University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

An investigation of the factors associated with electronic aggression among college students

(USC Thesis Other)

An investigation of the factors associated with electronic aggression among college students

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

AN INVESTIGATION OF THE FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTRONIC
AGGRESSION AMONG COLLEGE STUDENTS

by

Ilana Judith Kellerman

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLOGY)

December 2011

Copyright 2011 Ilana Judith Kellerman

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables iii

List of Figures iv

Abstract v

Chapter 1: Introduction 1
EA, Participant Sex, and Relationships 3
Family Risk and Aggression 4
Perceptions of Peer Support and Emotion Regulation as
Moderators
7
Electronic Perpetration Motivations 8
The Role of Alcohol and Drugs in EA Involvement 9
The Present Study 10

Chapter 2: Method 11
Participants 11
Procedures 12
Measures 13

Chapter 3: Results 18
Descriptive Statistics 18
Participant Sex, Relationship, and Role Differences
Regarding EA
18
The Roles of Risky Families, Peer Support, and Emotion
Regulation
21
Qualitative Analysis of Motivations Associated with EA 30
Alcohol Use Prior to EA Involvement 32

Chapter 4: Discussion 35
Role, Relationship, and Participant Sex Differences 36
The Association Between Family Risk and EA:
Social Competence as a Buffer
38
Motivations and Substance Use 41
Limitations and Future Directions 42

References 45

Appendix: Measures 54

iii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1:Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range of Study Variables
for Males and Females and t Statistics for Sex Differences
Between Variables

19
Table 2: Correlation Matrix of Study Variables

22
Table 3: Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Examining
Peer Support as a Moderator Between Early Risky Family Environment
(“Family Risk”) and EA Victimization and Perpetration with Peers and Dating
Partners

24
Table 4: Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Examining
Emotion Regulation (“Emotion”) as a Moderator Between
Early Risky Family Environment (“Family Risk”) and EA Victimization and
Perpetration with Peers and Dating Partners

28
Table 5: Kappas and Example Responses for Each Theme

33
Table 6: Percent of Responses for Each Theme and Chi-Square Regarding Sex
Differences

34

iv
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Mean Values Representing EA Victimization and Perpetration with
Peers and Dating Partners for Males and Females. Error Bars Attached to
Columns Represent Standard Errors

20
Figure 2: Simple Slopes for the Relationship Between Family Risk and Peer
Victimization at Low (-1SD) and High (+1SD) Levels of Peer Support

25
Figure 3: Simple Slopes for the Relationship Between Family Risk and Peer
Perpetration at Low (-1SD) and High (+1SD) Levels of Peer Support

25
Figure 4: Simple Slopes for the Relationship Between Family Risk and
Dating Partner Victimization at Low (-1SD) and High (+1SD) Levels of Peer
Support

26
Figure 5: Simple Slopes for the Relationship Between Family Risk and Peer
Victimization at Low (-1SD) and High (+1SD) Levels of Emotion
Regulation (“Emotion”)

29
Figure 6: Simple Slopes for the Relationship Between Family Risk and Peer
Perpetration at Low (-1SD) and High (+1SD) Levels of Emotion Regulation
(“Emotion”)

29
Figure 7: Simple Slopes for the Relationship Between Family Risk and
Dating Partner Victimization at Low (-1SD) and High (+1SD) Levels of
Emotion Regulation (“Emotion”)
30

v
ABSTRACT
Although research on electronic aggression (EA) among adolescents is
burgeoning, little is known about these behaviors among college students. The present
study employed quantitative and qualitative methods to gain a comprehensive
understanding of the nature and risk correlates of electronic victimization and
perpetration in college peer and romantic relationships. We proposed an association
between risky family environments and EA victimization and perpetration, but that peer
support and emotion regulation would moderate these relations. We also qualitatively
examined the immediate context of EA, namely motivations and substance use. Two
hundred twenty six university students completed an on-line battery of questionnaires.
There were no overall sex differences in EA rates, though different patterns of
involvement emerged for males and females. Overall, peer support and emotion
regulation attenuated the connection between family risk and EA involvement.
Qualitative analyses indicated that although many electronically aggressive acts were
driven by jealousy, insecurity, or negative motivations, others were done out of humor.
Substance use may also play a role. Findings suggest the need to examine EA within the
context of off-line relationships, as well as question assumptions that these behaviors are
always thought to be malicious to those involved.

1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Although the internet and cellular phones accord many social benefits (Bargh &
McKenna, 2004; Valkenburg & Peter, 2010; Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 2008), these
forms of communication have received extensive media, legal, and research attention as
possible new forums for harm. (Auerbach, 2009; David-Ferdon & Hertz, 2009).
Electronic aggression (EA) is generally defined as harmful behavior directed toward
others through e-mail, text-messaging, instant messaging, social networking sites, or
internet chat-rooms (Raskauskas & Stolz, 2007; David-Ferdon & Hertz, 2007), and has
been linked with an assortment of psychosocial difficulties (Hinduja & Patchin, 2007; Li,
2007; Ybarra, Diener-West, & Leaf, 2007; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004; for reviews see
Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010, Tokunaga, 2010). Despite the increased awareness of EA,
risk factors remain unclear. Family and peer relationships, as well as emotion regulatory
abilities, have been identified as risk and resilience factors for traditional forms of
aggression (Loeber & Hay, 1997; Bank & Burratson, 2001; Kroneman, Loeber, Hipwell,
& Koot, 2009), and thus may also be associated with aggression through electronic
means. Investigating the more immediate context surrounding EA, such as motivations
and substance use, may also further the understanding of EA and help in developing
strategies to reduce its negative consequences.
In addition, research on EA among college samples is scant, which is surprising
given the creation of college websites dedicated to anonymously slandering others (e.g.,
Blipdar.com), as well as the fact that this population heavily utilizes electronic forms of

2
communication (Angster, Frank, & Lester, 2010; Jin & Park, 2010, Bennett, Guran,
Ramos, & Margolin, 2011; Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, 2008).
EA among college students may be unique from EA among high school adolescents in
several ways. College students have increased autonomy, are not directly monitored by
their parents, and form relationships extending beyond the classroom (Arnett, 2000,
2004).
With considerable amounts of aggression in college romantic relationships,
(Milletich, Kelley, Doane, & Pearson, 2010; Forke, Myers, Catallozzi, & Schwartz, 2008;
Hines & Saudino, 2003; Williams, Ghandour, & Kub, 2008; Smith, White, & Holland,
2003; Foo & Margolin, 1995), such forms of technologies may be easy tools for
aggression. The public nature of social networking sites also enables students to
constantly monitor their partner’s activities, opening up risks for jealousy and intrusive
behaviors (Muise, Christofides, & Desmarais, 2009). Thus, it is central to consider EA
involvement with both peers and dating partners when focusing on a college aged sample.
The present study sought to build on the existing EA literature by investigating
factors associated with EA involvement among college students. We examined
associations between early risky family environments and EA perpetration and
victimization among peers and dating partners, as buffered by perceptions of peer support
and emotion regulation. We also qualitatively explored students’ motivations for
perpetrating EA, well as their alcohol and drug use prior to EA engagement. Because
little is known about EA among college students, we drew upon the literature of EA

3
among adolescents, overt and relational aggression, and dating aggression to inform
hypotheses.
EA, Participant Sex, and Relationships
EA is unique in that it can spread quickly (Willard, 2007), affect multiple victims
simultaneously (Raskauskas & Stolz, 2007), and is not limited to a particular time and
place (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). To date, only one study has quantitatively investigated
EA in a college population, finding that 90.2% of participants reported at least one
incident of electronic victimization in the past year. Electronic perpetration has yet to be
examined (Bennett, et al., 2011).
Yet, the degree to which EA victimization and perpetration occur may differ
between males and females, as well as across different relationships. Knowing such
differences in EA involvement may be an important step in understanding the
implications of EA and in focusing interventions to curb these behaviors. Studies
exploring gender differences regarding EA have yielded inconclusive results (Tokunaga,
2010). Some research suggests that females report more victimization (Pornari & Wood,
2010; Smith, Mahdavi, Carvalho, Fisher, Russell, et al., 2008), whereas another study
found higher victimization rates for males (Bennett, et al., 2011). Though some research
points to males as being more likely to cyber-aggress (Wang, Iannotti, & Nansel, 2009),
others have not found significant gender differences for either electronic victimization or
perpetration (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). In a similar vein,
gender differences are unclear when considering non-physical types of aggression, such

4
as social, relational, or indirect aggression (Underwood & Rosen, in press; Archer &
Coyne, 2005). EA may occur more between friends than strangers (Kowalski & Limber,
2007; for a contrasting finding, see Li, 2007) and certain types of EA are more commonly
received from peers than dating partners (Bennett, et al., 2011), though it is unknown
whether individuals are more likely to perpetrate EA against their peers versus dating
partners.
Family Risk and Aggression
Early family environments are important to consider when exploring EA in
college student relationships, as the level of conflict in and quality of family interactions
may inform the types of peer and romantic bonds individuals later experience (Aquilino,
2006; Collins & van Dulman, 2006; Donnellan, Larsen-Rife, & Conger, 2005; Linder &
Collins, 2005; Ehrensaft, Cohen, Brown, Smailes, & Chen, 2003; Cui, Conger, Bryant, &
Elder, 2002). For example, adolescents experiencing hostility from parents tend to, as
young adults, act similarly to their own romantic partners (Conger, Cui, Bryan, & Elder,
2000). Negative interactions with parents may also place adolescents at risk for being
victims of dating aggression as young adults (Linder & Collins, 2005). The influences of
sibling conflict and exposure to marital conflict are less conclusive (Milletich, et al.,
2010; Conger, et al., 2000; Donnellan et al., 2005; Ehrensaft et al., 2003).
On a more general level, growing up in families characterized by conflict, neglect
and low warmth is associated with receiving and perpetrating aggressive behaviors
(Kroneman et al., 2009; McKenna, Hawk, Mullen, & Hertz, 2011; Bank & Burratson,

5
2001; Schwartz, Toblin, Abou-ezzeddine, Tom & Stevens, 2005; Foo & Margolin, 1995).
A family risk model suggests that early family interactions provide individuals with
crucial information on how to negotiate relationships and cope with emotionally arousing
events (Repetti, Taylor, & Seeman, 2002). A family environment that is characterized by
high conflict and low warmth may disrupt the acquisition of such skills, heightening risks
for using more maladaptive strategies later in life (Repetti, et al., 2002; Aquilino, 2006;
Kroneman, et al., 2009). Relating this research to EA, those growing up in families in
which aggression is typical may be more likely to perceive aggressive behaviors as
normative in relationships (Bandura, 1973), with these learned aggressive tendencies
possibly extending to the electronic realm (Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004). Alternatively,
individuals consistently surrounded by conflict and chaos may misinterpret ambiguous
cues from friends and romantic partners as negative (Dodge & Coie, 1987). The internet
and cell phones, because of a lack of facial cues, may further raise chances for
misunderstandings and aggressive reactions (McKenna & Bargh, 2000).
Understanding the associations between family variables and relational
aggression, hurting others through damaging interpersonal relationships (Crick &
Grotpeter, 1995; Linder, Crick, & Collins, 2002), may be useful in informing hypotheses
regarding EA, as many of the characteristics of these forms of aggression overlap. For
instance, whereas relational aggression includes spreading rumors (Werner & Crick,
1999), EA may involve spreading stories about someone on-line. Research on the family
factors that are linked with relational aggression is still in its early stages, though parental

