Summary by Louise Wallace
Research Highlights
Cyber intimate partner violence in adolescence is linked to both individual traits and prior experiences. Higher psychopathic traits, antisocial and law-violating behaviour, and prior dating violence were all associated with greater involvement in cyber abuse. Family violence patterns also matter: child-to-mother violence was associated with some forms of cyber intimate partner violence, particularly cyber aggression and cyber victimisation. The configurational analyses further suggested that some adolescents may experience cyber victimisation even in the absence of the risk factors that the study measured, which supports the usefulness of broad-based approaches to prevent violence.
Background
In the evolving digital landscape, adolescents are increasingly forming and maintaining relationships online. While these interactions can support healthy connections, they also expose young people to risks such as cyber intimate partner violence, a form of abuse occurring in romantic relationships through digital means. Cyber intimate partner violence includes cyber aggression such as insults, threats, or humiliation online, and cyber control such as monitoring a partner’s online activity or demanding their passwords.
Research suggests that cyber intimate partner violence in adolescence can be gendered, with girls generally reported to experience more negative consequences and boys more frequently reported as perpetrators, although findings are somewhat mixed. Prior studies also link individual risk factors such as psychopathic traits, antisocial and law-violating behaviour, and child-to-parent violence to cyber intimate partner violence. These factors are often associated with lower empathy, emotion regulation difficulties, and increased aggression. Past experiences of dating violence are also strong predictors of future involvement in cyber abuse.
Spanish adolescents may be particularly vulnerable to cyber violence given their high social media use. However, studies on cyber intimate partner violence in Spain are limited and often rely on linear models. Tamarit and colleagues (2025) addressed that gap by using both hierarchical regression and fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis, allowing the authors to examine both individual predictors and combinations of factors that can lead to similar outcomes.
How was the study done?
The study used a cross-sectional design and included 207 Spanish adolescents aged 14 to 18, who were recruited via convenience sampling from different kinds of schools in Valencia. Participants completed validated self-report questionnaires assessing psychopathic traits, antisocial and law-violating behaviour, child-to-parent violence, dating violence, and cyber intimate partner violence (including perpetrated cyber aggression and cyber control, and experienced cyber aggression and cyber control). Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Universitat de València, and informed consent was obtained from participants and their guardians. Data were analysed using hierarchical regression and fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis.
What were the findings?
Gender differences
Males scored significantly higher than females on psychopathic traits and antisocial and law-violating behaviour. No gender differences were found for the other variables examined.
Correlational analyses
There were moderate, positive associations between most variables. Psychopathic traits were related to all forms of cyber intimate partner violence except cyber victimisation, which in this study refers to experienced cyber aggression. In the correlational analyses, child-to-parent violence towards the father was not significantly related to the cyber outcomes.
Hierarchical regression analyses
The hierarchical regression models examined predictors of perpetrated cyber aggression, perpetrated cyber control, cyber victimisation (experienced cyber aggression), and received cyber control (experienced cyber control). Across models, dating violence and child-to-parent violence were particularly important, and psychopathic traits were most strongly linked to perpetrated cyber control.
For perpetrated cyber aggression, the final model explained 23% of the variance, with key predictors including a history of child-to-parent violence towards both parents and experienced dating violence. For perpetrated cyber control, the final model explained 40% of the variance, with perpetrated and experienced dating violence as key predictors and psychopathic traits also contributing to how often people reported engaging in cyber control over others. For cyber victimisation, defined as experienced cyber aggression, the final model explained 34% of the variance, with key predictors including child-to-parent violence towards both parents and experienced dating violence. For received cyber control, defined as experienced cyber control, the final model explained 36% of the variance, with key predictors including child-to-parent violence towards the father and experienced dating violence.
Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis
The configurational analyses identified multiple pathways leading to high and low levels of perpetrated cyber control, cyber victimisation, and received cyber control. No single condition was necessary on its own; rather, different combinations of conditions were sufficient for similar outcomes.
- For high perpetrated cyber control, five pathways explained 72% of cases. The most prominent configuration involved the presence of psychopathic traits alongside perpetrated and experienced dating violence, and this configuration accounted for 62% of cases. Another prominent pathway combined experienced and perpetrated dating violence with child-to-parent violence towards the mother, accounting for 54% of cases. A further pathway combined psychopathy and antisocial and law-violating behaviour with experienced dating violence and the absence of child-to-parent violence towards the father, accounting for 35% of cases.
- For low perpetrated cyber control, five pathways explained 87% of cases. The most prominent configuration was the absence of experienced dating violence, accounting for 75% of cases. Other relevant configurations included the absence of perpetrated dating violence, and the combination of the absence of psychopathic traits and the absence of antisocial and law-violating behaviour.
- For high cyber victimisation, defined as experienced cyber aggression, thirteen pathways explained 96% of cases. One prominent configuration, accounting for 46% of cases, involved the absence of psychopathy and the absence of child-to-parent violence towards both parents. Another prominent configuration, also accounting for 46% of cases, combined the presence of psychopathic traits and antisocial and law-violating behaviour with both perpetrated and experienced dating violence. Another relevant pathway, accounting for 44% of cases, involved the absence of antisocial and law-violating behaviour, the absence of child-to-parent violence towards both parents, and the absence of experienced dating violence.
- For low cyber victimisation, eight pathways explained 77% of cases. A prominent configuration, accounting for 49% of cases, involved the presence of perpetrated dating violence alongside the absence of experienced dating violence. Another relevant configuration, accounting for 38% of cases, combined the absence of antisocial and law-violating behaviour and the absence of experienced dating violence with the presence of child-to-parent violence towards the father. A further pathway, accounting for 36% of cases, included the presence of psychopathy, the absence of antisocial and law-violating behaviour, child-to-parent violence towards the mother, and experienced dating violence.
- For high received cyber control, defined as experienced cyber control, three pathways explained 51% of cases. The most prominent configuration, accounting for 35% of cases, involved the presence of psychopathy and antisocial and law-violating behaviour, both perpetrated and experienced dating violence, and the absence of child-to-parent violence towards the father. For low received cyber control, seven pathways explained 72% of cases. A key protective configuration involved the absence of antisocial and law-violating behaviour.
What are the implications of this study?
This study helps explain why some adolescents engage in, or are exposed to, harmful behaviour in online romantic relationships. It suggests that cyber intimate partner violence is linked to a range of factors, including psychopathic traits, antisocial and law-violating behaviour, violence within the family context, and prior experiences of dating violence. The findings suggest that there is no single pathway into cyber abuse; instead, different combinations of risk factors appear to contribute to perpetration of violence and to victimisation.
A notable contribution of the study is its focus on how risk factors interact. For example, young people who have been involved in violent or controlling romantic relationships offline may be more likely to reproduce similar patterns online. The associations with child-to-parent violence towards mothers may also be relevant for understanding how some adolescents relate to female authority figures and, potentially, female partners, although further research is needed to interpret these patterns. The study also indicates that cyber victimisation can occur even when clear risk factors are not present, supporting prevention efforts that reach a broad range of adolescents. Studies like this suggest the value of violence prevention programs that teach adolescents relationship skills and that support emotion regulation and boundary-setting, alongside digital education that challenges jealousy and surveillance norms.
Article summarized:
Tamarit, A., Lacomba-Trejo, L., & González-Sala, F. (2025). Cyber intimate partner violence in adolescents: How do psychopathy and family dynamics shape teens’ online relationships? Children, 12(6), 693. https://doi.org/10.3390/children12060693
