The Role of Individual Differences in Cyber Dating Abuse Perpetration

Abstract

There is a growing research interest in cyber dating abuse (CDA). CDA includes abusive online behavior toward a current or former intimate partner, such as aggression, control, harassment, and humiliation. Despite the potential overlap and reciprocal relationship of CDA and intimate partner violence, there remains considerable paucity in research exploring predictors of this abusive online behavior. In the current study, we adopt the General Aggression Model framework and explore the role of gender, hegemonic masculinity, vulnerable narcissism, and sexual aggression myths to predict perpetration of CDA. Participants (N = 415, 51 percent women; Mage = 32.68 years) were recruited via social media advertisements and completed an anonymous, confidential online questionnaire. The questionnaire comprised the Conformity to Masculine Roles Norms Inventory, the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale, the Acceptance of Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression Scale, and a modified Cyber Aggression in Relationships Scale. A hierarchical regression analysis indicated that hegemonic masculinity, vulnerable narcissism, and sexual aggression myths were all significant positive predictors of perpetrating CDA. As gender was a significant predictor until the inclusion of these variables, a multiple mediation analysis was performed, indicating that both hegemonic masculinity and sexual aggression myths fully mediated the relationship between gender and perpetrating CDA. These results add to the growing body of research exploring how CDA emerges as a behavior and highlight possible implications for management and intervention.

Introduction

There is recent growing research interest in cyber dating abuse (CDA), which includes the use of technology to aggress toward and/or control current or former intimate partners.¹ Examples of CDA include cyberstalking and monitoring a partner online, sexually harassing a partner via technology, and publicly humiliating a partner online.² Research has highlighted a shared nomological network between CDA behaviors and intimate partner violence (IPV)³ with CDA co-occurring with offline dating violence.⁴ CDA and IPV may share a reciprocal relationship; for example, traditional psychological and physical dating abuse predicts CDA,⁵ but there is also evidence that CDA behaviors in turn predict domestic violence.⁶ Furthermore, it is well established that technology can readily be used to generate offline intimidation.⁷ Given this reciprocal nature of the CDA-IPV relationship, modern violence prevention programs should ideally target both CDA and IPV behaviors.⁸ Thus, understanding individual differences that predict online IPV-related behavior could provide insights regarding effective management and prevention.⁹ The urgency of research in this field cannot be overstated, given estimations that 1 in 10 women aged 15 years or older will experience cyber violence.¹⁰ Despite these prevalence rates, there remains a paucity of research exploring predictors of CDA.

The General Aggression Model (GAM)¹¹ provides a useful framework for understanding aggression and violence.¹² The GAM is an appropriate theoretical model for CDA perpetration as (a) CDA has been characterized as an aggressive behavior,^5,13 and (b) the GAM has been applied to understand IPV.^14,15 The GAM emphasizes the person component in aggressive behavior,¹⁶ which includes proximal causal factors such as attitudes, beliefs, and personality traits.¹⁷ Personality in particular is emphasized as an important variable for understanding person factors that influence aggressive behavior.¹⁸ In the current study, we draw on the GAM and explore, for the first time, the utility of hegemonic masculinity, vulnerable narcissism, and sexual aggression myths (i.e., GAM person factors) to predict perpetration of CDA. In the following sections, we discuss the rationale for each of these variables.

Vulnerable narcissism and CDA

Trait narcissism is commonly conceptualized as two main forms: grandiose narcissism and vulnerable narcissism.^19,20 Compared with grandiose narcissism (e.g., exhibitionism, arrogance, and dominance), vulnerable narcissism is characterized by neuroticism, negative affect, hypersensitivity, and fragile self-esteem.²¹ Vulnerable narcissism is a reliable predictor of abusive intimate partner behavior, such as sexual aggression²² and relationship violence.²³ Vulnerable narcissism has been found to be positively related with perpetration of CDA behavior.²⁴ However, this result requires replication due to potentially limited measurement of CDA being assessed with four nonvalidated behavioral items.²⁴

