adults would be more upset if they were humiliated or threatened than if they suffered online control. Works focusing on online control have yielded controversial results. Although some adolescents perceive certain online controlling behaviours as truly threatening and harmful (Reed et al., 2020; Rueda et al., 2015; Stonard et al., 2017), it is also true that online control seems to be more acceptable than other forms of cyber aggression, such as sexual aggression (Lucero et al., 2014) and face-to-face aggression (Baker & Helm, 2010). An illustration of this is that some adolescents consider certain acts of online control, such as sharing passwords or checking the list of their partner’s social network contacts, to be acceptable under certain circumstances and even as proof of mutual trust and care for their partner (Baker & Carreño, 2016; Utz & Beukeboom, 2011; Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). In summary, although online control may be irritating and increase conflict within the relationship, some adolescents perceive this form of aggression as less severe than other forms of dating aggression, even justifying it in some circumstances. Some studies on cyber dating sexual aggression indicate that the exchange of sexual content generates conflict within the relationship, which could lead to other aggressive behaviours, such as face-to-face sexual coercion (Drouin et al., 2015; Ross et al., 2019). In addition, adolescents recognise that sharing partners’ sexual or erotic pictures without their consent is a severely abusive behaviour on the same level as other behaviours of a verbal/emotional nature (Picard, 2007; Reed et al., 2020), which would indicate that sexual and verbal/emotional cyber dating aggression are perceived with similar severity. In summary, these studies conclude that the specific types of cyber aggression and/or the forms in which it is expressed influence how adolescents perceive these behaviours. However, such analysis does not provide information about what other processes or contextual variables may be moderating adolescents' interpretation of these situations. For example, some studies have revealed that adolescents involved in dating violence tend to rewrite and justify these aggressive episodes (Arriaga et al., 2018), expressing more tolerance and acceptance of violence (Foshee et al., 2016). The same results have also been found for cyber aggression (Borrajo et al., 2015). This study will delve into the process related to adolescents’ understanding of cyberdating aggression. To do that, we will assume an ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2007), trying to analyse the interaction between some personal and contextual variables and adolescents’ interpretation. Assuming that the context surrounding dating violence is very complex and can be influenced by different variables, we will focus on three variables that have not been deeply analysed: the characteristics of the online context, specifically, its public/private nature; the role of gender; and the influence of moral disengagement (MD). Although previous studies have analysed adolescents’ interpretation of typologies of cyberdating aggression (Picard, 2007; Stonard et al., 2017, among others), there are few studies controlling for the public/private nature of cyber-aggression. Likewise, a gender-based perspective must be assumed in the study of cyber-aggression since males and females experience and interpret cyber aggression in different ways (Bennett et al., 2011; Reed et al., 2020). In this respect, we are not aware of any studies that have analysed how gender may moderate the perception of the severity of cyber dating aggression in public and private online contexts. Finally, we will study the influence of MD. MD is a key variable for understanding the cognitive mechanisms behind aggressive behaviour, so an association between MD and adolescents’ views of cyberdating aggression could be expected. In the next section, we will discuss the available evidence of these three variables. The public nature of cyber dating aggression: an additional issue to consider? In the case of cyber dating aggression, the online context introduces unique nuances that should be considered. For example, previous studies on cyberbullying concluded that the virtual environment favours the anonymity and invisibility of the bully and that these characteristics seem to be relevant in the understanding that adolescents experience cyberbullying rather than bullying (Nocentini et al., 2010; Palladino et al., 2017). The same applies to the private or public nature of aggressions (Smith, 2012). Studies on cyberbullying revealed that public aggressions may exponentially increase the impact on the victim due to the presence of a large audience. It has been concluded, therefore, that