6
psychological control (e.g., intrusive and manipulative behaviors) may play a part
(Barber & Harmon, 2002; Nelson & Crick, 2002). Studies of relational aggression in
romantic relationships suggest associations between relational aggression perpetration
and parental psychological control and alienation (Leadbeater, Banister, Ellis, & Yeung,
2008; Linder, Crick, & Collins, 2002). Overall, the literature brings to light multiple
family characteristics that may be correlated with later aggressive behaviors. Thus, the
present study considers a broad range of aggression and chaos in the family of origin.
The literature on the connection between family environment and EA among
college students does not yet exist. Survey research of EA among adolescents, however,
has found that both electronic aggressors and recipients were more likely to report poor
parent-child emotional bonds than were non-involved youth (Ybarra et al., 2007; Ybarra
& Mitchell, 2004) and that offline psychological abuse predicted on-line harassment
(Mitchell, et al., 2011). Associations were not significant, however, when peer-sibling
conflict and exposure to domestic violence were the predictors (Mitchell et al., 2011).
These studies are important in that they offer preliminary support for the role of the
family in EA involvement, though questions remain: Do certain factors alter the
conditions under which these family relationship and EA associations occur? Are family
factors still related to EA when youth are in college and potentially less directly
influenced by or dependent on their families? The present study aims to address such
questions.

7
Perceptions of Peer Support and Emotion Regulation As Moderators
Positive peer relationships may provide a sense of intimacy, social competency,
as well as opportunities for developing positive conflict resolution strategies, potentially
attenuating the negative influence of risky families (Hartup, 1997; Parker, Rubin, Erath,
Woislawowicz, & Buskirk, 2006). Research on children and young adolescents suggests
that supportive friends may buffer children exposed to harsh family environments from
peer victimization (Schwartz, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2000) and externalizing problems
(Lansford, Criss, Pettit, Dodge, & Bates, 2003). Regarding peer support and EA, a study
on middle and high school students found that youth who reported that they perceived
their friends as trustworthy, caring, and helpful reported less involvement with cyber-
aggression than those who reported these positive qualities less frequently (Williams &
Guerra, 2007).
Research has yet to investigate the interactive effects of peer relationships and
family environment on EA involvement. Peer support may be particularly influential
during the college years when students living away from home spend increasingly more
time with friends (Eshbaugh, 2010). Because friendships often provide the skills for and
sometimes extend into romantic relationships during young adulthood (Collins & Van
Dulmen, 2006), perceptions of peer support may also moderate associations between
family risk and EA among dating partners. In the present study we investigated positive
peer support as a buffer between early family risk and EA victimization and perpetration.

8
Emotion regulation is important to consider in the context of electronically
aggressive relationships, as the ability to successfully handle emotionally arousing
situations is critical for developing positive interpersonal relationships (for a review, see
Gross & Munoz, 2006). Successful emotion regulation skills are associated with more
pro-social behaviors, being well liked, and less negative moods (Lopes, Salovey, Beers &
Cote, 2005; for a review see Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & Reiser, 2000). In younger
children, high emotion regulatory abilities may be a marker of resilience against the
harmful impact of suboptimal environments (Curtis & Cicchetti, 2007). Poor emotion
regulation may also play a role in intimate partner violence (Berzenski & Yates, 2010;
McNulty & Hellmuth, 2008; for a contrasting finding, see Harper, Austin, Cercone, &
Arias, 2005). Relating this concept to EA, those who experienced a risky
family

environment but are able to successfully control their emotions might be able to inhibit
desires to send a hurtful text, for example, when hurt or angry. Also, those who recognize
when they or others are upset may be able to cope with their situations more effectively,
lowering their chances of being the recipient or aggressor of negative electronic
behaviors.
Electronic Perpetration Motivations
Little is known about why college students engage in EA and what exactly these
acts are intended to convey. Although research and the media tend to frame EA as
“willful and repeated harm” (e.g. Hinduja & Patchin, 2009, p. 5) it is unclear whether
EA, especially among college-aged students, is always driven by cruel intentions. The

9
barriers that computer screens and phones place between interpersonal interactions may
mean that recipients of non-maliciously intended electronic actions may construe them as
hurtful or embarrassing. Among adolescents, the most commonly offered motivation for
EA was revenge (22.5%), yet a smaller amount reported that it was fun (10.6%) or that
they did not mean to hurt others (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009). Relational aggression
research suggests that individuals may offer jealousy and entertainment as explanations
for their actions (Pronk & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2010). This present study is the first to
examine motivations underlying EA involvement in a college sample. We utilized
qualitative procedures to enable themes to emerge from participants’ open-ended
responses in order to achieve a more in-depth understanding of this poorly understood
form of aggression.
The Role of Alcohol and Drugs in EA Involvement
Alcohol and certain substances may impair abilities to inhibit impulsive
behaviors, as well as increase risks for misjudging social cues (For a review on the
association between alcohol and violence, see Klostermann & Fals-Stewart, 2005),
potentially exacerbating risks for perpetrating EA. Substance use is a risk correlate of EA
perpetration among adolescents (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008; Ybarra & Mitchell, 2004) and
may be relevant to EA involvement among college students, who are at an age at which
alcohol and substance use is prevalent (Borsari & Carey, 2001; O’Malley & Johnston,
2002). Investigating the links between risky behaviors and EA in a college sample,
Bennett and colleagues (2011) found that alcohol use was significantly correlated with

10
female, but not male, reports of electronic victimization, even when adjusting for
psychological and physical victimization. The extent to which alcohol or drugs are
involved immediately prior to EA engagement, however, has yet to be determined.
Present Study
The current study employed a mixed methods approach, incorporating quantitative and
qualitative data, in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of EA
(Creswell & Clark, 2011). Based on Bennett’s (et al., 2011) study, we hypothesized that
males would report more EA victimization than would females and that participants
would report more victimization from peers than dating partners, though we did not have
an a priori hypothesis regarding EA perpetration. The present study also hypothesized
positive associations between early risky family environments and EA perpetration and
victimization between peers and dating partners. Yet, peer support and emotion
regulation were anticipated to attenuate these relationships. Because research suggests
considerable overlap between EA victimization and perpetration (Schrock & Boyd,
2008), we proposed similar hypotheses for EA victimization and perpetration. Last, we
explored participants’ motivations for and alcohol and drug use prior to perpetrating EA.

11
CHAPTER 2: METHODS
Participants
Two hundred twenty six undergraduate students (138 females, 88 males; mean
age=19.96 years, SD=1.12 years) enrolled in an urban university participated in this study
in exchange for course credit. These participants were a subset of a larger sample of
students, including those who did not have a dating partner (N=420). To be eligible for
participation, individuals needed to be at least 18 years old, proficient in English, and
enrolled in a psychology course at the university. Because we assessed EA involvement
with a dating partner within the last year, we only included participants in the data
analysis who reported being in a romantic relationship at some point during the last year
(n=249).
1
We then excluded participants from analyses if they (a) were not between 18 to
23 years old (n=6) or b) Did not complete at least 75% of the entire aggression
perpetration or victimization measure (n=17)
2
, yielding the final sample size for this
study. Of these participants, 2.7% self-identified as African American, 23.5%
Asian, 43.8% Caucasian, 15.0% Hispanic/Latino, 8.4% multiracial, and 6.6% other or
unknown. Compared to students who completed the required measures but did not report
being in a romantic relationship during the past year, those who were romantically
involved did not significantly differ in their reported rates of EA peer victimization

1
Three participants reported that they had been in a relationship in the past year, yet also reported that they had never
been in a romantic relationship and did not endorse any items related to dating partners. They were excluded from
analyses.

2
In addition to electronic aggression, this measure assesses physical and psychological aggression, coerced intimacy,
and risky behaviors. One participant was not missing over 25% missing data from the entire victimization and
perpetration measure, but had over 25% missing data when just the EA victimization and perpetration items were
considered. This participant was excluded from analyses.

12
t(380)=-1.52, ns, or perpetration, t(380)=-.61, ns. No gender differences were found, X
2=
(1, N=382)=.01, ns.
Procedure
Participants learned of the opportunity to participate in this study from course
announcements or by browsing the listing of studies on the university subject pool
website. Students read the following description of the study before agreeing to
participate: This is a study on the associations between various factors, such as peers and
emotion, and electronic aggression amongst college students. You will be asked to fill out
a series of questionnaires. Those interested in participating clicked on a link directing
them to a more detailed information sheet about the study on Qualtrics, a secure on-line
platform that houses research surveys. We requested from Qualtrics that all IP addresses
be removed in order to ensure complete anonymity. Students read that their participation
was voluntary, they could stop participating at any point or skip any questions without
penalization, this study was a one-time commitment, and that their responses were
anonymous. They were requested to complete the study in one setting and in quiet and
private conditions. Participants clicked on a button to indicate that they agreed to these
terms, after which they were directed to a series of questionnaires. The entirely online
survey took approximately one hour to complete, and participants received one course
credit regardless of how many items they completed. The university International Review
Board approved all study procedures.

