The impact of cyber dating abuse on self-esteem: The mediating role of emotional distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined how emotional distress mediated the relationship between cyber dating abuse and self-esteem. Participants were 155 undergraduate students (105 females; 50 males) ranging from 17 to 25 years old (M = 19.38, SD = 1.65) with dating experience and a minimum relationship duration of 3 months. Self-report assessments of cyber dating abuse, self-esteem, and emotional distress from the relationship were completed. Mediation analysis using multiple regressions revealed a full mediation model. Cyber dating abuse predicted lowered self-esteem and greater emotional distress. However, when emotional distress was entered as a predictor of self-esteem, cyber dating abuse became non-significant, indicating full mediation. Early-onset of dating was also a risk factor for cyber dating abuse and emotional distress. Few gender differences were evident. These findings add to the growing body of evidence on the negative effects of cyber dating abuse and suggest that distressing emotional reactions may underlie the deleterious consequences of this form of abuse.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".