Current Psychology (2023) 42:8781–8797

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-02197-2

Give me your password! What are you hiding? Associated factors

of intimate partner violence through technological abuse
Alexandra Maftei 1 & Oana Dănilă 1

Accepted: 4 August 2021 / Published online: 10 August 2021

# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
The present study explored the associated factors of intimate partner violence through technological abuse (ITPV) in a sample of
1113 participants aged 18 to 65 (71.3% females). Our research’s primary questions were the following: 1). Is there a significant
link between relationship attachment styles and ITPV perpetration or victimization?; 2). Is there a significant link between
participants’ demographic and relationship characteristics (i.e., relationship length and partners’ fidelity), online behavior (i.e.,
benign and toxic disinhibition), moral disengagement, psychological distress), and ITPV perpetration or victimization?; and 3).
Did the COVID-19 pandemic increase ITPV perpetration or victimization?. We analyzed our data by creating three different
groups, depending on participants’ answers concerning ITPV, i.e., the overall sample, abusers’ and victims’ groups. Our main
results suggested significant, positive correlations between ITPV perpetration and victimization, moral disengagement, psycho-
logical distress, and online disinhibition. Age negatively correlated with IPVT victimization and perpetration. We also found
significant associations between participants’ dominant relationship attachment style and their own and partners’ cheating
behavior, as well as ITPV-victimization and perpetration. Finally, 13.7% to 23% of participants in all three groups considered
that the Covid-19 increased the frequency of ITPV behaviors (for both abusers and victims). Results are discussed considering
their theoretical and practical implications for domestic violence and the potential related prevention and intervention strategies.

Keywords Domestic violence . Technological abuse . Attachment styles . Psychological distress . Online disinhibition . Moral
disengagement

Introduction 15–71% of women might experience intimate partner violence

(Lutgendorf, 2019), while the prevalence rates among men vary
Undoubtedly, domestic violence, i.e., abusive behaviors towards between 3.4% to 20.3% (Kolbe & Büttner, 2020). However,
partners, children, and other family members, is a worldwide research on self-reported perpetration suggests greater equality
phenomenon, affecting millions of people every year (Huecker between the sexes (e.g., Desmarais et al., 2012; Muller et al.,
et al., 2021). Intimate partner violence refers to these abusive 2009; Straus, 2009). Also, a significant number of cases remain
behaviors within a relationship, and it seems to affect both men unreported, given that, compared to any other form of
and women (Kolbe & Büttner, 2020). Generally, research sug- violence, victims of domestic violence are less likely to
gests that intimate partner violence affects women more than report their victimization, especially in the case of male
men (Chisholm et al., 2017). Addressing this topic involves var- victims (Felson et al., 2002).
ious sensitive variables, gender amongst all inducing some of the The wide range of intimate partner violence forms might
most intense debates. For example, data generally suggest that include, among others, physical, emotional or psychological,
sexual, or economic violence (Huecker et al., 2021). These
violent intimate behaviors might appear in the offline and
* Alexandra Maftei
online environment (e.g., cyber-abuse; Taylor & Xia, 2018),
[email protected]
and some of the common reasons lying behind these behav-
Oana Dănilă iors are related to abusers’ need for control due to jealousy,
[email protected] personality, or psychological disorders, low self-esteem, low
emotional control and anger management, cultural beliefs,
1
Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, Alexandru Ioan Cuza infidelity, or feelings of inferiority (Huecker et al., 2021;
University of Iaşi, 3 Toma Cozma Street, Iasi, Romania
Nemeth et al., 2012; Pichon et al., 2020).
8782 Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797

Technology plays a significant role in today’s intimate part- The consequences of cyber abusive behaviors for both vic-
nerships. We might meet our future husband or wife online, and tims and perpetrators seem to be associated with other risk
we can communicate fast and efficiently, share pictures, and behaviors, such as unprotected sexual relationships with a
generally stay connected to our loved ones. However, the dark high number of partners (Dick et al., 2014; van Ouytsel
side of digital technologies within relationships might include et al., 2016), binge drinking (van Ouytsel et al., 2016), or
stalking and the surveillance of victims by abusive partners using delinquent behavior (Zweig et al., 2014). In addition, techno-
digital location services (Southworth et al., 2007), monitoring the logical abuse is a risk factor for other domestic violence forms,
partners’ social networking activity and their e-mails through such as physical, sexual, or even homicide (Marganski &
stolen password, remote cameras and microphones, spyware, or Melander, 2015; Scott et al., 2010). Mcfarlane et al. (2002)
simply by forcing them to reveal their passwords and “share” suggested, for example, that among the most frequent stalking
their accounts (Clevenger & Gilliam, 2020; Freed et al., 2017; behaviors before homicide were spying and victim surveil-
Shimizu, 2013; Southworth et al., 2007). lance. Technology provides abusers a quick and easy method
Technological intimate partner violence or cyber-abuse, an to harass their partners, even when they are not physically
emerging trend in intimate partner violence (Woodlock, 2016), close, using social media, GPS tracking, constant texting or
was explored in an increasing number of studies that generally sexting, and other related forms of intimidation, embarrass-
emphasized its adverse psychological consequences. For exam- ment, and control (Melander, 2010; Woodlock, 2016).
ple, Wolford-Clevenger et al. (2016) suggested an overall prev- The outcomes of intimate partner violence include physical
alence of around 40%, with no differences between men and consequences (e.g., fibromyalgia, fractures, bruises, chronic
women in their victimization. The related data from the World pain, disability), psychological and behavioral outcomes
Health Organization (WHO, 2017) suggested that the intimate (e.g., substance abuse, shame and guilt feelings, phobias,
partner violence prevalence against women ranges from 24.6% post-traumatic stress, self-harm, suicidal behaviors, stress dis-
in Europe and 29.8% in the United States. More recent data orders), sexual and reproductive consequences (e.g., infertili-
reported similar prevalence rates, i.e., Toplu-Demirtaş et al. ty, pelvic inflammation, unsafe abortions and unwanted preg-
(2020). In Romania, a post-communist European country where nancies, gynecological disorders or sexually transmitted infec-
60% of its citizens consider domestic violence as “normal” and tions), and even fatal outcomes, such as homicide, suicide, or
justified behavior (BBC, 2017), a cyber-domestic violence case maternal mortality (Lafta, 2008).
brought the country a conviction from the European Court of There are several documented risk factors related to both
Human Rights in 2020. More specifically, the Romanian court the perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence.
was sanctioned for not investigating a victim’s complaint Common risk factors associated with perpetrators’ intimate
concerning her partner’s cyber-abuse; the prosecutor’s office partner violence include substance abuse, lower education,
closed the case because the threat was considered to be not severe childhood abuse (Huecker et al., 2021), prior relationship ag-
enough, i.e., the complaint about a breach of secrecy of corre- gression, higher levels of hostility and aggression, mood dis-
spondence was considered to be made too late. In this specific orders, stress, depression, psychological distress (Riggs et al.,
context, the European Court of Human Rights’ decision clarified 2000), anxiety (Kivisto, 2014), anxious or dismissive attach-
that cyber-violence is recognized as a dimension of violence ment styles (Bond & Bond, 2004; Goldenson et al., 2007).
against Romanian women (similar to those in other countries).
Toplu-Demirtaş et al. (2020) also highlighted the signifi- Technological Intimate Partner Violence and Online
cant link between cyber dating abuse victimization and Disinhibition
depression. In their systematic review concerning cyber
partner abuse, Taylor and Xia (2018) found that 1) overall, Online disinhibition (i.e., “a type of behavior that is not
frequency rates of victimization varied between 1.1% to constrained or restrained, implying a reduction in concerns
77.1%; 2) frequency rates of perpetration ranged from 1.8% for self-representation and the judgment of others”; Udris,
to 90.3%; 3) most studies found significant related gender 2014, p. 254) seems to have a significant role in technological
differences; for example, some studies reported higher victim- domestic violence. We already know from previous research
ization rates among males (e.g., Bennett et al., 2011), while people who use electronic communication (i.e., technological
other reported higher rates among females (e.g., Dick et al., forms) tend to be less inhibited within their online interactions
2014). Concerning cyber perpetration, Burke et al. (2011) (Chisholm, 2006). This means that, in their online interaction,
reported that females were more likely to monitor their part- they usually communicate things that they would not typically
ners using technological means, while Dick et al. (2014) sug- share in real life (Suler, 2004). Thus, the internet and techno-
gested that boys were more likely to contact their partner to logical ways of communicating, in general, are significantly
determine their location and companionship. However, these important for people who have difficulties expressing their
findings might also have been biased by the different mea- feelings, are extremely shy, or have other similar difficulties
sures that the authors have used (Zweig et al., 2013). that the online environment seems to diminish and facilitate
Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797 8783