13
Measures
Electronic Aggression Perpetration and Victimization. Participants reported on
their EA involvement with 19 items from the 66-item How Friends Treat Each Other
(HFTEO; Margolin & DeJonghe, 2008) questionnaire, which measures various forms of
aggression. The EA items used in this study were developed based on college student
focus groups and research team discussions (Bennett, et al., 2011). Sample items include
sent mean or hurtful text message, took phone picture to embarrass, logged into e-mail to
make trouble or check up, and blocked someone/me on AIM or website such as MySpace
or Facebook.
We used two versions of the HFTEO questionnaire, victimization and
perpetration. Participants first provided answers to all items on the victimization version,
answering, “In the past year, have any of the following people done any of the following
things to you,” Participants then responded to a listing of similar items on the
perpetration version, answering, “In the past year have you done any of the following to
any of the following people” For each item, participants provided separate responses for
peers, dating partners, and acquaintances. Only responses from peers and dating partners
were used for quantitative analyses. Responses were rated on a 5-point Likert scale
(0=Never Happened, 1=Happened 1-2 times, 2=happened 3-5 times, 3=happened 6-10
times, 4=happened more than 10 times). Composite scores of peer victimization (α=.86),
peer perpetration (α=.87), dating partner victimization (α=.86), and dating partner

14
perpetration (α=.81), were each created by averaging values across the 19 items, with
higher scores indicating more EA involvement.
Family Risk Questionnaire. Family risk was assessed with 14-items adapted
from the Family Risk Questionnaire (Taylor, Lerner, Sage, Lehman, & Seeman, 2004).
The original measure was created through combining interview and questionnaire data
from 18-25 year old individuals in order to tap into a broad range of risky family
behaviors. Participants are requested to think over their family life from when they were
between 5 to 15 years old and answer questions about parental warmth (How often did a
parent or other adult in the household make you feel that you were loved, supported, and
cared for?) parent-to-child aggression (How often did a parent or other adult in the
household swear at you, insult you, put you down, or act in a way that made you feel
threatened?) interparental conflict (How often would you say there was quarreling,
arguing, or shouting between your parents?) parent-to-sibling conflict (How often would
you say there was quarreling, arguing, or shouting between a parent and one of your
siblings?) as well as general family environment (Would you say that the household you
grew up in was well-organized and well-managed?). For this study, we added two
questions surveying parent-participant and sibling-participant conflict. Respondents rated
each item on a 5-point Likert type scale anchored at 0 (Not at all) and 4 (Very Often).
Scores for positively worded items were reverse coded, and a composite variable “Family
Risk” was computed from taking the mean value across the 14 items (α=.86). Higher
scores reflect higher degrees of family risk.

15
Positive Peer Support. The 25-item Peer Attachment Scale (PAS) from the
Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment-Revised (IPPA; Armsden & Greenberg, 1987)
was used to measure participants’ reported perceptions of positive peer relationships and
support. The PAS has been used on college students and has good psychometric
properties (Armsden & Greenberg, 2009). In the present study, participants selected
answers based on a 4-point Likert scale, with scores ranging from 0=almost never/always
never to 3=almost always/always true.
3
Example items include, I feel my friends are
good friends and it seems as if my friends are irritated with me for no reason. Items are
thought to reflect peer communication (8 items) trust (10 items), and alienation (7 items).
Negatively worded items were reverse coded and a “peer support” variable was
calculated by averaging across the 25 items. Higher scores indicate more positive
perceptions of peer support. Cronbach alpha of the PAS for this sample was .93.
Emotion Regulation. Emotion regulation was measured with an adapted version
of the Emotion Regulations Checklist (Shields & Cicchetti, 1997). It includes 10 items
that assess individuals’ abilities to handle and cope with emotional arousal, as well as to
positively engage with others. Sample items include can recover from stress, is warm and
responsive, and overreacts to minor frustrations. Participants rated each item on a 4-
point Likert type scale, anchored at 0= Never True and 3=Almost always true. Negatively
worded items were reverse coded, and a mean score was calculated, with higher scores

3
The original measure is based on a 5-point Likert scale.

16
representing higher emotion regulation abilities. Cronbach alpha with this sample was
.69.
Electronic Use. We measured electronic use to ensure that the participants in the
study utilized electronic forms of communication. Participants estimated how frequently
they engaged in 9-types of electronic behaviors daily: e-mail, instant messenger, chat
rooms, blogs, personal profile sites such as MySpace or Facebook, message boards, text
messaging, twitter, and webcams. For each form of electronic communication,
participants chose from the following responses: never, under 1 hour a day, 1-3 hours per
day, 4-6 hours per day, or over 6 hours a day.
Electronic Aggression Motivations. After responding to the EA perpetration
items, participants provided open-ended responses to the following instruction: If you
have ever done any of the above items, please describe what motivated you.
We used qualitative thematic analyses to draw themes from these open-ended
responses (Boyatzis, 1998). After we created a preliminary set of themes, a coder read
responses from the first batch of participants to determine the extent to which they
contained such themes. Based on feedback from the coder, a more detailed coding system
was constructed. Two coders then independently classified responses into 6 themes: 1)
retaliation: revenge or reacting in response to a perceived aggressive act 2)
jealousy/insecurity: engaging in behaviors due to jealousy, suspicion, mistrust, or
insecurity about a relationship 3) humor: actions were thought to be entertaining, fun, or
merely jokes between a friend 4) non-malicious: person did not intend to hurt someone or

17
was engaging in these behaviors for positive purposes 5) negative emotions: electronic
behaviors are due to anger, frustration, hurt, or other negative emotions and 6) self-
protection/privacy: desire to keep oneself self safe and one’s information private
(Average κ=.80). Responses that did not fall neatly into one of these themes were noted
and discussed by the principle investigators. A third coder settled all coding
discrepancies. One hundred seventy one participants provided codeable responses about
their motivations, and 156 of these responses contained at least one of these 6 themes.
Responses that contained more than one theme were double coded.
Alcohol and Drug Use. After providing open-ended responses about motivations,
participants answered questions about the role of alcohol and drugs prior to EA
involvement. For the victimization version, participants answered: Do you think that the
person doing the above actions ever used any alcohol or drugs beforehand and for the
EA perpetration version: Have you ever used alcohol or drugs before engaging in any of
these actions? We assigned scores of 0 to No and 1 to Yes responses. Statements such as
maybe, I think so, possibly, and probably were assigned a 1, whereas responses including
I don’t think so and I hope not were coded as 0. Responses that were unclear or that
indicated that participants misinterpreted the questions were discounted. One hundred
seventy six participants reported on their own substance use and 173 reported on whether
they believed their perpetrators were using substances.

18
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics
Participants reported using various forms of electronic media daily, with 54.7%
reporting that they generally send and receive 50 or more text messages daily. In
addition, participants reported spending at least an hour a day using e-mail (51.3%),
personal profile sites, e.g. Facebook (76.8%), and Instant Messenger (21.7%).
Approximately 86.3% of participants reported at least one act of peer victimization,
68.6% peer perpetration, 71.7% dating partner victimization, and 71.7% dating partner
perpetration within the past year.
Table 1 summarizes the means, standard deviations, range, and results of
independent t-tests examining sex differences for the study variables. On average, males
reported significantly lower levels of positive peer support than did females, which is
consistent with previous research (Armsden & Greenberg, 1987). No significant gender
differences were found for the other study variables.
Participant Sex, Relationship, and Role Differences Regarding EA
We conducted a 2 (participant sex) X 2 (relationship: peers vs. dating partner) X 2
(role: victimization vs. perpetration) repeated measures ANOVA, with sex as the between
group variable and relationship and role as within group variables. The role, F (1,
224)=27.66, p<.001, and relationship F (1, 224)=8.45, p<.01, main effects were
significant, with higher ratings of EA victimization than perpetration and higher ratings
of EA involvement with peers than with dating partners. The main effect of sex was not
19
Table 1: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Range of Study Variables for Males and
Females and t Statistics for Sex Differences Between Variables.

Females
(N=138)

Males
(N=88)

t

Study Variable
Mean
(SD)

Range

Mean
(SD)

Range

Peer Victimization .32
(.32)
0-1.79 .39
(.42)
0-2.53 1.38
Peer Perpetration .20
(.29)
0-1.53 .27
(.37)
0-1.74 1.53
Dating Partner
Victimization
.23
(.30)
0-1.79 .31
(.42)
0-2.42 1.48
Dating Partner
Perpetration
.24
(.29)
0-1.21 .22
(.29)
0-1.74 -.38
Family Risk .95
(.67)
0-3.21 1.00
(.68)
0-2.77 .48
Peer Support 2.30
(.43)
.96-2.96 2.04
(.51)
1.04-
2.92
-3.91***
Emotion Regulation 2.18
(.40)
1.20-2.90 2.11
(.42)
1.10-
2.90
-1.38
Note. The mean value represents the mean score of each composite variable.
*** p<.001.
20
significant, F (1, 224)=1.61, ns. There was a significant Role X Relationship interaction,
F (1, 224)=20.80, p<.001, but these data are best considered in the context of the 3-way
interaction for sex, relationship, and role, F (1, 224)=5.95 p=.015. Figure 1 presents the
graph of this 3-way interaction, which suggests different patterns of involvement for
males and females. For males, there were significant main effects of role, F (1,
87)=14.78, p<.001, and relationship F (1, 87)=8.59, p<.01, with males reporting more
victimization than perpetration and more EA involvement with peers than dating partners.
When considering females, there was a main effect of role F (1, 137)=11.59, p=.001,
with a higher mean frequency of victimization than perpetration. There was also a
significant Role X Relationship interaction, F (1, 137)=31.28, p<.001, with females
reporting more victimization than perpetration regarding peers, yet equivalent amounts of
victimization and perpetration when reporting on dating partners.
Figure 1. Mean values representing EA victimization and perpetration with peers and
dating partners for males and females. Error bars attached to columns represent
standard errors.

21
The Roles of Risky Families, Peer Support, and Emotion Regulation
Table 2 presents correlations between study variables. All 4 categories of EA
were highly correlated with one another. Family risk was positively, and peer support
negatively, correlated with peer victimization, dating partner victimization, and dating
partner perpetration, but not peer perpetration. Emotion regulation was negatively
correlated with all 4 categories of EA. Emotion regulation was positively correlated with
peer support and negatively correlated with family risk. The association between family
risk and peer support was not significant.
We conducted eight hierarchical multiple regressions to examine whether peer
support or emotion regulation moderated the link between family risk and EA 1) peer
victimization 2) peer perpetration 3) dating partner victimization, and 4) dating partner
perpetration. For each analysis, gender was entered as a covariate in the first step, main
effects of family risk and peer support/emotion regulation in the second step, and the
two-way Family Risk X Peer Support or Family Risk X Emotion Regulation interaction
in the third step. Variables were mean centered prior to be entered into the equation in
order to reduce collinearity. Significant interactions were further probed using procedures
suggested by Aikens & West (1991).
22
Table 2: Correlation Matrix of Study Variables.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

1. Peer
Victimization

--

2. Dating Partner
Victimization

.68** --
3. Peer Perpetration

.72** .49** --
4. Dating Partner
Perpetration

.57** .69** .65** --
5. Family Risk

.24** .28** .13 .25** --
6. Peer Support

-.19** -.23** -.09 -.19** .36** --
7. Emotion
Regulation

-.20** -.28** -.19** -.27** -.32** .49** --
*p< Note. *p< .05, **p<.01.

23
Peer Support as a Moderator. Table 3 presents the regression analyses for peer
support and family risk. We found a significant interaction between family risk and peer
support when peer victimization, peer perpetration, and dating partner victimization were
the outcome variables. The Family Risk X Peer Support interaction was not significant.
For each significant interaction, we plotted the relationship between family risk and EA
at 1SD above the mean and 1SD below the mean for peer support. Figures 2, 3, and 4
present the simple slopes of these interactions. In each case, there was a significant
association between family risk and EA for those reporting low peer support (b=.21,
t=4.37, p<.001 for peer victimization, b=.11, t=2.72, p<.01 for peer perpetration, and
b=20, t=4.45, p<.001 for dating partner victimization) but not for those reporting high
peer support (b=-.08, t=-1.24 for peer victimization, b=-.06, t=.96 for peer perpetration,
and b=-.03, t=.60 for dating partner victimization, all ns).
The main effects of family risk and peer support were not significant when
predicting peer victimization or peer perpetration. There were significant main effects of
peer support and family risk on dating partner victimization, with family risk associated
with higher reports, and peer support with lower reports of dating partner victimization.
There were also significant main effects of peer support and family risk on dating partner
perpetration, with higher levels of family risk and lower levels of peer support correlated
with dating partner perpetration.