Hegemonic masculinity

Traditional masculine gender roles have been found to predict perpetration of relationship abuse and IPV,^25,26 and endorsement of gender stereotypes is related to enacting CDA.²⁷ Despite these data, recent research¹ demonstrated no utility for masculinity to predict CDA, attributing this nonsignificant result to low conformity to masculine gender role norms. However, we suggest an alternative explanation—the authors¹ did not exclusively measure hegemonic masculinity. Hegemonic masculinity is conceptualized as a more toxic form of masculinity²⁸ and is characterized by subordination of women, marginalization of homosexual men, dominance, and competitiveness.²⁹ The authors¹ operationalized masculinity using the full version of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI)³⁰; only some domains specifically relate to hegemonic masculinity. Presumably, the use of the full CMNI¹ would have added noise to the data, with variables such as self-reliance and primacy of work unlikely to share conceptual links with CDA. Given the nature of toxic masculinity, it seems likely that conformity to hegemonic masculine norms may predict perpetrating of aggression toward intimate partners.³¹ Finally, given the sexual nature of CDA behaviors,² the role of sexual abuse is also relevant to CDA.

Sexual aggression myths

Attitudinal factors play a significant role in offline sexual abuse and violence.^32,33 The acceptance of myths about sexual aggression, such as rape myths, is a significant factor in problematic attitudes toward sexual assault and has been established as an explanatory predictor of perceived victim culpability^34,35 and the actual perpetration of sexual violence.^36,37 Although initial research focused on the physical crime of rape and associated myths,³⁸ such scales are typically positively skewed due to the extreme nature of the behaviors. As such, more recent conceptualizations have extended beyond rape to allow for more covert myths, and to address other, potentially less severe, forms of sexual aggression, including harassment and sexual assault.³⁹ Online forms of sexual aggression and abuse have also been attributed to myths and attributions that minimize experiences of abuse, including the victims are lying or exaggerating the nature of the impact, the perpetrators were provoked or justified in their behavior, and the victims deserved or needed to be controlled based on their behaviors or other characteristics.^40,41

Rationale, aim, and hypotheses

Given the potential co-occurrence of online and offline forms of relational abuse, it is important to develop an understanding of attitudes and traits that may contribute to online CDA. As vulnerable narcissism, hegemonic masculinity, and sexual aggression myths have been linked to the engagement in offline relational abuse and IPV, the current study will investigate whether these variables are also linked to the perpetration of online relational abuse, specifically, CDA. As previous research has highlighted the role of gender in perpetrating forms of CDA,^42,43 gender is also included as a variable of interest. However, no specific directional hypothesis is generated for gender as inconsistent patterns have emerged, such as higher perpetration for men,⁴⁴ higher perpetration for women,^42,43 or even no gender differences.¹³

In sum, the aim of the current study was to test the utility of gender, hegemonic masculinity, vulnerable narcissism, and acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression (termed sexual aggression myths) to explain perpetration of CDA. Given previous mixed findings, an exploratory hypothesis (H1) was proposed, that gender would be a significant predictor of CDA, although no specific direction was predicted. Further to any variance explained by gender, it was predicted that (H2) hegemonic masculinity, vulnerable narcissism, and sexual aggression myths would be significant positive predictors of CDA.

Methods

Participants and procedure

After obtaining ethical clearance, prospective participants were invited to complete an anonymous online questionnaire via social media (e.g., Facebook, Reddit) advertisements. Inclusion criteria were that all participants were aged 18 years and older and were/had been in a romantic relationship. The sample comprised 415 participants (51 percent women) aged 18–74 years, with an average age of 32.68 years (SD = 10.62). Participants were predominantly white/Caucasian (71 percent), heterosexual (80 percent), and married (36.2 percent).

Measures

The questionnaire included a demographics section (e.g., gender, age) and the following validated measures.

Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46

Following previous research,^28,45 hegemonic masculinity scores were calculating by totaling responses to CMNI-46⁴⁶ subscales of heterosexual self-presentation (six items; e.g., “I would be furious if someone thought I was gay”; α = 0.84), power over women (four items; e.g., “In general, I control the women in my life”; α = 0.90), and violence, (six items; e.g., “Sometimes violent action is necessary”; α = 0.80). Participants responded to items on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 4 = Strongly agree). Higher scores indicated higher levels of hegemonic masculinity.

Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale

Vulnerable narcissism was measured with the Hypersensitive Narcissism Scale,⁴⁷ which includes 10 self-report items (e.g., “My feelings are easily hurt by ridicule or the slighting remarks of others”; α = 0.81). Participants responded to items on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree). Total scores were summed, with higher scores indicating higher levels of hypersensitive narcissism.

