Protection Against Pursuit: A Conceptual and Empirical Comparison of Cyberstalking and Stalking Victimization Among a National Sample

Abstract

Cyberstalking is a relatively understudied area in criminology, with no consensus among scholars as to whether it represents a modified form of stalking or whether it is an entirely new and emerging criminal phenomenon. Using data from the 2006 Supplemental Victimization Survey (SVS) to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), this study compares stalking and cyberstalking victims across several dimensions, including situational features of their experiences and self-protective behaviors. Results indicate that there are significant differences between stalking and cyberstalking victims, including their number of self-protective behaviors adopted, duration of contact with their stalker, financial costs of victimization, and perceived fear at onset. Perceived fear over time, the occurrence of a physical attack, and sex of the victim were all associated with a higher number of self-protective behaviors for cyberstalking victims compared to stalking victims, net of the effect of the control variables. Implications for stalking theory, research, and criminal justice policy are discussed.

Keywords:

• stalking
• cyberstalking
• victimization
• self-protective behavior

Notes

1. Per Florida Stat. § 784.048(1)(d) (2011), “‘Cyberstalk’ is defined as engaging in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.”

2. Gottfredson and Hindelang (1979) measured offense seriousness using the Sellin-Wolfgang (1964) seriousness scale, which is based on the extent and nature of bodily injury, weapon use, intimidation, forcible sexual intercourse, and financial loss.

3. For additional discussion of stalking operationalization and measurement, including an analysis of definitional and behavioral differences across published studies, see Fox et al. (2011).

4. These 16 items were factor analyzed to assess internal consistency as well as dimensionality, and exploratory factor analysis revealed a single-factor solution (Eigenvalue = 2.72; loadings range: 0.06-0.60). A count of self-protective behaviors was calculated by summing the number of self-protective behaviors respondents had adopted (Cronbach’s α = 0.75).

5. In addition to the listed variables, the frequency of contacts between the offender and victim, both daily and over the past 12 months, were considered. These items asked victims to report how many times a day and overall in the last 12 months the unwanted contacts or behavior occurred. Ultimately, these measures were dropped from the final multivariate models due to the small number of cases available in the data-set. The number of available cases for both measures was small overall (n = 104 for daily frequency and n = 301 for overall frequency), and very few of those reporting individuals met our operational criteria for cyberstalking (n = 19 and 55, respectively). Consequently, multivariate models could not be estimated using these measures.

6. Stalking/cyberstalking “episodes” in this instance were self-defined by survey respondents. It is possible that some episodes involved more than one offender, or that the same victim experienced multiple episodes involving the same offender. In an attempt to control for this possible confound, we performed additional analyses (not shown but available from the first author) and included a variable in our models that asked “how many different people have done any of these things to you in the last 12 months?” This variable was not significant in either of the multivariate models; the overall variance explained was minimally increased, indicating that this dimension seems to be relatively unimportant as a predictor of victim self-protective behaviors. The variable was subsequently not included in the estimation of the model.

7. In response to a reviewer’s comment, models were estimated using the original, 20-category measure for education level, as well as the more parsimonious, dichotomous variable representing high school graduation or lower compared to college or above. Parameter estimates across models differed only slightly, and no substantive results were affected. Thus, only the results featuring the dichotomous measure are presented here.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Matt R. Nobles

Matt R. Nobles is an assistant professor in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA. His research interests include violent and interpersonal crimes, gun policy, GIS and spatial econometrics, and quantitative methods. His recent work has appeared in Justice Quarterly, Crime & Delinquency, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Journal of Criminal Justice, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and the American Journal of Public Health.

Bradford W. Reyns

Bradford W. Reyns is an assistant professor in the department of criminal justice at Weber State University and the book review editor for Security Journal. In 2010, he received his PhD in criminal justice from the University of Cincinnati. His research focuses on victims of crime, especially the intersection of technology and victimization, and opportunities for victimization. Recently, his work has appeared in Deviant Behavior, Journal of Criminal Justice, and Violence and Victims.

Kathleen A. Fox

Kathleen A. Fox is an assistant professor in the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University. She earned her PhD in criminology, law and society from the University of Florida. Her research interests include crime victimization, gangs, corrections, and fear of crime. Her work has recently appeared in Justice Quarterly, Crime & Delinquency, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Journal of Criminal Justice.

Bonnie S. Fisher

Bonnie S. Fisher is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice and a Fellow of the Graduate School at the University of Cincinnati. She co-edited the Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention (Sage). She co-authored Unsafe in the Ivory Tower: The Sexual Victimization of College Women (Sage) and The Dark Side of the Ivory Tower: Campus Crime as a Social Problem (Cambridge University Press). She continues to pursue her research agenda into issues concerning the sexual and stalking victimization of women. Professor Fisher is collaborating on a multiple campus evaluation of bystanding intervention programs directed at reducing sexual and dating violence on college campuses.