J Child Fam Stud
DOI 10.1007/s10826-015-0196-5
ORIGINAL PAPER
Understanding the Role of Technology in Adolescent Dating
and Dating Violence
Charlene K. Baker1 • Patricia K. Carreño1
 Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract A significant part of an adolescent’s day in-
cludes the use of technology, such as cell phone calls, in-
stant messaging, and posts to social networking sites.
Although studies have documented the benefits of tech-
nology use, there are significant downsides as well. For
example, recent studies have shown that adolescents use
technology to harass and abuse others, including dating
partners. However, questions remain on how technology
use and dating violence intersect at different stages in the
couple’s relationship and whether this intersection is dif-
ferent for boys and girls. This article begins to fill these
gaps by presenting the findings from focus groups with 39
high school aged adolescents, all of whom had experienced
a problematic relationship in the past year. Results showed
that adolescents used technology to initiate and dissolve
dating relationships, often with text messages or posts to
social networking sites. Technology use also caused jeal-
ousy, and it was used to monitor and isolate partners from
others. Gender differences in the use of technology are
highlighted. Finally, recommendations for prevention pro-
grams for adolescents and parents are discussed.
Keywords Adolescent dating
Dating violence
Cell
phones
Social media
Prevention
& Charlene K. Baker
bakercha@hawaii.edu
1
Department of Psychology, University of Hawaii, 2530 Dole
Street, Sakamaki, C-400, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
Introduction
Romantic experiences are important for helping adoles-
cents achieve developmental milestones, including identity
and intimacy development (Furman and Shaffer 2003;
Zimmer-Gembeck et al. 2012). These experiences also
provide adolescents with many benefits such as social
status, enhanced feelings of self-worth, and opportunities to
gain resolution skills (Brown et al. 1999; Chen et al. 2009;
Collins 2003; Collins et al. 2009; Kuttler and La Greca
2004; Shulman and Seiffge-Krenke 2001; Zimmer-Gem-
beck 2002). Furthermore, romantic experiences in adoles-
cence have been linked to the quality of romantic
relationships in early adulthood (Bouchey and Furman
2003; Madsen and Collins 2011).
In examining the prevalence of romantic experiences,
one national study found that more than half of adolescents
reported a romantic relationship in the last 18 months
(Carver et al. 2003). Another study reported that almost
75 % of the 15–18 year old adolescents in their sample
reported a current or past romantic relationship (Connolly
and McIsaac 2009). Additionally, studies consistently show
that the prevalence of youth who report romantic rela-
tionships increases throughout early, middle, and late
adolescence (Carver et al. 2003; Giordano et al. 2006b;
Smetana et al. 2006). Altogether, these rates suggest an
overwhelming desire among adolescents to become in-
volved in romantic relationships.
However, the complexity of these relationships has in-
creased, and technology use among adolescents has added
to this complexity as a growing number of adolescents are
initiating relationships and communicating with their
partners ‘‘online’’. As we seek to understand relationships
within this new context, we must start first by examining
how adolescents define and describe their romantic
123

experiences. In a mixed methods study, Manning et al.
(2006) found that adolescents used the following terms to
describe their romantic experiences: dating, ‘‘hooking up,’’
‘‘friends with benefits,’’ and relationship, with each term
representing a different type of experience. Similarly, focus
groups with high school aged adolescents suggested a
distinction between casual dating and ‘‘being in a rela-
tionship,’’ with the latter being more serious and involving
an expectation of exclusivity (Baker 2012). With these
findings, it will be important for researchers to op-
erationalize terms so that there is better clarity in their
meaning (Connolly and McIsaac 2011; Furman and Collins
2009).
Next, it is helpful to examine the stages of dating and
what developmental needs are met at each stage. Consis-
tent with life course theory (Elder 1994), research by
Connolly et al. (2013) proposed that stages of adolescent
dating depend on the age of the adolescent. In early ado-
lescence, youth enter into romantic affiliations, which oc-
cur as same sex peer groups begin to transform into mixed
sex peer groups. Casual dating takes place in mid-adoles-
cence, which includes group dating in mixed sex peer
groups as well as instances when the dating couple breaks
off from the group. Late adolescence brings the start of
exclusive and stable dyadic relationships.
Just as there are stages of dating throughout adolescence
there are also stages that occur as adolescents move from
initiation to dissolution of a particular relationship. One
study that focused on the transition from healthy to un-
healthy behaviors within relationships found that many
adolescents in the sample experienced an initial period
(usually at the beginning) when their relationships were
healthy and ‘‘typical,’’ but, soon after, increased monitor-
ing and controlling behaviors by one or both partners led to
a transition where these relationships became unhealthy,
but no attempts were made to end the relationship (Helm
et al. 2015). Although the trajectory of these relationships
changed from healthy to unhealthy, adolescents often
viewed monitoring and controlling behaviors as irritating
but not abusive, and therefore, did not dissolve the rela-
tionship. Other research has suggested that jealousy and
controlling behaviors may not be viewed as such by ado-
lescents as these behaviors show that their partner loves
them (Williams 2012).
Along with definitions and stages of adolescent rela-
tionships, empirical research on the distinct dating expe-
riences for boys and girls can serve as a guide for exploring
gender differences in how technology is used in relation-
ships. Although there appears to be little difference in the
stages boys and girls go through from early to late ado-
lescence (Carver et al. 2003; Furman and Shaffer 2003),
there do seem to be gender differences in dating goals and
expectations during these stages. Zimmer-Gembeck et al.
123
J Child Fam Stud
(2012) found that adolescents reported specific dating goals
related to identity development, intimacy, and social status.
Interestingly, girls reported more identity goals than boys
(e.g., wanting to do things on their own, wanting to
maintain a sense of independence). In other work, Williams
and Hickle (2010) reported that when adolescents were
asked to discuss their expectations associated with being in
love, both boys and girls described that it meant that the
couple was committed to each other and willing to sacrifice
if needed. However, boys talked more about commitment
as a part of being in love than girls. Finally, another study
found that boys and girls did not differ in their reports of
love; however, boys were less confident than girls in their
ability to navigate romantic relationships (Giordano et al.
2006b).
With this foundation, we can begin to examine the im-
pact that technology use is having on adolescent relation-
ships. The empirical research in this area is limited. As
such, the need for additional examination cannot be over-
stated as adolescents are becoming increasingly connected
through the use of technology. In support of this premise,
research shows that a significant part of an adolescent’s day
revolves around the use of technology to communicate
with others, such as cell phones, instant messaging, and
social networking sites (SNS) (Madden et al. 2013b). In
fact, the vast majority of adolescents in the United States
has cell phones and is online (78 and 95 %, respectively;
Madden et al. 2013b). Interestingly, adolescents’ way of
online access is changing, and is more often through cell
phones. In addition to going online, 75 % of adolescents
text message every day, which surpasses all other forms of
electronic communication (Lenhart 2012). Females use this
method significantly more often than males; females aged
14–17 years send twice as many text messages as do males
of the same age (with a median number of texts per day of
100 vs. 50) (Lenhart 2012).
In light of the explosion of technology use among
adolescents, initial research has documented both positive
and negative impacts for adolescents (Best et al. 2014). For
example, online interactions can provide opportunities to
strengthen relationships with friends and dating partners
(Subrahmanyam and Greenfield 2008). However, there is
growing evidence that adolescents are using technology to
threaten, harass, and stalk dating partners, with cell phones
being the most commonly reported technology used
(Draucker and Martsolf 2010; Korchmaros et al. 2013).