Acceptance of Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression Scale

Participants' acceptance of sexual aggression myths was measured with the Acceptance of Modern Myths About Sexual Aggression Scale,³⁹ comprising 30 self-report items (e.g., “Interpreting harmless gestures as ‘sexual harassment’ is a popular weapon in the battle of the sexes”; α = 0.98). Participants responded to items on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Completely disagree; 7 = Completely agree). Total scores were summed, with higher scores indicating higher levels of sexual aggression myths.

Cyber Aggression in Relationships Scale

To measure perpetration of CDA, participants completed a modified (Supplementary Data) version of the Cyber Aggression in Relationships Scale (CARS).⁴⁸ Although originally three-factor approach to the CARS was recommended,⁴⁸ more recent research⁴⁹ found no satisfactory factor structure or model fit and recommended treating the CARS as unidimensional. The CARS is composed of 16 items [“Sent threatening or harassing messages to my partner via text or social media” and “I have checked my partner's messages (e.g., e-mail, Facebook, phone) without them knowing”; α = 0.96]. Participants considered their current, or most recent relationship, and indicated how often the behaviors occurred on a scale of 1 = Never to 5 = Always. Following previous guidelines of scoring,⁵⁰ a dichotomous variable was created for each item (0 = absent; 1 = present). Items were summed for a total score, with higher scores indicating higher perpetration of CDA.

Design

The study was cross-sectional and correlational in design. Gender, hegemonic masculinity, vulnerable narcissism, and sexual aggression myths were the predictor variables, and CDA was the criterion. Hierarchical regression analyses were run to test the hypotheses. Initial checks indicated no effect of sexual orientation on hegemonic masculinity scores [F(3, 408) = 2.34, p = 0.073].

Results

Descriptives and correlational statistics

Before running analyses, assumptions (linearity, homoscedasticity, normality) were assessed with the standardized residual scatterplot and histogram and considered met. Total and gendered descriptives and gendered t-tests are presented in Table 1. Total and gendered correlations are presented in Table 2.

Table 1.

Total and Gendered Descriptive Statistics for Predictor Variables of Hegemonic Masculinity, Vulnerable Narcissism, and Sexual Aggression Myths and Criterion Variable of Cyber Dating Abuse

	Total		Men		Women		D	T	d
	M (SD)	Min–Max	M (SD)	Min–Max	M (SD)	Min–Max	D	T	d
Hegemonic masculinity	35.44 (8.20)	16–56	38.32 (6.96)	19–56	32.08 (8.33)	16–51	5.53	7.31^**	0.72
Vulnerable narcissism	32.23 (6.67)	10–48	32.40 (6.87)	10–46	32.08 (6.51)	10–48	0.32	0.49	0.05
Sexual aggression myths	102.61 (42.70)	30–197	113.32 (41.76)	30–197	92.53 (42.70)	30–196	20.79	4.99^**	0.49
Cyber dating abuse	6.64 (6.27)	0–16	7.61 (6.63)	0–16	5.72 (5.77)	0–16	1.89	3.02^**	0.30

Note: D = sex difference; d = Cohen's d; t-tests Bonferroni corrected for multiple comparisons.

p < 0.001.

Table 2.

Total and Gendered Bivariate Correlations for Predictor Variables of Hegemonic Masculinity, Vulnerable Narcissism, and Sexual Aggression Myths and Criterion Variable of Cyber Dating Abuse

	Total			Men			Women
	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	3
1. Hegemonic masculinity
2. Vulnerable narcissism	0.37^**			0.67^**			0.40^**
3. Sexual aggression myths	0.61^**	0.57^**		0.52^**	0.60^**		0.62^**	0.56^**
4. Cyber dating abuse	0.53^**	0.47^**	0.64^**	0.44^**	0.51^**	0.59^**	0.60^**	0.43^**	0.69^**

p < 0.001.

