A Dyadic Examination of Interpersonal Electronic Surveillance

Abstract

Interpersonal electronic surveillance (IES) refers to monitoring a partner's location, conversations, and other private information such as search history. Although IES has been linked to relationship functioning, this work does not take into account the dyadic nature of relationships using data from both members of a dating pair. Thus, this study aimed to document rates and concordance of IES perpetration among a college sample of dating pairs, explore whether rates of IES perpetration differ by gender, and describe how each partner's IES perpetration is associated with trust, jealousy, negative relationship behaviors, and explore whether any associations are moderated by gender. A total of 136 couples (age 18–25 years) participated in a study wherein each member of the couple reported IES perpetration, trust, jealousy, and negative relationship behaviors. Results indicated that 44 percent of the sample presented with either one or both partners engaging in IES perpetration. Furthermore, results of actor–partner interdependence models indicated that there were significant actor effects for all outcomes such that one's own IES perpetration was related to lower trust in the partner, higher jealousy, and engagement in more negative partners toward the partner. However, no significant partner effects emerged. Results further indicated that actor effects were present for women, but not men. Overall, results of this study indicate that dyadic examinations of IES perpetration may shed light into the ways that couples use technology and that future research is warranted to determine how to prevent IES perpetration and ultimately potential relationship consequences.

Introduction

Electronic media, including text messaging and social media, are the primary methods of communication among emerging adults.^1,2 Recent data show that 100 percent of young adults aged 18–29 years have a mobile device and 96 percent have a smartphone.³ As such, electronic media are important relational contexts among young adults.^4,5 The ease of sharing and searching for personal information through technology may contribute to a blurring of digital boundaries between dating partners that puts emerging adults at risk for being harassed, threatened, monitored, humiliated, or verbally abused by a dating partner through electronic media.^6–10

Cyber dating abuse (CDA) has been defined as a form of control and harassment by a dating partner through the use of technology and social media.^7,11 Between 77 and 93 percent of college students report past-year CDA.^8,12–14 Although research suggests that CDA occurs across all ages,^15,16 emerging adults, including college students, are the highest users of electronic media^1,3 and thus may be at particular risk for CDA. Cyberstalking,^a or the use of the Internet and other technological devices to monitor or harass another person in a threatening way that can become intimidating or fear-invoking¹⁷ is a prominent form of CDA.¹⁸ A common subtype of cyberstalking and CDA is interpersonal electronic surveillance (IES),¹⁹ which refers to monitoring a partner's location, conversations, and other private information such as search history.^6,20,21 IES may also include monitoring a dating partner's social media accounts, checking up on a partner through phone or social media, or going through a partner's phone or social media without permission.^10,22–25

One study found that when examining specific types of IES among college students over the previous year, ∼34 percent women and 32 percent of men reported monitoring a partner's whereabouts and activities electronically, 41 percent of women and 34 percent of men reported looking at their partner's private information on a computer or cell phone without permission, and 35 percent of women and 27 percent of men monitored who their partner talks to and is friends with.²¹ Of note, recent research indicates that approximately two-thirds (67 percent) of college students reported engaging in these behaviors in the past 6 months.²⁶

The existing IES literature suggests that these behaviors may be perceived as normative by adolescents and emerging adults, with many indicating they believe it is a sign of trust for a dating partner to be able to monitor one's social media account or cell phone use.^10,27,28 However, perceiving a behavior as normative does not imply that it is without potential consequences. Indeed, research indicates that IES is related to several negative aspects of relationship functioning including jealousy, relationship uncertainty, and interpersonal violence,^{15,19,21,29,30} with some research indicating that jealousy is the primary predictor of engaging in it.³¹

Of note, the direction of associations (i.e., does IES lead to increased feelings of jealousy, mistrust, and so on, or the converse) is not well-understood. Furthermore, these associations are hypothesized to be in part because individuals who engage in IES may exhibit insecure or maladaptive attachment styles.^26,32–34 However, this is still a relatively nascent area of inquiry and research exploring how IES perpetration is related to relationship functioning is still needed as a first step in developing targeted prevention and intervention efforts.

