Relationship between cyber and in-person dating abuse: a systematic review

Aggression and Violent Behavior 77 (2024) 101943 Available online 26 March 2024 1359-1789/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Relationship between cyber and in-person dating abuse: A systematic review María-Luisa Rodríguez-deArriba a , Cristiana Santos b , Olga Cunha c , Virginia S´ anchez-Jim´ enez a , S´ onia Caridade b , * a Department of Developmental Psychology and Education. Universidad de Sevilla, C/Camilo Jos´ e Cela s/n, 41018 Seville, Spain b Psychology Research Center, School of Psychology, University of Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal c HEI-Lab: Digital Human-Environment Interaction Lab, Universidade Lus´ ofona Do Porto, Porto, Portugal ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Cyber dating abuse In-person dating abuse Intimate partner violence Relationships Systematic review ABSTRACT Dating abuse is widely recognized as a public health issue. A relationship between cyber and in-person dating abuse (CDA and IDA) has been established. A systematic review was carried out with the aim of identifying the studies that analyzed the relationship between CDA and IDA. Filtering by keywords that referred to the sentimental relationship, the context (in-person, online), the aggressive behavior and the participants (adolescents and young adults under 30 years of age) in four databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct. Studies in English, Portuguese and Spanish were included, and were selecting according to the defined inclusion criteria. A total of 35 studies in English, Portuguese or Spanish met the criteria. A great variability in terms of the methodology adopted by the studies to analyze the relationship between the CDA and the IDA was found, as well as a great diversity in terms of the type of analyses and instruments. Studies showed an overlapping between CDA and IDA as well as strong correlates. However, more longitudinal studies are necessary to concluded about temporal relationships. As implications for preventive policies, it is suggested that interventions in dating abuse should consider both online and offline context. 1. Introduction Dating abuse is a form of intimate partner violence (IPV) that has been classified as an epidemic (Carter-Snell, 2015) and a complex public health problem (World Health Organization, 2021) which can seriously affect the physical, mental and social health of the victims (e.g., depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, poor school performance, eating problems, increased risk of being victimized and even death by injury or suicide) (e.g., Exner-Cortens et al., 2013; Jouriles et al., 2017; MacGregor et al., 2019; Taquette & Monteiro, 2019). This abuse is defined as the aggressive behavior perpetrated against the current or past partner (Hamby & Turner, 2013), involving the use or threat of different types of violence, whether physical, emotional, psychological, sexual (Caridade, 2016), or stalking (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021), concerning to both heterosexual and homosexual partners (Dank et al., 2014). In recent years, the increase and dissemination of digital practices and networking using a wide variety of communication tools (e.g., text messages, emails, video calls) has introduced important changes in the social interactions of young people, including those involving the development and maintenance of intimate relationships, creating new opportunities for IPV to occur online (Burke et al., 2011), particularly among younger couples (e.g., Temple et al., 2016; Van Ouytsel et al., 2016, 2017). Cyberdating abuse (CDA), which has assumed different terminologies (Caridade et al., 2019), encompasses all those aggressive and coercive behaviors that occur between both partners through Information and Communication Technologies (ICT's) (Rodríguez-deArriba et al., 2021; Zweig et al., 2013). Described as a multidimensional construct, it may involve the practice of multiple cyber sexual and non-sexual abusive behaviors, both in public and in private (cf. Bennett et al., 2011; Burke et al., 2011; Hinduja & Patchin, 2011; Lucero et al., 2014; Rodríguez-deArriba et al., 2021; Zweig et al., 2013). Thus, there are forms similar to those perpetrated face-to-face, such as verbal and emotional. Some examples of these cyber aggressions would be sending emails or messages containing different threats; posting photos or even sending videos through * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba), [email protected] (O. Cunha), [email protected] (V. S´ anchez-Jim´ enez), [email protected] (S. Caridade). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Aggression and Violent Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aggviobeh https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2024.101943 Received 20 November 2022; Received in revised form 27 February 2024; Accepted 18 March 2024 Aggression and Violent Behavior 77 (2024) 101943 2 social networks to humiliate the partner and/or harming him/her; and resourcing/posting comments that are offensive or demeaning to the partner. Other cyber aggressions are aimed at controlling and spying through daily surveillance of the partner or ex-partner's social media (Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, Instagram, for example) or using the partner's passwords without authorization. Although less numerous, some authors have also explored cyber aggressions of a sexual nature (Reed et al., 2020; Thulin et al., 2021). Due to the absence of physical contact, young people sexually assault verbally (by forcing their partner to talk about sex online) or via multimedia content (such as sending/ receiving/posting unwanted multimedia content). The existing literature on CDA revealed inconsistent prevalence indicators in terms of victimization and perpetration. A research synthesis of 21 studies about CDA in adolescents found that victimization ranged from 12 to 56 % and perpetration ranged from 12 to 54 % (Stonard et al., 2014). A systematic review developed by Caridade et al. (2019) concluded that the reported rate of cyber dating victimization through cyber control ranged between 65 % and 81 % in the 44 studies reviewed. More specifically, perpetration of some type of CDA rates ranged from 8.1 % to 93.7 %, and victimization rates from 5.8 % to 92 %. Also, Fernet et al. (2019) concluded that victimization among adolescents and women ranged between 1 % and 78 %. 1.1. Relationship between in-person and cyber dating abuse In addition to the characterization of CDA, research has sought to analyze and understand the nature of the relationship between traditional dating abuse and CDA (e.g., Caridade et al., 2020; Cava, Buelga, et al., 2020; G´ amez-Guadix et al., 2018). Several studies have pointed in different directions. Thus, some studies (e.g., Borrajo, G´ amez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015) suggested that CDA constitutes indirect aggression, without any connection to the acts of physical aggression of the in-person dating abuse (IDA), and therefore not directly linked to face-to-face dating abuse victimization. Otherwise, other studies have shown that CDA could be an extension of face-to-face dating violence translated into the online context or even a new form of dating abuse that, although it shares similar characteristics with traditional forms, its differential characteristics would make it a qualitatively different experience. Studies that have adopted this perspective (e.g., Marganski & Melander, 2015; Rodríguez-Domínguez et al., 2018; Stonard et al., 2014; Zapor et al., 2017; Zweig et al., 2013) have shown that both CDA and IDA co-occur and are related, arguing that CDA may constitute a form of psychological violence in dating. For example, Zweig et al. (2013) concluded that IDA often co-occurs with other forms of CDA. Thereby, victims of sexual and non-sexual CDA were also victims of physical, psychological, and sexual in-person abuse. Other studies hypothesize the possible temporal relationship between both phenomena. Cava, Buelga, et al. (2020), involving a sample of 492 adolescents, corroborated the association between IDA and CDA victimization. Specifically, IDA victimization would be postulated as a significant risk factor for direct and indirect forms of cyber victimization for both boys and girls. However, these results should be taken with caution as it is a cross-sectional study. Finally, other studies have highlighted the link between CDA and IDA since both phenomena share certain risk factors (Mu˜ noz-Fern´ andez & S´ anchez-Jim´ enez, 2020). Thus, previous involvement in other peer aggressive phenomena, such as bullying or cyberbullying (Espelage et al., 2022; G´ amez-Guadix et al., 2018; Van Ouytsel et al., 2017) would increase the risk of engaging in dating abuse, regardless of the context (in-person or cyber). Also, the quality of the romantic relationship seems to be a common predictor of CDA and IDA. 1.2. The present study Although the evidence indicates that CDA and IDA are closely related, not all studies would point in the same direction (e.g., Taylor & Xia, 2022). The relationship between CDA and IDA is a subject of complex study because not only are both phenomena multidimensional, but the forms of CDA are a current topic of study with no clear consensus by the scientific community (Rodríguez-deArriba et al., 2021). For this reason, studies differ from each other in the instruments and forms included in them, which may be influencing the results found on the relationship between CDA and IDA. Efforts to identify and unify the available studies on their relationship are necessary. In this way, progress could be made in creating effective programs that simultaneously prevent both phenomena (Galende et al., 2020), as well as delimiting the steps to follow for future studies. The present study aimed to address the lack of systematic analysis in the information available on the relationship between CDA and IDA. Specifically, this article was developed as a systematic review that analyzed and synthesized the relationships between CDA and IDA across selected studies, thereby qualitatively presenting the available evidence. The aims of the systematic review were as follows: i) to describe the characteristics of the studies based on their population, instruments, and methodological quality; ii) to know the co-occurrence between cyber and in-person dating abuse; iii) to analyze the temporal relationship between IDA and CDA. 2. Material and methods The present systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021). 