A two-step hierarchical regression analysis was run with gender at step 1 and explained a significant 2 percent (R² adjusted) of variance in CDA. Hegemonic masculinity, vulnerable narcissism, and sexual aggression myths were entered at step 2 and explained a significant additional 44.7 percent of variance. As a total model, gender, hegemonic masculinity, vulnerable narcissism, and sexual aggression myths explained a significant 46.4 percent (R² adjusted) of variance in CDA. F tests, R², effect sizes, and coefficients are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis with Gender, Hegemonic Masculinity, Vulnerable Narcissism, and Sexual Aggression Myths as the Predictors and Cyber Dating Abuse as the Criterion

	B	SE	β	t	F	df	R²	R² adj (percent)	Effect size (f)
Step 1					8.86^*	1,390	0.02	2	Small (0.02)
Constant	9.51	0.99
Gender	−1.87	0.63	−0.15	−2.98^*
Step 2					85.55	4,387	0.47	46.4	Large (0.82)
Fchange					108.66^**	3,387	44.7
Constant	−11.06	1.72
Gender	0.52	0.50	0.04	1.04
Hegemonic masculinity	0.17	0.04	0.22	4.61^**
Vulnerable narcissism	0.14	0.04	0.15	3.24^**
Sexual aggression myths	0.06	0.01	0.44	8.28^**

Gender is coded as men = 0, women = 1; effect size interpreted in line with Cohen's (1992)⁵⁴ conventions.

p < 0.01; ^**p < 0.001.

At step 1, gender (coded men = 0, women = 1) was a significant negative predictor of CDA, with men more likely to perpetrate CDA. At step 2, gender was no longer a significant predictor, and hegemonic masculinity, vulnerable narcissism, and sexual aggression myths were all significant positive predictors.

Exploratory analysis: mediation

As gender was no longer significant in step 2, some mediation effects may have been occurring. To examine this possibility, all variables entered in step 2 were tested as potential mediators for the relationship between gender and CDA in post hoc analyses. To account for shared variance, a multiple mediation model (Fig. 1) was run via PROCESS analysis.⁵¹ Indirect effect bootstrapped 95 percent confidence intervals indicated that hegemonic masculinity and sexual aggression myths fully mediated the relationship between gender and CDA. As gender did not significantly predict vulnerable narcissism, vulnerable narcissism was not a significant mediator.

FIG. 1.

Standardized regression coefficients for the relationships between gender and CDA as mediated by hegemonic masculinity, vulnerable narcissism, and myths about sexual aggression. Gender is coded as 1 = male and 2 = female. Standardized regression coefficient for the relationship between gender and CDA when mediators are present is in parentheses. **p < 0.001; *p < 0.01. CDA, cyber dating abuse.

Discussion

In the current study, we tested the utility of gender, hegemonic masculinity, vulnerable narcissism, and acceptance of sexual aggression myths to predict perpetration of CDA. We predicted that (H1) gender would be a significant predictor of CDA, although no specific direction was predicted. Although being male significantly predicted perpetration of CDA, once the other variables were added to the regression model, gender was no longer significant. We also predicted that (H2) hegemonic masculinity, vulnerable narcissism, and sexual aggression myths would be significant positive predictors of CDA, and the results support this hypothesis. These findings are in line with the GAM,¹¹ consistent with the featured role of person factors¹⁶ as meaningful contributors within the GAM model. Importantly, the current data show the applicability of the GAM in the context of CDA, adding to extant research^14,15 on the broader utility of the GAM.

Post hoc analyses revealed that hegemonic masculinity and sexual aggression myths mediated the gender-CDA relationship, such that being male predicted stronger hegemonic masculinity and greater adherence to sexual aggression myths, which in turn predicted perpetration of CDA. This mediation provides some insight regarding previous inconsistent results of the relationship between gender and perpetration of CDA.^13,42–44 Although some reverse directionality is possible, for example, engaging in CDA might perpetuate sexual aggression myths and hegemonic masculinity beliefs, the current data align with the GAM¹¹ in terms of the role of person factors as proximate inputs leading to aggression outcomes.

Notably, within the GAM, proximate factors that facilitate aggression also indicate potential avenues for intervention, particularly around their interaction with internal states and social encounters.¹⁶ In our study, we found that comparative to vulnerable narcissism, variables associated with social norms (e.g., hegemonic masculinity and sexual aggression myths) had the strongest utility when predicting CDA perpetration. The strength of social norms over other characteristics has been highlighted for related digital dating behaviors, such as sext dissemination (i.e., sending/receiving sexually explicit images via apps or phones⁵²). For CDA, this is an important finding as social norms are more flexible than personality—narcissism tends to be relatively stable over time.⁵³ We suggest that CDA may be reduced through targeting men's hegemonic masculinity beliefs and sexual aggression myths. One implication of these results is that CDA perpetration may be especially problematic in cultures where sexual aggression myths are accepted and normalized.

