Malevolent Monitoring: Dark Triad Traits,Cyber Dating Abuse,and the Instrumental Role of Self-Control

Abstract

Cyber dating abuse (CDA) concerns the use of digital technology to control, monitor, and hurt one’s intimate partner. CDA can have profound detrimental outcomes, such as mental health problems. As such, it is important to identify intrapersonal factors that may explain these behaviors. Previous research suggests that one such factor is the personality cluster of Dark Triad traits (DTT), comprising Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. Additionally, DTT and CDA perpetration have both been linked to poor self-control ability, but these relationships have not yet been tested together in one model. As such, the present study examines if individuals’ poor self-control ability mediates the relationship between the DTT and CDA perpetration. To test these associations, we conducted a survey study among a representative sample of Belgian adults (n = 1,144; M_age = 47.66 years; 51.3% female). Findings from correlation analyses revealed that all three DTT were individually associated with CDA perpetration, such that higher scores on these traits corresponded with more CDA perpetration. Additionally, pathway analyses from structural equation modeling revealed that individuals’ poor self-control ability fully explained the relationship between Machiavellianism and narcissism and CDA perpetration, and partially explained the relationship between psychopathy and CDA perpetration. As our findings suggest that self-control plays an instrumental role in explaining why individuals control and monitor their partner via digital technology, prevention and intervention efforts should seek ways to improve individuals’ self-control ability in situations that may trigger such harmful interpersonal behaviors, particularly among individuals who exhibit Dark Triad personality traits.

Keywords

cyber dating abuse Dark Triad Machiavellianism narcissism psychopathy self-control ability structural equation modeling

Interpersonal processes within people’s (romantic) relationships are increasingly or even primarily taking place online. One such process is cyber dating abuse (CDA), which concerns the use of online means to control, monitor, and (publicly) harass one’s partner (Zweig et al., 2014). CDA is considered a (highly) prevalent phenomenon, with prevalence rates reported up to 73% (for a systematic review, see Caridade et al., 2019). Recently, scholars have paid considerable attention to CDA, and several studies have shown that CDA experiences may have profound detrimental (mental health) outcomes, such as depression (Zweig et al., 2014) and anxiety (Wright, 2016). Furthermore, previous research has found that CDA experiences are linked to offline experiences of intimate partner violence (e.g., Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Calvete et al., 2015; Schokkenbroek, Van Ouytsel et al., 2022). To further understand the etiology of this phenomenon, substantial effort has been made to identify social (e.g., peer norms), environmental (e.g., exposure to family violence), and intrapersonal (e.g., low self-esteem) predictors of CDA perpetration (e.g., Cava et al., 2020; March et al., 2021). In this study, we examine intrapersonal predictors of CDA perpetration.

Dark Triad traits (DTT) and CDA

One intrapersonal factor that has been linked to both offline and online harmful interpersonal behaviors is the Dark Triad of personality (e.g., Carton & Egan, 2017; Goodboy & Martin, 2015; Pabian et al., 2015). The Dark Triad traits (DTT) were first introduced by Paulhus and Williams (2002) and concern three personality traits: Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy. All three personality traits share a common core of callousness, selfishness and manipulative tendencies (Jones & Figueredo, 2013). The first trait, Machiavellianism, is characterized by manipulative and deceptive tendencies (e.g., Bereczkei, 2018; Christie & Geis, 1970). The second trait, narcissism, concerns a multidimensional trait that is reflected by a sense of superiority, grandiosity, and entitlement (e.g., Van Geel et al., 2017). Psychopathy, the last dimension of the DTT, is generally associated with a tendency for thrill-seeking as well as a lack of empathy and fear (e.g., Paulhus & Williams, 2002).

Previous partner violence research has found associations between all three DTT and partner violence perpetration. For example, in a small convenience sample of adults, Carton and Egan (2017) found that high psychopathy tendencies were associated with psychological partner abuse. More recently, Plouffe et al. (2020) found that narcissism was related to psychological abuse perpetration, and that psychopathy was related to severe physical partner aggression. Additionally, previous research has identified several links between DTT and harmful interpersonal behaviors within the online context. For example, research has shown that all three DTT are related to cyberstalking behaviors (Kircaburun et al., 2018; Smoker & March, 2017). Furthermore, Stiff (2019) examined the association between DTT and Facebook surveillance and found that psychopathy and Machiavellianism significantly predict the tendency to spy on others on social media. In line with this, Branson and March (2021) examined the relationship between narcissism and psychopathy (but not Machiavellianism) and CDA perpetration, and found that both narcissism and psychopathy predict these online partner controlling behaviors. To the best of our knowledge, however, only two studies today have linked all three DTT to online monitoring and control within people’s romantic relationships. In their study among a convenience sample of adults, Pineda et al. (2021) found that all three DTT significantly predicted CDA perpetration. Contrarily, a recent study by Bhogal and Wallace (2022) found no significant association between CDA perpetration and any of the DTT. As the amount of research on the relationship between DTT and CDA perpetration is severely limited, and as findings from existing studies are inconclusive and based on convenience samples, more research on the relationship between DTT and CDA perpetration is warranted. Thus, in the present study, we examine this relationship, and we will do so among a representative sample of Belgian adults.

The Role of Self-Control

Although scholars have identified a clear link between DTT and harmful online interpersonal behaviors, attempts to understand the mechanisms underlying this link are scarce. Arguably, the association between the DTT and harmful interpersonal behaviors such as CDA is not only direct, but presumably will be mediated by other intra- and interpersonal factors. One factor that has been linked to various personality traits as well as to different types of harmful interpersonal behaviors is self-control. Self-control is a key factor in self-regulation and refers to a person’s ability to guide their thoughts, emotions, behaviors, and impulses (Baumeister, 2002). When an individual is less able to exercise self-control, this prevents them to carefully think through a situation and consider the potential consequences of their actions before acting (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). This increases the likelihood that individuals with poor self-control would engage in harmful behaviors, also in the online context (e.g., Vazsonyi et al., 2017). In fact, in their general theory of crime, Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that self-control is the “main inhibiting factor that keeps people on the right path” (De Buck et al., 2018, p. 471). As such, we propose that individuals’ (in)ability to exercise self-control may explain the proposed relationship between the Dark Triad personality traits and CDA.

