Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience & Mental Health

e-ISSN: 2585-2795 • Printed-ISSN: 2654-1432

DOI: 10.26386/obrela.v3i3.162

Cyberstalking, a new crime:

The nature of cyberstalking victimization

Vana Papakitsou
Sociology Department, Panteion University, Athens, Greece

Abstract
The emergence of communication technologies, or ‘‘new media,’’ such as the Internet, has provided an additional
conduit and method for stalkers to identify and target their victims. This evolution or transformation of stalking in
common discourse is known as cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is a serious predatory behavior that arrives from the evo-
lutionary need for control in the pursuit of resources and reputation. Originally, stalking involved behavioral invasion
and referred to nonelectronic means of intrusion (e.g., physical surveillance, mailing letters). Cyber stalking is forensic
concern of our society with an increasing tendency, and it is a fact that behaviors and acts of the perpetrator need to
be researched more. Cyber stalking is a new form of stalking, despite the fact that the disease issues that differentiate
cyber bullying, cyber harassment and cyberstalking are still discussed in the bibliography. Several discussions in
literature consider cyberstalking as an extension of physical stalking. The differentiation of cyber stalking as a unique
act, albeit sharing some of the characteristics of physical stalking, is an important point for providing a typology of
cyber stalkers that can be used efficaciously by investigators. Cyber stalking as well as stalking is generally fueled by
power, control and anger from the actions of the victim or, in some cases, from the inaction of the victim. It is estimat-
ed that the number of cyber stalking cases will increase as the internet provides a safe place in which the perpetrator
can hide his identity, while at the same time is referred as a kind of obsession. The field of stalking has been greatly
expanded and improved over the last decade, but cyber stalking remains poorly understood, and there are available
fewer researches. Generally cyber stalking includes a range of behaviors that usually start from a perpetrator and it is
related to a pattern of harassing or threatening behavior.

Key Words : Cyberstalking, victimization, technologies, new media, internet

Corresponding Author: Vana Papakitsou, Phd Sociology Department, Panteion University, Athens, Greece, e-mail: [Link]@[Link]

Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience & Mental Health, 2020, Volume 3, Issue 3, p. 197-202 | 197 |
 Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience & Mental Health
DOI: 10.26386/obrela.v3i3.162

Vana Papakitsou Cyberstalking, a new crime:

The nature of cyberstalking victimization

Background also be motivated by feelings of hatred or need for revenge,

for power or even racism. These actions include a range of
It is commonly known that the rapid growth of Internet
behaviors that usually start from an individual / perpetrator
from 2000 onwards, the access and its availability resulted
and relate to a pattern of harassing or threatening behavior.
in significant progress in several fields of society [1-8]. The
[16] It is obvious that the term cyber stalking is presented as
expected benefits of it’ s use for society are incalculable [9].
a form of online behavior in the virtual world of the internet.
However, internet has also a dark side creating opportuni-
However, very often, behavior spreads to real life, causing the
ties for unknown criminal behaviors, which have no physical
victim to feel real fear, with harmful consequences to his/her
boundaries, boundaries and limitations of identifying, pun-
mental health, his/her family and his/her life in general. [17]
ishing and reducing and that social problem is constantly
increasing with global dimensions [10].
Nature of cyberstalking
Many definitions formulated for cyber stalking often as-
sociated the term of “harassment”. Although the terms Cyberstalking is a specialized form of stalking and involves
harassment and stalking are used in the literature, Harvey the use of information and communication technologies as
(2003) makes a clear distinction and notes that the nature of the means and the medium of harassment or intimidation
stalker’s behavior is based on anonymity while the harasser [18]. Cyberstalking represents a violation of several funda-
is not based on that. He also notes that the purpose of the mental human rights, such as the right to life, liberty and
stalker is to provoke fear, while the harasser is less serious security, and can represent a very serious interference with
and more annoying [11]. Another definition of D’ Ovidio and the victim’s privacy, family or correspondence [19]. According
Doyle (2003) describes cyber stalking as the recurrent use to the findings of survey, cyberstalkers present virtually no
of the internet, e-mail and any media associated with dig- restriction with respect to age, gender, marital status, sexu-
ital electronic communication devices in order to annoy or al orientation, and ethnic, cultural, economic or intellectual
threaten a person [12]. A relevant research conducted on cy- background and it seems that cyberstalking will become
ber stalking among youth found that stranger stalking was increasingly prevalent [20]. It is important that educational
considered as more dangerous than acquaintance stalking. programs address these online risks and the various methods
[13] Another study showed that online threats were associ- employed by perpetrators, so that potential victims would
ated with physical violence to girls who had been victims of limit the opportunities available to cyberstalkers. But It is also
cyber stalking by their boyfriends [14]. important that users protect their online privacy and secure
There are several typologies that have been proposed and their computer data, use technology to block out unwanted
classify cyber stalkers according to their behavior. A typol- messages, use improved identity management technology,
ogy proposed by McFarlane and Bocij (2005) refers four and learn how to preserve the evidence of the illegal conduct.
distinct types: a) the vindictive cyber stalker is the most mali- Another survey findings have shown that people under
cious and harasses its victims through emails and messages, the age of 18 are more likely to be cyber stalking victims
b) the composed cyber stalker, aims to harass the victim, caus- in different ways, but also have more opportunities to per-
ing him/her discomfort through a variety of threatening be- petrate these crimes [21]. Another study found that 10-15%
haviors, c) the intimate cyber stalker, is creating a relationship of students had experienced threatening and harassing be-
with a person who relies more on love and persistence and haviors through emails or messages on their mobile phone
d) the collective cyber stalker consists of two or more peo- and only 7% of them reported the incident to the authori-
ple who are persecuting the same victim [15]. Usually cyber ties [22]. This is in contradiction with the findings of another
stalker is motivated by interesting and erotic feelings for survey, which shows that most of victims reported the inci-
the victim, but often emotions are unresponsive. But it can dent to the authorities[23].