These behaviors are consistent with the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention’s (2014) definition of dating vio-
lence, which includes physical, sexual, and emotional
violence, as well as monitoring and controlling behaviors;
and it appears that the latter is now occurring through the
use of technology. In this way, technology use has in-
creased partner access and exacerbated the potential impact
J Child Fam Stud
of dating violence by allowing partners to abuse each other
even when they are not together.
According to one study, one in four adolescents has
reported being a victim of cyber dating violence (Zweig
et al. 2013). Other studies have documented rates of
specific experiences that illustrate the intersection of
technology and dating violence. Research conducted by
Teenage Research Unlimited found that among a sample of
615 adolescents, ages 13–18 years old, 36 % reported that
their partners checked up on them repeatedly on their cell
phone; and 30 % reported that their partner called them
names, put them down, or said mean things using some
form of technology (Picard 2007). In another study with
623 adolescents, 48 % reported that their partner had gone
through their cell phone to check messages, and 39 % re-
ported that their partner had checked their personal page on
a SNS to see who they had been communicating with. In
this same sample, perpetration rates for these actions were
42 and 45 %, respectively. There were also gender differ-
ences in technology victimization and perpetration rates;
girls were more often victims and perpetrators of violence
using technology than boys (Baker and Helm 2011).
These studies suggest the importance of prevention
programming that addresses the intersection of technology
use and dating violence. To aid prevention development,
what is needed is a clearer picture of the context in which
dating and dating violence via technology occurs. There
are few studies that provide this contextual information.
Research has documented that a relationship exists be-
tween technology use, dating, and dating violence, but the
questions of how they intersect and when they intersect
remain unanswered. One exception to this contextual gap
in the literature is provided by a qualitative study con-
ducted by Draucker and Martsolf (2010), in which 56
young adults aged 18–21 years old reported on their ex-
periences with electronic communication and dating vio-
lence when they were in middle and high school. Excerpts
from participants showed that technology was used to:
(a) establish a relationship; (b) communicate with partners;
(c) argue with a partner; (d) monitor and control a partner;
(e) perpetrate emotional or verbal aggression; (f) seek help
during a violent episode; (g) limit a partner’s access to self;
and (h) reconnect with a partner after a violent episode or
break-up. These findings offer a glimpse into dating rela-
tionships and the myriad ways that adolescents rely on
technology for communicating with, establishing control
over, verbally abusing, seeking help, and reconnecting with
their partners.
Another qualitative study extended these findings by
examining gender differences in the use of (and attitudes
surrounding) socially interactive technology among 23
high school students (Lucero et al. 2014). Monitoring,
sexting, and password sharing were discussed within the
context of technology use and dating relationships. Boys
emphasized the appropriateness of sexting, whereas girls
discussed password sharing, with both agreeing that these
should only occur while the couple is in a relationship.
Distrust and jealousy were mentioned frequently as con-
sequences of technology use, and were often related to
monitoring by one or both partners.
Moving forward, the field would benefit from additional
research that contributes to our contextual understanding of
how technology and dating are related (Stonard et al.
2014). The Draucker and Martsolf (2010) study begins to
address this gap in the literature; however, one limitation is
that participants in this study were older (18–21 years), and
provided retrospective accounts of their experiences.
Compounding this limitation is the rapidly changing
landscape of technology such that the methods used
5–10 years ago are quite different than those used by to-
day’s adolescents (Madden et al. 2013a). In addition,
although the study by Lucero et al. (2014) shed light on
gender differences in the use of technology, additional
work is needed to explore gender differences fully.
Therefore, the current study adds to the field by pre-
senting the findings from a series of focus groups with 39
high school aged adolescents, all of whom had experienced
a problematic relationship in the past year. Specifically, the
research aims of the study were to: (1) explore how tech-
nology is used at different stages of the relationship (e.g.,
in the initiation and dissolution of relationships); (2) de-
scribe adolescents’ experiences with technology use and
dating violence, both as victims and perpetrators of vio-
lence, and (3) examine gender differences in technology
use, dating, and dating violence.
Method
Participants
Participants were recruited from a range of community-
based organizations, including a peer mentoring program,
an alcohol support program, a youth career center, and
court-ordered temporary group homes for boys and girls.
Eight sex-specific focus group interviews were conducted
with a total of 39 participants: four focus groups with boys
(n = 21, 54 %) and four focus groups with girls (n = 18,
46 %). Focus group participant numbers ranged between
three and eight, with an average of four per group. Re-
garding ethnicity/race, all participants were identified as
‘‘local.’’ In Hawai‘i, an individual’s culture is not based on
their ethnic/racial mixtures but on the local culture that
was formed in Hawai‘i from the interactions and inter-
marriage among the many different groups. Hawaiian
Pidgin is the language of local culture and the marker of
123

local identity (O’Donnell and Williams 2013; Okamura
1994; Reineke 1969). Given the complexities of the many
ethnic/racial combinations and the reality that all were
local, no attempt was made to obtain the frequency of each
background. Youth under the age of 18 (ages 14–17,
n = 31; 17 boys and 14 girls) obtained parental consent
and completed an assent form on the day of the focus
group. Participants 18 or 19 years of age (n = 8; 4 boys
and 4 girls) completed a consent form on the day of the
focus group. Each participant was given a $10.00 gift card
for their participation.
Procedures
Prior to initiating participant recruitment, the project re-
ceived approval from the University of Hawai‘i Committee
on Human Studies. The author had previously conducted
dating violence workshops with service providers from
community-based organizations across the State of
Hawai‘i, and chose to utilize these relationships in the re-
cruitment of youth for the current study. Providers who
attended the workshops were given a description of the
project, timeline, participant eligibility criteria, and
assent/consent forms. Those unable to assist with par-
ticipant recruitment suggested other organizations and
points of contact who could serve as liaisons for the
project.
Providers and other community liaisons introduced the
project to boys and girls in their programs, and screened
youth to be sure that they understood and met eligibility
criteria for the study. These criteria included: (1) were high
school age (14–19), though they did not need to be enrolled
in public school; (2) had a prior relationship in the past year
they characterized as problematic, though not necessarily
abusive; and (3) were not currently in a relationship in-
volving abuse or dating violence. As an additional check, at
the beginning of each focus group, the facilitator confirmed
that adolescents met eligibility criteria prior to securing
participant assent/consent.
Between July and December, 2012, experienced inter-
viewers facilitated the focus groups, with assistance from a
note taker. A male facilitator, assisted by a male note taker,
conducted the focus groups with boys while a female fa-
cilitator, assisted by a female note taker, conducted the
girls’ groups. The facilitators were not local (the male fa-
cilitator was a graduate student and the female facilitators
were faculty members not from Hawai‘i). However, the
female facilitators had over 10 years of experience work-
ing and conducting focus groups with adolescents, and one
of the note takers was local, having grown up on the island
where some groups were conducted. Each focus group was
voice recorded and pseudonyms were used to maintain
participant confidentiality.