2.1. Eligibility criteria The following criteria were used to determine whether studies were eligible for inclusion: i) examined any type of CDA and IDA; ii) restricted to the context of dating in adolescents OR young adults; iii) were peer reviewed studies; iv) were available in English, Spanish or Portuguese; v) published between 2010 and 2022. Studies were excluded when: i) not examined both CDA and IDA; ii) adult participants over 30 years old; iii) systematic reviews, metaanalyses, qualitative or non-peer-reviewed studies; iv) were available in other languages; v) full text not available. 2.2. Search strategies Initially, we defined different keywords and their combination, creating the following search equation: (dating OR “intimate relationship*” OR partner* OR “romantic relationship*”) AND (cyber OR online OR digital OR virtual OR internet OR electronic* OR technolog*) AND (“in person” OR “in-person” OR offline OR “face-to-face” OR traditional) AND (abuse* OR violence OR aggression* OR victimization OR perpetration) AND (young OR adolescent* Or teen* OR student* OR “emerging adult*”). This combination of keywords was used to run the search in several electronic databases: Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EBSCO. We limited our search to titles and abstracts, and manuscripts written in English, Portuguese, and Spanish. The search was carried out between August 2022 and October 2022. Although systematic reviews and meta-analyses were excluded from the study, recent ones were reviewed (e.g., Kim & Ferraresso, 2022; Martínez-Soto & Ibabe, 2022; Rocha-Silva et al., 2021; Rodríguez-deArriba et al., 2021) to verify the existence of additional references not identified through our database search. 2.3. Data extraction Reference data were retrieved, and duplicates were subsequently eliminated. Titles and abstracts were then read to determine if the articles met the inclusion criteria. Articles that met the inclusion criteria through screening the title and abstract were retrieved and fully read to M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 77 (2024) 101943 3 reach a final decision (Fig. 1). 2.4. Coding procedures A codebook was developed to extract data from all the included manuscripts, including the following key characteristics: reference information (e.g., authors, year); studies' characteristics (e.g., location, aims); samples' characteristics (e.g., size, age, gender, ethnicity/race; sexual orientation); instruments characteristics (e.g., to measure IDA and CDA), outcomes/results (e.g., the prevalence of CDA and IDA victimization and perpetration), the relationship between CDA and IN person DA and data analysis. All articles were independently coded by the first and the last authors. A third reviewer verified all data and disagreements were resolved through discussion. 2.5. Methodological quality analysis The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT; Hong et al., 2018) was used to assess the methodological quality of all studies included. This tool proved essential to limit the bias in synthesizing evidence. The MMAT starts with two screening questions (e.g., “Are there clear research questions?”; “Do the collected data allow to address the research questions?”). Five items are considered to assess the methodological quality of studies, depending on their quantitative design (e.g., randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials). Each of the criteria is classified as “yes”, “no” or “not specified”. A more detailed analysis of the classifications of each criterion to obtain more information about the weaknesses of the study was carried out and later used in the discussion of the agreement between coders. Two authors independently assessed the studies' methodological quality. Disagreements were resolved through discussion with another author. 