Beliefs Supporting Cyber Intimate Partner Violence Scale (BCIPV)

Abstract

The Beliefs Supporting Cyber Intimate Partner Violence Scale (BCIPV; Gonzales & Mehari, 2023) is a specialized psychometric instrument designed to evaluate normative beliefs and cognitive acceptance surrounding cyber intimate partner violence (cyber IPV) among emerging adults. Cyber IPV encompasses a range of digital behaviors aimed at controlling, harassing, monitoring, stalking, or humiliating an intimate partner via digital devices, telecommunications, and social media platforms. Recognizing the gap in existing romantic aggression literature—which historically focused on physical and in-person psychological abuse—the developers established an initial 29-item pool through focus group data, thematic analysis of existing IPV instruments, and multidisciplinary expert consensus reviews. Following empirical psychometric reduction using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the measure was refined into a unidimensional, 9-item self-report scale rated on an authentic 5-point Likert agreement continuum ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).

Psychometric evaluation demonstrated outstanding internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .97) and robust structural integrity. Construct validity is evidenced by significant positive correlations with related constructs, including attitudes endorsing relationship control (r[259] = .22, p < .001) and general abusive relationship behaviors (r[259] = .50, p < .001), while displaying divergence from attitudes endorsing traditional physical violence (r[259] = .02, p = .978). Concurrent criterion validity was firmly established through large correlations with actual behavioral perpetration of direct cyber violence (r[259] = .55, p < .001) and cyber monitoring/surveillance behaviors (r[259] = .52, p < .001), as well as moderate associations with in-person physical (r[259] = .47, p < .001) and psychological aggression (r[259] = .43, p < .001). Discriminant validity was substantiated by a negligible negative association with social desirability response bias (r[259] = −.19, p < .01). The BCIPV provides a concise, psychometrically sound measurement tool for developmental researchers, clinical psychologists, and public health practitioners evaluating risk factors and intervention outcomes in digital romantic relationships.

Keywords

Cyber Intimate Partner Violence, BCIPV, Digital Abuse, Normative Beliefs, Cyber Aggression, Partner Monitoring, Online Harassment, Emerging Adulthood, Relationship Violence, Psychometrics, Scale Validation, Digital Surveillance

Authors

The Beliefs Supporting Cyber Intimate Partner Violence Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by:

• Jose M. Gonzales, Ph.D. — Cherokee Health Systems. Clinical and behavioral health researcher focusing on intimate partner aggression, adolescent behavioral health, and technology-mediated interpersonal conflict.
• Krista R. Mehari, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology and Human Development, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University. Address: 230 Appleton Place #552, Nashville, Tennessee, United States, 37203. Email: [email protected]. Dr. Mehari’s scholarship centers on developmental psychopathology, community-based violence prevention, youth aggression, and interpersonal dynamics across physical and digital ecologies.

Purpose

The primary clinical and research purpose of the Beliefs Supporting Cyber Intimate Partner Violence Scale (BCIPV) is to quantify the cognitive acceptance, moral neutralization, and normative endorsement of technology-assisted abuse within dating and marital relationships. Over the past two decades, the ubiquity of smartphones, persistent geolocation tracking, and interactive social networking platforms has fundamentally altered the structural mechanics of romantic communication. While digital tools foster continuous relational connectivity, they simultaneously supply an expansive technological infrastructure for hyper-surveillance, digital coercive control, intrusion of personal privacy, harassment, and public humiliation. Despite the escalation of these behaviors among adolescents and emerging adults, digital aggression is frequently trivialized, normalized, or misconstrued as an authentic marker of romantic commitment, relational vigilance, or protective love.

The BCIPV was formulated to capture these normative cognitive permissions. Rooted in cognitive social learning paradigms, the theoretical premise of the scale is that behavioral perpetration of digital abuse does not occur in a cognitive vacuum; rather, it is preceded and maintained by normative beliefs that view digital snooping, location tracking, non-consensual password possession, and continuous electronic messaging as acceptable, ordinary, or warranted relationship behaviors. Identifying these cognitive structures is essential because normative beliefs operate as proximal cognitive filters that lower the threshold for aggressive action while attenuating post-behavior guilt and moral self-sanction.