123
J Child Fam Stud
Measures
The focus group guide was developed based on information
gathered in previous focus groups with a different group of
adolescents as well as findings from the literature that
spoke to the many different risk factors associated with
dating violence. With this background, and to elicit more
information on the context of adolescent relationships, the
focus group guide included the following topics: (1) how
relationships begin, progress, and end, (2) the use of
technology (e.g., cell phones and SNS) in dating and dating
problems, (3) the role of substance use in dating relation-
ships, and (4) the role of peers in relationship development
and dating problems.
Data Analysis
Over 500 min of audio were transcribed verbatim, with an
average focus group time of 63 min. This resulted in 388
pages of transcripts (ranging from 24 to 63 pages, aver-
aging 43 pages per transcript). With these transcripts, the
research team began the process of analysis. We used a
computer assisted qualitative data analysis software,
NVivo, to ensure a systematic approach to data manage-
ment and analysis, while also allowing for the emergent
nature of the analysis to occur (Miles et al. 2014). As a first
step, transcripts were read several times by the author and
members of the research team, and coded using a priori
categories that matched the interview questions. For the
current paper, we focused on the different themes sur-
rounding dating, dating violence, and technology use, in-
cluding cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc.
Next, we used grounded theory, and included open
coding procedures to determine whether there were pat-
terns to adolescents’ discussions of technology use and
dating (Corbin and Strauss 2008; Ponterotto 2010). These
patterns were then elucidated further through axial and
selective coding, which sought to clarify the participants’
statements of how technology was associated with dating
and dating violence. Building on the initial codebook to
capture the details of these patterns, we added specific
codes related to the role of technology in ‘‘getting in,’’
‘‘causing jealousy,’’ ‘‘monitoring,’’ ‘‘partner-imposed iso-
lation,’’ ‘‘breaking off contact,’’ and ‘‘getting out’’ of a
dating relationship. Gender differences in how adolescents
described the role of technology in their relationships were
also highlighted when applicable.
Finally, each transcript was coded using the revised
codebook and codes were added to the digital database
(NVivo, Version 10). The categories were not mutually
exclusive, meaning that data could be coded within mul-
tiple categories, as appropriate to the content of the nar-
rative. Narrative segments that were not identically coded
J Child Fam Stud
by research team members (final coding was conducted by
two coders independently and checked by the author) were
discussed until consensus was reached. In terms of
saturation, references to these categories accounted for
26.6 % of the transcripts. Broken down by individual
categories, data coded as ‘‘getting in’’ accounted for an
average of 8.5 % of the discussion across all groups (range
0.8–20.5 %); ‘‘causing jealousy’’ accounted for 4.7 %
(range 0.0–6.3 %); ‘‘monitoring’’ accounted for 6.9 %
(range 0.0–16.8 %); ‘‘isolation’’ accounted for 3.9 %
(range 0.0–7.1 %); ‘‘breaking off contact’’ accounted for
3.9 % (range 0.0–7.3 %); and ‘‘getting out’’ accounted for
6.7 % (range 0.0–16.1 %) of the discussion across all
groups.
Results
Before turning to the role of technology, it is helpful to
establish the general context of adolescents’ relationships.
During the focus groups, adolescents were asked to de-
scribe their relationships and from these conversations it
was clear that adolescents viewed them as more serious
than is the case with casual dating. There were expectations
of commitment and exclusivity, and many of the relation-
ships had lasted for several months (though we did not
probe each participant on relationship duration). It was also
clear that adolescents struggled with achieving a stable and
committed relationship, and in fact, they related that their
relationships were filled with anxiety, distrust, discord, and
violence. Although this was expected by the facilitators
given the eligibility criteria for participation in the study,
the extent and repeated nature (sometimes across multiple
partners) of relationship problems was still surprising.
Boys and girls talked extensively about cheating, and
trying to keep track of their partners (or their partners
keeping track of them) to ensure that they were not
cheating. Youth also described constant arguments and
verbal abuse. In fact, monitoring and controlling behaviors,
along with verbal abuse, were the most often endorsed
types of violence. Although instances of physical violence
were reported less often, participants did describe occa-
sions when they were victims or perpetrators of physical
violence. Most often these instances involved one partner
slapping or hitting the other (in several of these cases the
physical violence was reciprocal).
Within this context, participants discussed the role of
technology in their relationships. Texting and posting on a
SNS (mostly Facebook) were the main methods of tech-
nology used by adolescents. Youth also described using
Instagram and Tumblr, but with much less frequency.
Specifically, technology use was described in the context of
initiating as well as dissolving relationships. Throughout
the relationship, technology use was associated with
causing jealousy between partners; monitoring and trying
to isolate partners from others, which was often a result of
jealousy; and one partner trying to regain control over his/
her emotions by taking a technology ‘‘break’’ from the
other partner. These categories are described in more detail
below. Pseudonyms are used when presenting specific
quotes from adolescents in order to protect their
anonymity.
Getting In
Both boys and girls described using technology to initiate a
dating relationship. Their descriptions were similar in that
they would begin communicating with someone through
texts as well as on Facebook or other social networking
sites. In some cases they had met the person at a party; in
others, the person was a part of their extended group of
friends (e.g., friend of a friend). These methods were used
for varying lengths of time, sometimes only a few days
before one would try to arrange a face-to-face meeting with
the other; in other cases, this type of communication would
go on for a few months before an in-person meeting oc-
curred. For example, boys used technology as a way to
‘‘hook up’’ with girls and so the time between securing a
girl’s phone number and texting was short. Boys preferred
this method because if the girl said no then they would be
saved the embarrassment of being rejected in front of
others. By contrast, girls discussed technology as a way to
‘‘get to know’’ someone before taking it to the next level,
and therefore, they tended to rely on technology for com-
municating with potential dating partners in this beginning
stage longer than boys.
Jen: We started talking on Facebook, and then we
would text, and then it kind of just…grew. So, then
we became boyfriend and girlfriend after like
3 months of talking.
Once it became ‘‘official’’, participants described how
they would update their status on social networking sites,
like Facebook. They discussed the importance of this status
change because it was a signal to others to stay away from
their partner.
Elle: We say it to each other and we post it up on the
internet. Or you see pictures of us on the internet, and
then you know it’s official. To stay the f*** away.
Causing Jealousy
Although technology was seen as important to the devel-
opment of a relationship, it also was associated with
causing jealousy once in the relationship. As described
123

above, boys and girls used technology to inform peers
about a new relationship. However, in some cases one
partner was not as forthcoming as the other, and in fact,
would hide his/her relationship status, thereby causing the
other partner to become jealous. According to one girl:
‘‘It’s just you shouldn’t be ‘‘taken’’ on your profile but
‘‘single’’ on your inbox.’’ There was also the added com-
plication that once a relationship became ‘‘public’’ there
were actions on the part of peers (and friends) to try to
‘‘screw it up.’’
Amanda: There are other girls who want to talk to
him, like from other schools. And they would mes-
sage your boyfriend and your boyfriend will either
message back or not. Most guys nowadays ….
Lisa: Would message back.
Jessica: Exactly.
In addition to girls not liking when their boyfriends texted
or chatted with other girls, they were equally irritated when
their boyfriends had pictures of other girls on their cell
phones.
Chloe: Oh, insecurity. I guess when like they’re
talking to other girls or like they have girls’ pictures
and stuff on their phone. Like don’t give a girl a
reason to compare ourselves to another girl and bring
down her self-esteem.