One factor related to IES that is not yet fully understood is gender. Existing CDA and IES studies analyzing gender have yielded mixed results with some supporting gender differences in rates of IES perpetration^{6,8,10,11,25,27,35} such that women are more likely to engage in IES and other forms of CDA. Related to victimization, a recent meta-analysis found that women are more likely to be victims of IES and cyberstalking.¹⁸

However, other studies have not found gender differences.¹⁵ In addition, we are unaware of studies exploring whether associations between IES and relationship factors are moderated by gender. However, some works indicate that when men and women experience dating abuse (non-CDA) at similar rates, only women report lower relationship quality.³⁶ These mixed results and unanswered questions suggest the need for further exploration of potential gender differences related to IES perpetration.

Past studies investigating IES have relied on individual data from only one member of the couple, which only captures half of the picture. Collecting dyadic data (i.e., data from both partners in a couple) allows researchers to explore interpersonal effects, for example, how one person's monitoring of their partner's phone is related to their partner's experience of trust. To our knowledge, there are no dyadic studies examining IES despite recent calls from scholars to do so.²⁶ Dyadic research acknowledges that among those in committed romantic relationships, one person's behavior and well-being are unlikely to exist in a vacuum; their own behavior likely influences the other person's well-being in addition to their own.

Thus, in this study, we leverage a dyadic, interdependent conceptualization of IES and relationship functioning, which places IES perpetration and relationship functioning in a relational context more likely to mimic real life. As such, we present interdependent processes in which partners' perceptions of their relationships are statistically modeled as a function of both their own individual IES perpetration (through actor effects) and their partner's perpetration (through partner effects).

This research has two primary aims. First, we aim to document rates and concordance of IES perpetration among a college sample of emerging adults. Specifically, how common is it that neither one partner nor both partners engage in IES perpetration? We also aim to explore whether rates of IES perpetration are different for men and women. Second, we aim to describe how each partner's IES perpetration is associated with trust, jealousy, negative relationship behaviors, and explore whether any associations are moderated by gender.

Methods

Participants and procedure

Participants included 136 emerging adult (aged 18–25 years) couples across two college campuses in the southern United States. Students were recruited into the study through the psychology department's research system. Participants had to be at least 18 years old and in a current exclusive romantic relationship (i.e., only dating their one partner). Only one member of the couple was required to be a college student. Participants were not required to be emerging adults to participate, but because we were most interested in how IES operates among emerging adults, we removed nonemerging adult couples (n = 15 dyads) for analyses. Once the first member of the dyad completed the survey, their partner was e-mailed with a link to complete the survey. Participants received extra course credit in exchange for their participation. Study procedures were approved by the University IRB.

Participants were, on average, 20.4 (standard deviation [SD] = 2.0) years old. Most (85.3 percent) identified as heterosexual, with 7.4 as bisexual and 4.8 as lesbian/gay. Most (129 of 136; 94.9 percent) couples comprised one male and one female (i.e., mixed sex); these were the couples included in our analyses with tests of gender differences. At least one dyad member was a student per recruitment protocol, but 89.2 percent of couples had two students.

The sample was racially and ethnically diverse, with 57.7 percent White/Caucasian, 14.0 percent Asian, 9.9 percent Black/African American, .7 percent Native American/American Indian, .4 percent Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 17.3 percent Multiracial/Other. Approximately one-third (32.7 percent) identified as Hispanic/Latino. Approximately 60 percent of participants were recruited from University 1; 40 percent from University 2. Participants reported having been involved with their partner for almost 2 years (M = 23.4 months, SD = 21.4 months) on average. Most participants (94.8 percent) reported being in an exclusive romantic relationship, whereas 3.7 percent reported being engaged and 1.5 percent were married.

Measures

Interpersonal electronic surveillance

IES perpetration was measured through the Electronic Intrusion Scale.¹⁹ Participants were asked, “Have you checked the following on your partner's cell phone to see whether he or she has spoken to someone you don't trust?” Participants then responded to each of the following with either yes (1) or no (0): recent calls, text messages, e-mails, and social media. For this article, scores were summed (α = 0.79) and then dichotomized to represent no IES perpetration (i.e., summed scores of 0) or any IES perpetration (i.e., summed scores of 1+).