24
Table 3: Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Examining Peer Support as a Moderator
Between Early Risky Family Environment (“Family Risk”) and EA Victimization and
Perpetration with Peers and Dating Partners.

Peer

Dating Partner

Predictor

ΔR
2

β

ΔR
2

β

Victimization

Step 1 .01 .02
Gender

-.06 -.07
Step 2 .06*** .09***
Family Risk .12 .15*
Peer Support -.13 -.17*
Step 3 .05*** .04***
Family Risk X Peer Support -.24*** -.21**
Total R
2
.13 .14

Perpetration

Step 1 .01 .01
Gender

-.09 .06
Step 2 .02 .08**
Family Risk .06 .16*
Peer Support -.05 -.15*
Step 3 .02* .01**
Family Risk X Peer Support -.16* -.10
Total R
2
.05 .08
Note. All β’s represent standardized coefficients at the final step. ΔR
2
represents change in variance
accounted for at each step, with * next to ΔR
2
representing model significance. df=4,211.

*p<.05, **p<.01,*** p<.001.
25
Figure 2. Simple slopes for the relationship between family risk and peer victimization at
low (-1SD) and high (+1SD) levels of peer support.

Figure 3. Simple slopes for the relationship between family risk and peer perpetration at
low (-1SD) and high (+1SD) levels of peer support.

26
Figure 4. Simple slopes for the relationship between family risk and dating partner
victimization at low (-1SD) and high (+1SD) levels of peer support.

Emotion Regulation as a Moderator. Table 4 summarizes results from the 4
regression analyses for family risk and emotion regulation. There was a significant
Family Risk X Emotion Regulation interaction when peer victimization, peer
perpetration, and dating partner victimization were the outcomes variables. . For dating
partner perpetration, the Family Risk X Emotion Regulation interaction was not
significant. The interactions for peer victimization, peer perpetration, and dating partner
victimization were deconstructed using simple slopes, which are illustrated in Figures 5,
6, and 7, respectively. For each interaction, there was a significant association between
family risk and EA at low levels of emotion regulation, b=.19, t=3.76, p<.001 for peer
victimization, b=.09, t=2.043, p<.05 for peer perpetration, and b=.21, t=4.48, p<.001 for
dating partner victimization, but not at high levels of emotion regulation, b=-.001, t=-.02,
for peer victimization, b=-.04, t=2.72, p<.84 for peer perpetration, and b=-.02, t=-.43,for
dating partner victimization, all p’s>.05.

27
In addition to interaction effects, there was a significant main effect of family risk
on peer victimization, in that family risk was positively associated with peer
victimization. There was a significant main effect of emotion regulation on peer
perpetration, with lower emotion regulation associated with higher peer perpetration. The
main effects of family risk on peer perpetration were not significant. Regarding dating
partner victimization and dating partner perpetration, significant main effects were found
for family risk and emotion regulation. Family risk was positively, and emotion
regulation negatively, associated with these two EA categories.

28
Table 4: Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analyses Examining Emotion Regulation
(“Emotion”) as a Moderator Between Early Risky Family Environment (“Family Risk”)
and EA Victimization and Perpetration with Peers and Dating Partners.

Peer

Dating Partner

Predictor

ΔR
2

β

ΔR
2

β

Victimization

Step 1 .01 .01
Gender

-.09 -.09
Step 2 .07*** .12***
Family Risk .17* .18**
Emotion -.13 -.21**
Step 3 .03*** .05***
Family Risk X Emotion -.18** -.23***
Total R
2
.11 .18

Perpetration

Step 1 .01 .00
Gender

-.10 .04
Step 2 .04** .11***
Family Risk .06 .17*
Emotion -.16* -.22**
Step 3 .02** .01
Family Risk X Emotion -.14* -.11
Total R
2
.07 .12
Note. All β’s represent standardized coefficients at the final step. ΔR
2
represents change in variance
accounted for at each step, with * next to ΔR
2
representing model significance. df=4,213.

*p<.05, **p<.01,*** p<.001.
29
Figure 5: Simple slopes for the relationship between family risk and peer victimization at
low (-1SD) and high (+1SD) levels of emotion regulation (“emotion”).

Figure 6. Simple slopes for the relationship between family risk and peer perpetration at
low (-1SD) and high (+1SD) levels of emotion regulation (“emotion”).

30
Figure 7. Simple slopes for the relationship between family risk and dating partner
victimization at low (-1SD) and high (+1SD) levels of emotion regulation (“emotion”).

Qualitative Analyses of Motivations Associated with EA
Table 5 presents examples of responses categorized under each of the 6 themes, as
well as the kappas for each theme. Table 6 summarizes the percentage of male and
female responses that included these themes. As Table 6 illustrates, different patterns of
themes emerged for females and males. For female responses, themes of
jealousy/insecurity emerged most often, followed by negative emotions, a tie between
retaliation and self-protection/privacy, humor, and non-malicious intentions.
Jealousy/Insecurity was the most commonly found theme in male responses, but unlike
females, themes of humor were most often found next, followed by negative emotions,
retaliation, non-malicious intentions, and self-protection/privacy. As presented in Table
6, themes of jealousy/insecurity and self-protection/privacy were more often found in
female responses, and themes of humor more often emerged from male responses.

31
An examination of these open-ended responses revealed that many of these
jealousy driven electronic behaviors might have been done in the context of feeling
insecure about a romantic relationship. For example, a 21-year old female explained: “I
have trust problems with my boyfriend, so from time to time I will check up on him.”
A 19-year old female admitted that even though she did not have a reason to believe her
boyfriend was untrustworthy, she still logged into his on-line account:
I know my boyfriend’s Facebook password, and I can’t help but check to
make sure he’s not being deceitful. I don’t know what’s motivating me because I
have never found ANYTHING to make me think something bad is going on, but I
can’t help myself.

A comment by a 21-year old male suggests themes of jealousy, but also that that multiple
motivations, such as revenge, may be at the root of these electronic behaviors: “Being
hurt and feeling rejected and feeling jealousy and wanting to get back at an ex, or at least
make her feel the same way.” In addition to motivations of jealousy, participants utilized
electronic forms of communication as convenient ways to take out their anger or
frustration. A 19-year old male explained:” I must have been upset about another issue
and decided to take it out in a negative way.
Yet, not all participants attributed negative motivations to their behaviors. For
example, a 19-year old male wrote, “A lot of times, I did it in humor. A lot of my friends
and I have the same meaning of funny and we would mess with each other in good fun.”
Last, electronic behaviors that appear to exclude others may actually be means of self-
protection. A 20-year old female explained, “I only block people when they really bother

32
me (usually creepers).” Together, these responses suggest that although college students
may engage in electronic behaviors for multiple behaviors.
Alcohol Use Prior to EA Involvement
Although 60.1% of recipients of EA believed that the person carrying out EA was
using alcohol or drugs, a lesser, though still substantial, amount (30.1%) admitted to
using substances prior to perpetrating EA. In both cases, males and females did not
significantly differ in their reports of whether they used substances X
2=
(1, N=176)=3.03,
ns, or believed that the person carrying out the electronically aggressive act was using
them, X
2=
(1, N=173)=.38 ns.
33
Table 5: Kappas and Example Responses For Each Theme.

Theme (Kappa)

Example
Retaliation (κ=.75)

Mostly to get back at them

Because I do not feel that those people treat me the way I
should be treated and to let those people understand how
it feels
Jealousy/Insecurity(κ=.87)

Being insecure or jealous about a situation

I only do somewhat hurtful things in an attempt to make
myself feel better and it never even works
Humor(κ=.92)

I thought the embarrassing photo was funny and
hopefully they would feel the same way rather than
insulted or embarrassed

Mostly joking with friends
Negative Emotion (κ=.69)

Deep hatred

My girlfriend frustrates me sometimes. Out of anger or
frustration I’ve said something mean to her through a text
while in a heated argument that was unresolved in person
Non-Malicious (κ=.52)

Pictures I have posted seemed funny until I found out the
other person was embarrassed

I posted embarrassing pictures of friends…to remind
them of the things we did the day before with no
malicious motives
Self-Protection/Privacy
(κ=.75)

I block other people for being creepy

I blocked someone on Facebook because I was feeling
bullied…

34
Table 6: Percent of Responses For Each Theme and Chi-Square Regarding Sex
Differences.

Percent of responses

EA Perpetration

χ
2

Motivations
Female
(n=103)
Male
(n=68)

Jealousy/Insecurity

50.5 33.8 4.62*
Humor

11.7 27.9 7.32**
Negative Emotion

21.4 25.0 .31
Retaliation

17.5 14.7 .23
Self-Protection/Privacy

17.5 4.4 6.49**
Non-Malicious

10.7 5.9 1.18
Note: Percents are out of total responses.
: *p<.05, **p<.01.

35
CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION

The present study extends the literature on EA by utilizing quantitative and
qualitative methods to investigate factors associated with both EA victimization and
perpetration in a college aged sample. Results suggest that EA is common among college
student relationships, with peer victimization having the highest mean frequency. There
were minimal mean frequency differences between males and females. This study was
one of the first to investigate the associations between risky family environments and EA
victimization and perpetration, as moderated by positive perceptions of peer support and
emotion regulation. The hypothesis that peer support and emotion regulation would
weaken the connection between risky families and EA involvement was supported, as
significant interactions in the predicted direction were found for EA peer victimization,
peer perpetration, and dating partner victimization. Qualitative analyses revealed that
participants who perpetrated EA were motivated by jealousy/insecurity, retaliation,
negative emotions, humor, self-protection/privacy, and non-maliciousness. The most
common theme was jealousy/insecurity and was found more often in female than male
responses. Female responses were also more likely than male responses to contain themes
of self-protection/privacy, while male responses were more likely to contain themes of
humor. Almost a third of participants reported using drugs or alcohol prior to perpetrating
EA, and almost twice that amount believed that their aggressors used alcohol or drugs.