Boys also related how their girlfriends did not like them
using technology to communicate with other girls. For
example, one boy described how his girlfriend would get
angry when other girls ‘‘liked’’ the photos he uploaded on
Instagram.
Duke: My chick get mad though, when I Instagram.
You know that’s only pictures, yeah? And, then loads
of girls like my pictures. And she get mad.
But, it is important to note that jealousy was not only an issue
for girls. Interestingly, although boys did not mention their
own jealous behavior, girls (across all groups) described how
their boyfriends would ‘‘freak out’’ because one of their ex-
boyfriends added them as a friend on Facebook. Or, their
boyfriend would see a picture that they posted and the picture
included other boys in it. The result would be that their
boyfriend would become suspicious and want to know who
the boys are and ‘‘what are you doing with them?’’
Lisa: But, you’re not doing anything with the boys;
you don’t even know these boys. They just got in the
picture you were taking. And, to that your boyfriend
would be like ‘‘What are you doing? Why are you
taking pictures with other boys?’’ Like, sometimes
your friends can even start little fights between you
and your boyfriend.
123
J Child Fam Stud
This was yet another example of how peer actions
intersected with technology use to cause jealousy and
arguments between the dating couple.
Because of the constant, and instantaneous, communi-
cation between partners that comes with the use of tech-
nology, jealousy would also occur when one partner would
not respond immediately to the other. The expectation that
partners should always be available to each other was
mentioned across boys and girls groups.
Patricia: He would be angry if I didn’t text him back
right away or answer his calls. Like he would be like
‘‘What are you doing? Where are you?’’
Facilitator: How did you handle that?
Patricia: I told him I’m not home and busy. And, he
would get mad. He would think that I was fooling
around with other people.
Sometimes jealousy occurred in conjunction with monitor-
ing (described more below). For some participants, there
was a vicious cycle in that jealousy caused by the
‘‘inappropriate’’ use of technology would lead one partner
to try to keep track of the other partner by looking through
his/her text messages or personal accounts on social
networking sites. These actions would inevitably cause
greater jealousy and additional monitoring because often
messages and accounts included communication with
others (e.g., opposite sex friends) that the monitoring
partner found objectionable.
Monitoring
Boys and girls described that in the beginning of a rela-
tionship it was seen as a sign of trust and commitment to
share passwords. However, according to one boy soon
enough: ‘‘you’ll be looking at and you going to be like
‘since when you’ve been talking to this person?’ And you
both can end up with more dramas.’’
Even so, most boys and girls did not see an issue with
keeping an eye on their partner. Boys in two of the four focus
groups discussed their monitoring behaviors as necessary to
keep their partner in the relationship. Boys believed that if
they kept a tight watch over their girlfriend’s activities, they
would have a better chance of not losing her to another boy.
Ben: You’re gonna want to do that [check their
phone] and then you’re gonna want to like know
everything about ‘em just cause after you’ve been
with this girl for so long that you’re …It’s weird to
think, but you’re scared …. [softer] you’re scared.
You don’t want them to learn that you’re scared.
For girls, monitoring was not directly related to fear of
losing their partner (at least this was not how girls in two of
J Child Fam Stud
the groups related their reasons for monitoring). Rather,
girls described how their monitoring behavior (e.g., asking
boyfriends to call when they were out; checking their social
networking sites for posts) was actually because they were
worried about their boyfriend’s safety (e.g., if he was out
drinking with friends) and well-being.
Hope: He doesn’t like to tell me everything. I mean
he does trust me but there’s just some things that he
wants to keep to himself and he doesn’t want to
worry me. So, I’d occasionally check his Facebook,
or his Tumblr (which is like a blog spot) and see if he
posts anything new. To see if something’s wrong.
In this case, Hope wanted her boyfriend to be more open and
sharing about his life and when that did not happen, she felt
that it was appropriate to check his posts for information
about what he was keeping from her. Discussions in the other
two girls groups were more from the standpoint of: if a
couple is dating, then they should have complete access to
the other’s life; if this access is not granted, then, likely, one
partner is hiding something that needs to be uncovered.
Madeline: But, to him it’s wrong if you look at his
phone cause that’s his privacy. But, if you got noth-
ing to hide, you shouldn’t be scared if I see your
phone. I would leave my phone right in front of my
boyfriend. If he wants to look through my phone, he
can. Cause I have nothing to hide.
Although monitoring was sometimes presented in an
innocuous way (e.g., monitoring to make sure that their
partner was safe), or as justifiable for partners who are truly
committed to each other, these actions were typically
rooted in jealousy. The majority of discussions related to
the connection between jealousy and monitoring were in
the girls groups. For example, girls wanted to know how
their partner characterized their relationship on social
networking sites (i.e., Were they open to others about being
in a relationship or were they hiding it?), and, therefore,
would try to get access to their boyfriend’s personal
account or simply browse their page.
Taylor: Well, to be honest, I went on Facebook …
like, occasionally. But, I wouldn’t stalk him on
Facebook or whatever. Like, I’d just be browsing
through the page, but not like in-depth kinda thing,
but then there was this thing where he … I mean …
Okay. It’s not a big deal but he wouldn’t … like our
relationship wasn’t posted on Facebook… It’s like
not a total big deal, but it’s still something little.
In addition to girls describing their own monitoring
behaviors, they also described how their boyfriends would
become jealous and monitor them, including their cell
phones and social networking sites.
Adele: It [cell phones] was a really big deal in the
relationship. He sort of tried to give me the impres-
sion that he owned me. So, when we would meet he
would actually go through my cell phone to see who I
text.
In fact, this boyfriend also downloaded an application onto
her phone that would keep track of where she was. In
another girls group there was also widespread discussion of
their boyfriends’ jealousy and monitoring behaviors:
Malia: He’s really jealous and gets really overpro-
tective. He asks for my password… to see who I am
talking, chatting with.
Facilitator: What about Facebook?
Malia: Facebook too. When I’m gonna go online, he
comes beside me and watches what I do.
Finally, across the girls groups, there were also descriptions
of mutual monitoring where both partners were monitoring
each other. Similar to the excerpts above, mutual monitor-
ing occurred because each partner wanted to know if the
other was interacting with members of the opposite sex.
Krista: He didn’t really go on my [Facebook] page.
It’s more like me going on his page because I know
that there was a lot of girls that like to talk to him so I
was like one of the protective ones to say that he
wasn’t gonna go out with anybody else except me.
So, a lot of girls found it, like ‘‘oh, I’ll talk to your
man whenever I want to’’, but I was like, ‘‘If you’re
gonna talk to him, that means you’re gonna talk to
me’’ but when it comes to him doing that it wasn’t
that exact way. He kind of let it go a lot, which I
found kinda iffy.
Later in the conversation Krista also described how her
boyfriend would go through her phone to see who she was
talking to. ‘‘All he would do was just look through it real
quick and then give it back.’’ When probed for how she felt
about this, Krista was not bothered by it: ‘‘Well, because I
was so protective of other girls, I guess he would feel the
same about guys.’’
Partner-Imposed Isolation
Although monitoring behaviors were discussed more often
in the girls groups (both their own and their partner’s
monitoring), both girls and boys described how (only) boys
would try to isolate their girlfriends, mostly because of
jealousy and fear of losing them. However, it is important
to note that this topic was among the least mentioned in the
focus groups, though two of the groups (one boys group
and one girls group) discussed the topic more than the
others. According to boys in one focus group ‘‘every guy
123

wants a girl and there is a billion guys that want one girl.’’