3. Results 3.1. Included studies Fig. 1 shows the flow chart that represents the selection process. Through the research on databases, 506 articles were identified, with four articles found through other sources. Then, after removing the duplicates, there was a total of 296 articles revised by the title, excluding 96 articles for not being related to the topic. Then, 200 articles were analyzed by the abstract. In this step, the studies were mainly excluded because they did not assess CDA or IDA (n =72) and were qualitative studies (n =24). In the final, this systematic review included 35 articles. See Fig. 1 for detailed information. Studies collected through databases (n = 506) + 4 other sources (total n = 510) Studies after duplicate removal (n = 296) Titles revised (n = 296) Excluded studies: Unrelated to the topic (n = 96) Studies included in the review (n = 35) Abstracts analyzed (n = 200) Excluded studies (n = 165) Systematic Review/Metanalysis (n = 17) Qualitative Studies (n = 24) Did not evaluate CDA or IDA (n = 72) Did not analyze the relationship between CDA and IDA (n = 5) Didn’t evaluated in the dating context (n = 25) Adult population (over 30 years old; n = 11) Didn’t specified sample age (n = 8) Full-text not available (n = 3)* Studies added from references list (n = 0) Studies analyzed (n = 35) Fig. 1. Flowchart of selection of studies. M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 77 (2024) 101943 4 3.2. Reference information and study's characteristics The year of publication of the studies ranged between 2013 (Zweig et al., 2013) and 2022 (Cantu & Charak, 2022; Díaz-Aguado & MartínezArias, 2022; Taylor & Xia, 2022). From a total of 35 studies included in this systematic review, 17 studies were conducted in the USA (e.g., Cantu & Charak, 2022; Dick et al., 2014; Zweig et al., 2013), ten in Spain (e.g., Borrajo, G´ amez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Mu˜ niz-Rivas et al., 2019; Mu˜ noz-Fern´ andez & S´ anchez-Jim´ enez, 2020), two in Canada (Duerksen & Woodin, 2019; Duerksen & Woodin, 2021), one in Chile (Lara, 2020), one in England (Stonard, 2021), one in Italy (Morelli et al., 2018), one in Mexico (Javier-Ju´ arez et al., 2021), one in Nicaragua (Lu et al., 2020), and one study included multiples countries (Bulgaria, Cyprus, England, Italy, and Norway; Barter et al., 2016). Regarding the methodological design, most studies used a crosssectional design (32 studies), and four studies reported being longitudinal (Mu˜ noz-Fern´ andez & S´ anchez-Jim´ enez, 2020; Thulin et al., 2021), but only two of them show a longitudinal relationship between the study variables, that is, between IDA and CDA (Lu et al., 2021; Temple et al., 2016). The main statistical method used was correlations (n =25). Besides, studies also included chi-square tests (n =4), logistic regression models (n =3), linear regression models (n =3), hierarchical regression analyses/models (n =1), latent class analyses (n =2), path models (n = 1), adjusted risk ratios (n =1), cross-tabulation (n =1), cross-lagged panel analyses (n =1), negative binomial regression (n =1), threshold analyses (n =1) and Fisher's exact test (n =1). See Table 1 for more information. 3.3. Sample characteristics Regarding the sample characteristics, the sample sizes varied between 70 (Reed et al., 2020) and 5647 (Semenza, 2021a; Semenza, 2021b). Most of the studies, specifically 32, included both females and males in the sample (e.g., Barter et al., 2016; Borrajo, G´ amez-Guadix, Pereda, & Calvete, 2015; Calvete et al., 2021; Trujillo et al., 2020), two studies included exclusively females' samples (Doucette et al., 2021; Morelli et al., 2018), and the sample of one study was composed exclusively of males (Díaz-Aguado & Martínez-Arias, 2022). Regarding the age of the samples, there is some considerable variance, with ages ranging between 11 years old (Calvete et al., 2021; Semenza, 2021a) or 6th grade students (Kernsmith et al., 2018) to 30 years old (Borrajo, G´ amez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015). Many studies (n = 18) reported the participant's ethnicity showing some variability (e.g., Cantu & Charak, 2022; Dick et al., 2014; Temple et al., 2016). Most of the studies also reported some characteristics of participants' sexual orientation, with the majority of them represented by young heterosexuals (e.g., Cava & Buelga, 2018; Reed et al., 2020; Temple et al., 2016; Zweig et al., 2013) and only two studies focusing on LGB population (Ronz´ on-Tirado et al., 2021; Trujillo et al., 2020). One study encompasses boys that were dating girls (Díaz-Aguado & Martínez-Arias, 2022) without specifying sexual orientation (heterosexual or bisexual). See Table 1 and extended Table 1 as a supplemental material for more information. 