short essay on cyberstalking

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples Therapy
• Best Family Therapy
• Managing Stress
• Sleep and Dreaming
• Understanding Emotions
• Self-Improvement
• Healthy Relationships
• Student Resources
• Personality Types
• Guided Meditations
• Verywell Mind Insights
• 2023 Verywell Mind 25
• Mental Health in the Classroom
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Review Board
• Crisis Support

Cyberstalking: Definition, Signs, Examples, and Prevention

Sherri Gordon, CLC is a published author, certified professional life coach, and bullying prevention expert. She's also the former editor of Columbus Parent and has countless years of experience writing and researching health and social issues.

Karen Cilli is a fact-checker for Verywell Mind. She has an extensive background in research, with 33 years of experience as a reference librarian and educator.

Fizkes / iStockphoto

• Consequences

Cyberstalking Laws

Cyberstalking refers to the use of the internet and other technologies to harass or stalk another person online, and is potentially a crime in the United States. This online harassment, which is an extension of cyberbullying and in-person stalking, can take the form of e-mails, text messages, social media posts, and more and is often methodical, deliberate, and persistent.

Most of the time, the interactions do not end even if the recipient expresses their displeasure or asks the person to stop. The content directed at the target is often inappropriate and sometimes even disturbing, which can leave the person feeling fearful, distressed, anxious, and worried.

What's more, cyberstalking is a growing problem. According to the Pew Research Center 4 out of 10 Americans have experienced online harassment and 62% of them consider it a significant issue.

While some of the online harassment that people in the survey experienced was just nuisance behaviors, nearly 1 in 5 Americans said they had experienced severe forms of online harassment. These actions included physical threats, sexual harassment, and stalking.

Signs of Cyberstalking

Some signs that you are experiencing cyberstalking include someone sending you too many messages, a person sending you inappropriate messages, liking all of your old posts on social media, manipulating you into interacting with them online, or trolling you. Online impersonality, GPS tracking, threatening messages, catfishing, and doxing are also behavior associated with cyberstalking.

Examples of Cyberstalking

When it comes to cyberstalking, those who engage in this behavior use a variety of tactics and techniques to harass, humiliate, intimidate, and control their targets. In fact, many of those who engage in cyberstalking are technologically savvy as well as creative and come up with a multitude of ways to torment and harass their targets.

So what is considered cyberstalking? Here are some examples of things people who cyberstalk might do:

• Post rude, offensive, or suggestive comments online
• Follow the target online by joining the same groups and forums
• Send threatening, controlling, or lewd messages or emails to the target
• Use technology to threaten or blackmail the target
• Tag the target in posts excessively, even if they have nothing to do with them
• Comment on or like everything the target posts online
• Create fake accounts to follow the target on social media
• Message the target repeatedly
• Hack into or hijack the target's online accounts
• Attempt to extort sex or explicit photos
• Send unwanted gifts or items to the target
• Release confidential information online
• Post or distribute real or fake photos of the target
• Bombard the target with sexually explicit photos of themselves
• Create fake posts designed to shame the victim
• Track the target's online movements by installing tracking devices
• Hack into the target's camera on their laptop or smartphone as a way to secretly record them
• Continue the harassing behavior even after being asked to stop

What are the main types of cyberstalking?

Cyberstalking often falls into four main types: vindictive, composed, intimate, and collective. Vindictive cyberstalking involves threats, composed cyberstalking involves annoyance and harassment, intimate involves exes or people infatuated with the victim, and collective involves a person being cyber stalked by a group of individuals.

Consequences of Cyberstalking

Just like stalking, cyberstalking has the potential to cause a wide range of physical and emotional consequences for those who are targeted. For instance, it's not uncommon for those who are being harassed online to experience anger, fear, and confusion. They also might have trouble sleeping and even complain of stomach trouble.

The consequences of cyberstalking also impact a person's mental health and overall wellbeing. Frequently, people who have been a target of cyberstalking experience distress, anxiety , and depression .

There are even reports that targets of cyberstalking may experience post traumatic stress disorder and suicidal ideation . If you are experiencing cyberstalking, it's important that you reach out for help. You can contact the National Center for Victims of Crime at 1-855-4-VICTIM (1-855-484-2846). And, if you or a loved one are in immediate danger be sure to call 911 right way.

You also should consider getting help from a mental health professional. They can help you process your feelings as well as provide support and guidance for what you're experiencing.

How to Prevent Cyberstalking

When it comes to preventing cyberstalking, it's important that you take the necessary precautions to protect yourself online. Although it's not possible to completely prevent cyberstalking from occurring, there are steps you can take to increase your security and reduce the likelihood of it happening.

Make Security a Priority

The first step in preventing cyberstalking is to ensure that your devices and your online accounts are as secure as possible. Here are some steps you should consider taking.

• Create strong passwords . Make sure you have strong passwords for all your online accounts as well as strong passwords for your devices. Then, set a reminder on your phone to regularly change your passwords. Choose passwords that would be difficult to guess but are easy for you to remember.
• Be sure to log out every time . It may seem like a pain, but make sure you log out of email, social media accounts, and other online accounts after using them. This way, if someone were able to get into your device they would not have easy access to your accounts.
• Keep track of your devices . Don't leave your phone sitting on your desk at work or walk away from an open laptop. It only takes a minute or two for someone to install a tracking device or hack your device. So, make sure you keep these things in your possession or that you secure them in some way.
• Use caution on public wifi . Recognize the fact that if you use public wifi at hotels or at the local coffee shop, you are putting yourself at risk for hacking. Try to refrain from using public wifi or invest in VPN.
• Practice online safety habits . In other words, make it a priority to only accept friend requests from people you know and keep your posts private. You also should consider having one email address that is specifically for your online activity. Use this email when you do your online shopping or join loyalty programs.

Practice Good Digital Hygiene

In order to protect yourself from cyberstalking, it's important to practice good digital hygiene. What this means, is that you are aware of the digital footprints you're creating online and you're taking steps to protect your accounts and your identity. Here are some things you should be doing on a regular basis.

• Take advantage of security settings . Go through each of your online accounts—especially your social media accounts—and ensure that you are using the strongest privacy settings as possible. You can even establish settings where people cannot tag you or post pictures of you without your approval first.
• Create generic screen names . Rather than using your full name online, consider developing a gender-neutral screen name or pseudonym. By doing so, you are making it harder for people to find you online. You also should leave the optional sections, like your date of birth or your hometown, blank.
• Keep locations secure . Consider disabling the geolocation settings in photos. You also should refrain from posting your location in real time and instead post photos showing where you have been after the fact.
• Be careful with online dating sites . Refrain from using your full name on online dating sites . You also should avoid giving out personal information like your last name, address, email, and telephone number until you have met in person and established a level of trust.
• Perform a social media audit . It's always a good idea to go through your social media accounts and remove photos or posts that provide too much information about you or that create an image you don't want out there. Keep in mind, too, that even if you have blocked someone on social media, they may be able to still see your account by using another person's account or by creating a fake profile.

How to Cope With Cyberstalking

Online anonymity makes it challenging to trace cyberstalking back to a particular person, but there are still things you can do to increase your safety and combat what you're experiencing. Here's everything you need to know about dealing with cyberstalking.

Set Up Roadblocks

The first step to addressing the cyberstalking you're experiencing is to do what you can to put an end to the interactions with the person cyberstalking you. While they may still find other ways to reach you, you can at least make it harder for them to contact you. Try to set up these roadblocks to cyberstalking.

• Tell the person to stop . Respond only once to the person cyberstalking you and tell them to stop contacting you. You don't need to say anything specific or explain your answer, just ask them to never contact you again.
• Block the person . Make sure you block the person cyberstalking you from all your accounts. You should block them on social media and on your smartphone.
• Refuse to respond to any contact . If the person cyberstalking continues to find ways to contact you, do not respond to anything they post or send you.
• Change email address and screen names . Consider getting a new email address and changing your online screen names to make it harder for the person cyberstalking you to reach you.

Increase Security

It's important to remember that people who engage in cyberstalking are already crossing a number of personal boundaries in order to make contact with you. For this reason, you need to do everything you can to increase your safety.

You also should prepare yourself for the possibility that their online harassment could escalate to in-person stalking . So, make sure you're also taking steps to keep yourself safe at home, school, and work. It may even help to create a safety plan . Here are some other things you can do:

• Change passwords . Even if your accounts have not been breeched you should change all your passwords and continue to change them on a regular basis.
• Consider suspending online accounts . If you are able, you should consider suspending your social media accounts or at least taking a break for them for a while. If you are not active online, it's harder for the person cyberstalking you to reach you.
• Get your devices checked . Before you use your devices again you should have them checked out by a professional to ensure the person harassing you did not install tracking devices or hack your computer in some way.

Take Action

If you have asked the person cyberstalking you to stop and their behavior continues, it's important to take action against them. This includes contacting the appropriate authorities and collecting evidence of their actions. You also may want to consider talking with an attorney.

Here are the key points that will need addressed when taking action. Your local law enforcement can let you know if there is anything else you can do in order to stay safe.

• Save evidence of everything . Even though you may feel like destroying everything, it's important to keep copies of everything the person cyberstalking you has sent. Make a copy for yourself and a copy for law enforcement.
• Notify your local police . It's important to notify the police and file an official complaint if you're being cyberstalked. Even if they cannot do anything right away, having an official complaint on file is important if the behavior persists or escalates.
• Report them to the site or service they used . If the person cyberstalking you harassed you through Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, YouTube, Gmail, or some other method, let the appropriate authorities know what you're experiencing. Many times, these organizations take complaints of cyberstalking seriously and will address the matter.

Even though there is not a specific federal law against cyberstalking, there are laws that can be used to prosecute those who engage in cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is a serious crime and it can result in serious consequences for those who engage in this behavior.

For instance, the federal law against stalking is often used in these cases. This law states that anyone who uses electronic communications technology to engage in conduct that causes a person reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury or “causes, attempts to cause, or would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person," could face imprisonment.

There are other federal laws that could be applied to cyberstalking cases as well. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act could be used to charge someone if the target has been secretly recorded using their own computer or in situations where the perpetrator gained access to sexual photos or videos through unauthorized access to the target's computer.

Likewise, a person may be charged with extortion if they publish or threaten to publish private photos or videos of another person with the intention of forcing them to do something they don't want to do, especially if they communicated through interstate commerce channels like phones, computers, or the internet.

There also is a statute that indicates that it is a crime to use a telephone, the internet, or any other telecommunications device to annoy, abuse, harass, or threaten another person. Meanwhile, anyone who engages in caller ID spoofing—meaning they disguise the number that appears on the target's caller ID— could be charged with a crime.

As for state laws, those vary from state to state. If you are curious about your state's cyberstalking laws, contact your local police department. They should be able to tell you what laws your state has to address cyberstalking.

Pew Research Center. Online harassment 2017 .

Begotti T, Acquadro Maran D. Characteristics of cyberstalking behavior, consequences, and coping strategies: a cross-sectional study in a sample of Italian university students .  Future Internet . 2019;11(5):120. doi:10.3390/fi11050120

Short E, Linford S, Wheatcroft JM, Maple C. The impact of cyberstalking: the lived experience - a thematic analysis . Stud Health Technol Inform . 2014;199:133-7.

Cyberbullying Research Center. Cyberstalking .

Privacy Rights Clearinghouse. Online harassment and cyberstalking .

By Sherri Gordon Sherri Gordon, CLC is a published author, certified professional life coach, and bullying prevention expert. She's also the former editor of Columbus Parent and has countless years of experience writing and researching health and social issues.

To revisit this article, visit My Profile, then View saved stories .

• Backchannel
• Newsletters
• WIRED Insider
• WIRED Consulting

Roni Jacobson

I’ve Had a Cyberstalker Since I Was 12

Early one evening last March, my best friend saw my name pop up in a text notification on her phone. The message, which appeared to come from my gmail account, read: “felt a bit sad today about how I never made any friends at Emory during my time there. Not one. god I’m a loser. all I’ve got is my hair lol.” She called me as soon as she got home from work. “Are you okay?”

“What? Yeah, everything’s fine,” I answered.

She told me about the text, but even as she spoke we realized what had happened.“Ugh,” I said. “It’s Danny.” My cyberstalker had struck again, this time with a spot on impersonation of me and my neuroses.

Danny (not his real name) has stalked and harassed me, online and off, for almost 15 years — more than half my life at this point. He has used a variety of methods to do so — phone, text, email, Facebook and other social media — updating his tactics with every advance in technology. In the last three years he has also sent dozens, possibly hundreds, of defamatory letters, emails, Facebook and Twitter messages about me to my family, friends, employers, friends’ employers, professional organizations and political offices, including the State Attorney General of New York. (I know because he sent me copies of the letters.)

By now I was used to ignoring Danny’s harassment and advising others to do the same, but this was different, more serious than what I had endured before. It looked like Danny had stolen my identity and was now posing as me to my friends online. Had he hacked my accounts? I was terrified of the havoc he could wreak with my personal information suddenly at his disposal.

I immediately called Apple and started digging through Google’s help pages to figure out what had happened. It turned out my accounts were secure, and Danny hadn’t actually hacked anything. (I changed my passwords anyway.) He was spoofing my email, using a software program that let him impersonate me online. Spoofing is very easy to do, and is often used in phishing scams. Since he was using a third-party system, Apple couldn’t stop him, a rep told me. Neither could Google. If I wanted to end Danny’s extended campaign to make my life miserable once and for all, I’d have to figure out how myself.

Danny and I met at camp in 2001, when I was 12 and he was a couple years older. We became friends and would talk occasionally during the school year. Our conversations frequently involved me reading him excerpts from Cosmopolitan’s Guide to Horoscopes, a book I was obsessed with at the time. But soon he was calling practically every day, and I started ignoring his calls, finding it easier to ghost as a self-centered teen than confront him directly. He didn’t take the hint, and I eventually blocked his number. Like everyone in the early aughts, I was a devoted user of AOL instant messenger, and at some point must have given Danny my screen name. We chatted on AIM on and off through high school until I blocked him there, too. When I got a Facebook account in 2006 he found me again and, not wanting to be rude, I accepted his friend request. He often sent me rambling accounts of his day-to-day life. I usually didn’t respond, but sometimes I messaged back if I was bored or lonely.

Amanda Hoover

Andy Greenberg

Mark Andrews

I didn’t think much of Danny’s behavior until one evening during my sophomore year of college. I was leaving the library when I saw Danny standing outside. He handed me the latest Red Hot Chili Peppers CD (Stadium Arcadium, not great) and asked if we could eat dinner together. I panicked; I hadn’t seen Danny since middle school and didn’t want to see him now. But I also didn’t want to hurt his feelings and felt touched by his gift. I took him to the cafeteria and made awkward conversation until I faked an excuse and left.