adolescents perceive cyberbullying more severe when it occurs in public than when it occurs in private (Cuadrado- Gordillo & Fernández-Antelo, 2016; Nocentini et al., 2010; Palladino et al., 2017). Studies analysing the impact of the online context’s characteristics, such as the public/private dimension, on adolescents’ perceptions of cyber dating aggression are still scarce (Melander, 2010). A recent study analysing the impact of new technologies on aggression confirmed that, for adolescents, the public nature of the aggression increased the harm caused and the suffering of the victim at least partially due to the speed at which information is spread (Stonard, 2020). Similarly, Reed et al. (2020) found that many of the Perceived aggressiveness. After each WhatsApp scenario, participants were asked, "How would you label the previous situation?”, and responses were measured on a 4-point Likert scale: “normal, non-aggressive” (1), “slightly aggressive” (2), “aggressive” (3), and “very aggressive” (4). Moral disengagement Scale (MDS; Bandura et al. 1996). Participants rated their agreement or disagreement with 32 items (e.g., “Teasing someone does not truly hurt them”), measured on a 5-point Likert scale from “completely disagree” (0), “slightly disagree” (1), “neither agree nor disagree” (2), “slightly agree” (3), and “completely agree” (4). The scale showed adequate internal consistency (α = .86). Procedure and design Participants were recruited by means of a convenience sample. The data collection was conducted in a computer room during tutoring hours. Each student watched the scenarios on a computer and answered the questions individually. Prior to participating in the study, students were informed that their participation was voluntary and their responses were confidential. Families were informed of the study through its approval by the school council prior to its commencement. Approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee (xxx, blinded for review; Research Ethics Board, 1223-N-18). The procedures used in this study adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. First, participants were asked to fill out sociodemographic questions and the moral disengagement questionnaire. Second, they were given instructions on the WhatsApp Scenarios. For each scenario, the WhatsApp conversation appears on their screen. Then, participants answered two questions, one about the perception of aggressiveness and one about perception of frequency. The scenarios were as follows: 1) private cyber verbal/emotional aggression, 2) public cyber verbal/emotional aggression, 3) private online control, 4) public online control, 5) private cyber sexual aggression, and 6) public cyber sexual aggression. The study design was a 3×2 with the type of cyber dating aggression (verbal/emotional; control; and sexual) and public or private dimension as intra-subject variables. Gender and moral disengagement were inter-subject variables. Dependent variables were the perception of frequency and perception of aggressiveness. Data analysis strategy Prior to performing data analysis, assumption normality was assessed using a Q-Q plot. All Q-Q plots showed a non-significant deviation from the fitted line; therefore, a normal distribution was accepted. General linear models (GLMs) were carried out to analyse the effect of the type of cyber aggression, the public/private dimension, gender and MD on the perception of frequency and the perception of aggressiveness. Post hoc analyses were calculated using Bonferroni correction. To test the moderation effect of MD, participants were grouped according to their degree of MD using the 75th percentile as the cut-off point (P75 = 1.35). Participants with MD values below the 75th percentile were assigned a value of 1 and were labelled medium-low disengagement. Participants with MD values equal to or greater than the 75th percentile were assigned the value 2 and were labelled high disengagement. All analyses were performed in SPSS 26. In a previous step, to control whether adolescents’ sexual orientation would influence the results, we ran the analysis controlling for sexual orientation. We obtained similar results in terms of descriptive statistics and the association among the study variables, and no differences due to sexual orientation were observed (p > .05). For this reason, we decided to test our hypothesis without considering sexual diversity. Results Do adolescents consider cyber dating aggressions to be widespread among young couples? Below are the descriptive statistics (see Table 1) that summarise the perceived frequency of cyber dating aggression according to the type of aggression, public/private criteria, gender and MD. In general, adolescents considered that cyber dating aggression was quite frequent in dating relationships, with