In research contexts, the BCIPV addresses critical epidemiological questions regarding the etiology, escalation, and maintenance of digital relationship abuse. It enables investigators to track developmental shifts during emerging adulthood (ages 18–29), a critical developmental epoch marked by romantic exploration, unstable dating norms, and high engagement with digital communication technologies. The scale allows researchers to examine whether normative beliefs serve as an explanatory mediator between distal risk factors (such as exposure to family violence, insecure attachment styles, or rejection sensitivity) and proximate behavioral outcomes, including digital stalking and algorithmic harassment.

In clinical and public health applications, the BCIPV serves as an actionable screening tool and diagnostic baseline for targeted prevention and intervention programs. Standard domestic violence prevention curricula historically failed to address digital dynamics, leaving adolescents and young adults unable to recognize electronic monitoring as a form of non-physical coercion. By measuring specific cognitive justifications—such as believing that checking a partner’s phone without permission is justified by infidelity suspicions, or that demanding access to messaging accounts signifies relationship investment—clinicians and violence prevention specialists can tailor psychoeducational interventions. Pre- and post-intervention administration of the BCIPV facilitates empirical evaluation of whether educational campaigns successfully dismantle distorted cognitive justifications supporting cyber intimate partner violence.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct evaluated by the BCIPV is defined as normative beliefs supporting cyber intimate partner violence. Normative beliefs are generalized cognitive cognitions regarding the moral acceptability, situational appropriateness, and social expectedness of a specific behavioral repertoire within a defined social ecological context. In the realm of cyber intimate partner violence, these beliefs encompass cognitive structures that justify, excuse, normalize, or romanticize digital coercive control, digital boundary violations, online hostility, and electronic surveillance between intimate partners.

The BCIPV assesses this construct as a coherent, unidimensional latent variable reflecting the overarching acceptability of digital partner aggression. While psychometrically confirmed as a single-factor instrument, the substantive content of the construct spans three primary interconnected digital behavioral domains:

• Digital Surveillance and Covert Privacy Violations: This domain involves cognitive schemas that normalize covert intrusion into a partner’s private digital sphere. It captures beliefs that personal insecurities, jealousy, or suspicions of infidelity grant an individual the ethical prerogative to bypass a partner’s boundaries—such as surreptitiously reading text messages, accessing personal emails, or inspecting a phone without consent (e.g., Item 1: “It is okay to check your partner’s phone without their permission if you suspect they are cheating”; Item 5: “It is fine to look through a partner’s text messages or emails to make sure they are being honest”). These beliefs frame electronic snooping not as an invasive violation of autonomy, but as a justified defensive strategy for truth-seeking.
• Coercive Control and Entitled Digital Transparency: This facet captures the cognitive entitlement to complete digital transparency and continuous physical monitoring. It reflects the assumption that entry into a romantic partnership dissolves individual boundaries regarding digital credentials, social connectivity, and personal whereabouts. This includes endorsing the mandatory sharing of credentials (e.g., Item 2: “People have a right to know their partner’s social media passwords”), demanding oversight of social networks (e.g., Item 7: “It is okay to tell a partner who they can or cannot follow or be friends with on social media”), and using mobile technology for continuous geolocation tracking (e.g., Item 3: “It is acceptable to track your partner’s location on their phone so you know where they are”). Critically, this domain operationalizes the normalization of control disguised as romantic care (e.g., Item 6: “Demanding to see who your partner is messaging on social media shows you care about the relationship”; Item 8: “Checking up on a partner online is a normal part of being in a relationship”).
• Digital Harassment, Hyper-Intrusiveness, and Retaliatory Public Aggression: This dimension incorporates beliefs that justify aggressive digital behaviors in response to perceived relational delays or interpersonal transgressions. It encompasses behavioral entitlements to demand immediate response times through repeated telecommunication intrusions (e.g., Item 4: “If a partner doesn’t respond to text messages immediately, it is okay to keep texting or calling until they answer”) as well as the endorsement of public digital hostility and reputational attacks to punish a partner (e.g., Item 9: “It is acceptable to post negative things about a partner online if they did something wrong to you”).