After that incident I cut off contact, figuring his fixation would dwindle with time. But his Facebook messages only seemed to increase, an almost daily barrage of friendly if disjointed missives responding to my status updates or providing commentary on his political beliefs, job hunt and other aspects of his life.

The last time I talked to Danny was in 2012. His messages had ramped up to a maniacal rate — every few hours for about three days straight, unreciprocated, with no end in sight. I caved and sent him a message asking him to please stop messaging me so much or I’d block him. “Ok. good luck on your quest,” he wrote back three minutes later. “Huh,” I thought. “That was easy.” Then he sent three more angry messages in quick succession and I blocked him on Facebook. That’s when everything changed.

Instead of his typical ramblings, Danny started calling me names, insulting my “Jewish nose,” and making thinly veiled threats to ruin my career. I filtered out his emails and blocked his text messages, but some communications always managed to slip through as Danny contrived new usernames and methods to harass me.

In 2013 he sent my parents a letter detailing his recent activities: “A number of federal government agencies in Washington D.C. and New York City in addition with a number of journalism associations have been contacted to maintain the integrity of internet communication, to uphold ethical journalistic responsibilities, and uphold ethics in the journalism industry,” he wrote. “If this incident ruined Roni Jacobson’s career in journalism, that is personally not my responsibility and she will have to deal with the consequences from her actions.”

Later I got emails from him telling me he had submitted formal complaints to the FTC and the FCC, as well as both agencies’ official responses to him. He also contacted the NY state attorney general. “You sure did create a bad reputation with federal government; please use words and the Internet responsibly,” he wrote in one email to me. “I really fear for you in journalism because you could get in a lot of legal trouble; your reputation is not the best…” he menaced obscurely in another.

I was now fielding multiple inquiries about him each month — from employers, acquaintances, friends and others. I’d explain the situation and advise them to block and ignore his messages. Most people were understanding, but it was embarrassing to explain, especially to employers I was trying to impress.

Two years passed before I finally decided to take legal action, in late 2014. Maybe it seems weird that I waited so long. Friends and family had been encouraging me to go to the police for years. But by that point I regarded Danny as an annoying fact of life, the hole-dwelling rodent in a decade-plus game of whack-a-mole. And anyway I didn’t want to get Danny in trouble. He obviously had a problem, and would likely be better served by therapy than jail-time, I thought. Besides, I had my doubts about the police. A few months earlier I had watched as a couple of officers successfully dissuaded my neighbor from reporting the physical assault she had just suffered at the hands of her boyfriend. If they wouldn’t acknowledge the bruises that covered her arms, neck and legs, I didn’t have much confidence in their ability to see what Danny was doing to me.

But impersonating me, by spoofing my accounts, was too much. Danny had also started harassing my friend Maithri, probably after intuiting our best friend status via social media. He sent spoofed emails calling her “ugly” and “a slut” while pretending to be me or one of our mutual friends. She got messages alerting her he was trying to hack into her gmail and social media accounts. Someone, likely Danny, sent her an anonymous email using a service called Guerillamail with: “Roni Jacobson is not your friend,” in the subject line. Body of email: “Who do you think is harassing you on the net?” In another message to Maithri that showed up as a text on her phone apparently sent from my email address, he urged her to “put up more photos on facebook please!!! im bored.”

I had to find a way to end this before it escalated yet again.

With Apple and Google unable to help, I started consulting the numerous guides for cyberstalking victims available online. I felt guilty for waiting so long, like I had been lazy—and my friends had suffered because of my inaction. But as I read, I learned that my non-response hadn’t been entirely off-base. According to the online guides, like those provided by advocacy groups Working to Halt Abuse Online and the Stalking Resource Center , after clearly telling the cyberstalker or harasser to stop, “do not engage” is rule #1. But if the cyberstalking escalates or persists, the next step is to report the crime to the relevant authorities. Who exactly are those authorities? No one’s entirely sure.

Since Danny had used the US Postal Service to harass me over state lines, I figured it was the feds. I filed a complaint with IC3, the FBI’s cybercrime reporting center. A few seconds after filing I got an email reading: “This is the only reply you will receive from the IC3. Because we receive thousands of complaints per week, we cannot reply to every complaint received or to every request for updates.” In a somewhat ironic turn a couple weeks later, Danny notified me via email that he had filed an IC3 report against me .

Next up was the police, according to the Department of Justice guide for victims of cyberstalking, which I ended up consulting frequently. A few days after filing with IC3 I gathered together physical copies of some of the letters Danny had sent, including to the New York attorney general, and headed to my local precinct. I had done hours of research in preparation for this moment, and I felt confident as I walked into the building.

“I’m being harassed,” I announced to the cop at the window. “And stalked. Mostly online.”

Loud snickering from my left. “Is it him?” asked the cop in front of me, flicking his thumb at his colleague giggling in the corner.

I narrowed my eyes at the second cop but didn’t say anything. I informed the officer at the window that I would like to file a police report and launched into a short version of the tale, including Danny’s latest identity theft. The officer, who looked a little like Terrence Howard and seemed more understanding than his colleague in the corner stopped me short. “None of what you’ve described is a crime,” he told me.

I was blown away. “None of it?” I asked. “Over the past three years? What about stalking?” I showed him the letters.

The officer shook his head. It wasn’t a crime because Danny had never “threatened me with physical harm,” he explained.

“Had you ever been sexually intimate with this guy?” he asked.

I must have looked offended, because he quickly explained that he was only trying to help. “I’m just asking routine questions that will make it possible to file a report. There’s just not a crime here,” he said again.

“Defamation? Identity fraud?” I tried. He told me no.

“Were you ever afraid for your life?” he asked, still apparently on my side.

“No,” I scoffed. After that his whole demeanor changed. When it became apparent I wasn’t shaking in my boots, he turned his attention to the line of people building up behind me. I realized my mistake quickly. “I mean, he’s definitely threatened my reputation,” I offered in a feeble attempt to backtrack. Not good enough.

In the end I asked him three times if he was sure Danny had to have threatened me physically. He said yes each time. I told him I might have some physically threatening messages but I’d have to look for them, and retreated to an orange plastic chair against the opposite wall. I scrolled through my Facebook messages on my phone, but since I had blocked Danny they were impossible to locate that way. Meanwhile, as I sat scrolling, several people came up to the reporting window with problems that seemed much more serious and immediate than mine, including a woman who was being followed in real life. I wondered what I was even doing at the precinct, and told the cop I’d have to look for the messages at home and come back. He asked me to return with printouts.

Although I had walked in calm and collected, I left the station feeling silly and close to tears. I felt stupid and ashamed that I’d allowed myself to be pushed around. But after walking a couple of blocks the lump in my throat exploded in anger. I was being punished for not acting scared enough. But why should I be scared? Late one night weeks prior I’d wondered whether Danny might try to find me in person, like that time in college, so I had looked up the psychology of stalkers online. Of the five types of stalkers , Danny seemed to be the kind most likely to persist over years — even decades — but least likely to escalate to violence.

And indeed, when I later sifted through everything I had ever gotten from Danny, I couldn’t find any threats of physical violence. It just wasn’t his thing — Danny was more into threatening my livelihood. The worst he had ever done was call me a “bitch” two years ago. But while I didn’t feel in immediate physical danger, I was emotionally distraught and concerned about Danny’s attempts to damage my reputation.

The cop may not have bought my story, but I wasn’t convinced that his interpretation of the situation was correct. So I decided to look up the statute. From the NY penal code, cyberstalking:

“…is likely to cause such person to reasonably fear that his or her employment, business or career is threatened, where such conduct consists of appearing, telephoning or initiating communication or contact at such person’s place of employment or business, and the actor was previously clearly informed to cease that conduct.”

I was disappointed if not surprised that the police were wrong. Perhaps I was naive. When I called Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland and author of the book “Hate Crimes in Cyberspace,” a few days later, I learned that most cyberstalking victims have similar experiences when they go to the police. “We have this big education deficit in law enforcement,” she told me. Local police are not educated or trained on cyberstalking law and often “misunderstand it and are intimidated by the technology.”

Even in the rare cases when police recognize that a crime has occurred, officers often don’t know how to investigate. Sometimes cops react with “undisguised hostility,” says Citron. But most of the time they simply shrug off complaints as “no big deal” or imply that people who report cyberstalking should be flattered by the attention.

But cyberstalking is a big deal, and I’m far from the only victim. A Pew survey from 2014 found that one in four young women report having been stalked online. Men can be victims of cyberstalking, too, but the majority of victims are women, who tend to experience “particularly severe” harassment online, according to the survey. Just about everyone has been name-called or subject to some other sort of verbal abuse online, but women are the predominant targets of sexual harassment and the sustained abuse that constitutes cyberstalking, typically considered the most serious form of internet harassment.

Women have been growing more vocal about the treatment they receive online, in particular about threats of violence. Violinist Mia Matsumiya, for instance, recently documented 10 years ’ worth of sexual harassment and threats from strangers, mostly via her Instagram. Cyberstalking is different from the abuse Matsumiya experienced: Instead of one-off trolling comments, cyberstalking describes a pattern of behavior intended to harass and intimidate over an extended period of time. Most cyberstalking victims also know their stalker, who may be anything from an acquaintance to a former romantic partner, and who often sabotages the target’s reputation as a way to exert control over the victim.

I checked the DOJ’s online resource for cyberstalking victims again. But after “contact the police,” the only thing left to do was to “keep a thorough record” of all future communications. Was I just supposed to live with this for the rest of my life, accumulating boxes upon boxes of “thorough records” that no one would ever act on?

With the local police not up to the case I decided to return to the FBI. But contacting them turned out not to be so easy. After persisting through a chain of holds and transfers, I finally got an email address. Via email a rep told me that “the FBI doesn’t have anything for you on cyberstalking” and directed me to the IC3 annual report. I scanned its pages and found categories for harassment, identity theft, business email compromise and other behaviors that could conceivably constitute cyberstalking, but not cyberstalking itself. When I asked about this seeming oversight a rep told me via email a couple days later: “IC3 does not collect specific statistics on Cyber stalking. Any complaint that we would have, fall under harassment or extortion.”

After an extended exchange, I secured a limited interview entirely on the FBI’s terms— but the next day the FBI backed out. “Unfortunately, due to resource limitations, we cannot accommodate your request.” Further emails went unanswered.

It seemed I had hit another dead end. Frustrated, I called up Mary Anne Franks, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law and an expert on cybercrime. She saw my experience as part of a broader pattern in law enforcement. “There is a very long history of trivializing the harms that are done to women specifically,” Franks said. “That includes everything from domestic assault to rape to stalking.” The first anti-stalking legislation passed in California in 1990, after a series of grisly cases ending in murder raised public awareness about the crime. Within three years all 50 states had anti-stalking laws, and in the early 2000s states began updating their laws to add cyberstalking.

Stalking laws across the US are uneven. New York, where I live, has some of the better anti-stalking legislation in the country. So does Florida. But others offer only piecemeal protections. Federal law under the Violence Against Women Act is more inclusive, and in fact would cover practically every instance of cyberstalking reported, multiple experts told me.

But while the federal cyberstalking law is stronger, “the response isn’t any better. In fact, it may be worse,” Citron told me during our phone call. Between 2010 and 2013 the FBI prosecuted only 10 cyberstalking cases out of an estimated 2.5 million. Franks explained to me that “many people just don’t believe cyberstalking is real.” Those who do recognize it tend to blame the victim or offer facile solutions. “You still hear even federal officers say, just close your computer, just get off line.”

These dismissive attitudes are pervasive throughout all levels of law enforcement. In recognition of this state of affairs, in December the Office of Violence on Women, a branch of the DOJ, issued a statement calling out gender bias in policing of sexual assault and domestic violence as a serious problem in law enforcement. Gender bias often manifests as police officers “misclassifying or underreporting crimes,” “inappropriately jumping to conclusions and labeling sexual assault cases unfounded” and generally failing to recognize domestic violence and sexual assault as crimes.

The DOJ included guidelines for reducing gender bias, the first one being for cops to identify that a problem exists at all. Doing so involves educating officers about the real and quantifiable harm of cyberstalking. For Franks, a big theme is that the “fundamental feeling of security that most people take for granted is taken away.” She has spoken to hundreds, maybe thousands, of victims in her research, who describe constant feelings “having to look over one’s shoulder” that keep them from engaging fully in their lives, online or off.

Then there’s the often significant financial toll. More than half of stalking victims lost five or more days of work from having to deal with their stalkers’ interferences, according to justice department statistics. Many cyberstalkers try to commit “economic sabotage” against their target by spamming their boss with negative emails, for example, or posting defamatory statements or sexually explicit photos online, Citron told me. In a classic case of cyberstalking reported earlier this February, for example, a man created a website for the sole intent of destroying his ex-wife’s reputation, alleging that she is a drug addict, child abuser and white supremacist and telling local news he would only stop when she is dead or “destitute and homeless.”

The FBI and Canadian authorities (the ex-husband lives in British Columbia) declined to prosecute the man in part because they decided the woman could not reasonably be afraid for her physical safety, similar to what the police told me. But why is it necessary for a person to have been afraid for a crime to have occurred? Researchers and advocates have widely challenged the fear requirement as gender-biased, as stalking, predominately a crime against women, is the only crime contingent on the emotional response of the victim.

Many state cyberstalking laws in the US still require that the victim fear their stalker physically. As of its last update in 2013, the federal Violence Against Women Act does not. But despite federal law — and the Office of Violence on Women’s (OVW) stated mission of eliminating gender bias in law enforcement — the DOJ still uses the same outdated definition of cyberstalking, which, according to their website, stipulates that a victim must fear the perpetrator.

When I called up the DOJ to ask why, I couldn’t get a satisfactory response. In an conversation “on background only,” an OVW rep told me, in short, that the office’s main objective around stalking and cyberstalking is defining the crime and making sure it is reported and logged accurately.

That seemed as good a segue as any. I asked about the OVW’s response to potential gender bias in their own definition of cyberstalking, as well as the FBI’s failure to track cyberstalking incidences. She requested I submit those questions in writing, which I did a couple hours later. But despite multiple follow-ups I have yet to receive an answer. Getting blown off by federal government was becoming something of a pattern.

Meanwhile, I was still getting messages from Danny. Like most people who stalk and harass online, he likely has more than one target. Danny has mentioned at least two other women to me over the years, and I suspect he has stalked them, too. Not long ago, my dad called to tell me he had been contacted by a lawyer who represented Danny. The lawyer had apologized for his client’s behavior and asked that we notify him if Danny ever attempted to contact me or anyone connected to me in the future.