So, when you have a girl, ‘‘she’s yours’’ and you need to do
everything you can to keep her, even though some boys in
the group did realize the risk of holding on too tight.
Thomas: You wanna hold them. Keep them away
from people. But, then you don’t want to hold them,
because like it [is] pretty much going [to] end the
relationship.
Even with this possible consequence, boys would monitor
their partner’s activities and then would take it a step
farther and try to make sure that no other boys had
technology (and other) access to their girlfriends. In one
case, a boy broke two of his girlfriend’s cell phones
because he thought other boys were calling her (in one case
it was actually the girl’s father who called; her boyfriend
overheard a male voice and broke the phone). In one of the
girls groups, a girl described how her boyfriend kept
badgering her whenever she would communicate with
other guys on Facebook. In particular, the girl discussed
how she kept in contact with one of her ex-boyfriends who
had since become a friend.
Adele: And, he saw that we were friends and that we
were still talking and he started going, ‘‘Why are you
still friends with him? Why are you still talking with
him? You guys are over. You shouldn’t be doing
that.’’ And, he actually asked for my password and
username, logged in, and de-friended him.
Breaking Off Contact
In addition to partner-imposed isolation, at times adolescents
would isolate themselves from their partner. This topic was
discussed in only one of the four boys groups; however, it
was mentioned in all four girls groups, though not exten-
sively. Although this topic was not as prevalent as others, the
references showed that boys and especially girls understood
the power of not returning phone messages or replying to
their partner’s texts. Self-isolation, or breaking off contact,
occurred because adolescents were tired of being monitored,
or attempts by their partner to isolate them from their friends.
These actions were typically for a limited duration. In this
way, breaking off contact was an attempt to regain control in
the relationship; in others, it was a way to calm down.
June: He would think I’m cheating so I would think
he’s cheating. And, he was just pushing it. He was
pushing it and I was just like ‘‘you know what? I’m
just gonna break my phone so I don’t have to talk to
you.
However, sometimes breaking off contact led to one
partner harassing the other. After getting fed up with the
123
J Child Fam Stud
constant monitoring by her boyfriend, one girl described
how she stopped answering his phone calls and what
happened afterward: ‘‘He would just keep texting or calling
and even like at 2 a.m. if I didn’t pick up he’d call like 10
times until I actually picked up.’’ Similarly, in another
group, a girl described how her partner ‘‘bombed my phone
up with like messages and stuff’’ after she stopped
answering his phone calls and texts.
Getting Out
Breaking off contact was often the start of the end of the
relationship. Participants described how they or their
partner would just stop answering texts and not return
phone messages. At first, this would last a short time,
maybe a day or two. After each fight, the time between
receiving a text or online communication and responding to
it would grow until after a few weeks the relationship
would just end, often without any further face-to-face
discussion of why it ended. This example illustrates how
technology was used to, indirectly, end a relationship. This
indirect method was used by boys more than girls.
In other cases, boys and girls used technology to directly
end the relationship. One boy described how he received a
text message from his girlfriend (while on his way to his
friend’s house after just walking her home) saying she
wanted to break up with him. When he arrived at his friend’s
house, both he and his friend began doing drugs and ‘‘got
super mad.’’ Later that night they were on Facebook and then
his friend [pretending to be the boy] started typing a message
to the boy’s girlfriend that left little doubt about the boy’s
frustration with her. When asked by the facilitator if he was
mad at his friend for doing this, he said ‘‘No, because I
wanted to say it but I couldn’t do it myself.’’
In a girls group, one of the girls described how her
boyfriend called her up one day out of the blue (while he
was drinking with friends) and broke up with her. Another
girl related how she had to break up with her boyfriend in a
text because his voicemail was full. There was laughter in
the group at this disclosure, to which the girl replied, ‘‘I
didn’t want to. I really didn’t want to. I’m like so against
that, but honestly he left me no choice.’’ Interestingly, this
was the only participant who expressed remorse at using
technology to break up with someone; most boys and girls
who described their experiences with technology use and
ending relationships (even if they were on the receiving
end of the break-up) seemed to view it as standard practice.
Finally, similar to the consequence of breaking off
contact, for some participants, there was continued ha-
rassment through the use of technology when a relationship
ended. One boy described how his (now) ex-girlfriend kept
calling him and commenting on his Facebook page after he
broke up with her.
J Child Fam Stud
Frank: This girl was obsessed with me. When I went
out with this [other] girl, she wanted to fight my
girlfriend. But, it’s just that even they [switches over
to the third person to describe his ex-girlfriend’s ac-
tions] cry, like every day for you. And, every picture,
they always put a comment. They would write on
your wall and Facebook. They miss you. Like what
the heck? Making it worse.
Discussion
The findings from this study underscore the importance of
technology at all stages of the relationship, from initiation
to dissolution. Although adolescents described relation-
ships that were more serious than casual dating, there
were issues with commitment, including concerns of ex-
clusivity within these relationships. These findings are
consistent with the developmental literature in that youth
in middle adolescence engage in casual dating but that
there is also a transformation at this stage when casual
dating starts to take on the characteristics of committed
relationships (Connolly et al. 2004, 2013; Furman and
Collins 2009).
However, adolescents in the sample struggled with this
transition, believing their relationships to be more than
casual dating but having difficulty achieving attached and
stable relationships. Instead, they expressed feelings of
insecurity, jealousy, stress, and frustration. Similarly, oth-
ers have discussed the increased emotionality associated
with the transition from friendships to romantic relation-
ships (Giordano et al. 2006a; Larsen et al. 1999), and the
difficulty for relationships in early and mid-adolescence to
achieve the level of attachment that is found in late ado-
lescence and adulthood (Ainsworth 1989; Bouchey and
Furman 2003; Furman and Collins 2009). The emotionality
of adolescent relationships also tends to create the potential
for asymmetry in which one partner perceives that he/she is
more invested in the relationship than the other partner.
Such perceptions may result in insecurity by the more in-
vested partner, as well as an attempt by this partner to
preserve the exclusivity of the relationship by ensuring that
the other partner does not have the opportunity to cheat
(Giordano et al. 2006a, b). Against this emotionally fragile
and asymmetrical backdrop, technology tended to have
both positive and negative effects.
In the current study, youth used a mixture of technology
during their relationships, including cell phone calls, texts,
and posting comments/pictures to personal pages on social
networking sites. These findings underscore the frequency
with which adolescents use technology generally, as well in
romantic relationships (Korchmaros et al. 2013; Madden
et al. 2013a, b; Zweig et al. 2013). With regard to the first
research aim, to increase our understanding of how tech-
nology is used at different stages of the relationship, ado-
lescents described meeting someone initially face-to-face
but then texting or communicating with them on social
networking sites before arranging another in-person meet-
ing. In this way, technology use was viewed positively;
both boys and girls preferred this arrangement as it gave
them a chance to test the waters before jumping into a date
with the person. Interestingly, even after establishing a
relationship, much of the couple’s daily communication
continued to occur through the use of technology. Youth
also described how technology was used to end a rela-
tionship, and, in fact, most who described this experience
did so in a ‘‘matter-of-fact’’ way, indicating this was a
common way to end adolescent relationships today.