36
Role, Relationship, and Participant Sex Differences
Participants reported more EA victimization than perpetration, which is in line
with findings from EA research on younger samples (for a review of prevalence rates, see
Kiriakidis & Kavoura, 2010). Higher reports of EA victimization may reflect an issue of
social desirability. Even though responses were completely anonymous, individuals may
still have been more reluctant to admit that they perpetrated, versus innocently received,
aggressive acts (Arias & Beach, 1987). Alternatively, because cell phone and computer
screens prevent aggressors from viewing the expressions of those receiving their actions,
they may not even be aware that their actions were considered aggressive (Kowalski &
Limber, 2007).
There were negligible sex differences concerning EA involvement. Although this
finding was inconsistent with that found by Bennett and colleagues (2011), non-
significant gender differences have been found in several EA studies (Tokunaga, 2010),
as well in research of indirect aggression (For a review, see Underwood & Rosen, in
press). Because electronic forms of communication cater to both overt and relational
aggression, it is possible that they open up equal avenues for males and females to engage
in potentially harmful behaviors (Underwood & Rosen, in press). Of note is that our EA
variable was a mean score across 19 electronically related acts. It is possible that gender
discrepancies may emerge for certain electronic acts but not others, calling attention to
the need for more fine-grained analyses of EA involvement.

37
Also, males and females reported similar overall rates of EA involvement, yet
different patterns of involvement. Males reported more EA involvement with peers and
more victimization than perpetration. Females, on the other hand, were not more likely to
engage in EA with peers than with dating partners, and though they reported more EA
victimization than perpetration with peers, they reported similar rates of victimization and
perpetration when reporting on dating partners. Qualitative analyses also suggest that
males and females provide different reasons for EA perpetration. Thus, although females
and males may report similar rates of EA involvement, the meaning and reasons for
doing so may be different.
That males reported more involvement with peers is interesting to consider in
light of research suggesting that anticipated acts of electronic victimization are more
distressing if received from a dating partner than from a friend and that college students
do not find some acts of electronic victimization from friends to be upsetting (Bennett, et
al., 2011). Perhaps the most common type of EA involvement, peer victimization, might
not always be interpreted as aggressive. Applying this idea to findings from this study’s
qualitative analysis, those committing these “aggressive” acts toward friends may also
not consider them to be mean spirited, as themes of humor and non-maliciousness
emerged. Thus, although we refer to these electronic acts as aggressive, they may not be
interpreted as such in certain relationships, particularly male friendships. At the same
time, just because individuals contended that they engaged in these electronic acts for
benevolent reasons, does not mean that recipients also interpreted them as innocuous.

38
Investigations of motivations and consequences of EA, from both the aggressors’ and
victims’ perspectives, can provide a more integrated picture of electronic behaviors and
when they move from innocent playfulness to social cruelty.
The Association Between Family Risk and EA: Social Competence as a Buffer
Reports of risky family experiences were significantly correlated with EA
involvement (excluding peer perpetration). Individuals growing up in hostile,
unsupportive families may have social and emotional deficits, placing them at risk for
using aggressive and maladaptive strategies when navigating relationships later in life
(Taylor, et al., 2004; Repetti, 2002). The present study supports the concept that child and
adolescent family experiences might be associated with individuals’ interpersonal
interactions during their college years, with this connection extending to the
technological realm.
Yet, the association between family risk and EA is complex. When considering
peer victimization, dating partner victimization, and peer perpetration, family risk was
associated with EA involvement only when participants also reported low levels of
emotion regulation and peer support. Thus, it appears that for those who are exposed to
early hostile family environments, having positive perceptions of peer support, as well as
appropriate emotion regulation skills may serve as protective factors against
electronically maladaptive behaviors.
What aspects of peer support and emotion regulation ameliorate the link between
family risk and EA? One possibility is that positive peer support may provide individuals

39
with a sense of trust, intimacy, as well as the ability to take the perspective of others
(Parker, et al., 2006). These benefits may compensate for family disruptions, decreasing
the likelihood of becoming involved in aggressive peer and romantic relationships
(Parker, et al., 2006). Because the use of technology for social purposes is becoming
more typical (Bargh & McKenna, 2004), peer support variables associated with face-to-
face interactions may also influence electronic forms of communication. In a related vein,
the link between emotion regulation skills and lower levels of traditional externalizing
behaviors is well established in younger samples (Eisenberg, et al., 2000). Findings from
this study suggest its protective function in electronically negative behaviors among
college-aged individuals. Being raised in suboptimal family environments may increase
one’s likelihood of responding to people and events with electronic aggression, yet the
ability to regulate one’s emotions so as to handle negative experiences adaptively, as well
as develop positive relationships, may offset such negative influences.
Alternatively, positive peer support and emotion regulation skills may indicate the
presence of certain characteristics, such as social competence, that promote resiliency and
overall good adjustment (Schwartz, Gorman, Duong, & Nakamoto, 2008). This point is
interesting to consider, as one of the items on our measure of emotion regulation assessed
whether participants “develop genuine and close relationships,” which may mean that we
tapped more broadly into good social skills, rather than specific regulatory abilities. Also,
emotion regulation skills and positive peer support are related to high social competency,
or how adept individuals are in handling their social relationships (Eisenberg, et al., 2000;

40
Repetti, et al., 2002). Perhaps simply having good social skills is sufficient for
developing positive relationships that contain low levels of aggression, regardless of
one’s earlier family life. On the other hand, college students who were raised in high
conflict families and also lack adequate social skills may be especially vulnerable for
developing maladaptive peer and romantic relationships, both on and off line.
Interestingly, the only times when significant interactions did not occur were
when EA dating perpetration served as the outcome variable, perhaps suggesting that EA
dating partner perpetration is a distinct phenomenon. The significant main effects of risky
family environments, emotion regulation, and peer support suggest that these factors may
be related to EA dating partner perpetration, though not in combination. The literature on
the intergenerational transmission of aggression indicates that aggression in the family
carries over into the offspring’s’ dating relationships (e.g., Wolfe & Foshee, 2003;
Ehransaft, et al., 2003). Perhaps, the impact of family aggression and conflict is stronger
when it comes to EA partner perpetration, so that the usual protective factors may not be
sufficient, though this postulation is in need of empirical support. In addition, self-esteem
and depression (Kim & Capaldi, 2004), and attitudes toward aggression (Goldstein,
Chesir-Teran, & McFaul, 2008; Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, & Ryan, 1992), have been
implicated in perpetrating aggression toward dating partners and thus may be worth
investigating as moderators in future EA research.

41
Motivations and Substance Use
Many participants reported that they engaged in EA because of jealousy or
insecurity, a theme that has also emerged in qualitative research of relational aggression
(Pronk & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2010). Other emerging themes included negative emotions
and retaliation. These themes suggest that EA sometimes occurs in the context of
insecure relationships or conflicts taking place off-line. Yet, as stated earlier, students’
actions were not always driven by ill intentions. When is EA harmful and when is it
merely innocent fun? Perhaps a greater understanding of the context in which EA occurs,
as well as spillover effects between off-line and on-line interactions may provide
important clues about EA’s meaning to college students.
Last, this study offers preliminary support for the involvement of alcohol and
drug use in EA. The percentage of EA recipients guessing that their aggressor had taken
drugs and alcohol was almost twice as high than EA perpetrators’ reports of their own
alcohol and drug use. Perhaps victims of EA who believe that someone aggressed against
them merely because alcohol and drugs impaired their judgment may be better able to
cope with receiving these acts than recipients who attribute malicious motivations to their
aggressor, though this theory has yet to receive empirical support. Also, this study asked
about drug and alcohol use prior to engaging in EA, rather than substance abuse during
the event or whether participants were actually drunk. It is possible that involvement
with substances may have been circumstantial to EA involvement. Yet, certain responses
highlight to the need to systematically investigate whether substance use instigates acts of

42
EA among college students, as one participant reported on using alcohol and drugs before
perpetrating EA: “Of course, that’s usually the only time I feel confident enough to do
something mean or stupid.”
Limitations and Future Directions
The present study contains several limitations that need to be addressed. A
primary limitation is method variance, as all constructs were measured through self-
report questionnaires. Thus, caution should be taken when interpreting results. The cross-
sectional nature of the design precludes the ability to establish temporal relations between
EA and family, peer, and emotional factors. We posit that interactions between early
family risk and peer or emotional factors predict EA engagement, but an alternative
possibility is that involvement in aggressive relationships negatively influences students’
perceptions of their emotion regulation abilities and interpersonal relationships. We also
relied on retrospective data for information regarding risky families raising the potential
for recall bias. Similarly, we asked participants to report on EA involvement during the
last year. Given that these electronic means of communication, such as text messaging,
occur in rapid bursts, it may be difficult for students to accurately remember all instances
of EA.
These limitations reflect larger issues concerning EA research, namely that
primarily all research on EA to date has relied on cross-sectional, self-report
questionnaire data. EA involvement is a complex process to capture. Whereas other
forms of aggression are best measured through corroborating self-report data with peer

43
and parent ratings, EA is not always observable, so participants may be the most reliable
source. Also, electronic forms of communication are rapidly changing. Thus, although
longitudinal methods may be useful for determining whether risk correlates precede EA,
these designs may not be fast enough to keep pace with the continuously evolving
definitions and types of EA. Examining participants’ text messages and Facebook
profiles may be more ecologically valid, but these methods also raise the potential for
ethical issues.
Despite these barriers, there are several ways that future research can investigate
EA. First, the use of ecological momentary assessment or daily diaries may avoid the
problems of recall bias, and also help determine whether certain person or situation
variables reliably precede electronic victimization and perpetration. In addition, even if
EA is to be measured with self-report data, measures of family-relationships, peer
relationships, and emotion regulation can be assessed through observational data,
multiple reporters, and psychophysiological measures.
Although the present study assumed that EA involvement is related to other forms
of aggression, such as physical and relational, it did not measure the association between
EA and other types of aggression. EA does not occur in isolation, but is rather part of a
larger aggressive context (Mitchell, et al., 2011). Research that investigates the spillover
effects between electronic and face-to-face forms of communication and conflict may
provide an integrated understanding of this phenomenon and its role in college students
daily lives. Students participating in this study were all enrolled in psychology courses,

44
so these findings may not generalize to all college students or to individuals in their age
range. Last, research suggests that factors such as socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and
depression might be related to EA involvement among adolescents (Ybarra & Mitchell,
2004; Ybarra, 2004), and future research should consider how these variables contribute
to EA among college students.
Summary
Despite its limitations, the present study adds to the literature, being one of the
first to investigate risk correlates of EA victimization and perpetration in a college
sample, as well as qualitatively explore the role of motivations and alcohol and drug use
in EA perpetration. Findings present a complex picture of EA victimization and
perpetration. On one hand, EA may represent a new avenue for aggression, with
perpetrators and victims possibly having similar risk factors as those involved in more
traditional forms of aggression. On the other hand, certain electronic behaviors may not
be considered as negative to those perpetrating them. Furthermore, the same acts of EA
may have different meanings depending on the context in which they occur. In some
circumstances EA may have minimal consequences, but in other situations, EA may be
extremely harmful. Future research that continues to investigate distal and more
immediate risk factors for different types of EA victimization and perpetration, as well as
what these behaviors mean to adolescents and young adults in different circumstances,
may provide a more integrated understanding of this unique form of aggression.