I emailed the lawyer back, but due to attorney-client privilege he wouldn’t reveal the nature of his representation of Danny. I assumed, however, that he was being sued by another victim. Women have had the most success in bringing their tormenters to justice in exactly this way — in court. But in those cases, the threats have tended to be violent. This other victim might have seen a different, more physically threatening side of Danny, or maybe she will help extend cyberstalking case law into nonviolent crimes, too.

Perhaps — no thanks to my own efforts with law enforcement, from local police up to the DOJ— my saga is finally approaching an end. But when will we recognize that fear shouldn’t be a prerequisite for justice? I was never physically afraid of Danny and never will be. That fact does not negate my experience or make his actions any less damaging. I don’t need the law questioning whether I feel scared enough. I just need my voice to be heard.

Kathy Gilsinan

Rachel Lance

David Kushner

Jenna Scatena

The impact of cyberstalking: the lived experience - a thematic analysis

Affiliations.

• 1 National Centre for Cyberstalking Research, University of Bedfordshire.
• 2 Department of Psychological Sciences, Witness Research Group, University of Liverpool.
• PMID: 24875706

Cyberstalking (CS) can have major psychosocial impacts on individuals. Victims report a number of serious consequences of victimization such as increased suicidal ideation, fear, anger, depression, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomology. Research is largely limited to quantitative outcome research. This study examines the diversity of experiences reported by people who define themselves as having been cyberstalked. Thematic analysis was used to explore 100 CS victim narratives, gathered by means of an online survey questionnaire designed to capture structured text responses. Five emergent themes were evident in the data: control and intimidation; determined offender; development of harassment; negative consequences; and lack of support. Findings identify similarities and differences to traditional stalking, along with the necessity of support for victims and illustration of the negative impacts this form of harassment produces.

• Crime Victims / psychology*
• Stalking / psychology*
• Stress, Psychological*

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Cyberstalking scale: development and relations with gender, FOMO and social media engagement

Isabella leandra silva santos.

Departament of Psychology, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraíba Brazil

Carlos Eduardo Pimentel

Tailson evangelista mariano.

Cyberstalking is a form of persecution that has proliferated with technology’s evolution. The present research aimed to develop a cyberstalking measure and observe its relations with Fear of Missing Out (FOMO), social media engagement, and sociodemographic variables. To achieve these goals, two studies were performed. In the first study, 200 subjects (76.5% female, with a mean age of 21.6 years) answered the 15 items originally developed for the scale. These data went trough exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha to verify the reliability of the instrument. The results indicated the exclusion of five items, and after this removal, the scale was valid and reliable (α = 0.86). In the second study, which also had 200 subjects (65% female and an average age of 21.8 years), was realized confirmatory factor analysis (measuring the model fit), accompanied by correlations and mediation analysis. The analyzes demonstrated that the one-factor model was adequate (GFI = 0.98; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.02; SRMR = 0.06). Path analysis showed social media engagement as a significant mediator of FOMO and gender’s impact on cyberstalking: Both had direct (FOMO: λ = 0.31; CI = 0.19–0.42; p  < 0.01; Gender: λ = 0.12; CI = 0.02–0.22; p  < 0.05) and indirect effects (FOMO: λ = 0.07; CI = 0.03–0.11; p < 0.01; Gender: λ = 0.04; CI = 0.01–0.07; p < 0.01).

Introduction

“Privacy is dead and social media hold the smoking gun”, said Peter Cashmore, founder of Mashable, in a special for CNN in 2009. Twelve years later, this phrase couldn’t be closer to reality: If on the one hand, keeping track of personal information online has become an increasingly complex task, on the other hand, this concern does not seem to affect the numbers of social media users: Instagram, for example, reached one billion active users in June 2018 (Choi et al., 2018 ; Statista, 2019 ). These two characteristics of the virtual environment (lack of controllability and exponential growth) do not exist without impacting the users’ lives.

One of the negative impacts is cyberstalking, defined as a form of harassment (frequently observing, keeping in touch insistently) that uses electronic tools and the virtual environment to control, manipulate and coerce the victim (Sheridan & Lyndon, 2012 ; Smoker & March, 2017 ). Sheridan and Grant ( 2007 ) offer a list of the main components of cyberstalking: using social networks and other virtual environments to gather information about the victim, sending unsolicited messages frequently, electronic sabotage (sending viruses or hacking accounts), pretending to be someone else, posting false information, and get other users to contribute to your persecution, even if indirectly.

However, it is relevant to note that these essential cyberstalking elements are always transmuting to parallel the accelerated technological developments and the new functions inserted and popularized in the virtual environment. This issue is clear when comparing research conducted within a time interval: Although both studies talk about the use of technology to control/pursue a loving partner, the research conducted by Burke et al. ( 2011 ) focused on functions such as text messaging, email and Facebook use, while Smoker and March ( 2017 ), already address issues such as tracking apps, information screenshots, and Instagram.

Similar to traditional persecution, cyberstalking can be performed both by a stranger and someone who has or had contact with the victim before (Horsman & Conniss, 2015 ). However, the virtual version of the stalking seems to become common among acquaintances, especially between romantic partners. Burke et al. ( 2011 ) observed that half of their sample reported previous engagement in a situation where technology was used by a loving partner to monitor actions, either as the victim or the initiator of the behavior. But why such a high prevalence?

One possibility is that behaviors usually considered inappropriate or intrusive (e.g. monitoring the places that a person frequents) in the offline world, are normalized in the virtual environment as a proper form of interpersonal interaction, especially in seeking/maintaining romantic involvement (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007 ). Using the previous example, knowing that someone frequents certain places thanks to their posts on social media is common and even facilitated by functions such as tagging your location. Thus, in a society where more and more personal information is exposed, discussed, criticized, and used, the line between what is socially acceptable becomes more and more blurred.

Another related alternative is the fact that actions perpetuated on the internet are often not seen as having the same severity as something that occurs in face-to-face interactions, even when they cause similar consequences: An example is that many people still evaluate cyberbullying as less serious than bullying because there is no physical aggression, even when cyberbullying is related to issues such as ideation and suicidal behavior in the victims (Barlett, 2019 ; Brailovskaia et al., 2018 ; Nikolaou, 2017 ). Likewise, even occurring exclusively in the virtual environment, cyberstalking can lead to psychological (e.g. depressive symptoms, sleep disorders), financial, and social consequences for the victims (Smoker & March, 2017 ).

Measuring Cyberstalking

The psychological literature has some measures regarding cyberstalking. In a study on problematic use of social media, Kircaburun et al. ( 2018 ) developed eight items based on three subdivisions of cyberstalking: persecution of current partner, persecution of past or desired partner, and harassment of despised ones. However, this instrument was only used in a dichotomous manner in the study.

Smoker and March ( 2017 ) proposed a 21-item instrument based on studies and legislation on traditional stalking. A limitation of this scale, despite indicating internal consistency, is to be limited to measuring behaviors related exclusively to a current romantic partner. These authors also highlight the scarcity of specific instruments to measure cyberstalking in the literature (Smoker & March, 2017 ).

Given these limitations, one of the aims of the present study was to develop a brief instrument to measure cyberstalking. This scale considered not only romantic relationships (past, current, and desired), but also included persecution of acquaintances and people that the perpetrator suspects/dislikes.

Sociodemographic Variables and Cyberstalking

In addition to an appropriate form of measurement, it is essential to understand which variables are related to cyberstalking. First, sociodemographic variables such as gender, age, and relationship status can provide some interesting information. Although traditional stalking is mostly represented by male perpetrators, cyberstalking is more common among women (Smoker & March, 2017 ; March et al., 2020 ). One explanation for this is that women are more likely to engage in covert stalking behaviors, such as cyberstalking (Purcell et al., 2010 ).

Whether or not a person is in a relationship can also predict cyberstalking. Cyberstalking a partner is the most common form of this behavior since the perpetrator has more resources and freedom to keep the victim under control (Smoker & March, 2017 ; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007 ). Finally, the subjects’ age will also be taken into account. Despite the existing data being focused on victimization, cyberstalking seems more common among young adults (Brady et al., 2017 ).

Fear of Missing out and Cyberstalking

An underexplored area is relating cyberstalking to other issues in the virtual world that affect mental health. One of these problems is the Fear of Missing Out (FOMO). FOMO is defined as an anxious reaction to the belief of missing out on rewarding experiences involving their social peers, which leads to a desire to be always connected, commonly through social media, with what others are doing (Franchina et al., 2018 ; Przybylski et al., 2013 ). FOMO can cause several negative outcomes, such as social media negative impact on daily-life and productivity (Rozgonjuk et al., 2020 ).

Although there are still no empirical results to confirm this theory, Alutaybi et al. ( 2020 ) point out that certain FOMO motivations (e.g. wanting popularity or possessing information) can lead to unhealthy behaviors, such as cyberstalking. Thus, it is plausible to hypothesize that one of the factors that can lead someone to become involved in cyberstalking is the fear of being excluded from important moments in the lives of the people they are interested in. Therefore, FOMO can increase the likelihood of cyberstalking, being one of its predictors.

Social Media Engagement and Cyberstalking

If sociodemographic variables and FOMO can be predictors of cyberstalking, what can mediate this relationship? One possibility is social media engagement, defined as the frequent use of these means of communication, even during actions that require concentration, such as professional activities and study (Mariano et al., 2019 ). Previous studies indicate that this variable is related to both FOMO and gender: women and people with higher scores in FOMO also are more engaged in social media (Mariano et al., 2019 ; Przybylski et al., 2013 ).

Social media engagement also demonstrates evidence of a relationship with cyberstalking: Research shows that more time spent on social media increases the likelihood of engaging in cyberstalking (Kaur et al., 2020 ; Strawhun et al., 2013 ). Corroborating this statement, the study by Kircaburun et al. ( 2018 ) observed a positive correlation of 0.42 between this behavior and problematic use of social media. Therefore, it is plausible to hypothesize that social media engagement can mediate the relationships between the variables previously discussed.

The Present Research

Two issues are quite clear with this discussion: First, cyberstalking is a problem of the technological age, especially since unlike traditional persecution it can be carried out in a subtle and apparently socially acceptable way. Second, research on the psychological processes involved in cyberstalking is scarce, and it is necessary to deepen this knowledge. Based on these justifications, the present research aimed to:

• Develop and validate the Cyberstalking Scale;
• Observe their relationship with the Fear of Missing Out, social media engagement, and sociodemographic variables.

Two-hundred volunteers participated in the study, who were on average 21.6 years old (SD = 6.05), and mostly female (76.5%), single (53%) and in the middle class (45.5%). Considering only the part of the sample that reported being in a relationship (41%), the average duration of this involvement was 30.9 months. It was a non-probabilistic sample of social media users.

Instruments

To access the necessary information, the following measures were used:

Cyberstalking Scale (CS): Instrument composed of 15 statements and answered on a likert-type scale (with 5 points, going from totally disagree to totally agree). Its items address behaviors that are performed by the respondent (e.g. “I’ve used fake accounts on the internet to interact with someone without revealing my identity”) and their favorability to these actions (e.g. “When you’re interested in someone, it’s not wrong to look at their acquaintances’ social media, in order to get to know them better”). Participants were instructed to read the sentences carefully and respond according to the extent they agreed with them.

Socio-Demographic Questions: After the instrument, participants answered questions about their characteristics (age, gender, profession and social class), relationship status and length of said relationship (if applicable).

After submission and approval by the designated Ethics Committee, the first step of the study was the development of the CS. The items that make up the scale were developed based on the existing literature on the topic, especially the subcategories of cyberstalking brought by Kircaburun et al. ( 2018 ) and previously presented in this discussion. The instrument development’s recommendations brought by Carretero-Dios and Pérez ( 2007 ) were also applied: The concept of cyberstalking was previously delimited, being the guide for the scale’s construction. In addition to the previously mentioned subcategories, previous cyberstalking and traditional stalking instruments (e.g. Smoker & March, 2017 ) served as a guide in the construction and selection of items for the final scale. Two psychologists with experience in the area of online antisocial behavior adjusted the original items, selecting those who better fitted the construct. Additionally, five volunteers from the general population were asked to review the instrument and report any problems related to item comprehension; These individuals did not point out any difficulties in this process.

After this initial phase, the applications themselves were carried out in two ways: virtual (through a Google Forms questionnaire shared on Facebook, Whatsapp and Instagram) and in person (in collective environments such as university classrooms, where a properly trained researcher requested participation through booklets containing the questions). It’s relevant to point out that said data collection occurred before the COVID-19 outbreak.

Finally, it should be noted that all procedures followed national standards regarding research with human beings (Brazilian Resolution 510/16), and that research participation only took place after signing the Consent Form containing relevant information about the study’s main goals and details.

Data Analysis

R Studio 3.6.1, specifically the psych package (Revelle, 2021 ), was used to analyze the responses obtained. Were performed: descriptive analyzes (to characterize the sample); principal axis factoring (in order to understand the instrument’s factorial organization) in conjunction with Horn’s parallel analysis; Full Information Factor Analysis (to understand which items actually contributed to construct explanation); and Cronbach’s alpha (to determine the reliability of the measure).

The analyzes were initiated by KMO and Bartlett’s sphericity test. Their results (respectively 0.88 and x 2  = 1029.08, p  < 0.001) indicated the adequacy of the sample for carrying out exploratory factor analysis. In this step, the eigenvalues criteria (factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1 are maintained) indicated the existence of 2 factors, which together explained 39.76% of the total variance. However, Horn’s parallel analysis pointed out that only the first should be maintained, according to the comparison with random eigenvalues. Thus, the CS demonstrated a single-factor organization capable of explaining 32.93% of the variance (Table ​ (Table1 1 ).

Parallel Analysis

The items were then analyzed. To achieve this objective, the item’s factor loads (values above 0.30) and their performance in Full Information Factor Analysis were observed. Figures  1 and ​ and2 2 show the results of these analyzes, pointing out that in total, five items should be excluded from the final scale for not meeting the criteria.

Full Information Factor Analysis Results

Cyberstalking Scale

Finally, to observe the reliability of the final scale, Cronbach’s alpha was used, which obtained a value of 0.86. Also considering the excluded items, the alpha remained the same, offering more evidence for their exclusion (statistical parsimony). Thus, the final version of the Cyberstalking Scale was composed of 10 items organized in a single factor (Table ​ (Table2 2 ).