Trust

Trust was assessed with the Dyadic Trust Scale.³⁷ This measure asks participants to indicate their agreement with eight items on a 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) Likert-type response scale. Example items included, “You can count on your partner to help you” and “Your partner is honest and truthful with you.” Scores were calculated by averaging all items (α = 0.86).

Jealousy

Jealousy was measured by the cognitive jealousy subscale of the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale,³⁸ which represents suspicion that a partner is interested in or seeing someone else. Participants responded regarding the frequency of having thoughts regarding their partner on a 1 (Never) to 5 (Always) response scale. Example items included, “I suspect that my partner is secretly seeing someone else” and “I think that my partner is secretly developing an intimate relationship with someone else”; responses to all eight items were averaged to create a summary score (α = 0.89).

Negative relationship behaviors

Negative relationship behaviors enacted toward a partner were assessed by 10 items that were originally used in Murray et al.³⁹ 22-item Interpersonal Qualities Scale. These specific items have been used in studies of relationships^40,41 and ask participants to indicate how well each of the behaviors describes their recent behavior toward their partner on a 1 (Not at all characteristic of myself) to 9 (Completely characteristic of myself). Although the 10 items capture 5 each of positive (e.g., kind/affectionate) and negative (e.g., critical/judgmental, distant), in this article we chose to focus on the five negative behaviors. Responses were averaged to create a final score (α = 0.73).

Analytic plan

Our first objective was to categorize couples by their IES perpetration behaviors. To examine this, we used a dyad-level (i.e., one row per couple) dataset and examined frequencies of couples where neither partner engages in IES perpetration (i.e., both report “no”), where one partner engages in it (i.e., one reports “no” and the other reports “yes”), and whether both partners engage in it (i.e., both report “yes”). Chi-square tests were used to evaluate whether perpetration rates differ for men and women.

Our second objective was to explore how one's own and one's partner's IES perpetration was associated with experiences of trust, jealousy, and negative relationship behaviors. Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (APIM)⁴² allows for modeling of nonindependence within couples and evaluate the unique associations between one's own predictor and one's own outcome (i.e., actor effects) as well as between one's partner's predictor and one's own outcome (i.e., partner effects).

We used all couples in the sample to examine actor and partner effects on trust, jealousy, and negative relationship behaviors. We then used a subsample of mixed-sex couples to test whether actor and partner effects differed for men and women through interactions with gender. In cases of significant interactions, we followed up by examining the actor or partner effect separately for men and women through two-intercept models.⁴²

Results

Aim 1: prevalence rates and concordance of IES perpetration

In terms of characterizing the sample by couple-level IES perpetration, approximately half (55.9 percent) of the couples did not engage in any IES perpetration. However, in approximately one-third (33.8 percent) of couples, one partner engaged in IES perpetration, and in 10.3 percent, both partners engaged in it. Results showed that significantly more women (34.0 percent) than men (20.2 percent) perpetrated IES, χ²(1) = 6.53, p = 0.011.

Aim 2: IES perpetration and relationship functioning

Second, we evaluated how one's own and one's partner's IES perpetration were related to trust, jealousy, and negative behaviors toward the partner. Results for the entire sample are given in Table 1. Significant actor effects for all outcomes revealed that one's own IES perpetration was related to lower trust in the partner, higher jealousy, and engagement in more negative partners toward the partner. However, no significant partner effects emerged, suggesting that a partner's IES perpetration was not related to relationship emotions and behaviors.

Table 1.

