Testing the Target Congruence Approach: Do Vulnerability,Gratifiability,and Antagonism Explain Cyberstalking Victimization Among Young Adults?

Abstract

To extend theoretical understanding of cyberspace victimization beyond lifestyle-routine activity theory, we tested the target congruence approach as a plausible explanation for cyberstalking victimization. Of secondary interest, we assessed whether the relationship between target congruence and cyberstalking victimization differs by pursued–pursuer relationship. Survey data from a sample of 1,500 young adults (18–25 years old) revealed 32% had experienced cyberstalking victimization within the previous year. Logistic regression results moderately support the target congruence approach. Measures capturing target vulnerability (e.g., age, disability), target gratifiability (e.g., gender identity, types of photos posted), and target antagonism (e.g., relationship status, cyberstalking perpetration) significantly predicted cyberstalking victimization. Moreover, it appears that the target congruence elements better explain cyberstalking victimization conducted by someone known to the target (compared with a stranger). Implications for the applicability of the target congruence approach are discussed, along with suggestions for future research.

Keywords

cyberstalking target congruence victimization

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexy

E. M.

Burgess

A. W.

Baker

Smoyak

S. A.

(2005). Perceptions of cyberstalking among college students. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 5(3), 279–289. https://doi.org/10.1093/brief-treatment/mhi020

Al Mutawa

Bryce

Franqueira

V. N.

Marrington

. (2016). Forensic investigation of cyberstalking cases using behavioural evidence analysis. Digital Investigation, 16, S96–S103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diin.2016.01.012

Augustine

M. C.

Wilcox

Ousey

G. C.

Clayton

R. R.

(2002). Opportunity theory and adolescent school-based victimization. Violence and Victims, 17(2), 233–253. https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.17.2.233.33643

Basile

K. C.

Swahn

M. H.

Chen

Saltzman

L. E.

(2006). Stalking in the United States: Recent national prevalence estimates. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31(2), 172–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.028

Baum

Catalano

Rand

Rose

(2009). Stalking victimization in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

Berinsky

A. J.

Huber

G. A.

Lenz

G. S.

(2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057

Boillot-Fansher

A. K.

(2017). Risky dating behaviors in the technological age: Consideration of a new pathway to victimization. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses.

Bossler

A. M.

Holt

T. J.

(2009). On-line activities, guardianship, and malware infection: An examination of routine activities theory. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(1), 400–420. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/on-line-activities-guardianship-malware-infection/docview/89069444/se-2

Bossler

A. M.

Holt

T. J.

(2010). The effect of self-control on victimization in the cyberworld. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(3), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.03.001

10.

Breiding

M. J.

Armour

B. S.

(2015). The association between disability and intimate partner violence in the United States. Annals of Epidemiology, 25(6), 455–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2015.03.017

11.

Briones

E. M.

Benham

(2017). An examination of the equivalency of self-report measures obtained from crowdsourced versus undergraduate student samples. Behavior Research Methods, 49(1), 320–334. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0710-8

12.

Cavezza

McEwan

T. E.

(2014). Cyberstalking versus off-line stalking in a forensic sample. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(10), 955–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2014.893334

13.

Cohen

L. E.

Kluegel

J. R.

Land

K. C.

(1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review, 46(5), 505–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094935

14.

Dietz

N. A.

Martin

P. Y.

(2007). Women who are stalked: Questioning the fear standard. Violence Against Women, 13(7), 750–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207302698

15.

D’Ovidio

Doyle

(2003). A study on cyberstalking: Understanding investigative hurdles. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 72(3), 10–17.

16.

Dreßing

Bailer

Anders

Wagner

Gallas

(2014). Cyberstalking in a large sample of social network users: Prevalence, characteristics, and impact upon victims. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0231

17.

Elvey

Reyns

B. W.

McNeeley

(2018). Stalking on campus: A gendered perspective on target congruence and opportunity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(8), 1308–1327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818773792

18.

Finkelhor

Asdigian

N. L.

(1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyles/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 11(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.11.1.3

19.

Fisher

B. S.

Coker

A. L.

Garcia

L. S.

Williams

C. M.

Clear

E. R.

Cook-Craig

P. G.

(2014). Statewide estimates of stalking among high school students in Kentucky: Demographic profile and sex differences. Violence Against Women, 20(10), 1258–1279. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214551574

20.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a national study of college women. Criminology and Public Policy, 1(2), 257–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2002.tb00091.x

21.

Fissel

E. R.

(2021). The reporting and help-seeking behaviors of cyberstalking victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11–12), 5075–5100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518801942

22.