Together, these facets constitute an integrated cognitive framework. Individuals scoring high on the BCIPV construct do not necessarily view themselves as abusive; rather, their cognitive architecture systematically reinterprets digital coercion, electronic boundary violation, and telecommunication harassment as benign, ordinary, and legitimate mechanisms of modern romantic involvement.

Theoretical Framework

The development and conceptual architecture of the BCIPV are firmly anchored in integrated socio-cognitive and developmental models of aggression, predominantly drawing upon the Social-Information-Processing (SIP) Model developed by Kenneth A. Dodge and colleagues, the Social Learning Theory and Moral Disengagement Theory of Albert Bandura, and Huesmann’s Normative Beliefs Theory.

Under Dodge’s Social-Information-Processing model and Huesmann’s cognitive script model of aggression, an individual faced with an interpersonal trigger—such as an unanswered text message, an unfamiliar interaction on a social media profile, or perceived relational ambiguity—progresses through sequential cognitive phases: encoding cues, interpreting relational intent, clarifying relational goals, generating behavioral responses, evaluating those responses, and enacting the chosen behavior. Normative beliefs operate centrally within the response evaluation phase. Even if an individual generates an aggressive behavioral option (such as demanding a partner’s passwords or remotely monitoring their location via GPS tracking), that behavior is inhibited if normative beliefs frame the action as socially impermissible, morally objectionable, or relationally destructive. Conversely, when an individual possesses robust normative beliefs supporting cyber IPV, the cognitive evaluation filter approves the aggressive impulse, determining that monitoring or demanding digital access is entirely legitimate. Consequently, behavior enactment proceeds without moral hesitation.

Bandura’s Moral Disengagement Theory further explains the cognitive mechanisms through which the BCIPV items operate. Individuals who perpetrate digital intimate partner violence rarely conceptualize their actions as domestic abuse. Instead, they engage in socio-cognitive moral disengagement strategies, including moral justification (framing cyber intrusion as an act of relational preservation or dedication), euphemistic labeling (characterizing obsessive surveillance as “checking up” or “caring”), attribution of blame (arguing that a partner’s delayed reply or ambiguous social media behavior provoked the electronic stalking), and diffusion of responsibility (viewing digital surveillance as an inevitable norm shared by all modern couples). The BCIPV directly taps into these moral disengagement mechanisms by evaluating the explicit rationalizations young adults use to neutralize moral distress when violating a partner’s digital autonomy.

Finally, the scale integrates Emerging Adulthood Relational Development Theory (Arnett, 2000). Emerging adults (ages 18–29) navigate a developmental period characterized by identity exploration, intense relationship formation, and the transition toward adult intimacy, situated almost entirely within digital landscapes. Because electronic communication devices have been ubiquitous throughout their socialization, emerging adults often construct romantic norms through observed online peer behavior, algorithmic social media trends, and popular culture depictions where digital jealousy is frequently conflated with passionate commitment. The BCIPV operationalizes this developmental intersection, measuring the degree to which cultural and digital peer norms have calcified into internal cognitive frameworks that tolerate digital coercive control.

Validity

The empirical validation of the BCIPV was conducted through a systematic psychometric evaluation involving a sample of emerging adults (N = 261, young adults aged 18–29 residing in the United States; Gonzales & Mehari, 2023). The investigation provided rigorous evidence supporting construct validity, concurrent criterion validity, and discriminant validity.

Construct Validity

Construct validity was established through correlational analyses with established dimensions of interpersonal relationship attitudes, providing critical insight into the uniqueness of digital violence beliefs:

• Attitudes About Relationship Control: As hypothesized, scores on the BCIPV exhibited a statistically significant, moderate positive correlation with attitudes endorsing relationship control (r[259] = .22, p < .001). This confirms that cognitive support for digital intrusion is meaningfully rooted in an overarching ideological desire for partner governance and interpersonal dominance.
• Attitudes About Abusive Behaviors: The BCIPV demonstrated a strong positive association with broad attitudes endorsing relationship abuse behaviors (r[259] = .50, p < .001), indicating that individuals who endorse cyber IPV strongly align with broader paradigms of interpersonal coercion and relational maltreatment.
• Divergence from Physical IPV Attitudes: Remarkably, beliefs supporting cyber IPV exhibited no statistically significant correlation with attitudes endorsing traditional physical intimate partner violence (r[259] = .02, p = .978). This orthogonality provides compelling psychometric proof that beliefs supporting digital abuse represent a functionally distinct cognitive construct rather than a simple electronic manifestation of physical domestic violence tolerance. Individuals who categorically reject in-person physical battery may nonetheless endorse pervasive digital stalking, password theft, and online monitoring, highlighting the urgent necessity for an independent digital measurement tool.

Concurrent Criterion Validity

Concurrent validity was examined by correlating BCIPV scores with self-reported perpetration of both digital and in-person intimate partner violence behaviors:

• Direct Cyber Violence Perpetration: BCIPV scores were strongly and positively correlated with behavioral perpetration of direct cyber violence (r[259] = .55, p < .001), including sending threatening digital communications, posting malicious statements online, and digital harassment.
• Cyber Control and Monitoring Perpetration: The scale showed a substantial positive correlation with actual perpetration of cyber control and surveillance behaviors (r[259] = .52, p < .001), demonstrating that individuals with cognitive justifications for cyber intrusion routinely enact digital tracking and password monitoring.
• In-Person Physical IPV Perpetration: Unexpectedly, BCIPV scores demonstrated a moderate-to-large positive correlation with actual perpetration of in-person physical partner violence (r[259] = .47, p < .001). While cyber beliefs do not correlate with abstract attitudes about physical abuse, they exhibit strong predictive linkage to actual physical aggression, suggesting that digital coercive control frequently co-occurs with or escalates into physical altercations.
• In-Person Psychological IPV Perpetration: BCIPV scores were moderately associated with the perpetration of in-person psychological aggression (r[259] = .43, p < .001), supporting the premise that digital and non-digital psychological abuse share common operational dynamics.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established by evaluating the relationship between the BCIPV and social desirability response bias. Analyses revealed a small, statistically significant negative correlation with social desirability (r[259] = −.19, p < .01). This weak coefficient indicates that respondents’ answers on the BCIPV are predominantly governed by their authentic normative beliefs rather than an attempt to present themselves in a socially favorable light, confirming that the scale is adequately resilient against impression management.

Reliability

The Beliefs Supporting Cyber Intimate Partner Violence Scale exhibits exceptional psychometric reliability. The final 9-item unidimensional scale yielded an internal consistency coefficient of:

• Cronbach’s Alpha (α): .97

An alpha coefficient of .97 indicates an extraordinarily high level of internal consistency, demonstrating that all 9 items measure a unified, coherent psychological domain with minimal measurement error. In developmental and psychometric research, alpha levels exceeding .90 are considered exemplary, satisfying the stringent criteria required not only for aggregated group-level empirical studies but also for individual clinical screening and diagnostic assessments. The high item-total correlations across the questionnaire items confirm that each individual question contributes significantly to the operationalization of the underlying latent construct.

Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the BCIPV was established through sequential stages of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), utilizing an initial pool of 29 items systematically developed via qualitative focus groups, thematic reviews of prior IPV literature, and expert panel evaluations (Gonzales & Mehari, 2023).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During the exploratory factor analysis of the initial 29-item instrument, both a 1-factor solution and a 2-factor solution were examined. Both models demonstrated adequate preliminary fit to the data based on conventional psychometric benchmarks (utilizing an item factor-loading cutoff criterion of .40, Kaiser’s eigenvalue criterion greater than 1.0, and evaluation of comparative fit indices). To determine the optimal structural model, individual item loadings and inter-item bivariate correlations were comprehensively evaluated. Psychometric inspection revealed that a heavy majority of items—specifically 26 out of the 29 candidate items—correlated at .60 or higher with at least one other item in the matrix. Following methodological principles established by Piedmont and Hyland (1993), this intense degree of inter-item correlation signifies homogeneous item content and strong conceptual redundancy, firmly supporting the parsimony of a unidimensional (1-factor) solution over multidimensional configurations.

Consequently, redundant items were systematically culled. Reviewing the remaining items, the psychometricians selected the 3 highest loading items from each thematic question stem. This strategic reduction was guided simultaneously by empirical factor loading magnitude and the theoretical mandate to adequately sample the diverse functional range of normative cyber beliefs (encompassing surveillance, password control, electronic stalking, and retaliatory posting), resulting in a streamlined, highly efficient 9-item scale.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the final 9-item scale to empirically evaluate the adequacy of the unidimensional latent structure. The 1-factor model demonstrated exceptional fit across standard comparative indices:

• Chi-Square Model Fit: χ² = 111.377, df = 27, p < .001
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .992
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .989
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .158

The comparative indices (CFI = .992, TLI = .989) significantly exceeded the conventional .95 threshold, reflecting exceptional model fit and confirming that the items capture a shared, cohesive latent continuum. While the point estimate for RMSEA was elevated (.158)—a known artifact frequently observed in models characterized by very small degrees of freedom (df = 27) paired with extraordinarily large factor loadings and high model power (Kenny, Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2015)—the collective psychometric evidence, high factor saturations, and superior comparative indices firmly substantiate the unidimensional structure of the BCIPV.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Beliefs Supporting Cyber Intimate Partner Violence Scale
• Instrument Acronym: BCIPV
• Test Type: Original self-report psychometric rating scale
• Author(s): Jose M. Gonzales, Ph.D., and Krista R. Mehari, Ph.D.
• Test Publication Year: 2023
• Format: Participants respond on a 5-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Mildly disagree, 3 = Neither agree nor disagree, 4 = Mildly agree, 5 = Strongly agree). The administration method is electronic.
• Language Available: English
• Population Group: Human (Male and Female)
• Age Group: Adulthood (18 yrs & older); Young Adulthood (18-29 yrs)
• Population Details: Respondents are emerging adults from the United States.
• Test Methodology: Test Validity, Construct Validity, Convergent Validity, Discriminant Validity, Test Reliability, Internal Consistency, Factor Analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Exploratory Factor Analysis.
• Item Count: 9 items
• Dimensionality: Unidimensional (1-factor model)
• Scoring Protocol: All 9 items represent a single unidimensional factor. Items are scored on a numerical scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). There are no reverse-coded items. Scale scores are calculated by either summing the item ratings (yielding a cumulative score ranging from 9 to 45) or calculating the mean score across all answered items (ranging from 1.0 to 5.0). Higher scores directly reflect greater normative beliefs supporting the acceptability and justification of cyber intimate partner violence.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Year: 2023
• Copyright & Permissions: The scale was developed by Jose M. Gonzales and Krista R. Mehari and published in the peer-reviewed journal Partner Abuse (Springer Publishing Company). Researchers, academic investigators, and licensed clinicians seeking permission to reproduce, translate, or adapt the instrument for professional use should contact the corresponding author, Dr. Krista R. Mehari, via electronic mail at [email protected] or via mail at Vanderbilt University, Department of Psychology and Human Development, 230 Appleton Place #552, Nashville, Tennessee, United States, 37203.
• Fee: No. The instrument is accessible without a licensing fee for non-commercial academic, scientific, and empirical research applications.

References

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of moral thought and action. In W. M. Kurtines & J. L. Gewirtz (Eds.), Handbook of moral behavior and development (Vol. 1, pp. 45–103). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 18, pp. 77–125). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gonzales, J. M., & Mehari, K. R. (2023). Beliefs supporting cyber intimate partner violence: Scale development and preliminary psychometrics. Partner Abuse, 14(4), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1891/PA-2022-0022

Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 408–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.408

Kenny, D. A., Kaniskan, B., & McCoach, D. B. (2015). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44(3), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236

Piedmont, R. L., & Hyland, M. E. (1993). Hermeneutics, personality, and assessment: A response to commentaries. European Journal of Personality, 7(4), 253–257. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2410070405

Items of the Scale