CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING Volume 14, Number 12, 2011 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0588
College Students’ Facebook Stalking of Ex-Partners Amy Lyndon, Ph.D.,1 Jennifer Bonds-Raacke, Ph.D.,2 and Alyssa D. Cratty, B.A.3
Abstract
There are abundant anecdotes and warnings of inappropriate behaviors on social networking sites, particularly about Facebook. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether individuals obsessively monitor or harass their ex-partners on Facebook (related to general ‘‘Facebook stalking’’) and, if so, whether those individuals would also engage in cyber obsessional pursuit (COP) and obsessive relational pursuit (ORI), which are categories of cyberstalking and stalking. A total of 411 valid participants answered questions about the ways they communicated with their ex-romantic partners using Facebook, resulting in three factors: Covert Provocation, Public Harassment, and Venting. Each category of Facebook harassment was related to perpetration of COP and ORI. Additionally, participants who engaged in COP were almost six times more likely to also perpetrate ORI. If participants admitted to engaging in some types of stalking behaviors, they did so online, offline, and on Facebook. Implications for social networking site usage and stalking laws are discussed. There is a kernel of truth to the popular term ‘‘Facebook stalking.’’
Introduction
M
anaging romantic relationships can be tricky in the online public forum of social networking sites,1 where private relationship dramas may be carried out in a semipublic forum. Anecdotal warnings abound about inappropriate behaviors on social networking sites. With newspaper articles with titles such as ‘‘Love and Heartbreak on Facebook’’2 and blogs such as ‘‘Facebook Makes Breakups Even Uglier,’’3 popular culture is taking note of the effect of social networking on romantic relationships. One term that has entered the everyday lexicon is ‘‘Facebook stalking,’’ a somewhat joking term for obsessively monitoring the social information presented on Facebook by friends, acquaintances, or even virtual strangers who are Facebook ‘‘friends.’’4,5 Examples of Facebook stalking include obsessively reading wall posts, checking status updates, and scanning through uploaded photos. Although there is plenty of discussion of Facebook stalking in popular culture, it has not been empirically examined. Young adults frequently engage in stalking behaviors, although most do not meet the legally required standard of behaviors severe enough to induce fear in victims to become stalking.6,7 Facebook may be another forum in which these are conducted. The purpose of the present study was to examine the number of people who engage in this type of behavior with their romantic ex-partners and to gauge the
overlap between Facebook harassment, cyber obsessional pursuit (COP), and obsessive relational intrusion (ORI), the latter two of which are variants of cyberstalking and stalking. We examined romantic ex-partners, because this is the group who is stalked the most.8,9 Facebook claims over 500 million active members10 and is currently the most popular social networking site. Research on social networking sites has focused on the motivations for using it,11 user characteristics,12–14 the wellbeing of users,15,16 and its role in the civic and political participation of users.17 Scholars are beginning to examine the potential negative consequences of its use. Focus group informants have related how technology—including Facebook—was used as a means of intimate partner cyber harassment to convey intimidating messages, to control partners, and to turn private arguments into public ones.18 Use of social networking sites is also associated with romantic jealousy, possibly by exposing users to vague relational information, leading to increased monitoring of their partners.1 People exposed to more online communication are also likely to be pursued using such forums (e.g., cyber discussion forums) and are at risk for offline pursuit. As we open ourselves to more forms of communication, we increase the likelihood that new technologies become a means of intrusion and surveillance.19 Thus, Facebook harassers should also engage in COP. COP is defined as using technology-based stalking behaviors to harass or demand intimacy from another person.
1
Department of Psychology, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina. Department of Psychology, Fort Hays State University, Fort Hays, Kansas. Clinical Mental Health Counseling, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina.