self-disclosure or altruistic behaviors. Nevertheless, these me- personally and socially acceptable by portraying it as serving
diated communication forms might also trigger toxic disinhi- socially worthy or moral purposes”; Bandura, 2002, p. 103) is
bition by increasing hostility through decreased intimacy and used when violence is rationalized by reference to “rights” or
ignoring social clues (Baym, 2010). needs that attribute social and moral purposes to harmful actions;
There are six factors of online communication that might for example, one could consider that is acceptable to hurt some-
facilitate positive (benign disinhibition, which promotes open- one to protect another person’s honor. Euphemistic labeling re-
ness, kindness, and generosity) and negative (toxic) online fers to the use of “sanitary language” to make harmful conduct
disinhibition (involving rude language, threats), according to seem less immoral. For example, instead of “rape,” one might
Suler (2004): dissociative anonymity (i.e., the online environ- use euphemistic labeling such as “sexual intercourse without
ment facilitates one’s ability to separate online behavior from their consent”. Finally, advantageous comparison exploits the
in-person identity), invisibility (one’s physical features, such contrasts between other (significantly more) harmful behaviors
as tone or body language remain hidden, thus lower inhibi- and the current immoral ones. For example, one could say,
tion), asynchronicity (distorted time flow: communicating on- “Checking my partner’s e-mails without their consent is nothing
line also means that one can avoid and delay the receiver’s comparing to what other partners do, such as cheating or lying.”
response, due to the fact that communication doesn’t always When using the displacement or diffusion of responsibility,
happen in real-time), solipsistic introjection (one might create people morally disengage by minimizing their role in harmful
the other’s character based on their own projections since in- actions (e.g., “I slapped a colleague because another member of
person cues are missing), dissociative imagination (the the group told me to”) or obscuring personal agency (“everyone
Internet might be viewed as one’s personal fantasy), and min- was doing it, so I did it, too). Distortion of Consequences de-
imization of status and authority (the Internet is viewed as an scribes the mechanisms through which individuals minimize or
equal “playground”, lacking social cues related to authority) disregard the consequences of their harmful actions; as Bandura
(Hellevik, 2019; Udris, 2014). Consistent previous data sug- (2002) suggests, “As long as the harmful results of one’s conduct
gested the significant link between online disinhibition and are ignored, minimized, distorted or disbelieved, there is little
online deviant behavior (e.g., Hinduja & Patchin, 2009; reason for self-censure to be activated” (p. 108). Finally, dehu-
Wachs et al., 2019). A recent study exploring technology- manization refers to the situations when perpetrators consider the
related perpetration factors and overlap with in-person inti- victims as lacking humanity: “self-censure for cruel conduct can
mate partner violence conducted by Duerksen and Woodin be disengaged or blunted by stripping people of human qualities.
(2019) suggested that online disinhibition was a significant Once dehumanized, they are no longer viewed as persons with
predictor of technological abuse. feelings, hopes, and concerns but as sub-human objects”
(Bandura, 2002, p. 109). For example, people are not “individ-
Moral Disengagement uals,” “persons,” “humans,” but, instead, are called “warms,”
“degenerates,” and other similar dehumanizing terms.
Moral disengagement occurs when people begin to say, for Though moral disengagement has been rarely explored in
example, that violence is excusable. More specifically, as specific domestic violence contexts, many findings point out
Moore (2015) synthesized, “mechanisms of moral disengage- the significant link between moral disengagement mecha-
ment decouple our internal standards from how we construe nisms and generally aggressive behavior (which, implicitly,
our behavior, rendering them ineffective” (p. 199). might also appear in intimate relationships). For example, re-
Convincing ourselves that aggression is justifiable, we disen- searchers suggested significant links between moral disen-
gage or ignore the moral standards that prevent violence in gagement mechanisms and bullying and cyberbullying perpe-
everyday life. According to the moral disengagement frame- tration (Runions & Bak, 2015; Teng et al., 2020), unethical
work, when moral restraints are removed, regular,” good” relational behavior such as the likelihood of making false al-
people may be capable of atrocities, engaging in violent be- legations or retaliating against one’s partner (Clemente et al.,
haviors without experiencing subsequent attendant distress. 2019), dating violence and victimization (Cuadrado-Gordillo
Studies of individual and group violence have shown that et al., 2020), deviant peer affiliation (Wang et al., 2020), vio-
moral disengagement strongly influences our desire to cause lent extremism (Blanco et al., 2020), sexist attitudes (Sánchez-
others’ suffering (Paciello et al., 2008). Jiménez & Muñoz-Fernández, 2021), and – generally – anti-
Bandura (2002) identified eight primary moral disengagement social behavior (Risser & Eckert, 2016; Sijtsema et al., 2019).
mechanisms (i.e., moral justification, euphemistic labeling, ad-
vantageous comparison, displacement of responsibility, diffusion Attachment Styles and Intimate Partner Violence
of responsibility, disregard or distortion of consequences, and
dehumanization), which have been studied extensively given Attachment, the special bond and the lasting relationships that
the fertile research ground they provide. According to their the- humans develop from” the cradle to the grave” (Bowlby,
ory, moral justification (i.e., when “pernicious conduct is made 1982, p.127), represents an entire system that gets activated
8784 Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797

when danger is perceived with the primary psychological A separate inquiry line derived from the attachment theory
function of restoring safety. Attachment drives the regulation and relevant to the current study framework regards the expe-
of emotions through the child’s expectations (internal working rience of infidelity defined as an attachment injury (AI).
models) about the caregiver’s behavior and availability, either Specific relational incidents where one partner violates the
physical or emotional (Bowlby, 1982), resulting in patterns expectation that she/he will offer comfort and caring at a par-
being carried on to the adult romantic relationships. Studies ticular moment of urgent need (Johnson et al., 2001;
have further focused on delineating a set of clusters, i.e., at- Brubacher, 2018), attachment injuries can encompass a vari-
tachment styles, that encompass specific characteristics of ety of breaches of trust and safety in the relationship, that tend
people that succeed to restore safety in efficient, suited terms to resurface whenever the relations are in danger. Infidelity, a
(i.e., the securely attached people), compared to people that diverse and controversial concept, can take even more com-
generally struggle to regulate their emotions, either hyper or plicated subtypes regarding online behaviors (cybersex, sex
hypo-activating their attachment system and usually ending texting, exchanging pictures, videos with sexual depictions).
up feeling insecurely attached (anxiously or avoidant). For the current study, we consider the overall experience of
The importance of participants’ romantic attachment exposure to infidelity as a source of relational injury testing if
styles concerning intimate partner violence has been ex- it aggravates the use of IPV.
plored in a growing number of studies. For example, re- As studies specifically exploring online IPV and attach-
searchers have found that “the “mispairing” of an ment are scarce, we consider it critical to further investigate
avoidant male partner with an anxious female partner whether intimate online partner violence patterns might allow
was associated with both male and female violence” a rapid switch in-between the perpetrators’ and victims’ roles
(Doumas et al., 2008, p. 616). Other studies suggested due to the above-discussed disinhibition. In addition, this spe-
that male partners’ anxious and avoidant attachment style cific attachment framework might allow us to understand the
significantly predicted emotional manipulation, coercive underlying dynamics within this link, as in their desperate
and threat tactics (He & Tsang, 2014). One recent system- attempt to restore the emotional connection, partners end up
atic review conducted by Spencer et al. (2021) points the injuring (including being unfaithful) each other more quickly
following main leads: 1) anxious attachment is one of the as they might feel more “protected” by the screens.
most robust correlates for both intimate partner violence
victimization and perpetration for both genders, and what
is more surprising, anxious attachment is significantly The Present Study
more associated than secure attachment; 2) the need to
further explore the apparent gender difference reported Previous research suggested significant links between online
by studies published so far, asserting that avoidant attach- moral disengagement and cyber aggression (Runions & Bak,
ment is a significantly more robust correlate for intimate 2015), dating violence and victimization (Cuadrado-Gordillo
female partner violent victimization compared to male in- et al., 2020), and general deviant relationship behaviors
timate partner victimization. As such, Slootmaeckers and (Clemente et al., 2019). Additionally, the relationship between
Migerode (2018, 2020) argue that from the attachment attachment styles, toxic online disinhibition, and several forms
perspective, aggression can serve both purposes, either of intimate partner violence, including cyber-abuse, was sug-
proximity seeking (the dominant strategy of anxiously at- gested by a growing number of studies (e.g., Duerksen &
tached) or distance seeking (avoidant strategy), irrespec- Woodin, 2019; Hellevik, 2019; Velotti et al., 2018). Based
tive of gender. on these findings and other related results that emphasized
A systematic review concerning the link between intimate the significant role of various demographical variables when
partner violence and attachment styles conducted by Velotti exploring technological abuse in intimate relationships, such
et al. (2018) suggested (in addition to the need for further inves- as gender, age, or fidelity (e.g., Nemeth et al., 2012; Velotti
tigations in the area) that 1) sexual perpetrators are not only et al., 2018), our primary aims was to explore technological
generally anxious but also avoidant, and 2) violent behaviors abuse as an intimate partner violence form. More specifically,
towards one’s intimate partner may be one of the regulation we aimed to investigate how attachment styles, anxiety, de-
strategies used by anxious individuals when feeling frustrated; pression, stress, online disinhibition, and moral disengage-
3) intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration (using ment relate to technological intimate partner violence, in ad-
physical, emotional, and sexual violence) are more common dition to a series of demographic variables (age, gender, rela-
among people with an avoidant attachment style. Additionally, tionship length, fidelity).
among the common risk factors associated with perpetrators’ Notably, we aimed to explore these links in both victims
intimate partner violence, the anxious or dismissive attachment and perpetrators of technological intimate partner violence
styles have also been identified in a series of previous studies (ITPV) and assess the potential links between them for a more
(e.g., Bond & Bond, 2004; Goldenson et al., 2007). comprehensive view. More importantly, to also address the
Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797 8785