Actor–Partner Interdependence Models: Indistinguishable Dyads (N = 272)

Outcome	Predictor	b	SE(b)	t	p	95% LLCI	95% ULCI
Trust	Relationship length	0.000	0.002	0.19	0.850	−0.004	0.004
	Site	−0.055	0.088	−0.62	0.535	−0.229	0.119
	Actor IES perpetration	−0.237	0.085	−2.80	0.006	−0.404	−0.071
	Partner IES perpetration	−0.086	0.085	−1.01	0.313	−0.253	0.081
Jealousy	Relationship length	−0.000	0.002	−0.31	0.759	−0.004	0.003
	Site	0.035	0.082	0.43	0.671	−0.127	0.197
	Actor IES perpetration	0.397	0.079	5.01	<0.001	0.241	0.553
	Partner IES perpetration	0.109	0.079	1.37	0.172	−0.047	0.265
Negative	Relationship length	0.002	0.005	0.45	0.656	−0.007	0.011
Behaviors	Site	0.094	0.198	0.48	0.634	−0.297	0.486
	Actor IES perpetration	0.899	0.199	4.52	<0.001	0.508	1.291
	Partner IES perpetration	0.156	0.199	0.78	0.434	−0.236	0.547

Note: Site is dummy coded (0 = University 1, 1 = University 2). IES perpetration is also coded any IES (1) and no IES (0). Significant (p < 0.05) effects are given in bold.

IES, interpersonal electronic surveillance; LLCI, lower limit confidence interval; ULCI, upper limit confidence interval.

We then turned to the mixed-sex couples to explore whether actor or partner effects were different by gender. These results are given in Table 2 and indicate moderation for all three relationship outcomes. We present APIMs with effects separately for men and women (Fig. 1). The significant actor effects (i.e., one's own IES perpetration was associated with lower trust, higher jealousy, and more negative behaviors toward the partner) were only present for women.

FIG. 1.

Actor–Partner Interdependence Model illustrating actor and partner effects for men and women. IES perpetration is coded any IES (1) and no IES (0). ***p < 0.001. IES, interpersonal electronic surveillance.

Table 2.

Actor–Partner Interdependence Models: Distinguishable Dyads (N = 258)

Outcome	Predictor	B	SE(b)	t	p	95% LLCI	95% ULCI
Trust	Relationship length	0.000	0.002	0.16	0.873	−0.004	0.004
	Site	−0.054	0.091	−0.59	0.556	−0.233	0.126
	Gender	−0.012	0.044	−0.26	0.792	−0.098	0.075
	Actor IES perpetration	−0.184	0.091	−2.04	0.043	−0.362	−0.006
	Partner IES perpetration	−0.078	0.090	−0.87	0.387	−0.255	0.099
	Actor IES × gender	0.220	0.095	2.32	0.021	0.033	0.407
	Partner IES × gender	−0.064	0.094	−0.68	0.500	−0.250	0.122
Jealousy	Relationship length	−0.000	0.002	−0.42	0.672	−0.005	0.003
	Site	0.026	0.083	0.31	0.757	−0.138	0.190
	Gender	0.031	0.041	0.76	0.446	−0.049	0.112
	Actor IES perpetration	0.367	0.082	4.46	<0.001	0.205	0.530
	Partner IES perpetration	0.088	0.085	1.04	0.300	−0.079	0.255
	Actor IES × gender	−0.205	0.087	−2.37	0.019	−0.376	−0.035
	Partner IES × gender	0.100	0.089	1.12	0.262	−0.075	0.275
Negative behaviors	Relationship length	0.002	0.005	0.50	0.619	−0.007	0.012
	Site	0.070	0.205	0.34	0.732	−0.335	0.475
	Gender	−0.037	0.106	−0.35	0.726	−0.247	0.173
	Actor IES perpetration	0.730	0.210	3.48	<0.001	0.317	1.143
	Partner IES perpetration	0.241	0.211	1.14	0.255	−0.174	0.656
	Actor IES × gender	−0.526	0.217	−2.42	0.016	−0.955	−0.097
	Partner IES × gender	0.017	0.218	0.08	0.937	−0.413	0.448

Note: Site is dummy coded (0 = University 1, 1 = University 2). Gender is effect-coded: women (−1) and men (1). IES perpetration is coded any IES (1) and no IES (0). Significant (p < 0.05) effects are given in bold.