means above three in all cases. --Insert Table 1 around here-- The GLM results showed the main effects of type of aggression, public/private dimension, and gender on perceived frequency. Regarding the type of aggression [F(2, 448) = 4.51; p < .05,  p2 = .02], young people considered online controlling behaviour (M = 3.66) to be significantly more frequent than cyber sexual aggression (M = 3.48) (p <.05). After online controlling behaviour, cyber verbal/emotional assault was perceived as the next most frequent behaviour (M = 3.59). However, no significant differences were observed in this form of cyber aggression compared to control and sexual assault (p > .05). For the public/private dimension [F(1, 224) = 17.06; p < .001,  p2 = .07], young people indicated that private cyber assaults (M = 3.65) were more frequent than public assaults (M = 3.50). Concerning gender [F(1, 224) = 18.74; p < .001,  p2 = .08], girls (M = 3.78) reported that cyber dating aggressions were more common in dating relationships than boys (M = 3.36). MD had no effect on frequency perception (Fs <1), and no interaction effect was found. Do adolescents perceive cyber dating aggressions between young couples as aggressive? Overall, adolescents identified the cyber dating aggression situations as aggressive, with average scores of approximately three (see Table 1). The GLM results showed the main effects of type of aggression, public/private dimension, gender and MD on perceived aggressiveness. Regarding the type of cyber aggression [F(2, 454) = 47.57; p < .001,  p2 = .17], the results showed that online controlling behaviour (M = 2.53) was the least aggressive behaviour in comparison to cyber verbal/emotional (M = 3.09) and cyber sexual (M = 3.06) aggression (p < .001). No differences were observed between the aggressiveness rating of verbal/emotional aggression and that of sexual aggression (p = .602). For the public/private dimension [F(1, 227) = 45.37; p < .001,  p2 = .17], the data revealed that public cyber aggressions (M = 3.03) were perceived as more aggressive than private cyber aggressions (M = 2.75). Sex established significant differences [F(1, 227) = 10.22; p < .01,  p2= .04], with girls (M = 3.02) perceiving the scenarios as more aggressive than boys (M = 2.77). MD also affected aggressiveness ratings, [F(1, 227) = 5.64; p < .05,  p2 = .02]. Participants with high moral disengagement (M = 2.80) perceived the behaviours presented as being less aggressive than did participants with medium to low moral disengagement levels (M = 2.99). The analysis of the interaction effects showed statistically significant differences for the interaction type of cyber aggression * public/private [F(2, 454) = 8.77; p < .001,  p2 = .04]. In particular, public cyber verbal/emotional aggression and public online control were perceived as more aggressive than when they occurred in the private sphere (p < .05). However, public and private cyber sexual assaults were considered equally aggressive. The gender * public/private interaction was also significant [F(1, 227) = 5.25; p < .05,  p2 = .02], showing that for boys, the cyber aggressions that occurred in public were less aggressive than those for girls (boys M = 2.86; girls M = 3.21) (p < .05). However, for both boys and girls, private cyber aggressions were similarly valued (boys M = 2.68; girls M = 2.83). A third-order interaction effect was found between type of cyber aggression * publicity/privacy * MD [F(2, 454) = 7.93; p < .001,  p2 = .03]. When cyber aggressions occurred in private (see supplemental information Figure 1), participants with medium-low moral disengagement perceived the cyber sexual aggression situation as more aggressive than participants with high moral disengagement (p < .05). However, this interaction was not found for cyber verbal/emotional and online control (p > .05). In contrast, when cyber aggressions occurred in public (see supplemental information Figure 2), participants with medium-low moral disengagement rated online control as more aggressive than did participants with high moral disengagement (p < .05). However, no differences were found for the other types of cyber dating aggression. Discussion This study aimed to advance adolescents' understanding of cyber dating aggression, exploring the joint contributions of behavioural, contextual and personal variables in the perception of cyber dating aggression scenarios among Spanish adolescents through quantitative research. This work is in line with previous qualitative studies that have tried to determine the perception that adolescents have of these behaviours (Baker & Carreño, 2016; Baker & Helm, 2010; Lucero et al., 2014; Rueda et al., 2015; Stonard et al., 2017; Stonard, 2020; Van Ouytsel et al., 2016). According to the results, the type of aggression influenced the adolescents’ understanding of cyber dating aggression, both in the perceived frequency and perceived level of aggression. Online controlling behaviour was rated as the most frequent behaviour compared to cyber sexual assault and was rated as the least aggressive behaviour compared to cyber verbal/emotional and sexual forms of aggression. Additionally, adolescents deemed cyber verbal/emotional and cyber sexual aggressions to occur with similar frequency, and they were perceived as equally aggressive. These results confirm the first two hypotheses of this research, in line with prevalence studies that have shown that online control appears to be one of the most frequent types of cyber aggression, favoured by the characteristics of the online context, which makes access to the partner’s information easy (Rueda et al., 2015). Moreover, the results regarding online control are in line with qualitative studies that concluded that online controlling behaviours are justifiable in certain circumstances (Baker & Carreño, 2016; Utz & Beukeboom, 2011; Van Ouytsel et al., 2016) since they are seen as signs of concern and care for the partner (Stonard et al., 2017). The analysis of the impact of the public/private dimension on the perception of cyber dating aggression scenarios has also yielded interesting results. In general, young people perceive public aggressions as less frequent and more aggressive than private aggressions. This result is consistent with previous studies that have explored the public/private dimension in cyberbullying and cyber dating aggression (Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; Palladino et al., 2017; Stonard, 2020). These studies highlight that public aggressions are perceived as more severe than private aggressions given the broad audience to which the victim is exposed, which would exponentially increase the impact of the aggression. In this regard, Stonard (2020) found that adolescents considered private assaults to be less harmful than public assaults because they could be managed more easily by the victims; a victim would have more opportunities to control the situation, such as by avoiding the perpetrator. At this point, it is interesting to note the interaction effect found between the types of aggression and the public/private dimension in how adolescents perceive cyber dating aggression as aggressive. In our study, the adolescents considered verbal/emotional aggression to be more aggressive in public than in private. These results are similar to those found in university students, where public threats and humiliation were considered severe (Leisring & Giumetti, 2014). Concerning online control, the interaction effect showed that adolescents perceived this behaviour as less aggressive when it occurs in private. We are not aware of any previous studies that have analysed the differences between public and private online control. However, several studies have theorised how social networks offer the opportunity to monitor the couple in anonymity or in the intimacy of a relationship in which the partners consent or agree to reciprocal monitoring, giving a supposed morality to behaviours normally considered immoral (Rueda et al., 2015; Utz & Beukeboom, 2011). In other words, there is greater social acceptance of controlling behaviours when they occur in a private setting. Thus, when online control happens in public, young people may perceive that the limits of a practice that is common among them are broken, probably because in the presence of others, these behaviours become less socially desirable. Finally, sexual assault scenarios were perceived as the least frequent and most aggressive behaviours, regardless of whether they occurred publicly or privately. These results corroborate the conclusions of Menesini and collaborators (2011), who stated that aggressions involving a visual image are considered more severe than those behaviours involving only written content, given that they include more serious violations of the victim's intimacy and privacy. However, our results go against previous research that states that the sending of sexual images is perceived as a common intimate practice of adolescent couples (Lucero et al., 2014), which would have led us to expect that adolescents rated these sexual behaviours as less aggressive when they occur in the private sphere. A possible explanation for these controversial results may be found in the very nature of the aggressive scenarios recreated in the WhatsApp conversations in this study. The scenarios described pressures on the partner to send sexual images and the sharing of erotic photos of the partner to third parties. From these results, it can be deduced that engaging in an unwanted way in this type of behaviour would be experienced by adolescents as highly aggressive, humiliating and