potential exacerbation of these behaviors due to the COVID- answered an online, anonymous survey, and the time needed
19 pandemic, since several studies have already pointed out to answer the questions was about twenty-five minutes. The
the pandemic adverse effects related to the increasing rates of survey link was made available in several student online fo-
various forms of intimate partner violence (e.g., Evans et al., rums (mostly related to the Romanian university where the
2020; Viero et al., 2021). authors are affiliated), as well as other connected social media
Our research’s primary questions and assumptions were the groups. No rewards were offered for participation. Following
following: the study’s completion, participants were given a debriefing
form and the contact details from a psychotherapist (which
1. Is there a significant link between relationship attachment would have counseled the participants with no charges in-
styles and proneness to technological intimate partner per- volved) in case they experienced distress during data collec-
petration or victimization? According to the previous tion; however, no such cases were reported. Data collection
studies in the area, we assumed that anxious or dismissive took place one year after the COVID-19 breakout.
attachment styles would be associated with intimate cyber
abuse or victimization (e.g., Bond & Bond, 2004; Participants
Goldenson et al., 2007). More specifically, participants
with dominant anxious and dismissive attachment styles Our initial sample consisted of 1129 participants. Eight par-
would report more frequent experiences related to inti- ticipants were removed following the completion of the
mate cyber-abuse and victimization. Relationship Style Questionnaire (RSQ; Griffin &
2. Is there a significant link between participants’ demo- Bartholomew, 1994), because they reported identical relation-
graphic and relationship characteristics (i.e., relationship ship attachment style patterns. Another six participants were
length and partners’ fidelity), online behavior (i.e., benign removed from the final sample because they did not fit one of
and toxic disinhibition), moral disengagement, psycho- the two primary conditions to participate in the study: 1) age
logical distress (i.e., depression, anxiety, and stress), and over 18; 2) all participants had to be in a relationship older
proneness to technological intimate partner perpetration than or equal to six months old. Thus, our final sample
or victimization? Given the previous findings, we as- consisted of 1113 participants aged 18 to 65 (M = 24.48,
sumed significant and positive relationship between these SD = 7.90). Most participants were females (71.3%) and in a
variables. More specifically, we assumed that higher relationship for at least three years (37.4%). All participation
levels of moral disengagement and toxic disinhibition, was voluntary. Participants were informed that there were no
as well as previous infidelity experiences, would be asso- right or wrong answers to the scales’ questions and that their
ciated with proneness to technological intimate partner answers would remain completely anonymous and confiden-
perpetration. At the same time, we assumed that psycho- tial. Also, participants were informed that they could retire
logical distress would be linked to both technological in- from the study at any time.
timate partner perpetration and victimization. Given that
previous research reported mixed findings related to gen- Instruments
der differences in IPPV perpetration and victimization
(e.g., Bennett et al., 2011; Burke et al., 2011; Dick et al., The dependent variable, technological intimate partner vio-
2014), we expected our related findings to shed more light lence, was measured using the Cyber Aggression in
on these potential gender differences. Relationships Scale (CARS; Watkins et al., 2016), also used
3. Did the COVID-19 pandemic increase technological inti- by Duerksen and Woodin (2019) when exploring this vari-
mate partner abuse? Given the potential psychological able. CARS contains 18 items that measure perpetration. We
distress of the current health crises and the increased num- chose this scale due to its focus on technological partner
ber of hours spent online, we consider that most potential abuse, which shaped the primary research aim of the current
victims of ITPV would consider that these abusive epi- paper and its psychometric proprieties previously assessed in
sodes increased since the pandemic outbreak. studies with a similar research focus (e.g., Nacar et al., 2021).
Also, CARS measures cyber aggression and victimization
similarly for women and men, which was also an important
Research Procedure and Materials criterion for us when choosing this particular scale. We used
its original form to measure technological intimate partner
The study was designed and ran following the Helsinki violence perpetration in the last six months and added the
Declaration ethical guidelines and the ethical research require- scale’s victimization-version. Therefore, participants an-
ments approved by the institutional board from the institution swered 36 items that measured both perpetration (18 items)
where the author is affiliated. The participants provided in- and victimization (18). Example items include “I checked my
formed consent to participate in this study. Participants partner’s e-mail account to see whom they were talking to or
8786 Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797

e-mailing without their permission” (perpetration), and “My dominant style and create separate groups, depending on these
partner checked my e-mail account to see whom I was talking attachment patterns, subsequently linking them to the other
to or e-mailing without my permission” (victimization). variables in our research. More importantly, in the cases where
Participants answered each item by referring to the frequency participants obtained the highest possible score on each di-
these behaviors have happened in their relationship in the past mension, we considered that their answers were most likely
six months, on a scale ranging from 0 to 7: 0 = it has never unreliable, and we decided to exclude them to ensure the ac-
happened since we are together, not necessarily in the last six curacy of our data.
months; 1 = this never happened in the last six months; 2 = it We further used the self-reported Depression, Anxiety and
happened once in the last six months; 3 = it happened twice in Stress Scale - 21 Items (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond,
the last six months; 4 = it happened 3–5 times in the last six 1995) to measure a) depression, i.e., dysphoria, hopelessness,
months; 5 = it happened 6–10 times in the last six months; 6 = devaluation of life, self-deprecation, lack of interest/involve-
it happened 11–20 times in the last six months; 7 = this hap- ment, anhedonia, and inertia; b) autonomic arousal, skeletal
pened more than 20 times in the past six months. muscle effects, situational anxiety, and subjective experience
Additionally, we added two questions aimed to investigate of anxious affect (anxiety), and c) stress levels of chronic
whether these behaviors intensified during the pandemic, i.e., nonspecific arousal. In addition, it assesses difficulty relaxing,
“All of these personal behaviors – previously described (be- nervous arousal, and being easily upset/agitated, irritable /
haviors that describe facts/events in my relationship) intensi- over-reactive, and impatient. We chose this scale for its prov-
fied during the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to the period en reliable psychometric properties over time, its efficiency
before COVID-19 pandemic” (this question followed the per- (i.e., a relatively small number of items measuring three psy-
petrator version of CARS) / “All of these behaviors – my chological dimensions), and its consistent use in research ex-
partners’ behaviors - previously described (behaviors that de- amining domestic violence (e.g., Cheung et al., 2019), includ-
scribe facts/events in my relationship) intensified during the ing intimate partner violence during the pandemic (e.g., Sediri
COVID-19 pandemic, compared to the period before COVID- et al., 2020). Participants answered the items (7 items for each
19 pandemic” (this question followed the victim version of subscale) considering how much the statements applied to
CARS). Participants had three options to answer these two them considering the past week, on a scale ranging from 0
additional CARS items: Yes/ No / My relationship is not that (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied to me very much or
old to make such comparisons. Higher scores indicated higher most of the time). Example items include “I found it difficult
levels of ITPV perpetration or victimization. Cronbach’s al- to work up the initiative to do things (depression); “I was
pha indicated good reliability for both forms of the scale worried about situations in which I might panic and make a
(CARS – aggressor: α = .916; victim: α = .920). fool of myself” (anxiety); “I was intolerant of anything that
We used the Relationship Style Questionnaire (RSQ; kept me from getting on with what I was doing” (stress).
Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994), a scale aiming to assess par- Cronbach’s alpha indicated good reliability for each dimen-
ticipants’ romantic attachment styles. We chose this scale due sion of the scale, anxiety: α = .878, depression: α = .891, and
to its proven reliable psychometric properties in various cul- stress: α = .874. Higher scores on each subscale indicated
tural contexts and age groups (e.g., Guédeney et al., 2010), higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress.
and, more importantly, its wide use in research exploring the The Online Disinhibition Scale (Udris, 2014) measured
links between attachment styles and domestic violence (e.g., participants’ lack of inhibition within the online environment.
Johnson, 2006). Participants answered the 30 items on a scale The scale comprises 11 items assessing two primary factors,
ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). Their i.e., benign disinhibition (example item: “The Internet is anon-
answers were then used to create a composite score for each ymous, so it is easier for me to express my true feelings or
of the four attachment style subscales, i.e., secure, fearful, thoughts”), and toxic disinhibition (Example item: “I don’t
preoccupied, and dismissing. Example items include “I find mind writing insulting things about others online, because
it difficult to trust others completely” (fearful); “It is very it’s anonymous”). In addition to its reliability, we chose this
important to me to feel independent” (dismissing), “I find it particular scale given its previous, significant use in other
easy to get emotionally close to others” (secure), and “I worry studies that explored technology-related in-person intimate
that others don’t value me as much as I value them” (preoc- partner violence (Duerksen & Woodin, 2019; Wachs et al.,
cupied). In the present study, we calculated participants’ av- 2019). Participants answered on a scale ranging from 0
erage scores on each dimension and considered the primary (disagree) to 3 (agree). Cronbach’s alpha indicated good reli-
(i.e., dominant) attachment style as the scale with the highest ability for each of the two subscales: α = .846 for benign dis-
score. To avoid any confusion, we removed any participants inhibition and α = .813 for toxic disinhibition.
with identical scores on the four potential dominant styles Finally, we used the Moral Disengagement Scale (Bandura
(N = 6). Our decision to remove these participants was based et al., 1996) to explore the potential cognitive mechanisms
on the idea that we aimed to identify each participant’s underlying participants’ unethical behavior. The scale
Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797 8787

assesses eight possible mechanisms, namely Moral justifica- Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the participants
tion (“It is all right to fight to protect your friends”), Overall sample (N=1113) M SD
Euphemistic language (“Slapping and shoving someone is just
a way of joking”), Advantageous comparison (“Damaging Age 24.48 7.90
some property is no big deal when you consider that others Gender N %
male 319 28.7
a r e b e at i n g o t h er p e o pl e up ” ) , D i s pl ac e m e n t o f female 794 71.3
responsibility(“If kids are living under bad conditions they Relationship length N %
cannot be blamed for behaving aggressively”), Diffusion of 6 moths – 1 year 318 28.6
1–3 years 379 34.1
responsibility (“A kid in a gang should not be blamed for the > 3 years 416 37.4
trouble the gang causes”), Distorting consequences (“It is Relationship attachment style N %
okay to tell small lies because they don’t really do any harm”), secure 181 16.3
anxious 113 10.2
Attribution of blame (“If kids fight and misbehave in school it dismissing 620 55.7
is their teacher’s fault”), dehumanization (“Some people de- fearful 199 17.9
serve to be treated like animals”). We used this scale due to its Fidelity Yes No
Own and known (by partner) infidelity 106 (9.5%) 1007 (90.5%)
wide use in assessing moral disengagement in various cultural Own and unknown (by partner) infidelity 98 (8.8%) 1015 (91.2%)
contexts and age groups, including several samples from Partner’s infidelity 146 (13.1%) 967 (86.9%)
Romania, and, more importantly, due to the significant num- Cyber-aggressors (N=374) M SD
Age 23.23 6.46
ber of studies that assessed moral disengagement using this Gender N %
scale, when examining the links to domestic violence, attach- male 82 21.9
ment styles, and aggressive behavior, in general (e.g., D’Urso female 292 78.1
Relationship length N %
et al., 2018; Maftei & Holman, 2020). Participants answered
6 moths – 1 year 125 33.4
on a 3-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (disagree) to 2 1–3 years 128 34.2
(agree). We computed a total score for moral disengagement, > 3 years 121 32.4
Relationship attachment style N %
and Cronbach’s alpha indicated good reliability for the scale,
secure 64 17.1
α = .928. anxious 43 11.5
All instruments were self-reported. We ran a pretesting dismissing 185 49.5
procedure in a similar sample of adults (M = 28.4, SD = fearful 82
Fidelity Yes No
1.25) to assess the potential difficulties of the scales we used. Own and known (by partner) infidelity 55 (14.7%) 319 (85.3%)
No issues were reported during this procedure. We used a Own and unknown (by partner) infidelity 53 (14.2%) 321 (85.8%)
demographic scale to assess participants’ age, gender, type, Partner’s infidelity 69 (18.4%) 305 (81.6%)
Cyber-victims (N=282) M SD
and relationship length (marriage, domestic partnership). We Age 23.18 6.25
also added a series of question related to participants’ and their Gender N %
partners’ infidelity (In the current relationship, there have been male 74 26.2
female 208 73.8
episodes of infidelity on my part, which my partner knows Relationship length N %
about (Yes/No); In the current relationship, there have been 6 moths – 1 year 102 36.2
episodes of infidelity on my part, which my partner does not 1–3 years 100 35.5
> 3 years 80 28.4
know about (Yes/No); In the current relationship, there have Relationship attachment style N %
been episodes of infidelity on the part of my partner (Yes/No). secure 41 14.5
anxious 34 12.1
dismissing 137 48.6
fearful 70 24.8
Results Fidelity Yes No
Own and known (by partner) infidelity 49 (17.4%) 233 (82.6%)
The present study used a non-experimental cross-sectional Own and unknown (by partner) infidelity 50 (17.7%) 232 (82.3%)
Partner’s infidelity 67 (23.8%) 215 (76.2%)
data research design. We used the SPSS (v. 24) program to
analyze the data, and there was no missing data within the
collected answers. Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics
for the participants in our study. We reported these values for the scales’ items on an 8-point Likert scale, where 0 = this never
both the entire sample (N = 1113), as well as for participants happened ever in our relationship, and 1 = this never happened
who scored higher than 18 (total score) on each of the two ever in our relationship in the past six months. Thus, the total
scales (CARS- aggressor’s form, and CARS -victim’s form). scores for participants who reported no cyber perpetration or
We chose to do that since the possible answers for CARS victimization experiences from their partners in the past six
included two answers that indicated no potential cyber- months ranged from 18 to 0. We considered potential ITPV
aggressive behaviors. More specifically, participants answered perpetrators or victims only those who scored higher than 18
8788 Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797

