Abstract
Dating cyberviolence is a frequent problem among young people, with severe consequences both when it takes place and when establishing future relationships. This phenomenon has been on the rise in recent years, and there is increasing concern from governments and institutions to address it. However, there are not many programs to prevent it. The Cyber Dating Abuse-Stop program is proposed precisely with this objective: to prevent partner cyberviolence from an early age by adapting to their characteristics and addressing different variables related to it. A quasi-experimental design was used, with a control group and pre- and posttest measurements. Participants were 409 adolescents between ages 12 and 17 years; 236 participants who took part in the 12 sessions of the program, and 173 participants who were assigned to the control group. The program consisted of sessions that required active participation of the participants, including role playing, guided discussions, viewing of videos and clips, debates, etc. The program was effective in variables such as the ability to identify one’s own cyberviolence, sexism, myths about romantic love, and the perception of Internet risks, with significant improvements in the experimental group compared to the control group. Other variables, such as self-esteem and empathy, did not improve significantly with the program. The program has been effective in preventing cyberviolence in dating relationships among adolescents. The implications of the results are discussed, as well as aspects to be considered in future program applications.
Introduction
Dating cyberviolence is characterized by a series of repetitive behaviors intended to control, weaken, or cause harm to the other partner through digital means (Borrajo et al., 2015a; Reed et al., 2016). It includes behaviors such as frequently visiting the partner’s social media profile, sending insulting or threatening messages, spreading negative information about the partner, stealing or misusing passwords, etc. (Borrajo et al., 2015a; Darvell et al., 2011). In addition, this kind of violence can performed quickly, easily, anywhere, and at any time, even after the relationship has ended (Bennett et al., 2011; Stonard et al., 2017; Zweig et al., 2014), heightening the experience of victimization (Korchmaros et al., 2013; Stonard et al., 2017; Zweig et al., 2014). This kind of violence is increasingly widespread among young people and adolescents, so there is a pressing need to develop programs to prevent it.
Research of the phenomenon yields disparate and inconclusive data, with reviews of studies showing victimization rates in adolescents between 12% and 56%, perpetration rates between 12% and 54% (Stonard et al., 2017), and percentages of perpetration between 6% and 91% in young people (Brown & Hegarty, 2018).
It can also be considered a worldwide problem, that largely affects adolescents and young people across the globe (Matassoli & Ferreira, 2017; Ouytsel et al., 2017), and although there are some cross-cultural studies that compare prevalence of cyber dating violence, for example between countries in Europe or between countries in America and Europe (Rivas-Rivero & Bonilla-Algovia, 2024; Sánchez-Jiménez et al., 2017; Tomaszewska & Schuster, 2021), the results are still not very conclusive and the importance of working on the issue is what is mainly highlighted. This is something of special interest considering that dating violence is usually related to other types of violence. Thus, Zweig et al. (2013) found that half of the victims of cyberbullying were also victims of physical violence and that almost all of them had suffered other experiences of psychological abuse. According to some authors, cyberbullying affects to 34% of students (Hinduja & Patchin, 2014), and it increases the probability that a young victim thinks about suicide (Hinduja & Patchin, 2018). This can be considered a worrying problem itself, but it should also be taken in consideration given its tendency to extend to dating relationships. Furthermore, some recent findings support the relationship between online and offline violence (Jaureguizar et al., 2024; Leisring & Giumetti, 2014; Rodríguez-De Arriba et al., 2024; Viejo et al., 2016). Research also shows that the phenomenon of dating violence through social networks and mobile phones has very severe consequences, such as low self-esteem, psychological problems, anxiety, and depression (Donoso & Rebollo, 2018). It also affects young people’s psychic and cognitive formation, the establishment of future social relationships, and their adequate affective-social development.
In any case, knowing its adverse effects, it is clear that there is a need to intervene preventively in this problem (Burcham et al., 2024; Leen et al., 2013; Muñoz et al., 2013), and it is increasingly necessary to do it before adulthood (Alonso & Castellanos, 2006; Fernández & Ayllón, 2014; Gorrotxategi & de Haro, 1999; Mulford & Blachman-Demner, 2013; Segato, 2003; Valle, 2015).
Prevention of Dating Violence in Adolescence
As Wolfe et al. (2003) point out, “. . . a considerable number of young people engage in acts with romantic partners that may be far from harmless and point to the need to provide guidance as adolescents navigate this important course” (p. 280). In this sense, adolescence offers a perfect opportunity to promote healthy romantic relationships because this is—in early or middle adolescence— when such relationships usually begin (Connolly et al., 2000). And that period when they begin is also a period characterized by high levels of conflict, especially with parents (Laursen et al., 1998) and with romantic partners (Foshee et al., 2001; Wekerle & Wolfe, 1999).
Besides, knowing that violence in adolescent couples is one of the strongest precursors of violent behavior in adulthood (Ramiro-Sánchez et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2003; Sunday et al., 2011; Wolfe et al., 2009), there is a clear need to stop the habitual escalation of violence over time (Cornelius & Resseguie, 2007). Indeed, this and the aforementioned consequences are one of the main reasons to deal with this problem as soon as possible, whether it occurs offline (Chiodo et al., 2012; O’Leary et al., 2008) or online (Brown & Hegarty, 2018). However, online dating violence has specific particularities that must be addressed in a particular way (Cava et al., 2020).
Furthermore, it is important that interventions are specifically targeted at this age group, as the literature reflects differences between adolescent and adult relationships in terms of dating violence prevalence and in the level of engagement and management of conflict resolution strategies (Collins et al., 2009). Thus, adolescents show higher rates of involvement than adults and young people in both traditional (Fernández-González et al., 2014) and online forms of dating violence (Ybarra et al., 2017). In any case, prevalence rates are quite high among adolescents in Spain. In a recent longitudinal study, the prevalence of victimization by cyber dating abuse was around 30%, the period prevalence rate stood at 23%, and the reported incidence of this study was 15%, that is, one in eight adolescents was a new victim of cyber dating abuse during the study times (Ortega-Barón et al., 2022). Therefore, there is a urgent need to implement programs or strategies to prevent this problem.
For this reason, in recent decades, numerous programs have been proposed to be implemented in the school context to prevent or reduce violence in adolescent relationships (Calvillo, 2010; De la Rue et al., 2016; Whitaker et al., 2006). However, these programs are currently scarce in Spain, and many are not empirically validated (Muñoz et al., 2013). Among the existing programs, there are basically two types: specific and universal. The first ones address the specific needs of at-risk population and work more intensively (for a meta-analysis of this topic, see Arrojo et al., 2024). These programs may be effective for youth who have experienced violence in the family context and the community and who perpetrate or experience abuse in their early dating relationships (Pepler et al., 2006; Williams et al., 2008; Wolfe et al., 2003), such as the Expect Respect Program (Ball et al., 2009), or programs targeting youth who have already engaged in intimate partner violence, such as the Teen PEACE: Project to End Abuse through Counseling and Education of Schut et al. (1998). On the other hand, universal programs usually aim at educating the general school population, mainly adolescents, trying above all to promote healthy relationships (Avery-Leaf et al., 1997; Foshee et al., 1998; Jaffe et al., 1992; Schewe, 2002; Wolfe et al., 2009). They usually take the form of chats or lectures for students, for example, Shifting Boundaries by Taylor et al. (2013) or training students in strategies for the prevention of dating violence. The aim is for students to intervene when they observe this type of situation (e.g., the Green Dot by Coker et al., 2011). Among the most rigorous universal programs, the Fourth R Skills for Youth Relationships (Wolfe et al., 2009) and the Safe Dates Project (Foshee et al., 2005) are noteworthy.
Each of these programs presents different characteristics concerning the specific contents addressed, the methodology used, the number of sessions to be developed with the participants, the people or agents who implement them and/or the information about their effectiveness (for more details, see the review of Galende et al., 2020). However, there is a consensus concerning the content on the importance of developing socio-emotional competencies, addressing gender stereotypes or sexist beliefs and attitudes, and attitudes toward violence in general and toward the partner in particular as key aspects to prevent the onset of this phenomenon (Garzón & Carcedo, 2020). Moreover, particularly in recent years, the need to integrally address the most conventional forms of violence and dating violence in their online modality has become evident, as most of the current programs are lacking this aspect.
Contents of Dating Violence Prevention Programs
Studies support the inclusion of socio-emotional skills in these interventions, given that variables such as low self-esteem have been found to constitute a risk factor for becoming a victim or an aggressor in violent relationships (Aumman, 2006; Santandreu et al., 2014). Deficiencies in empathy (in both its cognitive and affective dimensions) are also relevant in this regard (Echeburúa & Amor, 2016; Romero-Martínez et al., 2016; Sarto & Aragonés, 2011), as well as difficulties in understanding and expressing emotions by aggressors in couple relationships.
Concerning sexist beliefs, attitudes, gender stereotypes, and romantic myths, research shows that sexist beliefs and attitudes, especially hostile sexism, are frequently related to violence in partner and peer relationships (Carrera-Fernández et al., 2013; Cava et al., 2023; Garaigordobil & Aliri, 2013; Malonda et al., 2017; Martínez-Pecino & Durán, 2019; Pazos et al., 2014). In addition, the acceptance of traditional gender roles has been shown to be related not only to dating violence (Reidy et al., 2009; Vandiver & Dupalo, 2013) but also to other types of youth violence (Foshee et al., 2014). Therefore, addressing gender roles and stereotypes is paramount to curbing this phenomenon (Miller et al., 2018).
Although Spanish society has undergone rapid and significant changes in gender equality in recent decades (European Institute for Gender Equality, 2023; Sánchez-Jiménez & Muñoz-Fernández, 2021), and the levels of sexism in Spanish adolescents are lower than in other Hispanic countries (Rey Anacona et al., 2017), sexism continues to be present in Spanish adolescents. Martín-Salvador et al. (2021) stated that sexist attitudes have risen significantly among Spanish adolescents and young people in a short span of time, despite the efforts that are being made in the educational spheres to make progress in the field of equality. Bonilla-Algovia et al. (2024) also referred to several studies with adolescents (Fernández et al., 2021; Marcos et al., 2020) that reveal a clear association between sexist attitudes and romantic love myths, which oppose to the culture of gender equality. Thus, another relevant variable that develops and begins to have an effect even at pre-adolescent ages are the myths about romantic love (e.g., the perception of love as suffering, considering jealousy as a sign of love, the need to have romantic love to be happy, etc.), which influence how these youngsters initiate and maintain their relationships, also affecting the behaviors they consider normal (Borrajo et al., 2015a; Lelaurain et al., 2018; Rodríguez-Castro et al., 2013; Rodríguez-Domínguez et al., 2018). Some studies in Spain indicate that high percentages of young people agree with these myths or beliefs (Ferrer et al., 2010; Marroquí & Cervera, 2014) and that there is a strong relationship between these myths or beliefs and cybervictimization in young couples (Víllora et al., 2019). Finally, the role of beliefs justifying violence as a risk factor has been widely evaluated in both general violence (Jouriles et al., 2013; Zweig et al., 2013) and intimate partner violence (Calvete, 2008; Huesmann & Guerra, 1997; Linares et al., 2021). Along these lines, Borrajo et al. (2015b) found that attitudes justifying aggression increased the likelihood of direct cyberviolence against the partner (e.g., threatening or insulting them). Given that these attitudes are formed at an early age, and considering their influence on aggressive behaviors toward partners in adolescents and young adults (Abramsky et al., 2011; Machado et al., 2010; Muñoz-Rivas et al., 2011; Próspero, 2007; Sears et al., 2007; Slep et al., 2001; Taylor & Mouzos, 2006; Wolfe et al., 2004), beliefs justifying violence are a vital issue to include in dating violence prevention programs implemented from an early age (Garzón & Carcedo, 2020).
Cyber Dating Abuse-Stop: Program for the Prevention of Dating Cyberviolence Among Young People and Adolescents
In order to meet the urgent need to develop programs focused on the prevention of dating cyberviolence, the purpose of this study was to: (a) design the Cyber Dating Abuse Stop (CDA-Stop) program (Jaureguizar et al., 2023), a universal program targeting adolescents aged 13 to 17 to prevent partner cyberviolence; (b) implement the program for one semester of a school year; and (c) evaluate its effects on several variables related to the participants’ social, attitudinal, and emotional development.
Its general objective is to prevent cyberviolence by addressing social skills, healthy versus inadequate relationships, knowledge about partner cyberviolence, and ways to protect themselves from it.
It consists of 12 sessions organized around 3 main axes or modules based on previous studies carried out by the team and the results of other universal prevention programs applied in the school context in other countries. These axes are the following:
Module 1 (two sessions): Social skills training: Self-concept and self-esteem; Empathy.
Module 2 (five sessions): Knowledge of partner relationships and dating violence: Gender stereotypes; Romantic myths; Types of dating violence; Roles in dating violence.
Module 3 (five sessions): Dating cyberviolence: Risks of new technologies; Cyberviolence in partner relationships and ways of exercising it; Normalization of dating cyberviolence; How to stop dating cyberviolence.
The program uses an eclectic and integrative approach, uniting different theoretical perspectives and intervention procedures, such as:
Cognitive-behavioral approach, including behavioral, cognitive (cognitive restructuring), and affective modification strategies, based on Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Transactional Model of Stress and Coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). The activities encourage the reflection on the relationship between cognition and emotion and the development of reasoning-based strategies, focusing on knowledge about what dating violence is and promoting self-efficacy for reasoning-based responses, in line with Josephson and Proulx’s (2008) model.
Social learning approach, based on modeling and peer-to-peer learning (based mainly in Bandura, 1986, 2001). Thus, activities based on role-playing, watching videos in which adolescents tell their dating violence experiences in order to empathize with them, or listening to classmates proposing non-aggressive alternative ways of conflict resolution, can be a source of learning for participants, given the proven effectiveness of learning by observation or vicarious learning.
Resilience approach (Benard, 1991), understanding the resilience as a continuum (Joyce et al., 2018) and focusing on hardiness of people, seeking to strengthen the participants’ capacities to cope with the difficulties they may encounter in their future relationships, exploring how these strengths and protective factors could lead to better functioning (Grych et al., 2005) and to seek help from adult referrals.
Concerning the methodology followed, each session of the program lasts approximately 1 hr, and a weekly practice is recommended. Likewise, although the team’s researchers implemented the program, it is designed so that teachers trained in it can put it into practice without difficulties.
Various materials are used to develop the sessions, including videos, short clips, comics, and short written cases in which stories, real situations, etc., are represented, some created by team members. For example, among the videos filmed by the team, there are short stories of couples in which the boyfriend threatens his girlfriend to upload compromising photos to Instagram because she wants to leave the relationship, a couple makes each other jealous with the content they upload to Instagram, or the girlfriend forces her boyfriend to give her his mobile phone to see what he writes and blocks a friend arguing that he chats too long with her. In another story, a girl gets impatient and loses control because her partner is online but does not respond immediately to WhatsApp messages. The objective of the session is that by answering given questions, participants identify and become aware of the wide variety of cyberviolent behaviors that exist and are normalized, discuss the possible consequences of them, the motives that may be behind them, and the possible ways to address or act upon them.
In another session, they are presented with cards that represent mixed situations of online and offline violence so that in groups, they can rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how serious they perceive each of them to be. Actually, situations reflect similar offline and online behaviors (e.g., physically chasing and watching your partner all day long vs. being attentive to what he/she does and posts on his/her social networks during the whole day). The aim is for participants to reflect on the normalization of this type of behavior when it occurs online, since the score on its severity is usually much lower than the score they give to the situation that is similar but occurs offline.
The aim is not only to arouse the participants’ interest, but also for them to identify with the characters. For this purpose, we mainly considered the participants’ developmental stage, their interests, motivations, and needs at these ages, and the scenarios in which they may often find themselves. In line with other programs aimed at working on cyberviolence with young people, the methodology used in the program is aimed at encouraging active participation, using group dynamics, role-playing, small discussion groups, brainstorming, guided discussions, etc. All the material is developed in both Basque and Spanish. Its relevance and effectiveness are endorsed by the positive results usually obtained with this way of working with adolescents and young people (Galende et al., 2020) and in the case of this program, supported by the changes observed in the variables assessed by the questionnaires used in the pretest and posttest.
The following lines describe the methodology used (participants, procedure, and instruments), the results obtained and the conclusions drawn from them.
Method
Participants
The sample comprised 409 participants aged 12 to 17 years, 54.1% boys, 45% girls, and 1% non-binary. Of them, 57.7% (n = 236) were randomly assigned to the experimental condition (CDA-Stop program) and 42.3% (n = 173) were in the control condition (see Table 1).
Sociodemographic Characteristics of the Experimental and Control Samples: Sex, Age, Grade, and Type of Center.
Note. CDA-Stop = Cyber Dating Abuse-Stop; CSE = compulsory secondary education.
The participants were enrolled in schools in the Basque Country (northern Spain), 45% (n = 184) in public schools and 55% (n = 225) in state-subsidized schools, and were studying second (42.8%) and third (57.2%) grade of compulsory secondary education. The sample was intentionally selected from among the compulsory secondary schools of Bizkaia (province in the north of Spain). The selection criteria used were: (1) centers that had previous experience participating in research projects and were open to new practices of educational innovation; (2) centers that would adapt to the extensive duration of the program; and (3) public and subsidized schools, so that different types of centers were represented (Table 1).
Design and Procedure
The study used a quasi-experimental methodology with repeated measures pretest–intervention–posttest, and a control group. First, schools were selected randomly and we sent a letter to their directors, explaining the research and inviting them to collaborate. The project was explained in detail to the directors who agreed to allow their school to participate, and informed consents were delivered to the families. Before implementing the prevention program, the pretest evaluation was carried out. The members of the research team went to the schools to administer the assessment instruments (see Table 2) in the classrooms. The groups were randomly assigned either to the experimental condition or the control group. The experimental groups performed 12 sessions of the CDA-Stop program, whereas the control groups did not receive training. After the program’s end, the same pretest instruments were administered to both groups at the posttest.
Variables Evaluated, Assessment Instruments, and Reliability Index.
Note. RSE = Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem; BES = Basic Empathy Scale; ASI-adolescents = Ambivalent Sexism Inventory for Adolescents.
This study complied with all the provisions of the General Regulation (UE) 2016/679 on the Protection of Personal Data; that is, the personal data obtained through the completion of the battery of instruments were processed with the consent of each participant, the school management, and the family, for the exclusive purpose of scientific promotion and dissemination. The study was also approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of the Basque Country (CEISH/M10/2021/282).
Instruments
To evaluate the effect of the program, at the pretest and posttest phases, we administered five evaluation instruments with adequate psychometric guarantees of reliability and validity and an ad hoc questionnaire on the appropriate/inappropriate use of the Internet and social networks (see Table 2).
Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979) validated for the Spanish population (Atienza et al., 2000). This scale evaluates self-esteem with 10 items of which 5 are written in negative and the rest in positive. They must be answered by using a Likert scale from 1 to 4 where (1 = the item is not true and 4 = completely true). This scale showed an adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .85).
Basic Empathy Scale (Jolliffe & Farrington, 2006), in its Spanish version (Villadangos et al., 2016). This scale assesses empathy through 2 factors: Emotional Empathy and Cognitive Empathy through 20 items that are answered following a Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The scale has shown good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha of .78.
Scale of Intimate Partner Violence in Social Media in Adolescents (EVPA; Cava & Buelga, 2018). This scale measures dating violence experienced and perpetrated through social media and mobile phones. The scale is composed of 20 items, 10 of which measure experiences of victimization (“My boy/girlfriend has spread rumors or lies about me on the social media”) and the rest measure violent behavior toward the partner (“I have insulted or threatened by boy/girlfriend in private”). These items are answered on a Likert scale where 1 is never, 2 is sometimes, 3 is quite often, and 4 is always. The internal consistency of the scale was good: Cronbach’s alpha of .81.
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory for Adolescents (ASI-Adolescents; Glick & Fiske, 2018; Spanish adaptation by Lemus et al., 2008). This scale measures ambivalent sexism in adolescents by using 20 items: hostile sexism, that refers to attitudes of prejudice or discriminatory behaviors based on women’s inferiority (“Boys should exercise control over who their girlfriends interact with”) and benevolent sexism that refers to sexist attitudes in which women are stereotyped and limited to certain roles, but using a positive tone toward them (“Boys should take care of girls”). The items must be answered in a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). This scale showed an adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .90).
Scale of Myths about Love (Bosch et al., 2007) in its reduced version (Rodríguez-Castro et al., 2013). This scale measures myths about romantic love in two factors or dimensions: Factor 1, idealization of love, which consists of five items (“Somewhere there is someone predestined for each person (‘your better half’)”), and Factor 2, love-abuse linkage, consisting of two items (“You can love someone who is abused”). The scale has a Likert-type response format from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). It shows an adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .73).
An ad hoc questionnaire on adolescents’ appropriate/inappropriate use of the Internet and social networks to detect possible risky uses. It consists of 10 items in which participants are asked to indicate the level of risk they perceive in each item, ranging from 1 (not dangerous at all) to 5 (extremely dangerous), for example: “Dating alone with someone I have met online.” The scale has an adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .86).
Data Analysis
The efficacy of the program was tested through a series of six mixed unidirectional (experimental vs. control) and bidirectional (pretest vs. posttest) (Wilk’s lambda) ANOVAs, introducing the clustering variable as an inter-group variable, and the pretest and posttest variables as intra-group variables. Univariate effects were analyzed using a one-way mixed ANOVA and two time points. In both cases, we calculated the significance and effect size (η2). The latter was interpreted according to Cohen’s criterion, such that values below 0.04 were considered small effect sizes, between 0.04 and 0.14, medium effect sizes, and greater than 0.14, large effect sizes (Cohen, 1992). Statistical analyses were carried out using the statistical package IBM, SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 26 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).
Results
Regarding the results of dating cyberviolence (EVPA test), a non-significant multivariate interaction effect was obtained, F(4, 107) = 1.04, p = .387, η2 = .04. However, the univariate analysis showed an effect very close to significance in the case of e-victimization (EVPA1), F(1, 110) = 1.87, p = .051, η2 = .03 (see Table 3). As can be seen, the experimental group obtained a significant increase at posttest compared to their pretest scores, with no significant changes in the control group.
Univariate Group (Experimental and Control) and Condition (Pretest and Posttest) Interaction Effects in Each Significant Effect.
Note. EVPA = e-victimization; ASI1 = hostile paternalism; ASI3 = hostile sexuality; ASI4 = benevolent paternalism; ASI5 = benevolent gender differentiation; ASI6 = benevolent sexuality; ASI7 = total hostile sexism; ASI8 = total benevolent sexism; SD = standard deviation.
Sample size for EVPA1 victimization was n = 58 in the experimental group, and n = 54 in the control group.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
The second MANOVA was conducted with sexism (ASI). A significant multivariate interaction effect was obtained, F(6, 335) = 2.43, p = .026, η2 = .04. Univariate analyses showed significant interaction effects in all cases except for hostile sexism and gender differentiation. In the other cases, we found significant effects for hostile sexism-paternalism, F(1, 340) = 4.52, p = .034, η2 = .01; Hostile Sexism-sexuality, F(1, 340) = 7.17, p = .008, η2 = .02; Benevolent Sexism-paternalism, F(1, 340) = 4.14, p = .043, η2 = .01; Benevolent Sexism-gender differentiation, F(1, 340) = 6.33, p = .012, η2 = .02; Benevolent Sexism-sexuality, F(1, 340) = 5.22, p = .023, η2 = 02; total Hostile Sexism, F(1, 340) = 5.71, p = .017, η2 = .02; and total Benevolent Sexism, F(1, 340) = 8.65, p = .004, η2 = .03. The results are shown in Table 3. As can be seen, in all cases, there was a significant reduction in the experimental group at posttest compared to pretest, whereas no significant changes were observed in the control group except for benevolent sexism and gender differentiation. However, in this case, the effect size obtained by the experimental group (η2 = .13) was much larger than the effect size in the control group (η2 = .03).
The third MANOVA was carried out with the variable romantic myths (one-dimensional variable). A significant multivariate interaction effect was obtained, F(1, 340) = 26,18, p < .001, η2 = .07. The results are shown in Table 3. The experimental group obtained a significant reduction at posttest compared to their pretest scores. In the control group, a significant difference was also observed between the pretest and the posttest scores. However, the effect size (η2 = .05) was much smaller than in the experimental group (η2 = .32).
The fourth MANOVA was conducted with the perception of Internet risks (one-dimensional variable). A significant multivariate effect was observed, F(1, 340) = 10.34, p = .001, η2 = .03 (see Table 3). The experimental group again obtained a significant increase at the posttest compared to the pretest, with no changes in the case of the control group.
The fifth MANOVA examined self-esteem, F(1, 340) = 0.45, p = .445, η2 < .01, finding no significant interaction effects. Finally, the sixth MANOVA, analyzing empathy, yielded no significant multivariate effect, F(1, 340) = 1.19, p = .276, η2 < .01, and no significance in the univariate analysis when considering cognitive empathy, F(2, 339) = 0.60, p = .552, η2 < .01, or emotional empathy, F(1, 340) = 0.12, p = .735, η2 < .01.
Discussion
Dating cyberviolence in youngsters and adolescents is a very socially significant problem, given its implications for the couple members both in the short term (mental health problems, deterioration of social relationships, normalization of violence, etc.) and in the mid and long term (a generalization of both online and offline violence in future relationships). Hence, the importance of implementing prevention policies from an early age, as studies show the effectiveness of early prevention, and there is a broad consensus that such prevention should begin before adulthood (Fernández-González & Muñoz-Rivas, 2013; Leen et al., 2013; O’Leary & Slep, 2012).
The CDA-Stop is a universal prevention program targeting adolescents, which can be applied in the classroom and aims to raise participants’ awareness about the different types of dating violence, with particular emphasis on cyberviolence. At the same time, it attempts to develop critical thinking in the face of sexist attitudes and romantic myths, to help youth become more aware of the risks of misusing the Internet and social networks, and to strengthen their self-esteem and empathy. The results of this article show the efficacy of CDA-Stop in these variables.
The results show a change in the adolescents who participated in CDA-Stop (in contrast to those who did not, the control group). They could better identify cyberviolent behaviors performed by their partner toward them (i.e., they scored higher in cybervictimization) after participating in the program. This shows that many of the behaviors that we currently identify as cyberviolence (controlling the partner through the mobile phone, preventing them from chatting with some people, spreading rumors or lies on social networks, uploading photos, videos, or messages in which they appear without their permission, etc.) are normalized by adolescents. However, after adequate training and information, they come to understand that this is cyberviolence. Concerning cyberviolence, it is also striking that the differences after the implementation of the program occurred only in cybervictimization, and not in cyber perpetration. This might be due to the difficulties perpetrators may have to identify their behavior as abusive: it might be easier to identify violence when suffering it (as a victim) than when perpetrating. Considering the high incidence of cyberviolence perpetration found in the adolescent population in previous studies (Borrajo et al., 2015c), ranging from 10.6% for direct cyber aggressions to 82% for partner-controlling behaviors, we must address the issue from this perspective, so that adolescents become aware of it not only when they are the victims, but also when they are the aggressors.
Likewise, results show that CDA-Stop seems to be an effective program to reduce the levels of sexism in the experimental group because the intergroup (experimental group vs. control group) and intragroup (pretest vs. posttest) comparisons showed significant results, decreasing the levels of sexism in the experimental group at the posttest phase. This result is particularly relevant, especially when considering the role of sexism as a predictor of intimate partner violence (Carrera-Fernández et al., 2013; Garaigordobil & Aliri, 2013; Malonda et al., 2017; Martínez-Pecino & Durán, 2019; Pazos et al., 2014). In addition, it is of particular interest because recent studies have highlighted the need to include sexism in prevention programs (Carrascosa et al., 2019). In this sense, CDA-Stop is one of the first to do so and, moreover, with positive results.
Similar to the findings on sexism, romantic myths also decreased at posttest in the experimental group, a greater reduction than that experienced by the control group. The belief in these myths is common among adolescents and significantly influences how they initiate and maintain their relationships, also affecting the related behaviors that they consider normal (Borrajo et al., 2015a; Lelaurain et al., 2018; Rodríguez-Castro et al., 2013; Rodríguez-Domínguez et al., 2018). In addition, these beliefs can contribute to increasing the likelihood of suffering victimization, as the victims ignore violent situations because they are unaware of their violence (Francis & Pearson, 2019). They interpret some abusive, controlling, and jealous behaviors as signs of love (Carrascosa et al., 2019; Finkelhor et al., 2007; Machimbarrena et al., 2018; Malonda et al., 2017; Turner et al., 2017). Interestingly, the control group also reduced their scores on romantic myths. This could be due to the fact that issues related to gender equality and nondiscrimination are topics that are regularly worked on in all schools, which may have contributed to the fact that students in the groups that did not participate in the CDA-Stop reduced their scores on this variable (Calvo González, 2021).
Another variable influenced by the prevention program was adolescents’ perception of Internet risks, a fundamental aspect when using electronic devices with screens as an essential tool for communication and interaction. CDA-Stop helped to make participants more aware of the risks involved in behaviors such as sharing passwords or compromising photos. We live in a historical moment in which the Internet permeates everything. It is more necessary than ever to learn how to make healthy use of these types of tools, especially in adolescence, a stage in which young people use them constantly and for all kinds of activities, from schoolwork and interacting with peers (Buelga et al., 2017; Espinar & González, 2009) to the search for sexual and romantic relationships (Lykens et al., 2019). However, youngsters are often involved in risky behaviors or situations such as encountering high-level violent or sexual content or engaging in unwanted conversations in a chat, social network, or email (Savoia et al., 2021). Therefore, any improvement in detecting the risks involved in all these media types and situations should be considered very positive.
Despite the program’s benefits in the aforementioned variables, and contrary to our expectations, no significant changes were found in the participants’ self-esteem or empathy. However, training on these variables is highly relevant in such programs, as studies repeatedly reveal that individuals with higher levels of cyber dating abuse are described as reporting lower self-esteem (Hancock et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2018). Likewise, individuals with lower empathy scores are more likely to engage in cyberviolence (Muñoz -Fernández and Sánchez-Jiménez, 2020).
In this regard, numerous studies have reported difficulties in improving self-esteem and empathy through preventive and intervention programs. Chen-Bouck et al. (2023), for example, did not find improvements in participants’ empathy skills (i.e., perspective taking and empathic concern skills), as it was also previously found in other studies (Teding van Berkhout & Malouff, 2016). However, the data collection methods could have influenced this, given that when they are collected in a quantitative and a qualitative way, empathy-enhancing effects tend to appear in the qualitative data (Erera, 1997; Poorman, 2002).
In the case of self-esteem, in a meta-analysis including 116 studies, Haney and Durlak (1998) found that interventions directly targeting self-esteem were significantly more effective than those that try to boost self-esteem by modifying associated variables, and therapeutic programs are more effective than preventive interventions. The superiority of interventions over prevention was also reported by O’Mara et al. (2006) in their meta-analysis, with largest effect sizes associated with interventions that use praise and/or feedback. More recently, in a meta-analysis with adults, Niveau et al. (2021) found that the effectiveness of self-esteem interventions is moderated by some types of intervention, session format, experimenter contact, population type, and type of control group. All of the above issues could make it difficult to obtain meaningful results in self-esteem and empathy with the CDA-Stop.
Furthermore, because of the nature of these two variables, longer interventions may be required to observe changes or even to detect them in the long term through follow-up evaluations. Other authors have already highlighted the need for prolonged interventions to observe results. This is probably common to any intervention program (Martínez-Muñoz et al., 2019), especially if seeking to improve very relevant variables, such as those mentioned above. In any case, the program does emphasize people’s empowerment, the importance of self-care, loving oneself, and asserting oneself in relationships with others. Likewise, in the proposed dynamics and activities, participants are often asked to put themselves in the place of the other person and try to empathize with others. Perhaps if more sessions about empathy were introduced or the existing ones were prolonged for more time, this could bear more fruit, improving the participants’ self-esteem and empathy.
Another reason the program’s implementation may have had a greater effect on some variables than others is the type of variable itself. The program addressed some activities more related to acquiring knowledge and other activities more associated with acquiring skills (Institut National de Santé Publique du Québec, 2023). It is logical to think that the acquisition of skills related to variables such as self-esteem and empathy requires more time and effort than the acquisition of knowledge if significant changes are to be observed.
In addition, it would also be interesting to implement and evaluate the program with larger samples and in other contexts and cultures, in order to analyze its effects further. In fact, some studies show higher levels of perpetration in Latin American countries compared to Spain (Rivas-Rivero & Bonilla-Algovia, 2024) or in America compared with other European countries (Marganski & Fauth, 2013). Although the explanations are far from straightforward, some authors point to the way the social norms with regard to digital monitoring behaviors among peers are perceived, the frequency of adolescents having observed their father controlling their mother or the attitudes against gender stereotypes may be behind individual differences (Van Ouytsel et al., 2020). Although these attitudes cannot be generalized as being part of some cultures and not others, the norms, ideas, customs, and values that are transmitted vary widely across cultures. In any case, the program is prepared to be implemented with young people of any culture, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, type of school, etc., since it contains materials in which all these variables are represented in a natural way, and all of them can see themselves reflected in it, as it can be observed in the program itself (Jaureguizar et al., 2023). In conclusion, the results found should be valued, given that any change, no matter how small, in raising awareness, training, and informing the adolescent population about dating cyberviolence is a great step, contributing to preventing this type (or other types) of partner violence or stopping it, or encouraging the people involved to call for help. Given the scarcity of prevention programs in Spain, CDA-Stop attempts to fill this gap and open new lines of future intervention.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: This study was funded by The University of the Basque Country (Code. GIU20_003).