45
REFERENCES
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Angster, A., Frank, M., & Lester, D. (2010). An exploratory study of students’ use of cell
phones, texting, and social networking sites. Psychological Reports, 107, 402-
404.

Aquilino, W.S. (2006). Family relationships and support systems in emerging adulthood.
In Arnett, J.J., & Tanner, J.L. (Eds.). Emerging adults in America: Coming of age
of the 21
st
century (pp. 193-218). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological
Association.

Archer, J., & Coyne, S.M. (2005). An integrated review of indirect, relational, and social
aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 212-230.
doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0903_2.

Arias, I., & Beach, S.R.H. (1987). Validity of self-reports of marital violence. Journal of
Family Violence, 2, 139-149. doi: 10.1007/BF00977038.

Armsden, G.C. & Greenberg, M.T. (1987). The inventory of parent and peer attachment:
Individual differences and their relationship to psychological well-being in
adolescence. doi: 1007/BF02202939.

Arnett, J.J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens
through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469-480.
doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469.

Arnett, J.J. (2004). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through
the twenties. New York: Oxford University Press.

Auerbach, S. (2009). 1641: Screening out cyberbullies: Remedies for Victims. Cardozo
Law Review, 30,4.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewoods Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice Hall, Inc.

Bank, L., & Burratson, B. (2001). Abusive home environments as predictors of poor
adjustment during adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Community
Psychology, 29, 195-217. doi: 10.1002/jcop.1014.

46
Barber, B.K., & Harmon, E.L (2002). Parental psychological control: Implications for
childhood physical and relational aggression. In B.Barber (Ed.). Intrusive
Parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 15-
52). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (APA) Books.

Bargh, J.A., & McKenna, K.Y.A. (2004). The internet and social life. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 573-590. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141922.

Bennett, D.C., Guran, E.L., Ramos, M.C., & Margolin, G. (2011). College students’
electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships: Anticipated
distress and associations with risky behaviors. Violence and Victims.

Berzenski, S.R., & Yates, T.M.(2010). A developmental process analysis of the
contribution of childhood emotional abuse to relationship violence. Journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 19, 180-203.
doi: 10.1080/10926770903539474.

Bookwala, J., Frieze, I.H., Smith, C. & Ryan, K. (1992). Predictors of dating violence: A
multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 297-311.

Borsari, B., & Carey, K.B. (2001). Peer influences on college drinking: A review of the
research. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13, 391-424.
doi: 10.1016/S0899-3289(01)00098-0.

Boyatzis, R.E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code
development. New York: Sage.

Collins, W.A., & van Dulmen, M. (2006). Friendships and romance in emerging
adulthood: Assessing distinctiveness in close relationships. In Arnett, J.J., &
Tanner, J.L. (Eds.). Emerging adults in America: Coming of age of the 21
st

century (pp. 219-234). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Conger, R.D., Cui, M., Bryant, C.M., & Elder, G.H. (2000). Competence in early adult
romantic relationships: A developmental perspective on family influences.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 224-237.
doi: 10.1037/1522-3736.4.1.411a.

Creswell, J.W., & Clark, V.L.P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed-methods
research (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, California, SAGE Publications, Inc.

47
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender,
and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722.
doi: 10.2307/1131945.

Cui, M., Conger, R.D., Bryant, C.M., & Edler, G.H.J. (2002). Parental behavior and the
quality of adolescent friendships: A social contextual perspective. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 64, 676-689. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00676.x.

Curtis, W.J., & Cicchetti, D. (2007). Emotion and resilience: A multilevel investigation
of hemispheric electroencephalogram symmetry and emotion regulation in
maltreated and nonmaltreated children. Development and Psychopathology, 19,
811-840. doi: 10.1017/S095457907000405.

David-Ferdon, C., Hertz, M.F. (2009). Electronic media and youth violence: A CDC
issue brief for researchers. Atlanta (GA); Centers for Disease Control.

David-Ferdon, C., & Hertz, M. F. (2007). Electronic media, violence, and adolescents:
An emerging public health problem. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S1-S5.
doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.020.

Dodge, K.A. & Coie, J.D. (1987). Social-information-processing factors in reactive and
proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 53, 1146-1158. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1146.

Donnellan, M.B., Larsen-Rife, D., & Conger, R.D. (2005). Personality, family history,
and competence in early adult romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 88, 562-576, doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.3.562.

Ehrensaft, M.K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J.G. (2003).
Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 741-753.
doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.741.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R.A., Guthrie, I.K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional
emotionality and regulation: Their role in predicting quality of social functioning.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 136-157.
doi: 10.10037/0022-3514.78.1.136.

Eshbaugh, E.M. (2010). Friend and family support as moderators of the effects of low
romantic partner support on loneliness among college women. Individual
Differences Research, 8, 8-16.

48
Foo, L., & Margolin, G. (1995). A multivariate investigation of dating aggression.
Journal of Family Violence, 4, 351-377. doi: 10.1007/BF02110711.

Forke, C. M., Myers, R. K., Catallozzi, M., & Schwarz, D. F. (2008). Relationship
violence among female and male college undergraduate students. Archives of
Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 162, 634-641.

Goldstein, S.E., Chesir-Teran, D., & McFaul, A. (2008). Profiles and correlates of
relational aggression in young adults’ romantic relationships. Journal of Youth
Adolescence, 37, 251-265. doi: 10.1007/s10964-007-9255-6.

Gross, J.J., & Munoz, R.F. (2006). Emotion regulation and mental health. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 2, 151-164.
doi: 10.1111/j.1468- 2850.1995.tb00036.x.

Harper, F.W.K., Austin, A.G., Cercone, J.J. & Arias, I. (2005). The role of shame, anger,
and affect regulation in men’s perpetration of psychological abuse in dating
relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1648-1662.
doi: 10.1177/0886260505278717.

Hartup, W.W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course.
Psychological Bulleting, 121, 355-370. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.121.3.355.

Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical,
and sexual aggression among college students using the Revised Conflict Tactics
Scales. Violence and Victims, 18, 197-217. doi: 10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.197.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and
responding to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors
related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129-156.
doi: 10.1080/01639620701457816.

Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J.W. (2007). Offline consequences of online victimization:
School violence and Delinquency. Journal of School Violence, 6, 89-112.

Jin, B., & Park, N. (2010). In-person contact begets calling and texting: Interpersonal
motives for cell phone use, face-to-face interaction, and loneliness.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13, 611-618.
doi: 10.1089/cyber.2009.0314.

49
Kim, H.K., & Capaldi, D.M. (2004). The association of antisocial behavior and
depressive symptoms between partners and risk for aggression in romantic
relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 18, 82-96.
doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.18.1.82.

Kiriakidis, S. P., & Kavoura, A., (2010). Cyberbullying: A review of the literature on
harassment through the Internet and other electronic means. Family and
Community Health, 33, 82-93.

Klostermann, K.C., & Fals-Stewart (2005). Intimate partner violence and alcohol use:
Exploring the role of drinking in partner violence and its implications for
intervention. Addiction and Violent Behavior, 11, 587-597.
doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2005.08.008.

Kowalski, M.K., Limber, S.P. (2007). Electronic bullying among middle school students.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S22-S30. doi: 10.1016/jadohealth.2007.08.017.

Kroneman, L.M., Loeber, R., Hipwell, A.E., & Koot, H.M. (2009). Girls’ disruptive
behavior and its relationship to family functioning: A review. Journal of Family
Studies, 18, 259-273. doi: 10.1007/s10826-008-9226-x.

Lansford, J.E., Criss, M.M., Pettit, G.S., Dodge, K.A., & Bates, J.E. (2003). Friendship
quality, peer group affiliation, and peer antisocial behavior as moderators of the
link between negative parenting and adolescent externalizing behavior. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 13, 161-184. doi: 10.1111/1532-7795.1302002.

Leadbeater, B.J., Banister, E.M., Ellis, W.E., Yeung, R. (2008). Victimization and
relational aggression in adolescent romantic relationships: The influence of
parental and peer behaviors, and individual adjustment. Journal of Youth
Adolescence, 37, 359-372. doi: 10.1007/s10964-007-9269-0.

Li, Q. (2007). New bottle but old wine: A research of cyberbullying in schools.
Computers in Human Behaviors, 23, 1777-1791. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2005.10.005.

Linder, J.R., & Collins, W.A. (2005). Parent and peer predictors of physical aggression
and conflict management in romantic relationships in early adulthood. Journal of
Family Psychology, 19, 252-262. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.19.2.252.

Linder, J.R., Crick, N.R., & Collins, W.A. (2002). Relational aggression and
victimization in young adult’s romantic relationships: Associations with
perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationship quality. Social
Development, 11, 69-86. doi: 10.1111/1467-9507.00187.

50
Loeber, R., & Hay, D. (1997) Key issues in the development of aggression and violence
from childhood to early adulthood. Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 371-409.

Lopes, P.N., Salovey, P., Cote, S., & Beers, M. (2005). Emotion regulation abilities and
quality of social interaction. Emotion, 5, 113-118.
doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.113.

Margolin, G, & DeJonghe, E. (2008). How Friends Treat Each Other Questionnaire.

McKenna, K.Y.A. & Bargh, J.A. (2000). Plan 9 from cyberspace: The implications of the
internet for personality and social psychology. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 4, 57-75. doi: 10.1207.S15327957PSPR0401_6.

McKenna, M., Hawk, E., & Mullen, J., & Hertz, M. (2011). Bullying among middle
school and high school students. Retrieved from Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention: Your Online Source for Credible Health Information Website:
http:..www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6015a1.htm?s_cid=mm6015a
1_e&source=govdelivery.

McNulty, J.K., & Hellmuth, J.C. (2008). Emotion regulation and intimate partner
violence in newlyweds. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 794-797.
doi: 10.1037/a0013516.

Milletich, R.J., Kelley, M.L., Doane, A.N.D., & Pearson, M.R. (2010). Exposure to
interparental violence and childhood physical and emotional abuse as related to
physical aggression in undergraduate relationships. Journal of Family Violence,
25, 627-637. doi: 10.1007/s10896-010-9319-3.

Mitchell, KJ., Finkelhor, D., Wolak, J., Ybarra, M.L., & Turner, H. (2011). Youth
internet victimization in a broader victimization context. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 48, 128-134. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.06.009.

Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever
wanted: Does facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?
Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 4, 441-444. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0263.

Nelson, D.A., & Crick, N.R. (2002). Parental psychological control: Implications for
childhood physical and relational aggression. In B.Barber (Ed.). Intrusive
Parenting: How psychological control affects children and adolescents (pp. 161-
189). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association (APA) Books.

51
O’Malley, P., Johnston, L.D. (2002). Epidemiology of alcohol and other drug use among
American college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, suppl. 14, 23-39.