on these two scales (i.e., CARS- aggressor’s form, and CARS - More specifically, female participants in the overall sample
victim’s form). Therefore, we reported the results for three dif- scored higher than males at the benign online disinhibition
ferent groups: the overall sample (N = 1113), cyber-perpetrators (U = 116,988, Z = -1.99, p = .04); meanwhile, males scored
(N = 374), and cyber-victims (N = 282). higher at the toxic disinhibition measure (U = 98,979, Z = -
However, we consider it important to clarify a series of 6.36, p < .001). In addition, male participants seemed to be
factors related to this specific distinction between the groups, more morally disengaged compared to female participants
i.e., victims and perpetrators. More specifically, it is important (U = 105,991, Z = -4.26, p < .001), while females scored
to mention that this differentiation was based only on the higher on anxiety (U = 109,157, Z = -3.60, p < .001) and stress
scores that would indicate that one of the 18 possible behav- measurements (U = 108,517, Z = -3.74, p < .001).
iors (i.e., behaviors that would indicate potential technological Mann-Whitney test results for the cyber-victims group sug-
abuse) has happened at least once in the last six months. Thus, gested significant gender differences related to participants’
though we refer in the following data analyses to “the victims’ moral disengagement (U = 5577, Z = -3.518, p < .001), male
groups” and “the perpetrators’ group”, it is essential to keep in participants scoring significantly higher females. We also
mind that lower scores on these two dimensions – cyber-abuse found significant differences in toxic disinhibition (U =
(measured with the CARS scale) might indicate that one of 4681, Z = -5.206, p < .001), with male participants scoring
these behaviors happened once. significantly higher than females.
Preliminary Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk nor- In the ITPV-perpetrators group, we found significant gender
mality tests suggested that our data was not normally distrib- differences concerning participants’ scores on CARS-victims’
uted. Therefore, we used non-parametric tests to explore our form, moral disengagement, and stress. More specifically, our
results. We performed these analyses for all the groups (over- results suggested that males in the perpetrators’ group had sig-
all sample, perpetrators’ and victims’ groups) and reported the nificantly higher scores than females on the CARS – victims’
related gender differences. Table 2 provides the details related form (U = 9352.5, Z = -3.03, p = .002). In addition, male partic-
to the associations between the main variables. ipants in the perpetrators’ group also seemed more morally dis-
engaged than females (U = 9232, Z = -3.17, p = .002) and more
Correlation Analyses stressed (U = 9263.5, Z = -2.718, p = .007) than females.
Additionally, male participants in the perpetrators’ group scored
In the overall sample, we found a significant, powerful asso- significantly higher than females on the toxic disinhibition di-
ciation between ITPV-perpetration and ITPV-victimization: mension (U = 7790.5, Z = -5.167, p < .001).
higher levels of ITPV-aggression seemed strongly correlated
with victimization experiences. Toxic and benign disinhibi- Relationship Attachment Styles
tion were also positively and significantly correlated with both
ITPV perpetration and victimization, as well as all the other Overall Sample In the overall sample group, Kruskal-Wallis H
explored variables (moral disengagement, anxiety, depres- test results suggested that there was a statistically significant
sion, and stress). Age was also significantly correlated with difference in ITPV perpetrating behaviors between different
all the variables in the overall sample. By contrast, this spe- types of attachment style patterns, H (3) = 18.52, p < .001,
cific association was negative: the lower the ages, the lower with a mean rank of 576.28 for the secure attachment group,
participants’ ITPV-perpetration, ITPV-victimization, toxic 575.18 for the anxious group, 523.97 for the dismissing
and benign online disinhibition, moral disengagement, de- group, and 632.06 for the fearful dominant attachment group.
pression, anxiety, and stress. Participants with a secure attachment (Mdn = 18) scored
In the perpetrators’ group, ITPV-aggression experiences pos- higher than those with anxious attachment styles (Mdn = 17)
itively and significantly correlated with all the variables, except and dismissing (Mdn = 14) attachment patterns, and similar to
age. Similarly, ITPV-victimization positively correlated with all those with fearful dominant attachment styles (Mdn = 18).
the variables, except age. In the victims’ group, we found signif- Additionally, Kruskal-Wallis H tests also suggested that there
icant, positive correlations between ITPV-victimization and all was a statistically significant difference in cyber-victimization
variables, except age and benign disinhibition. Also, in the vic- reported behaviors between different types of attachment style
tims’ group, ITPV-aggression significantly and positively corre- patterns, H (3) = 14.60, p = .002, with a mean rank of 559.98
lated with all the variables, except age. for the secure attachment group, 583.72 for the anxious group,
529.32 for the dismissing group, and 625.36 for the fearful
Gender Differences dominant attachment group. Participants with a secure attach-
ment (Mdn = 23) scored lower than those with anxious attach-
Mann-Whitney test results for the overall sample indicated ment styles (Mdn = 25), higher than the dismissing group
significant gender differences related to benign and toxic on- (Mdn = 20), and similar to those with fearful dominant attach-
line disinhibition, moral disengagement, anxiety, and stress. ment styles (Mdn = 23).
Table 2 Correlation matrix between the main variables in all three groups (victims, perpetrators, overall) and gender differences

Cyber-victims (N=282) M SD Min Max 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Gender (U)

1. CARS - aggressor 31.15 15.94 1 115 1 7497

2. CARS - victim 30.16 13.75 19 105 .719** 1 6800
3. Benign disinhibition 10.56 5.34 0 21 .136* .080 1 7677
Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797

4. Toxic disinhibition 2.81 3.23 0 12 .245** .364** .314** 1 4681**

5. Moral disengagement 17.63 11.85 0 61 .312** .362** .203** .519** 1 5577**
6. Depression 19.10 6.69 7 35 .186** .263** .311** .203** .276** 1 7273
7. Anxiety 20.40 6.67 7 35 .152* .276** .191** .116 .195** .601** 1 6704
8. Stress 22.29 6.25 7 35 .185** .224** .231** .029 .219** .646** .696** 1 6540
9. Age 23.18 6.25 18 57 .002 .028 −.078 −.132* −.146* −.138* −.067 −.090 1 –
Cyber-aggressors (N=374) M SD Min Max 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Gender (U)
1. CARS - aggressor 29.71 13.99 19 115 1 10,546.5
2. CARS - victim 25.87 13.76 3 105 .744** 1 9352.5*
3. Benign disinhibition 10.34 5.40 0 21 .140** .125* 1 11,672
4. Toxic disinhibition 2.4 3.10 0 12 .301** .349** .327** 1 7790.5**
5. Moral disengagement 15.81 11.43 0 61 .393** .360** .178** .514** 1 9232*
6. Depression 18.37 7.05 7 35 .309** .235** .260** .245** .308** 1 11,711.5
7. Anxiety 19.95 7.18 7 35 .226** .188** .186** .155** .206** .647** 1 10,386.5
8. Stress 22.04 6.70 7 35 .255** .125* .211** .053 .218** .705** .750** 1 9623.5*
9. Age 23.23 6.46 18 62 .001 −.026 −.067 −.038 −.168** −.116* −.123* −.125* 1 –
Overall sample (N=1113) M SD Min Max 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Gender (U)
1. CARS - aggressor 15.69 14.01 0 115 1 117,855.5
2. CARS -victim 13.88 13.19 0 105 .906** 1 125,478.5
3. Benign disinhibition 8.66 5.62 0 21 .256** .239** 1 116988*
4. Toxic disinhibition 1.79 2.72 0 12 .207** .223** .348** 1 98979**
5. Moral disengagement 13.21 10.81 0 62 .190** .215** .243** .428** 1 105991**
6. Depression 16.89 7.10 7 35 .162** .173** .291** .288** .279** 1 122,205
7. Anxiety 18.45 7.31 7 35 .149** .157** .229** .218** .208** .712** 1 109157**
8. Stress 20.55 6.91 7 35 .153** .142** .237** .141** .208** .732** .786** 1 108517**
9. Age 24.48 7.90 18 65 −.065** −.105** −.150** −.081** −.160** −.115** −.120** −.108** 1 –

*p < .05; **p < .001 (2-tailed)