embarrassing (Stonard, 2020), regardless of the audience. As personal variables, gender and moral disengagement have also provided valuable information regarding adolescents' perception of cyber dating aggression. As hypothesised, girls perceive cyber assault as more frequent and more aggressive than boys do (Reed et al., 2017), especially when it occurs in the public domain (Stonard, 2020) and regardless of the type of cyber aggression. Girls’ perception of the level of aggression may be related to the emotional impact these behaviours have on them. In this sense, girls experience and anticipate more negative emotions than boys (Smith et al., 2018), especially in the case of sexual aggression (Lucero et al., 2014). For boys, the denial of these behaviours would have significant consequences for those involved as victims or as aggressors as well as for their partners (Arriaga et al., 2018). Boy victims may decide to continue in a violent relationship, minimising the harm they suffer. For boy aggressors, perceiving these behaviours as less aggressive would allow them to justify certain behaviours, increasing the probability of assaulting their partner (Borrajo et al., 2015). Therefore, the differential perception of cyber dating aggression between boys and girls means that boys might have difficulties recognising it in their own relationships. Consequently, it places boys at higher risk of being aggressors or victims. The results obtained on the effect of MD on the perception of cyber dating aggression by adolescents confirm that those who presented high levels of MD were also those who perceived the scenarios as less aggressive, especially the verbal/emotional forms and public online control. This effect was not related to gender. Therefore, this study confirms that the impact of MD on the perceived level of aggressiveness of cyber dating aggression works equally for boys and girls, placing them at higher risk of involvement in these behaviours, as previous studies on bullying, cyberbullying and face-to-face dating violence have found (Menesini et al., 2003; Paciello et al., 2020; Rubio-Garay et al., 2019). Although no previous studies have analysed the relationship between MD and cyber dating aggression, the results of this study allow us to draw conclusions about the importance of analysing the cognitive processes underlying this new form of aggression and incorporating them into future intervention programmes. This research had several limitations that should be highlighted. The first limitation has to do with the materials designed to carry out this work, specifically with the scenarios. In the case of sexual aggression, we recognised that the behaviour shown in public (nonconsensual sharing of sexual content) differed from that shown in private (sexual coercion or pressure); therefore, these differences might affect the results. Although adolescents rated these two behaviours similarly, future studies should deeply examine this aspect, accurately assessing the same sexual behaviour in public and private. This may be a challenge for researchers because available measures include non-consensual sharing and sexual coercion as prototypical indicators of the cyber sexual aggression (Reed et al., 2017; Zweig et al., 2014). Second, the scenario order effect could have affected the results. The lack of counterbalance in the stimuli could explain the absence of differences between the private and public spheres in the perceived level of aggression of cyber sexual aggressions in comparison to the other two forms of cyber aggression. According to the habituation effect, a decrease in participants’ ratings was expected as a consequence of repeated expositions, explaining the lack of differences we found in the ratings of cyber sexual aggression. However, it could be expected that this habituation process affected both private and public sexual aggression, maintaining the differences in the ratings of private and public spheres, such as for verbal/emotional and controlling behaviours. Moreover, private scenarios were less intense than public scenarios, so the exposition effect should have been faster in the private conditions than in the public sphere, and this was not the case for private sexual cyber aggression in comparison to private verbal/emotional aggressions and private control. Future studies should incorporate the counterbalancing technique to assess this limitation and to confirm or reject our results. Third, future work should increase the number of situations shown under each condition. For example, adolescents’ perception of other types of behaviours or their perception in other public situations, such as public profiles on social networks. Finally, the results observed are of boys and girls who identified themselves as mostly heterosexual. Although our