Technology-Facilitated Abuse Prevalence and Associations Among a Nationally Representative Sample of Young Men

Seewald et al.’s recent article explores two important but overlooked issues, specifically use of technology and perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV) by men. Further research is needed to explore the clinical significance of the study’s findings, on both the survivors of technology-facilitated abuse (TFA), a subset of IPV, and the person who commits the TFA.

Addressing male perpetration warrants further attention, as interventions to address IPV by focusing on survivors, while important and a priority, has not resulted in any decrease in rates of IPV.1 As the role of technology in our lives increases it was wise of Seewald et al to consider the prevalence of facilitating abuse through TFA. As suggested in the article, we will need to continue to explore ways for technology to play a role in addressing IPV. One such example is the use of embodied conversational agent (ECA) technology, which simulates face-to-face conversation with a health counselor via computer or ipad. An ECA, known as Gabe, is being developed to address unmet health needs of young Black men, including addressing IPV.2 Prior research has shown ECA health counselors can lead to successful health behavior change, including those of underserved populations with low health or computer literacy.3 Such efforts illustrate the need for ongoing research to explore how technology such as smart phones can be used to address IPV.

In addition, given the lack identifiable genetic factors amongst races,4 perhaps research should focus more on the socio-economic and environmental factors that impact IPV rather than race. As Rennison and Planty showed, that after controlling for annual household income, race was no longer significant in predicting IPV.5 This was discussed by Seewald et al in their article as a possible explanation for the racial and ethnic findings when they stated the findings likely represent unmeasured socioeconomic factors, neighborhood factors, or both. Turning the research focus onto socioeconomic factors and away from race and ethnicity will provide more meaningful data points along the causal pathway and avoid the stigmatizing use of race in as a surrogate marker for experiencing IPV.

Hence, we applaud Seewald et al for exploring this issue, and hope future researchers will continue to explore how we can address male perpetration of IPV and how technology can be used to both facilitate abuse and how to potentially prevent it.

References
1. Powers RA, Kaukinen CE. Trends in Intimate Partner Violence: 1980-2008. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2012;27(15):3072-3090. doi:10.1177/0886260512441077
2. Kramer J, Yinusa-Nyahkoon L, Olafsson S, Penti B, Woodhams E, Bickmore T, Jack BW. Black Men's Experiences With Health care: Individuals' Accounts of Challenges, Suggestions for Change, and the Potential Utility of Virtual Agent Technology to Assist Black Men With Health Management. Qual Health Res. 2021 Aug;31(10):1772-1785. doi: 10.1177/10497323211013323. Epub 2021 Jun 7. PMID: 34092141.
3. Jack, B. W., Bickmore, T., Hempstead, M., Yinusa-Nyahkoon, L., Sadikova, E., Mitchell, S., Gardniner P., Adigun F., Penti B., Schulman D., Damus, K. (2015). Reducing preconception risks among African American women with conversational agent technology. The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 28(4), 441–451
4. Goodman, Alan. “Race is Real, but it’s not Genetic.” Discover Magazine, June 25, 2020. https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/race-is-real-but-its-not-g... Accessed Jan 6, 2022
5. Rennison C, Planty M. Nonlethal intimate partner violence: examining race, gender, and income patterns. Violence Vict. 2003 Aug;18(4):433-43. doi: 10.1891/vivi.2003.18.4.433. PMID: 14582864.