Several previous studies have identified a link between self-control ability and the DTT. Findings from previous studies on the relation with Machiavellianism have reported mixed findings, but some studies have shown that Machiavellianism is positively associated with poor self-control (Jonason & Tost, 2010). For psychopathy, several studies have found a positive association exists between psychopathy and poor self-control (DeLisi et al., 2018; Jonason & Tost, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, 2011). Similar to Machiavellianism, previous research on the relation between narcissism and self-control presents mixed results. A majority of research identified a link between narcissism and a lack of self-control (Jones & Paulhus, 2011; Muris et al., 2017; Vazire & Funder, 2006). However, Jonason and Tost (2010) found that Machiavellianism and psychopathy, but not narcissism, were related to self-control. Overall, all three DTT were found to be related to poor self-control ability. A possible explanation for why the DTT are associated with one’s self-control ability is provided by Jonason and Tost (2010). They argue that within the evolutionary framework of Life History Theory (Wilson, 1975), personality traits and individual differences are explained by differences in which of the two life history strategies¹ is employed by an individual. Jonason and Tost (2010) describe these two life history strategies as (a) fast life history strategy, reflected by individuals who seek short-term gains at the expense of long-term costs and (b) slow life history strategy, reflected by individuals who make long-term considerations. In previous research, personality characteristics related to the DTT, such as antisocial (e.g., Ellis, 1988) and opportunistic personality traits (e.g., Figueredo et al., 2007), have been associated with the fast life history strategy. Jonason and Tost (2010) argue that poor self-control ability is likely characteristic to those with a fast life strategy as poor self-control “will not interfere and may actually facilitate a shorter-term and opportunistic perspective” (p. 611).

In relation to CDA perpetration, few studies have empirically tested if CDA perpetration may be explained by one’s self-control ability. In their recent study, Linares et al. (2021) found that individuals with a greater tendency to lose control under positive and negative emotional states were more likely to engage in CDA perpetration. Additionally, Marcum et al. (2014) found that people with poor self-control ability were more likely to engage in cyberstalking. Lastly, Curry and Zavala (2020) also found that people with poor self-control engaged in more CDA perpetration, although this effect was rather small.

Despite previous findings on the association between the DTT and poor self-control and between poor self-control and CDA perpetration, no study today has accounted for individuals’ self-control when examining the relation between DTT and CDA perpetration. This is particularly surprising considering the ample amount of research that supports the notion that the inherent accessibility, velocity, and—to a certain extent—anonymity of online interactions presents particular challenges for individuals’ emotion regulation and self-control (e.g., Suler, 2004). Indeed, a recent study on online trolling behaviors (i.e., online communication intended to be offensive; Buckels et al., 2014) on dating sites found that impulsivity, which is a dimension of self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), played a role in the relationship between DTT and expressing online trolling behaviors (March et al., 2017). Based on these findings, it may be expected that self-control also plays a role in the relationship between DTT and CDA perpetration.

Present Study

The present study will address the identified knowledge gaps by examining the (indirect) relation between the DTT (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy) and CDA perpetration through poor self-control ability among a representative sample of Belgian adults. Specifically, we propose that a positive relationship exists between DTT and CDA perpetration, and that this relationship can be explained through individuals’ poor ability to exert self-control. Additionally, as previous research has shown that sex and age differences may exist in CDA perpetration (e.g., Rubio-Garay et al., 2017; Toplu-Demirtaş et al., 2022), we will control for the role of individuals’ age and sex in these proposed pathways. Notably, while previous research has extensively shown that CDA is particularly common among younger age groups (Taylor & Xia, 2018), we decided to extend the age range to include adults of all ages. One reason for this is that the general assumption that CDA is most common among younger people is strongly driven by the fact that research on CDA among older adults is severely lacking (see Caridade et al. (2019); Taylor & Xia (2018) for an overview of age ranges in previous CDA research). In fact, very few studies have included adults over the age of 30 in their examinations of CDA experiences (e.g., Fox et al., 2014; Schokkenbroek, Van Ouytsel et al., 2022), and more research is needed to paint a more inclusive picture of CDA experiences (and its driving factors) among adults (Taylor & Xia, 2018). Thus, the present study addresses CDA experiences among a more inclusive and diverse sample in terms of age. A schematic overview of our hypothesized model can be found in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Schematic overview of hypothesized model.

Methods

Procedure and Sample

The study data were collected through a cross-sectional survey conducted in the fall of 2019 among an adult sample of people living in the city of Ghent in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium.² Citizens were selected randomly in a representative sampling technique, which was realized in cooperation with the municipality.³ Prospective respondents were informed via a letter that they were selected for participation, and were visited at their home by trained interviewers a couple of days later. Respondents could fill out the online survey, which was programmed in Qualtrics, on a laptop or tablet brought by the interviewer. Whereas part of the survey was filled out through face-to-face interviewing, sensitive questions (e.g., about CDA perpetration) were filled out by the respondents individually in a discrete part of the survey, shielded from the interviewers. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the institutional review board of Ghent University. For more detailed information on the study protocol, see Hardyns et al. (2019).

The study sample was representative with regard to age (18–65+ years), sex (male versus female), and nationality (Belgian versus non-Belgian). Age of majority (18+ years) and sufficient knowledge of the Dutch language were considered as inclusion criteria. People who resided in an institutional setting (e.g., residential care center) were not eligible for participation. In this study, the prospective sample initially consisted of 1,880 respondents who were invited to participate in the survey. Upon completion of the data collection phase, a total of 1,587 respondents (M_age = 48.06 years; 51.4% female) fully completed the survey. This resulted in a dropout rate of 15.6%, reflecting the percentage of respondents who did not complete the survey as originally anticipated.⁴ Of these 1,587 respondents, 1,144 were in a romantic relationship. As such, the final sample for the present study comprised of 1,144 respondents (M_age = 47.66 years; 51.3% female).

Materials

For all scale items, the exact phrasings, mean scores (and standard deviations), factor loadings, and reliability statistics can be found in Appendix I.

Dark Triad Traits

The DTT were measured with the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen scale (Jonason & Webster, 2010; Dutch version by Lambrechts et al., 2019). The Dirty Dozen scale consists of 12 items; each DTT is measured with four items. Preliminary principal component factor analysis (PCA) with oblimin rotation confirmed a three-factor solution for the present sample. Additionally, PCA for each subscale revealed that the factor loading for one item of the psychopathy subscale was considerably lower (λ = .538) than those of the other items in the psychopathy subscale (with factor loadings ranging from 0.73 to 0.76). Additionally, reliability analyses revealed that Cronbach’s alpha for the psychopathy subscale would improve from .629 to .667 if item 4 was omitted. As such, we decided to omit item 4 from the psychopathy subscale, that is, “I tend to be cynical,” from further analyses.

Responses on the Dirty Dozen scale were given on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree.” An example of an item for Machiavellianism is “I tend to manipulate others to get my way,” for narcissism an example item is “I tend to want others to admire me,” and an example item for psychopathy is “I tend to lack remorse.” For the present study, all three subscales demonstrated acceptable to good reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha values of .80 (Machiavellianism), .81 (narcissism), and .67 (psychopathy), respectively. For all three DTT, the continuous variables were composed by calculating the average score of the three (psychopathy) or four (Machiavellianism and narcissism) items corresponding to the particular trait.

Self-Control Ability

Self-control was measured with eight items inspired by the self-control scale from Grasmick et al. (1993). Responses were given on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree.” An example of an item is “I say what I think, even if it’s not smart.” Responses were coded such that high scores corresponded with poor self-control ability. In the present study, the self-control scale reported a Cronbach’s alpha of .73. The self-control ability variable was composed by calculating the average score on the eight self-control ability items.

Cyber Dating Abuse Perpetration

CDA perpetration was measured with an abbreviated scale adapted from the Cyber Dating Abuse Questionnaire (Borrajo, Gámez-Guadix, Pereda et al., 2015). The scale is comprised of three items assessing the perpetration of three online controlling behaviors, namely (a) excessive texting to check who their partner was with and what they were doing, (b) excessive calling to check who their partner was with and what they were doing, and (c) examining the content of their partner’s emails, texts, and social media account(s) without permission. Perpetration of these behaviors was assessed using a five-point frequency scale ranging from 1 = “never” to 5 = “very often.” For the present sample, the abbreviated CDA perpetration scale demonstrated acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s α = .69). For the study analyses, a CDA perpetration variable was composed by calculating the average score on the three CDA perpetration items.

Control Variables

We included respondents’ age and sex as control variables. Age was measured as a continuous variable with a range from 18 to 91 years. Sex was measured as a binary variable and was coded zero for men and one for women.

Analytical Plan

Statistical significance was determined at p ≤ .05. Recently, however, the use of the p-value to signal statistical significance is heavily debated. The problem with (only) using p-values is that it concerns a single value that often varies considerably between study samples, and additional information on this variability and the (un)certainty it represents is thus warranted (Halsey, 2019). As such, we additionally examined confidence intervals (CIs) as indicators of the accuracy of the estimated effect sizes (Cumming & Calin-Jageman, 2016).

First, prevalence rates of CDA perpetration were examined. For this purpose only, the CDA average scores were recoded into a binary variable distinguishing between people who never (= 0) perpetrated any of the three measured CDA behaviors versus people who perpetrated any of the measured CDA behaviors at least once (= 1). For subsequent analyses, however, CDA perpetration was examined as a continuous variable.

Second, bivariate correlation analyses were performed to assess the direct relations between the study variables. The analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28; IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA). Preliminary examinations of the variable distributions revealed that the variables CDA perpetration, Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and self-control ability were not normally distributed such that all variables were negatively skewed. Data transformations did not correct the skewness and kurtosis in the data. As such, bivariate associations for all study variables were assessed using nonparametric Spearman rank correlations. 95% CIs were estimated through bootstrapping with 5,000 bootstrap samples.

Third, the proposed model was tested using structural equation modeling (SEM). Mplus (version 7.11; Muthén & Muthén, 2012) was used to (a) conduct a confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate how well the observed variables in our measurement model reflected the latent variables (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, self-control ability, and CDA perpetration) and (b) to construct a structural model with CDA perpetration as the outcome variable and age and sex as covariates. Using the INDIRECT command in Mplus, we also tested the significance of the product of the indirect pathways between the three DTT and CDA perpetration. As all study variables were skewed, these analyses were based on maximum likelihood estimation, with bias-corrected bootstrap CIs based on 10,000 bootstrap draws. The use of asymmetric CIs based on bootstrap methods is also recommended for significance testing of indirect effects (MacKinnon, 2008; MacKinnon et al., 2004). Several fit indices were applied to assess the adequacy of both the measurement model and the structural model, namely Maximum Likelihood Robust (MLR) Chi-square test of model fit, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), and standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR). A nonsignificant Chi-square test also indicates a good model fit, but due to its sensitivity to large sample sizes (Kline, 2016), the Chi-square test is almost always significant and therefore not a great indicator of model fit in the present sample. Both CFI and TLI indicate adequate model fit when they are above 0.90, and good model fit when their values are higher than 0.95 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). RMSEA demonstrates an adequate model fit when the value is below 0.08, and a good model fit when the value is below 0.05. Lastly, SRMR should be smaller than 0.08 to indicate good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999; MacCallum et al., 1996).

Results

Prevalence of CDA Perpetration

First, we assessed how many respondents had perpetrated CDA toward their partner in the past 12 months. We found that 41.7% of respondents had perpetrated CDA at least once in the past year.

Bivariate Associations

The results of the Spearman rank correlation analyses can be found in Table 1. We found that all three DTT were significantly and positively associated with each other, with moderate effect sizes. For poor self-control ability, we found small to moderate significant positive associations with all three DTT. This means that people who scored higher on Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy were less able to exert self-control. With regard to CDA perpetration, we found small significant positive associations with Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, and poor self-control. Thus, people who score higher on Machiavellianism, narcissism, and/or psychopathy traits and people with poor self-control ability were more likely to perpetrate CDA. Lastly, we found that age was significantly negatively associated with CDA, Machiavellianism, narcissism, and self-control ability, such that younger people reported more CDA experiences, higher scores on all three DTT, and less ability to exert self-control. Also, sex was positively associated with CDA and negatively associated with all three DTT, meaning that women were more likely to perpetrate CDA and that men scored higher on Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy personality traits.

Table 1.

Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficients Between Study Variables.

Variable	M	SD	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.
1. CDA perpetration	1.34	0.54	–
2. Machiavellianism	2.01	0.81	.172*** [0.113, 0.231]	–
3. Narcissism	2.32	0.84	.163*** [0.106, 0.219]	.462*** [0.414, 0.509]	–
4. Psychopathy	1.58	0.68	.061* [0.001, 0.120]	.383*** [0.329, 0.433]	.248*** [0.191, 0.304]	–
5. Poor self-control	2.20	0.62	.181*** [0.124, 0.237]	.369*** [0.314, 0.421]	.289*** [0.234, 0.343]	.364*** [0.310, 0.416]	–
6. Age	47.66	16.69	−.360*** [−0.410, −0.308]	−.287*** [−0.341, −0.233]	−.258*** [−0.313, −0.202]	−.043 [−0.102, 0.015]	−.167*** [−0.221, −0.110]
7. Sex	–	–	.061* [0.006, 0.120]	−.140*** [−0.198, −0.083]	−.093** [−0.150, −0.035]	−.219*** [−0.274, −0.163]	.009 [−0.050, 0.067]

Note. 95% CIs are presented in brackets [LL, UL]. CDA = Cyber dating abuse; CIs = confidence intervals; LL = Lower level; UL = Upper level.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Measurement and Structural Model

The measurement model provided an adequate model fit: MLRχ²(199) = 801.24, p < .001; RMSEA = .05 (90% CI [0.048, 0.055]); CFI = 0.88; TLI = 0.86; SRMR = 0.05. The hypothesized model was tested using SEM. The structural model provided an adequate fit: MLRχ²(239) = 1450,27, p < .001; RMSEA = 0.07 (90% CI [0.062, 0.069]); CFI = 0.83; TLI = 0.81; SRMR = 0.07. Figure 2 presents the full structural model, which explained 26.4% of the variance in CDA perpetration (R² = .264, p < .001). The standardized path coefficients that were significant at p ≤ .05 are indicated in the figure.

Figure 2.

Structural equation model with factor loadings and R-squared values.

Direct path analyses revealed that Machiavellianism (β = .40, p = .000, 95% CI [0.285, 0.515]), narcissism (β = .23, p = .000, 95% CI [0.110, 0.360]), and psychopathy (β = .16, p = .004, 95% CI [0.053, 0.270]) were all related to poor self-control ability. Poor self-control ability, in turn, was positively associated with CDA perpetration (β = .13, p = .040, 95% CI [0.005, 0.245]). Furthermore, psychopathy was positively associated with CDA perpetration (β = .41, p = .000, 95% CI [0.305, 0.505]). Conversely, Machiavellianism (β = −.04, p = .470, 95% CI [−0.161, 0.077]) and narcissism (β = .05, p = .481, 95% CI [−0.086, 0.198]) were not significantly associated with CDA perpetration. Furthermore, we found that the control variable age (β = −.16, p = .000, 95% CI [−0.226, −0.095]) was negatively related to CDA perpetration, indicating that CDA was reported more by younger people. Lastly, contrary to the correlation analyses, we found no significant relation between CDA perpetration and respondents’ sex (β = −.04, p = .215, 95% CI [−0.108, 0.021]) in our SEM analysis.

To assess whether the relationship between DTT and CDA perpetration can be explained through individuals’ poor self-control ability, the indirect pathways were also tested for significance. The direct, indirect and total effects of the DTT on CDA perpetration with bootstrapped CIs, are summarized in Table 2. Whereas the p-values for these three indirect effects are merely approaching significance, with values of .057 (Machiavellianism), .088 (narcissism), and .094 (psychopathy), respectively, the CIs indicate that all three of the DTT were indirectly related to CDA perpetration through poor self-control. This suggests that the relationship between Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy and CDA perpetration can be explained through poor self-control ability. For psychopathy, a significant direct effect remained in the model, indicating that the relationship with CDA perpetration was only partially mediated by poor self-control ability.

Table 2.

Summary of Standardized Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects on CDA Perpetration.

Effects	β	b	SE_b	95% Bootstrap CI		p
Effects	β	b	SE_b	LL	UL	p
Direct effect
Machiavellianism → CDA Perpetration	−.044	−0.067	0.093	−0.161	0.077	.470
Narcissism → CDA Perpetration	.051	0.081	0.122	−0.086	0.198	.481
Psychopathy → CDA Perpetration	.405	0.558	0.072	0.305	0.505	.000
Indirect effect
Machiavellianism → Poor Self-Control → CDA Perpetration	.050	0.077	0.040	0.004	0.109	.057
Narcissism → Poor Self-Control → CDA Perpetration	.029	0.046	0.028	0.003	0.071	.088
Psychopathy → Poor Self-Control → CDA Perpetration	.020	0.028	0.017	0.002	0.051	.094
Total effect
Machiavellianism → Poor Self-Control → CDA Perpetration	.006	0.010	0.084	−0.100	0.113	.907
Narcissism → Poor Self-Control → CDA Perpetration	.080	0.127	0.121	−0.059	0.220	.262
Psychopathy → Poor Self-Control → CDA Perpetration	.425	0.586	0.072	0.326	0.524	.000

Note. CDA = Cyber dating abuse; CIs = confidence intervals; LL = Lower level; SE_b = Standard error of unstandardized effect b; UL = Upper level.

Discussion

In this study, we set out to examine whether CDA perpetration could be predicted by the DTT Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy, and whether these effects could be explained through poor self-control ability. First, we found that CDA perpetration was rather common, with 41.7% of respondents reporting that they had engaged in any of the partner controlling and monitoring behaviors. In our study, we determined the prevalence rate by distinguishing between people who had never perpetrated CDA versus people who had at least once. As such, the high prevalence rate of CDA perpetration is likely the result of this broad classification, as is also evidenced by the rather low average scores on each of the CDA perpetration behaviors measured in our study (see Supplemental Appendix 1). Arguably, however, even if CDA is only enacted once, this may already have a harmful impact on the partner. As such, we advocate for the broader classification of perpetration as presented in our study to make sure all CDA experiences are included.

Second, findings from correlation analyses revealed that, similar to previous research, people who scored higher on DTT were more likely to perpetrate CDA (e.g., Pineda et al., 2021). Also, and in line with previous research (e.g., Jonason & Tost, 2010), we found that people who scored higher on Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy reported poorer self-control ability. Furthermore, we found that poor self-control ability was associated with CDA perpetration, meaning that people who were less able to exert self-control more often used digital technology to control and monitor their partner’s behaviors. As for the control variables in the present study, we found that people who were younger (compared to older people) and women (compared to men) were more likely to engage in CDA perpetration, although these sex differences were only revealed in our correlation analyses, not in SEM. These findings are in line with previous studies identifying high prevalence rates of CDA among young people (e.g., Caridade & Braga, 2020) and differences between men and women in CDA perpetration (e.g., Burke et al., 2011; Deans & Bogha, 2017). Future research focusing on sex and age differences in CDA perpetration and its link with the DTT and self-control should expand on the present study, for example by performing and comparing separate SEM models for different groups, or by accounting for (differences in) the digital skills and (the intensity and frequency of) technology use and social media activity of men and women and among different age groups.

Additionally, we hypothesized that the effect between the DTT and CDA perpetration can be explained through individuals’ poor self-control ability. For all three DTT, we found that the effect on CDA perpetration was indeed indirect, explained by an individual’s ability to exert self-control. Thus, the personality traits Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy affect self-control ability within an individual, which, in turn, predicts their engagement in online controlling and monitoring behaviors toward their partner. These findings are in line with those of previous research identifying a link between the DTT and self-control ability (e.g., Jonason & Tost, 2010; Jones & Paulhus, 2011). Notably, we found that the relationship between psychopathy and CDA perpetration can only partially be explained by individuals’ self-control ability, as a strong direct effect remains in the model. A possible explanation for this could be that, compared to Machiavellianism and narcissism, psychopathy in particular is characterized by a need for power and control (e.g., Hare, 2006). As such, people with psychopathic traits could generally be more inclined to check on their partner’s online activities, regardless of their ability to exercise self-control.

Study Limitations and Future Directions

There are several study limitations to consider when interpreting the presented findings. First, the cross-sectional nature of the study makes it impossible to conclude with certainty the process of causality within the proposed pathways predicting CDA perpetration. To test the assumption of the DTT and poor self-control as the causes of CDA perpetration, a longitudinal study should be implemented. A second limitation concerns the self-report nature of the measures. Self-report raises problems with memory recall, willingness to report about sensitive topics and social desirability and self-serving bias, especially considering the DTT are characterized by tendencies toward self-promotion (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). However, self-report measurements of the DTT were found to be quite accurate in previous research (Jonason & Webster, 2010), and a recent study by Kowalski et al. (2018) found that only narcissism is associated with social desirability. We also limited social desirability bias by including the questions relating to CDA behaviors and DTT in the part of the survey that was filled out by the respondent alone, shielded from the interviewer. In relation to self-serving bias, however, it is important to note that we asked respondents to report on the extent to which they engaged in excessive texting behaviors toward their partner, without providing a definition of what is understood as “excessive.” We did not give a definition because we were interested in measuring behaviors and experiences that respondents themselves would perceive as excessive. However, this raises the important limitation that perpetrators may have downplayed or underestimated their behaviors as a form of self-serving bias, which, as a consequence, may have distorted our data. Future research should account for this by using less ambiguous and subjective phrasing in their CDA perpetration measures. Third, we used relatively short measures in our study to minimize participant burden, particularly given the sensitive nature of some of the questions. These brief measures, however, do not allow for more fine-grained analyses of the constructs of interest. For example, CDA is generally considered a multidimensional construct, in which controlling and monitoring, the behaviors of interest in our study, only comprise one dimension (in addition to the dimensions: online expressions of verbal violence; sexual coercion; and isolation and manipulation; Rodríguez-deArriba et al., 2021). Additionally, in our measure of self-control, we did not distinguish between dimensions of self-control, namely thrill-seeking and impulsiveness (Schulz, 2016). Furthermore, both narcissism (vulnerable vs. grandiose narcissism (Hendin & Cheek, 1997) and psychopathy (primary vs. secondary psychopathy) are considered to be multidimensional traits. Several scholars have raised concerns about the use of the Dirty Dozen instrument to measure the DTT, as it would not sufficiently cover the constructs of interest (e.g., Miller et al., 2012). On the other hand, multiple studies have shown that the structure of the Dirty Dozen scale is stable across different cultural contexts and populations, and the scale appears to offer a reasonable trade-off between efficiency and accuracy (De Buck et al., 2021; Rogoza et al., 2021). To account for these limitations in our measures, future research should further disentangle the processes between self-control, DTT, and CDA perpetration by using more elaborate measurements and by accounting for the multidimensional nature of the study constructs. Additionally, in this study, we only focused on individuals’ CDA experiences as a perpetrator, and (prior) victimization experiences were not accounted for. As several studies have found that victimization and perpetration experiences of CDA are strongly linked (e.g., Curry & Zavala, 2020; Schokkenbroek, Ponnet et al., 2024; Temple et al., 2016), future work should expand our model by additionally accounting for individuals’ victimization experiences in explaining CDA perpetration. Lastly, it should be noted that the study sample was representative but only for an urban, Western-European context, specifically for the city of Ghent. While we tried to address the experiences of a more inclusive and diverse sample by extending the age range beyond the often studied group of young adults, we did not measure other characteristics relating to sample diversity, such as respondents’ gender identity and sexual orientation. As such, we cannot account for the experiences of underrepresented groups of people, such as individuals who identify as LGBTQIA+. This is an important shortcoming, as recent research suggests that LGBTQIA+ individuals are at greater risk to experience CDA compared to cisgender heterosexual individuals (Butler et al., 2023). Future research should replicate this study among a more diverse sample and across various geographical and cultural boundaries.

Despite these limitations, the findings from this study provide important insights for future research and practice. Our findings show that one’s ability to exert self-control should be considered in future examinations of DTT as predictors of harmful online interpersonal behaviors. Consequently, CDA prevention efforts could improve their efficacy by pre-emptively increasing self-control ability among people with personality traits associated with self-control, such as the DT. Similarly, CDA intervention efforts could improve their efficacy by including exercises aimed at enhancing self-control abilities particularly among perpetrators of partner violence. Previous research on practices aimed at improving self-control ability has yielded promising results (e.g., Smith et al., 2015; for a meta-analysis, see Friese et al., 2017), also in the context of violent behaviors (Zhou et al., 2018). In the study by Zhou et al. (2018), it was found that a violence prevention program successfully enhanced self-control ability by helping respondents identify situations that may trigger a certain inclination to react in a harmful or even violent way. Additionally, respondents received training in affect regulation and conflict resolution skills. The procedure and findings of this study may provide an insightful basis for prevention and intervention efforts in the context of CDA, in which (potential) perpetrators of CDA receive guidance in identifying and navigating through situations that may trigger an intention to act in a harmful way toward their partner using online means.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1.

Scale Items, PCA Factor Loadings (λ), and Cronbach alpha’s (α) for Dark Triad Traits, Self-Control and Cyber Dating Abuse.

Scale construct and items	Mean	SD	λ	α
Dark Triad—Machiavellianism	2.01	0.81		.80
M1. I tend to manipulate others to get my way	1.83	0.96	.78
M2. I have used deceit or lied to get my way	2.18	1.10	.82
M3. I have used flattery to get my way	2.42	1.19	.82
M4. I tend to exploit others toward my own end	1.61	0.81	.76
Dark Triad—Narcissism	2.32	0.84		.81
N1. I tend to want others to admire me	2.52	1.14	.83
N2. I tend to want others to pay attention to me	2.83	1.14	.79
N3. I tend to seek prestige or status	2.24	1.09	.83
N4. I tend to expect special favors from others	1.72	0.85	.74
Dark Triad—Psychopathy	1.58	0.68		.67
P1. I tend to lack remorse	1.61	0.92	.82
P2. I tend to be unconcerned with the morality of my actions	1.56	0.88	.81
P3. I tend to be callous or insensitive	1.56	0.85	.68
Self-control ability	2.20	0.62		.73
SC1. I often do things without thinking first	2.22	1.09	.57
SC2. When I’m angry, people better stay away from me	2.47	1.18	.59
SC3. I have fun when I can, even if it gets me in trouble	2.34	1.05	.60
SC4. Sometimes I will take a risk just for the fun of it	2.05	1.08	.59
SC5. When I am angry, I’d rather hit than talk	1.30	0.70	.45
SC6. I say what I think, even if it’s not smart	2.67	1.18	.65
SC7. I often immediately do what I feel like	2.58	1.09	.67
SC8. I get angry easily	1.97	0.98	.56
Cyber Dating Abuse Perpetration	1.34	0.54		.69
CDA1. I have examined the content of my partner’s emails, texts, and social media account(s) without their permission	1.51	0.83	.72
CDA2. I have messaged my partner online or via texts to check who they were with and what they were doing	1.27	0.62	.84
CDA3. I have called or texted my partner an excessive amount to see who they were with and what they were doing	1.23	0.62	.83

Note. Factor loadings were obtained through Principal Components Factor Analyses with Oblimin rotation. PCA = principal components factor analysis.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: The work of Janneke M. Schokkenbroek is supported by the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO) (11K5421N). The work of Thijs Hauspie, Koen Ponnet, and Wim Hardyns is supported by the Research Foundation—Flanders (FWO) (G010519N).

ORCID iD

Janneke M. Schokkenbroek

Notes

Author biographies

Janneke Marieke Schokkenbroek is a PhD fellow of the research foundation—Flanders (FWO) at the Department of Communication Sciences and the Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law at Ghent University. Her research focuses on harmful technology use in romantic relationships.

Thijs Hauspie is a PhD researcher at the Department of Criminology, Criminal Law and Social Law at Ghent University. His research focuses on public harassment in nightlife (i.e., intrusive and unwanted (sexual) behaviors) and the potential of bystanders to reduce this harmful behavior.

Koen Ponnet, PhD in Psychology, is an associate professor at the Faculty of Political and Social Sciences at Ghent University, Belgium. He examines determinants of online and offline health and risk behaviors of adolescents and adults. His research also includes vulnerable groups, like those who are at risk of poverty.

Wim Hardyns, PhD in Criminology, is an associate professor at the Faculty of Law and Criminology at Ghent University, Belgium, and guest professor Safety Sciences at the Faculty of Social Sciences at University of Antwerp, Belgium. His research focuses on big data applications within the security domain, crime prevention, and criminological phenomena such as urban- and nightlife security, online and offline partner violence, and sports-related crime.

References

Baumeister

R. F.

(2002). Yielding to temptation: Self-control failure, impulsive purchasing, and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 28(4), 670–676.

Bereczkei

(2018). Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis revisited: What evolved cognitive and social skills may underlie human manipulation. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 12(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000096

Bhogal

M. S.

Wallace

(2022). Cost-inflicting mate retention tactics predict the perpetration of cyber dating abuse. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 8(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40806-021-00307-8

Borrajo

Gámez-Guadix

Calvete

(2015). Cyber dating abuse: Prevalence, context, and relationship with offline dating aggression. Psychological Reports, 116(2), 565–585.

Borrajo

Gámez-Guadix

Pereda

Calvete

(2015). The development and validation of the cyber dating abuse questionnaire among young couples. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 358–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.063

Branson

March

. (2021). Dangerous dating in the digital age: Jealousy, hostility, narcissism, and psychopathy as predictors of cyber dating abuse. Computers in Human Behavior, 119, 106711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106711

Buckels

E. E.

Trapnell

P. D.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2014). Trolls just want to have fun. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016

Burke

S. C.

Wallen

Vail-Smith

Knox

(2011). Using technology to control intimate partners: An exploratory study of college undergraduates. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1162–1167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.010

Butler

L. C.

Fissel

E. R.

Gildea

Fisher

B. S.

(2023). Understanding intimate partner cyber abuse across partnership categories based on gender identity and sexual orientation. Victims & Offenders, 18(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2139032

10.

Caridade

S. M. M.

Braga

(2020). Youth cyber dating abuse: A meta-analysis of risk and protective factors. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2020-3-2

11.

Caridade

Braga

Borrajo

(2019). Cyber dating abuse (CDA): Evidence from a systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 48, 152–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.08.018

12.

Carton

Egan

(2017). The Dark Triad and intimate partner violence. Personality and Individual Differences, 105, 84–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.040

13.

Cava

M. J.

Martínez-Ferrer

Buelga

Carrascosa

(2020). Sexist attitudes, romantic myths, and offline dating violence as predictors of cyber dating violence perpetration in adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 111, 106449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106449

14.

Christie

Geis

F. L.

(1970). Studies in Machiavellianism. Academic Press.

15.

Cumming

Calin-Jageman

(2016). Introduction to the new statistics: Estimation, open science, and beyond. Routledge.

16.

Curry

T. R.

Zavala

(2020). A multi-theoretical perspective on cyber dating abuse victimization and perpetration within intimate relationships: A test of general strain, social learning, and self-control theories. Victims & Offenders, 15(4), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2020.1734996

17.

Deans

Bhoga

M. C.

(2017). Perpetrating cyber dating abuse: A brief report on the role of aggression, romantic jealousy and gender. Current Psychology, 38, 1077–1082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9715-4

18.

De Buck

Pauwels

Hardyns

. (2018). De stabiliteit van zelfcontrole: een verkennende analyse op Belgische paneldata. Panopticon, 39(5), 470–478.

19.

De Buck

Pauwels

L. J.

Hardyns

Ponnet

. (2021). Testing measurement invariance of the Dark Triad Dirty Dozen in a Belgian adult sample. Psychologica Belgica, 61(1), 377. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1106

20.

DeLisi

Tostlebe

Burgason

Heirigs

Vaughn

(2018). Self-control versus psychopathy: A head-to-head test of general theories of antisociality. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 16(1), 53–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204016682998

21.

Ellis

(1988). Criminal behavior and r/K selection: An extension of gene-based evolutionary theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 9, 697–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(88)90059-1

22.

Figueredo

A. J.

Vásquez

Brumbach

B. H.

Sefcek

J. A.

Kirsner

B. R.

Jacobs

W. J.

(2005). The K-factor: Individual differences in life history strategy. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 1349–1360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.009

23.

Figueredo

A. J.

Vásquez

Brumbach

B. H.

Schneider

S. M. R.

(2007). The K-factor, covitality, and personality: A psychometric test of life history theory. Human Nature, 18, 47–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02820846

24.

Fox

Osborn

J. L.

Warber

K. M.

(2014). Relational dialectics and social networking sites: The role of Facebook in romantic relationship escalation, maintenance, conflict, and dissolution. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 527–534. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.031

25.

Friese

Frankenbach

Job

Loschelder

D. D.

(2017). Does self-control training improve self-control? A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1077–1099. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617697076

26.

Goodboy

A. K.

Martin

M. M.

(2015). The personality profile of a cyberbully: Examining the Dark Triad. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.052

27.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.

28.

Grasmick

H. G.

Tittle

C. R.

Bursik

R. J.

Jr Arneklev

B. J.

(1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030001002

29.

Halsey

L. G.

(2019). The reign of the p-value is over: What alternative analyses could we employ to fill the power vacuum?. Biology Letters, 15(5), 20190174. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0174

30.

Hardyns

Ponnet

Pauwels

Walrave

Kimpe

Snaphaan

(2019). Social Capital in Neighborhoods (SCAN): Een interdisciplinaire studie over online en offline sociaal kapitaal en risicogedrag. Panopticon, 40(3), 223.

31.

Hare

R. D.

(2006). Psychopathy: A clinical and forensic overview. Psychiatric Clinics, 29(3), 709–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2006.04.007

32.

Hendin

H. M.

Cheek

J. M.

(1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcissism: A reexamination of Murray’s Narcism Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 31(4), 588–599. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2204

33.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

34.

Jonason

P. K.

Tost

(2010). I just cannot control myself: The Dark Triad and self-control. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(6), 611–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.031

35.

Jonason

P. K.

Webster

G. D.

(2010). The Dirty Dozen: A concise measure of the Dark Triad. Psychological Assessment, 22(2), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019265

36.

Jones

D. N.

Figueredo

A. J.

(2013). The core of darkness: Uncovering the heart of the Dark Triad. European Journal of Personality, 27(6), 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.1893

37.

Jones

D. N.

Paulhus

D. L.

(2011). The role of impulsivity in the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(5), 679–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.04.011

38.

Kircaburun

Jonason

P. K.

Griffiths

M. D.

(2018). The Dark Tetrad traits and problematic social media use: The mediating role of cyberbullying and cyberstalking. Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 264–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.034

39.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.

40.

Kowalski

C. M.

Rogoza

Vernon

P. A.

Schermer

J. A.

(2018). The Dark Triad and the self-presentation variables of socially desirable responding and self-monitoring. Personality and Individual Differences, 120, 234–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.007

41.

Lambrechts

Hardyns

Pauwels

(2019). De Dark Triad ontleed. Een meetmodel voor machiavellisme, psychopathie en narcisme. Panopticon, 40, 50–63.

42.

Linares

Aranda

García-Domingo

Amezcua

Fuentes

Moreno-Padilla

(2021). Cyber-dating abuse in young adult couples: Relations with sexist attitudes and violence justification, smartphone usage and impulsivity. PLoS One, 16(6), e0253180. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253180

43.

MacCallum

R. C.

Browne

M. W.

Sugawara

H. M.

(1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130

44.

MacKinnon

D. P.

(2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. Erlbaum.

45.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Lockwood

C. M.

Williams

(2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4

46.

March

Grieve

Clancy

Klettke

van Dick

Hernandez Bark

A. S.

(2021). The role of individual differences in cyber dating abuse perpetration. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 24(7), 457–463. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.0687

47.

March

Grieve

Marrington

Jonason

P. K.

(2017). Trolling on Tinder®(and other dating apps): Examining the role of the Dark Tetrad and impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 110, 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.025

48.

Marcum

C. D.

Higgins

G. E.

Ricketts

M. L.

(2014). Juveniles and cyber stalking in the United States: An analysis of theoretical predictors of patterns of online perpetration. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 8(1), 47–56.

49.

Miller

J. D.

Few

L. R.

Seibert

L. A.

Watts

Zeichner

Lynam

D. R.

(2012). An examination of the Dirty Dozen measure of psychopathy: A cautionary tale about the costs of brief measures. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028583

50.

Muris

Merckelbach

Otgaar

Meijer

(2017). The malevolent side of human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the Dark Triad (narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070

51.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2012). Mplus. Statistical analysis with latent variables. User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

52.

Pabian

De Backer

C. J.

Vandebosch

(2015). Dark Triad personality traits and adolescent cyber-aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 41–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.015

53.

Paulhus

D. L.

Williams

K. M.

(2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(02)00505-6

54.

Pineda

Galán

Martínez-Martínez

Campagne

D. M.

Piqueras

J. A.

(2021). Same personality, new ways to abuse: How dark tetrad personalities are connected with cyber intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(13–14), NP11223–NP11241 https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521991307

55.

Plouffe

R. A.

Wilson

C. A.

Saklofske

D. H.

(2020). The role of dark personality traits in intimate partner violence: A multi-study investigation. Current Psychology, 41(6), 3481–3500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00871-5

56.

Rodríguez-deArriba

M. L.

Nocentini

Menesini

Sánchez-Jiménez

(2021). Dimensions and measures of cyber dating violence in adolescents: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 58, 101613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101613

57.

Rogoza

Żemojtel-Piotrowska

Jonason

P. K.

Piotrowski

Campbell

K. W.

Gebauer

J. E.

Maltby

Sedikides

Adamovic

Adams

B. G.

Ang

R. P.

Ardi

Atitsogbe

K. A.

Baltatescu

Bilić

Bodroža

Gruneau Brulin

Bundhoo Poonoosamy

H. Y.

Chaleeraktrakoon

. . .Włodarczyk

(2021). Structure of Dark Triad dirty dozen across eight world regions. Assessment, 28(4), 1125–1135. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120922611

58.

Rubio-Garay

López-González

M. A.

Carrasco

M. Á.

Amor

P. J.

(2017). The prevalence of dating violence: A systematic review. Papeles del Psicólogo, 38(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.23923/pap.psicol2017.2831

59.

Schokkenbroek

J. M.

Ponnet

Hardyns

(2024). Men’s (online) intimate partner violence experiences and mental health: Polyvictimization, polyperpetration and victim-perpetrator overlap. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 33(1), 46–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2022.2055513

60.

Schokkenbroek

J. M.

Van Ouytsel

Hardyns

Ponnet

(2022). Adults’ online and offline psychological intimate partner violence experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(15–16), NP14656–NP14671. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211015217

61.

Schulz

(2016). “Don’t blow your cool”: Provocation, violent coping, and the conditioning effects of self-control. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32(4), 561–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-015-9267-4

62.

Smith

A. P.

Marshall

A. T.

Kirkpatrick

. (2015). Mechanisms of impulsive choice: II. Time-based interventions to improve self-control. Behavioural Processes, 112, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.10.010

63.

Smoker

March

. (2017). Predicting perpetration of intimate partner cyberstalking: Gender and the Dark Tetrad. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 390–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.012

64.

Stiff

(2019). The Dark Triad and Facebook surveillance: How Machiavellianism, psychopathy, but not narcissism predict using Facebook to spy on others. Computers in Human Behavior, 94, 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.044

65.

Suler

(2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295

66.

Taylor

Xia

(2018). Cyber partner abuse: A systematic review. Violence and Victims, 33(6), 983–1011. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.33.6.938

67.

Temple

J. R.

Choi

H. J.

Brem

Wolford-Clevenger

Stuart

G. L.

Peskin

M. F.

Elmquist

(2016). The temporal association between traditional and cyber dating abuse among adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0380-3

68.

Toplu-Demirtaş

Akcabozan-Kayabol

N. B.

Araci-Iyiaydin

Fincham

F. D.

(2022). Unraveling the roles of distrust, suspicion of infidelity, and jealousy in cyber dating abuse perpetration: An attachment theory perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3–4), NP1432–NP1462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520927505

69.

Van Geel

Goemans

Toprak

Vedder

. (2017). Which personality traits are related to traditional bullying and cyberbullying? A study with the Big Five, Dark Triad and sadism. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 231–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.063

70.

Vazire

Funder

D. C.

(2006). Impulsivity and the self-defeating behavior of narcissists. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 154–165. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr1002_4

71.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Mikuška

Kelley

E. L.

(2017). It’s time: A meta-analysis on the self-control-deviance link. Journal of Criminal Justice, 48, 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.10.001

72.

Wilson

E. O.

(1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Harvard University Press.

73.

Wright

M. F.

(2016). Cyber victimization on college campuses: Longitudinal associations with suicidal ideation, depression, and anxiety. Criminal Justice Review, 41(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016816634785

74.

Zhou

Y. Q.

Gan

D. Z. Q.

Hoo

E. C. C.

Chong

Chu

C. M.

(2018). Evaluating the violence prevention program: Group and individual changes in aggression, anger, self-control, and empathy. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 29(2), 265–287. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2017.1375541

75.

Zweig

J. M.

Lachman

Yahner

Dank

(2014). Correlates of cyber dating abuse among teens. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(8), 1306–1321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0047-x