Electronic Dating Aggression among Middle School Students: Demographic Correlates and Associations with Other Types of Violence Stacey Cutbush, MA,* Jason Williams, PhD, Shari Miller, PhD, Deborah Gibbs, MPH, Monique Clinton-Sherrod, PhD RTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC Conceptual Model Data Collection and Study Sample ■ 1,430 7th grade students from 8 schools in 4 states ● 57% parent permission rate (range from 44%-71% across schools) ● 96% survey completion rate among those with parent permission ■ Data collected during the 2010–2011 school year ● Paper-and-pencil questionnaires administered in groups at school Participants ■ Mean age = 12.3 years (SD = 0.56) ■ 50.1% female Percentages of Respondents in Each Racial/Ethnic Group Teen Dating Violence and Electronic Dating Aggression ■ Teen Dating Violence (TDV) ● defined as physical, sexual, or psychological/emotional violence within a dating relationship, as well as stalking ● can occur in person or electronically ● may occur between a current or former dating partner (CDC, 2012) ■ Electronic dating aggression is psychological abuse victimization and/or perpetration among dating partners via the use of technology or electronic media, including: ● cell phones ● texting ● instant messaging (IM) ● social networking sites ● e-mail ● web chat ● blogs Prior Studies on Electronic Dating Aggression ■ An online survey by Picard (2007) of 382 teens aged 13 to 18 who reported having been in a dating relationship found that ● 30% received text messages 10 or more times an hour by a partner to find out where they are, what they are doing, or who they are with ● 25% were called names, harassed, or put down by their partner via cell phones and texting ● 22% were asked via cell p hone or the Internet to engage in sexual activity when they did not want to ● 19% had a partner who used a cell phone or the Internet to spread rumors about them ● 10% were threatened physically via e-mail, IM, texting, Web chat, etc. ■ However, little is known about this study’s sampling methods ● Difficult to generalize study findings beyond study population ■ A survey conducted by the Associated Press and MTV (2009) of 1,247 individuals aged 14 to 24 from an online panel reported that ● 25% of the respondents in a romantic relationship reported that their partner has checked the text messages on their cell phone without their permission ● 12% reported that a boyfriend or girlfriend has called them names, put them down, or said really mean things to them on the Internet or their cell phone ● 10% have had a boyfriend or girlfriend demand passwords, and approximately the same number have had a partner demand that they “unfriend” former boyfriends/girlfriends on social networks ■ Because this study included young adults, it is not useful for under- standing electronic dating aggression among high school students ■ A survey conducted by RTI (Cutbush et al., 2010) of 4,282 9th grade students who reported having been on a date reported that ● 56.0% and 29.4% reported lifetime prevalence of electronic dating aggression perpetration and victimization, respectively ■ Because this study included high school students, it is not useful for under- standing electronic dating aggression among middle school students ■ Identify prevalence of dating among middle school students in a large, diverse sample ■ Identify prevalence of electronic dating aggression among middle school students in a large, diverse sample ■ Examine associations between electronic aggression among teen dating partners and ● demographic and academic characteristics ● other types of teen dating violence ● other types of relationship violence ■ Our results show that the majority of middle school student had or currently have a boy/girlfriend ■ Consistent with previous studies, our results show that electronic dating aggression among middle school students is common ■ Electronic Dating Aggression perpetration is positively associated with ● Psychological dating abuse perpetration ● Physical dating violence perpetration ● Sexual harassment perpetration ■ Electronic Dating Aggression victimization is positively associated with ● Psychological dating abuse perpetration or victimization ● Physical dating violence perpetration ● Sexual harassment victimization ■ Incorporate health promotion programs into middle schools aimed at ● Promoting healthy dating relationships ● Preventing dating violence ■ Incorporate electronic aggression content into existing dating violence prevention programs ■ Include electronic aggression in existing policies about bullying, sexual harassment, and violence in schools and other settings ■ Evaluate prevention programs to determine what approaches prevent or reduce electronic dating aggression among middle school students ■ Determine whether risk factors for physical and psychological dating violence also increase risk for electronic dating aggression ■ Convenience sample limits external generalizability ■ Cross-sectional data prohibit causal inferences ■ Self-report ● Possible social desirability bias Dating ■ Lifetime measure of dating using a single item, “Have you ever had a boyfriend/girlfriend?” ■ Coded dichotomously: yes or no Electronic dating aggression (Picard, 2007) ■ Past 6-month perpetration (α = .86) or victimization (α = .85) each measured using eight items, including: ● Called you names, put you down, or said really mean things to you using a cell phone, email, IM, texting, a blog, or a social networking site like MySpace or Facebook ● Contacted you when you did not want them to, just to make you mad, using a cell phone, email, … or Facebook ● Made you afraid using a cell phone, email, … or Facebook ● Spread rumors about