Discussion

This study, which accounts for the joint contribution of the IES perpetration of both partners through dyadic data collection and analysis, provides a clearer sense of the dyadic contexts that contribute to IES and related relationship dysfunction in emerging adult college student couples. First, the use of dyadic data provides additional insight into rates of concordance of IES perpetration within couples. Because of the deceptive nature of IES (i.e., people may not be aware their partner is going into their phone), asking one person to report on both partners' behaviors will likely be inaccurate.

This is the first study of which we are aware to document rates of IES perpetration within couples. Results showed that 44 percent of the sample presented with either one (34 percent) or both partners (10 percent) engaging in IES perpetration. These overall prevalence rates might seem alarmingly high but are within the realm of previous research.^21,26 Given the importance of perceptions about a partner's behavior and own behavior, future research would benefit from additional investigation into the level of inaccuracy between a person's engagement in IES perpetration and a partner's accurate detection of it as well as how honestly people report these behaviors.

Results further offer preliminary evidence supporting actor effects on lower trust, higher jealousy, and engagement in more negative behaviors toward one's partner. However, one's partner's IES perpetration was not associated with relationship emotions or behaviors. These results appear to indicate that IES perpetration and its link to feelings and emotions about the relationship are more intrapersonal than interpersonal, that is, one person's IES behaviors did not necessarily carry over to the partner's perceptions about the relationship.

However, we recommend interpreting this finding with caution as we believe this may be further complicated by whether the partner is aware of the behavior. In other words, if one is not aware that their partner has been engaging in IES, it is unlikely to affect their feelings about their relationship. It is also possible that some couples may have an “open door” policy as it relates to monitoring their partner's electronic devices and thus may not be concerned about IES perpetration. This is an interesting avenue for future research.

In addition, when examining possible gender differences in these actor effects, results indicated that these patterns were only present among women; men's reports of their relationship emotions and behaviors were not associated with either their own or their partner's IES.

These results are interesting as it suggests that for women, it is their own IES perpetration and not that of their partner that is associated with poorer indices of relationship functioning, whereas men's ratings of relationship functioning are not associated with either their own or their partner's IES perpetration. Again, this may be owing to a gender difference in the awareness or accuracy of detecting a partner's IES perpetration. Given that previous research has found that women are more likely to engage in IES perpetration^{6,8,10,11,25,27,35} and that women's perceptions of the relationship are more affected by relationship abuse than men,³⁶ these results are not entirely surprising.

Although this is a preliminary study, there are several potential clinical implications. First, given the intrapersonal nature of our results, clinical approaches may want to focus individually on reducing each individual's perpetration of IES rather than on interpersonal processes as it relates to IES. Second, our gender results suggest that clinical approaches should focus on trying to understand why women engage in those behaviors to reduce them and therefore potentially improve their perceptions of behaviors within the context of their relationship.

It should be noted that the cross-sectional design of the current data limits determination of directionality or causality and thus while engaging in IES may lead to feelings of mistrust, jealousy, and behaving negatively toward one's partner, it is also possible that these same feelings and behaviors may be what leads someone to engage in IES. Understanding the temporal precedence and direction of these associations may have different implications, as they may suggest different intervention targets. For example, if IES leads to increased feelings of mistrust and jealousy, interventions should attempt to reduce IES perpetration to increase relationship functioning. On the contrary, if IES is a result of feelings of mistrust and jealousy, clinicians may want to focus initial efforts on reducing these feelings.

Our preliminary evaluation evokes several important avenues for future research. First, as mentioned previously, this study cannot determine causality or directionality. Thus, longitudinal and daily or event-level research of research would also allow us to measure with more accuracy the temporality, frequency, nature, and immediate and long-term effects of IES perpetration. Ultimately, this more nuanced approach to studying IES perpetration has potential to provide important insights on when potential interventions should be timed to reduce both IES and potential negative outcomes.

Next, this study only included IES perpetration and not IES victimization, which would represent an individual's knowledge that their partner has engaged in IES. It is possible that our null partner effects were because partners are not aware when they have been the victim of IES. Given that previous research has found that the majority (82.5 percent) of those who report having perpetrated CDA also report being victims,⁴³ it is likely that we would see similar rates of IES perpetration and victimization.