8789
8790 Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797

Post-hoc Mann Whitney tests suggested 1) marginally sig- style and those with a dismissing style (U = 1970.5, Z = -2.89,
nificant differences (U = 50,976, Z = -1.88, p = .06) between p = .004) concerning ITPV-perpetration, with higher scores
participants with a dominant secure attachment style versus among participants with a secure dominant style. We found
participants with a dismissing style, with the “secure” group the same significant differences concerning these differences
scoring higher than the “dismissing group” on CARS- (secure versus dismissing) concerning the victimization di-
aggression form; 2) significant differences (U = 49,468, Z = - mension (U = 1892, Z = -3.17, p = .001). We also found sig-
4.22, p < .001) between participants with a dominant nificant differences between participants with anxious versus
dismissing attachment style and those with a fearful style, dismissing attachment styles concerning ITPV -victimization
“dismissing” participants scoring significantly lower than (U = 1817, Z = -1.98, p = .04), with “dismissing” participants
“fearful” ones at both CARS-aggression and CARS- scoring higher than “anxious” ones.
victimization (U = 50,905, Z = -3.741, p < .001) forms.
Dominant Relationship Attachment Style, Cheating,
Perpetrators’ Group In the perpetrators’ group, Kruskal- and ITPV
Wallis H test results suggested that there was a marginally
significant difference in ITPV -perpetrating behaviors be- In the overall group, Chi-square test results suggested a sig-
tween different types of attachment style patterns, H(3) nificant association between participants’ dominant relation-
=7.54, p = .05, with a mean rank of 197.91 for the secure ship attachment style and cheating behavior (that the partner
attachment group, 214.56 for the anxious group, 172.84 for knows about), χ2 = 14.79, p = .002. More specifically, partic-
the dismissing group, and 198.27 for the fearful dominant ipants with a dismissing style cheated the most, while partic-
attachment group. Participants with a secure attachment ipants with an anxious dominant style cheated the least. No
(Mdn = 23) scored lower than those with anxious attachment significant associations were found between the dominant re-
styles (Mdn = 25), higher than those dismissing (Mdn = 20), lationship attachment style and “secret” cheating episodes
and similar to those with fearful dominant attachment styles (χ2 = .765, p = .858). However, we found significant associa-
(Mdn = 23). Kruskal-Wallis H test results suggested no signif- tions with the partner’s cheating behavior and participants’
icant difference in ITPV -victimization within the perpetra- dominant relationship attachment style (χ 2 = 11.71,
tors’ group, H(3) = 6.90, p = .075. Furthermore, post-hoc p = .008). More specifically, participants with a dominant
Mann Whitney tests suggested significant differences between dismissing attachment style seemed to report the most fre-
participants with a dominant anxious style and those with a quent cheating episodes from their partners, while those with
dismissive style concerning ITPV-perpetration (U = 3067.5, fearful dominant styles reported the least known infidelity
Z = -2.34, p = .01), participants in the anxious group scoring behaviors from their partners.
significantly higher than those in the dismissing group. We In the ITPV perpetrators’ group, Chi-square test results also
found significant related differences concerning cyber- suggested a significant association between participants’ dom-
victimization (U = 3159.5, Z = -2.10, p = .03); participants in inant relationship attachment style and cheating behavior (that
the anxious group also scored significantly higher than those the partner knows about), χ2 = 12.15, p = .007, i.e., partici-
in the dismissing group. Finally, Mann-Whitney tests sug- pants with a dismissing and fearful attachment style cheated
gested significant differences between participants with a the most, while participants with secure and anxious dominant
dominant dismissing style and those with a fearful style styles cheated the least. No significant associations were
concerning ITPV-victimization (U = 6290, Z = -2.22, found between the dominant relationship attachment style
p = .026). and “secret” cheating episodes (χ 2 = .900, p = .825).
However, we found significant associations with the partner’s
Victims’ Group In the victims’ group, Kruskal-Wallis H test cheating behavior and participants’ dominant relationship at-
results suggested that there was a significant difference in tachment style (χ2 = 22.03, p < .001). More specifically, par-
ITPV perpetrating behaviors between different types of at- ticipants with dismissing and fearful attachment styles seemed
tachment style patterns, H(3) = 9.64, p = .02, with a mean rank to report the most frequent cheating episodes from their part-
of 171.15 for the secure attachment group, 154.35 for the ners, while those with a secure dominant style reported the
anxious group, 128.75 for the dismissing group, and 142.84 least known infidelity behaviors from their partners.
for the fearful dominant attachment group. Participants with a Finally, in the ITPV victims’ group, Chi-square test results
secure attachment (Mdn = 32) scored higher than those with also suggested no significant associations between partici-
anxious attachment styles (Mdn = 28.5), higher than those pants’ dominant relationship attachment style and cheating
dismissing (Mdn = 25), and higher than those with fearful behavior (that the partner knows about), χ2 = 5.74, p = .125,
dominant attachment styles (Mdn = 26). nor “secret” cheating episodes (χ2 = .329, p = .955). However,
Post-hoc Mann Whitney tests suggested significant differ- we found significant associations with the partner’s cheating
ences between participants with a dominant secure attachment behavior and participants’ dominant relationship attachment
Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797 8791

style (χ2 = 12.02, p = .007). More specifically, participants Discussion

with dismissing attachment styles seemed to report the most
frequent cheating episodes from their partners, while those Our research’s primary questions and assumptions were related
with a secure dominant style reported the least known infidel- to the potential associations between intimate partner violence
ity behaviors from their partners. through technological perpetration and victimization, relation-
ship attachment styles, participants’ demographic and relation-
The Perceived Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic ship characteristics (i.e., relationship length and partners’ fideli-
ty), their online behavior (i.e., benign and toxic disinhibition),
We asked participants at the end of both forms of the CARS moral disengagement, and psychological distress. Additionally,
(victimization and perpetration forms) whether they felt that the we investigated whether the COVID-19 pandemic increased
pandemic had increased the frequency of the behaviors described ITPV perpetration and victimization behaviors. Finally, we ana-
by the two scales. Participants had to choose between three possi- lyzed our data by creating three different groups, depending on
ble answers, i.e., “yes,” “no,” and “not the case; we were not participants’ answers concerning ITPV, i.e., the overall sample,
together before the pandemic.” Results (see Table 3) generally perpetrators’ and victims’ groups.
suggested that 1) in the overall sample, 13.7% of the participants Our results suggested that 374 participants (33.60%)
considered that their abusive behaviors increased since the pan- scored higher than 18 on the perpetrators’ form of ITPV mea-
demic, and the same percentage considered that their partner’s surement (i.e., CARS), and 282 participants scored higher
technological abuse also increased since the COVID-19 outbreak; than 18 on the victims’ form of CARS. We considered these
2) in the victims’ group, 17.7% of the participants considered that scores as potential indicators of perpetration or victimization.
their abusive behaviors increased since the pandemic, and 27.7% However, we already mentioned that these scores indicate
considered that their partner’s technological abuse also increased potential technological abuse or victimization, considering
since the COVID-19 outbreak; and 3) in the perpetrators’ group, that a higher score (>18) indicated the possibility of one or
15.8% of the participants considered that their abusive behaviors more related behaviors to occur (from the participants of their
increased since the pandemic, while 23% considered that their partners). Though limited, these results also point out that, in
partner’s technological abuse also increased since the COVID-19 our sample, we had more participants scoring higher on the
outbreak. abusers’ form than on the victims’ form. Among the 374 par-
ticipants who scored higher than 18 on the abusers’ form of
CARS, most of them were females, in long-term relationships
Table 3 The perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on CARS (>3 years), with a dismissing dominant relationship attach-
behaviors ment style (participants with a dismissing style also reported
Overall sample (N=1113) N % cheating more, while participants with an anxious dominant
style reported the least cheating behaviors). However, though
CARS-aggressor No 756 67.9 most of them had a dominant dismissing relationship attach-
Yes 153 13.7 ment style, participants in the anxious group scored signifi-
Not applicable 203 18.2 cantly higher on ITPV perpetration than those in the
CARS-victim No 757 68 dismissing group.
Yes 153 13.7 Additionally, our results also suggested that 282 partici-
Not applicable 203 18.2 pants (25.33%) scored higher than 18 and met our ITPV vic-
Victims’ group (N=282) N % timization criteria. Among these 282 participants, most were
CARS-aggressor No 169 59.9 females in a less than a year-old relationship, with a
Yes 50 17.7 dismissing dominant relationship attachment style. Contrary
Not applicable 63 22.3 to our expectations, participants from this group with a secure
CARS-victim No 138 48.9 attachment scored higher on ITPV-perpetration than those
Yes 78 27.7 with any other dominant styles, while “dismissing” partici-
Not applicable 63 22.3 pants scoring higher than “anxious” ones on ITPV-victimiza-
Perpetrators’ group (N=374) N % tion. Finally, in the overall sample (primarily females, in long-
CARS-aggressor No 240 64.2 term, i.e., >3-years old relationships, with a dismissing dom-
Yes 59 15.8 inant relationship attachment style), we found the same pat-
Not applicable 74 19.8 terns related to these dominant relationship attachment styles:
CARS-victim No 212 56.7 the “secure” group scored higher than the “dismissing group”
Yes 86 23 on CARS-aggression form, while “dismissing” participants
Not applicable 74 19.8 scored significantly lower than “fearful” ones at both CARS-
aggression and CARS-victimization forms.
8792 Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797

