Preventing Online Victimization: College Students’ Views on Intervention and Prevention

Abstract

Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites have changed the way we interact online. Technological advances have also facilitated the emergence of cyberstalking and online harassment, a growing issue on college campuses. This study utilizes focus group data to examine college students’ experiences with online harassment and cyberstalking. Students voiced concerns with online tracking, falsifying identities, and harassment. They also noted that incoming first-year students and those negotiating some of their first romantic relationships are especially vulnerable. In addition, students were asked to propose appropriate prevention, education, and intervention strategies at the college level. Surprisingly, many students recommended offline programs to battle this online problem.

Keywords

Internet and abuse online harassment cyberstalking social media and violence stalking

Introduction

Internet technology has continued to evolve, significantly changing the way people conduct their daily lives and interact socially and professionally (Ritter, 2012). Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites allow individuals to post private information for a large audience to view. This progression in technology has also facilitated the emergence of cyberstalking, an issue on college campuses (Baldasare, Bauman, Goldman, & Robie, 2012; Bossler & Holt, 2012; Finn, 2004; MacDonald & Roberts-Pittman, 2010; Reyns, Henson, & Fisher, 2012).

Cyberstalking has several key elements: (a) repeated unwanted pursuit and/or harassment of an individual (b) with the use of electronic or communication/network devices (c) that would instill fear in a reasonable person (Finn, 2004; Reyns et al., 2012). The complexity of this behavior has been compounded by the rapid advancement of technology. Moreover, because definitions vary widely, so do victimization prevalence estimates, ranging from 9% to 34% of college students (Baldasare et al., 2012).

This study utilizes focus group data to examine college students’ experiences with online harassment and cyberstalking. In addition, students were asked to propose appropriate prevention and intervention strategies at the college level.

The Nature and Prevalence of Cyberstalking

New technologies provide new tools to inflict harm, whether intentional or unintentional. Cyberstalking involves a variety of repetitious behaviors. These behaviors include, but are not limited to, repeated unsolicited emails and instant messages that may carry obscene/pornographic material or threats of violence, unwanted sexual advances, electronic sabotage via spam email intended to overload the victim’s email inbox, viruses sent to the victim’s computer by use of a ploy referred to as phishing, searching out personal information online about the victim in an effort to further pursue or harass, posting information online about the victim that would be considered libelous or defamatory to the victim’s character, identity fraud or assuming the identity of the victim to spread misinformation, inciting the assistance of third parties in harassing the victim, and using the interconnectedness of the Internet to inconspicuously invade the victim’s computer with the intent to cause damage to the system, monitor their activities, or gain information about the victim (Finn, 2004; Reyns et al., 2012). Roberts (2008) noted that cyberstalking occurs in both the public dimension (on Internet websites where comments can be posted in a public forum) as well as the private dimension (which includes actions that occur between victim and offender in a private setting such as email, spamming, and computer viruses). Cyberstalking may also include the use of other electronic devices such as cell phones, fax machines, digital cameras, and Global Positioning Systems (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2002; Reyns et al., 2012).