Furthermore, research should determine ways to more objectively measure IES (i.e., behaviorally) as it is possible that participants may respond to surveys in a socially desirable manner. Finally, this study focused on emerging adults in college and for a subset of results only included mixed-sex couples, thus future research should include more diverse samples as there are likely differences related to life stage and sexual orientation that may influence results.

Conclusion

Technology is becoming an ever-present aspect of modern life, and emerging adults likely do not know life without electronic media. Understanding the complex links between our close relationships and our technological devices is critical to mitigating the potential negative impacts of technology on well-being. Although preliminary, this study is the first to our knowledge to take a dyadic approach to documenting rates of IES perpetration within couples and examining associations between IES perpetration and relationship functioning. Results provide initial evidence of actor, but not partner, effects, particularly among women.

Determining why and for whom IES is associated with poorer ratings of the relationship is an important next step in understanding how technology and relatedly, IES, may be associated with poorer relationship outcomes. Such an understanding has important implications for the way that adolescents and emerging adults are socialized and taught to use–and not to use–technology.

Footnotes

Authors' Contributions

L.M.R. developed the study concept and wrote the IRB application, and programmed the study for collection. D.M.L. and L.M.R. discussed study hypotheses. L.M.R. analyzed data, wrote the methods section, and wrote the section. D.M.L. wrote the introduction and discussion. All authors provided edits and approved the final version of the article for submission.

Note

a. Although all states have anti-stalking legislature, laws vary regarding (a) behaviors included in this study (i.e., only some states specify cyberstalking), (b) the requirement of threat and/or fear (e.g., some states require that the victim report feeling fear and some states require that an actual threat be made).

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information

There was no funding associated with this project.

References

Lenhart

, Smith

, Anderson

, et al. (2015) Teens, technology, and friendships. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2015/08/06/teens-technology-and-friendships/ (accessed Jan. 21, 2022).

Temple

, Choi

, Brem

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

Pew Research Center. (2021) Mobile fact sheet. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/ (accessed Dec. 20, 2021).

Subrahmanyam

, Smahel

. (2011) Digital youth: the role of media in development. New York, NY: Springer.

Subrahmanyam

, Smahel

, Greenfield

. Connecting developmental constructions to the internet: identity presentation and sexual exploration in online teen chat rooms. Developmental Psychology, 2006; 42:395–406.

Bennett

, Guran

, Ramos

, et al. College students' electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships: anticipated distress and associations with risky behaviors. Violence and Victims, 2011; 26:410–429.

Caridade

, Braga

, Borrajo

. Cyber dating abuse (CDA): evidence from a systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2019; 48:152–168.

Leisring

, Giumetti

. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but abusive text messages also hurt. Partner Abuse, 2014; 5:323–341.

Melander

. College students perception of intimate partner cyber harrassment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2010; 13:263–268.

10.

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.

11.

Zweig

, Lachman

, Yahner

, et al. Correlates of cyber dating abuse among teens. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2014; 43:1306–1321.

12.

Van Ouytsel

, Ponnet

, Walrave

, et al. Adolescent cyber dating abuse victimization and its associations with substance use, and sexual behaviors. Public Health, 2016; 135:147–151.

13.

Wolford-Clevenger

, Zapor

, Brasfield

, et al. An examination of the partner cyber abuse questionnaire in a college student sample. Psychology of Violence, 2016; 6:156–162.

14.

Zapor

, Wolford-Clevenger

, Elmquist

, et al. Psychological aggression commited through technology: a study with dating college students. Partner Abuse, 2017; 8:127–145.

15.

Ligman

, Rodriguez

, Rocek

. Jealousy and electronic intrusion mediated by relationship uncertainty in married and cohabiting couples during COVID-19. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 2021; 24:444–449.

16.

Woodlock

. The abuse of technology in domestic violence and stalking. Violence Against Women, 2017; 23:584–602.

17.

Reyns

. Online pursuit in the Twilight zone: cyberstalking perpetration by college students. Victims and Offenders, 2019; 14:183–198.

18.

Marcum

, Higgins

. A systematic review of cyberstalking victimization and offending behaviors. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 2021; 46:882–910.

19.

Doucette

, Collibee

, Hood

, et al. Perpetration of electronic intrusiveness among adolescent females: associations with in-person dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2021; 36:NP6581–NP601.

20.

Reed

, Tolman

, Safyer

. Too close for comfort: attachment insecurity and electronic intrusion in college students' dating relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015; 50:431–438.

21.

Reed

, Tolman

, Ward

. Snooping and sexting: digital media as a context for dating aggression and abuse among college students. Violence Against Women, 2016; 22:1556–1576.

22.

Baker

, Helm

. Prevalence of intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration among youth in Hawai'i. Hawaii Medical Journal, 2011; 70:92–96.

23.

Draucker

, Martsolf

. The role of electronic communication technology in adolescent dating violence. Journal of Child Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 2010; 23:133–142.

24.

Peskin

, Markham

, Shegog

, et al. Prevalence and correlates of the perpetration of cyber dating abuse among early adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2017; 46:358–375.

25.

Reed

, Tolman

, Ward

. Gender matters: experiences and consequences of digital dating abuse victimization in adolescent dating relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 2017; 59:79–89.

26.

Toplu-Demirtas

, Akcabozan-Kayabol

, Araci-Iyiaydin

, et al. Unraveling the roles of distrust, suspicion of infidelity, and jealousy in cyber dating abuse perpetration: an attachment theory perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2020; 0:1–31.

27.

Lucero

, Weisz

, Smith-Darden

, et al. Exploring gender differences: socially interactive technology use/abuse among dating teens. Affilia, 2014; 29:478–491.

28.

Van Ouytsel

, Van Gool

, Walrave

, et al. Exploring the role of social networking sites within adolescent romantic relationships and dating experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 2016; 55:76–86.

29.

Melander

, Marganski

. Cyber and in-person intimate partner violence victimization: examining maladaptive psychosocial and behavioral correlates. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2020; 14. doi: 10.5817/CP2020-1-1.

30.

Roberts

. Stalking following the breakup of romantic relationships: characteristics of stalking former partners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 2002; 47:1070–1077.

31.

Deans

, Bhogal

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

32.

Davis

, Ace

, Andra

. Stalking perpetrators and psychological maltreatment of partners: anger-jealousy, attachment insecurity, need for control, and break-up context. Violence and Victims, 2000; 15:407–426.

33.

Wilson

, Ermshar

, Welsh

. Stalking as paranoid attachment: a typological and dynamic model. Attachment and Human Development, 2006; 8:139–157.

34.

Strawhun

, Adams

, Huss

. The assessment of cyberstalking: an expanded examination including social networking, attachment, jealousy, and anger in relation to violence and abuse. Violence and Victims, 2013; 28:715–730.

35.

Stonard

, Bowen

, Lawrence

, et al. The relevance of technology to the nature, prevalence and impact of adolescent dating violence and abuse: a research synthesis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2014; 19:390–417.

36.

Katz

, Kuffel

, Coblentz

. Are there gender differences in sustaining dating violence? An examination of frequency, severity, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 2002; 17:247–271.

37.

Larzelere

, Huston

. The dyadic trust scale: toward understanding interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 1980; 42:595–604.

38.

Pfeiffer

, Wong

PTP

. Mulitdemsional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1989; 6:181–196.

39.

Murray

, Holmes

, Griffin

. The benefits of positive illusions: idealization and the construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1996; 70:79–98.

40.

Lambe

, Mackinnon

, Stewart

. Dyadic conflict, drinking to cope, and alcohol-related problems: a psychometric study and longitudinal actor-partner interdependence model. Journal of Family Psychology, 2015; 29:697–707.

41.

Oishi

, Sullivan

. The predictive value of daily vs. retrospective well-being judgments in relationship stability. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2006; 42:460–470.

42.

Kenny

, Kashy

, Cook

. (2020) Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Publications.

43.

Smith

, Cénat

, Lapierre

, et al. Cyber dating violence: Prevalence and correlates among high school students from small urban areas in Quebec. Journal of Affective Disorders, 2018; 234:220–223.