Fissel

E. R.

(2022). Victims’ perceptions of cyberstalking: An examination of perceived offender motivation. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 47(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-021-09608-x

23.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-019-09489-1

24.

Fissel

E. R.

Reyns

B. W.

Nobles

M. R.

Fisher

B. S.

Fox

A. (2022). Cyberstalking victims’ experiences with fear versus other emotional responses to repeated online pursuit: Revisiting the fear standard among a national sample of young adults. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221096374

25.

Fox

(2008). Applied regression analysis and generalized linear models (2nd ed.). Sage.

26.

Goodno

N. H.

(2007). Cyberstalking, a new crime: Evaluating the effectiveness of current state and federal laws. Missouri Law Review, 72(1), 125.

27.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hirschi

(1990). A general theory of crime. Standford University Press.

28.

Grasmick

H. G.

Tittle

C. R.

Bursik

R. J.

Jr. Arneklev

B. J.

(1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030001002

29.

Harrell

(2017). Crime against persons with disabilities, 2009-2015-Statistical tables. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/crime-against-persons-disabilities-2009-2015-statistical-tables#:~:text=The%20rate%20of%20violent%20victimization%20against%20males%20with%20disabilities%20was,per%201%2C000%20females%20without%20disabilities.

30.

International Telecommunication Union. (2021). Measuring digital development: Facts and figures. https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Statistics/Documents/facts/FactsFigures2021.pdf

31.

Jerin

Dolinsky

(2001). You’ve got mail! You don’t want it: Cyber-victimization and on-line dating. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 9(1), 15–21.

32.

Kraft

Wang

(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(4), 74–91. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-1773-5.ch009

33.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Davis Quinet

K. F.

(1995). Repeat victimization among adolescents and young adults. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11(2), 143–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02221121

34.

Maple

Short

Brown

(2011). Cyberstalking in the United Kingdom. An analysis of the ECHO pilot survey. National Centre for Cyberstalking Research, University of Bedordshire.

35.

Marcum

C. D.

Higgins

G. E.

Ricketts

M. L.

(2010). Potential factors of online victimization of youth: An examination of adolescent online behaviors utilizing routine activity theory. Deviant Behavior, 31(5), 381–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639620903004903

36.

McFarlane

Bocij

(2003). An exploration of predatory behaviour in cyberspace: Towards a typology of cyberstalkers. First Monday, 8(9), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v8i9.1076

37.

Melton

H. C.

(2007). Predicting the occurrence of stalking in relationships characterized by domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506294994

38.

Morgan

R. E.

Truman

J. L.

(2022). Stalking victimization, 2019 (NCJ 301735). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

39.

Moriarty

L. J.

Freiberger

(2008). Cyberstalking: Utilizing newspaper accounts to establish victimization patterns. Victims & Offenders, 3(2–3), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880801938169

40.

Moss

(2021, December 1). Five years of Mechanical Turk data in five figures. https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/blog/mechanical-turk-data-five-years-in-five-figures/

41.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

(1999). A routine activity theory explanation for women’s stalking victimizations. Violence Against Women, 5(1), 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778019922181149

42.

Nobles

M. R.

Fox

K. A.

Piquero

A. R.

(2009). Career dimensions of stalking victimization and perpetration. Justice Quarterly, 26(3), 476–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820802427833

43.

Nobles

M. R.

Reyns

B. W.

Fox

K. A.

Fisher

B. S.

(2014). Protection against pursuit: A conceptual and empirical comparison of cyberstalking and stalking victimization among a national sample. Justice Quarterly, 31(6), 986–1014. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.723030

44.

Wilcox

. (2018). Routine activity theory, target congruence, and school context: A multilevel analysis of teacher victimization. Victims & Offenders, 13(3), 349–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2017.1329174

45.

Paolacci

Chandler

(2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598

46.

Paolacci

Chandler

Ipeirotis

P. G.

(2010). Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411–419. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500002205

47.

Paternoster

Brame

Mazerolle

Piquero

(1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36(4), 859–866. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01268.x

48.

Paullet

K. L.

Rota

D. R.

Swan

T. T.

(2009). Cyberstalking: An exploratory study of students at a mid-Atlantic university. Issues in Information Systems, 10(2), 640–649. https://doi.org/10.48009/2_iis_2009_640-649

49.

Pereira

Matos

(2016). Cyber-stalking victimization: What predicts fear among Portuguese adolescents? European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22(2), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-015-9285-7

50.

Pew Research Center. (2021, April 7). Social media fact sheet. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/

51.

Reidy

D. E.

Smith-Darden

J. P.

Kernsmith

P. D.

(2016). Behavioral and mental health correlates of youth stalking victimization: A latent class approach. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 51(6), 1007–1014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.08.035

52.

Reyns

B. W.

(2010). Being pursued online: The extent and nature of cyberstalking victimization from a lifestyle/routine activities perspective (Vol. 71, Issue 10). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

53.

Reyns

B. W.

Burek

M. W.

Henson

Fisher

B. S.

(2013). The unintended consequences of digital technology: Exploring the relationship between sexting and cybervictimization. Journal of Crime and Justice, 36(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.2011.641816

54.

Reyns

B. W.

Englebrecht

C. M.

(2010). The stalking victim’s decision to contact the police: A test of Gottfredson and Gottfredson’s theory of criminal justice decision making. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 998–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.07.001

55.

Reyns

B. W.

Fisher

B. S.

Randa

(2018). Explaining cyberstalking victimization against college women using a multitheoretical approach: Self-control, opportunity, and control balance. Crime & Delinquency, 64(13), 1742–1764. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717753116

56.

Reyns

B. W.

Henson

Fisher

B. S.

(2011). Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle-routine activity theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(11), 1149–1169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811421448

57.

Reyns

B. W.

Henson

Fisher

B. S.

(2012). Stalking in the twilight zone: Extent of cyberstalking victimization and offending among college students. Deviant Behavior, 33(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2010.538364

58.

Reyns

B. W.

Henson

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986215621378

59.

Reyns

B. W.

Scherer

(2017). Stalking victimization among college students: The role of disability within a lifestyle-routine activity framework. Crime & Delinquency, 64(5), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717714794

60.

Roberts

K. A.

(2005). Women’s experience of violence during stalking by former romantic partners. Violence Against Women, 11(1), 89–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801204271096

61.

Rosenfeld

M. J.

Thomas

R. J.

Hausen

(2019). Disintermediating your friends: How online dating in the United States displaces other ways of meeting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(36), 17753–17758. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908630116

62.

Scherer

H. L.

Snyder

J. A.

Fisher

B. S.

(2016). Intimate partner victimization among college students with and without disabilities: Prevalence of and relationship to emotional well-being. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(1), 49–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514555126

63.

Sheridan

Grant

(2007). Is cyberstalking different? Psychology, Crime & Law, 13(6), 627–640. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160701340528

64.

Short

Guppy

Hart

J. A.

Barnes

(2015). The impact of cyberstalking. Studies in Media and Communication, 3(2), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v3i2.970

65.

Smith-Darden

J. P.

Kernsmith

P. D.

Victor

B. G.

Lathrop

R. A.

(2017). Electronic displays of aggression in teen dating relationships: Does the social ecology matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 67, 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.015

66.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Hoobler

(2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society, 4(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226271

67.

Steiner

Wooldredge

(2017). Individual and environmental influences on prison officer safety. Justice Quarterly, 34(2), 324–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2016.1164883

68.

Sween

Reyns

B. W.

(2017). An empirical test of target congruence theory on intimate partner violence. Deviant Behavior, 38(1), 61–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1191914

69.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

70.

Truman

J. L.

Morgan

R. E.

(2021). Stalking victimization, 2016. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

71.

Waldner

L. K.

Berg

(2008). Explaining antigay violence using target congruence: An application of revised routine activities theory. Violence and Victims, 23(3), 267–287. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.23.3.267

72.

Weigold

I. K.

(2022). Traditional and modern convenience samples: An investigation of college student, Mechanical Turk, and Mechanical Turk college student samples. Social Science Computer Review, 40(5), 1302–1322. https://doi.org/10.1177/08944393211006847

73.

Welsh

Lavoie

J. A.

(2012). Risky eBusiness: An examination of risk-taking, online disclosiveness, and cyberstalking victimization. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 6(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5817/CP2012-1-4

74.

Wick

S. E.

Nagoshi

Basham

Jordan

Kim

Y. K.

Nguyen

A. P.

Lehmann

(2017). Patterns of cyber harassment and perpetration among college students in the United States: A test of routine activities theory. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 11(1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.495770

75.

Wilson

Sheridan

Garratt-Reed

(2022). What is cyberstalking? A review of measurements. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(11–12), NP9763–NP9783. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520985489

76.

Worsley

J. D.

Wheatcroft

J. M.

Short

Corcoran

(2017). Victims’ voices: Understanding the emotional impact of cyberstalking and individuals’ coping responses. Sage Open, 7(2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017710292

77.

Yar

(2005). The novelty of “cybercrime” an assessment in light of routine activity theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2(4), 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/147737080556056