What is Cyberstalking? A Review of Measurements

Abstract

The absence of a widely accepted definition of cyberstalking has resulted in studies operationalizing it in various ways, reducing the comparability and generalizability of findings. The present work examined the most common behaviors and criteria used to operationalize cyberstalking within the quantitative literature. The definitions employed by the studies were evaluated in respect of (a) whether they included a minimum requirement for the number of times the behaviors needed to be repeated in order to be considered “cyberstalking”; (b) whether victim fear was required for the behaviors to be considered “cyberstalking”; (c) the timeframe within which the cyberstalking behavior needed to have occurred; and (d) the behaviors identified as indicating cyberstalking. The results demonstrated considerable variation in the specificity of criteria used. Of the 33 studies examined, 45% specifically defined a minimum number of behavioral repetitions required to classify the behaviors as “cyberstalking,” although there were some discrepancies in the number of behaviors specified across studies. Only 30% of studies included victim fear as a criterion and 70% of studies did not include specific timeframe requirements in which the behaviors needed to have occurred within. The number and description of behaviors included within scales used to measure “cyberstalking” varied widely. Some instruments utilized as many as 24 different items, whilst others identified cyberstalking through the use of two items. A series of recommendations are advanced aimed at providing criteria for defining and operationalizing cyberstalking that can be employed by future studies, with the ultimate aim of allowing greater comparability between results. From this a consistent knowledge base can be developed, and with it a deeper understanding of cyberstalking and how to counter it.

Stalking of professionals: A scoping review.

“…Stalkers also engage in unwanted contact or behavior that occurs in close proximity to the victim, such as following them, loitering where they know the victim will be, and directly approaching or accosting the victim (Sheridan et al, 2019). Online stalking can involve hacking personal accounts, impersonating the victim, or using the internet to tarnish their reputation (Cavezza & McEwan, 2014; Wilson et al, 2021). Secondary targets such as family members, friends, or colleagues are also frequently harassed as part of the stalking campaign, using similar kinds of behaviors (McEwan, Simmons, et al, 2020; McEwan et al, 2017).…”

Kibernetinis persekiojimas (cyberstalking): viktimizacijos ypatumai ir teisinio reagavimo galimybės

“…iki 85,2 proc. (Wilson et al, 2020). To-kius skirtingus statistinius rezultatus iš esmės lemia tai, jog iki šiol nėra vieningo sutarimo, kas yra kibernetinis persekiojimas ir kokie pagrindiniai jo požymiai (Wilson et al, 2020).…”

“…(Wilson et al, 2020). To-kius skirtingus statistinius rezultatus iš esmės lemia tai, jog iki šiol nėra vieningo sutarimo, kas yra kibernetinis persekiojimas ir kokie pagrindiniai jo požymiai (Wilson et al, 2020). Vieningo požiūrio dėl kibernetinio persekiojimo nebuvimas lemia ne tik tai, jog nėra tikslių statistinių duomenų apie šio reiškinio paplitimą, bet ir tai, jog trūksta konkretesnių šio pobūdžio nusikalstamų veikų tyrimo gairių bei tikslingos pagalbos priemonių kibernetinio persekiojimo aukoms.…”

“…Pavyzdžiui, vieni persekiojimu laiko ir tuos atvejus, kai nepageidaujami veiksmai pasikartoja 1-2 kartus (pvz. Dekeseredy et al, 2019), o kiti tik tuomet, kai nepageidaujami veiksmai pakartojami bent 10 kartų (pvz., Sheridan and Grant, 2007;Wilson et al, 2020).…”

“…checkins) socialiniuose tinkluose ir tuomet pagal juos fiziškai persekiojant žmogų). Taip pat dalis autorių prie kibernetinio persekiojimo veiksmų priskiria ir sekimą, naudojant GPS įrangą, tapatybės vagystę (Wilson et al, 2020).…”