3.4. CDA and IDA measurement characteristics Regarding the evaluation of CDA (Table 2), the studies included in the systematic review used a variety of measures. Twelve studies used measures adapted from others existing measures (e.g., Dick et al., 2014; Kernsmith et al., 2018; Lu et al., 2020; Lu et al., 2021; Melander & Marganski, 2020; Morelli et al., 2018; Semenza, 2021b; Taylor & Xia, 2022; Temple et al., 2016; See Table 2 for a full description), nine studies used original measures (e.g., Barter et al., 2016; Calvete et al., 2021; Díaz-Aguado & Martínez-Arias, 2022; Doucette et al., 2021), five studies used the Cyber Aggression in Relationships Scale from Watkins et al. (2018) (CARS; Cantu & Charak, 2022; Duerksen & Woodin, 2019; Duerksen & Woodin, 2021; Ronz´ on-Tirado et al., 2021; Trujillo et al., 2020), five studies used the Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire (CDAQ; Borrajo, G´ amez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015, Borrajo, G´ amez-Guadix, Pereda, & Calvete, 2015; Gracia-Leiva et al., 2020; Javier-Ju´ arez et al., 2021; Lara, 2020), three studies used the Escala de Ciber-violencia en Parejas Adolescentes (Cib-VPA, Cava & Buelga, 2018; Cava, Buelga, et al., 2020; Cava, Martínez-Ferrer, et al., 2020) and one study used Couple's Violence in Social Networks Scale in Adolescents (e-VPA; Mu˜ niz-Rivas et al., 2019). All studies evaluated CDA in the last year, except four studies that evaluated in the last three months (Dick et al., 2014; Doucette et al., 2021; Duerksen & Woodin, 2019; Duerksen & Woodin, 2021), three studies that evaluated in the last six months (Borrajo, G´ amez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015; Borrajo, G´ amez-Guadix, Pereda, & Calvete, 2015; Lara, 2020) and one study that referred past year or prior (Cantu & Charak, 2022). The instruments showed good reliability, with some exceptions (Reed et al., 2020). Regarding the evaluation of IDA (Table 2), the studies included also used a variety of measures. Twelve studies used measures adapted from others existing measures (e.g., Borrajo, G´ amez-Guadix, Pereda, & Calvete, 2015; Dick et al., 2014; Zweig et al., 2013), 10 studies used the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI; Cava & Buelga, 2018; Cava, Buelga, et al., 2020; Cava, Martínez-Ferrer, et al., 2020; Doucette et al., 2021; Lu et al., 2021; Morelli et al., 2018; Wolfe et al., 2001), six studies used original measures (e.g., Barter et al., 2016; Thulin et al., 2021), two studies used Conflict Tactics Scale from Straus et al. (1996) (CTS; Marganski & Melander, 2015; Melander & Marganski, 2020), two studies used the Conflict Tactics Scale 2 Short Form from Straus and Douglas (2004) (CTS2-SF; Cantu & Charak, 2022; Ronz´ onTirado et al., 2021), one study used the original measure from Foshee et al. (1998) (Reed et al., 2020), one study used the Cuvinova from P´ erez-S´ anchez and Díaz (2017) (Gracia-Leiva et al., 2020), one study used the Dating Violence Questionnaire from Lara and L´ opez-Cepero (2018) (DVQ; Lara, 2020), and one study used the Violence in Adolescents' Dating Relationships Inventory for Mexican Youth, (VADRI-MX; Aizpitarte & Rojas-Solís, 2019; Javier-Ju´ arez et al., 2021). Some studies did not report the time that the behavior was evaluated, but the majority evaluated IDA in the last year, except four studies that evaluated it in the last three months (Dick et al., 2014; Doucette et al., 2021; Duerksen & Woodin, 2019; Duerksen & Woodin, 2021), one study that evaluated in the last six months (Borrajo, G´ amez-Guadix, & Calvete, 2015), one study in the current or recent dating relationship (Morelli et al., 2018) and one study in the past year or prior (Cantu & Charak, 2022). The instruments showed good reliability, with some exceptions (Cantu & Charak, 2022; Dick et al., 2014; Marganski & Melander, 2015), especially concerning the instruments focusing on sexual IDA (Doucette et al., 2021; Duerksen & Woodin, 2021) (See extended Table 2 in supplemental material). 3.5. CDA and IDA association Of all the studies reviewed, 24 found significant results on the relationship between CDA and IDA (68.6 %) while 11 found mixed results (31.4 %), i.e. some significant and some non-significant depending on the analysis or variables. No study reported only non-significant results (see Table 2). Studies focused on analyzing the overlap between CDA and IDA have found that both phenomena are strongly related (Barter et al., 2016; Dick et al., 2014; Stonard, 2021; Zweig et al., 2013). Thus, adolescents and young adults who suffered or perpetrated sexual and non-sexual forms of CDA were also involved in IDA. Gracia-Leiva et al. (2020) reported that 56.8 % of participants experienced CDA and IDA. Another example of this could be seen in the study of Hinduja and Patchin (2021) when 81 % of the victims of CDA were also the target of IDA. Similarly, most of the young victims of IDA reported being also victims of CDA, though the percentage was lower (63 %). Only Dick et al. (2014) found a non-significant result where participants involved in sexual cyber dating abuse did not report more physical victimization. The study of Stonard M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 77 (2024) 101943 5 Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of the included studies. Source Country Scale of violence Sample characteristics Methodological design Statistics Methodological quality Sex, age range, M, SD Ethnicity, sexual orientation Barter et al. (2016) Bulgaria, Cyprus, England, Italy, and Norway Victimization