Cyberstalking Scale Factorial Loads

Notes: λ = Factorial Load h 2  = Communalities *Excluded Items

Partial Discussion

The Cyberstalking Scale indices proved to be adequate according to the literature, thus demonstrating the instrument’s validity and reliability (Filho & Júnior, 2010 ; Hair et al., 1987 ; Maroco & Garcia-Marques, 2006 ). Five items were excluded from the original version, and some possibilities can be pointed for their inadequacy: Items 5, 8, and 10 referred to the use of information available on the Internet in a broader way, not necessarily for persecution, which may have distanced them from cyberstalking. Item 15, which deals with the use of fake accounts online, may have suffered from a similar issue (anonymity has numerous purposes in the virtual environment). Finally, item 9 (which focused on seeking information from a partner’s family and friends) may indicate that the main focus of a virtual stalker is the victim, with other individuals staying in the background (Sheridan & Grant, 2007 ).

Despite these removals, the remaining items proved to be statistically significant, leaving the need for a confirmatory analysis to observe the adequacy of this cyberstalking measurement model, as well as the constructs with which it relates. To achieve this goal, a second study was carried out.

The second study had 200 participants, who were on average 21.8 years old (SD = 5.69). Most of these volunteers were female (65%), single (55.5%) and middle class (50.5%). The portion of the sample that reported being in a relationship (40%) was in it for an average of 43.2 months.

In addition to the adapted version of the CS and a sociodemographic questionnaire similar to Study 1, the following instruments were used:

Fear of Missing Out Scale: Single-factor measure consisting of 10 likert-like items that measures FOMO. It was developed by Przybylski et al. ( 2013 ). The scale reliability index in this study was α = 0.81.

Social Media Engagement Questionnaire: Set of questions created by Przybylski et al. ( 2013 ) to understand social media use’s habits (e.g. during a meal, after waking up). It was validated for the Brazilian context by Mariano et al. ( 2019 ), and its alpha value in the present study was 0.80.

Data collection was carried out in person and virtually (similarly to Study 1). The ethical recommendations necessary for studies with human beings were followed.

Through R Studio, specifically the laavan package (Rosseel, 2012 ), analyzes were carried out with three main objectives. First, for confirmatory factor analysis, the WLSM estimator was used considering the following adjustment indices: the Goodness-of Fit Index (GFI), the Comparative Fit-Index (CFI) and the Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) (with >0.90 being the cutoff point for good indicators); the Root-Mean-Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (values up to 0.08 are acceptable); and the Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) (where >0.10 is the cutoff value) (Byrne, 2012 ; Hu & Bentler, 1999 ; Kline, 2016 ; Marôco, 2010 ). In addition to confirmatory analysis, the bivariate correlation was used to observe the relationships between cyberstalking, FOMO, social media engagement, and gender. Finally, a path analysis using the GLS estimator was performed, looking for an explanatory model.

Confirmatory Factorial Analysis

The model composed of the final 10 items of the CS obtained the following adequacy indices: GFI = 0.98; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.02 (with a confidence interval between 0.01–0.05) (df = 35); SRMR = 0.06. This factorial organization can be seen in Fig.  2 , and was maintained as the final version of the scale, with a reliability of α = 0.86.

Bivariate Correlations

After confirming the scale’s adequacy, cyberstalking was related to FOMO, social media engagement, relationship status (the variable was transformed to 0 = single; 1 = into a relationship), gender (also coded as 0 = male; 1 = female), and participants’ age. As can be seen in Table ​ Table3, 3 , cyberstalking showed a positive correlation with FOMO (r = 0.42; p  < 0.01), social media engagement (r = 0.38; p < 0.01), and gender (r = 0.21; p < 0.01), indicating that it is more frequent between women.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations

Note: *p < 0,05 **p < 0,01

Path Analysis

Finally, a mediation model was tested as a path analysis, with FOMO and gender as predictors, social media engagement as a mediator, and cyberstalking as a dependent variable. This model had a good fit (GFI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.99; SRMR = 0.01). Considering 5000 bootstrapped samples, FOMO demonstrated direct (λ = 0.31; CI = 0.19–0.42; p < 0.01) and indirect (λ = 0.07; CI = 0.03–0.11; p < 0.01) effects. Gender also showed direct (λ = 0.12; CI = 0.02–0.22; p  < 0.05) and indirect effects (λ = 0.04; CI = 0.01–0.07; p < 0.01). Thus, female subjects with high scores on FOMO are more likely to engage into cyberstalking, and this possibility increases when social media engagement is high. This model can be seen in Fig.  3 .

Mediation Model . Notes: * = p < 0.05; ** = p < 0.01

Study 2 aimed to carry out the scale’s confirmatory factor analysis and to relate it to other constructs that could be significant in understanding cyberstalking. These objectives have been met, with CS not only obtaining significant adequacy values according to the literature (Byrne, 2012 ; Hu & Bentler, 1999 ; Kline, 2016 ; Marôco, 2010 ), but demonstrating a positive correlation with FOMO, gender, and social media engagement.

Of the final items five performed better in the analysis: item 11 (If I could I would look at my love partner’s browsing history), 12 (I prefer to form relationships with people that I can investigate on social media), 2 (It’s ok to check who likes and comments on the posts of your partner), 6 (If a person hides their messages, I look for other ways to find out the content of them), and 7 (If I had my partner’s social media passwords, my life would be easier). This indicates two interesting issues: 1) Cyberstalking does not focus exclusively on a potential love interest, but extends to other relationships; 2) Compared to the items excluded in Study 1, most of the items with the best performance deal with some issue associated with obtaining information in more specific ways to cyberstalking. These and other questions will be discussed in more detail below.

General Discussion

This research aimed to develop the Cyberstalking Scale and observe its relationship with FOMO, social media engagement, and sociodemographic variables. Through two studies these objectives were fulfilled, with the instrument proving to be valid and reliable and obtaining significant correlations.

Returning to the list of cyberstalking components developed by Sheridan and Grant ( 2007 ) (accumulation of information, intrusive and frequent messages, electronic sabotage, assuming a false identity, posting unreal information, and using other users as a means of increasing knowledge about the victim), the items that obtained the most significant scores fit in the search/accumulation of victim’s information and in using others to achieve this goal. However, this previous study focused on cyberstalking cases involving behaviors that constitute harassment (Sheridan & Grant, 2007 ).

Thus, it is possible to observe that CS measures more socially acceptable cyberstalking’s aspects, focusing on antisocial and non-criminal behaviors (that is, without criminal offenses and major direct consequences) (Dias et al., 2014 ). This statement agrees with Lowry et al. ( 2013 ), who point out that the constituent behaviors of cyberstalking aren’t necessarily negative, and that the virtual stalker often does not want to harm the victim. From this, future studies must observe what damage this specific facet of virtual persecution can bring to victims by itself.

The present study also brings some indications of the profile of cyberstalkers. Corroborating the findings of Smoker and March ( 2017 ), the CS score was related to gender, with women being more likely to engage in cyberstalking. This data indicates that, although traditional stalking is usually conceived as a crime with a male stalker and a female victim (Duntley & Buss, 2012 ), cyberstalking is a variation that has a predominance of female perpetrators.

Besides, this result can demonstrate gender differences in the key motivations for stalking someone: Purcell et al. ( 2001 ) observed that while men did not show a specific pattern of motivations to perform this behavior, women were mostly motivated by the desire to maintain/deepen an intimate relationship with the victim. Therefore, considering that numerous CS items describe behaviors that can achieve these goals, the difference between genders in the scale score may reflect this motivational disparity.

In addition to gender differences, cyberstalking also showed a positive correlation with FOMO, being one of the main findings of the present study. Using Self-Determination Theory, FOMO is seen as a difficulty in meeting basic psychological needs, especially social closeness (development of positive relationships with other people). Thus, the findings corroborate the argument that some of the central motivations for cyberstalking are the satisfaction of the cyberstalker’s needs (the desire for social bonding, for example) and, in parallel, the desire to maintain/strengthen a relationship, as previously mentioned (Lowry et al., 2013 ; Milyavskaya et al., 2018 ; Przybylski et al., 2013 ).

Despite the focus of previous research on participants who are/have been in a relationship, cyberstalking has not shown a relationship with the participants’ relationship status. This result provides empirical evidence of the importance of studying this phenomenon in other contexts, especially as a strategy for approaching a love interest or even searching for bonds that are not romantic. Considering that people use the virtual environment to compensate for socialization difficulties in face-to-face interactions (Hood et al., 2018 ), this hypothesis deserves further consideration.

Cyberstalking was positively correlated with social media engagement, showing that subjects who cyberstalk more tend to also use these sites more frequently. In a survey with Brazilian Facebook users, de Oliveira et al. ( 2016 ) indicated that one of the main factors for Facebook engagement was maintaining interpersonal relationships, which can explain the relationship observed in the present study. It is important to note, however, that this relationship does not mean that using social media leads to cyberstalking, only that those who perform these behaviors need a greater use of these tools.

Additionally, cyberbullying, another antisocial online behavior also demonstrates an association with excessive internet use, indicating that since these are phenomena typical of the virtual environment, they can lead to a greater need for engagement (Jung et al., 2014 ). Social media engagement also mediated the relationship between FOMO/Gender and cyberstalking. Thus, it’s highlighted the importance of understanding online habits when searching for antisocial online behavior predictors.

Despite these results, the present study is not without limitations. As it used a non-probabilistic sample for convenience, there was a disparity between the number of female and male participants. The extreme scarcity of studies about cyberstalking in the Brazilian context also brought difficulties in developing items proper to this reality. Even with these limitations, it is expected to have contributed to understanding cyberstalking, this new phenomenon that permeates our society.

It is also important to point out the contributions of the study, especially the evidence of FOMO’s impact on cyberstalking, as well as the role of social media engagement in explaining this phenomenon. The limitation brought by Smoker & March ( 2017 ) about the scarcity of instruments related to cyberstalking was also answered. This limitation is very significant in the Brazilian context, which previously hadn’t validated measures on the topic.

Why do people engage in cyberstalking? To what extent is this behavior socially accepted, or what is the threshold between acceptable and pathological/criminal? What are the consequences of cyberstalking for victims and perpetrators? And what can be done to deal with this type of behavior? Future studies may seek to answer these questions, using the Cyberstalking Scale to understand predictors, motivations, and other aspects related to this phenomenon.

Availability of Data and Material

Not applicable.

Code Availability

Author’s contributions.

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Isabella L. Silva Santos and Tailson Evangelista Mariano. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Isabella L. Silva Santos and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

This research was supported by a grant scholarship from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).

Declarations

We Have no Known Conflict of Interest to Disclose.

All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee. The study was approved by the Centro de Ciências da Saúde da Universidade Federal da Paraíba Ethical Committee (No. 18795619.6.0000.5188).

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Participants signed informed consent regarding publishing their data.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Alutaybi A, Al-Thani D, McAlaney J, Ali R. Combating fear of missing out (FoMO) on social media: The FoMO-R method. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17 (17):6128. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17176128. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barlett, C. P. (2019). Cyberbullying, traditional bullying, and aggression: A complicated relationship. Predicting Cyberbullying , 11–16. 10.1016/b978-0-12-816653-6.00002-9.
• Brady PQ, Nobles MR, Bouffard LA. Are college students really at a higher risk for stalking?: Exploring the generalizability of student samples in victimization research. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2017; 52 :12–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.07.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brailovskaia J, Teismann T, Margraf J. Cyberbullying, positive mental health and suicide ideation/behavior. Psychiatry Research. 2018; 267 :240–242. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.05.074. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with Mplus. New York, NY: Routledge; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Burke SC, Wallen M, Vail-Smith K, Knox D. Using technology to control intimate partners: An exploratory study of college undergraduates. Computers in Human Behavior. 2011; 27 (3):1162–1167. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.12.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carretero-Dios H, Pérez C. Standards for the development and review of instrumental studies: Considerations about test selection in psychological research. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology. 2007; 7 (3):863–882. [ Google Scholar ]
• Choi H, Park J, Jung Y. The role of privacy fatigue in online privacy behavior. Computers in Human Behavior. 2018; 81 :42–51. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dias, Camila, Oliveira-Monteiro, Nancy Ramacciotti de, & Aznar-Farias, Maria. (2014). Comportamentos antissociais e delitivos em adolescentes. Aletheia, (45), 101–113.
• Duntley JD, Buss DM. The evolution of stalking. Sex Roles. 2012; 66 (5):311–327. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9832-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Filho D, Júnior J. Visão além do alcance: uma introdução à análise fatorial. Opinião Pública. 2010; 16 (1):160–185. doi: 10.1590/S0104-62762010000100007. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Franchina V, Vanden Abeele M, van Rooij A, Lo Coco G, De Marez L. Fear of missing out as a predictor of problematic social media use and Phubbing behavior among Flemish adolescents. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2018; 15 (10):2319. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15102319. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1987). Multivariate data analysis with readings (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
• Hood M, Creed PA, Mills BJ. Loneliness and online friendships in emerging adults. Personality and Individual Differences. 2018; 133 :96–102. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.03.045. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Horsman G, Conniss LR. An investigation of anonymous and spoof SMS resources used for the purposes of cyberstalking. Digital Investigation. 2015; 13 :80–93. doi: 10.1016/j.diin.2015.04.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hu L, Bentler P. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999; 6 :1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jung Y-E, Leventhal B, Kim YS, Park TW, Lee S-H, Lee M, Park S, Yang J, Chung Y, Chung S, Park J. Cyberbullying, problematic internet use, and psychopathologic symptoms among Korean youth. Yonsei Medical Journal. 2014; 55 (3):826–830. doi: 10.3349/ymj.2014.55.3.826. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaur P, Dhir A, Tandon A, Alzeiby EA, Abohassan AA. A systematic literature review on cyberstalking. An analysis of past achievements and future promises. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020; 163 :120426. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120426. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kircaburun K, Jonason PK, Griffiths MD. The dark tetrad traits and problematic social media use: The mediating role of cyberbullying and cyberstalking. Personality and Individual Differences. 2018; 135 :264–269. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.034. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Publications; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lowry, P., Zhang, J., Wang, C., Wu, T., & Siponen, M. (2013). Understanding and predicting cyberstalking in social media: Integrating theoretical perspectives on shame, neutralization, self-control, rational choice, and social learning. 2013 international conference on systems sciences. Doi: 10.13140/2.1.3361.2480.
• March E, Litten V, Sullivan DH, Ward L. Somebody that I (used to) know: Gender and dimensions of dark personality traits as predictors of intimate partner cyberstalking. Personality and Individual Differences. 2020; 163 :110084. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110084. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mariano, T., Nobrega, J., Pimentel, C., Paiva, T., & Alves, T. (2019). Evidências Psicométricas do Questionário de Engajamento em Mídias Sociais. Revista de Psicologia da IMED , 11(2), 115–128. doi: 10.18256/2175-5027.2019.v11i2.3303
• Maroco J, Garcia-Marques T. Qual a fiabilidade do alfa de Cronbach? Questões antigas e soluções modernas? Laboratório de Psicologia. 2006; 4 (1):65–90. doi: 10.14417/lp.763. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Marôco J. Análise de equações estruturais. Lisboa, Portugal: Report Number; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Milyavskaya M, Saffran M, Hope N, Koestner R. Fear of missing out: Prevalence, dynamics, and consequences of experiencing FOMO. Motivation and Emotion. 2018; 42 (5):725–737. doi: 10.1007/s11031-018-9683-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nikolaou D. Does cyberbullying impact youth suicidal behaviors? Journal of Health Economics. 2017; 56 :30–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2017.09.009. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• de Oliveira MJ, Huertas MKZ, Lin Z. Factors driving young users’ engagement with Facebook: Evidence from Brazil. Computers in Human Behavior. 2016; 54 :54–61. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.07.038. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Przybylski AK, Murayama K, DeHaan CR, Gladwell V. Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior. 2013; 29 (4):1841–1848. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Purcell R, Pathé M, Mullen PE. A study of women who stalk. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2001; 158 (12):2056–2060. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.158.12.2056. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Purcell R, Pathé M, Mullen P. Gender differences in stalking behaviour among juveniles. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology. 2010; 21 :555–568. doi: 10.1080/14789940903572035. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Revelle, W. (2021). Psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. R package version 2.1.3, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych .
• Rosseel Y. Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software. 2012; 48 (2):1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rozgonjuk D, Sindermann C, Elhai JD, Montag C. Fear of missing out (FoMO) and social media’s impact on daily-life and productivity at work: Do WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat use disorders mediate that association? Addictive Behaviors. 2020; 106487 :106487. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106487. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheridan LP, Grant T. Is cyberstalking different? Psychology Crime & Law. 2007; 13 (6):627–640. doi: 10.1080/10683160701340528. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sheridan L, Lyndon AE. The influence of prior relationship, gender, and fear on the consequences of stalking victimization. Sex Roles. 2012; 66 (5):340–350. doi: 10.1007/s111990-010-9889-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smoker M, March E. Predicting perpetration of intimate partner cyberstalking: Gender and the dark tetrad. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017; 72 :390–396. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spitzberg BH, Cupach WR. The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2007; 12 (1):64–86. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2006.05.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Statista. (2019). Number of monthly active Instagram users from January 2013 to June 2018 (in millions). Retrieved from: https://www.statista.com/statistics/253577/number-of-monthly-active-instagram-users
• Strawhun J, Adams N, Huss MT. The assessment of cyberstalking: An expanded examination including social networking, attachment, jealousy, and anger in relation to violence and abuse. Violence Victims. 2013; 28 (4):715–731. doi: 10.1891/0886-6708.11-00145. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Resources for Survivors of Stalking and Cyberstalking

