Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Over the last decade, researchers have consistently reported that stalking is a disturbing reality for many individuals, especially youths. Cyberstalking, however, has received much less attention from the research community than stalking. Few estimates of cyberstalking victimization or cyberstalking offending have been published. The current study attempts to address these gaps by estimating lifetime prevalence of both cyberstalking victimization and offending among a sample of undergraduates from a large urban university in the Midwest. Results show that 40.8% had experienced cyberstalking victimization, with females, nonwhites, non-heterosexuals, and non-singles disproportionately experiencing cyberstalking. Approximately 4.9% of students had perpetrated cyberstalking, but there were few differences in offending across students' demographic characteristics. Notes 1These wide ranges likely reflect differences in definitions of stalking, populations under study (e.g., general population, college students, adolescents), country where the study was conducted (e.g., United States, England, Australia), and type of sample (e.g., clinical/forensic, general population) (Spitzberg and Cupach Citation2007). 2These estimates vary depending upon the definition of cyberstalking used. 3Of the harassers, 31% were female and in 27% of cases, the gender of the stalker was unknown. 4Students may not have received their invitations for a variety of reasons. For instance, spam filters may have sent the invitations into junk or spam folders. Of those e-mails that were delivered as intended, many may have been deleted outright, without having been read or opened by students. We do know that at least 1,951 students opened the e-mail and followed the provided Web link to the informed consent form and the survey. 5Survey administration via Web-based surveys, while becoming commonplace, does tend to yield lower response rates than more traditional methods of survey distribution. Further, it is not uncommon to obtain a response rate of 10% or less using such methods (Couper Citation2000). However, because of the nature of electronic survey administration there is ultimately no way of knowing how many persons in fact read the e-mail invitation to participate in the survey. Of those who were sent e-mails, 13.1% participated in the survey. A lower response rate such as 13.1% is a potential limitation of the current study, but comparable to what other researchers utilizing Web-based surveys have obtained (e.g., Dillman et al. Citation2009; Hilinski Citation2009; Nobles et al. Citation2009). 6Some respondents only partially completed the survey, meaning they stopped before reaching the final question. Any respondent who failed to answer over 50% of the questions on the survey was removed from the final sample. 7Only those students enrolled in classes during spring 2009, between the ages of 18 and 24, and attending full time were included. This decision helped to ensure that those at high risk (i.e., younger college students) of victimization were included in the sample. a Due to missing data, the number students possessing the respective characteristic may not add up to total number of students. +Cyberstalking total will not equal sum of values of pursuit behaviors as an individual may have experienced more than one type of behavior. *p < .05. a Identity fraud was not included as respondents were only asked if it happened and not how many times it happened. +Due to missing data, the number of students possessing the respective characteristic may not add up to total number of students. a Relationships were examined with numbers of incidents rather than respondents as a single respondent could have multiple victim–offender relationships. a Due to missing data, the number students possessing the respective characteristic may not add up to total number of students. +Cyberstalking total will not equal sum of values of pursuit behaviors as an individual may have performed more than one type of behavior. *p < .05. Additional informationNotes on contributorsBradford W. Reyns BRADFORD W. REYNS is an Assistant Professor in the Criminal Justice Department at Weber State University, and the book review editor for Security Journal. He received his Ph.D. in criminal justice from the University of Cincinnati in 2010. His research focuses on victims of crime, especially the intersection of technology and victimization, and opportunities for victimization. His recent work has appeared in Crime Prevention and Community Safety, Journal of Criminal Justice, Police Quarterly, and Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. Billy Henson BILLY HENSON is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Shippensburg University. His previous works have focused on cybercrime victimization, interpersonal victimization, and policing, with studies appearing in Police Quarterly, Victims and Offenders, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Violence and Victims, and Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. He continues to perform research on violent, sexual, and repeat victimization, fear of crime, and online victimization. Bonnie S. Fisher BONNIE S. FISHER is a Professor in the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. She recently coauthored The Dark Side of the Ivory Tower: Campus Crime as a Social Problem and Unsafe in the Ivory Tower: The Sexual Victimization of College Women. She also co-edited the Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention. Her current research interests include the extent and nature of victimization among college students, the measurement of victimization and the evaluation of the effectiveness of bystander intervention programs to reduce dating and sexual violence among high school and college students.
Reyns et al. (Mon,) studied this question.