N =4564 (3299 reported) 53–82 % females; 58–89 % males 14–17 years 96 % heterosexual 4 % homosexual Cross-sectional χ 2 test 3 points Borrajo, G´ amezGuadix, and Calvete (2015) Spain Victimization N =529 (433 dating experience) 37 % male; 60 % female 3 % not indicated 18–30 (M =20.4; SD = 2.1) 96.8 % heterosexual 3.2 % were homosexual Cross-sectional Bivariate correlations Multiple linear regression model 2 points Borrajo, G´ amezGuadix, Pereda, and Calvete (2015) Spain Aggression Victimization N =834 total (788 with sentimental experience) 22.2 % men; 77.3 % women; 0.5 % not indicated 18–30 (M =22.72; SD =4.9) 92.6 % heterosexual 3.7 % homosexual 3.8 % bisexual Cross-sectional Correlations 3 points Calvete et al. (2021) Spain Aggression and victimization N =2746; 53 % females 11–21 (M =14.19; SD =1.59) N =886; 51.7 % females 11–18 (M =14.49, SD =1.45) Cross-sectional Correlations 4 points Cantu and Charak (2022) USA Victimization N =903 with sentimental experience 74.1 % females; 25.9 % males 18–29 (M =20.68; SD =2.42) 100 % Hispanic ethnicity: 98 % White Cross-sectional Correlations 2 points Cava and Buelga (2018) Spain Agression Victimization N =762 50.7 % girls; 49.3 % boys 12–18 (M =14.06; SD =1.81) N =363 (last year sentimental experience): 56.6 % girls; 43.3 % boys 12–18 (M =14.34; SD =1.73) 96.4 % heterosexual 3.6 % homosexual Cross-sectional Bivariate correlations 2 points Cava, Buelga, et al. (2020) Spain Victimization N =919 48.1 % boys; 51.9 % girls (M =14.90; SD =1.60) N =492 with sentimental experience last year 46.5 % boys; 53.5 % girls 12–18 years Cross-sectional Correlations and linear regression analyses 4 points Cava, MartínezFerrer, et al. (2020) Spain Aggression N =919 48.1 % boys, 51.9 % girls M =14.90; SD =1.60 N =492 with 94.5 % heterosexual 5.5 % homosexual Cross-sectional Kruskall-Wallis tests and regressions 4 points (continued on next page) M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 77 (2024) 101943 6 Table 1 (continued) Source Country Scale of violence Sample characteristics Methodological design Statistics Methodological quality Sex, age range, M, SD Ethnicity, sexual orientation sentimental experience last year 46.5 % boys; 53.5 % girls 12–18 years Díaz-Aguado and Martínez-Arias (2022) Spain Aggression N =5150 N =3132 with sentimental experience; 100 % male 14–18 (M =16.03; SD =1.22) Cross-sectional Correlations 4 points Dick et al. (2014) USA Victimization N =1008 23.7 % male; 76.3 % female 14–19 years 15.5 % Asian; 27.1 % African American 36.5 % Hispanic; 5.1 % Native American/Pacific Islander 5.2 % White; 10.7 % Multiracial/ other 83.8 % heterosexual; 11.6 % bisexual 1.4 % homosexual/gay/lesbian; 3.2 % not sure Cross-sectional χ 2 test Logistic regression models 2 points Doucette et al. (2021) USA Aggression N =109 with prior history of physical dating violence N =78 with actual relationship 100 % females 14–17 (M =15.78; SD =0.96) Ethnic: 53.8 % Hispanic or Latina Racial: 32.1 % Black; 23.1 % White 10.3 % American Indian; 1.3 % Asian 52.6 % other 80.8 % heterosexual; 9.0 % bisexual 7.7 % undecided; 2.6 % homosexual Cross-sectional Correlations and hierarchical regression models 2 points Duerksen and Woodin (2019) Canada Aggression N =278 73.4 % females; 26.6 % males 17–25 (M =20.5; SD = 1.9) Cross-sectional Correlations Regression 1 point Duerksen and Woodin (2021) Canada Victimization N =278 with sentimental experience last 3 months 73 % Females; 26.6 % Males 17–25 (M =20.5, SD = 1.9) 82.4 % White; 1.7 % African; 3.4 % Latino/Hispanic; 0.4 % Indigenous 2.9 % Middle Eastern; 11.5 % East Asian 4 % South Asian; 0.4 % Caribbean 1.7 % Other 87.4 % heterosexual; 10.4 % bisexual 0.4 % other; 1.4 % homosexual Cross-sectional Correlations 2 points Gracia-Leiva et al. (2020) Spain Victimization N =1227 100 % females 13–28 (M =18.76, SD =2.82) 91.5 % Spanish; 5.5 % Latin-America 1.7 % Europe; 0.7 % others 100 % male partner (heterosexual/ bisexual not specified) Cross-sectional Correlations 3 points Hinduja and Patchin (2021) USA Victimization N =5539 N =2218 with sentimental experience last year 51.9 % females; 48.1 % men 12–17 (M =14.9) 69 % White; 11.3 % African American 10.6 % Hispanic; 9.1 % Other 89.5 % heterossexual; 10.5 % no heterosexual Cross-sectional Cross-tabulation table and logistic regression models 3 points Javier-Ju´ arez et al. (2021) Mexico Victimization N =394 with sentimental experience last year 62.4 % female; 37.6 % men 15–18 (M =16.05; SD =1) Cross-sectional Correlations 2 points (continued on next page) M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 77 (2024) 101943 7 Table 1 (continued) Source Country Scale of violence Sample characteristics Methodological design Statistics Methodological quality Sex, age range, M, SD Ethnicity, sexual orientation Kernsmith et al. (2018) USA Aggression Victimization N =1236 (883 with sentimental experience) 52 % girls; 48 % boys 41 % students of color 59 % White students Cross-sectional Adjusted risk ratios (correlates) 4 points Lara (2020) Chile Aggression Victimization N =1538 59.8 % females 14–24 (M =18.27; SD =2.96) 95.6 % Heterosexual Cross-sectional Correlations 4 points Lu et al. (2020) Nicaragua Aggression Victimization N =1799 46.4 % females; 45.8 % males 7.8 % did not report their gender (M =13.04; SD =1.10) 52.7 % heterosexual 7.2 % homosexual Cross-sectional Correlations 3 points Lu et al. (2021) USA Aggression Victimization N =1042 N =879 with dating abuse experiences 59 % females; 41 % men W4 16–20 (M =18.1; SD =0.78) 32 % Hispanic; 28 % Black; 29 % White 11 % Other; 77 % heterosexual; 22 % bisexual/ homosexual 1 % not reported Longitudinal (3 waves, 1 years apart each) Correlations Cross-lagged panel analysis 4 points Marganski & Melander (2018) USA Victimization N =540 73.1 % female; 26.9 % males 18–25 (M =19.5; SD = 1.6) 90.0 % White 10 % Non-White Cross-sectional Correlations Logistic regressions 3 points Melander and Marganski (2020) USA Victimization N =844 (540 with sentimental experience past year) 73.10 % female; 26.9 % male 18–25 years 90 % White 10 % Non-White Cross-sectional Correlations 3 points Morelli et al. (2018) Italy Aggression Victimization N =1405 65.1 % females 13–22 (M =18.17; SD =2.39) 14.71 % not exclusively heterosexuals Cross-sectional Correlations 3 points Mu˜ niz-Rivas et al. (2019) Spain Aggression N =1132 46.4 % boys; 53.6 % girls 14–18 (M =15.6; SD = 1.3) Cross-sectional Correlations 5 points Mu˜ noz-Fern´ andez and S´ anchezJim´ enez (2020) Spain Aggression N =1003 (632 with sentimental experience) 51 % boys 12–18 (M =15.03; SD =1.38) 95.7 % Spanish; 2.5 % Latin America 0.8 % European; 0.1 % Asia 0.8 % did not give their nationality 95.7 % heterosexual; 1.1 % gay or lesbian 1.1 % bisexual; 0.3 % pansexual 0.2 % demisexual; 1.6 % still didn't know Longitudinal (2 waves, 6 months apart) Correlations 5 points Reed et al. (2020) USA Aggression Victimization N =70 Latinx students with dating experience; 73.1 % girls 14–18 years (M = 15.65) 78.6 % heterosexual Cross-sectional Correlations 2 points Ronz´ on-Tirado et al. (2021) USA Aggression Victimization N =288 18–29 (M =25.35; SD =2.76) 56 % Non-Hispanic White; 26 % White Hispanic; 6.6 % Black/African American 5.2 % Asian; 4.2 % bior multi-racial 1.4 % American Indian/Alaska 58.3 % bisexual; 25 % gay;16.7 % lesbian Cross-sectional Latent class 3 points (continued on next page) M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 77 (2024) 101943 8 (2021) analyzed the effect of gender, reporting that there was not a significant relationship between physical IDA and CDA experiences for males. Nevertheless, 86 % of physical IDA instigator-victims were also CDA instigator-victims. Finally, Ronz´ on-Tirado et al. (2021) sought to identify latent classes based on involvement in IDA and CDA in the LGB population. They found four different groups with no overlap between the two phenomena: face-to-face IPV, cyber IPV, psychological and stalking cyber IPV, and low IPV. Regarding correlation studies, most studies found a positive and significant relationship between CDA forms (sexual, psychological, stalking, direct aggressions, and control) and IDA (physical, psychological, verbal, control, sexual, and stalking) for both victimization and perpetration (e.g., Calvete et al., 2021; Cantu & Charak, 2022; Duerksen & Woodin, 2021; Trujillo et al., 2020). Specifically, of the 25 studies that performed correlation analyses, 22 studies (88 %) found that all the relationships considered in the analyzes were significant (see Table 2 and extended Table 2 in supplemental material). However, the range of the correlations was very wide, between 0.20 (e.g., Borrajo, G´ amezGuadix, & Calvete, 2015) and 0.84 (Cava & Buelga, 2018), and not all studies showed significant correlations: three studies found mixed results (12 %) (e.g., Cava et al., 2020, b; Dick et al., 2014; Temple et al., 2016), one of which follows a longitudinal design (Lu et al., 2021). Reed et al. (2020) and Taylor and Xia (2022) found no correlation between some CDA and IDA forms (see Table 2). Correlations between IDA victimization (relational, verbal–emotional, and physical) and CDA victimization (control and aggression) were also studied separately for Table 1 (continued) Source Country Scale of violence Sample characteristics Methodological design Statistics Methodological quality Sex, age range, M, SD Ethnicity, sexual orientation Semenza et al. (2021a) USA Victimization N =5647 52 % females 11–19 (M =15) 78 % White Cross-sectional Negative binomial regression Threshold analysis 4 points Semenza et al. (2021b) USA Aggression Victimization N =5647; 52 % females 11–19 (M =15.4; SD = 1.57) 78 % White Cross-sectional Correlations 4 points Stonard (2021) England Aggression Victimization N =469 52 % females 12–18 (M =13.9; SD = 1.27) 88 % White British Cross-sectional χ 2 and Fisher's Exact tests 2 points Taylor and Xia (2022) USA Aggression Victimization N =131 with sentimental experience 