2 3
711
712
LYNDON ET AL. Table 2. Component Loadings and Percentage of Endorsement
Table 1. Facebook Familiarity, Frequency, and Security Settings Facebook
M
SD Behaviors by factors
Familiarity with Facebook Time spent on Facebook Reveal personal information on Facebook Security settings on Facebook
4.55 2.17 4.30 2.56
0.63 0.56 0.89 0.62
Note: Possible ranges are 1–5 for familiarity, 1–5 for time spent, 1– 6 for revealing personal information, and 1–3 for security settings.
COP may become cyberstalking if such repeated behaviors are severe and would cause a reasonable person fear.19–23 One in four victims state that perpetrators used e-mail (83%) or instant messaging (35%) in the past 12 months.8 Aside from a few case studies,24,25 however, there has been no empirical examination of COP perpetration. There have been only two direct comparisons of cyberstalking versus ‘‘offline’’ stalking, both with victim samples.19,26 Although there was an overlap between ORI and COP, it was small to moderate in size.19 Obsessive relational intrusion (ORI) is an overlapping construct of stalking, defined as ‘‘the repeated and unwanted pursuit of intimacy through violation of physical and/or symbolic privacy.’’7[p66] ORI includes behaviors such as sending unwanted gifts, following, and other forms of unwanted communication. As severity and intensity increase, fewer individuals engage such behaviors,27 which may become stalking.28 ORI often occurs in the context of the dissolution of a romantic relationship,11,29 with approximately 99% of students reporting engaging in at least one such behavior after a romantic breakup.6 More men are stalking perpetrators than are women,7,30 but both sexes report equal perpetration when the stalking-level fear standard is not required.11,31 Based on the above research, we posit these hypotheses: (1) people will use Facebook to monitor or harass their expartners, (2) these people will be more likely to engage in COP and in offline ORI pursuit, and (3) people who engage in COP will also engage in offline ORI behaviors.
Covert provocation Looked through ex-partner’s photos to find pictures with new partner Posted poetry or music lyrics in status in reference to ex-partner to taunt or hurt Updated status to make ex-partner jealous Posted poetry or music lyrics in status in reference to try and get back together Written post on wall to taunt ex-partner Public harassment Been blocked from ex-partner’s profile and asked them to unblock it Created a false Facebook profile of ex-partner to cause them problems Used Facebook to spread false rumors about ex-partner Posted embarrassing photos of ex-partner Falsely changed status to ‘‘in a relationship’’ to make ex-partner jealous Venting Wrote inappropriate or mean things about ex’s new partner on friend’s wall Wrote inappropriate or mean things about ex-partner on friend’s wall Posted nasty or spiteful comment on a photo of ex-partner
Factor loadings
% reporting ever done
0.74
54.3%
0.69
30.4%
0.67
33.1%
0.66
58.6%
0.56
20.1%
0.72
8.1%
0.69
3.6%
0.69
3.6%
0.62
4.2%
0.41
10.4%
0.81
10.9%
0.79
14.6%
0.74
7.5%
Methods Participants Because the study involved the use of Facebook to communicate with romantic ex-partners, participants had to meet the following requirements to be included: those who reported having been in a serious relationship, who had a Facebook account, and whose ex-partners had a Facebook account. We eliminated any age outliers, which left participants between the ages of 18 and 32. This screening left 411 (147 male, 261 female, and 3 who did not report their sex) valid participants from participant pools at two southeastern universities. The average age was 19 (SD = 1.81). Participants were mostly Caucasian (69.8%) and African American (16.1%), with smaller numbers of Latino/Hispanic (4.4%), American Indian (2.9%), Asian American/Pacific Islander (1.9%), and multiracial (2.9%) participants. The majority of participants indicated they were heterosexual (96.1%), and smaller numbers reported lesbian (0.5%), gay male (1.2%), bisexual (1.5%), and questioning (0.7) identities. Most par-
ticipants were either single (45.4%) or in a committed dating relationship (41.7%), and the rest were casually dating (8.8%), married (3.7%), separated (0.2%), or divorced (0.2%). Procedure The survey was conducted online via the participant management system for the psychology department participant pools. Participants selected a link to a study titled ‘‘Facebook and romantic relationships.’’ After completion, participants read a debriefing form that included additional information on unwanted pursuit and information about school-based counseling center programs. Participants were given partial course credit. Measures Facebook survey. The survey on Facebook was created to assess the frequency with which participants used Facebook to communicate with, monitor, or harass their
FACEBOOK STALKING
713
Table 3. Frequency of Respondents Ever Engaging in the Facebook Behaviors, Cyber Obsessional Pursuit, or Obsessive Relational Intrusion Perpetration None Variable Covert provocation Public harassment Venting Cyber obsessional pursuit ORI
Some
%
n
%
n
32.7 82.0 82.0 49.1
(134) (336) (336) (202)
67.3 18.0 18.0 50.9
(276) (74) (74) (209)
54.7
(225)
45.3
(186)
Note: ORI, obsessive relational intrusion.
ex-romantic partners. We focused on Facebook behavior only because of its popularity and the terminology ‘‘Facebook stalking.’’ We could also form specific questions about how to use the site to harass ex-partners by focusing on only one social networking site. The first survey subsection, adapted from previous research,11 included demographics and questions about participants Facebook usage, including how long they had an account, how much time they spend on the site, and about their security and privacy settings. The second subsection was generated for this study and asked participants 25 questions about how they used Facebook as a tool to monitor or harass their ex-partners (see Table 2 for sample questions). Participants answered how many behaviors they had ever engaged in with their ex-partners. Response options used a four-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘never’’ to ‘‘all of the time.’’ Cyber obsessional pursuit. COP perpetration was measured by the 24-item COP scale.19 The directions focused on behaviors solely through electronic means of pursuit: ‘‘In your lifetime, how often, if at all, have you ever persistently pursued someone through electronic means (computer, e-mail, chat room, etc.) over a period of time for the purpose of establishing an intimate relationship that this person did NOT want.’’ A sample question is ‘‘Sending tokens of affection (e.g., poetry, songs, electronic greeting cards, praise,
etc.).’’ Response options were given on a five-point Likert scale from ‘‘never’’ to ‘‘over five times.’’ Chronbach’s alpha was 0.93. As scores were skewed and a log transformation was inappropriate, participants who perpetrated no pursuit behaviors were categorized as ‘‘0’’ and those with one or more behaviors were categorized as ‘‘1.’’ Obsessive relational intrusion. The degree to which the participant engaged in unwanted pursuit was assessed by the 28-item ORI.32 The directions were similar to the COP. A sample behavior is ‘‘Showing up at places in threatening ways (e.g., showing up at class, office or work, from behind a corner, staring from across a street, being inside his/her home, etc.).’’ Response options were given on a five-point Likert scale from ‘‘never’’ to ‘‘over five times.’’ Chronbach’s alpha was 0.96. ORI scores were similarly skewed and thus dichotomized as 0 = none and 1 = some. Results Descriptives Participants said they were very familiar or extremely familiar (60%) with Facebook and most had a Facebook account for either 1 year (22.9%) or over 2 years (62.9%). Table 1 shows that participants reported spending a moderate amount of time viewing and commenting on their friends’ pages and slightly less time updating their own page. On average, security levels were set so that friends of friends could see the content on their Facebook pages; most participants did not reveal personal information such as their phone numbers or current addresses on their pages and 86.1% said they only revealed ‘‘a little information’’ about themselves. Over half of the participants (67.3%) reported contacting their ex-partner on Facebook after a breakup, although most of them only occasionally did so (58.6%). Hypothesis 1: people will use Facebook to monitor or harass their ex-partners A principal components analysis using varimax rotation was conducted to determine whether any underlying structures exist for the Facebook and ex-partner questions. The analysis produced a five-component solution, which was evaluated with the following criteria: eigenvalue, screen plot,
Table 4. Hypotheses 1 and 2: Frequencies and Percentages of Facebook Subscales by Cyber Obsessional Pursuit and by Obsessive Relational Intrusions None
CP None Some PH None Some V None Some
w2
Some
p
COP
ORI
COP
ORI
COP
ORI
COP
ORI
79 (39.1%) 123 (60.9%)
92 (40.9%) 133 (59.1%)
55 (26.4%) 153 (73.6%)
42 (22.7%) 143 (77.3%)
7.47
15.26
0.004
0.001
181 (89.6%) 21 (10.4%)
195 (86.7%) 30 (13.3%)
155 (74.5%) 53 (25.5%)
141 (76.2%) 44 (23.8%)
15.77
7.50
0.001
0.005
174 (86.1%) 28 (13.9%)
198 (88.0%) 27 (12.0%)
162 (77.9%) 46 (22.1%)
138 (74.6%) 47 (25.4%)
4.72
12.34
0.02
0.001
Note: CP, covert provocation; PH, public harassment; V, venting; COP, cyber obsessional pursuit.
714
LYNDON ET AL. Discussion
Table 5. Hypothesis 3: Frequencies and Counts of Cyber Obsessional Pursuit by Obsessive Relational Intrusions Cyber obsessional pursuit None Some
ORI None
Some
w2
p
156 (69.3%) 69 (30.7%)
46 (24.7%) 140 (75.3%)
80.55
0.001
and residuals.33,34 Criteria indicated that a three-component solution was appropriate. After rotation, the first component accounted for 36.0% of the total variance in the original variables, whereas the second and third components accounted for 8.2% and 7.7%, respectively. Table 2 presents the loadings and endorsement frequency for each component. The first component consisted of five variables regarding viewing pictures or posting comments in reference to the expartner, but in a more passive or ambiguous fashion. We labeled this factor ‘‘covert provocation,’’ because although the observer or the target may be provoked by the behaviors, they were not overtly obvious or inherently damaging. Chronbach’s alpha for the factor was 0.81. The second component included five variables and addressed intentional and public attempts to harass the ex-partner and was labeled ‘‘public harassment.’’ Chronbach’s alpha was 79. The third component had three variables that addressed how people vent about their ex-partner and his or her new life, and thus, this factor was named ‘‘venting.’’ Chronbach’s alpha was 0.88. These three factors were also nonnormally distributed and were categorized as having done none of these (0) or any of these (1) behaviors. Hypothesis 2: participants who use Facebook to harass their ex-partners will also engage in COP and ORI This hypothesis was supported by all three Facebook subscales. Chi-square analyses were conducted and odds ratios were calculated with the dichotomized variables (i.e., ‘‘none’’ vs. ‘‘some’’). Table 3 presents the frequencies of Facebook harassment behaviors, COP, and ORI. As expected, we found that the factor of covert provocation behaviors on Facebook is associated with COP [v2 (1, n = 410) = 7.47, p = 0.01, OR = 1.79] and with ORI [v2 (1, n = 410) = 15.26, p = 0.001, OR = 2.36; see Table 4]. The second Facebook subscale, public harassment, was also associated with engaging in COP [v2 (1, n = 410) = 15.77, p = 0.001, OR = 2.95] and in ORI [v2 (1, n = 410) = 7.50, p = 0.01, OR = 2.03]. The third Facebook subscale of venting was also associated with perpetration of COP [v2 (1, n = 410) = 4.72, p = 0.02, OR = 1.77] and with ORI [v2 (1, n = 410) = 12.34, p = 0.001, OR = 2.50]. Hypothesis 3: participants who engage in COP will also engage in ORI As seen in Table 5, participants who reported engaging in one or more pursuit behaviors online were more likely to also perpetrate ORI behaviors [v2 (1, n = 410) = 81.05, p = 0.001]. The odds that participants engaged in any COP behavior is 6.88 times greater for participants who had engaged in any traditional pursuit behaviors than for those who reported doing none.
The purpose of the present study was to better understand how Facebook is used to monitor and harass ex-partners. We predicted that individuals would use Facebook for these particular reasons and would also engage in online and offline stalking behaviors—namely cyber obsessional pursuit (COP) and obsessive relational pursuit. We did indeed identify dimensions of use of Facebook to communicate with ex-partners: covert provocation, public harassment, and venting. These three dimensions ranged in severity from merely communicating with ex-partners to monitoring and harassing ex-partners. The less severe behaviors (i.e., those in the covert provocation dimension) were the most commonly reported behaviors, with 67% of participants reporting engaging in at least one of these behaviors and over half reporting at least two. In this dimension, individuals used Facebook to interact with ex-romantic partners in a passive fashion using behaviors that were not inherently damaging to the ex-partner. The more severe and harassing behaviors were reported by fewer numbers of participants; 18% of participants reported at least one attempt to publicly harass their ex-partners (i.e., public harassment) and/or using Facebook to vent about their ex-romantic partner and the expartner’s new life (i.e., venting). The hypothesis that those who use Facebook to monitor or harass their ex-partners would also engage in COP and ORI was supported. Participants who engaged in at least one COP behavior were almost twice as likely to vent about their expartner (e.g., write inappropriate things about an ex-partner and his/her new partner), were almost three times more likely to publically harass their ex-partner (e.g., creating false Facebook pages, posting embarrassing photos), and were almost twice as likely to engage in covert provocation (e.g., look through ex-partner’s photos to see pictures with a new partner) than those who did not engage in any COP. In addition, participants who engaged in ORI were two and a third times as likely to engage in covert provocation, twice as likely to engage in public harassment, two and a half times more likely to engage in venting behavior on Facebook aimed at their ex-partners. Our hypothesis that individuals who perpetrate online through COP also tended to pursue offline via ORI was also supported. Spizberg and Hoobler’s19 sample of victims revealed only mild to moderate overlap between the two forms of pursuit, but we found a stronger relationship. The COP perpetrators were six times more likely than nonperpetrators to also engage in any ORI behavior. There is a mix of relatively benign, moderately serious, and potentially very serious behaviors. As is commonly found,19,26 most of the perpetrators in our sample clustered at the mild end of the pursuit spectrum with relatively few severe behaviors. These perpetrators’ responses are consistent with previous research with victims,19,26 which found that people who perpetrate forms of cyber harassment or cyber stalking also perpetrate offline. Both Melander18 and the present study found that technology shapes the form of relational aggression. Facebook, as with other forms of technology, is both easily accessible and a difficult-to-avoid form of communication; it allows for a sense of distance while maintaining the power of immediacy. Such communication can consist of passive viewing of photographs and messages, but it can also consist of publically
FACEBOOK STALKING humiliating behaviors such as posting embarrassing photographs. What was once private conversation becomes public on Facebook, heightening the level of harassment. These results provide a clear picture that there is a kernel of truth to the phrase ‘‘Facebook stalking,’’ but in reference to former romantic partners. One potential limitation is the nonrepresentative sample of college students. However, college students frequently use Facebook10 and perpetrate stalking behaviors,6,27 making this group a valuable one to examine. We also do not know participants’ motivations for their pursuit. Some of the questions on the Facebook subscales included behaviors designed to either taunt, make fun of, or embarrass ex-partners, but also included at least one behavior motivated by a desire to reunite with the ex-partner. Both types of reasons to pursue may simultaneously exist in pursuers. There is minimal information on pursuit motivation, although victims attribute a motivation to control to their stalkers.30,35 However, no study has examined motivations from the perpetrator’s perspective or for COP or ORI. An additional limitation is that although we have established that participants have a tendency to coperpetrate, we have not established that they are doing so to the same person. Future research should specify whether the perpetration was in regard to the same person. Facebook frequently rolls out new features, including a recent one to let users post their locations, including maps. Users can generate a list of ‘‘friend activity’’ where they can view others’ lists of locations. New features such as the location one were developed too late for inclusion in this study, but future research should include these new means to pursue. Another step for future research is to more thoroughly examine the motivations behind Facebook harassment, along with COP and ORI from the perpetrator’s perspective. It is possible that individuals may create or use an account specifically to harass an ex-partner. If this is the main reason, it may explain why our participants reported less familiarity with Facebook than anticipated. Now that we know that people engage in Facebook harassment and that it is related to other forms of unwanted pursuit, new research should examine what predicts such behavior and attempt a theoretical understanding of why it occurs. Potential predictors include rejection sensitivity,36 self-regulation ability,37 and self-esteem.38 Useful theories have been proposed (e.g., relational goals theory32) and tested in stalking research. There has been some success at using attachment theory27,29 and routine activities theory.39 These theories would be a good starting place to examine Facebook harassment as well as unwanted pursuit. With countless new members joining daily, Facebook is the most popular site. This enormous potential for shaping social interactions clearly warrants attention. Technology is the new frontier in coercive control, monitoring, and harassment.18,19 Online interactions can be anonymous and inconspicuous and provide a means to pursue or harass from a distance. Technology-based stalking behaviors are more difficult for targets to avoid than offline pursuit. Although it is possible to refuse to answer a telephone call (offline pursuit), text messages automatically arrive, making them difficult to avoid. The future will undoubtedly bring even methods to communicate in unwanted ways. Additionally, today’s youths are more familiar with a complementary issue of cyberbullying. As these individuals age and begin dating, they may be
715 more willing to use the same behaviors, which may cross over to COP and cyberstalking. Therefore, cyberstalking laws should be written to cover stalking by any method, as it is improbable that these laws would keep up with technological advances that could be used to stalk.40 Disclosure Statement No competing financial interests exist. References 1. Muise A, Christofides E, Desmarais S. More information than you ever wanted: does Facebook bring out the greeneyed monster of jealousy? CyberPsychology & Behavior 2009; 12:441–444. 2. Zaki Z. (2008) Love and heartbreak on Facebook. http:// abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4865303&page=1 (accessed Oct. 2, 2010). 3. College Candy. (2009) Facebook makes breakups even uglier. http://collegecandy.com/2009/05/20/facebook-makesbreakups-even-uglier/ (accessed Nov. 12, 2010). 4. Dubow B. (2007) Confessions of ‘‘Facebook stalkers.’’ www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007–0307-facebook-stalking_N.htm (accessed Nov. 12, 2010). 5. Urban Dictionary. Facebook Stalking. www.urbandictionary. com (accessed Dec. 1, 2010). 6. Langhinrichsen-Rohling J, Palarea R, Cohen J, et al. Breaking up is hard to do: unwanted pursuit behaviors following the dissolution of a romantic relationship. Violence and Victims 2000; 15:73–90. 7. Cupach WR, Spitzberg BH. Obsessive relational intrusion: incidence, perceived severity, and coping. Violence and Victims 2000; 15:357–372. 8. Baum K, Catalano S, Rand M, et al. (2009) Stalking victimization in the United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ report No. 224527. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. www .ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/svus.pdf (accessed Jan. 20, 2009) 9. Cupach W, Spitzberg B. The state of the art of stalking: taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior 2007; 12:64–86. 10. Facebook. (2010) Press room statistics. www.facebook.com/ press/info.php?statistics (accessed Dec. 4, 2010). 11. Raacke J, Bonds-Raacke J. MySpace and Facebook: applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friendnetworking sites. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2008; 11:169–174. http://search.ebscohost.com.jproxy.lib.ecu.edu. 12. Bonds-Raacke J, Raacke J. Myspace and Facebook: identifying dimensions of uses and gratifications for friend networking sites. Individual Differences Research 2010; 8:27–33. 13. Hargittai E. Whose space? Differences among users and nonusers of social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2007; 13:276–297. 14. Mehdizadeh S. Self-presentation 2.0: narcissism and selfesteem on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2010; 13:357–364. 15. Ellison N, Steinfield C, Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook ‘friends:’ social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2007; 12:1143–1168. 16. Valenzuela S, Park N, Kee KF. Is there social capital in a social network site?: Facebook use and college students’ life satisfaction, trust, and participation. Computer-Mediated Communication 2009; 14:875–901. 17. Park N, Kee KF, Valenzuela S. Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and
716
18.
19.
20. 21. 22.
23.
24.
25.
26. 27.
28.
29.
30.
LYNDON ET AL. gratifications, and social outcomes. CyberPsychology & Behavior 2009; 12:729–733. Melander LA. College students’ perceptions of intimate partner cyber harassment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2010; 13:263–268. Spitzberg B, Hoobler G. Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society 2002; 4:71–92. Finn J. A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2004; 19:468–483. Fullerton B. (2003) Features–Cyberage Stalking. LLRX.com www.llrx.com/features/cyberstalking.htm D’Ovidio R, Doyle J. A study on cyberstalking understanding investigative hurdles. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 2003; 72:10–17. Southworth C, Finn J, Dawson S, et al. Intimate partner violence, technology, and stalking. Violence Against Women 2007; 13:842–856. Bocij P, Bocij H, McFarlane, L. Cyberstalking: a case study of serial harassment in the UK. British Journal of Forensic Practice 2003; 5:25–32. Deirmenjian J. Stalking in cyberspace. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 1999; 27: 407–413. Sheridan L, Grant T. Is cyberstalking different? Psychology, Crime & Law 2007; 13:627–640. Davis KE, Ace A, Andra M. Stalking perpetrators and psychological maltreatment of partners: anger-jealousy, attachment insecurity, need for control, and breakup context. Violence and Victims 2000; 15:407–425. Cupach WR, Spitzberg BH. (1998) Obsessive relational intrusion and stalking. In Spitzberg BH, Cupach WR, eds. The Dark side of close relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 233–263. Dutton LB, Winstead BA. Predicting unwanted pursuit: attachment relationship satisfaction, relationship alternatives, and break up distress. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships 2006; 23:565–586. Tjaden P, Thoennes N. (1998) Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: findings from the national violence against women survey. National Institute of Justice Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NCJ
31.
32.
33.
34. 35.
36.
37.
38. 39.
40.
report No. 172837. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Haugaard JJ, Seri LG. Stalking and other forms of intrusive contact after the dissolution of adolescent dating or romantic relationships. Violence and Victims 2003; 18:279–297. Cupach WK, Spitzberg BH. (2004) The dark side of relationship pursuit: from attraction to obsession and stalking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Enbaum Associates Publishers. Mertler CA, Vannatta RA. (2010) Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: practical application and interpretation, fourth edition. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing. Stevens J. (1992) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Brewster M. Power and control dynamics in prestalking and stalking situations. Journal of Family Violence 2003; 18: 207–217. Downey G, Feldman SI. Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1996; 70:1327–1343. Davis KE, Swan, SC, Gambone, LE. Why doesn’t he just leave me alone? Persistent pursuit: a critical review of theories and evidence. Sex Roles (in press). Rosenberg M. (1965) Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Mustaine EE, Tewksbury R. A routine activity theory explanation for women’s stalking victimizations. Violence Against Women 1999; 5:43–62. The National Center for Victims of Crime. (2010) National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. The model of the stalking code revisited: responding to the new realities of stalking. www.ncvc.org/SRC/AGP.Net/Components/ DocumentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID = 45930 (accessed May 5 2011).
Address correspondence to: Dr. Amy Lyndon Department of Psychology East Carolina University Rawl 104 Greenville, NC 27858 E-mail:
[email protected]