Parker, J.G., Rubin, K.H., Erath, S.A., Woislawowicz, J.C., & Buskirk, A.A. (2006). Peer
relationships, child development, and adjustment: A developmental
psychopathology perspective. In Chicchetti, D., & Cohen, D.J. (Eds.)
Developmental Psychopathology. Volume One: Theory and Method (2
nd
Ed.).
(419-493). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Pronk, R.E. & Zimmer-Gembeck (2010). It’s “Mean,” but what does it mean to
adolescents? Relational aggression described by victims, aggressors, and their
peers. Journal of Adolescent Research, 25, 175-204.
doi: 10.1177/0743558409350504.

Pornari, C.D., & Wood, J. (2010). Peer and cyber aggression in secondary school
students: The role of moral disengagement, hostile attribution bias, and outcome
expectancies. Aggressive Behaviors, 36, 81-94. doi: 10.1002/ab.20336.

Raskauskas, J., & Stolz, A.D. (2007). Involvement in traditional and electronic bullying
among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43, 564-575. doi: 10. 1037/0012-
1649.43.3.564.

Repetti, R.L., Taylor, S.E., & Seeman, T.E. (2002). Risky families: Family social
environments and the mental and physical health of offspring. Psychological
Bulletin, 128, 330-366. doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.128.2.330.

Schwartz, D., Gorman, A.H., Duong, M.T.D., & Nakamoto, J. (2008). Peer relationships
and academic achievement as interaction predictors of depressive symptoms
during middle childhood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 289-299.
doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.117.2.289.

Schwartz, D., Tobin, R.L., Abou-ezzeddine, T., Tom, S.R., & Stevens, K.I. (2005).
Difficult home environments and the development of aggressive victims of
bullying. In K.Kendall- Tacket & S. Giacomoni (Eds.) Child victimization:
maltreatment, bullying and dating violence; prevention and intervention (pp. 11.2-
11.9). Kingston, NJ. Civic Research Institute.

Schwartz, D., Dodge, K.A., Pettit, G.S., & Bates, J.E., & Conduct Problems Prevention
Research Group. (2000). Friendship as a moderating factor in the pathway
between early harsh home environment and later victimization in the peer group.
Developmental Psychology, 36, 646-662. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.36.5.646.

52
Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children: The
development and validation of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental
Psychology, 33, 906-916. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.903.

Smith, P. H., White, J. W., & Holland, L. J. (2003). A longitudinal perspective on dating
violence among adolescent and college-age women. American Journal of Public
Health, 93, 1104-1109. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1104.

Smith, P., Mahadavi, J., Carvalho, M., & Tippett, N. (2006). An investigation into
cyberbullying, its forms, awareness and impact, and the relationship between age
and gender in cyberbullying. A report to the Anti-Bullying Alliance (Research
Report No. RBX 03-06). Retrieved from Department of Education website:
http://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org/pdf/CyberbullyingreportFINAL230106.pdf.

Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (2008). 2008 Profile of the American
College Student: Technology Use. Retrieved from
http://www.naspa.org/2008%20technology%20use.pdf.

Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. (2008). Online communication and adolescent
relationships. The Future of Children, 18, 119-146. doi: 10.1353/foc.0.0006
Taylor, S.E., Lerner, J.S., Sage, R.M., Lehman, B.J., & Seeman, T.E. (2004). Early
environment, emotions, responses to stress. Journal of Personality, 72, 1365-
1393. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00300.x.

Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and
synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human
Behavior, 26, 277-287. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.11.014.

Underwood, M., & Rosen, L.H. (In press). Gender and bullying: Moving beyond mean
differences to consider conceptions of bullying, processes by which bullying
unfolds, and cyber bullying. To appear in Espelage, D., & Swearer, S. (Eds.).
Bullying in North American Schools, 2
nd
Edition, Routledge.

Valkenburg, P.M., & Peter, J.M. (2010). Online communication among adolescents: An
integrated model of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 48, 121-127. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.08.020.

Wang, J., Iannotti, R. J., & Nansel, T. R. (2009). School bullying among adolescents in
the United States: Physical, verbal, relational, and cyber. Journal of Adolescent
Health, 45, 368-375. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.021.

53
Werner, N.E., Crick, N.R. (1999). Relational aggression and social-psychological
adjustment in a college sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 615-623.
doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.108.4.615.

Willard, N.E. (2007). Cyber-bullying and cyber-threats: Responding to the challenge of
online social aggression, threats, and distress. Illinois: Research Press.

Williams, K.R., & Guerra, N.G. (2007). Prevalence and predictors of internet bullying.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S14-S21.
doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.08.018.

Williams, J.R., Ghandour, R.M., & Kub, J.E. (2008). Female perpetration of violence in
heterosexual intimate relationships: Adolescence through adulthood. Trauma
Violence Abuse, 9, 227-249. doi: 10. 1177/1524838008324418.

Wolfe, K.A., & Foshee, V.A. (2003). Family violence, anger expression styles, and
adolescent dating violence. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 309-316.
doi:10.1023/A:1026237914406.

Ybarra, M.L., Diener-West, M., & Leaf, P.J. (2007). Examining the overlap in internet
harassment and school bullying: Implications for school intervention. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41, S42-S50. doi: 10.1016/j.adohealth.2007.09.004.

Ybarra, M.L. (2004). Linkages between depressive symptomatology and internet
harassment among young regular internet users. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7,
247-257.doi: 10.1089/109493104323024500.

Ybarra, M.L., & Mitchell, K.J. (2004). Youth engaging in online harassment:
associations with caregiver-child relationships, Internet use, and personal
characteristics. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 319-336.
doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.03.007.

54
APPENDIX: MEASURES

How Friends Treat Each Other- Victimization

With respect to the PAST YEAR, please indicate whether each event happened with any of the
following people: Any friend, any boyfriend/girlfriend or an acquaintance or someone you barely
know. Think about these categories as broadly as possible. If someone falls into more than one
category, for example, was a friend and now is a boyfriend/girlfriend, just describe that person in
the one category that best applies.

0 = never happened
1 = happened 1-2 times
2 = happened 3-5 time
3 = happened 6-10 times
4 = happened more than 10 times

In the PAST YEAR, have any of these people done any of the following things to
you?

0 = never happened
1 = happened 1-2 times
2 = happened 3-5 time
3 = happened 6-10 times
4 = happened more than 10 times

Any
Friend
Any
Boyfriend/
Girlfriend
Acquaintance or
someone you
barely know
1. Bullied me through text messaging
2.
Wrote something mean or hurtful on a
website or through a chatroom/“bash-
board”

3.
Put a picture of me on website that I didn’t
want there

4. Took phone picture of me to embarrass me
5. Sent mean or hurtful e-mail
6. Sent mean or hurtful text message
7. Sent a threatening e-mail
8. Sent a threatening text message
9.
Intrusively called or texted me to monitor
or check up on me

10.
Used a fake online profile to interact with
me

11.
Posted an insulting/hurtful comment or
poke on a social networking site such as
Facebook or MySpace

12.
Posted an embarrassing photo of me on a
social networking site such as Facebook or
MySpace

55
0 = never happened
1 = happened 1-2 times
2 = happened 3-5 time
3 = happened 6-10 times
4 = happened more than 10 times

Any
Friend
Any
Boyfriend/
Girlfriend
Acquaintance or
someone you
barely know
13.
Circulated an embarrassing but true story
online

14.
Circulated an embarrassing but untrue
story online

15.
Created a website to hurt or embarrass
someone other than me

16.
Logged into my e-mail to make trouble for
me or check up on me

17.
Was jealous because of someone else’s
comments or internet comments about me

18.
Checked up on me by being deceitful on
the internet

19.
Blocked me on AIM or on a website such
as MySpace or Facebook

20.
Excluded me or shut me out from top
friend list

21.
Tried to make me jealous by
commenting/posting on someone else’s
internet page.

The following questions refer to items 1-21:

1. What do you think motivated this person (or these people) to do any of the above to
you?

2. Following the event(s) a) how did you respond b) how did it make you feel?

3. Have you ever used alcohol or drugs before experiencing any of the above items (1-
21)?

4. Do you think that the person doing the above actions (1-21) ever used any alcohol or
drugs beforehand

56
How Friends Treat Each Other- Perpetration

With respect to the PAST YEAR, please indicate whether each event happened with any
of the following people: Any friend, any boyfriend/girlfriend or an acquaintance or
someone you barely know. Think about these categories as broadly as possible. If
someone falls into more than one category, for example, was a friend and now is a
boyfriend/girlfriend, just describe that person in the one category that best applies.

0 = never happened
1 = happened 1-2 times
2 = happened 3-5 time
3 = happened 6-10 times
4 = happened more than 10 times

In the PAST YEAR, have you done any of the following things to any of the
following people?

0 = never happened
1 = happened 1-2 times
2 = happened 3-5 time
3 = happened 6-10 times
4 = happened more than 10 times

Any
Friend
Any
Boyfriend/
Girlfriend
Acquaintance or
someone you
barely know
1. Bullied through text messaging
2.
Wrote something mean or hurtful on a website
or through a chatroom/“bash-board”

3.
Put a picture of someone on a website they
didn’t want there

4.
Took phone picture of someone to embarrass
them

5. Sent mean or hurtful e-mail
6. Sent mean or hurtful text message
7. Sent a threatening e-mail
8. Sent a threatening text message
9.
Intrusively called or texted someone to
monitor or check up on them

10.
Used a fake online profile to interact with
someone

11.
Posted an insulting/hurtful comment or poke
on a social networking site such as Facebook
or MySpace

12.
Posted an embarrassing photo of someone on
social a networking site such as Facebook or
MySpace

13. Circulated an embarrassing but true story

57
0 = never happened
1 = happened 1-2 times
2 = happened 3-5 time
3 = happened 6-10 times
4 = happened more than 10 times

Any
Friend
Any
Boyfriend/
Girlfriend
Acquaintance or
someone you
barely know
online
14.
Circulated an embarrassing but untrue story
online

15.
Created a website to hurt or embarrass
someone

16.
Logged into someone’s e-mail to make trouble
for or check up on them

17.
Was jealous because of someone else’s
comments or internet comments about them

18.
Checked up on someone by being deceitful on
the internet

19.
Blocked someone on AIM or on a website
such as MySpace or Facebook

20.
Excluded someone or shut them out from my
top friend list

21.
Tried to make them jealous by
commenting/posting on someone else’s
internet page

The following questions refer to items 1-21:
1. If you have ever done any of the above items (1-21) please describe what
motivated you.
2. If any, what were the consequences of these actions? How did the recipient of these
actions respond?

3. Have you ever used alcohol or drugs before engaging in any of these actions (Items
1-21)?

4. Do you think that the recipient of these actions (1-21) ever used any drugs or
alcohol beforehand?

58
Risky Family Questionnaire

These are questions about your childhood and early adolescence (age 5 – 15). Please
think over your family life and answer these questions.