| 198 | Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience & Mental Health, 2020, Volume 3, Issue 3, p. 197-202
 Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience & Mental Health
DOI: 10.26386/obrela.v3i3.162

Vana Papakitsou Cyberstalking, a new crime:

The nature of cyberstalking victimization

Empirical research reported that cyber stalker causes fear The impact of cyberstalking
to the victim and due to this behavior has the control of a
Currently, there are a few empirical studies on the effects
victim. According to the findings of other surveys, misper-
of cyberstalking on its victims and on a wider scale the per-
ceptions and depreciation of cyber stalking incidents can
ception of these effects is mixed. There are those scholars
be attributed to the lack of awareness and understanding
that minimize the effects of cyberstalking, believing since
of this kind of crime. Victims, perpetrators and authorities
most of the behaviors occur online, the victim is not in
(law enforcement officers, police officers, school teachers
physical danger and consequently, suffers less physical and
etc) do not perceive the malicious and dangerous nature of
emotional reactions [32]. Another survey’s findings suggest
the crime until the victim has a physical abuse or damage to
that the emotional impact of cyberstalking predominantly
his/her personal property [24].
includes comorbid anxiety and depression. Common cop-
Another survey reported that 80.9% of respondents felt ing strategies adopted by victims include avoidant coping,
fear of some type of harassment via electronic communica- ignoring the perpetrator, confrontational coping, support
tion. In this research 82.7% who felt fear were women and seeking, and cognitive reframing. Taken together, the find-
76.8% who were men. Overall 94.1% felt discomfort and ings demonstrate that the ramifications of cyberstalking are
anxiety in which the number for men were 90.5% and wom- widespread, affecting psychological, social, interpersonal,
en was 95.6% [25]. In a victimization survey, nearly one-
and economic aspects of life. To adapt, some victims made
third reported some form of cyber harassment, which did
major changes to both their work and social life, with some
not cause them any harm, but it was annoying. [26]. Anoth-
ceasing employment and others modifying their usual dai-
er research has highlighted the importance of low self-con-
ly activities [33]. Some suggest that victims of cyberstalk-
trol, because as self-control decreases, the opportunity of
ing suffer from more intense reactions than their offline
criminal behavior increases [27]. Findings of another survey
counterparts [34]. For instance, it has been said that since
indicate that cyberstalking is experienced by a nontrivial
the victim is accessible both from afar and at all hours of
proportion of the sample, and that there are small but gen-
the day in the online world, these victims experience more
erally consistent relationships between facets of cyberstalk-
paranoia and stress than offline victims. A series of physi-
ing and spatially based stalking. In addition, the results sug-
cal, emotional and psychological traumas are presented to
gested that only interactional forms of coping were related
the victim, who may develop or experience such as sleep
consistently with forms of cyberstalking [28].
disorders, eating disorders, high levels of stress, feeling out
It seems significant that more than 38% of cyberstalking of control and a sense of loss personal safety [35]. Victims
victims did not know the identity of their harassers, but still can also experience multiple other reactions, such as weak-
reported high levels of psychological disturbance. This has ness, shame, feelings of isolation and anxiety or depression,
significance for two reasons: not only do victims have trou- and may also lead to substance use [36]. The psychological
bling psychological symptoms in the absence of physical effects of cyberstalking have linked PTSD with harassment
contact with their stalker, but also there is a high proportion in the workplace and offline stalking [37] and more gen-
of cyberstalking cases where the stalker does not know the eral psychological distress with the experience of being
victim [29]. This is divergent to what is known about offline stalked [38]. Moreover, in common with other research that
stalking, where studies have revealed that the majority of has investigated the effect of adverse experiences such as
stalkers know their victims [30] and contradicts the view childhood trauma, [39] natural disasters [40] and war [41]
held by some who argue for the assumption of parallelism on mental health outcomes, the respondents of the survey
between online and offline harassment [31]. reported much higher levels of psychological distress than
levels that have been reported in general population stud-

Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience & Mental Health, 2020, Volume 3, Issue 3, p. 197-202 | 199 |
 Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience & Mental Health
DOI: 10.26386/obrela.v3i3.162

Vana Papakitsou Cyberstalking, a new crime:

The nature of cyberstalking victimization

ies. [42] Therefore, just as offline stalking has psychological 3. Sheridan, L., Grant, T. (2007). ‘Is cyberstalking different?’ Psychol-
and physical effects on the victim, so does cyberstalking. ogy, Crime & Law, 13: 627- 640. [Link]/10.1080/10683160701
Altered behaviours that victims of cyberstalking could ex- 340528
perience include changes in sleeping and eating patterns, 4. Bocij, P., McFarlane, L. (2003). ‘Cyberstalking: The technology
anxiety, stress and fear. These are many of the same symp- of hate’. The Police Journal, 76: 204-221. [Link]/10.1350%2F-
pojo.76.3.204.19442
toms involved in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), leav-
ing the victim experiencing feelings of isolation, irritability 5. Stephenson P. R., Walter, R. D. (2011). ‘Toward Cyber Crime
Assessment: Cyberstalking’. Annual Symposium on Informa-
and guilt [43].
tion assurance (Asia), pp 7-8, Albany NY
6. Bowker, A., Gray, M. (2004). ‘An introduction to the supervision
Conclusion of the cybersex offender’. Federal Probation 2004, 68: (3), 3- 9.