In today's digital age, stalking and cyberstalking has emerged as one of the most pervasive and alarming issues associated with the use of technology-facilitated crimes. This contributes significantly to the prevalence of sexual violence. However, stalking and cyberstalking may not always be easy to identify. With the rapid advancement of technology, perpetrators now have unprecedented access to their victims' lives through the use of online platforms and digital tools to intrude, harass, and intimidate. Learn more about how to identify stalking behavior in person or online, and find resources and support.

What is stalking?

• Stalking : Engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of others or suffer substantial emotional distress.

Stalking behavior can manifest in several forms, such as:

• Making threats against someone, or that person's family or friends.
• Non-consensual communication, such as repeated phone calls, emails, text messages, and unwanted gifts.
• Repeated physical or visual closeness, like waiting for someone to arrive at certain locations, following someone, or watching someone from a distance.
• Any other behavior used to contact, harass, track, or threaten someone.

What is the use of cyberstalking—using technology to stalk?

• Perpetrators use technology , including photos, videos, social media, and dating apps, as a means to engage in harassing, unsolicited, or non-consensual sexual interactions. These actions can leave individuals feeling manipulated, vulnerable, exposed, and concerned about their online reputation.

Here are some ways technology can be used for stalking:

• Continuously sending unsolicited communication via the internet, like spamming someone's email or social media accounts.
• Posting threatening or personal details about an individual on public internet forums.
• Engaging in video-voyeurism by installing surveillance cameras to intrude into someone's private life.
• Employing GPS or other tracking software to monitor someone without their awareness or permission.
• Illegally accessing someone's computer and using spyware to monitor their online activities.

If you believe you are being stalked, take these steps for safety and reporting:

• Take measures to protect yourself and prioritize your safety, even if the stalker is someone familiar to you or your family.
• Clearly state your wish to stop communication if stalked through technology and avoid responding further.
• Preserve evidence like texts, emails, etc., without responding.
• Inform family, friends, supervisors, and co-workers about the situation.
• For families with children, consider establishing age appropriate measures such as agreeing on a special code word that signals them to leave home or seek help by calling the police.
• Consider reporting the stalking to local law enforcement.
• Keep a detailed journal of all stalking incidents.
• Learn more about how to prevent child sexual abuse material (CSAM), online dating and safety app tips , and 5 Red Flags and 5 Tips to Protect Your Child Online .

If you are a survivor of stalking and/or by the use of technology, it is crucial to remember that the responsibility lies solely with the perpetrator, and it is not your fault. You are not to blame for their actions. Remember, you are not alone, and support is available.

Below is a list of available resources to support you during this difficult time:

• National Sexual Assault Hotline : National hotline, operated by RAINN , that serves people affected by sexual violence. Hotline: 800.656.HOPE or hotline.rainn.org.
• National Domestic Violence Hotline : Through this hotline an advocate can provide local direct service resources (safehouse shelters, transportation, casework assistance) and crisis intervention. Interpreter services available in 170 languages. They also partner with the Abused Deaf Women's Advocacy Center to provide a videophone option. Hotline: 800.799.SAFE.
• Stalking Resource Center : The Stalking Resource Center is a program of the National Center for Victims of Crime. Their website provides statistics on stalking, information on safety planning and other resources.
• Stalking Prevention, Awareness, & Resource Center (SPARC ): SPARC mission is to make sure that the victim service providers (including domestic violence shelters and rape crisis agencies), campuses, law enforcement agencies, and other places where stalking victims come for help and support have the training and resources they need to better respond to victims and survivors.

To speak with a trained support specialist, call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at 800.656.HOPE (4673) or chat online in English at online.rainn.org or in Spanish at RAINN.org/es .

DNA evidence can increase likelihood of holding a perpetrator accountable.

Sexual violence has fallen by half in the last 20 years., the national sexual assault hotline will always be free — with your help..

Protecting Yourself Online: Cyberbullying, Stalking, and Harassment

In today’s digital age, our lives have become intertwined with technology, offering us unparalleled connectivity and convenience. However, along with these advancements, we face new challenges in the form of cyberbullying, stalking, and harassment. These pervasive issues have significant implications for personal safety and mental well-being. It is imperative that we address them head-on and equip ourselves with the knowledge and tools to combat them effectively.

Addressing these issues is crucial for personal safety and mental well-being. The consequences of cyberbullying, stalking, and harassment can be severe, leading to anxiety, depression, self-esteem issues, and even suicidal thoughts. By understanding the prevalence and impact of these acts, we can actively work towards creating safer digital spaces and fostering healthier online relationships.

Firstly, let us establish a clear understanding of these terms.

What Is Cyberbullying?

Cyberbullying refers to the deliberate use of technology, such as social media platforms, instant messaging, or online forums, to intimidate, harass, or threaten individuals. It encompasses various actions, including spreading rumors, posting hurtful comments, sharing explicit content without consent, or engaging in online exclusion or humiliation. Cyberbullying can cause significant emotional distress, damaged self-esteem, and lead to social isolation.

What Is Cyberstalking?

Cyberstalking involves the persistent surveillance, monitoring, or unwanted attention directed at an individual through electronic devices or online platforms. It often manifests as relentless tracking of the victim’s online activities, invasion of privacy, threats, or sending unsolicited messages or explicit content. Cyberstalking instills fear, distress, and a sense of vulnerability in the victim, as their personal boundaries are violated in the digital realm.

What Is Cyber Harassment?

Cyber harassment encompasses a wide range of unwelcome and repetitive behaviors designed to annoy, threaten, or intimidate individuals. This can include sending excessive messages, engaging in online impersonation, creating fake profiles or accounts, disseminating personal information without consent, or engaging in online hate campaigns. Cyberharassment aims to cause emotional harm, disrupt daily life, and instigate fear in the victim.

Cyber Harassment, Bullying & Stalking Statistics in the United States

Cyberbullying Statistics

• According to the National Center for Education Statistics , in 2019, approximately 20% of students aged 12-18 reported being bullied online .
• A survey conducted by the Cyberbullying Research Center found that around 37% of young people between the ages of 12 and 17 have experienced cyberbullying in their lifetime.
• The same study revealed that approximately 25% of teenagers reported being repeatedly cyberbullied.
• A study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health found that LGBTQ+ youth are more likely to experience cyberbullying than their heterosexual counterparts.
• Research by the Cyberbullying Research Center indicates that girls are more likely to be involved in cyberbullying as both victims and perpetrators.

Cyberstalking Statistics

• The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that about 1 in 4 stalking victims experienced some form of cyberstalking , which includes harassment or threats via email, social media, or other online platforms.
• A study published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence found that 60% of stalking victims reported experiencing online harassment.
• The majority of cyberstalking victims are women, accounting for approximately 70% of reported cases.
• The Pew Research Center found that younger adults, particularly those between the ages of 18 and 29, are more likely to experience online stalking compared to older age groups.

Cyber Harassment Statistics

• The Pew Research Center reports that 41% of adults in the United States have personally experienced online harassment , including offensive name-calling, deliberate embarrassment, or physical threats.
• Women are disproportionately targeted by online harassment, with a Pew Research Center survey revealing that they experience more severe forms of harassment, such as stalking or sexual harassment.
• The Anti-Defamation League’s 2020 Online Hate and Harassment Report found that social media platforms have become common venues for harassment, with 44% of respondents stating they experienced hate and harassment on platforms like Facebook , Twitter , and Instagram .

The Crucial Role of Addressing Cyber Bullying, Harassment, and Stalking

The consequences of these behaviors can be devastating. Victims may experience long-lasting emotional trauma, depression, and social withdrawal. The constant fear and distress they endure can negatively affect their mental health and overall quality of life. To safeguard personal safety and well-being, it is imperative that we address these issues effectively.

By actively combating cyberbullying, harassment, and stalking, we can create a safer digital environment where individuals feel protected, respected, and free from harm. This requires implementing robust measures such as stringent regulations, educational programs, and increased awareness to promote empathy, digital literacy, and responsible online behavior. Providing support systems for victims is also crucial to aid their recovery and help them regain a sense of security.

Ultimately, addressing cyberbullying, harassment, and stalking is essential to protecting the mental well-being of individuals and fostering a healthier digital landscape. By working together to combat these issues, we can create a more inclusive, empathetic, and safer online space for everyone.

Understanding Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying has emerged as a significant concern in the digital age, with its far-reaching consequences impacting individuals’ personal safety and mental well-being. By delving into the definition, forms, platforms, and consequences of cyberbullying, we can gain a comprehensive understanding of this pervasive issue.

Cyberbullying takes various forms, including online harassment, trolling, and cyberstalking.

• Online harassment involves sending malicious messages, sharing explicit content, or spreading rumors to humiliate or demean the victim.
• Trolling refers to posting inflammatory or offensive comments with the intention of provoking emotional reactions.
• Cyberstalking entails the persistent surveillance, monitoring, or harassment of individuals online.

Common Platforms And Mediums Used For Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying can occur across a range of platforms and mediums. Social media platforms like Facebook , Twitter , Instagram , and Snapchat are frequently used for cyberbullying, as they provide a wide reach and anonymous communication options.

Instant messaging apps, online forums, and gaming platforms also serve as conduits for cyberbullying. The internet’s anonymity and ease of access contribute to the proliferation of such behavior.

The Psychological And Emotional Impact Of Cyberbullying On Victims

The psychological and emotional toll inflicted on victims of cyberbullying is profound. Constant exposure to online abuse, threats, and humiliation can lead to anxiety , depression , low self-esteem , and even suicidal ideation .

The 24/7 nature of online communication means victims may feel trapped and unable to escape the torment, affecting their overall well-being and ability to function in daily life. The anonymity of cyberbullying perpetrators exacerbates the feelings of powerlessness and distress experienced by victims.

Addressing cyberbullying requires a multifaceted approach involving individuals, communities, and institutions. Education plays a pivotal role in raising awareness about the consequences of cyberbullying, promoting empathy, and teaching responsible online behavior. Parents, teachers, and caregivers should be equipped with the knowledge and resources to recognize the signs of cyberbullying and provide support to victims.

Cyberbullying is a pervasive issue with severe consequences for personal safety and mental well-being. Understanding its definition, various forms, platforms used, and legal implications helps us comprehend the magnitude of this problem. By raising awareness, implementing proactive measures, and fostering a culture of empathy and respect both online and offline, we can create a safer digital landscape that promotes personal well-being and protects individuals from the detrimental effects of cyberbullying.

Legal Implications and Consequences of Cyberbullying

Cyberbullying has legal implications , and laws and regulations have been implemented to address this issue. Depending on the jurisdiction, cyberbullying may be considered a criminal offense, leading to legal consequences for perpetrators. In some cases, civil lawsuits can be filed against cyberbullies for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or invasion of privacy.

Educational institutions and workplaces also impose disciplinary actions for cyberbullying incidents, aiming to deter such behavior and protect the well-being of their communities.

Online platforms have a responsibility to enforce robust community guidelines and provide mechanisms for reporting and addressing cyberbullying incidents promptly. Implementing effective moderation systems and providing mental health resources can contribute to creating safer digital spaces.

Collaboration between law enforcement agencies, legal authorities, and social media platforms is essential in identifying cyberbullies and holding them accountable for their actions.

Encouraging victims to report incidents of cyberbullying and providing them with access to support networks, helplines, and counseling services are vital steps in mitigating the impact of cyberbullying.