preliminary results did not show differences between heterosexual and non-heterosexual adolescents, future studies should delve into more systematic studies about the influence of sexual diversity on adolescents’ interpretation of cyber dating aggression. Finally, in this research, we did not control for the possible effect of dating violence involvement on adolescents’ interpretation. Previous research has shown that adolescents involved in dating violence justify and accept violence within the relationship (Arriaga et al., 2018), so it could be expected that it could influence their interpretation of the WhatsApp scenarios. Future studies should analyse the combined influence of behavioural, cognitive and online context variables to advance the understanding of cyberdating violence from an adolescent perspective. Research implications The results of this study indicate that adolescents consider cyber dating aggression to be present in young couples. Moreover, the type of cyber aggression (online control), perpetrating the aggression in a private sphere, being a boy and presenting higher levels of MD are all related to perceiving the cyber dating aggressions as less aggressive. Focusing on this aspect, the results of this study indicate the need to design prevention programmes that are capable of intervening in the different manifestations of cyber aggression in young couples, incorporating the characteristics of the online context and how this context influences the impact and understanding of these aggressions. This conclusion is especially relevant in the case of online control and monitoring, assuming that these are perceived as the least aggressive and the most frequent form among adolescents, with similar rates for private and public online control. Consequently, although they can understand that private forms of control are less aggressive than public forms, the frequency of these behaviours seems to be similar. This result should be understood in the context where online control occurs. As Palladino, B. E., Menesini, E., Nocentini, A., Luik, P., Naruskov, K., Ucanok, Z., Dogan, A., Schultze-Krumbholz, A., Hess, M., & Scheithauer, H. (2017). Perceived severity of cyberbullying: differences and similarities across four countries. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1524. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01524 Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Ranney, M., Patel, S., Kelley, C., Eschmann, R., & Washington, T. (2014). Social media as a vector for youth violence: a review of the literature. Computers in human behavior, 35, 548–553. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.043 Peskin, M. F., Markham, C. M., Shegog, R., Temple, J. R., Baumler, E. R., Addy, R. C., Hernández, B., Cuccaro, P., Gabay, E.K., Thiel, M., & Emery, S. T. (2017). Prevalence and correlates of the perpetration of cyber dating abuse among early adolescents. Journal of youth and adolescence, 46(2), 358–375. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0568-1 Picard, P. (2007). Tech abuse in teen relationships study. Chicago, IL: Teen Research Unlimited. Retrieved from http://www.breakthecycle.org/sites/default/files/pdf/survey-lina-tech-2007.pdf Pornari, C. D., & Wood, J. (2010). Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school students: the role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome expectancies. Aggressive behavior, 36(2), 81–94. http://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20336 Quesada, S., Fernandez-Gonzalez, L., & Calvete, E. (2018). Sexting in adolescence: frequency and association with the victimization of cyberbullying and dating violence. Behavioral psychology, 26(2), 225–242. Retrieved from http://www.behavioralpsycho.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/01_Quesada_26-2- 1.pdf Reed, L. A., Conn, K., & Wachter, K. (2020). Name-calling, jealousy, and break-ups: Teen girls’ and boys’ worst experiences of digital dating. Children and Youth Services Review, 108. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104607 Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., & Ward, L. M. (2017). Gender matters: experiences and consequences of digital dating abuse victimization in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of adolescence, 59, 79–89. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.05.015 Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., Ward, L. M., & Safyer, P. (2016). Keeping tabs: attachment anxiety and electronic intrusion in high school dating relationships. Computers in human behavior, 58, 259–268. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.019 Ross, J. M., Drouin, M., & Coupe, A. (2019). Sexting coercion as a component of intimate partner polyvictimization. Journal of interpersonal violence, 34(11), 2269–2291. http://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516660300 Rubio-Garay, F., Amor, P., & Carrasco, M. (2019). The contribution of moral disengagement to dating violence and general aggression: the gender and age moderating effects. The Spanish journal of psychology, 22, E59. http://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2019.57 Rueda, H. A., Lindsay, M., & Williams, L. R. (2015). “She posted it on Facebook”: Mexican American adolescents’ experiences with technology and romantic relationship conflict. Journal of adolescent research, 30(4), 419–445. http://doi.org/10.1177/0743558414565236 Sánchez-Jiménez, V., & Muñoz-Fernández, N. (2021). When are sexist attitudes risk factors for dating aggression? The role of moral disengagement in Spanish adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041947 Sánchez-Jiménez, V., Muñoz-Fernández, N., Lucio, L.A., & Ortega-Ruiz, R. (2017). Cyberaggression in adolescent couples: a cross-cultural study Spain-Mexico. Revista mexicana de psicología, 34(1), 46–54. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=243056045005 Smith, K., Cénat, J. M., Lapierre, A., Dion, J., Hébert, M., & Côté, K. (2018). Cyber dating violence: prevalence and correlates among high school students from small urban areas in Quebec. Journal of affective disorders, 234, 220–223. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2018.02.043 Smith, P. K. (2012). Cyberbullying and cyber aggression. In S. R. Jimerson, A. B. Nickerson, M. J. Mayer, & M. J. Furlong (Eds.), Handbook of school violence and school safety: international research and practice (pp. 93–103). New York, NY: Routledge. Smith-Darden, J. P., Kernsmith, P. D., Victor, B. G., & Lathrop, R. A. (2017). Electronic displays of aggression in teen dating relationships: does the social ecology matter? Computers in human behavior, 67, 33–40. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.015 Stephenson, V. L., Wickham, B. M., & Capezza, N. M. (2018). Psychological abuse in the context of social media. Violence and gender, 5(3), 129–134. http://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2017.0061 Stonard, K. E., Bowen, E., Walker, K., & Price, S. A. (2017). “They’ll always find a way to get to you”: technology use in adolescent romantic relationships and its role in dating violence and abuse. Journal of interpersonal violence, 32(14), 2083–2117. http://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515590787 Stonard, K. E. (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, Article 106211. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106211 Utz, S., & Beukeboom, C. J. (2011). The role of social network sites in romantic relationships: effects on jealousy and relationship happiness. Journal of computermediated communication, 16(4), 511–527. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083- 6101.2011.01552.x Van Ouytsel, J., Van Gool, E., Walrave, M., Ponnet, K., & Peeters, E. (2016). Exploring the role of social networking sites within adolescent romantic relationships and dating experiences. Computers in human behavior, 55, 76–86. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.08.042 Yahner, J., Dank, M., Zweig, J. M., & Lachman, P. (2015). The co-occurrence of physical and cyber dating violence and bullying among teens. Journal of interpersonal violence, 30(7), 1079–1089. http://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514540324 Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of youth and adolescence, 42(7), 1063–1077. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9922-8 Zweig, J. M., Lachman, P., Yahner, J., & Dank, M. (2014). Correlates of cyber dating abuse among teens. Journal of youth and adolescence, 43(8), 1306–1321. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0047-x Table 1 Perceived frequency and aggressiveness of cyber dating aggression Type of cyber aggression Mean (SD) Gender Moral disengagement Boys Girls Mediumlow High Perception of frequency Verbal/emotiona l Private 3.68 (.89) 3.42 (1.01) 3.89 (.72) 3.69 (.89) 3.68 (.92) Public 3.47 (.86) 3.25 (.89) 3.64 (.79) 3.48 (.88) 3.46 (.81) Control Private 3.65 (.99) 3.37 (.99) 3.88 (.92) 3.66 (.98) 3.69 (1.01) Public 3.67 (.89) 3.49 (.98) 3.81 (.78) 3.72 (.83) 3.50 (1.01) Sexual Private 3.54 (.97) 3.34 (.95) 3.68 (.97) 3.53 (.97) 3.55 (1.02) Public 3.47 (.94) 3.26 (1.01) 3.63 (.84) 3.53 (.86) 3.34 (1.11) Perception of aggressivenes s Verbal/emotiona l Private 2.82 (.79) 2.68 (.86) 2.92 (.71) 2.83 (.79) 2.85 (.78) Public 3.35 (.77) 3.12 (.89) 3.52 (.61) 3.38 (.75) 3.26 (.82) Control Private 2.41 (.92) 2.33 (.93) 2.47 (.91) 2.43 (.93) 2.28 (.91) Public 2.76 (.90) 2.57 (.96) 2.90 (.82) 2.85 (.89) 2.45 (.83) Sexual Private 3.07 (.95) 2.98 (1.02) 3.14 (.88) 3.20 (.87) 2.73 (1.05) Public 3.11 (.93) 2.96 (.98) 3.23 (.88) 3.09 (.93) 3.13 (.96)