you using a cell phone, email, … or Facebook ● Made you afraid to not respond to them because of what they might do using a cell phone, email, … or Facebook ● Showed private or embarrassing pictures/video of you to others using a cell phone, email, … or Facebook ● Threatened to hurt you physically using a cell phone, email, … or Facebook ● Repeatedly checked up on you to see where you were using a cell phone, email, … or Facebook ■ Coded dichotomously: 1 or more times for any item(s) vs. none for all items Teen dating violence ■ Psychological dating abuse (Foshee et al., 1998) ● Past 6-month perpetration (α = .90) or victimization (α = .90) each measured using 5 items, such as ◆ “Insulted them in front of others” ◆ “Threatened to hurt you” ● Coded dichotomously: 1 or more times for any item(s) vs. none for all items ■ Physical dating violence (Foshee et al., 1998) ● Past 6-month perpetration (α = .90) or victimization (α = .90) each measured using 5 items, such as ◆ “Scratched or slapped them” ◆ “Hit you with their fist or something else hard” ● Coded dichotomously: 1 or more times for any item(s) vs. none for all items ● Sexual dating violence measures were not included in the study instrument Other relationship violence ■ Sexual harassment (American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, 2001) ● Past 6-month perpetration (α = .81) or victimization (α = .77) each measured using 6 items, such as ◆ “Spread sexual rumors about someone” ◆ “Touched, grabbed or pinched you in a sexual way [when you did not want them to]” ● Coded dichotomously: 1 or more times for any item(s) vs. none for all items ■ Bullying (Espelage & Holt, 2001) ● Past 6-month perpetration (α = .86) or victimization (α = .88) each measured using 10 items, such as ◆ “Left someone out from your group of friends” ◆ “scared you” ● Coded dichotomously: 1 or more times for any item(s) vs. none for all items Demographic and academic characteristics ■ Gender ■ Parent education ■ Last-semester student grades ■ Calculated percentages of teens reporting electronic dating aggression perpetration or victimization ■ Conducted separate multiple logis- tic regression analyses predicting electronic dating aggression perpetration or victimization ■ Both regression models ● Accounted for school-level clustering (SAS PROC GLIMMIX) Multi-level Multiple Logistic Regression Predicting Electronic Dating Aggression Perpetration among Middle School Students Independent variable OR [95% CI] Gender 1.09 [0.67, 1.76] Parent’s education Years of college > 4 years Ref Ref College graduate 0.84 [0.38, 1.69] Some college 0.92 [0.39, 2.16] Graduated high school/Vocational 0.84 [0.37, 1.90] Did not graduate high school 1.90 [079., 4.54] Don’t know 1.25 [0.57, 2.75] Student grades A+, A, or A- average Ref Ref B+, B, or B- average 0.95 [0.50, 1.79] C+, C, or C- average 1.48 [0.70, 3.14] D or less than a D average 0.48 [011, 2.01] Don’t know/Missing 0.94 [0.51, 1.72] Psychological dating abuse Perpetration 5.14* [3.10, 8.54] Victimization 1.59 [0.97, 2.60] Physical dating violence Perpetration 3.75* [2.04, 6.91] Victimization 1.59 [0.87, 2.89] Sexual harassment Perpetration 2.30* [1.34, 3.94] Victimization 1.07 [0.60, 1.90] Bullying Perpetration 1.85 [0.77, 4.44] Victimization 0.70 [0.30, 1.64] *p<0.05. Multi-level Multiple Logistic Regression Predicting Electronic Dating Aggression Victimization among Middle School Students Independent variable OR [95% CI] Gender 1.34 [0.91, 1.98] Parent’s education Years of college > 4 years Ref Ref College graduate 1.05 [0.59, 1.33] Some college 1.00 [0.51, 1.60] Graduated high school/Vocational 1.06 [0.56, 2.00] Did not graduate high school 0.75 [0.35, 1.60] Don’t know 0.70 [0.36, 1.33] Student grades A+, A, or A- average Ref Ref B+, B, or B- average 0.83 [0.50, 1.37] C+, C, or C- average 1.22 [0.65, 2.28] D or less than a D average 0.58 [0.18, 1.83] Don’t know/Missing 1.00 [0.61, 1.63] Psychological dating abuse Perpetration 2.58* [1.37, 4.56] Victimization 4.33* [2.96, 6.36] Physical dating violence Perpetration 2.50* [1.37, 4.56] Victimization 1.19 [0.70, 2.02] Sexual harassment Perpetration 1.43 [0.91, 2.25] Victimization 1.62* [1.05, 2.50] Bullying Perpetration 0.93 [0.47, 1.83] Victimization 1.67 [0.90, 3.08] *p<0.05. Acknowledgments ■ This project was supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The interpretations and conclusions do not necessarily represent the official position of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. ■ Thank you to all the participants, field staff, and RTI technical staff, especially Jason Williams, for making this presentation possible. More Information *Presenting author: Stacey Cutbush 919.316.3942 | [email protected] RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Presented at: the 140th Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association, San Francisco, CA, October 27–31, 2012 www.rti.org RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. Electronic aggression among adolescent dating partners Other types of adolescent dating violence • Psychological • Physical Demographic characteristics • Gender • Parent’s education • Student grades Other types of violence • Bullying • Sexual Harassment Hispanic 34% African-American 30% White 24% Other, Multiple, or Unknown 12% 75.0% 25.0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Ever had boy/girlfriend Never had boy/girlfriend 18.4% 31.5% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Perpetration Victimization Prevalence of Dating among Middle School Students (Percentage Reporting Lifetime Dating) Prevalence of Electronic Dating Aggression among Middle School Students (Percentage Reporting Past 6-month Electronic Dating Aggression)