US Laws on Cyber Bullying, Stalking & Harassment

• The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA) : These legislative acts were proposed to combat online piracy but also contain provisions that aim to address cyberbullying, cyberstalking, and cyber harassment. They seek to strengthen intellectual property laws and provide legal mechanisms to take down websites involved in illegal activities, including those associated with online harassment and infringement.
• The Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996 : The CDA includes provisions that criminalize the use of the Internet to harass or threaten individuals. It aims to regulate offensive and harmful online content and holds individuals accountable for their actions by imposing penalties for online harassment.
• The Cyberstalking Law : This law specifically criminalizes the use of electronic communications to stalk or harass someone. It encompasses behaviors such as repeated unwanted contact, monitoring someone’s online activities, making threats, or engaging in online harassment through social media platforms, email, or other electronic means.
• The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) : CIPA requires schools and libraries that receive federal funding to implement measures to protect children from accessing harmful online content, including cyberbullying. It encourages the use of internet filtering technologies and provides guidelines for educating students about safe online behavior.
• The Cyberbullying Prevention Act : This act aims to address cyberbullying by providing schools with funding to educate students about the consequences of such behavior and implement prevention programs. It encourages proactive measures to create safe and respectful online environments, raising awareness about the impact of cyberbullying on victims.
• State Laws : State laws on cyberbullying, cyberstalking, and cyber harassment may vary. Many states have specific legislation that targets these issues, imposing penalties for offenders and providing legal remedies for victims. It is important to be familiar with the laws in your specific jurisdiction to understand your rights and protections.
• Online Platform Policies: Online platforms and social media companies often have their own policies and mechanisms in place to address cyberbullying, cyberstalking, and cyber harassment. They provide users with options to report abusive content, block or mute offenders, and seek assistance in dealing with harassment. These policies aim to create safer online environments and deter abusive behavior.

Recognizing Signs Of Stalking Behavior And Persistent Harassment

It is crucial to be aware of the signs indicating stalking behavior and persistent harassment. These signs may include unwanted messages or comments, excessive monitoring of an individual’s online activity, following their digital footprint, making false accusations, or repeatedly contacting them despite their expressed desire for no contact. Recognizing these signs can help victims seek appropriate support and intervention.

Types of Stalking

Online stalking can take different forms, including intimate partner stalking, celebrity stalking, and revenge stalking.

• Intimate partner stalking occurs when a current or former partner engages in stalking behaviors to exert control, monitor, or intimidate the victim.
• Celebrity stalking involves obsessive behavior by individuals fixated on public figures, often leading to threats or intrusive contact.
• Revenge stalking occurs when someone seeks retribution or retaliation against a person through persistent harassment, motivated by anger or resentment.

Psychological Effects On Victims And The Importance Of Early Intervention

Online stalking and harassment can have severe psychological effects on victims. They may experience heightened anxiety, fear, depression, and a constant sense of being watched or targeted.

These behaviors can significantly impact their mental well-being, daily functioning, and overall quality of life. Early intervention is crucial to mitigate the psychological harm caused by stalking and harassment, providing victims with the necessary support, protection, and resources to address their experiences.

Addressing stalking and harassment requires a multidimensional approach. Educating individuals about these behaviors, promoting healthy online boundaries, and encouraging open communication can help prevent and mitigate incidents. Developing comprehensive legal frameworks that recognize the severity of online stalking and harassment is also essential, ensuring that victims have legal recourse and protection. Furthermore, providing support services, counseling, and mental health resources to victims is vital in assisting their recovery and well-being.

Safety Measures and Prevention Strategies

Ensuring personal safety and preventing incidents of cyberbullying, cyberharassment, and stalking require proactive measures and effective prevention strategies. By implementing the following safety measures and promoting responsible online behavior, individuals can protect themselves and reduce the risk of becoming victims.

Securing Personal Information And Maintaining Online Privacy

Protecting personal information is essential to prevent cyberbullying, cyber harassment, and stalking. Avoid sharing sensitive details like full names , addresses , phone numbers , or passwords online . Regularly review and update privacy settings on social media platforms to limit access to personal information.

Establishing Strong Passwords And Utilizing Two-Factor Authentication

Creating strong , unique passwords for all online accounts is crucial. Use a combination of uppercase and lowercase letters , numbers , and symbols . Enable two-factor authentication whenever possible, adding an extra layer of security to prevent unauthorized access.

Understanding Privacy Settings On Social Media Platforms

Familiarize yourself with the privacy settings of social media platforms. Set controls to limit the visibility of personal information and posts to trusted individuals only. Regularly review and adjust privacy settings as needed to ensure maximum protection.

Recognizing And Avoiding Risky Online Behaviors

Educate yourself about risky online behaviors that can lead to cyberbullying, stalking, or harassment. Avoid engaging in or sharing provocative, offensive, or harmful content. Be cautious when interacting with strangers online and avoid sharing personal information with unknown individuals.

Teaching Digital Citizenship And Responsible Online Behavior

Promote digital citizenship and responsible online behavior among individuals, especially children, and adolescents. Teach them about the importance of treating others with respect, empathy, and kindness in digital spaces. Encourage open communication and reporting of any instances of cyberbullying, harassment, or stalking.

Building Strong Support Networks

Encourage individuals to build strong support networks consisting of trusted friends, family members, and mentors. Having someone to confide in and seek guidance from can provide emotional support and assistance in dealing with, cyber harassment, bullying, or stalking incidents.

Reporting And Blocking Offenders

Advocate for the reporting and blocking of individuals engaging in cyber stalking, harassment, or bullying behavior. Social media platforms and online service providers often have reporting mechanisms in place to address such issues. Prompt reporting can lead to swift actions being taken against offenders.

Documenting Evidence

In cases of cyberbullying, stalking, or harassment it is essential to document evidence , such as screenshots, messages, or timestamps. This evidence can be valuable when reporting incidents to authorities, schools, or online platforms.

Seeking Support And Professional Help

Encourage individuals who have experienced cyberbullying to seek support from trusted adults, counselors, or helplines specializing in these areas. Professional help can provide guidance, emotional support, and resources to cope with the effects of such incidents.

Promoting Empathy And Digital Resilience

Foster empathy and digital resilience by encouraging individuals to think before they post or comment online. Promote positive online interactions and discourage participation in or sharing of harmful content. Developing digital resilience can help individuals handle and overcome negative experiences more effectively.

Responding to Cyberbullying, Stalking, and Harassment

When faced with cyberbullying, stalking, or harassment, it is essential for victims to take proactive steps to protect themselves and seek support. The following strategies can empower individuals in responding effectively to such incidents.

Strategies for victims to cope with cyberbullying and seek support

Victims of cyberbullying, stalking, or harassment should prioritize their well-being and mental health. Strategies may include:

• Not engaging with the harasser or responding to provocations.
• Blocking and unfriending individuals involved in the incidents.
• Seeking support from trusted friends, family members, or professionals.
• Participating in activities that promote well-being and resilience.

Collecting evidence and documenting incidents for reporting purposes

It is crucial to gather evidence of cyberbullying, stalking, or harassment. Victims should:

• Save screenshots, messages, or any other relevant documentation.
• Keep a record of dates, times, and locations of incidents.
• Document any witnesses or individuals who may have information.

Reporting cyberbullying, stalking, or harassment to relevant authorities and platforms

Reporting incidents is essential to address cyberbullying, stalking, or harassment. Victims should:

• Report the incidents to the relevant platform or social media site.
• Contact local law enforcement if the behavior is threatening or criminal.
• Provide the collected evidence to support their case.

Seeking legal recourse and obtaining restraining orders if necessary

In severe cases, victims may need to consider legal options. This may involve:

• Consulting with legal professionals specializing in cyberbullying, stalking, or harassment cases.
• Pursuing civil action against the perpetrator for defamation, invasion of privacy, or intentional infliction of emotional distress.
• Obtaining restraining orders or protection orders to prevent further contact.

Support resources and helpline numbers for victims of cyberbullying, stalking, or harassment

Victims should be aware of available support resources and helpline numbers:

• Reach out to helplines specifically dedicated to cyberbullying, stalking, or harassment.
• Seek guidance from local victim support organizations or advocacy groups.
• Utilize counseling services or mental health professionals to address the emotional impact of the incidents.

Promoting Awareness and Education

Promoting awareness and education is crucial in preventing and addressing cyberbullying, stalking, and harassment. By involving parents, educators, and communities, implementing digital literacy programs, raising awareness, and fostering empathy, we can create safe and inclusive online environments.

The role of parents, educators, and communities in preventing and addressing cyberbullying, stalking, and harassment

Parents, educators, and communities play a pivotal role in addressing these issues. They should:

• Engage in open and supportive conversations with children and students about online safety, responsible digital citizenship, and the consequences of cyberbullying, stalking, and harassment.
• Establish clear guidelines and rules for online behavior , encouraging respectful communication and promoting a culture of empathy.
• Stay informed about the latest trends and platforms used for cyberbullying, stalking, and harassment, enabling them to better support and protect individuals in their care.

Creating safe and inclusive online environments through digital literacy programs

Implementing digital literacy programs is essential for empowering individuals to navigate online spaces safely. Such programs should:

• Educate individuals on the potential risks and consequences of cyberbullying, stalking, and harassment.
• Teach responsible online behavior, critical thinking skills, and strategies for protecting personal information and privacy.
• Equip individuals with the knowledge to recognize and report cyberbullying, stalking, and harassment incidents.

Raising awareness through campaigns, workshops, and discussions

Raising awareness is crucial to address these issues effectively. Awareness campaigns, workshops, and discussions should:

• Highlight the negative impacts of cyberbullying, stalking, and harassment on victims’ mental well-being.
• Promote understanding and empathy towards victims, encouraging bystanders to speak out and support those affected.
• Provide practical tips and resources for individuals to respond to and report incidents.

Encouraging empathy and promoting positive online behavior

Fostering empathy and promoting positive online behavior are essential for creating inclusive digital environments. This can be achieved by:

• Encouraging individuals to consider the consequences of their online actions and the potential harm they may cause to others.
• Promoting kindness , respect, and empathy in online interactions.
• Recognizing and celebrating positive behaviors and acts of digital citizenship.

By promoting awareness and education, we can empower individuals to prevent and address cyberbullying, stalking, and harassment effectively. Together, parents, educators, communities, and individuals can create safe, inclusive, and respectful online environments where personal safety and well-being are valued.

How to Report Cyber Bullying, Stalking, and Harassment

When facing cyberbullying, stalking, or harassment, it’s crucial to report the incidents promptly to seek a resolution and protect yourself. Start by saving and documenting any evidence such as screenshots, messages, or emails that demonstrate the bullying or harassment. Report the issue to the relevant platform or website where the incidents are occurring, using their reporting tools or contacting their support team. If the situation involves threats, intimidation, or illegal activities, notify your local law enforcement agency and provide them with a detailed report, including the evidence you have collected. Reach out to trusted adults , parents, teachers, or counselors who can offer guidance and support. Remember, reporting is a crucial step in addressing cyberbullying, stalking, and harassment, and it empowers authorities and platforms to take appropriate action against the perpetrators.

In the ever-evolving digital landscape, the importance of addressing cyberbullying, stalking, and harassment for personal safety and mental well-being cannot be overstated. This comprehensive guide has explored the definitions, forms, platforms, consequences, and prevention strategies associated with these issues. It has emphasized the crucial role of awareness, education, and proactive measures in creating safer online environments and supporting victims.

By understanding the nature and impact of cyberbullying, stalking, and harassment, individuals are better equipped to protect themselves and seek appropriate support. Implementing safety measures such as securing personal information, utilizing strong passwords, and understanding privacy settings helps mitigate risks. Recognizing signs, documenting incidents, reporting to relevant authorities, and seeking legal recourse when necessary empower victims to take action.

Promoting awareness and education involves the collaboration of parents, educators, and communities. By teaching responsible online behavior, implementing digital literacy programs, and fostering empathy, we can create inclusive online environments that prioritize respect and kindness. Encouraging positive online interactions and providing support resources further contribute to the overall well-being of individuals.

Ultimately, addressing cyberbullying, stalking, and harassment requires a collective effort. It necessitates a commitment to creating a culture of digital responsibility, empathy, and respect. By empowering individuals, raising awareness, and implementing preventive measures, we can build a safer digital landscape where personal safety and mental well-being are upheld.

• Report Cyberbullying | StopBullying.gov
• Bullying Laws and Cyberbullying Laws Across America | Cyberbullying Research Center
• National Cybersecurity Alliance
• National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC)
• Helpline: 1-800-851-3420
• Helpline: 1-800-273-TALK (8255)
• Helpline: 1-800-982-8433

DISCLAIMER: Facsnet.org is not operated by, affiliated or associated with any local, state, or federal government or agency. 

Facsnet.org is not a “consumer reporting agency” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), and does not provide “consumer reports” under the FCRA. Facsnet expressly prohibits the use of information you obtain from search results (a) to discriminate against any consumer; (b) for the purpose of considering a consumer’s eligibility for personal credit or insurance, employment, housing, or a government license or benefit; or (c) otherwise to affect a consumer’s economic or financial status or standing.

• My Products / Subscriptions
• Solutions for:

Privacy & Kids

• Cyberstalking
• Kaspersky IT Encyclopedia

Cyberstalking is the systematic harassment, intimidation, or stalking of a person, a group of persons, or a company using the Internet or other electronic means. Relatives, acquaintances, organizations, and outsiders can all become cyberstalkers.

Constant psychological pressure in the digital space can make a victim’s life unbearable. In some cases, offline harassment and even physical violence can accompany online stalking. Cyberstalking is a crime in many countries.

Cyberstalkers’ tactics and methods

Cyberstalking can take various forms, including:

• Sending threatening messages;
• Harassing, humiliating, or insulting the victim;
• Disseminating false information that could harm the victim’s reputation;
• Sending messages or ordering goods and services in the victim’s name;
• Cyberespionage;

Cyberstalkers can use the following methods to collect data about victims and track their activity:

• Online search;
• Hacking of a victim’s mail and other accounts;
• Viewing a victim’s posts on social networks and forums, and tracking when they go online;
• Asking a victim for information in personal messages;
• Using webcams, microphones, and other surveillance devices such as GPS beacons for vehicles (if they have access to the victim’s home or other property);
• Using spyware programs, such as stalkerware .

Protection against cyberstalking

Fully eliminating the risk of cyberstalking is almost impossible. Risk reduction methods include:

• Monitoring account and device security;
• Setting strict privacy controls on social networks and other Web resources;
• Digital footprint management and avoiding personal information in public posts;
• Granting minimum permissions to apps;
• Not sharing passwords and other confidential information, even with loved ones.

Related Posts

Messaging other platforms via WhatsApp: the pros and cons

Advertisers sharing data about you with… intelligence agencies

Keep it under wraps: encrypted note-taking apps and to-do lists

The State of Stalkerware in 2023–2024

An educational robot security research

Privacy predictions for 2024

The Detailing of Cyberstalking

• Categories: Cyber Crimes Stalking

About this sample

Words: 484 |

Published: May 24, 2022

Words: 484 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1528 words

4 pages / 1863 words

4 pages / 1788 words

3 pages / 1494 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Stalking

Cyber-Stalking is becoming a larger issue with the drive of social networking and “is a form of repeated harassment that involves the Internet and methods of electronic communication like email, online chat and instant message” [...]

It took a considerable amount of time for people to realise what are the different forms of stalking and a lot more to gauge and understand its effects. Its impact, especially on young minds, has long-lasting effects. Laws and [...]

Love can be all rainbows and butterflies for a while maybe even throughout the whole relationship but sometimes love can go wrong, with narcissistic, jealously, stalking, and controlling behaviors. Narcissistic usually have an [...]

The bulk of research in the field of violence has focused on physical abuse, with very little focus on other forms of violence. Only in the recent year, researchers have started investigating the effects of psychological [...]

The Lost Boy by Dave Pelzer is a remarkable and captivating sequel from Pelzer's bestselling novel called “A Child Called It.” In the book A Child Called It, The author tells the story of a young boy around four whose family [...]

In the present day growing dependency on the cyber-technology, a new threat begins to emerge on the digital frontier. Our everyday life is being integrated digitally through computers and mobile devices. Our nation’s [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Advertisement

A Systematic Review of Cyberstalking Victimization and Offending Behaviors

• Published: 10 November 2021
• Volume 46 , pages 882–910, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Catherine D. Marcum 1 &
• George E. Higgins 2  

1653 Accesses

8 Citations

Explore all metrics

A systematic review of literature investigating cyberstalking offending and victimization was conducted, considering multiple key words and phrases used to label the behavior: cyberstalking, cyber dating abuse, cybervictimization, Internet, interpersonal electronic surveillance, and victimization. The following electronic databases, with the indication of peer-reviewed journal articles as a requirement, were searched: Academic Search Complete, Criminal Justice Database (ProQuest), Google, JSTOR and PsychInfo. After sorting through the studies using the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 31 studies remained for review. Correlates of the behaviors were discussed for each categorization, with main themes including negative characteristics of relationship behaviors, and social media and online use as main predictors of victimization and offending. There is a strong need for further research utilizing older age groups and individuals who are married, as well as a need for longitudinal research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Sexist Slurs: Reinforcing Feminine Stereotypes Online

Labeling Theory

Social media and youth mental health.

The criminology/criminal justice journals included the following: American Journal of Criminal Justice, Crime & Delinquency, Deviant Behavior, European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, International Journal of Cyber Criminology, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, SAGE Open, Victims & Offenders, Violence & Victims, and Youth & Society.

The psychology journals included the following: Current Psychology, Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, Journal of Family Issues, Journal of Family Violence, Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Personality and Individual Differences, Psychological Reports: Relationships & Communications, Psychology, Crime & Law, The American Journal of Family Violence, and Violence Against Women.

The communication/computer science journals included the following: Computers in Human Behavior, Social Science Computer Review and Surveillance and Society.

The medical journals included the following: The Journal of School Nursing.

As techniques of offending rapidly change in the field of cybercrime based on technological adaptations, the authors felt as if inclusion of research published within the past 10 years would have the most contemporary and accurate findings of predictors of the behavior.

Ahlgrim, B. & Terrance, C. (2021). Perceptions of cyberstalking: Impact of perpetrator gender and cyberstalker/victim relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(7–8) .

Bennet, D., Guran, E., Ramos, M., & Margolin, G. (2011). College students’ electronic victimization in friendships and dating relationships: Anticipated distress and associations with risky behaviors. Violence and Victims, 4 , 410–429.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bocij, P., & McFarlane, L. (2003). Cyberstalking: The technology of hate. The Police Journal, 76 , 204–221.

Borrajo, E., Gamez-Guadix, M., & Calvete, E. (2015). Cyber dating abuse: Prevalence, context, and relationship with offline dating aggression. Psychological Reports, 116 (2), 565–585. https://doi.org/10.2466/21.16.PR0.116k22w4

Brem, M. J., Stuart, G. L., Cornelius, T. L., & Shorey, R. C. (2019a). A longitudinal examination of alcohol problems and cyber, psychological, and physical dating abuse: The moderating role of emotion dysregulation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519876029

Brem, M. J., Romero, G., Garner, A. R., Grigorian, H., & Stuart, G. L. (2019b). Alcohol problems, jealousy, and cyber dating abuse perpetration among men and women: Toward a conceptual model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519873333

Burke, S., Wallen, M., Vail-Smith, K., & Knox, D. (2011). Using technology to control intimate partners: An exploratory study of college undergraduates. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 , 1162–1167.

Cava, M. J., Martínez-Ferrer, B., Buelga, S., & Carrascosa, L. (2020). Sexist attitudes, romantic myths, and offline dating violence as predictors of cyber dating violence perpetration in adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior., 111 , 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106449

Cavezza, C. & McEwan, T. (2014). Cyberstalking versus off-linestalking in a forensic sample. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20 (10), 2–16.

Curry, T., & Zavala, E. (2020). A multi-theoretical perspective on cyber dating abuse victimization and perpetration within intimate relationships: A test of general strain, social learning, and self-control theories. Victims and Offenders, 15 (4), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2020.1734996

Deans, H., & Bhogal, M. S. (2019). Perpetrating cyber dating abuse: A brief report on the role of aggression, romantic jealousy and gender. Current Psychology, 38 , 1077–1082. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9715-4

DeKeseredy, W. S., Schwartz, M. D., Harris, B., Woodlock, D., Nolan, J., & Hall-Sanchez, A. (2019). Technology-facilitated stalking and unwanted sexual messages/images in a college campus community: The role of negative peer support. SAGE Open , 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019828231

Duerksen, K. N., & Woodin, E. M. (2019). Cyber dating abuse victimization: Links with psychosocial functioning. Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519872982

Elphinston, R. & Noller, P. (2011) Time to face it! Facebook intrusion and implication for romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 17, 3–7.

Fissel, E. (2021). Victims’ perceptions of cyberstalking: An examination of perceived offender motivation. American Journal of Criminal Justice . https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09607-x

Fissel, E., Fisher, N., & Nedelec, J. (2021). Cyberstalking perpetration among young adults: An assessment of the effects of low self-control and moral disengagement. Crime & Delinquency, 1–27.

Fissel, E., Graham, A., Butler, L., & Fisher, B. (2021). A new frontier: The development and validation of the intimate partner cyber abuse instruments. Social Science Computer Review, 1–20.

Fissel, E. R., & Reyns, B. W. (2020). The aftermath of cyberstalking: School, work, social, and health costs of victimization. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45 (1), 70–87.

Fox, J., Osborn, J., & Warber, K. (2014). Relational dialectics and social networking sites: The role of Facebook in romantic relationship escalation, maintenance, conflict and dissolution. Computers in Human Behavior, 35 , 527–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.031

Henson, B., Reyns, B., & Fisher, B. (2013). Fear of crime online? Examining the effect of risk, previous victimization and exposure on fear of online interpersonal victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29 (4), 475–497.

Hernández-Santaolalla, V., & Hermida, A. (2020). Malicious social surveillance and negative implications in romantic relationships among undergraduates. Surveillance and Society, 18 (3), 387–399. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v18i3.13149

Hertlein, K. M., & van Dyck, L. E. (2020). Predicting engagement in electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Cybersecurity, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23 (9), 604–610. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0424

Hinduja, S. & Patchin, J. (2011). Electronic dating violence: A brief for educators and parents. Cyberbullying Research Center. Retrieved January 15, 2020 from http: www.cyberbullying.us

Kellerman, I., Margolin, G., Borofsky, L., Baucom, B., & Iturralde, E. (2013). Electronic aggression among emerging adults: Motivations and contextual factors. Emerging Adulthood, 1 (4), 293–304.

Kircaburuna, K., Jonason, P. K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2020). The dark tetrad traits and problematic social media use: The mediating role of cyberbullying and cyberstalking. Personality and Individual Differences, 135 , 264–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.034

Lancaster, M., Seibert, G. S., Cooper, A. N., May, R. W., & Fincham, F. (2020). Relationship quality in the context of cyber dating abuse: The role of attachment. Journal of Family Issues, 41 (6), 739–758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X19881674

Lara, L. (2020). Cyber dating abuse: Assessment, prevalence, and relationship with offline violence in young Chileans. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 37 (5), 1681–1699.

Lyndon, A., Bonds-Raacke, J., & Cratty, A. (2011). College students’ Facebook stalking of ex-partners. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13 , 263–268.

Google Scholar  

Marcha, E., Litten, V., Sullivan, D. H., & Ward, L. (2020). Somebody that I (used to) know: Gender and dimensions of dark personality traits as predictors of intimate partner cyberstalking. Personality and Individual Differences, 163 , 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110084

Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., & Nicholson, J. (2017). I’m watching you: Cyberstalking behaviors of university students in romantic relationships. American Journal of Criminal Justice., 42 , 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9358-2

Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., & Ricketts, M. L. (2014). Juveniles and cyber stalking in the United States: An analysis of theoretical predictors of patterns of online perpetration. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 8 (1), 47–57. http://www.cybercrimejournal.com/marcumetalijcc2014vol8issue1.pdf

Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., & Nicholson, J. (2018). Crossing boundaries online in romantic relationships: An exploratory study of the perceptions of impact on partners by cyberstalking offenders. Deviant Behavior, 39 (6), 716–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1304801

Marshall, T. (2012). Facebook surveillance of former romantic partners: Associations with post breakup recovery and personal growth. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, & Social Networking, 15 , 521–526.

Mosley, M. & Lancaster, M. (2019). Affection and abuse: Technology use in adolescent romantic relationships. American Journal of Family Therapy, 47 (11), 1–15.

Navarro, J. N., Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., & Ricketts, M. L. (2016). Addicted to the thrill of the virtual hunt: Examining the effects of internet addiction on the cyberstalking behaviors of juveniles. Deviant Behavior, 37 (8), 893–903. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1153366

Nobles, M., Reyns, B., Fox, K., & Fisher, B. (2014). Protection against pursuit: A conceptual and empirical comparison of cyberstalking and stalking victimization among a national sample. Justice Quarterly, 31 (6), 986–1014.

Novo, F., Pereira, F., & Matos, M. (2014). Cyber-aggression among Portuguese adolescents: A study on perpetration, victim offender overlap and parental supervision. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 8 (2), 94–110.

Pereira, F., & Matos, M. (2016). Cyber-stalking victimization: What predicts fear among Portuguese adolescents? European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 22 , 253–270.

Peskin, M. F., Markham, C. M., Shegog, R., Temple, J. R., Baumler, E. R., Addy, R. C., Hernandez, B., Cuccaro, P., Gabay, E. K., Thiel, M., & Emery, S. T. (2017). Prevalence and correlates of the perpetration of cyber dating abuse among early adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46 , 358–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0568-1

Prospero, M. (2007). Mental health symptoms among male victims of partner violence. American Journal of Men’s Health, 1 (4), 269–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988306297794

Reyns, B. (2019). Online pursuit in the twilight zone: Cyberstalking perpetration by college students. Victims & Offenders, 14 , 183–195.

Reyns, B. W., Fisher, B. S., & Randa, R. (2018). Explaining cyberstalking victimization against college women using a multitheoretical approach: Self-control, opportunity, and control balance. Crime & Delinquency, 64 (13), 1724–1764. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717753116

Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2012). Stalking in the Twilight Zone: Extent of cyberstalking victimization and offending among college students. Deviant Behavior, 33 (1), 1–25.

Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2016). Guardians of the cyber galaxy: An empirical and theoretical analysis of the guardianship concept from Routine Activity Theory as it applies to online forms of victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32 (2), 148–168.

Shorey, R., Febres, J., Brasfield, H., & Stuart, G. (2012). Male dating violence victimization and adjustment the moderating role of coping. American Journal of Men’s Health, 6 (3), 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988311429194

Shorey, R., Sherman, A., Kivisto, A., Elkins, S., Rhatigan, D., & Moore, T. (2011). Gender differences in depression and anxiety among victims of intimate partner violence: The moderating effect of shame-proneness. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26 , 1834–1850. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260510372949

Stonard, K. E. (2020). “Technology was designed for this”: Adolescents’ perceptions of the role and impact of the use of technology in cyber dating violence. Computers in Human Behavior, 105 , 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.106211

Strawhun, J., Adams, N., & Huss, M. T. (2013). The assessment of cyberstalking: An expanded examination including social networking, attachment, jealousy, and anger in relation to violence and abuse. Violence and Victims, 28 (4), 715–730. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.11-00145

Temple, J. R., Choi, H. J., Brem, M., Wolford-Clevenger, C., Stuart, G. L., Peskin, M. F., & Elmquist, J. (2016). The temporal association between traditional and cyber dating abuse among adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45 , 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0380-3

Tokunaga, R. S. (2011). Social networking site or social surveillance site? Understanding the use of interpersonal electronic surveillance in romantic relationships. Computers in Human Behavior, 27 (2), 705–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.014

Tokunaga, R. S. (2015). Interpersonal surveillance over social network sites: Applying a theory of negative relational maintenance and the investment model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33 (2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407514568749

Tokunaga, R., & Gustafson, A. (2014). Seeking interpersonal information over the Internet: An application of the theory of motivated information management to Internet use. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 31 , 1019–1039.

Toplu-Demirtas, E., Akcabozan-Kayabol, N. B., Araci-Iyiaydin, A., & Fincham, F. D. (2020). Unraveling the roles of distrust, suspicion of infidelity, and jealousy in cyber dating abuse perpetration: An attachment theory perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520927505

Van Baak, C., & Hayes, B. E. (2018). Correlates of cyberstalking victimization and perpetration among college students. Violence and Victims, 33 (6), 1036–1054. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-17-00073

Van Ouytsel, J., Ponnet, K., & Walrave, M. (2018). Cyber dating abuse victimization among secondary school students from a lifestyle-routine activities theory perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33 (17), 2767–2776. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516629390

Van Ouytsel, J., Ponnet, K., & Walrave, M. (2020). Cyber dating abuse: Investigating digital monitoring behaviors among adolescents from a social learning perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35 (23–24), 1557–5178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517719538

Van Ouytsel, J., Torres, E., Choi, H. J., Ponnet, K., Walrave, M., & Temple, J. R. (2017). The associations between substance use, sexual behaviors, bullying, deviant behaviors, health, and cyber dating abuse perpetration. The Journal of School Nursing, 33 (2), 116–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840516683229

Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2013). The rate of cyber dating abuse among teens and how it relates to other forms of teen dating violence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42 , 1063–1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9922-8

Zweig, J. M., Dank, M., Yahner, J., & Lachman, P. (2014). Correlates of cyber dating abuse among teens. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43 , 1306–1321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0047-x

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Government and Justice Studies, Appalachian State University, PO Box 32107, Boone, NC, 28608, USA

Catherine D. Marcum

Department of Administration of Justice, University of Louisville, 2301 South 3rd Street, 208 Brigman Hall, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA

George E. Higgins

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Catherine D. Marcum .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Marcum, C.D., Higgins, G.E. A Systematic Review of Cyberstalking Victimization and Offending Behaviors. Am J Crim Just 46 , 882–910 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09653-6

Download citation

Received : 12 December 2020

Accepted : 19 June 2021

Published : 10 November 2021

Issue Date : December 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09653-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Victimization
• Cyberstalking
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Engineering Mathematics
• Discrete Mathematics
• Operating System
• Computer Networks
• Digital Logic and Design
• C Programming
• Data Structures
• Theory of Computation
• Compiler Design
• Computer Org and Architecture
• Cyber Security Tutorial

Introduction

• OSI Security Architecture
• Active and Passive attacks in Information Security
• Types of Security Mechanism
• A Model for Network Security

Cyber Technology

• Basics of Wi-Fi
• The Internet and the Web
• What is a Website ?
• Cryptography and Network Security Principles
• Public Key Infrastructure
• What is Electronic Signature?
• Identity and Access Management
• Cloud Computing

Cyber Ethics

• Intellectual Property Rights
• Fundamental Rights (Articles 12-35): A Comprehensive Guide
• Introduction to Ethical Hacking
• What is a Scam?

Cyber Crimes

• Psychological Profiling in Cybersecurity
• Social Engineering - The Art of Virtual Exploitation

Cyber Stalking

• How to Defend Against Botnets ?
• Emerging Attack Vectors in Cyber Security
• Malware and its types
• What is Phishing?
• Cyber Crime - Identity Theft
• What is Cyber Terrorism?
• What is Proxy Server?

Cyber Crime Techniques

• Worms, Viruses and beyond !!
• Trojan Horse in Information Security

Keyloggers and Spyware

• Types of SQL Injection (SQLi)
• Buffer Overflow Attack with Example
• Reverse Engineering - Software Engineering
• Difference Between Vulnerability and Exploit
• Basic Network Attacks in Computer Network
• Kali Linux - Hacking Wi-Fi
• Web Server and its Types of Attacks
• Types of VoIP Hacking and Countermeasures
• How to Spoof SMS Message in Linux ?
• Difference between Backup and Recovery
• Manual Code Review : Security Assessment
• Penetration Testing - Software Engineering

Prevention and Protection

• What is Vulnerability Assessment?
• Secure coding - What is it all about?
• Chain of Custody - Digital Forensics
• Digital Forensics in Information Security
• Introduction of Computer Forensics
• What is Network Forensics?

Cyber Forensics

• Cybercrime Causes And Measures To Prevent It
• Digital Evidence Collection in Cybersecurity
• Digital Evidence Preservation - Digital Forensics
• Computer Forensic Report Format
• How to Stop Phishing

Cyber Crime Investigation

• Intellectual Property in Cyberspace
• Cyber Security Policy
• History of Cyber Security
• What is Internet? Definition, Uses, Working, Advantages and Disadvantages
• Cyber Security Metrics
• What is Cybersecurity Framework?
• Cyber Security, Types and Importance

Cyber security Evolution

• Substitution Cipher
• Difference between Substitution Cipher Technique and Transposition Cipher Technique
• Difference between Block Cipher and Transposition Cipher

Cyber security Objectives

• Data encryption standard (DES) | Set 1
• Strength of Data encryption standard (DES)
• Differential and Linear Cryptanalysis

Classical Encryption Techniques

• Difference between AES and DES ciphers
• Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)

Block Ciphers and the Data Encryption Standard

• Implementation of RC4 algorithm
• Introduction to Chinese Remainder Theorem
• Discrete logarithm (Find an integer k such that a^k is congruent modulo b)
• Public Key Encryption

Advanced Encryption Standard

• Key Management in Cryptography
• Implementation of Diffie-Hellman Algorithm

Moreon Symmetric Ciphers

• Message Authentication Requirements
• How message authentication code works?
• Hash Functions in System Security

Introduction to Number Theory

• Whirlpool Hash Function in Python
• HMAC Algorithm in Computer Network

Public-Key Cryptography and RSA

• Types of Authentication Protocols
• Digital Signature Standard (DSS)

Key Management:OtherPublic-Key Cryptosystems

• X.509 Authentication Service
• PGP - Authentication and Confidentiality

Message Authentication and Hash Functions

• IP security (IPSec)
• IPSec Architecture
• Internet Protocol Authentication Header

Hashand MAC Algorithms

• Web Security Considerations
• Secure Socket Layer (SSL)
• Transport Layer Security (TLS)

Digital Signatures and Authentication Protocols

• Intruders in Network Security
• Password Management in Cyber Security

Authentication Applications

Electronic mail security, ip security, web security, malicious software.

In Cyber Stalking , a cyber criminal uses the internet to consistently threaten somebody. This crime is often perpetrated through email, social media, and the other online medium. Cyber Stalking can even occur in conjunction with the additional ancient type of stalking, wherever the bad person harasses the victim offline. There’s no unified legal approach to cyber Stalking, however, several governments have moved toward creating these practices punishable by law. Social media, blogs, image sharing sites and lots of different ordinarily used online sharing activities offer cyber Stalkers with a wealth of data that helps them arrange their harassment. It includes actions like false accusations, fraud, information destruction, threats to life and manipulation through threats of exposure. It has stalkers take the assistance of e-mails and other forms of message applications, messages announce to an online website or a discussion cluster, typically even the social media to send unwanted messages, and harass a specific person with unwanted attention. Cyber Stalking is typically cited as internet stalking, e-stalking or online stalking. 

Types of Cyber Stalking:

• Webcam Hijacking: Internet stalkers would attempt to trick you into downloading and putting in a malware-infected file that may grant them access to your webcam. the method is therefore sneaky that it’s probably you wouldn’t suspect anything strange.
• Observing location check-ins on social media: In case you’re adding location check-ins to your Facebook posts, you’re making it overly simple for an internet stalker to follow you by just looking through your social media profiles.
• Catfishing: Catfishing happens via social media sites, for example, Facebook, when internet stalkers make counterfeit user-profiles and approach their victims as a companion of a companion.
• Visiting virtually via Google Maps Street View: If a stalker discovers the victim’s address, then it is not hard  to find the area, neighbourhood, and surroundings by using Street View. Tech-savvy stalkers don’t need that too. 
• Installing Stalkerware: One more method which is increasing its popularity is the use of Stalkerware. It is a kind of software or spyware which keeps track of the location, enable access to text and browsing history, make an audio recording, etc. And an important thing is that it runs in the background without any knowledge to the victim.
• Looking at geotags to track location: Mostly digital pictures contain geotags which is having information like the time and location of the picture when shot in the form of metadata. Geotags comes in the EXIF format embedded into an image and is readable with the help of special apps.  In this way, the stalker keeps an eye on the victim and gets the information about their whereabouts.

Protective Measures:

• Develop the habit of logging out of the PC when not in use.
• Remove any future events you’re close to attending from the social networks if they’re recorded on online approaching events and calendars.
• Set strong and distinctive passwords for your online accounts.
• Cyber Stalkers can exploit the low security of public Wi-Fi networks to snoop on your online activity. Therefore, avoid sending personal emails or sharing your sensitive info when connected to an unsecured public Wi-Fi.
• Make use of the privacy settings provided by the social networking sites and keep all info restricted to the nearest of friends.
• Do a daily search on the internet to search out what information is accessible regarding you for the public to check.

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• Cyber-security

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

How Pew Research Center will report on generations moving forward

Journalists, researchers and the public often look at society through the lens of generation, using terms like Millennial or Gen Z to describe groups of similarly aged people. This approach can help readers see themselves in the data and assess where we are and where we’re headed as a country.

Pew Research Center has been at the forefront of generational research over the years, telling the story of Millennials as they came of age politically and as they moved more firmly into adult life . In recent years, we’ve also been eager to learn about Gen Z as the leading edge of this generation moves into adulthood.

But generational research has become a crowded arena. The field has been flooded with content that’s often sold as research but is more like clickbait or marketing mythology. There’s also been a growing chorus of criticism about generational research and generational labels in particular.

Recently, as we were preparing to embark on a major research project related to Gen Z, we decided to take a step back and consider how we can study generations in a way that aligns with our values of accuracy, rigor and providing a foundation of facts that enriches the public dialogue.

A typical generation spans 15 to 18 years. As many critics of generational research point out, there is great diversity of thought, experience and behavior within generations.

We set out on a yearlong process of assessing the landscape of generational research. We spoke with experts from outside Pew Research Center, including those who have been publicly critical of our generational analysis, to get their take on the pros and cons of this type of work. We invested in methodological testing to determine whether we could compare findings from our earlier telephone surveys to the online ones we’re conducting now. And we experimented with higher-level statistical analyses that would allow us to isolate the effect of generation.

What emerged from this process was a set of clear guidelines that will help frame our approach going forward. Many of these are principles we’ve always adhered to , but others will require us to change the way we’ve been doing things in recent years.

Here’s a short overview of how we’ll approach generational research in the future:

We’ll only do generational analysis when we have historical data that allows us to compare generations at similar stages of life. When comparing generations, it’s crucial to control for age. In other words, researchers need to look at each generation or age cohort at a similar point in the life cycle. (“Age cohort” is a fancy way of referring to a group of people who were born around the same time.)

When doing this kind of research, the question isn’t whether young adults today are different from middle-aged or older adults today. The question is whether young adults today are different from young adults at some specific point in the past.

To answer this question, it’s necessary to have data that’s been collected over a considerable amount of time – think decades. Standard surveys don’t allow for this type of analysis. We can look at differences across age groups, but we can’t compare age groups over time.

Another complication is that the surveys we conducted 20 or 30 years ago aren’t usually comparable enough to the surveys we’re doing today. Our earlier surveys were done over the phone, and we’ve since transitioned to our nationally representative online survey panel , the American Trends Panel . Our internal testing showed that on many topics, respondents answer questions differently depending on the way they’re being interviewed. So we can’t use most of our surveys from the late 1980s and early 2000s to compare Gen Z with Millennials and Gen Xers at a similar stage of life.

This means that most generational analysis we do will use datasets that have employed similar methodologies over a long period of time, such as surveys from the U.S. Census Bureau. A good example is our 2020 report on Millennial families , which used census data going back to the late 1960s. The report showed that Millennials are marrying and forming families at a much different pace than the generations that came before them.

Even when we have historical data, we will attempt to control for other factors beyond age in making generational comparisons. If we accept that there are real differences across generations, we’re basically saying that people who were born around the same time share certain attitudes or beliefs – and that their views have been influenced by external forces that uniquely shaped them during their formative years. Those forces may have been social changes, economic circumstances, technological advances or political movements.

When we see that younger adults have different views than their older counterparts, it may be driven by their demographic traits rather than the fact that they belong to a particular generation.

The tricky part is isolating those forces from events or circumstances that have affected all age groups, not just one generation. These are often called “period effects.” An example of a period effect is the Watergate scandal, which drove down trust in government among all age groups. Differences in trust across age groups in the wake of Watergate shouldn’t be attributed to the outsize impact that event had on one age group or another, because the change occurred across the board.

Changing demographics also may play a role in patterns that might at first seem like generational differences. We know that the United States has become more racially and ethnically diverse in recent decades, and that race and ethnicity are linked with certain key social and political views. When we see that younger adults have different views than their older counterparts, it may be driven by their demographic traits rather than the fact that they belong to a particular generation.

Controlling for these factors can involve complicated statistical analysis that helps determine whether the differences we see across age groups are indeed due to generation or not. This additional step adds rigor to the process. Unfortunately, it’s often absent from current discussions about Gen Z, Millennials and other generations.

When we can’t do generational analysis, we still see value in looking at differences by age and will do so where it makes sense. Age is one of the most common predictors of differences in attitudes and behaviors. And even if age gaps aren’t rooted in generational differences, they can still be illuminating. They help us understand how people across the age spectrum are responding to key trends, technological breakthroughs and historical events.

Each stage of life comes with a unique set of experiences. Young adults are often at the leading edge of changing attitudes on emerging social trends. Take views on same-sex marriage , for example, or attitudes about gender identity .

Many middle-aged adults, in turn, face the challenge of raising children while also providing care and support to their aging parents. And older adults have their own obstacles and opportunities. All of these stories – rooted in the life cycle, not in generations – are important and compelling, and we can tell them by analyzing our surveys at any given point in time.

When we do have the data to study groups of similarly aged people over time, we won’t always default to using the standard generational definitions and labels. While generational labels are simple and catchy, there are other ways to analyze age cohorts. For example, some observers have suggested grouping people by the decade in which they were born. This would create narrower cohorts in which the members may share more in common. People could also be grouped relative to their age during key historical events (such as the Great Recession or the COVID-19 pandemic) or technological innovations (like the invention of the iPhone).

By choosing not to use the standard generational labels when they’re not appropriate, we can avoid reinforcing harmful stereotypes or oversimplifying people’s complex lived experiences.

Existing generational definitions also may be too broad and arbitrary to capture differences that exist among narrower cohorts. A typical generation spans 15 to 18 years. As many critics of generational research point out, there is great diversity of thought, experience and behavior within generations. The key is to pick a lens that’s most appropriate for the research question that’s being studied. If we’re looking at political views and how they’ve shifted over time, for example, we might group people together according to the first presidential election in which they were eligible to vote.

With these considerations in mind, our audiences should not expect to see a lot of new research coming out of Pew Research Center that uses the generational lens. We’ll only talk about generations when it adds value, advances important national debates and highlights meaningful societal trends.

• Age & Generations
• Demographic Research
• Generation X
• Generation Z
• Generations
• Greatest Generation
• Methodological Research
• Millennials
• Silent Generation

Kim Parker is director of social trends research at Pew Research Center

How Teens and Parents Approach Screen Time

Who are you the art and science of measuring identity, u.s. centenarian population is projected to quadruple over the next 30 years, older workers are growing in number and earning higher wages, teens, social media and technology 2023, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Politics & Policy
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy