Gender Matters: Experiences and Consequences of Digital Dating Abuse Victimization in Adolescent Dating Relationships

Background and Purpose: As the use of the Internet and cell phones becomes increasingly widespread among youth, its role as a context and tool for unhealthy and abusive dating behaviors is being explored. We use the term “digital dating abuse” (DDA) to describe a repeated pattern of behaviors to control, pressure, or threaten a current or former dating partner through the use of the Internet or cell phones. Preliminary evidence suggests that the experience of DDA differs significantly by gender, but findings about these gendered patterns are mixed and offer little insight into the context of these experiences. The current study addresses limitations of the emerging literature by examining the experience and consequences of DDA victimization in high school dating relationships using novel survey methods. Our research questions were: 1) How common is DDA and what types are experienced by teens?, 2) Are there gender differences in frequency of DDA perpetration and victimization?, and 3) Are there gender differences in emotional and behavioral responses to DDA victimization? We expected that girls would report more frequent victimization of sexually coercive DDA behaviors and more negative emotional responses to DDA victimization (e.g., crying, being sad/upset). We expected that boys would be more likely to report dismissive emotional responses (e.g., laughing, ignoring it).

Methods: We conducted a self-report cross-sectional survey study of 703 9^th-12^thgrade students with dating experience at a large suburban high school campus in Michigan. Participants ranged in age from 13-19, 91.6% aged 14-17. The majority identified as young women (56%). As to race/ethnicity, respondents identified as White (72.2%), Black (7%), Asian (6.7%), Middle Eastern (4.7%), Latino/a (1.7%), and Multi-racial (5.6%). Some participants (12.7%) reported participation in a free or reduced lunch program. We revised our  measure of DDA for use in this study, asking about victimization and perpetration of 18 different DDA behaviors in their current or most recent relationship. If students indicated experience with a DDA behavior, they were then asked several follow-up questions about the most recent incident of that behavior, including how upset they were and how they responded.

Results: Our measure of DDA yielded three subscales: digital monitoring/control, digital sexual coercion, and digital direct aggression. Digital monitoring/control behaviors were the most commonly reported victimization type among girls and boys, and girls experienced more frequent digital sexual coercion than boys. We found that girls were more upset by every type of DDA victimization, and reported more negative emotional and behavioral responses to DDA victimization than boys.

Conclusions/Implications: This study introduces a new method for measuring, beyond frequency, how girls and boys interpret and experience DDA victimization. We found that despite similar rates of DDA victimization frequency, girls were more upset by every type of DDA victimization and reported more negative emotional and behavioral responses to DDA victimization than boys. Therefore, whereas girls and boys may experience the same DDA behaviors, they may be experiencing them very differently.