Both men and women with high levels of vulnerable narcissism reported perpetrating CDA (i.e., no mediation was present). Broadly, this finding is consistent with extant research on the relationship between vulnerable narcissism and abusive intimate partner behavior.^22–24 It seems likely that the contingent nature of self-esteem within vulnerable narcissism explains these results; the feelings of inadequacy associated with vulnerable narcissism, along with the vulnerable narcissist's potential preoccupation with fears of abandonment and rejection,⁵⁵ may be driving online monitoring/abusive behaviors regardless of the perpetrator's gender.

This study relied on self-report, which is both a strength and a limitation. It was essential to draw on self-report to assess the internal person factors, which we examined as predictors, and including a behavioral measure of CDA would have added another dimension to the research. Ethical concerns would obviously arise with covert monitoring of online behavior, and experimenter effects would possibly be elicited with overt monitoring. We therefore believe that the self-report approach used, which allowed data to be collected anonymously and online, presumably reducing socially desirable responding, was appropriate. Future studies are desirable that replicate our findings with different methodologies. Such methodologies could include longitudinal or experimental designs, dyadic data for a partner perspective, or diary study approaches to further corroborate the relationship. Given the inconsistent results of gender and perpetration of CDA, we recommend future researchers exploring the role of gender adopt methodology to include measures of gender roles.^56,57 Furthermore, although initial checks indicated no effect of sexual orientation on hegemonic masculinity scores, it is worth noting that this result approached significance (p = 0.073). Future research could therefore seek to recruit more nonheterosexual individuals to increase statistical power to explore this potential effect.

In the current study, we operationalized CDA using a purposefully broad approach. It would be interesting in future research to unpack CDA further by differentiating active (e.g., downloading and using a tracking app) and passive (e.g., looking at social media pages) monitoring as well as controlling behaviors, and the role of partner consent in these actions. For example, if a partner consents to being monitored and even provides their password—does the monitoring behavior still constitute CDA? Similarly, this approach might allow insights into the point where passive largely normalized monitoring becomes dysfunctional and relationally damaging, and serving as a precursor or even adjunct to offline dating abuse. With future research, it might be possible to identify the person-related indicators that would flag potential cyber (and offline) dating abuse.

Digital dating is an increasingly mainstream activity with significant likelihood of negative experiences.^1,2 The current study provides promising initial insights into the role that person factors (specifically hegemonic masculinity, vulnerable narcissism, and sexual aggression myths) play in CDA. Our data indicate that being male relates to CDA through hegemonic masculinity beliefs and sexual aggression myths, whereas vulnerable narcissism is directly related to CDA. Broadly, this research adds to the growing understanding of how CDA emerges as a behavior,^51,58–60 builds on research highlighting the utility of examining vulnerable narcissism within the online context,^61,62 and—importantly—indicates potential avenues for CDA intervention.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

There is no financial information to declare for the current study.

Supplementary Material

References

Villora

, Yubero

, Navarro

. Cyber dating abuse and masculine gender norms in a sample of male adults. Future Internet, 2019; 11:84–95.

Gámez-Guadix

, Borrajo

, Calvete

. Partner abuse, control and violence through internet and smartphones: characteristics, evaluation and prevention. Psychologist Papers, 2018; 39:218–227.

Cheyne

, Guggisberg

. (2018) Stalking: An age old problem with new expressions in the digital age. In Guggisberg M, Henricksen J, eds. Violence against women in the 21st Century: Challenges and future directions. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers, pp. 161–190.

Zweig

, Dank

, Yahner

, et al. The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2013; 42:1063–1077.

Temple

, Choi

, Brem

, et al. The temporal association between traditional and cyber dating abuse among adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2016; 45:340–349.

Brem

, Florimbio

, Grigorian

, et al. Cyber abuse among men arrested for domestic violence: cyber monitoring moderates the relationship between alcohol problems and intimate partner violence. Psychology of Violence, 2019; 9:410–418.

Melander

. College students' perceptions of intimate partner cyber harassment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 2010; 3:263–268.

Debnam

, Temple

. Dating matters and the future of teen dating violence prevention. Prevention Science, 2021; 22:187–192.

Branson

, March

. Dangerous dating in the digital age: jealousy, hostility, narcissism, and psychopathy as predictors of cyber dating abuse. Computers in Human Behavior, 2021; 119:106711.

10.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014) Violence against women: an EU-wide survey—main results. https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2014-vaw-survey-main-results-apr14_en.pdf (accessed Apr. 2021 ).

11.

Anderson

, Bushman

. Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 2002; 53:27–51.

12.

DeWall

, Anderson

, Bushman

. The general aggression model: theoretical extensions to violence. Psychology of Violence, 2011; 1:245–258.

13.

Borrajo

, Gámez-Guadix

, Pereda

, et al. The development and validation of the cyber dating abuse questionnaire among young couples. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015; 48:358–365.

14.

Chester

, DeWall

. The roots of intimate partner violence. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2018; 19:55–59.

15.

Warburton

, Anderson

. (2018) On the clinical applications of the general aggression model to understanding domestic violence. In Javier RA, Herron WG, eds. Understanding domestic violence: theories, challenges, remedies. London, United Kingdom: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc., pp. 71–106.

16.

Allen

, Anderson

, Bushman

. The general aggression model. Current Opinion in Psychology, 2018; 19:75–80.

17.

Anderson

, Bushman

. Media violence and the general aggression model. Journal of Social Issues, 2018; 74:386–413.

18.

Cavalcanti

, Pimentel

. Personality and aggression: a contribution of the general aggression model. Estudos de Psicologia (Campinas), 2016; 33:443–451.

19.

Miller

, Hoffman

, Gaughan

, et al. Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: a nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality, 2011; 79:1013–1042.

20.

Wink

. Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1991; 61:590–597.

21.

Dickinson

, Pincus

. Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 2003; 17:188–207.

22.

Zeigler-Hill

, Enjaian

, Essa

. The role of narcissistic personality features in sexual aggression. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2013; 32:186–199.

23.

Ménard

, Dowgwillo

, Pincus

. The role of gender, child maltreatment, alcohol expectancies, and personality pathology on relationship violence among undergraduates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2018; 1–21.

24.

Zerach

. Pathological narcissism, cyberbullying victimization and offending among homosexual and heterosexual participants in online dating websites. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 57:292–299.

25.

Reyes

, Foshee

, Niolon

, et al. Gender role attitudes and male adolescent dating violence perpetration: normative beliefs as moderators. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2016; 45:350–360.

26.

Santana

, Raj

, Decker

, et al. Masculine gender roles associated with increased sexual risk and intimate partner violence perpetration among young adult men. Journal of Urban Health, 2006; 83:575–585.

27.

Van Ouytsel

, Van Gool

, Walrave

, et al. Sexting: adolescents' perceptions of the applications used for, motives for, and consequences of sexting. Journal of Youth Studies, 2017; 20:446–470.

28.

Parent

, Gobble

, Rochlen

. Social media behavior, toxic masculinity, and depression. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 2019; 20:277–287.

29.

Connell

. (1990). An iron man: the body and some contradictions of hegemonic masculinity. In Messner M, Sabo D, eds. Sport, men and the gender order. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books.

30.

Mahalik

, Locke

, Ludlow

, et al. Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2003; 4:3–125.

31.

Smith

, Parrott

, Swartout

, et al. Deconstructing hegemonic masculinity: the roles of antifemininity, subordination to women, and sexual dominance in men's perpetration of sexual aggression. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2015; 16:160–169.

32.

Cossins

. Restorative justice and child sex offences: the theory and the practice. British Journal of Criminology, 2008; 48:359–378.

33.

Higgins

, Heath

, Grannemann

. How type of excuse defense, mock juror age, and defendant age affect mock jurors' decisions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 2007; 147:371–392.

34.

Hammond

, Berry

, Rodriguez

. The influence of rape myth acceptance, sexual attitudes, and belief in a just world on attributions of responsibility in a date rape scenario. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2011; 16:242–252.

35.

Workman

, Orr

. Clothing, sex of subject, and rape myth acceptance as factors affecting attributions about an incident of acquaintance rape. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 1996; 14:276–284.

36.

Bohner

, Jarvis

, Eyssel

, et al. The causal impact of rape myth acceptance on men's rape proclivity: comparing sexually coercive and noncoercive men. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2005; 35:819–828.

37.

O'Donohue

, Yeater

, Fanetti

. Rape prevention with college males: The roles of rape myth acceptance, victim empathy, and outcome expectancies. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2003; 18:513–531.

38.

Burt

. Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980; 38:217–230.

39.

Gerger

, Kley

, Bohner

, et al. The acceptance of modern myths about sexual aggression scale: development and validation in German and English. Aggressive Behavior, 2007; 33:422–440.

40.

Dekker

, Wenzlaff

, Daubmann

, et al. (Don't) look at me! How the assumed consensual or non-consensual distribution affects perception and evaluation of sexting images. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 2019; 8:706–717.

41.

Wolak

, Finkelhor

, Mitchell

, et al. Online “predators” and their victims: myths, realities, and implications for prevention and treatment. The American Psychologist, 2010; 63:111–28.

42.

March

, Litten

, Sullivan

, et al. Somebody that I (used to) know: gender and dimensions of dark personality traits as predictors of intimate partner cyberstalking. Personality and Individual Differences, 2020; 163:110084.

43.

Smoker

, March

. Predicting perpetration of intimate partner cyberstalking: gender and the Dark Tetrad. Computers in Human Behavior, 2017; 72:390–396.

44.

Deans

, Bhogal

. Perpetrating cyber dating abuse: a brief report on the role of aggression, romantic jealousy and gender. Current Psychology, 2019; 38:1077–1082.

45.

Waddell

, Van Doorn

, March

, et al. Dominance or deceit: the role of the Dark Triad and hegemonic masculinity in emotional manipulation. Personality and Individual Differences, 2020; 166:110160.

46.

Parent

, Moradi

. An abbreviated tool for assessing conformity to masculine norms: psychometric properties of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory-46. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2011; 12:339–353.

47.

Hendin

, Cheek

. Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: a reexamination of Murray's Narcism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 1997; 31:588–599.

48.

Watkins

, Maldonado

, DiLillo

. The cyber aggression in relationships scale: a new multidimensional measure of technology-based intimate partner aggression. Assessment, 2018; 25:608–626.

49.

Duerksen

, Woodin

. Cyber dating abuse victimization: links with psychosocial functioning. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2019; 0886260519872982.

50.

Watkins

, Benedicto

, Brockdorf

, et al. Physical and sexual intimate partner aggression among college students: examining the roles of cyber intimate partner aggression and alcohol use. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2020; 0886260520912593.

51.

Hayes

. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford publications.

52.

Clancy

, Klettke

, Hallford

. The dark side of sexting—factors predicting the dissemination of texts. Computers in Human Behavior, 2019; 92:266–272.

53.

Miller

, Campbell

, Pilkonis

. Narcissistic personality disorder: relations with distress and functional impairment. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 2007; 48:170–177.

54.

Cohen

. Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1992; 1:98–101.

55.

Sarasohm

. Balanced on the horns of a dilemma: observations on work and chronic depression. Clinical Social Work Journal, 2004; 32:171–183.

56.

Hernandez Bark

, Escartín

, van Dick

. Gender and leadership in Spain: a systematic review of some key aspects. Sex Roles, 2014; 70:522–537.

57.

March

, van Dick

, Hernandez Bark

. Current prescriptions of men and women in differing occupational gender roles. Journal of Gender Studies, 2016; 25:681–692.

58.

Clancy

, Klettke

, Hallford

, et al. Sharing is not always caring: understanding motivations and behavioural associations with sext dissemination. Computers in Human Behavior, 2020; 112:e106460.

59.

March

, Grieve

, Marrington

, et al. Trolling on Tinder^® (and other dating apps): Examining the role of the Dark Tetrad and impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 2017; 110:139–143.

60.

March

, Grieve

, Wagstaff

, et al. Exploring anger as a moderator of narcissism and antisocial behaviour on Tinder. Personality and Individual Differences, 2020; 161:109961

61.

Grieve

, March

, Watkinson

. Inauthentic self-presentation on Facebook as a function of vulnerable narcissism and lower self-esteem. Computers in Human Behavior, 2020; 102:144–150.

62.

Grieve

, March

. ‘Just checking’: vulnerable and grandiose narcissism subtypes as predictors of phubbing. Mobile Media & Communication, 2020; 9:195–1209.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB