The foci of the present study are to estimate the extent of cyberstalking victimization, and develop, specify, and test a theoretically based model of cyberstalking victimization among college women. A pursuit- and fear-based measure of victimization was utilized, and three leading theories—self-control, opportunity, and control balance—were tested as explanations of cyberstalking victimization. Key concepts from each theoretical perspective were operationalized using primary survey data from a probability sample of college women (N = 1,987) from two large universities. Results show that approximately 3.4% of female students were victims of cyberstalking during the academic year. Findings from a path model revealed significant direct effects for opportunity and having a control deficit on cyberstalking. The effects of self-control were indirect through these two measures, whereas having a control surplus was not related to victimization risk. Overall, findings support the application of these three theoretical approaches to predicting and explaining cyberstalking victimization.
AlexyE. M.BurgessA. W.BakerT.SmoyakS. A. (2005). Perceptions of cyberstalking among college students. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 5(3), 279.
2.
BosslerA. M.HoltT. J. (2010). The effect of self-control on victimization in the cyberworld. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 227-236.
3.
CatalanoS. (2012). Stalking victims in the United States—Revised. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
CohenL. E.FelsonM. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.
5.
DillmanD. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
6.
DreßingH.BailerJ.AndersA.WagnerH.GallasC. (2014). Cyberstalking in a large sample of social network users: Prevalence, characteristics, and impact upon victims. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17, 61-67.
7.
FattahE. A. (2000). Victimology: Past, present and future. Criminologie, 33, 17-46.
8.
FisherB. S.CullenF. T.TurnerM. G. (2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a national study of college women. Criminology & Public Policy, 1, 257-308.
9.
FoxK. A.GoverA. R.KaukinenC. (2009). The effects of low self-control and childhood maltreatment on stalking victimization among men and women. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 181-197.
10.
FoxK. A.NoblesM. R.FisherB. S. (2011). Method behind the madness: An examination of stalking measurements. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 74-84.
11.
FoxK. A.NoblesM. R.FisherB. S. (2016). A multi-theoretical framework to assess gendered stalking victimization: The utility of self-control, social learning, and control balance theories. Justice Quarterly, 33, 319-347.
12.
GottfredsonM. R.HirschiT. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
13.
GrasmickH. G.TittleC. R.BursikR. J.ArneklevB. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 5-29.
14.
HensonB.ReynsB. W. (2016). Taking stock: The current status of cyberstalking research. In HoltT. J. (Ed.), Crime on-line (pp. 199-224). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
15.
HickmanM.PiqueroA. R.LawtonB. A.GreeneJ. R. (2001). Applying Tittle’s control balance theory to police deviance. Policing, 24, 497-519.
16.
HigginsG. E.LauterbachC. (2004). Control balance theory and exploitation: An examination of contingencies. Criminal Justice Studies, 17, 291-310.
17.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M. (2008). Examining the applicability of lifestyle-routine activities theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant Behavior, 30, 1-25.
18.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M. (2014). An assessment of the current state of cybercrime scholarship. Deviant Behavior, 35, 20-40.
19.
KraftE. M.WangJ. (2010). An exploratory study of the cyberbullying and cyberstalking experiences and factors related to victimization of students at a public liberal arts college. International Journal of Technoethics, 1, 74-91.
20.
LeukfeldtE. R.YarM. (2016). Applying routine activity theory to cybercrime: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Deviant Behavior, 37, 263-280.
21.
McNeeleyS. (2015). Lifestyle-routine activities and crime events. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31, 30-52.
MustaineE. E.TewksburyR. (1999). A routine activity theory explanation for women’s stalking victimizations. Violence against Women, 5, 43-62.
24.
NavarroJ. N.ClevengerS.BeasleyM. E.JacksonL. K. (2015). One step forward, two steps back: Cyberbullying within social networking sites. Security Journal, 30, 844-858. doi:10.1057/sj.2015.19
25.
NoblesM. R.FoxK. A. (2013). Assessing stalking behaviors in a control balance theory framework. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 737-762.
26.
NoblesM. R.FoxK. A.PiqueroN.PiqueroA. R. (2009). Career dimensions of stalking victimization and perpetration. Justice Quarterly, 26, 476-503.
27.
NoblesM. R.ReynsB. W.FoxK. A.FisherB. S. (2014). Protection against pursuit: A conceptual and empirical comparison of cyberstalking and stalking victimization among a national sample. Justice Quarterly, 31, 986-1014.
28.
PetersonJ.DensleyJ. (2017). Cyber violence: What do we know and where do we go from here?Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 193-200.
29.
PiqueroA. R.HickmanM. (1999). An empirical test of Tittle’s control balance theory. Criminology, 37, 319-341.
30.
PiqueroA. R.HickmanM. (2003). Extending Tittle’s control balance theory to account for victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 282-301.
31.
PiqueroN. L.PiqueroA. R. (2006). Control balance and exploitative corporate crime. Criminology, 44, 397-430.
32.
PrattT. C.CullenF. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931-964.
33.
PrattT. C.HoltfreterK.ReisigM. D. (2010). Routine online activity and Internet fraud targeting: Extending the generality of routine activity theory. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 47, 267-296.
34.
PrattT. C.TuranovicJ. J.FoxK. A.WrightK. A. (2014). Self-control and victimization: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 52, 87-116.
35.
ReynsB. W.BurekM. W.HensonB.FisherB. S. (2013). The unintended consequences of digital technology: Exploring the relationship between sexting and cybervictimization. Journal of Crime & Justice, 36, 1-17.
36.
ReynsB. W.HensonB.FisherB. S. (2011). Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle- routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1149-1169.
37.
ReynsB. W.HensonB.FisherB. S. (2012). Stalking in the twilight zone: Extent of cyberstalking victimization and offending among college students. Deviant Behavior, 33, 1-25.
38.
ReynsB. W.HensonB.FisherB. S. (2015). 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, 148-168.
39.
ReynsB. W.HensonB.FisherB. S.FoxK. A.NoblesM. R. (2016). A gendered lifestyle- routine activity approach to explaining stalking victimization in Canada. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1719-1743.
40.
SchreckC. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633-654.
41.
SchreckC. J.StewartE. A.FisherB. S. (2006). Self-control, victimization, and their influence on risky lifestyles: A longitudinal analysis using panel data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 319-340.
ShortE.GuppyA.HartJ. A.BarnesJ. (2015). The impact of cyberstalking. Studies in Media and Communication, 3, 23-37.
44.
SpanoR.FreilichJ. D. (2009). An assessment of the empirical validity and conceptualization of individual level multivariate studies of lifestyle/routine activities theory published from 1995 to 2005. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 305-314.
45.
SpitzbergB. H.HooblerG. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society, 4, 71-92.
46.
TittleC. R. (1995). Control balance. Boulder, CO: Westview
47.
TittleC. R. (2004). Refining control balance theory. Theoretical Criminology, 8, 395-428.
48.
TjadenP.ThoennesN. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
49.
TuranovicJ. J.PrattT. C. (2014). “Can’t stop, won’t stop”: Self-control, risky lifestyles, and repeat victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 29-56.
50.
Van WilsemJ. (2013). Hacking and harassment – Do they have something in common? Comparing risk factors for online victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29, 437-453.