Thus, our research points out the importance of partici- Our results suggested significant associations between
pants’ romantic attachment styles and their significant association ITPV – perpetration and victimization – and the research’s
with ITPV perpetration and victimization. In line with previous primary variables. For example, in line with previous findings
findings (e.g., He & Tsang, 2014; Velotti et al., 2018), a dismissing (e.g., Duerksen & Woodin, 2019; Wachs et al., 2019), our
attachment style seemed to be the most related to technological data suggested that toxic disinhibition seemed to be signifi-
intimate partner violence (both perpetration and victimization). cantly correlated with ITPV, a less surprising result that con-
However, we also found that in the “victims” group, secure attach- firms our related assumptions. However, a more interesting
ment styles were associated with the victims’ ITPV perpetration. result is related to the significant correlation between benign
Moreover, in all three groups, ITPV victimization and perpetration online disinhibition and ITPV perpetration (and not victimi-
are highly correlated, suggesting the potential double role of both zation) in the overall sample. The general effect of disinhibi-
victims and abusers. These results are in line with several other tion may explain this specific result within maladaptive
studies that already suggested the significant link between being a behaviors (Kyranides et al., 2017) and disinhibition as a
victim and becoming a perpetrator when discussing domestic vi- psychological trait (i.e., “a dispositional liability toward
olence in general (e.g., Bentovim, 2002). However, our findings maladaptive behaviors”; Delfin et al., 2020) and not
point to the possibility of this cycle of abuse when also discussing necessarily related to one’s online behavior (toxic or
technological intimate partner violence. Another potential expla- benign). However, to test these assumptions, future,
nation for the significant association between ITPV victimization more complex related investigations are needed.
and perpetration behavior might be related to the results suggested Our assumption related to the significant link between mor-
by Velotti et al. (2018) in their systematic review. The authors al disengagement and ITPV perpetration was confirmed:
suggested that both forms of ITPV (abuse and victimization) might higher levels of moral disengagement were associated with
be explained through the need to self-regulate, generally felt by higher ITPV perpetration levels. However, we did not expect
people with a dominant anxious and avoidant attachment style to find the same pattern of results concerning ITPV victimi-
(which aligns with the present study data). Additionally, Doumas zation. A potential explanation for this specific association
et al. (2008) also suggested that the “mispairing” of an avoidant and the significant link between ITPV perpetration and vic-
male and an anxious female partner was associated with both male timization may be explicitly related to specific moral disen-
and female domestic violence. Though we could not measure this gagement mechanisms, and the examples could be more var-
specific outcome in our study, given that only one of the two ious than we might think. For example, from an ITPV victims’
partners answered our questions, this may also be an interesting perspective, one might think (using the advantageous compar-
future research idea, primarily because these assumptions were not ison mechanism) that it is acceptable to look through their
yet explored (to our knowledge) concerning ITPV. partner’s e-mails since their partner installed a GPS tracking
We also explored the potential associations between part- device on their car. Alternatively, when using the displace-
ners’ fidelity (or infidelity), relationship attachment styles, and ment or diffusion of responsibility mechanisms, ITPV victims
ITPV. Our data resulted from the overall sample suggested might minimize their role in harmful actions or obscure per-
that 1). generally, participants with a dismissing style cheated sonal agency by saying, “My partner was doing it, so I did it,
the most, while participants with an anxious dominant style too,” or “I only used the spyware technology because he/she
cheated the least, and 2). participants with a dominant made me do it.” Future studies might want to consider a more
dismissing attachment style seemed to report the most fre- extensive analysis regarding the links between specific moral
quent cheating episodes from their partners, while those with disengagement mechanisms and ITPV, using either an
fearful dominant styles the least known infidelity behaviors adapted version of the scale, i.e., items that would specifically
from their partners. However, in the perpetrators’ group, par- measure ITPV-related moral disengagement mechanisms, or/
ticipants with a dismissing and fearful attachment style and adding open questions that would further be explored
cheated the most, while participants with secure and anxious using mixed-method approaches (e.g., thematic analyses).
dominant styles cheated the least. In addition, participants Our results suggested significant gender differences in all
with dismissing attachment styles seemed to report the most three groups related to toxic online disinhibition, i.e., male
frequent cheating episodes from their partners in the victims’ participants scored higher than females. These results seem
group, while those with a secure dominant style reported the to align with previous studies that suggested similar differ-
least known infidelity behaviors from their partners. These ences (e.g., Winstein & Dannon, 2015) when exploring disin-
results are significant in light of the previously suggested links hibition in general (not necessarily online disinhibition). Also,
between domestic violence abuse and victimization and part- in all samples, male participants seemed to be more morally
ners’ (in)fidelity (e.g., Pichon et al., 2020). Since the evidence disengaged than female participants, aligning with previous
related to infidelity and/or romantic jealousy and ITPV is rel- findings that suggested such differences (e.g., Bjärehed
atively scarce, the present results might play an important role et al., 2020). Though in the overall sample, females seemed
in future related research. more stressed than males, in the perpetrators’ group, male
Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797 8793

participants scored significantly higher than females at the Several limitations need to be mentioned concerning the
stress measurements. However, correlational analyses cannot present research. First, our study is cross-sectional, using a
determine inference causality; therefore, we could not further convenient sample and self-reported measures, which lower
assess whether stress caused ITPV perpetration or was actual- its generalizability. Second, we did not assess the potential
ly a consequence of these abusive behaviors. More important- impact of cultural beliefs and competence related to and inti-
ly, our data did not suggest any significant gender differences mate partner abuse and other potentially related factors (e.g.,
related to ITPV in the overall and victims’ groups. However, sexism), and previous research highlighted their significant
in the ITPV-perpetrators group, we found that males had sig- roles when exploring domestic violence (e.g., Çalıkoglu
nificantly higher scores than females on the CARS – victims’ et al., 2018; Tonsing, 2016). Third, additional and/or specific
form. In other words, male perpetrators also experience sig- COVID-19 related factors might have contributed to enhanced
nificantly higher ITPV victimization compared to females. ITPV (e.g., length of quarantine/home confinement; Mazza
Psychological distress, i.e., anxiety, depression, and stress, et al., 2020), which might be explored in further research.
significantly correlated with participants’ self-reported ITPV One of the most important limitations is related to how we
victimization and perpetration behaviors in the overall sample, created the “victims” and “perpetrators” groups. As we al-
as well as in the perpetrators’ and victims’ groups. More spe- ready mentioned, it is important to consider that the way we
cifically, higher levels of distress were positively associated differentiated these groups, and that lower scores on ITPV
with higher levels of ITPV victimization and perpetration, in perpetration, for example, might have indicated that one of
line with previous research (e.g., Kivisto, 2014; Riggs et al., the described ITPV behaviors happened once. Previous re-
2000). Unfortunately, our data did not meet the necessary search that assessed ITPV using the CARS scale (e.g.,
conditions to conduct multiple linear hierarchical regression Duerksen and Wooding, 2019) used the total score that
(i.e., homoscedasticity and normality); therefore, we could not assessed the perpetration of ITPV. Though the rationale be-
perform these analyses and assess the most efficient predictors hind the cut-off score that we used was based on the scores
of participants’ proneness to technological intimate partner that would indicate at least one possible ITPV experience that
perpetration or victimization. Future studies, however, would happened at least once in the last six months, this specific
benefit from exploring whether psychological distress is a arbitrary cut-off point raises the need for further exploratory
significant predictor of ITPV or it is more a consequence of related studies. Moreover, these groups are not mutually ex-
ITPV (or both). Finally, we could not perform any mediation clusive. For example, previous research has already pointed
and moderation analyses given our data characteristics (i.e., out the bidirectional nature of cyber aggression, i.e., cyber-
homoscedasticity and normality). Future studies might also victims who subsequently engage in cyber-perpetrating be-
benefit from exploring the potential mediating roles of online haviors or cyber-aggressors who also experience cyber vic-
disinhibition and infidelity on the relationship between moral timization (e.g., Paat et al., 2019). Thus, future studies might
disengagement and ITPV perpetration and the potential mod- benefit from exploring the relationship between our primary
erating roles of dominant attachment styles, psychological variables of research, ITPV perpetration, and ITPV victimiza-
distress, gender, and age. tion by using a similar cut-off approach and adding additional
The COVID-19 had a significant impact on our lives, insight into the data analysis, i.e., exploring these relationships
relationships, online behaviors, and an increasing number the “perpetrators and victims” group, separately. We pointed
of studies that had already suggested its negative influ- out that our results suggested a high correlation between ITPV
ence on the enhancement of domestic violence (e.g., victimization and perpetration, highlighting the cycle of abuse
Evans et al., 2020; Viero et al., 2021). Our results also when also discussing ITPV. Thus, this further research ap-
suggested that, in the overall sample, almost 20% of par- proach might indicate a different relationship dynamic be-
ticipants who were able to compare ITPV behaviors from tween ITPV, online disinhibition, dominant attachment pat-
the last six months with behaviors before the pandemic terns, and moral disengagement. Furthermore, future studies
confirmed that ITPV perpetration and victimization esca- might also benefit from exploring the associated factors of
lated during the pandemic. These percentages were even ITPV using both similar and distinct cut-off approaches to
higher in the victims’ group when assessing the pan- understand these patterns.
demic’s impact on ITPV victimization. Though these Another potential limitation of our study is related to the
numbers might seem less important, they indicated that online disinhibition framework, as it was characterized by
1 in 4 potential victims of ITPV reported the harmful Suler (2004), on which Udris’s scale (2014), the one that we
effect of the COVID-19 pandemic concerning technolog- used, was built on. Given that this specific model of online
ical intimate partner abuse. This specific result aligns with disinhibition (i.e., Suler’s model) was conceptualized before
previous studies highlighting the pandemic’s negative im- the social media era, it might be limited by the recent changes
pact concerning domestic violence and the need for in- in the ways people now communicate and socialize within the
creased victim-support programs. online environment. Though the scale developed by Udris in
8794 Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797

2014 altered the questions’ wording so that the disinhibition community-based intervention and prevention programs
assessment applied to all technology use (i.e., the scale was should focus on reducing the primary moral disengagement
updated to the more modern technological means, rather than mechanisms underlying such violent behavior. One practical
solely Internet usage), as Duerksen and Woodin also mention intervention in this regard might be focused on reducing and,
(Duerksen & Woodin, 2019), future related research is needed finally, eliminating cognitive processing that generally leads
to explore this potential limitation. Finally, another potential to dehumanization, diffusion, and displacement of responsi-
limitation and an interesting research direction is related to the bility, or blaming the victims of ITPV, as other studies previ-
fact that we did not measure ITPV using a dyadic approach, ously suggested when exploring the mechanisms underlying
i.e., both partners’ perspectives, but only used unilateral re- similar conducts in cyber-aggression (e.g., Falla et al. 2021;
ports. As Watkins and their collaborators also suggested Wang & Ngai, 2020).
(2016), future related research might benefit from acquiring More importantly, our findings might be all the more im-
both partners’ reports of perpetration and victimization, fur- portant within the social and cultural context of Romania,
ther contributing to a more comprehensive examination of especially when considering the high prevalence of the mor-
ITPV concordance among the partners. ally disengaged perspective on domestic violence (i.e., con-
First, the number of studies that had yet explored techno- sidering domestic violence as “normal” and justified behavior;
logical intimate partner violence is relatively scarce. However, BBC, 2017), and the recent case related to cyber-domestic
despite these limitations, we consider that the present result violence that brought the country the European Court of
might have a theoretical and a practical contribution to the Human Rights conviction in 2020. Our results suggest the
research related to intimate partner abuse. To our knowledge, need for more practical, integrated, and community-based in-
this might be 1) the first research conducted using a Romanian terventions to prevent and diminish all forms of domestic vi-
sample; 2) the first study to explore the links between ITPV olence, ITPV included, all the more within the Covid-19 do-
both forms – victimization and perpetration, and moral mestic violence exacerbation in Romania (Socea et al., 2020),
disengQagement (in addition to the other variables); as well as worldwide (Piquero et al., 2021).
and 3) the first study to assess the direct impact of
the Covid-19 pandemic on ITPV. Therefore, our results
might be significant for their theoretical contribution, Declarations
adding to the existing related literature.
Furthermore, our results might also be important through a Ethics Statement This study’s protocol was designed in concordance
with ethical requirements specific to the Faculty of Psychology and
more practical perspective on domestic violence prevention
Educational Sciences,” Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University (Iasi,
and intervention programs and strategies, especially during Romania), before beginning the study and supervised by Alexandra
the pandemic. For example, given the significant correlations Maftei. All participants voluntarily participated in the study and gave
found between ITPV perpetration and victimization and psy- written informed consent following the Declaration of Helsinki and the
national laws from Romania regarding ethical conduct in scientific re-
chological distress, free, therapeutical couples’ programs
search, technological development, and innovation.
might be designed to reduce depression, anxiety, and stress,
already enhanced by the pandemic context. Other prevention Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no known com-
efforts might focus on acknowledging and recognizing ITPV, peting financial interests or personal relationships that could have influ-
given that cultural factors and several other related contextual enced the work reported in this paper.
The authors declare no financial interests/personal relationships,
factors might contribute to unreported such domestic violence
which may be considered as potential competing interests.
forms, especially among men. Violence prevention addresses
a collective responsibility of community members and com-
munity services. We consider that the prevention and inter-
vention programs addressing all forms of domestic violence, References
with a focus on ITPV, should combine the efforts made by the
judicial system (e.g., the Police), the educational structure Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of
moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101–119.
(e.g., basic school programs and university courses), the med-
https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724022014322
ical institutions and representatives (e.g., family and commu- Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1996).
nity doctors), and the religious organization, especially in such Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agen-
religious countries as Romania is. For example, given that our cy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364–374
findings highlighted the significant relationship between Baym, N. (2010). Personal connections in the digital age. Polity Press
ITPV perpetration and moral disengagement, in line with oth- BBC (2017). Romania criticised over domestic violence 'failures'. https://
www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40010890
er previous studies that linked unethical relational behavior Bennett, D. C., Guran, E. L., Ramos, M. C., & Margolin, G. (2011).
and domestic violence (Clemente et al., 2019; Cuadrado- College students’ electronic victimization in friendships and dating
Gordillo et al., 2020), we consider that educational and relationships: Anticipated distress and associations with risky
Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797 8795

behaviors. Violence and Victims, 26(4), 410–429. https://doi.org/10. violent mentally disordered offenders and healthy controls.
1891/0886-6708.26.4.410 Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 577491. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.
Bentovim, A. (2002). Preventing sexually abused young people from 2020.577491
becoming abusers, and treating the victimization experiences of Desmarais, S. L., Reeves, K. A., Nicholls, T. L., Telford, R. P., & Fiebert,
young people who offend sexually. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26(6– M. S. (2012). Prevalence of physical violence in intimate relation-
7), 661–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0145-2134(02)00340-x ships, part 2: Rates of male and female perpetration. Partner Abuse,
Bjärehed, M., Thornberg, R., Wänström, L., & Gini, G. (2020). 3(2), 170–198. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.170
Mechanisms of moral disengagement and their associations with Dick, R. N., McCauley, H. L., Jones, K. A., Tancredi, D. J., Goldstein, S.,
indirect bullying, direct bullying, and pro-aggressive bystander be- Blackburn, S., . . .Miller, E. (2014). Cyber dating abuse among teens
havior. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 40(1), 28–55. https://doi. using school-based health centers. Pediatrics, 134(6), e1560–e1567.
org/10.1177/0272431618824745 https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-0537.
Blanco, A., Davies-Rubio, A., De la Corte, L., & Mirón, L. (2020). Doumas, D. M., Pearson, C. L., Elgin, J. E., & McKinley, L. L. (2008).
Violent extremism and moral disengagement: A study of Adult attachment as a risk factor for intimate partner violence: The
Colombian armed groups. Journal of interpersonal violence, "mispairing" of partners' attachment styles. Journal of Interpersonal
886260520913643. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10. Violence, 23(5), 616–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1177/0886260520913643 0886260507313526
Bond, S. B., & Bond, M. (2004). Attachment styles and violence within Duerksen, K. N., & Woodin, E. M. (2019). Technological intimate part-
couples. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 192(12), 857– ner violence: Exploring technology-related perpetration factors and
863. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.nmd.0000146879.33957.ec overlap with in-person intimate partner violence. Computers in
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss (Vol. I: Attachment). Basic Human Behavior, 98, 223–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.
Books. 05.001
Brubacher, L. (2018). Attachment injury resolution model in emotionally Evans, M. L., Lindauer, M., & Farrell, M. E. (2020). A pandemic within a
focused therapy. In J. Lebow, A. Chambers, & D. Breunlin (Eds.), pandemic - intimate partner violence during Covid-19. The New
Encyclopedia of couple and family therapy. Springer. https://doi. England Journal of Medicine, 383(24), 2302–2304. https://doi.org/
org/10.1007/978-3-319-15877-8_903-1 10.1056/NEJMp2024046
Burke, S. C., Wallen, M., Vail-Smith, K., & Knox, D. (2011). Using Felson, R. B., Messner, S. F., Hoskin, A. W., & Deane, G. (2002).
technology to control intimate partners: An exploratory study of Reasons for Reporting and Not Reporting Domestic Violence to
college undergraduates. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), the Police. Criminology, 40(3), 617–647
1162–1167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.010 Freed, D., Palmer, J., Minchala, D., Levy, K., Ristenpart, T., & Dell, N.
Çalıkoglu, E. O., Aras, A., Hamza, M., Aydin, A., Nacakgedigi, O., & (2017). Digital Technologies and Intimate Partner Violence: A
Koga, P. M. (2018). Sexism, attitudes, and behaviors towards vio- Qualitative Analysis with Multiple Stakeholders. Proceedings of
lence against women in medical emergency services workers in the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 1–22. https://doi.
Erzurum, Turkey. Global Health Action, 11(1), 1524541. https:// org/10.1145/3134681
doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2018.1524541 Goldenson, J., Geffner, R., Foster, S. L., & Clipson, C. R. (2007). Female
Cheung, J., Tsoi, V., Wong, K., & Chung, R. Y. (2019). Abuse and domestic violence offenders: Their attachment security, trauma
depression among Filipino foreign domestic helpers. A cross- symptoms, and personality organization. Violence and Victims,
sectional survey in Hong Kong. Public health, 166, 121–127. 22(5), 532–545. https://doi.org/10.1891/088667007782312186
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2018.09.020 He, S., & Tsang, S. (2014). Male partners' attachment styles as predictors
Chisholm, C. A., Bullock, L., & Ferguson 2nd, J. (2017). Intimate partner of women's coerced first sexual intercourse in Chinese college stu-
violence and pregnancy: Epidemiology and impact. American dents' dating relationships. Violence and Victims, 29(5), 771–783.
Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 217(2), 141–144. https:// https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.vv-d-12-00116
doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2017.05.042 Hellevik, P. M. (2019). Teenagers' personal accounts of experiences with
Chisholm, J. F. (2006). Cyberspace violence against girls and adolescent digital intimate partner violence and abuse. Computers in Human
females. In F. L. Denmark, H. H. Krauss, E. Halpern, & J. A. Behavior, 92, 178–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.11.019
Sechzer (Eds.), Violence and exploitation against women and girls Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond theschoolyard:
(pp. 74–89). Blackwell. Preventing and responding to cyberbullying. Sage Publications
Clemente, M., Espinosa, P., & Padilla, D. (2019). Moral disengagement (CorwinPress)
and willingness to behave unethically against ex-partner in a child Huecker, M. R., King, K. C., Jordan, G. A., & Smock, W. (2021).
custody dispute. PLoS One, 14(3), e0213662. https://doi.org/10. Domestic violence. In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing.
1371/journal.pone.0213662 Johnson, S. M. (2006). Attachment theory: A guide for couple therapy. In
Clevenger, S., & Gilliam, M. (2020). Intimate partner violence and the S. M. Johnson & V. E. Whiffen (Eds.), Attachment processes in
internet: Perspectives. In T. Holt & A. Bossler (Eds.), The Palgrave couple and family therapy (pp. 124–143). Guilford
handbook of international cybercrime and Cyberdeviance. Palgrave Johnson, S. M., Makinen, J. A., & Millikin, J. W. (2001). Attachment
Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78440-3_58 injuries in couple relationships: A new perspective on impasses in
Cuadrado-Gordillo, I., Fernández-Antelo, I., & Martín-Mora Parra, G. couples therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27(2),
(2020). Moral disengagement as a moderating factor in the relation- 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2001.tb01152.x
ship between the perception of dating violence and victimization. Kivisto, A. J. (2014). Abandonment and engulfment: A bimodal classifi-
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public cation of anxiety in domestic violence perpetrators. Aggression and
Health, 17(14), 5164. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17145164 Violent Behavior, 19(3), 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.
D’Urso, G., Petruccelli, I., Costantino, V., Zappulla, C., & Pace, U. 2014.04.005
(2018). The role of moral disengagement and cognitive distortions Kolbe, V., & Büttner, A. (2020). Domestic violence against men-
toward children among sex offenders. Psychiatry Psychology and prevalence and risk factors. Deutsches Arzteblatt International,
Law, 26(3), 414–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018. 117(31–32), 534–541. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2020.0534
1506718 Kyranides, M. N., Fanti, K. A., Sikki, M., & Patrick, C. J. (2017).
Delfin, C., Ruzich, E., Wallinius, M., Björnsdotter, M., & Andiné, P. Triarchic dimensions of psychopathy in young adulthood:
(2020). Trait disinhibition and NoGo event-related potentials in Associations with clinical and physiological measures after
8796 Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797

accounting for adolescent psychopathic traits. Personality doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679( 200010)56:10<1289::aid-

Disorders, 8(2), 140–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000193 jclp4>3.0.co;2-z
Lafta, R. K. (2008). Intimate-partner violence and women’s health. The Risser, S., & Eckert, K. (2016). Investigating the relationships between
Lancet, 371(9619), 1140–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140- antisocial behaviors, psychopathic traits, and moral disengagement.
6736(08)60499-7 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 45, 70–74. https://doi.
Lovibond, P. F., & Lovibond, S. H. (1995). The structure of negative org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2016.02.012
emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Runions, K. C., & Bak, M. (2015). Online moral disengagement,
Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. cyberbullying, and cyber-aggression. Cyberpsychology, Behavior
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 33(3), 335–343. https://doi.org/ and Social Networking, 18(7), 400–405. https://doi.org/10.1089/
10.1016/0005-7967(94)00075-U cyber.2014.0670
Lutgendorf, M. A. (2019). Intimate partner violence and Women's health. Sánchez-Jiménez, V., & Muñoz-Fernández, N. (2021). When are sexist
Obstetrics and Gynecology, 134(3), 470–480. https://doi.org/10. attitudes risk factors for dating aggression? The role of moral disen-
1097/AOG.0000000000003326 gagement in Spanish adolescents. International Journal of
Maftei, A., & Holman, A.-C. (2020). Predictors of homophobia in a Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(4), 1947. https://
sample of Romanian young adults: age, gender, spirituality, attach- doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041947
ment styles, and moral disengagement. Psychology & Sexuality. Scott, A. J., Lloyd, R., & Gavin, J. (2010). The influence of prior rela-
https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2020.1726435 tionship on perceptions of stalking in the United Kingdom and
Marganski, A., & Melander, L. (2015). Intimate partner violence victim- Australia. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1185–1194.
ization in the cyber and real world: Examining the extent of cyber Sediri, S., Zgueb, Y., Ouanes, S., Ouali, U., Bourgou, S., Jomli, R., &
aggression experiences and its association with in-person dating Nacef, F. (2020). Women’s mental health: acute impact of COVID-
violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(7), 1071–1095. 19 pandemic on domestic violence. Archives of women’s mental
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515614283 health, 23(6), 749–756. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-020-
Mazza, M., Marano, G., Lai, C., Janiri, L., & Sani, G. (2020). Danger in 01082-4
danger: Interpersonal violence during COVID-19 quarantine. Shimizu, A. (2013). Recent Developments Domestic Violence in the
Psychiatry Research, 289, 113046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Digital Age: Towards the Creation of a Comprehensive
psychres.2020.113046 Cyberstalking Statute. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice,
McFarlane, J., Campbell, J. C., & Watson, K. (2002). Intimate partner 28(1), 1125573. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38H708030
stalking and femicide: Urgent implications for women’s safety. Sijtsema, J. J., Garofalo, C., Jansen, K., & Klimstra, T. A. (2019).
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20, 51–68. Disengaging from evil: Longitudinal associations between the dark
Melander, L. A. (2010). College students’ perceptions of intimate partner triad, moral disengagement, and antisocial behavior in adolescence.
cyber harassment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 47(8), 1351–1365. https://
Networking, 13, 263–268. doi.org/10.1007/s10802-019-00519-4
Moore, C. (2015). Moral disengagement. Current Opinion in Slootmaeckers, J., & Migerode, L. (2018). Fighting for connection:
Psychology, 6, 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07. Patterns of intimate partner violence. Journal of Couple &
018 Relationship Therapy, 17(4), 294–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Muller, H. J., Desmarais, S. L., & Hamel, J. M. (2009). Do Judicial 15332691.2018.1433568
Responses to Restraining Order Requests Discriminate Against Slootmaeckers, J., & Migerode, L. (2020). EFT and intimate partner
Male Victims of Domestic Violence? Journal of Family Violence, violence: A roadmap to De-escalating violent patterns. Family
24, 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9261-4 Process, 59(3), 328–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/FAMP.12468
Nacar, G., Taşhan, S. T., & Bekar, M. (2021). Adaptation of the cyber Socea, B., Bogaciu, C., Nica, A. A., Smaranda, A. C., Ciobotaru, V. P.,
aggression in relationships scale toTurkish: A validity and reliability Crăciun, R. I., et al. (2020). Politrauma during Covid-19 pandemic:
study. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 57, 253–262. https://doi. an increasing incidence of domestic violence. Romanian Journal
org/10.1111/ppc.12556 ofEmergency Surgery, 2(1), 20–24. https://doi.org/10.33695/rojes.
Nemeth, J. M., Bonomi, A. E., Lee, M. A., & Ludwin, J. M. (2012). v2i1.20
Sexual infidelity as trigger for intimate partner violence. Journal Spencer, C. M., Keilhotltz, B. M., & Stith, S. M. (2021). The association
of Women’s Health, 21(9), 942–949. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh. between attachment styles and physical intimate partner violence
2011.3328 perpetration and victimization: A Meta-analysis. Family Process,
Paat, Y. F., Markham, C., & Peskin, M. (2019). Psycho-Emotional 60(1), 270–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12545
Violence, Its Association, Co-Occurrence, and Bidirectionality with Southworth, C., Finn, J., Dawson, S., Fraser, C., & Tucker, S. (2007).
Cyber, Physical and Sexual Violence. Journal of Child & Intimate partner violence, technology, and stalking. Violence
Adolescent Trauma, 13(4), 365–380. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Against Women, 13(8), 842–856. https://doi.org/10.1177/
s40653-019-00283-z 1077801207302045
Paciello, M., Fida, R., Tramontano, C., Lupinetti, C., & Caprara, G. V. Straus, M. A. (2009). Gender symmetry in partner violence: Evidence and
(2008). Stability and change of moral disengagement and its impact implications for prevention and treatment. In D. J. Whitaker & J. R.
on aggression and violence in late adolescence. Child development, Lutzker (Eds.), Preventing partner violence: Research and
79(5), 1288–1309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008. evidence-based intervention strategies (pp. 245–271). American
01189.x Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11873-011
Pichon, M., Treves-Kagan, S., Stern, E., Kyegombe, N., Stöckl, H., & Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology &
Buller, A. M. (2020). A mixed-methods systematic review: Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. https://doi.org/10.1089/
Infidelity, romantic jealousy and intimate partner violence against 1094931041291295 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-
women. International Journal of Environmental Research and 40010890
Public Health, 17(16), 5682. https://doi.org/10.3390/ Taylor, S., & Xia, Y. (2018). Cyber partner abuse: A systematic review.
ijerph17165682 Violence and Victims, 33(6), 983–1011. https://doi.org/10.1891/
Riggs, D. S., Caulfield, M. B., & Street, A. E. (2000). Risk for domestic 0886-6708.33.6.983
violence: Factors associated with perpetration and victimization. Teng, Z., Bear, G. G., Yang, C., Nie, Q., & Guo, C. (2020). Moral
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(10), 1289–1316. https:// disengagement and bullying perpetration: A longitudinal study of
Curr Psychol (2023) 42:8781–8797 8797

the moderating effect of school climate. School psychology Wang, X., Yang, J., Wang, P., Zhang, Y., Li, B., Xie, X., & Lei, L.
(Washington, D.C.), 35(1), 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1037/ (2020). Deviant peer affiliation and bullying perpetration in adoles-
spq0000348 cents: The mediating role of moral disengagement and the moderat-
Tonsing, J. C. (2016). Domestic violence: Intersection of culture, gender ing role of moral identity. The Journal of Psychology, 154(3), 199–
and context. Journal of immigrant and Minority Health, 18(2), 442– 213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2019.1696733
446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-015-0193-1 Watkins, L. E., Schumacher, J. A., & Coffey, S. F. (2016). A Preliminary
Toplu-Demirtaş, E., May, R. W., Seibert, G. S., & Fincham, F. D. (2020). Investigation of the Relationship between Emotion Dysregulation
Does cyber dating abuse victimization increase depressive symp- and Partner Violence Perpetration Among Individuals with PTSD
toms or vice versa? Journal of interpersonal violence, and Alcohol Dependence. Journal of aggression, maltreatment &
886260520984261. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10. trauma, 25(3), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2015.
1177/0886260520984261 1129657
Udris, R. (2014). Cyberbullying among high school students in Japan: Wolford-Clevenger, C., Zapor, H., Brasfield, H., Febres, J., Elmquist, J.,
Development and validation of the Online Disinhibition Scale. Brem, M., Shorey, R. C., & Stuart, G. L. (2016). An examination of
Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 253–261. https://doi.org/10. the partner cyber-abuse questionnaire in a college student sample.
1016/j.chb.2014.09.036 Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 156–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/
Van Ouytsel, J., Ponnet, K., Walrave, M., & Temple, J. R. (2016). a0039442
Adolescent cyber dating abuse victimization and its associations Woodlock, D. (2016). The abuse of Technology in Domestic Violence
with substance use, and sexual behaviors. Public Health, 135, and Stalking. Violence Against Women, 23(5), 584–602. https://doi.
147–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2016.02.011 org/10.1177/1077801216646277
Velotti, P., Beomonte Zobel, S., Rogier, G., & Tambelli, R. (2018). World Health Organization (WHO) (2017). Violence against women.
Exploring relationships: A systematic review on intimate partner https://www.who.int/health-topics/violence-against-women#tab=
violence and attachment. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1166. https:// tab_1
doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01166
Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of
Viero, A., Barbara, G., Montisci, M., Kustermann, K., & Cattaneo, C.
cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of
(2021). Violence against women in the Covid-19 pandemic: A re-
teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(7),
view of the literature and a call for shared strategies to tackle health
1063–1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9922-8
and social emergencies. Forensic Science International, 319,
110650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110650 Zweig, J. M., Lachman, P., Yahner, J., & Dank, M. (2014). Correlates of
Wachs, S., Wright, M. F., & Vazsonyi, A. T. (2019). Understanding the cyber dating abuse among teens. Journal of youth and adolescence,
overlap between cyberbullying and cyberhate perpetration: 43(8), 1306–1321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0047-x
Moderating effects of toxic online disinhibition. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 29(3), 179–188. https://doi.org/10. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
1002/cbm.2116 tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.