58 % female; 41.4 % male 13–19 (M =17.91; SD =1.42) 92.4 % white; 4.7 % Black/African American 1.2 % American Indian/Alaska Native 1.7 % Asian or Pacific Islander; 3.9 % Hispanic/Latino; 96.1 % NonHispanic/Non-Latino 95.3 % Heterosexual; 0.8 % Gay or lesbian 2.3 % Bisexual;1.6 % Unsure Cross-sectional Correlations 0 points Temple et al. (2016) USA Aggression victimization N =1042 Wave 4: 58 % females (M =18.09; SD =0.79) 25.5 % African American; 29.7 % White 31.9 % Hispanic; 12.8 % Others 90.5 % heterosexual; 9.5 % bisexual/homosexual Longitudinal 2 waves 1 year interval Correlations Path model 4 points Thulin et al. (2021) USA Aggression Victimization N =1237 (W1): 60.5 % females; 11–13 (M =12) N =887 (W4): 63.9 % female; 14–16 (M =14.9) W1: 58.4 % white; 15.8 % African American 5.3 % Hispanic; 4.2 % Native American less than 1 % Asian; 10 % multiple categories W4: 65.0 % white; 14.3 % African American 5 % Hispanic; less than 1 % Asian, Native American or Arab American; 12.5 % multiple categories Longitudinal (4 waves, 1 year apart each, 4 years in total) Latent class 4 points Trujillo et al. (2020) USA Victimization N =277 with sentimental experience 61.7 % females; 37.9 % males 18–29 (M =25.39; SD =2.77) 100 % LGB 44 % people of color and white Hispanic individuals Cross-sectional Correlations 2 points Zweig et al. (2013) USA Aggression Victimization N =5647, 3745 with sentimental experience 47 % male; 52 % female 73.7 % Caucasian/White; 5 % African American/Black; 8.2 % Hispanic; 2.2 % Asian; 0.7 % Native American; 10.2 % Mixed race 93.8 % heterosexual/straight; 6.2 % LGBTQ+ Cross-sectional χ 2 test 4 points M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al. Aggression and Violent Behavior 77 (2024) 101943 9 Table 2 Data extraction about measures and relationship. Source Measures Relationship beetwen IDA and CDA IDA CDA No Yes Mixed Barter et al. (2016) 6 questions: emotional and physical 6 questions: emotional abuse, controlling behavior, surveillance, and isolation X Borrajo, G´ amez-Guadix, and Calvete (2015) Last 6 months Two individual questions measuring psychological and physical aggression Last 6 months Cyber Dating Abuse X Borrajo, G´ amez-Guadix, Pereda, and Calvete (2015) Modified Conflicts Tactics Scale (Neidig, 1986; adapted to Spanish by Mu˜ niz-Rivas et al., 2019) Last year CDAQ (Borrajo et al., 2015, b) X Calvete et al. (2021) Last year Cuestionario para evaluar el abuso en relaciones de pareja en adolescentes CARPA X Cantu and Charak (2022) Past year, or prior to the past year CTS-2 Short Form (Straus & Douglas, 2004) Past year, or prior to the past year CARS (Watkins et al., 2018) X Cava and Buelga (2018) CADRI (Wolfe et al., 2001; Spanish adaptation: Fern´ andezFuertes et al., 2006) The CibVPA: 5 double items cybercontrol 5 double items cyberaggression X Cava, Buelga, et al. (2020) Last year CADRI Last year Cyber-Violence in Adolescent Couples Scale: Cyber-control and Cyber-aggression X Cava, Martínez-Ferrer, et al. (2020) Last year CADRI Last year Cyber-Violence in Adolescent Couples Scale: Cyber-control and Cyber-aggression X Díaz-Aguado and Martínez-Arias (2022) 11 indicators that referred to different forms of aggression toward women: physical, relational and emotional 6 indicators X Dick et al. (2014) Past 3 months ARA Victimization Past 3 months Cyber Dating Abuse X Doucette et al. (2021) Past 3 months CADRI Past 3 months Three items to assess monitoring a partner's (a) social networking sites, (b) cell phone call list, and (c) text messages X Duerksen and Woodin (2019) Past 3 months In-person IPV. Psychological and physical IPV in person was measured using the CTS-2 (Straus et al., 1996). Sexual coercion and assault. Stalking. A modified version of the SVQ from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Surveillance Program was used (Fox et al., 2011). Past 3 months CARS (Watkins et al., 2018) X Duerksen and Woodin (2021) Past 3 months Physical IPV Psychological IPV In-person sexual IPV Stalking SVQ (Fox et al., 2011) Past 3 months CARS (Watkins et al., 2018) Full scale after CFA failed X Gracia-Leiva et al. (2020) Cuvinova (P´ erez-S´ anchez & Díaz, 2017) Last year CDAQ (Borrajo et al., 2015, b) X Hinduja and Patchin (2021) Last year Traditional dating abuse Last year DDA X Javier-Ju´ arez et al. (2021) Last year Violence in Adolescents' Dating Relationships Inventory for Mexican Youth, VADRI-MX, validated in Mexican population by Aizpitarte and Rojas-Solís (2019) Last year CDAQ (Borrajo et al., 2015, b), adapted to Mexican population by Hidalgo-Rasmussen et al. (2020) X Kernsmith et al. (2018) 12-month incidence Sexual coercion. 4 items modified from the Sexual Coercion subscale of the Revised CTS (Straus et al., 1996) 12-month incidence Coercive sexting X Lara (2020) Dating Violence Questionnaire (DVQ). The Chilean version of the DVQ (Lara & L´ opez-Cepero, 2018) Last 6 months CDAQ (Borrajo et al., 2015, b) X (continued on next page) M.-L. Rodríguez-deArriba et al.