1. How often did a parent or other adult in the household make you feel that you were
loved, supported, and cared for?

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Choose to
Skip
Not at All Very
Often

2. How often did a parent or other adult in the household swear at you, insult you, put
you down, or act in a way that made you feel threatened?

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Choose to
Skip
Not at All Very
Often

3. How often did a parent or other adult in the household express physical affection for
you, such as hugging, or other physical gestures of warmth and affection?

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Choose to
Skip
Not at All Very
Often

4. How often did a parent or other adult in the household push, grab, shove, or slap you?

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Choose to
Skip
Not at All Very
Often

59
5. How often did you feel that you could talk to a parent or other adult about important
things in your life?

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Choose to
Skip
Not at All Very
Often

6. In your childhood, did you live with anyone who was a problem drinker or alcoholic,
or who used street drugs?

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Choose to
Skip
Not at All Very
Often

7. Would you say that the household you grew up in was well-organized and well-
managed?

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Choose to
Skip
Not at All Very
Often

8. How often would you say that a parent or other adult in the household behaved
violently toward a family member or visitor in your home?

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Choose to
Skip
Not at All Very
Often

60

9. How often would you say there was quarreling, arguing, or shouting between your
parents?

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Choose to
Skip
Not at All Very
Often

10. How often would you say there was quarreling, arguing, or shouting between you
and one of your parents?

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Choose to
Skip
Not at All Very
Often

11. How often would you say there was quarreling, arguing, or shouting between a
parent and one of your siblings?

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Choose to
Skip
Not at All Very
Often

12. How often would you say there was quarreling, arguing, or shouting between you
and one of your siblings?

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Choose to
Skip
Not at All Very
Often

61
13. Would you say the household you grew up in was chaotic and disorganized?

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Choose to
Skip
Not at All Very
Often

14. How often would you say you were neglected while you were growing up, that is,
left on your own to fend for yourself?

1 2 3 4 5 N/A Choose to
Skip
Not at All Very
Often

62
Emotions Checklist

DIRECTIONS: Please look at each description and choose how often it is true for you.

Never
true
Sometimes
true
Often
true
Almost
always
true
1. I can recover after stressful experiences

2. I have rapid shifts in mood

3. I can acknowledge unpleasant experiences

4. I overreact to minor frustration

5. I am warm and responsive

6. I show recognition of others’ feelings

7. I develop genuine and close relationships

8. I tend to be rigidly repetitive when stressed

9. I am inappropriate when showing emotion

10. I tend to go to pieces under stress

63

Peer Attachment Scale

Please indicate whether the following items are almost never or never true, seldom true,
sometimes true, often true, or almost or always true

Almost
never/
Always
never
Seldom
true
Sometimes
true
Often
true
Almost
always/
Always
true
1. I like to get my friends’ point of view on
things I’m concerned about

2. My friends sense when I’m upset about
something

3. When we discuss things, my friends consider
my point of view

4. Talking over my problems with my friends
makes me feel ashamed or foolish

5. I wish I had different friends

6. My friends understand me

7. My friends encourage me to talk about my
difficulties

8. My friends accept me as I am

9. I feel the need to be in touch with my friends
more often

10. My friends don’t understand what I’m going
through these days

11. I feel alone or apart when I am with my
friends

12. My friends listen to what I have to say

13. I feel my friends are good friends

14. My friends are fairly easy to talk to

64

15. When I am angry about something, my friends
try to be understanding

16. My friends help me understand myself better

17. My friends are concerned with my well-being

18. I feel angry with my friends

19. I can count on my friends when I need to get
something off my chest

20. I trust my friends

21. My friends respect my feelings

22. I get upset a lot more than my friends know
about

23. It seems as if my friends are irritated with me for
no reason

24. I tell my friends about my problems and troubles

25. If my friends know something is bothering me,
they ask me about it

65
Electronic Use

1.
Approximately how much time
do you spend using the
following?
Never
Under
an hour
a day
1-3
hours a
day
3-6
hours a
day
Over 6
hours a
day
a) E-mail

b)
Instant Messenger
(AIM, Google Messenger, etc.)

c) Chat Rooms

d)
Blogs
(JuicyCampus, LiveJournal, Blogger, etc.)

e)
Personal Profile sites (Facebook,
Myspace, etc.)

f) Message boards

g) Text messaging

h) Twitter

i) Webcams

66
Coding System: Electronic Aggression Motivations

CODE 1: Benign- A statement would be assigned this code if the person perpetrating the
action did not have the intention to hurt anyone (even if someone did accidentally get
hurt). For example, participants may report that they have engaged in cyber related
behaviors that may have been misinterpreted and accidentally hurt someone.

Examples:
“I have sent email messages that I didn't try to make sound mean, but sometimes he
interprets them as me being too sharp. Same with text messages, but I don't mean to.”

CODE 2: Humor- This code is used for responses indicating that the primary motivation
underlying these behaviors was entertainment or humor. This encompasses statements of
friends jokingly making fun of each other, or simply that these actions were for
“entertainment” or “fun”

Examples:
“My friends and I make fun of each other a lot, so it was just bantering back and forth.”

“Any embarrassing pictures of friends have been out of love”

“I found it entertaining”

CODE 3: Insecurity and Jealousy: Participants list jealousy, curiosity, suspicion, and
insecurity as reasons for behaviors. This includes checking up on a significant other by
logging into his/her e-mail account or intrusively monitoring him/her through texting.
The motivation primarily stems from the fact that people are insecure about themselves
or their relationships and use the internet/texting as a way to handle such. Curiosity may
be included in this code when it is thought that the underlying theme behind this curiosity
is “I am curious because I am insecure about this relationship.”

Examples:
“I am possessive and jealous of my boyfriend. I guess I have insecurity issues.”

“I know my boyfriends Facebook password and I can't help but check it to make sure he's
not being deceitful. I don't know what's motivating me because I have never found
ANYTHING to make me think anything bad is going on, but I can't help myself.”

“I have trust problems with my boyfriend so from time to time I will check up on him”

67

CODE 4: Retaliation - The participant writes that he/she reacted aggressively as
retaliation against a perceived negative/aggressive act that occurred either on-line
(writing a mean text in response to another mean text) or in a face-to-face setting (posting
a nasty comment on-line in response to something hurtful someone said in person). It
must be clear from the statement that this person felt as if someone had done something
to them, so they did something to get back at them. This code also includes acts of
revenge.

Examples:
“I tried not to but sometimes my ex boyfriend was so mean and hurtful I could not help
but say something back to him.”

“I was feeling hurt by my close friends or boyfriend and wanted to make them feel hurt
and jealous.”

CODE 5: Negative Emotions- A response is given this code when it is clear that anger,
frustration, hurt, or other negative emotions motivated these behaviors. Feeling scared,
however, would generally not be included in this code unless it is accompanied by
another negative emotion (See self-protection below). This would generally not be coded
if it is clear that the response can be better explained by retaliation, such as “My
boyfriend did something to upset so I wanted to get back at him).

Examples:
“Anger”

“Jealousy. Anger. Frustration. Anxiousness.”

CODE 6: Self-Protection/Privacy: Participants report engaging in these behaviors
because they feel unsafe or want to prevent themselves from getting hurt. This code is
also used when a motivation includes the desire to cut off access to internet information
in order to keep it private, or as a way to take preventative measures against aggression.

Examples:
“The person was harassing me and I had to block them on Facebook.”

“If someone else has done something to me, I don't want them in my life and might block
them so they can no longer hurt me.”

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Although research on electronic aggression (EA) among adolescents is burgeoning, little is known about these behaviors among college students. The present study employed quantitative and qualitative methods to gain a comprehensive understanding of the nature and risk correlates of electronic victimization and perpetration in college peer and romantic relationships. We proposed an association between risky family environments and EA victimization and perpetration, but that peer support and emotion regulation would moderate these relations. We also qualitatively examined the immediate context of EA, namely motivations and substance use. Two hundred twenty six university students completed an on-line battery of questionnaires. There were no overall sex differences in EA rates, though different patterns of involvement emerged for males and females. Overall, peer support and emotion regulation attenuated the connection between family risk and EA involvement. Qualitative analyses indicated that although many electronically aggressive acts were driven by jealousy, insecurity, or negative motivations, others were done out of humor. Substance use may also play a role. Findings suggest the need to examine EA within the context of off-line relationships, as well as question assumptions that these behaviors are always thought to be malicious to those involved.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

You always say that: physical aggression perpetration, linguistic behavior, and conflict intensity in young adult dating couples

PDF

Spouse aggression, depression, and physical health: a multivariate longitudinal study of midlife couples

PDF

The impact of naturally-occurring rumination on aggression

PDF

Children's triggered displaced aggression

PDF

Prior exposure to aggression and young adults' negative expectancies about romantic partner discussions

PDF

Using observed peer discussions to understand adolescent depressive symptoms and interpersonal interactions

PDF

Stigma-based peer aggression and social status in middle adolescence: the unique implications of weight-related aggression

PDF

Biological and behavioral correlates of emotional flexibility and associations with exposure to family aggression

PDF

Popularity as a predictor of friendship affiliation in adolescence

PDF

The link between the expression of negative emotion and future well-being: the role of disclosure modality in an East Asian American population

PDF

The role of social status and gender in the composition of bully-victim dyads in early adolescence

PDF

Emotion regulation as a mechanism linking parents’ marital aggression to adolescent behavioral problems: a longitudinal analysis

PDF

Implicit theory ideology about human attributes and aggression

PDF

Cumulative risk as a moderator of multisystemic therapy effects for juvenile offenders

PDF

A "second chance" program for vulnerable young adults: a program evaluation and a randomized controlled trial of adjunctive motivational interviewing to improve retention

PDF

Dynamics of victimization, aggression, and popularity in adolescence

PDF

Identity, perceived discrimination, and attenuated positive psychotic symptoms among college students

PDF

Examining the longitudinal relationships between community violence exposure and aggressive behavior among a sample of maltreated and non-maltreated adolescents

PDF

Links between discrimination and sleep difficulties: romantic relationships as risk and resilience factors

PDF

Savoring the service: a mixed-methods study of Latine community health workers’ health promotion efforts

Asset Metadata

Creator Kellerman, Ilana Judith (author)

Core Title An investigation of the factors associated with electronic aggression among college students

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Degree Conferral Date 2011-12

Publication Date 09/19/2011

Defense Date 06/20/2011

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag college student,electronic aggression,emerging adult,Internet,OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Margolin, Gayla (committee chair), Jr. (committee member), Lyon, Thomas D. (committee member), (Huey, Stanley J.)

Creator Email ikellerm@usc.edu,ilana.kellerman@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC1399257

Unique identifier UC1399257

Identifier etd-KellermanI-285.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-KellermanI-285

Dmrecord 655833

Document Type Thesis

Format theses (aat)

Rights Kellerman, Ilana Judith

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu