These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Meta-Analysis of Cyber Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration and Victimization: Different Types and their Associations with Face-to-Face IPV among Men and Women.
    Author: Gilbar O, Charak R, Trujillo O, Cantu JI, Cavazos V, Lavi I.
    Journal: Trauma Violence Abuse; 2023 Jul; 24(3):1948-1965. PubMed ID: 35603442.
    Abstract:
    Cyber intimate partner violence (C-IPV) is a technology-mediated form of violence. It has been examined only in the last 10 years as a form of violence that can cause psychological damage to its victims. How this phenomenon connects to and differs from face-to-face IPV (F2F-IPV) has been, as yet, little studied. Research has not made clear whether sex differences may impact its use, particularly in light of the fact that no physical coercion is used in C-IPV. Thus, the current research aimed to investigate through a meta-analysis: differences between the average levels of different types of C-IPV victimization and perpetration; the association between C-IPV and F2F-IPV victimization and perpetration; and whether the answers to these questions were dependent on sex. The current meta-analysis drew on 46 studies, within 44 papers, with a total sample of 27,491 participants. Findings from 22 of these studies showed no significant sex differences between the average levels of different types of C-IPV victimization and between different types of C-IPV perpetration. These 22 studies showed positive large effect sizes for the correlation between C-IPV and F2F-IPV perpetration and victimization. Moreover, in both perpetration and victimization, sex did not impact the level of association. The findings suggested that C-IPV and F2F-IPV are highly correlated, and though not the same, they may share similar characteristics. Additionally, the results suggested that sex differences do not impact non-physical aggression, such as C-IPV. The implications for preventive strategies include that IPV interventions should also focus on alleviating instances of C-IPV.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]