The second research aim was to explore the relationship
between technology use and dating violence, both as vic-
tims and perpetrators. Similar to previous research, many
participants described relationships in which there was
reciprocal violence (Swahn et al. 2010). Findings also
emphasize the negative effects of technology as adoles-
cents reported that technology use exacerbated feelings of
jealousy, which led to discord and violence between the
couple. In particular, both boys and girls expressed jeal-
ousy at their partner’s online communication with opposite
sex adolescents. As described previously, this jealousy was
often a result of insecurity as they were afraid that their
partner would meet someone else. Although insecurity and
jealousy in adolescent relationships is not new (Adam and
Williams 2014; Helms et al. 2013; Nomaguchi et al. 2010),
it appears that the ease in which communication with other
potential partners can take place through the use of tech-
nology increases the difficulties in achieving stability in
these relationships and makes adolescents more vulnerable
to relationship discord and violence.
To illustrate, adolescents described using technology to
monitor their partner; they relayed experiences where they
were victims and perpetrators of monitoring behaviors, and
in some cases these behaviors were extreme. In addition,
participants (mostly boys) took it one step further and tried
to prevent their partner’s use of technology to ensure that
they were not communicating with members of the oppo-
site sex. In other cases, adolescents would temporarily
isolate themselves from their partner by not returning calls
or texts. Similar to the findings from Draucker and Mart-
solf’s (2010) study, breaking off contact was used as a
method to re-establish control in the relationship or to
simply take a break from the controlling partner. However,
in some cases, an unintended consequence of breaking off
contact was an increase in harassing behaviors by the
monitoring partner.
123

Moving to the final research aim, namely to better un-
derstand gender differences in technology use, there were
few differences between boys and girls in the actual use of
technology in dating and dating violence. Rather, most of
the distinctions were related to boys’ and girls’ reasons for
why they did what they did. For example, both boys and
girls used technology to initiate relationships; however,
they did so for different reasons. For girls, it was an op-
portunity to get to know a boy before in-person contact
occurred. For boys, it was a face-saving mechanism in case
their ‘‘hook-up’’ attempt did not work. Underlying this
finding is that boys may have been less confident in their
ability to communicate with potential partners, a finding
that others have discussed (Giordano et al. 2006a). Boys
may also have concerns generally about initiating rela-
tionships and falling in love because they are not sure it
will be reciprocated (Williams 2012). In this way, initiating
a relationship ‘‘remotely’’ safeguarded them, at least in the
beginning.
Additionally, both boys and girls monitored their part-
ners and were monitored by their partners, and consistent
with prior research, most participants did not view
monitoring as a problem unless it was extreme (Baker and
Helm 2010; Lucero et al. 2014; Zweig et al. 2013). In fact,
similar to other studies, sharing passwords was seen as a
sign of trust early in the relationship (Adam and Williams
2014; Lucero et al. 2014). However, the reasons for and
reactions to monitoring were different for boys and girls.
Boys monitored because they wanted to make sure that
their girlfriends were not meeting other boys. While some
girls also monitored their boyfriends for this same reason,
others monitored out of concern for their partner. Girls
described being worried about their boyfriend, especially if
he was driving under the influence. This concern provided
girls with a justification for their behavior. Importantly,
monitoring, regardless of the intent, may be a warning sign
for future abuse, and was discussed in some groups as
relating to jealousy, which tended to lead to fights between
the couple. Furthermore, when extreme monitoring oc-
curred, adolescents expressed discomfort. Often, this dis-
comfort was felt more acutely by girls than boys, with
girls’ comments suggesting that they felt fear as a result of
their boyfriend’s excessive monitoring. By contrast, for the
most part boys viewed girls’ monitoring behaviors as irri-
tating but not as abusive.
The one gender difference in technology use and dating
violence was that only boys went the extra step beyond
monitoring to try to isolate their partners. Their attempts to
isolate were rooted in fear; in their minds there are ‘‘a
billion guys for one girl’’ and they needed to make sure that
their girlfriend did not leave. As such, boys held on too
tight. Interestingly, boys knew this was wrong but they
could not stop themselves. Given the limited discussion of
123
J Child Fam Stud
this topic across the groups, it is difficult to ascertain why
boys felt this way. It may be a result of a mindset that
portrays girls as possessions to keep (‘‘she’s yours’’) (see
Adam and Williams 2014 for another example of boys’
reference to their girlfriends as property), or simply that
boys were trying to maintain a connection with their girl-
friends in the only way they knew how (i.e., by force), as
boys often are socialized to be dominant in heterosexual
relationships (Tolman et al. 2003). It may also stem from
boys being less confident in their ability to negotiate a new
relationship (Giordano et al. 2006a). Additional research
into gender differences in technology use and its effect on
adolescent relationships is clearly needed.
In terms of prevention development, these findings have
specific implications. Certainly, it becomes important to
discuss the prevalence of technology use in dating and
dating violence. Adolescents would benefit from messages
that convey the pitfalls of such use. One pitfall is being
forced into constant contact with someone. While youth
were typically not bothered by some monitoring from their
partners, they became frustrated when it reached a level
that involved repeated calling or texting at all hours of the
day and night, and/or attempts to isolate them from others.
Moreover, because harassing behaviors may be com-
bined with other forms of violence by one partner to
reestablish control over the other, with these patterns
continuing from one relationship to the next (Logan et al.
2000; Timmons-Fritz and Slep 2009; Williams and Frieze
2005), prevention programming is needed to help adoles-
cents identify early monitoring behaviors as abusive before
they reach the level of harassment depicted in this study
(Baker and Helm 2010). In this way, the current study may
help researchers and practitioners align prevention efforts
with the specific stages of the relationship, as adolescents’
risk of violence may increase at certain points in the re-
lationship (Helm et al. 2015). In further support of the need
for timed efforts, recent research has suggested that ado-
lescents may be at increased risk for mental health conse-
quences during the break-up of a relationship (Baker 2014;
Baker et al. 2015).
These findings also highlight the importance of helping
youth set boundaries with their partners about when and
how often it is appropriate to contact them. Some par-
ticipants did this on their own by simply turning off their
phone or not returning their partner’s calls. Yet, this
method often led to further harassment. Boys viewed this
harassment as irritating, whereas girls were clearly un-
comfortable, and even frightened by these actions. With
these differences in actions and responses by boys and
girls, gender specific prevention programming might allow
for more open discussion and less defensiveness than
mixed groups; in fact, several studies have found positive
results when evaluating dating and sexual violence
J Child Fam Stud
prevention programs with gender specific groups (Brecklin
and Forde 2001; Wolfe et al. 2009).
Furthermore, it will be important to educate adolescents
about their options for seeking support. One option is for
adolescents to talk to their parents. However, in one study, the
majority of adolescents (72 %) who experienced excessive
monitoring and harassment by their partners did not tell their
parents (Picard 2007). It may be that adolescents view their
parents as ‘‘technologically challenged,’’ and, therefore, do
not believe they will be able to help. Also, parents may not
fully understand the consequences of technology use for
adolescents. Therefore, taking an ecological perspective
(Bronfenbrenner 1994), in addition to targeting prevention
programming to adolescents, it will be important to extend
prevention messages to parents as well. Parents can be given
information and taught the skills needed to initiate technology
conversations, which may increase the likelihood that ado-
lescents will turn to their parents for help if necessary.
These findings also suggest avenues for future research.