Over the last decade, researchers have demonstrated that 7. Ashcroft, J. (2001). Stalking and domestic violence: A report to
Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
cyber stalking is a worrying reality for many people, espe-
cially the youngest. Cyberstalking, however, has received 8. Alexy, E. M., Burgess, A. W., Baker, T., Smoyak, S. A. (2005).
Perceptions of cyberstalking among college students. Brief
much less attention from the research community. Criminol-
Treatment & Crisis Intervention, 5 (3). doi=[Link].
ogists are currently in an exploratory research era in regard
9232&rep=rep1&type=pdf
to cybercrime, the growth of which has thus far not been
9. Jaishankar, K., Sankary, U. V. (2005). Cyber stalking: A glob-
matched by criminological scholarship. Consequently, there
al menace in the information super highway. ERCES Online
currently exists little methodological precedent for the re- Quarterly Review, 2 (3).
searcher intending to qualitatively examine the online vic-
10. McFarlane, L., Bocij, P. (2003). An exploration of predatory
timization and harassment. The fact that cyberstalking does
behavior in cyberspace: Towards a typology of cyber stalkers.
not involve physical contact creates the misconception that [Link]
it is less threatening or dangerous than stalking. Cyber stalk- [Link]
ing is just as scary and potentially dangerous to the victim 11. Harvey, D. (2003). Cyberstalking and Internet Harassment:
as it disturbs the victim’s life and tranquility. Cyberstalking What the Law Can Do. NetSafe II: Society, Safety and the In-
is becoming an increasingly significant problem for schools ternet Conference Proceedings [Online]. [Link]
and society in general. The society should be more aware of [Link]/downloads/conference/netsafepapers_davidharvey_
the existence of such serious problems and take measures cyberstal [Link]
in order to not fall prey to cyber stalkers. 12. D’Ovidio, R. Doyle, J. (2003). ‘A study on cyberstalking: Under-
standing investigative hurdles. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,
72:10-17.
13. Lee, R. K. (1998). Romantic and electronic stalking in a college
References context’. Journal of Women and the Law, 4, 373- 466. https://
[Link]/wmjowl/vol4/iss2/3
1. Umarhathab, S., Rao, G. D. R., Jaishankar, K. (2009) ‘Cyber
crimes in India: A study of emerging patterns of perpetration 14. Brewster, M. P. (2000). ‘Stalking by former intimates: Verbal
and victimization in Chennai City’. Pakistan Journal of Crim- threats and other predictors of physical violence. Violence
inology, 1: 51-66. doi=[Link].3981&rep=rep1&type=pd- and Victims, 15, 41- 54.
f#page=61 15. Pittaro, M. L. (2007). ‘Cyber stalking: An analysis of online
2. Meloy, J.R. (2007). ‘Stalking: The state of the science’. Crim- harassment and intimidation’. International Journal of Cyber
inal Behavior and Mental Health, 17: 1-7. [Link]/10.1002/ Criminology, 1: 2, 180- 197.
cbm 16. Bocij, P., Griffiths, M. D., McFarlane, L. (2002). ‘Cyberstalking:

| 200 | Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience & Mental Health, 2020, Volume 3, Issue 3, p. 197-202
 Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience & Mental Health
DOI: 10.26386/obrela.v3i3.162

Vana Papakitsou Cyberstalking, a new crime:

The nature of cyberstalking victimization

A new challenge for criminal law’. The criminal l awyer, 122, 3- tional Journal of Cyber Criminology, 8 (1). [Link]
5. [Link] [Link]/[Link]
Griffiths%[Link] 28. Spitzberg, B. H., Hoobler, G. (2002). ‘Cyberstalking and the
17. Bocij, P., Griffiths, M. D., McFarlane, L. (2002). ‘Cyberstalking: A technologies of interpersonal terrorism’. New Media & Society,
new challenge for criminal law’. The criminal lawyer, 122, 3-5. 4, 71–92. [Link]
[Link] 29. Short, E., Guppy, A., Hart, J. A., Barnes, J. (2015). ‘The impact
Griffiths%[Link] of cyberstalking’. Studies in Media and Communication, 3(2),
18. Reyns, B. (2010). ‘A situational crime prevention approach to 23-37. [Link]
cyberstalking victimization: Preventive tactics for Internet us- 30. McGrath, M. G., Casey, E. (2002). ‘Forensic psychiatry and
ers and online place managers’. Crime Prevention & Communi- the internet: practical perspectives on sexual predators and
ty Safety, 12: 99–118. [Link] obsessional harassers in cyberspace’. Journal of the American
19. Vasiu, I., Vasiu, L. (2013). ‘Cyberstalking nature and re- Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online, 30 (1), 81-94.
sponse recommendations’. Academic Journal of Interdisci- 31. Sheridan, L., Grant, T. (2007). ‘Is cyberstalking different?’ Psy-
plinary Studies, 2: 229. [Link] chology Crime and Law, 13(6), 627-640. [Link]
v2n9p229 .1080/10683160701340528
20. Vasiu, I., Vasiu, L. (2013). ‘Cyberstalking nature and re- 32. Glancy, G. D., Newman, A. W., Potash, M. N., Tennison, J.
sponse recommendations’. Academic Journal of Interdisci- (2007). ‘Cyberstalking’. In D. A. Pinals (Ed.), Stalking: Psychi-
plinary Studies, 2: 229. [Link] atric perspectives and practical approaches. New York, NY:
v2n9p229 Oxford University Press. 212- 226.
21. Μarcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., Ricketts, M. L. (2010). ‘Potential 33. Worsley, J. D., Wheatcroft, J. M., Short, E., Corcoran, R. (2017).
factors of online victimization of youth: An examination of ad- ‘Victims’ voices: Understanding the emotional impact of cy-
olescent online behaviors utilizing Routine Activities Theory’. berstalking and individuals’ coping responses’. Sage Open, 7
Deviant Behavior, 31: 1-31. [Link] (2). [Link]
0903004903
34. Lucks, B. (2001).’ Electronic crime, stalkers and stalking: Re-
22. Finn, J. (2004). ‘A Survey of Online Harassment at a Univer- lentless pursuit, harassment and terror on-line in cyberspace.
sity Campus’. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4:468-483. In J. A. Davis (Ed.), Stalking crimes and victim protection: Pre-
[Link] vention, intervention, threat assessment, and case manage-
23. Website for Halting Online Abuse. (2007). WHOA Comparison ment, 161-204. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.
Statistics, 2000-2007 [Link] 35. Gregorie, T. M. (2001). ‘Cyberstalking: Dangers on the infor-
stats/Cumulative2000- [Link] mation superhighway’. National Center for Victims of crime.
24. Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., Turner, M. G. (2002). ‘Being pur- [Link]
sued: Stalking victimization in a national study of college [Link]
women’. Criminology & Public Policy, 1, 257–308 [Link] 36. Blauuw, E., Winkel, F., Arensman, E., Sheridan, L., Freeve, A.
abs/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2002.tb00091.x (2002). ‘The toll of stalking: The relationship between fea-
25. Maple, C., Short, E., Brown, A. (2011). Cyberstalking in the tures of stalking and psychopathology of victims’. Journal of
United Kingdom: An analysis of the ECHO pilot survey. Uni- Interpersonal Violence, 17(1), 50–63. [Link]
versity of Bedfordshire. [Link] %2F0886260502017001004
26. Spitzberg, B. H., Hoobler, G. (2002). ‘Cyberstalking and the 37. Fleming, K. N., Newton, T. L., Fernandez-Botran, R., Miller, J.
technologies of interpersonal terrorism’. New Media & Society, J., Ellison, B. V. (2012). ‘Intimate partner stalking victimization
4, 71–92. [Link] and posttraumatic stress symptoms in post-abuse women’.
27. Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., Ricketts, M. L. (2014). ‘Juveniles Violence Against Women, 18 (12), 1368-1389. [Link]
and Cyber Stalking in the United States: An Analysis of Theo- org/10.1177/1077801212474447
retical Predictors of Patterns of Online Perpetration’. Interna- 38. Purcell, R., Pathe, M., Mullen, P. E. (2005). ‘Association be-

Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience & Mental Health, 2020, Volume 3, Issue 3, p. 197-202 | 201 |
 Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience & Mental Health
DOI: 10.26386/obrela.v3i3.162

Vana Papakitsou Cyberstalking, a new crime:

The nature of cyberstalking victimization

tween stalking victimization and psychiatric morbidity in a 41. Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D., Cotting,
random community sample’. British Journal of Psychiatry, 187, D. I., Koffman, R. L. (2004). ‘Combat duty in Iraq and Afghan-
416-420. [Link] istan, mental health problems, and barriers to care’. New
39. Afifi, T. O., Enns, M. W., Cox, B. J., Asmundson, G. J., Stein, England Journal of Medicine, 351 (1), 13-22. [Link]
M. B., Sareen, J. (2008). ‘Population attributable fractions of org/10.1056/NEJMoa040603
psychiatric disorders and suicide ideation and attempts asso- 42. McManus, S., Meltzer, H., Brugha, T., Bebbington, P., Jenkins,
ciated with adverse childhood experiences’. American Journal R. (2009). Adult Psychiatric Morbidity in England, 2007: re-
of Public Health, 98(5), 946-952. [Link] sults of a household survey. London: National Centre for Social
AJPH.2007.120253 Research.
40. Benight, C. C., Harper, M. L. (2002). ‘Coping self-efficacy per- 43. Short, E., Guppy, A., Hart, J. A., Barnes, J. (2015). ‘The impact
ceptions as a mediator between acute stress response and of cyberstalking’. Studies in Media and Communication, 3 (2),
long-term distress following natural disasters’. Journal of 23-37. [Link]
Traumatic Stress, 15 (3), 177-186. [Link]
/A:1015295025950

| 202 | Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience & Mental Health, 2020, Volume 3, Issue 3, p. 197-202