Abstract
As the nature of interpersonal communication has shifted with the widespread use of technology, so have the possibilities for abuse. Like face-to-face abuse, digital abuse can be stressful. Digital dating abuse is an emerging form of dating violence in the United States and is thought to have serious health effects on young people. The types of coping strategies used by victims have important implications for their overall health and well-being. Research suggests that the differing social positions of young women and young men will lead them to handle dating conflicts differently. Here, we assert that young women in digitally abusive relationships function as co-cultural group members in dominant societal structures. As such, co-cultural theory was employed to better understand how young adult women’s coping strategies function both adaptively and maladaptively. Specifically, 10 semistructured, in-depth interviews were conducted at a large mid-Atlantic university with young women who were previously in a digitally abusive heterosexual romantic relationship. Thematic analyses revealed three factors that influence the adaptive nature of their coping: time-based efficacy, normalization of abuse, and directness of communication. Overall, the women largely chose to enact maladaptive coping strategies when dealing with digital dating abuse.
Dating abuse is a serious and underreported public health problem in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2011). Dating abuse has been defined as the actual or threatened physical, sexual, psychological, or emotional aggression within a dating relationship, including stalking. It can take place in person or electronically and can occur between a current or former dating partner (CDC, 2011). College students are an especially important group to study, given the high rates of dating abuse on college campuses (Nabors, Dietz, & Jasinksi, 2006). Reviews of the literature indicate that 10–50% of college students experience some form of dating abuse (Kaukinen, 2014), and when psychological abuse (i.e., disparaging or hurtful comments) is considered, more than 80% of college students report experiencing such behaviors (e.g., Harned, 2002).
Advancements in technology (e.g., the Internet, cellular phones, social networking sites) have created new ways for people to connect socially and new tools for those involved in dating relationships to harass, control, and abuse their partners (Zweig, Dank, Yahner, & Lachman, 2013). Recently, studies have highlighted the multiple ways in which technology facilitates or propagates abuse between young people in dating relationships, including being emotionally or verbally abusive to a partner and monitoring or controlling the activities or whereabouts of a partner (Draucker & Martsolf, 2010), demanding unwanted sex from a partner (Houck et al., 2014), and publicly distributing nude or seminude photos of a partner (Picard, 2007). As such, “digital dating abuse” involves the implicit and explicit use of technology to control, demean, threaten, or stalk another person in the context of a dating relationship. Research suggests that almost half of all young people (Dick et al., 2014) and almost 70% of college students report being victims of this type of abuse (Reed, Tolman, & Ward, 2016).
Consistent with other forms of abuse (e.g., physical, sexual, or psychological abuse), digital dating abuse has harmful effects on victims’ health. Recent studies suggest that digital dating abuse is associated with fear, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation (e.g., Drouin, Ross, & Tobin, 2015). Moreover, victims of digital dating abuse have been found to engage more often in health-risk behaviors such as heavy episodic drinking (Van Ouytsel, Ponnet, Walrave, & Temple, 2016) and contraceptive nonuse (Dick et al., 2014). Female college students have reported more negative hypothetical reactions to sexual messaging than male college students (Reed et al., 2016), and recent research in teenagers found that young women were more upset by digital dating abuse victimization behaviors than young men (Reed, Tolman, & Ward, 2017). As such, digital dating abuse is the source of a great deal of psychological distress for many young women. Yet, some women manage to emerge from abusive relationships with fewer negative outcomes than others (Waldrop & Resick, 2004). This points to the need for investigations aimed at understanding how coping strategies are used and how young women act in response to specific abusive situations.
Despite the tremendous amount of research on coping over the past two decades, studies of coping strategies in samples of abused women are few, and no scholarly research to date has focused on coping strategies in samples of digitally abused women. Little integrative work has been done with this population; much of the coping research that does exist in populations of abused women has been descriptive in nature. Researchers in this area also tend to overlook contextual issues when evaluating the adaptive and maladaptive nature of victims’ coping strategies (Waldrop & Resick, 2004). Coping is typically viewed as adaptive to the extent that it reduces immediate distress and promotes well-being (Zeidner & Saklofske, 1996). However, coping strategies might appear beneficial in a given situation, but when considered in the broader stressor context, may actually undermine well-being (Tennen, Affleck, Armeli, & Carney, 2000). Given that young women in dating relationships often continue with their abusive partners, there appears to be a potential disconnect between the coping efforts they use to contend with their day-to-day relationship experiences and their ability to maintain or protect their long-term well-being (Matheson, Skomorovsky, Fiocco, & Anisman, 2007). We argue that a digitally abusive relationship creates a special set of circumstances under which a young woman decides how to react and that those circumstances cannot be ignored in understanding her ways of coping with the violence.
Using a co-cultural theoretical frame of analysis, this study aims to better understand the adaptive and maladaptive functions of co-cultural communication strategies enacted by young adult women in digitally abusive heterosexual romantic relationships. Specifically, we want to know the types of co-cultural strategies enacted and how these co-cultural strategies function to impact the women’s well-being. The study of communicative tensions and strategies associated with this dilemma may inform violence prevention education for youth and adults alike.
Dating Abuse and Digital Media Use
Over the last two decades, the use of new communication technologies among younger generations has risen substantially. According to statistics gathered by the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 78% of adolescents report having a cell phone, 93% have their own computer, 63% exchange text messages daily, and 29% report daily communication through social networking sites (Lenhart, Arafeh, Smith, & MacGill, 2008). The use of digital media continues into young adulthood. Research indicates that 92% of young adults (aged 18–24) who are not college students are using the Internet, while 100% of college students are Internet users (Vitak, 2008). Analyses of digital behaviors among college students indicate that 88% of college women and 83% of college men text message daily (Bennett, Guran, Ramos, & Margolin, 2011). Digital media have therefore become an important social relational context for adolescents and young adults, through which much of their daily social interactions with peers and dating partners occur. With such availability to technology, abusive partners have greater power and opportunity to cause emotional damage to their companions.
While more is known about the use of technology in general and cyberbullying among teens, less is known about the extent to which young people experience dating violence via technology (i.e., digital dating abuse). Draucker and Martsolf (2010) conducted a qualitative study with 56 youth to examine the role of electronic communication in adolescent dating violence and abuse. Their study found eight ways in which technology was used to abuse a romantic partner, the last six of which were related to violence, abuse, or controlling behaviors: (1) establishing a relationship, (2) nonaggressive communication, (3) arguing, (4) monitoring the whereabouts of a partner or controlling their activities, (5) emotional aggression toward a partner, (6) seeking help during a violent episode, (7) distancing a partner’s access to self by not responding to calls texts and other contacts via technology, and (8) reestablishing contact after a violent episode. Qualitative narrative from this study provides examples of digital dating abuse, such as a male hacking into his partner’s Facebook account, reading all of the messages she had posted or received, and then making her explain them to him. Another example involved one partner creating a “hate website” about his former partner and allowing others to post to it with similarly degrading insults. Based on this work, it is clear that young people can use technology in various ways to control and abuse their dating partners.
However, few studies address digital dating abuse among young adults. Bennett, Guran, Ramos, and Margolin (2011) surveyed 437 college students to compare electronic victimization among friends and dating partners. Findings indicate high rates of electronic victimization: 72.3% reported experiencing hostility by friends or dating partners, 73.5% reported intrusiveness, 42.6% reported exclusion, and 73.2% reported humiliation. College students anticipated greater psychological distress from electronic victimization perpetrated by a dating partner than by a friend (Bennett et al., 2011). Another study conducted by Reed, Tolman, and Ward (2016) examined victimization and perpetration of potentially harmful digital behaviors among college students in dating relationships. Some of the most common behaviors reported included monitoring a dating partner’s whereabouts, monitoring with whom a dating partner is friends and/or talks to, and snooping into a dating partner’s private information using digital media. Combined, these studies indicate that digital dating abuse is an issue in young adults’ dating relationships.
Our study explores the digital behaviors that can cause harm to female college students within the same-sex dating relationships. Drawing from the scarce existing literature, we have chosen to call these behaviors “digital dating abuse” (Family Violence Prevention Fund, 2009; Reed et al., 2016). The term has three elements: “digital,” which in our conceptualization includes cell phones, computers, and Internet communication rather than face-to-face interaction; “dating,” which refers to former adolescent and young adult romantic relationships; and “abuse,” which implies a pattern of behavior that “controls, pressures, harasses, threatens, or otherwise harms a dating partner” (Reed et al., 2016, p. 1558). Although we emphasize a pattern of behaviors to help contextualize the term abuse, we recognize that some behaviors can be harmful and abusive if they happen only once (e.g., pressure to engage in sexual activity through digital messages). Other harmful behaviors may include digital communication that is aggressive and/or involves an imbalance in power between the victim and perpetrator (Dooley, Pyzalski, & Cross, 2009). Given the seriousness of digitally abusive relationships, it is imperative that women develop effective communication strategies to cope in these environments.
Coping Strategies
Coping is defined as “cognitive and behavioral efforts to master, reduce, or tolerate the internal and/or external demands that are created by stressful transactions” (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141). Modes of coping have been conceptualized along a number of dimensions or across several theoretical-based approaches. These are typically categorized into two (e.g., problem-focused vs. emotion-focused, active vs. passive, adaptive vs. maladaptive), three (e.g., behavioral-focused, cognitive-focused, emotional-focused), or four (e.g., problem-focused, reappraisal, reorganization, avoidance) higher order coping categories (Billings & Moos, 1981; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). This analysis focuses on adaptive (i.e., healthy actions that enhance well-being and resilience) and maladaptive (i.e., unhealthy actions that inhibit well-being and resilience) coping strategies.
According to stress and coping theory (Lazarus, 1966; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), adaptive responses are those “directed at remedying a threatening or harmful external situation” (Kohn, 1996, p. 189) and often tend to have positive implications for an individual’s health and well-being (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Conversely, maladaptive responses are defined as “ventilating, managing, or palliating an emotional response to a situation” (Kohn, 1996, p. 189) and are typically associated with negative adaptation (Billings & Moos, 1981; Kohn, 1996). Individuals who use maladaptive coping styles to deal with life stressors are more likely to have poorer health outcomes than others (Najdowski & Ullman, 2011). For example, substantial evidence indicates that adaptive coping responses to stressful life events are strongly associated with lower levels of neuroticism and depression, higher levels of conscientiousness and openness in personal relationships, and overall psychological health (McWilliams, Cox, & Enns, 2003). However, differences in individuals’ coping styles may be influenced by other factors (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub, 1989). Adaptive coping strategies, for instance, are more likely to be used when a situation is appraised as changeable, whereas maladaptive strategies tend to be used when a situation is assessed as unchangeable (Folkman, Lazarus, Dunkel-Schetter, DeLongis, & Gruen, 1986). As a result, maladaptive coping can lead to positive outcomes, although to a lesser extent than adaptive coping.
Generally, there are two perspectives that commonly appear in the literature on coping: the interindividual approach and the intraindividual approach. The first describes responses to stress in terms of coping “styles” that a person is expected to use across different types of stressors (Cohen, 1987). The second approach suggests that people change their coping strategies according to the various types of stressors (Cohen, 1987; Swindle & Moos, 1992). Empirical evidence in the coping literature has supported the intraindividual approach, in that although individuals may have preferred ways of coping with stressors, their actual responses to stressors tend to vary based on the distinctive characteristics of the stressful situation (Holahan, Moos, & Schaefer, 1996). For example, women in abusive relationships are particularly likely to use avoidant coping (Waldrop & Resick, 2004), which may be reinforced because it temporarily alleviates distress. The use of avoidant strategies might be further reinforced among women in abusive situations because they provide some degree of perceived control (Matheson et al., 2007). However, this sense of “control” did not culminate in greater problem-focused coping efforts among abused women (Pape & Arias, 1995). Essentially, coping strategies may appear to be effective when they provide women with short-term “benefits” in terms of reducing distress or promoting subjective appraisals of control. Yet, because these women continue to experience abuse, the use of such strategies is likely counterproductive in that they may promote poorer long-term outcomes, such as depression. Consequently, an examination on how coping strategies function in the context of digitally abusive relationships is important. Here, we examine this issue through a co-cultural theoretical lens.
Co-Cultural Theorizing
Co-cultural theory, as described by Orbe (1998), assists in understanding the ways in which persons who are traditionally marginalized in dominant societal structures communicate in their everyday lives with a particular focus on how they communicate with in-group, as well as dominant group, members. Grounded in muted group (e.g., Kramarae, 1981), standpoint theories (e.g., Smith, 1987), and phenomenology (Husserl, 2006), co-cultural theory provides insight into the communication strategies of people marginalized in terms of race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, disability, and sexual orientation. Specifically, there are nine particular co-cultural communication orientations, through which 26 different co-cultural communication strategies have been distinguished (for an extensive summary, see Castle Bell, Hopson, Weathers, & Ross, 2014). A more thorough analysis of these orientations and strategies reveals that each represents an intricate selection process based on six primary factors (i.e., field of experience, perceived costs and rewards, communication approach, preferred outcomes, abilities, and situational context; see Orbe 1998).
Of particular interest to this study is Orbe’s (1998) communication orientation, a concept that refers to a specific stance that co-cultural group members assume during their everyday interactions. According to Orbe (1998), communication orientation is primarily influenced by two components, communication approach and preferred outcome. The first, communication approach, is conceptualized as the communication stance with which one interacts with dominant group members. In its most basic form, a nonassertive approach is one in which an abused woman is nonconfrontational, inhibited, and places the needs of her abusive partner before her own. Assertive communication involves expressive behavior that considers both self and other needs equally (Orbe, 1998). The aggressive approach involves overly expressive, confrontational, and attacking communication (Orbe, 1998). The second component, preferred outcome, centers on the co-cultural group members’ consideration of the eventual impact of their communication with others. One preferred outcome, assimilation, aims at eliminating perceptions of cultural differences to fit in with dominant group members (Orbe, 1998). Accommodation expects dominant groups to change to encompass the life experiences of each co-cultural group (Orbe, 1996). Separation opposes forming a common bond with dominant group members or with other co-cultures, so as to maintain a unique group identity (Orbe, 1998).
Another important consideration in co-cultural communication is situational context. Given the socially embedded nature of co-cultural theory, it makes sense that different orientations are considered the most appropriate and effective depending on the specific situational circumstances (Orbe, 1998). In other words, strategies do not necessarily embody predetermined appropriateness and effectiveness. Rather, those two parameters are situational properties that emerge within the given communicative episode. The dynamics of power relations, for example, typically shift somewhat from situation to situation and this modification is reflected in which co-cultural communication strategies are employed (Orbe, 1998). For instance, a digitally abused woman may have dominance when texting with her friends and prefer to use assimilation strategies to solve problems, while assuming a subordinate status and choosing to use separation (e.g., avoidance) strategies when coping with her violent boyfriend. For abused women, social location dramatically changes the saliency of issues related to co-cultural identity and consequently their employment of communication strategies. Understanding the co-cultural strategies that women employ when communicating about digital dating abuse may be a first step toward preventing the formation and continuation of digital victimization. As such, our study aims to answer the following research questions: What types of co-cultural communication strategies do young women enact in digitally abusive heterosexual romantic relationships? How do the co-cultural communication strategies enacted by young women function adaptively and maladaptively in digitally abusive heterosexual romantic relationships?
Methodological Framework
Participants
Participants were recruited through nine undergraduate communication courses at a large mid-Atlantic university. The mid-Atlantic region of the United States is located in the “middle” of what is referred to as the East Coast and typically includes Delaware; Maryland; New Jersey; Pennsylvania; Washington, DC; New York; Virginia; and West Virginia. The university is comprised of approximately 24,000 undergraduate students; half are male, 43% are white or Caucasian, and 59% are between the ages of 18 and 24 years. The university’s athletic program is classified as a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I school and fraternal organizations involve approximately 16% of the undergraduate student body.
Participants included 10 female college students and ranged in age from 18 to 24 years (M = 20.8). All of the participants identified as heterosexual females. Three participants (30%) identified as Asian/Pacific Islander or Asian American, three (30%) identified as black or African American, and four (40%) identified as white or Caucasian. Participants’ class years ranged from sophomore year (10%) to senior year (40%); the majority of participants (50%) were juniors. Almost all of the participants identified as upper-middle or middle class (80%), with only two participants identifying as lower-middle class. All participants identified as having previously been in a digitally abusive heterosexual romantic relationship, and none of the participants self-identified as currently being in an abusive relationship. The majority of participants identified as being between 13 and 19 years old when the digitally abusive relationship took place, with a boyfriend who was also around the same age; one young woman reported her relationship with a 24-year-old man; she was 19 years old. During their digitally abusive relationships, all of the participants owned a cellphone, used text messaging, and maintained Facebook accounts.
Data Collection
Researchers visited nine undergraduate communication classrooms and delivered a brief presentation at the beginning of class. Before the presentation began, males in the classroom were asked to step out in the hallway; the presentation was only delivered to female students. Our use of the terms “male” and “female” in our recruitment materials may have left out the nonbinary expressions of gender, which are more prevalent today on college campuses in the United States. However, this study was solely concerned with participants who identified as “female.” The presentation included a description of digital dating abuse, an example of what digital dating abuse might look like, and other information regarding the study’s procedures and compensation (US$30 gift card). Once the presentation was complete, the young women were provided a screening form and asked to indicate whether or not they were interested in participating in the study. If a woman was interested in participating in the study, she was asked to provide her name (or pseudonym) and contact information. In order to assess digital dating abuse, the women were also asked to indicate their previous experience with digital dating abuse from a list of 10 commonly reported digital dating abuse behaviors (Bennett et al., 2011). Sample behaviors included: has sent you repeated text or online messages, has spread rumors or posted negative comments about you online, has accessed your online accounts without your permission, has sent you threatening or harassing text or online messages, has used GPS to track your location without your permission, and other (this option allowed the women to list any “other” behaviors that were not included in the 10 commonly reported digital dating abuse behaviors). Women were included in this study if they met the following criteria: (1) self-identified as having previously been in a digitally abusive heterosexual romantic relationship, (2) identified as being between the ages of 18 and 24 years, and (3) were willing to share their story through in-depth interviews.
Semistructured, in-depth qualitative interviews were employed as the method of data collection. A semistructured interview schedule ensures that interviewees “hear the same questions in roughly the same way—although spontaneous follow-up probes are allowed to clarify remarks or to encourage elaboration” (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002, p. 194). Interviews lasted approximately 45–80 min (M = 63.6). Interview questions sought to elicit participants’ lived experiences with digital dating abuse. Open-ended questions were utilized to empower the women to tell their stories in their own words.
Before beginning the interviews, several actions were taken to establish rapport with the participants. The women were told that they would be asked questions about their experiences with digital dating abuse in past heterosexual romantic relationships. Participants were also notified that some of the questions might seem uncomfortable, silly, or even redundant at times. They were assured that their answers were important for understanding communication regarding digital dating abuse in heterosexual romantic relationships. The women were reminded that the interview was confidential and were asked not to modify their communication, but instead to speak openly and honestly about their experiences.
A list totaling 22 standard questions and subquestions was developed, but the researcher had the flexibility to probe and ask additional questions (Berg, 2001). As such, no one interview followed the same format. The semistructured format used to steer the participants through the interviews was guided by five areas: (1) personal demographic and other rapport building questions (e.g., “How long were you in the relationship?”), (2) experience with digital dating abuse (e.g., “What is your experience with digital abuse?”), (3) health-related questions (e.g., “How did this relationship affect your health?”), (4) co-cultural communication questions (e.g., “How did you communicate in your abusive relationship?” “How did you communicate socially?”), and (5) general concluding questions (e.g., “What advice do you have for other women in digitally abusive relationships?”). Once all of the topic areas had been discussed, the interview concluded with any other questions from the women that had not previously been addressed.
Data Analysis
Primary data for this study consisted of transcripts and audio-taped interviews. The audiotapes of the interviews were transcribed verbatim, producing 182 pages of single-spaced data. One of the authors repeatedly reviewed the transcripts for consistency with the audiotapes. Additionally, detailed field notes were used to verify the transcripts. In the event that more information was needed from the women, the researchers followed up to ensure that transcripts accurately reflected their interpretation of the interview.
Data were first analyzed in order to identify the co-cultural orientations and communication strategies used by the participants. Within the 182 pages of single-spaced data, descriptions of responses were analyzed in terms of the propositional units established by co-cultural theory—namely, 9 different co-cultural communication orientations and 26 different co-cultural communication strategies (Orbe, 1998). In order to capture themes that determine the adaptive and maladaptive functions of the performed co-cultural behaviors, a secondary data analysis was performed. Specifically, Owen’s (1984) thematic saturation procedure was used to narrow the qualitative data into theory-driven and theme-driven categories. The data were examined for three things: recurrence, repetition, and forcefulness (Keyton, 2010). These three criteria can help identify what the salient issues are and demonstrate the degree of salience of participants. Data were also examined for transitions, or shifts in conversation and changes in tone (Ryan & Bernard, 2000). Participants’ narratives were searched for metaphors and analogies, and word repetition and recurrence were examined as salient issues. Ultimately, these techniques assisted us in identifying and making comparisons and contrasts between the participants’ lived communicative experiences.
Findings
Participants, or co-researchers (Orbe, 1998), offered varied descriptions of their experiences with digital dating abuse. These descriptions aligned with four co-cultural orientations: nonassertive and assertive assimilation, assertive accommodation, and nonassertive separation. Within the data associated with each orientation, specific co-cultural strategies emerged. These strategies functioned both adaptively and maladaptively depending on three factors (themes): time-based efficacy, normalization of abuse, and directness of communication. Time-based efficacy describes how a strategy’s impact functions as a result of whether outcomes are viewed by the women in the short- or long term. Normalization of abuse refers to how the abuse was acknowledged and/or minimized by the women and potentially supportive others. Directness of communication relates to the degree of openness or avoidance women used in their communicative attempts with their abuser. Results are presented according to themes that shape the maladaptive or adaptive nature of the co-cultural orientations and strategies identified in the transcripts.
Time-Based Efficacy
Time-based efficacy describes how a strategy’s impact functions as a result of whether outcomes are viewed by the women in the short- or long term. Adopting an assimilation orientation to co-cultural communication may enhance a woman’s ability to participate within the confines of dominant structures in the short term; nevertheless, this communicative stance also produces several potential costs. Through this positioning, co-cultural group members may endure long-term negative effects on their self-concepts. In addition, engaging in the communicative strategies associated with this orientation promotes an “unhealthy communication climate that inherently reinforces the dominant groups’ institutional and social power” (Orbe, 1998, p. 111).
Nonassertive assimilation
A nonassertive assimilation orientation typically involves co-cultural communicative strategies, such as developing positive face, censoring self, and averting controversy, to blend unobtrusively into dominant society. “These efforts are employed in a seemingly, yet sometimes strategically, inhibited stance that tries to avoid conflict with the dominant group members” (Orbe, 1998, p. 111). Coresearchers described three different co-cultural strategies that qualify largely as nonassertive assimilation orientation: developing positive face, censoring self, and averting controversy. Developing positive face for others is to assume a gracious stance in which one is more considerate, polite, and attentive to the needs of dominant group members (Orbe, 1998). For example, Katie and Laurie described a strategic practice of “saying the nicest things” and being “very respectful” toward their boyfriends during potentially tense or violent online situations. But he’d always get mad…even if I answered him and was saying the nicest things ever. He’d still be upset. And nothing I could say would make him happy until the next day when he’d forgotten about it. I was very respectful. I said, I wanted to respect you and go out on this date with you because I have…partially because I was scared too but I didn’t tell him that…like scared to say no…but and then I was like I am not interested, I just want to be friends with you. We’re really good friends, we’ve been friends for two years…I don’t know why you’re rushing into it. And then, yeah, and then he said awful things to me.
Here, the women used developing positive face as a short-term fix to control fear and to initially minimize potential harm. However, it proves maladaptive in the long term because it does not bring an end to the relationship. Instead, it allows for the continuation of fear and stress experienced within the confines of the abusive relationship. Many of the coresearchers who used this strategy in order to avoid quarrels reported feeling “insecure” and “lonely.” These feelings contribute to the damage of one’s self-concept, allowing abusers to gain power over the women and continue the abuse.
Censoring self occurs when nondominant group members choose not to confront dominant group members or choose not to disclose their discomfort out of fear of retaliation. Instead, they contain their immediate reactions, “say nothing,” or “blow it off” (Orbe, 1998, p. 68). Many of the coresearchers explained how they would often censor themselves while texting their boyfriends. Becky stated, “I feel like I wouldn’t say a lot of things because I didn’t want to make him mad.” Some of the women described using indirect communication tactics such as avoiding arguments and disclosing their thoughts to subdue their boyfriends’ anger. For example, Katie and April censored themselves in the following ways: In terms of either avoiding it or trying to not make things worse because it always seems like it would get worse. Even if I’m telling you it doesn’t matter, it’s just a picture [on Facebook], it’s just this or that, if I felt like you weren’t getting it, I’m not going to bother repeating myself so much…so eventually I would just stop talking about it. I’d leave it alone and try to go the other way, brushing it under the rug. There’d be times when he texted me and I would like not answer on purpose. There would be times when I would answer and go along with his story. If he’d be like, well are you at your house, or oh you must have been helping your mom, and even if I was doing something else, I would be like yeah, I’m just doing stuff with my mom. Because it would be easier, because to me there’s no point of me having to explain to you why I’m doing it or why I’m doing it with this person.
Censorship was used to manage and prevent immediate consequences of verbal assaults; however, in both the short- and long term, it is maladaptive. Kelly explained: He would yell at me and try to force me to get on [Facebook] and show him the messages I sent back to these people and I was like look you’re being ridiculous, but most of the time I would show him…. Oh yeah, I’d definitely say that [it affected my mental health]. Even like towards the end of our relationship and after like I was depressed. I was so depressed and down on myself…I did end up having to go to counseling…I wouldn’t go out, I wouldn’t eat, I would just kind of like sit in my room. It’s actually really depressing to think about—I wouldn’t do anything. I would cry all the time. All the time…I mean this went on for about two months. And that, I was so depressed to the point that I wouldn’t workout. I would sit in the room and cry. I wouldn’t see any of my friends, and my parents were finally like okay, you have got to talk to somebody.
Averting controversy is perhaps the most commonly employed co-cultural communication strategy. Averting controversy consists of consciously and actively deflecting communication away from potentially controversial or volatile subject areas. For example, a coresearcher may strategically change the topic of conversation or completely avoid a particular subject. Kelly explained her attempt this way: Towards the end though I became really frustrated and I didn’t want to deal with it so I avoided our conversations altogether, I would just try to find a way to distract him so we didn’t have to deal with that. I’d be like let’s get food I’m really hungry. So I never communicated all of my feelings in the relationship because I was too focused on his feelings. …but every night ended up in screaming in tears, my parents banging on the door telling me to shut up, like don’t, just tell me to get off the [cell] phone and that’s when it would like be thrown. I’d sit there and I’d cry and like it’d just be a big mess…every night.
Assertive assimilation
Similar to their nonassertive counterparts, those with assertive assimilation orientations strive to downplay co-cultural differences and promote a convergence into existing structures within dominant society. Instead of doing so in a presumably passive voice, however, this primary communication orientation employs a more assertive communication approach (Orbe, 1998). The assertive assimilation orientation illustrates deliberate acts that go above and beyond regular attempts to please relational others. In terms of strategies, coresearchers spoke to examples of extensive preparation and overcompensating where they carefully selected, focused on, and prepared their actions prior to communicating with partners.
Many of the young women felt that their communication should be well thought out and focused on task orientation. As such, they engaged in extensive preparation before and during interactions with their boyfriends. Undoubtedly, extensive preparation requires time and energy. This tactic was helpful for the women in the short term, but in the long term had negative implications for their well-being. For example, Kelly described how she regularly altered her Facebook page prior to meeting up with her boyfriend: “I tried to avoid showing the site to him, but if I did have to show it to him most of the time before I got to his place I would just delete a bunch of messages so I guess that makes me a little guilty feeling.” April described extensive preparation in anticipation of continual privacy violations from her boyfriend: He’d already opened it (her cell phone) and read it (her text messages)…So then I’d have to like start putting locks on my phone, and like someone would comment something that I think would make him upset I’d just delete it.
As Kelly notes above, extensive preparation can also lead to conflicting emotions as some women feel guilty about covering their tracks online. Guilt in abusive relationships can often result in confusion and depression (Street & Arias, 2001). This has the potential to blur the lines of culpability for women, leaving them more vulnerable to their abusers’ emotional manipulations. Kelly later disclosed that she “became really depressed, probably more than I should have at that time. So, I was extremely depressed, and I really wanted to be alone…”
Additionally, coresearchers shared experiences of overcompensating. While extensive preparation is typically practiced prior to interactions with dominant group members, overcompensating is a tactic that is used more consistently during interaction with those representing the dominant culture (Orbe, 1998). Here, co-cultural group members do extra and go above and beyond to prove themselves the exemplary team player. For example, Laurie carried her cellphone at all times to make herself accessible and was willing to respond to more than 150 text messages a day for 3 months just to demonstrate her love: I would always have my phone with me and I could never put it down. Um, otherwise he would be upset that I wasn’t answering his phone calls, so like everywhere I was, like if I was hanging out with other friends, if I was in a movie…doing something that I would like love to do…um, yeah, I would just like have to respond…like have my phone with me. Yeah, there was like a good morning…like a morning text message, and there was always a text message at night, and throughout classes we’d text, and [sports] practice. We were texting each other all the time…Oh yeah, like there would be times um, I work at the gym, and there would be times when I wouldn’t have [my cell phone] on me or if I did I wouldn’t be able to text because I’m at work, and like if I, I’d always put it on vibrate, and if I could hear it vibrate, I’d go to the bathroom really quick and respond, and like come back out, and there were times when I felt like I needed it. Has anyone ever done that to you…like a million…like sent like a million…like sent like a mass text to you? Hmmm…it’s awful…they can send like a 150 text like simultaneously and it’ll just come to your phone like…And I just…I just hate it. …or if like I was hanging out with someone watching a movie, like I’d want to say…I would want to tell him like “I’ll text you after the movie” but he’d always want to talk during the moving and I didn’t…I like wanted to pay attention. Um, so obviously, I’d talk to him during the movie because I didn’t want to make him upset…so like I changed my actions so that he wouldn’t get upset.
Normalization of Abuse
Normalization of abuse refers to how the abuse was acknowledged and/or minimized by the women and potentially supportive others. Co-cultural group members functioning from an accommodation perspective insist that dominant structures “reinvent or, in the least, change the rules” so that they incorporate the life experiences of each co-cultural group (Orbe, 1998, p. 91). In this sense, the essence of accommodation is the development of appreciation, interdependence, and communicative skills to effectively work with persons from other cultures. Women who use this preferred orientation to acknowledge or minimize the abuse are often prone to stress and burnout as well as criticisms from others who regard their efforts to “work with, instead of against” dominant group members as misled (Orbe, 1998, p. 114). Moreover, the women may be confronted with resistance and defensiveness by their partners (i.e., dominant group members) who perceive their attempts to maintain an assertive voice as aggressive.
Assertive accommodation
Some co-cultural group members are often overly concerned with dominant group reactions (Orbe, 1998). For others, regard for dominant group rights is not given preference over their own needs as co-cultural group members (Orbe, 1998). Through such strategies as intragroup networking and using liaisons, coresearchers “aimed to create a cooperative balance between consideration for both co-cultural and dominant group members” (Orbe, 1998, p. 114).
It can be difficult for co-cultural group members to establish networks with other co-cultural group members in dominant structures. However, nondominant group members often seek out people like themselves for support, encouragement, and inspiration. These individuals are better able to identify with and understand the issues related to co-cultural positioning. Within an assertive accommodation orientation, coresearchers described forming networks of social support with other women or intragroup networking. Specifically, coresearchers discussed feeling overwhelmed and powerless and would often talk with sisters, roommates, and mentors about their digitally abusive relationships. For example, Laurie explained it this way: I think when I talked to my roommates I had more of like a just an emotional attachment to it, and then I would talk, um, just because they were like right there and are just kind of let me blurt everything out. And then when I talked to my mentor, um, she would kind of, I don’t know, I kind of like would think about it for a while and process it and then go talk to her, so it was more of a…I was trying to reason things out and figure out what was going on…and kind of get her advice about what to do.
However, when friends and family members did not recognize the problem or shied away from condemning the abuse, the enacted co-cultural strategy became unhelpful to the women, leading to frustration and confusion. Karen described trying to talk to her sister about her fears regarding her abuser: I even tried to tell other people about it, and they were like oh we know him, he’s not that creepy, and then when I would talk to my sister about it, like, she kind of realized that it was like really bad. But she was kind of trying to sugar coat it, like just don’t talk to him, and I was like I haven’t, I haven’t been responding, and he keeps sending me these page-long text messages, and everything.
When intragroup members do not acknowledge the problem or validate the women’s feelings, it can magnify the stress associated with the abuse and lead to uncertainty about culpability, which may extend the abusive relationship. Julie described how it felt when no one believed her: Mostly kind of scared. And then frustrated. Um, angry, and just like I don’t know. Vulnerable I guess, I didn’t know what to do, I was younger, and no one else understood how creepy it was. Um, so…I don’t know. Just. Freaked me out a lot.
Other coresearchers utilized the assertive accommodation strategy of utilizing liaisons. Here, the women identified specific dominant group members (i.e., men) who could be counted on for support, guidance, and assistance during their interactions within dominant societal structures. Overall, women found it helpful to reach out to the men they regarded as peers. Debbie and Laurie talked of the support they received from their male companions: Um, I had one really good guy friend. I told him the complete story because he was always around my ex-boyfriend when we were fighting. He heard everything. I would call him and he would come over. He was just always there. And um, I literally said every…I think I shared more with him than I shared with my um, female friends. I felt…for some reason I’ve always connected towards my guy friends a little bit more. I feel like I can trust them more because girls can be like catty and you don’t know what they’re saying behind your back. Like, I felt like sometimes my friends could be picturing me as a fool and saying like I’m an idiot for what I’m doing, but I feel like guys they’re not going to go around and you know yeah, this is like what’s going on. You know? So I disclosed a lot of information with him. I didn’t really use examples. Um, I would just tell him, like, who [he] was as a person and how he acted kind of vaguely. And how, like it made me feel and like ask for like…I don’t know, like advice, same thing but kind of like from a guy’s point of view. I was like is this normal, like, I don’t even know. So, I needed like a guy’s perspective.
However, utilizing liaisons functioned as maladaptive coping when the men implicitly normalized the abuser’s behavior. Karen recalled a time when her boyfriend showed his male friends private and embarrassing photos of her: “He would show them and they’d text me and be like guess what I saw. They would just laugh at it. They just thought it was funny, because they didn’t think anything of it…” The lack of acknowledgment and seriousness conveyed by others about their abusive relationships may contribute to the women’s feelings of isolation and helplessness. As such, digital abuse can impact, physical, emotional, and social health. When women reach out and are silenced, they may isolate themselves from further contact with sources of social support and question the legitimacy of their emotions, leading to decreased self-esteem and depression.
Directness of Communication
Directness of communication relates to the degree of openness or avoidance women used in their communicative attempts with their abuser. Some co-cultural group members view separation as a “naturally occurring” reality; others use subtle communicate strategies to maintain a separatist stance during co-cultural group interactions (Orbe, 1998, p. 115). For abused women assuming this primary communication orientation, physical avoidance is implemented whenever possible. Nevertheless, when some interaction with their abusive partner is unavoidable, co-cultural group members find themselves fulfilling existing expectations placed on them by dominant society. That is, by avoiding communication with their partner, the women may be unconsciously participating in efforts to reinforce co-cultural separation, an ideology grounded in the basic notion that certain groups should not occupy spaces reserved for dominant group members. As such, this orientation can encourage intragroup unity, self-determination, and independence, but it also hinders co-cultural group members by tapping into their valuable resources and advocating societal change (Orbe, 1998).
Nonassertive separation
Separation is the intentional act to limit or omit communication with dominant group members (Orbe, 1998). Within a nonassertive separation orientation, women described the strategic practice of maintaining interpersonal barriers and avoiding interactions with significant others. Co-cultural group members maintain interpersonal barriers by imposing, through the use of verbal and nonverbal cues, a psychological distance from dominant group members (Camara & Orbe, 2010). Coresearchers employed various nonverbal tactics to discourage communication. For example, some women explained how they kept phones in other rooms, or silenced phones, to mentally separate themselves from interaction with their boyfriends. As Kelly described: Um, we got into an epic fight, and I left, and I left my phone on the counter when I went up to my room. And when I came back down he had sent me the same message like 15 times. It was kind of creepy. It was like I love you, I miss you, and some of them were like I’m going to kill myself if you don’t respond to me. My phone would end up in the closet. I’ve broken about three or four phones because I’d get so aggravated that I would just hope that my phone would even break. Like let me just break it that way he won’t call me…
The women also used avoidance to escape the abuse. According to Orbe (1998), avoiding is more physical in nature than averting controversy. Avoiding as a strategy is based in physical absence; refraining from activities and/or locations where interaction is likely (Camara & Orbe, 2010). Because digital dating abuse is a physical communicative experience (i.e., communicating through digital means), it is important to highlight the physical nature of this coping strategy. In this study, several coresearchers talked about how they would physically avoid communication with their significant other. Specifically, the coresearchers discussed not answering phone calls, not responding to text messages, and avoiding social networking sites such as Facebook.
When the women were able to slip away from their partners with minimal negative repercussions, this strategy alleviated stress. Many women talked about going to various locations and taking up hobbies. This was adaptive in that it afforded them time to relax and focus on themselves. Coresearchers talked of painting, taking walks along the beach, sewing, and listening to music. Debbie spoke of going to the beach: “I’d turn it off (her cell phone) and I would just walk and I would go here…it was a comfort zone for me.” Similarly, Sally took up painting and other hobbies: “When I would want time to myself I would take up so many hobbies…just to distract myself.” However, these strategies may be maladaptive when the mental stress of the relationship becomes too heavy to bear and these strategies are taken to the extreme in an effort to regain control. April described this: I would say there would be times when we would get in really bad arguments that I just wouldn’t eat, because at the same time I ran track and did ballet, and there would be times I just wouldn’t eat anything. I’d be like alright, or like I would exercise a lot, besides like track and ballet I’d go to the gym. I’d spend hours at the gym. And that’s when my mom was like okay, we need to talk about this.
Discussion and Implications for Practice
This exploration identified women’s experiences regarding digital dating abuse in heterosexual romantic relationships. Communicative tensions associated with fear, rejection, doubt, and confusion permeated the qualitative interviews. In order to overcome tensions, the young women in this study largely chose to enact maladaptive assimilation strategies when dealing with digital dating abuse. The direct result of assimilation includes the perpetual muting of women’s voices. This silence can have consequences for women’s health and well-being. For example, Debbie was constantly dodging phone calls, text messages, and redirecting conversations, which ultimately led to an overwhelming feeling of stress and anxiety. Thus, there is a great need to challenge the dominant culture by educating others about the social- and health-related consequences of digital dating abuse. Without digital dating abuse prevention programs that incorporate these women’s voices, changing the broader culture will be difficult.
Some researchers present a learning model to explain how the outcomes of prior coping strategies affect future coping efforts. Dutton (1993) presents a type of learning model, citing unsuccessful strategies for coping as experiences in which women learn that a particular strategy is not helpful, and therefore decrease their use of it. In the present study, the women revealed multiple attempts to talk to their friends and family members about their abusive relationships. In those attempts, many companions normalized the digital abuse, which may have impacted the women’s social support-seeking behaviors. That is, once their peers normalized, the abuse the women learned that seeking social support was not a viable option. As such, normalization of abuse may contribute to women staying in an abusive relationship for a longer period of time. When peers dismissed their concerns, the women often turned to more authoritative figures such as their mother or a guidance counselor who took the abusive situation very seriously. However, it may take the young women coming to a dangerous “breaking point” before they seek help from an adult or authoritative figure. For example, Sally discussed the point at which she disclosed the abuse to her guidance counselor, “Um, and I just broke down crying…I couldn’t take it anymore. That was my breaking point…to actually tell an adult.”
Moreover, when companions normalize digital dating abuse, participants also normalize the abuse. Specifically, the young women knew that something was wrong or that their partner’s actions were “not normal” but, at the same time, were also “not a big deal.” Acknowledging that something is wrong in their relationships may be the first step in recognizing the different levels of domestic inequalities in heterosexual dating relationships. However, viewing the digital abuse as unimportant is detrimental in that the young women remain silenced and the potential dangers of digital dating abuse are kept hidden from family members, friends, and society at large. According to Ashcraft (2000), one reason some women might not identify harassment or controlling behaviors as abuse is due to the fact that abuse in the United States has been labeled using only the more “physical” terms violence and/or abuse, which might make depictions of different levels of domestic inequalities nearly impossible to recognize, such as digital dating abuse. As a result, this leaves young women unable to confront their partners because words to accurately express their situations do not exist. Because they cannot describe the problem effectively, their partners are left unaccountable for the oppressive actions in which they engage.
Further, the college campus culture may have impacted the normalization of digital dating abuse among coresearchers and their companions. Research suggests that athletic and fraternal organizations, replete on college campuses, and foster discussion and beliefs about women, sexuality, and romantic relationships (Bleecker & Murnen, 2005). In NCAA Division I schools, such as the university in this study, more male athletes are reported to student judicial boards for sexual assault than any other students (Crosset, Benedict, & McDonald, 1995). Likewise, the fraternity culture fosters discussion and beliefs about women and sexuality that are different from those outside of the fraternity (Bleecker & Murnen, 2005). The presence of this type of culture influences not only the risk factors related to abuse, it also influences abusive behaviors, so as to conceal and perpetuate abuse including digital dating abuse. These types of cultures appear to foster silencing and diminish the importance of young women’s lived experiences (Harned, 2005).
Previous findings indicate that participants who report greater helpfulness from institutional sources used more adaptive cognitive and behavioral coping strategies (Mitchell & Hodson, 1986). Women who received more avoidance responses from friends used less adaptive cognitive and behavioral coping responses. As such, the more available perceived social supports and more empathic responses from those supports may facilitate more adaptive coping and greater perceived options for abused women (Waldrop & Resick, 2004). These findings support the need to educate “authoritative” figures as well as the friends and family members of young women regarding the dangers of digital dating abuse. Each group plays an integral role in facilitating communication, coping with, and ending digital dating abuse. However, because it is a recent phenomenon, only a few campaigns exist to inform teens, young adults, and parents of the harmful effects related to digital dating abuse. Additional educational resources should be made available to teens and young adults in order to increase their understanding of the serious and pervasive nature of digital dating abuse.
Additionally, these results suggest that there may be change overtime in the coping communication enacted by young women experiencing digital dating abuse. Indirect communication may be connected to the women’s feelings of disorientation and guilt early on in the abuse continuum. Women may use indirect communication strategies aimed at minimizing immediate harm, partly as a result of their confusion about what constitutes “normal” relationship behavior. This kind of coping may lead to anxiety and uncertainty, which can have negative implications for women’s well-being. For example, Amy described her evolution from indirect to direct communication and the feelings of responsibility that accompanied it: I think later on it got more direct…I tried being more direct. Early on it was more like oh I’m tired, so you should connect the dots because I’m tired and I want to go to bed. Um, but you clearly are not picking up on that. So I’d say okay I’m tired, I know you want me to talk [on the phone] but I’ve got to get up for school so I’m going to sleep. It got to the point where I would tell him very specifically what I’m going to do…I’m going to take a nap. He would laugh about it like I was joking. I’m like I’m dead serious, and he would still call me!
Limitations and Directions for Future Research
Research on dating abuse is just beginning to incorporate the consequences of technological acts. As such, this project integrates and advances both areas of communication research. Specifically, this study provides new insight into the lived experiences and communicative choices of young women affected by digital dating abuse. However, there are limitations to this project. First, coresearchers were limited in terms of the quantity of participants and their experiences. As such, there is a need to expand participation for a more inclusive perspective on the issues. This study used the term “digital dating abuse” when recruiting participants. It is possible that the term “abuse” limited some young women from participating in the study if they did not identify with the more commonly used terms abuse and/or violence. Future studies should employ a pilot test to determine the appropriate phrasing of the phenomenon under study; “digital dating drama” is one viable option. Similarly, taking into account the cultural climate from where participants are recruited is also important; a college campus may contribute to silencing issues of digital dating abuse. Second, this particular study focused on the experiences of young, primarily European American, upper/middle class women from one large mid-Atlantic college campus. Given the homogeneous makeup of the participants, generalizations should not be made to other co-cultural groups. Third, this study focused solely on heterosexual abuse, ignoring the tremendous ramifications of abuse in the same-sex relationships. In fact, coresearchers only talked about cross-sex digital dating abuse, which undoubtedly impacted the results but also underscores the hegemonic heterosexuality in society. Finally, this study does not fully distinguish between the negative impact of abuse and women’s responses to abuse—researchers defined what coping strategies were adaptive and maladaptive, not participants. As such, future studies should continue to explore coping and communication behaviors.
Conclusion
Given the findings from this study, it is reasonable to conclude that future efforts should be aimed at enhancing digitally abused women’s co-cultural experiences. Communication strategies can be incorporated into professional training and certification programs for shelter and social workers, school and university counselors, nurses, and other providers who work with people in troubled relationships. Providers, in turn, can include a broader range of strategies in both their literature and face-to-face interactions with patients. This would offer providers and the people in these relationships a more comprehensive analysis and understanding of their experiences.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.