In particular, one area that deserves attention relates to
adolescents’ descriptions of technology use intersecting
with peer involvement, which led to dating discord and
violence between the couple (Adam and Williams 2014;
Baker, in press). Adolescents described their peers (in-
cluding friends) as wanting to ‘‘screw it [the relationship]
up.’’ Peers would do this by commenting on one partner’s
personal page or texting him/her even though they knew
the other partner did not like it. When asked why peers
behaved in this way, youth described how their peers liked
drama. Therefore, the field would benefit from a better
understanding of the adolescent’s social ecology (Bron-
fenbrenner 1994); in this case, the role of peers in insti-
gating relationship problems, and how to change this role.
One suggestion to address peer involvement is by in-
corporating bystander messages into prevention program-
ming. These messages involve teaching bystanders how to
intervene in situations where dating and sexual violence is
about to occur (Banyard et al. 2004). Bystander interven-
tions have been found to be efficacious in raising aware-
ness and in reducing sexual violence among college-age
populations (Banyard et al. 2007). Therefore, by raising
awareness of how peers’ use of technology contributes to
discord and violence in others’ dating relationships, and by
teaching skills that emphasize positive ways to intervene, it
may be that we begin to see more responsible use of
technology among peers and dating partners. However,
given that these types of interventions have not been
evaluated for their effect on dating discord and violence
among high school aged youth, additional empirical re-
search is needed before we can say definitively that there
are benefits of bystander interventions in addressing the
intersection of peer involvement, technology use, and
dating violence.
Although this study’s findings contribute to our knowl-
edge of the intersection of technology and dating, there are
several limitations that must be discussed. First, the sample
was not representative of a universal population of adoles-
cents. Rather, youth who had been in a problematic rela-
tionship in the past year were recruited, with some reporting
violence in these past relationships. That said, by including
youth who had prior relationship problems we were able to
gain a deeper understanding of the context of these rela-
tionships as it was a salient topic for them. A second, inter-
related, limitation is that adolescents were engaged in
community-based services such as an alcohol support pro-
gram, and court-ordered temporary group homes for boys
and girls. Therefore, the perceptions and experiences of
adolescents in our sample were likely different from other
groups of youth who were not involved with community
services.
Third, although we chose to use a focus group format for
data collection, there are other formats, such as individual
interviews, that may have worked better for an investigation
of these issues. For the most part, participants seemed
comfortable sharing their stories in a group setting but there
were times when it seemed as if one or two participants were
holding back. For boys, it seemed as if a few participants did
not want to admit perpetrating violence against their part-
ners, though others were more straightforward about their
actions. For girls, there were a few instances when girls
seemed to skirt around their reasons for continuing in a re-
lationship that was abusive. Future studies should explore
multiple formats to gather information. For example, we
believe that combining focus groups with follow-up indi-
vidual interviews would have been helpful. In this way, the
focus group is used to build rapport and provides entre for
more in-depth individual discussions.
In conclusion, findings from this study show that ado-
lescents rely on technology to initiate and dissolve dating
relationships. They also use technology to perpetrate dating
violence, and in fact, technology has increased youths’
ability to reach their partners wherever they happen to be.
With this increased access and more opportunities to
monitor, stalk, and abuse their partners, prevention pro-
grams are needed that highlight this intersection. Through
these efforts, we can take steps to ensure that youths’ at-
tempts to establish romantic relationships in an increas-
ingly technology-focused world are healthy and
productive, and not filled with discord and violence.
Acknowledgments We would like to thank Susana Helm, Justin
Ramos, James Charisma, Jaclyn Khil, Lorraine Coffinet-Smith, and
Desiree Acosta for their help with data collection and analysis. Spe-
cial thanks to Jeffrey Berlin for all of his help in coordinating this
project. In addition, we would like to thank the providers for their
help with recruitment, and, most of all, the youth who participated in
the focus groups for sharing their experiences.
123

References
Adam, H. L., & Williams, L. R. (2014). ‘‘It’s not just you two’’: A
grounded theory of peer influenced jealousy as a pathway to
dating violence among acculturating Mexican American adoles-
cents. Psychology of Violence, 4(3), 294–308.
Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American
Psychologist, 44, 709–716.
Baker, C. K. (2014). Dating violence and substance use: Exploring
the context of adolescent relationships. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/
0886260514556768
Baker, C. K. (in press). What role do peers play in adolescent dating?:
Insights from adolescents with a history of dating violence.
Violence Against Women.
Baker, C., & Helm, S. (2010). Pacific youth and shifting thresholds:
Understanding teen dating violence in Hawai‘i. Journal of
School Violence, 9, 154–173.
Baker, C. K., & Helm, S. (2011). The prevalence of intimate partner
violence victimization and perpetration among youth in Hawai‘i.
Hawai‘i Medical Journal, 70, 92–96.
Baker, C. K., Helm, S., Bifulco, K., & Chung-Do, J. (2015). The
relationship between self-harm and teen dating violence among
youth in Hawai‘i. Qualitative Health Research, 25(5), 652–667.
Banyard, V. L., Moynihan, M. M., & Plante, E. G. (2007). Sexual
violence prevention through bystander education: An experimen-
tal evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(4),
463–481.
Banyard, V. L., Plante, E. G., & Moynihan, M. M. (2004). Bystander
education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual
violence prevention. Journal of Community Psychology, 32,
61–79.
Best, P., Manktelow, R., & Taylor, B. (2014). Online communication,
social media, and adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative
review. Children and Youth Services Review, 41, 27–36.
Bouchey, H. A., & Furman, W. (2003). Dating and romantic
experiences in adolescence. In G. R. Adams & M. D. Berzonsky
(Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence. Blackwell hand-
books of developmental psychology (pp. 313–329). Malden:
Blackwell Publishing.
Brecklin, L. R., & Forde, D. R. (2001). A meta-analysis of rape
education programs. Violence and Victims, 16(3), 303–321.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human develop-
ment. In International encyclopedia of education (2nd ed.).
Oxford, Elsevier.
Brown, B. B., Feiring, C., & Furman, W. (1999). Missing the love
boat. Why researchers have shied away from adolescent
romance. In W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.),
The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp.
1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carver, K., Joyner, K., & Udry, J. R. (2003). National estimates of
adolescent romantic relationships. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Ado-
lescent romantic relations and sexual behavior: Theory, re-
search, and practical implications (pp. 23–56). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Teen dating
violence. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/teen-dat
ing-violence-2014-a.pdf
Chen, Z., Guo, F., Yang, X., Li, X., Duan, Q., & Zhang, J. (2009).
Emotional and behavioral effects of romantic relationships in
Chinese adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(10),
1282–1293.
Collins, W. (2003). More than myth: The developmental significance
of romantic relationships during adolescence. Journal of Re-
search on Adolescence, 13, 1–24.
123
J Child Fam Stud
Collins, W. A., Welsh, D., & Furman, W. (2009). Adolescent
romantic relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 60,
631–652.
Connolly, J., Craig, W., Goldberg, A., & Pepler, D. (2004). Mixed-
gender groups, dating, and romantic relationships in early
adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 14(2),
185–207.
Connolly, J., & McIsaac, C. (2009). Adolescents’ explanations for
romantic dissolutions: A developmental perspective. Journal of
Adolescence, 32(5), 1209–1223.
Connolly, J., & McIsaac, C. (2011). Romantic relationships in
adolescence. In M. K. Underwood & L. H. Rosen (Eds.), Social
development: Relationships in infancy, childhood, and adoles-
cence (pp. 180–203). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
Connolly, J., Nguyen, H. N. T., Pepler, D., Craig, W., & Jiang, D.
(2013). Developmental trajectories of romantic stages and
associations with problem behaviors during adolescence. Journal
of Adolescence, 36(6), 1013–1024.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Draucker, C. B., & Martsolf, D. S. (2010). The role of electronic
communication technology in adolescent dating violence. Jour-
nal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23, 133–142.
Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change:
Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly,
57(1), 4–15.
Furman, W., & Collins, W. A. (2009). Adolescent romantic relation-
ships and experiences. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B.
Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and
groups. Social, emotional, and personality development in context
(pp. 341–360). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Furman, W., & Shaffer, L. (2003). The role of romantic relationships
in adolescence. In P. Florsheim (Ed.), Adolescent romantic
relations and sexual behavior: Theory, research and practical
implications (pp. 3–22). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum
Associates.
Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., & Manning, W. D. (2006a).
Gender and the meaning of adolescent romantic relationships: A
focus on boys. American Sociological Review, 71, 260–287.
Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2006b).
Adolescent romantic relationships: An emerging portrait of their
nature and developmental significance. In A. C. Crouter & A.
Booth (Eds.), Romance and sex in adolescence and emerging
adulthood: Risks and opportunities (pp. 127–150). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Helm, S., Baker, C. K., Berlin, J., & Kimura, S. (2015). Getting in,
being in, staying in, and getting out: Adolescents’ perceptions of
dating and dating violence. Youth & Society. doi:10.1177/
0044118X15575290.
Helms, S. W., Sullivan, T. N., Corona, R., & Taylor, K. A. (2013).
Adolescents’ recognition of potential positive and negative
outcomes in risky dating situations. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 28(15), 3084–3106.
Korchmaros, J. D., Ybarra, M., Langhinirchsen-Rohling, J., Boyd, D.,
& Lenhart, A. (2013). Perpetration of teen dating violence in a
networked society. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, 16(8), 561–567.
Kuttler, A. F., & La Greca, A. M. (2004). Linkages among adolescent
girls’ romantic relationships, best friendships, and peer networks.
Journal of Adolescence, 27(4), 395–414.
Larsen, R., Clore, G., & Wood, G. A. (1999). The emotions of
romantic relationships: Do they wreak havoc on adolescents? In
W. Furman, B. B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development
of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 19–49). NY:
Cambridge University Press.
J Child Fam Stud
Lenhart, A. (2012). Teens, smartphones, and texting. Pew Research
Center. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Teens-and-smart
phones.aspx
Logan, T. K., Leukefeld, C., & Walker, B. (2000). Stalking as a
variant of intimate violence: Implications from a young adult
sample. Violence and Victims, 15(1), 91–111.
Lucero, J. L., Weisz, A. N., Smith-Darden, J., & Lucero, S. M.
(2014). Exploring gender differences: Socially interactive tech-
nology use/abuse among dating teens. Affilia, 29, 478.
Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Cortesi, S., Gasser, U., Duggan, M., Smith,
A., & Beaton, M. (2013a). Teens, social media, and privacy. Pew
Research Center. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens-
Social-Media-And-Privacy.aspx
Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U.
(2013b). Teens and technology 2013. Pew Research Center.
http:/www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2013/Teens-and-Tech.aspx
Madsen, S. D., & Collins, A. W. (2011). The salience of adolescent
romantic experiences for romantic relationship qualities in
young adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(4),
789–801.
Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. A. (2006).
Hooking up: The relationship contexts of ‘‘nonrelationship’’ sex.
Journal of Adolescent Research, 21(5), 459–483.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative
data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Nomaguchi, K. M., Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore,
M. A. (2010). Adolescents’ gender mistrust: Variations and
implications for the quality of romantic relationships. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 73, 032–1047.
O’Donnell, C. R., & Williams, I. L. (2013). The buddy system: A
35-year follow-up of criminal offenses. Clinical Psychological
Science, 1, 54–66.
Okamura, J. W. (1994). Why there are no Asian-Americans in
Hawai‘i. The continuing significance of local identity. Social
Process in Hawai‘i, 35, 161–178.
Picard, P. (2007). Tech abuse in teen relationships. Chicago, IL: Teen
Research Unlimited. http://www.loveisrespect.org/wp-content/
uploads/2009/03/liz-claiborne-2007-tech-relationship-abuse.pdf
Ponterotto, J. G. (2010). Qualitative research in multicultural
psychology: Philosophical underpinnings, popular approaches,
and ethical considerations. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 16, 581–589.
Reineke, J. E. (1969). Language and dialect in Hawai‘i: A
sociolinguistic history to 1935. Honolulu, HI: University of
Hawai‘i Press.
Shulman, S., & Seiffge-Krenke, I. (2001). Adolescent romance:
Between experience and relationships. Journal of Adolescence,
24(3), 417–428.
Smetana, J. G., Campione-Barr, N., & Metzger, A. (2006). Adoles-
cent development in interpersonal and societal contexts. Annual
Review in Psychology, 57, 255–284.
Stonard, K., Bowen, E., Lawrence, T. R., & Price, S. A. (2014). The
relevance of technology to the nature, prevalence, and impact of
adolescent dating violence and abuse: A research synthesis.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19, 390–417.
Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. (2008). Online communication
and adolescent relationships. Future of Children, 18(1),
119–146.
Swahn, M. H., Alemdar, M., & Whitaker, D. J. (2010). Nonreciprocal
and reciprocal dating violence and injury occurrence among
urban youth. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 11(3),
264–268.
Timmons-Fritz, P. A., & Slep, A. M. S. (2009). Stability of physical
and psychological adolescent dating aggression across time and
partners. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology,
38(3), 303–314.
Tolman, D. L., Spencer, R., Rosen-Reynoso, M., & Porche, M. V.
(2003). Sowing the seeds of violence in heterosexual relation-
ships: Early adolescents narrate compulsory heterosexuality.
Journal of Social Issues, 59(1), 159–178.
Williams, L. R. (2012). ‘‘Love is…’’ How adolescents define and
experience romantic love. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), The psychology
of love (Vols. 1–4) (pp. 1–20). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger/ABC-
CLIO.
Williams, S. L., & Frieze, I. H. (2005). Courtship behaviors,
relationship violence, and breakup persistence in college men
and women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(3), 248–257.
Williams, L. R., & Hickle, K. E. (2010). ‘‘I know what love means’’:
Qualitative descriptions from Mexican American and White
Adolescents. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environ-
ment, 20, 581–600.
Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C., Jaffe, P., Chiodo, D., Hughes, R., & Ellis,
W. (2009). A school-based program to prevent adolescent dating
violence: A cluster randomized trial. Archives of Pediatric and
Adolescent Medicine, 163(8), 692–699.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2002). The development of romantic
relationships and adaptations in the system of peer relationships.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 31(6), 216–225.
Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Hughes, N., Kelly, M., & Connolly, J.
(2012). Intimacy, identity, and status: Measuring dating goals in
late adolescence and emerging adulthood. Motivation and
Emotion, 36(3), 311–322.
Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate
of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other
forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 42, 1063–1077.
123