There is little consensus in the current literature concerning the actual prevalence of cyberstalking. This problem is linked to limitations in research designs and theoretical frameworks as well as the lack of a clear definition that accurately captures cyberstalking activities (Alexy, Burgess, Baker, & Smoyak, 2005; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010; Reyns et al., 2012; Roberts, 2008). The National Crime Victimization Survey included questions on stalking in its Supplemental Victimization Survey (Catalano, 2012). While most items focused on traditional stalking behaviors (i.e., following, property damage, monitoring), the survey included several items related to cyberstalking. The results suggest that 15 in every 1,000 people above the age of 18 were victims of stalking within the year prior to the survey and of those, approximately one in four reported behaviors that were classified as cyberstalking. In this national survey of the general population, the most common form of cyberstalking was the repeated use of emails (experienced by 83% cyberstalking victims) (Catalano, 2012; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010; Reyns, Henson, & Fisher, 2011). In addition to the NCVS, the organization Working to Halt Online Abuse (WHOA) compiles reports made to them by victims of cyberstalking (Reyns et al., 2012). In 2008, WHOA determined that cyberstalking offenders (when they could be identified) were most likely to be male, a previous intimate partner, located in a different state or country, and use email as the primary means of harassment (Reyns et al., 2012). In its 2007 Teens and Social Media report, the Pew Research Internet Project noted that 41% of girls ages 15 to 17 experienced cyberbullying and 16% of students reported receiving threatening emails or messages. These data predate the explosion of popular social media platforms such as Instagram and Twitter. In a more recent study by Pew, women aged 18 to 24 using the Internet experienced almost twice the amount of harassment and more than three times the amount of stalking than their male peers did online (Pew Research Center, 2014). Another recent study found that of the 131,000 instances of the words “slut” and “whore” on U.K.-based Twitter accounts during a 1-month period, 18% appeared to be threatening (Bartlet, Norrie, Patel, Rumpel, & Wibberley, 2015).

The current literature suggests that the problem of cyberstalking is especially problematic among college students (Dressing, Bailer, Anders, Wagner, & Gallas, 2014; Fraser, Olsen, Lee, Southworth, & Tucker, 2010). This may be associated with some of the specific characteristics of college life. First, college students conduct a majority of their work with computers and the university communications network. They are also at the developmental age of seeking out a potential mate and the college environment involves the close proximity of students and a community populated with potential victims and offenders. Finally, the accessibility of student information through published student directories may also place students at risk (Alexy et al., 2005; Finn, 2004; R. Lee, 1998; Reyns et al., 2011). Research conducted by Reyns et al. (2011) highlights the vulnerability of this population. In their survey of 974 college students, 40% reported some form of cyberstalking victimization. Of their sample, females were more likely to be victims and males were more likely to be offenders. Offenders were also more likely to be acquaintances or strangers than intimate partners. Alexy et al. (2005) sought to further understand cyberstalking in the college environment by examining the perceptions of college students when presented with a scenario of cyberstalking. Interestingly, only 30% of participants identified the situation as cyberstalking. Respondents in this study also reported their own experiences with cyberstalking. Among victims of cyberstalking, 11% told nobody, 75% told friends, and 54% told family members. It was determined that, among this sample, individuals were less likely to do something about cyberstalking because they believed it would eventually stop (Alexy et al., 2005). This is consistent with Parsons-Pollard and Moriaty’s (2009) conclusion that a failure to appropriately identify and respond cyberstalking results in fewer victim resources. Because it is underreported, the size of the problem is minimized. This minimization, however, may be misplaced as the recent murder of a feminist student activist at Mary Washington University suggests. After repeated harassment by other students on social media for her political views, Grace Rebecca Mann’s strangulation has raised widespread concern that online threats in a campus community may migrate into offline violence when they are not taken seriously (Dewan & Stolberg, 2015).

Characteristics of the Internet Environment Conductive to Cyberstalking and Online Harassment

With increased dependence on the Internet in both professional and personal aspects of life as well as advancements in technology, researchers expect cyberstalking to continue to be a challenge in the future (Finn, 2004; R. Lee, 1998; Parsons-Pollard & Moriarty, 2009). Roberts (2008) identified characteristics of the Internet that may promote stalking behavior. A great deal of information about individuals can be discovered on the Internet, including personal information freely advertised on social networking sites, information published by public and commercial agencies, and paid information provided by online broker agencies. Moreover, the systemic nature of the Internet’s interconnectedness greatly expands the number of potential stalking targets, and current vulnerabilities in the Internet allow tech savvy individuals to hack into a computer or online social network profile to gain information about a victim or pursue malicious endeavors. Finally, the level of anonymity associated with the Internet and the relative ease of falsifying one’s online identity promote reduced inhibitions (Roberts, 2008).

Barak (2005) noted that five features of the online environment increase the risk of misbehavior: access, affordability, anonymity, acceptability, and aloneness. Ease of access and affordability increase the potential number of perpetrators and victims. Anonymity, and the ability to hide or disguise one’s true identity online, may encourage misbehavior without fear of consequences. Acceptability is linked to the nature of the online environment, suggesting that any behavior, regardless of how offensive, will find an accepting online audience somewhere on the Internet. And aloneness refers to the different norms for online versus face-to-face interactions. Because others are not physically present, there are no “negative social cues, eye contact, or accountability for existing social norms and standards” (Ritter, 2012, p. 30).

Cyberstalking among the college population may also be linked to the expansion of online dating services (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Palarea, & Cohen, 2000; Lyndon, Bonds-Raacke, & Cratty, 2011). In addition to uninhibited behavior and relative anonymity associated with social exchanges over the Internet, Finn (2004) recognized that interactions via chat rooms or email facilitate a false sense of intimacy. This could lead students to misinterpret another’s intentions and foster feelings of proximity despite actual geographic distance. This may result in an idealized perception of an online acquaintance that is contingent upon the lack of social cues associated with “meeting” people via the Internet (Finn, 2004; Thompson, Dennison, & Stewart, 2012).

Comparing Stalking and Cyberstalking

Researchers have debated whether cyberstalking should receive consideration as a singular social problem, deviating from traditional stalking in terms of operating methods and offender typology (McNamara & Marsil, 2012; Reyns et al., 2012; Trottier, 2012). This impulse to differentiate the two types of stalking is reflected in the list of contemporary names for traditional stalking: offline, proximal, physical, spatial, and conventional stalking (Dowdell & Bradley, 2010; B. H. Lee & O’Sullivan, 2014). Clearly, offline (traditional) and online stalking (cyberstalking) have different spatial and temporal characteristics (Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010; Reyns et al., 2011; Tjaden, 2009; Welsh & Lavoie, 2012). While traditional stalking requires victim and offender to converge at a common place and time, cyberstalking can occur even when there is a great distance between the offender and intended target, and the messages sent from a cyberstalker can be initiated at any time and still assuredly reach the victim (Reyns, Burek, Henson, & Fisher, 2013; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010; Reyns et al., 2011).

Several researchers have examined the relationship between cyberstalking and traditional stalking. Positing clear differences between the two, Sheridan and Grant (2007) concluded that cyberstalkers target younger victims, have multiple victims, are more likely to use obscene material, are more likely to have an Internet addiction, and are less likely to have a criminal record when compared with traditional stalkers. Sheridan and Grant (2007) proposed four types of stalkers that are inclusive of traditional stalking and cyberstalking. These categories include those that use purely online stalking methods, those that use purely offline stalking methods, those that begin by using cyberstalking techniques but later resort to offline stalking, and those that use cyberstalking techniques in conjunction with traditional stalking behaviors. In a study of 1,051 victims of stalking, Sheridan and Grant (2007) found that most of the victims were female, instances of pure cyberstalking were less prevalent among ex-partners and more likely to be used by acquaintances or strangers, and individuals victimized by pure cyberstalking were more likely to be taken seriously by police. The enhanced police response may be based on the fact that cyberstalking is more likely to provide tangible physical evidence. More importantly, it was determined that offenders who begin with cyberstalking and crossover into offline stalking were deemed the most dangerous as they utilized more extreme stalking behaviors. Sheridan and Grant (2007) state that certain individuals who experience gratification from cyberstalking may seek a greater thrill by extending their fantasies into reality to increase their level of satisfaction. Based on their findings, Sheridan and Grant (2007) argue that stalking should not be rigidly defined by the type of contact (traditional stalking or cyberstalking) but should be examined as a broad spectrum of behaviors that carry the potential to blend together.

We seek to expand our understanding of college students’ experiences with cyberstalking using focus group data. In addition, we ask the students for their recommendations for intervention and prevention of cyberstalking.

Method

We present findings from seven focus groups conducted in 2013 with a sample of 41 undergraduate students (24 male and 17 female) enrolled at an East coast university. The study initially focused on three aspects of campus crime: sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking. We were interested in learning about students’ experiences and recommendations for intervention and prevention. Undergraduate students from key leadership groups—Reserve Officer Training Corp (ROTC), Peer Educators, Greek Life, Athletics, Resident Assistants, and Military-Affiliated students—participated in this study. The target groups were selected based on research that indicates that these highly visible student populations are at elevated risk of violent crime perpetration, victimization, or receiving student victim disclosures.

We offer several justifications for the selection of these groups. A woman faces the highest risk in her lifetime for sexual assault victimization during her undergraduate years, and, if victimized, is most likely to be assaulted in familiar surroundings by an acquaintance, thus our recruitment of resident assistants, who are often first responders (Langton & Sinozich, 2014; Fisher et al., 2000). Sexual victimization of women occurs at higher rates within the military community than in civilian society, 25% to 38% versus 17%, respectively (Himmelfarb, Yeager, & Mint, 2006). Military-affiliated students with their Government Issue benefits are a growing population on many U.S. campuses and represent 25% of the university’s student body in this study. The frequency of domestic violence calls to the National Domestic Violence Hotline from 2006 to 2011 by people affiliated with the military more than tripled. Greek life and athletic team members are viewed as opinion leaders on campus and play a critical role in establishing new social norms and shifting campus culture to prevent violence against women. They also represent a group that the latest research demonstrates are “more likely to indicate having pressured or forced someone into sexual contact without explicit consent” (Zapp, 2014, p. 2). In addition, these groups have been found to be at higher risk of perpetration with higher levels of rape myth acceptance in their all-male peer groups (Loh, Gidez, Lob, & Luthra, 2005).

Focus groups were facilitated by two interpersonal violence prevention educators from the university’s women’s center. Institutional Review Board approval for the study was secured and the researchers worked with faculty advisors and staff to send an initial recruitment email to students from the target groups. Incentives valued at US$10 per participant were offered. Focus group participants (n = 41) were identified as “student leaders” and were older (M age = 24.3 years) than the general undergraduate population at the university (M age = 22.9 years). The focus groups also had a higher proportion of males (59% vs. 46%) than the undergraduate population. Table 1 presents descriptive information about the sample.

Table 1.

Sample Description (n = 41).

	n	%^a
Focus groups
Female athletes	4	10
Male athletes	6	15
Military 1	5	12
Military 2	4	10
Resident assistants	10	24
Peer educators	6	15
Greek leaders	6	15
Sample demographics
Female	19	46
Male	22	54
Age range: between 18 and 31 with a median of 21
White	17	41
African American	13	32
Hispanic	6	15
Asian	3	7
Other	2	5

All percentages are rounded up.

Focus group conversations were semistructured, exploring sexual assault, dating abuse/violence, and stalking. For each subject, students were asked to define the behavior; to describe what it looks like on campus and where, in their experience, it normally occurs; and to state what they thought first-year students needed to know about the problem. The final question posed in every session asked students what they would do to end sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking if they were the president of the university. Focus groups averaged 90 minutes in length and were digitally recorded and professionally transcribed.

Transcripts were downloaded into the qualitative software program Dedoose™ and excerpts were coded into categories organized around the focus group questions and by emerging themes. The software program also provided data on the frequency of participant responses within and across groups. Each transcript was coded twice, confirming the coding structure and the resulting emergent themes.

Results

Although members of the focus groups were asked a broad range of questions concerning sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking, the issue of online harassment and cyberstalking was emphasized by each group, suggesting a level of student concern not reflected in responses to our other questions. Every focus group identified online harassment and stalking as a growing threat to student safety. Although this form of violence was not specifically addressed in our questions, it emerged repeatedly in the discussions. In the following, we summarize the main themes that emerged in these conversations.

Online Tracking

Students described the problem as constant “liking” on social media and constant texting. They also noted that the problem may include identity theft or catphishing.

They make a fake profile and you think they’re your friend. They pretend to be someone . . . and then I post that I am going somewhere and (the stalker) shows up at the same places.

The ease of tracking via social media sites and phone applications such as Facebook or Foursquare was identified as facilitating obsessive behavior. The majority of participants stated that they had personally experienced this type of tracking or harassment or knew someone who was a victim during their time at college. Specifically, 19% or eight out of 41 participants reported that they were personally stalked online. Of those reporting personal experience, two were male and six were female.

Four Square or Facebook where you can check in is a great tool to track people down and so it can be dangerous. People use it for fun like, “I’m going here,” but you have to be careful because you could have a stalker that wants to see every location you are going to.

He usually uses Facebook as a way to meet girls or whatever. And he’s actually gotten a girl’s class schedule and would be at every classroom that she got out of just to try and talk for a few minutes.

Some students stated that online harassment or stalking may begin when a romantic relationship ends, noting that students may be inexperienced with ending relationships and not know when or how to let go.

I had a long-term bad relationship that took literally until this year to end. I had to literally re-friend the person, see how many friends she shared with me, it took me a week of just sorting this out and to block all those people, groups, and networks until I could finally know that she wasn’t looking at my stuff.

Students also noted that dealing with online stalking can also be more difficult when individuals live in close quarters on campus.

Living in a residence hall, you might not be able to get away from that person. Say it’s the guy across the hall. You have to see him every day. So if you confront that situation, it might make your life really awkward.

Special Vulnerability of Incoming Students

Participants noted that many incoming students lack boundaries when posting personal information online. Incoming students, eager to form college friendships, may place themselves at risk of victimization or public ridicule. Several students mentioned the case of a student who posted a video clip of herself engaging in a sexual act. The video went viral as students gossiped about her on the incoming class Twitter feed. Within 24 hours, the video was trending internationally as the clip was reposted over and over.

About a month ago, an incoming freshman girl put up a video on “vine”; it’s like Instagram but for video. So she put up a video of her having sex and it went extremely viral . . . And people told me but I was mainly disgusted, not with what she did, but with how people were chastising her.

Until this generation, most college students had the luxury of making their social missteps without a worldwide audience. This student’s introductory video trended on Twitter the day after she posted it. Today, the impulsive acts of adolescence can be shared with thousands before a student even arrives on campus. The resulting public shaming coupled with a seemingly risk-free environment of online posting combine to set the stage for violence online and offline. Students readily noted that the response to this student’s online video was gendered—A male student posting a similar video would be unlikely to experience the same level of online ridicule. They observed that misogyny had found a megaphone online and was quick to swing into action when a woman was perceived to have transgressed gender norms.

Repeatedly, the vulnerability of incoming students who are eager to form college friendships was discussed. Several emphasized the need to think before posting items to social media, using the test, “Would you want Grandma to see that?”

You have to be really aware that what you are putting out there, one, Instagram owns it once you post it, and two, what you are putting out there about yourself, because your ideas and your pictures are suggestive of what you represent. People may not really know you, they’re just random users who follow you for the heck of following you.

Prevention, Intervention, and Education

Given the nature of online harassment and cyberstalking, one might expect students to offer online solutions, but students recommended face-to-face prevention to shift the campus culture both online and off. All seven focus groups were in agreement regarding the need for mandatory prevention education for incoming students. They stressed the use of incentives or holds on class registration to gain compliance, the importance of countering widely held misperceptions about assault and abuse among students, and skills in healthy communication/boundary setting. While they were open to the use of video and online programming, they were most enthusiastic about peer-to-peer and face-to-face education:

I think too a lot of administration sometimes doesn’t get that . . . no matter how we make it, the facts are still the facts and they waste a lot of money going and making brochures and pamphlets when they have all of these students who have been here who could actually have these real conversations with the freshmen as soon as they get there.

In addition, fostering peer-to-peer and mentoring relationships emerged as a prevention strategy in most of the groups. Students advocated housing upper class students on first-year halls and promoting big sister and brother prevention programs in the fraternities:

This is almost off topic, but I think mixing class hallways, like freshmen with older people can be really helpful sometimes. Maybe have a freshmen hall or two as an option for people who want that—right, but upperclassmen aren’t gonna let so much shenanigans go on necessarily . . . I feel like it gets the upperclassmen away from just finding their place and staying there ’cause they’re really good at doing that. Mixing with freshmen would get them out there, but then also for the freshmen, it would help them see what that mature college student looks like and pick up on some of those behaviors.

I think it can also help model responsible behavior. I’m not necessarily talking about study skills or things like that, but upperclassmen go to parties and they’re probably not drinking age, but they go anyway and they know how to do it without blacking out or experiencing some of these other things (like online stalking) we talked about.

Students argued that these “real-life conversations” between older and newer students is an underutilized prevention strategy. They noted that many first-year students arrive on campus eager to learn about the university and make friends. Left unguided, these qualities may make new students vulnerable, but these same qualities make new students educable.

Finally, two of the most-cited educational needs were teaching healthy relationships along with engaging men in prevention. Male participants were emphatic that teaching positive relationship and safe intervention skills would be more effective for them than being addressed as potential perpetrators. They also recommended sensitivity to the social background of incoming students, noting that this often shapes the attitudes they bring to campus and the twitter feed.

I think in the military the majority of the people who have girlfriends have no business having a girlfriend because they’re not ready. I mean they don’t know what it is to be in a relationship. You know, they’re doing it because they’re lonely and they’re looking for something to fill that void, and usually it’s a girl and alcohol, which are both bad combinations.

For the young men it’s just you gotta change how they see life which goes to everything from media to movies to just their experiences in high school while they’re figuring out the social scene. And that’s just some young men have just never had or seen a good relationship and (think that violence or abuse) is just how things are done.

The power of these influences must be taken into account if we want to empower men as allies. It will not do to minimize the strength of received ideas of masculinity and its attendant codes of behavior; they must be discussed critically, head-on, and alternative constructions and behaviors must be developed:

You never really know what’s going on in between the guy and the girl, like if it’s mutual or whatever. So you don’t really want to like cock- block the guy by (asking) if they’re perfectly consensual about it, you don’t want to (say,) hey you all right, ’cause you just don’t want . . . to risk that really, especially if it’s your friend. So I guess knowing more (warning) signs.

This young man underscored the power of teaching students to identify potential abuse at a party or on a screen. Given the social pressure to minimize or misperceive others’ behavior, prevention education must provide clear, behavior-based descriptions of high-risk situations. Overall, the prevention strategies provided by male and female students were similar in content though women were more apt to identify the need for stronger communication skills as a solution than were the men who focused on how and what to post online. In addition, the majority of men’s suggestions were directed at what women should and should not do, while the women offered strategies for everyone online.

Limitations

Qualitative analysis is an important first step in expanding our understanding of cyberstalking among college students. The sample size in the present study is relatively small, and because our study was not initially focused exclusively on cyberstalking, we had limited questions and prompts related to the topic. We went into the focus groups expecting to gather information on a broad array of campus problems, and the students focused heavily on the specific challenges of cyberstalking. It is now up to us to follow their lead and collect additional, more specific information on this issue.

Discussion

Although we initially planned a broad study of interpersonal violence on campus, the students in our focus groups repeatedly emphasized cyberstalking and online harassment. The men and women in our study described their own experiences and discussed possible prevention strategies. Consistent with earlier research (Pew Research Center, 2014; Reyns et al., 2012), the women in our study were more likely to report cyberstalking victimization than the men. The students also reported connections between online and offline stalking, consistent with the linkage asserted by Sheridan and Grant (2007). Finally, none of the students in our study indicated that they reported their victimization to the police, a troubling pattern also found by Alexy et al. (2005).

These findings offer important insight into student concerns. Our next step is to pose these questions to a larger student sample to examine these issues in greater depth. Specifically, we plan to build on this research with larger surveys of the student population. Focus group themes will guide the preparation of survey questions as we seek to expand our understanding of the student experience. We will focus on cyberstalking and its connection to traditional stalking as well as sexual and relationship violence. Such research is important, given the risk college students face online (Dressing et al., 2014; Fraser et al., 2010).

Increasingly, youth culture is created and mediated online. In this virtual space, often hailed as the most democratic of forums, a vacuum of civic sensibility exists. Being online, young people can act anonymously, unencumbered by a sense of responsibility for the common good (Chik, 2008; Strawhun, Adams, & Huss, 2013). Unfortunately, it is now in this virtual public square that many students experiment with their gender performance, modeling themselves after celebrities and developing their public persona and voice with little guidance or sense of real-life consequences (Yu & Chou, 2009). Without long-standing civil traditions or established social etiquette, the world of social media is fast becoming a “wild west shootout” where anything goes (Marcum, Higgins, & Ricketts, 2014). Moreover, because it is a highly visual medium, women, whose physical appearance determines their social value in our culture, are aggressively rewarded or sanctioned in these spaces for conforming to or subverting gender expectations.

This environment sets the stage for violence both online and offline (Yu, 2014). It can perpetuate misperceptions and facilitate online stalking and harassment, which can bleed off the screen into the student union. Fortunately, college campuses are fertile ground for producing a culture shift from seed. Student bodies turn over every 5 years, and graduates take the values learned on their campuses into the world. Given this, the students in this study deserve to have their suggestions for prevention heeded. Universities should have mandatory prevention education programs teaching online citizenship along with bystander intervention skills for Facebook and the fraternity party alike. Third- and fourth-year undergraduates should be enlisted as mentors for incoming first years to model respectful and safe behaviors both online and offline. Finally, because the most effective change is made from both the bottom up and the top down simultaneously, the university must reward students who watch out for one another by telling their stories, awarding them honors, and providing them with opportunities to develop and lead prevention programs. Such a collaborative approach is essential to comprehensively address the cyberstalking threat on campus.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Wendi E. White is the interpersonal violence prevention coordinator at Old Dominion University’s Women’s Center tasked with developing prevention education for the student body. Her background includes community organizing, public policy advocacy, and fundraising to address the economic, educational, and environmental issues that disproportionately affect women and children.

Dianne Carmody is a university professor of sociology and criminal justice at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. Her research interests include the media portrayal of crime and criminals, the criminal justice response to intimate partner assault, school violence, stalking, and campus rape victimization.

References

Alexy

E. M.

Burgess

A. W.

Baker

Smoyak

S. A.

(2005). Perceptions of cyberstalking among college students. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 5, 279-289.

Baldasare

Bauman

Goldman

Robie

(2012). Cyberbullying? Voices of college students. In Wankel

Wankel

L. A.

(Eds.), Misbehavior online in higher education (pp. 127-155). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

Barak

(2005). Sexual harassment on the internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 77-92.

Bartlet

Norrie

Patel

Rumpel

Wibberley

(2015). Misogyny on Twitter. London, England. Available from www.demos.co.uk

Bossler

A. M.

Holt

T. J.

(2012). Online abuse: Cyberbullying, harassment and stalking. In Yan

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of cyber behavior (pp. 911-917). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Catalano

. (2012, September). Stalking victims in the United States—Revised (NCJ 224527). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Chik

. (2008). Harassment through the digital medium: A cross-jurisdictional comparative analysis on the law on cyberstalking. Journal of International Commercial Law and Technology, 3, 13-44.

Dewan

Stolberg

S. G.

(2015, May 6). University of Mary Washington, where woman was killed, faces scrutiny. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/us/university-of-mary-washington-where-woman-was-killed-faces-scrutiny.html

Dowdell

E. B.

Bradley

P. K.

(2010). Risky internet behaviors: A case study of online and offline stalking. The Journal of School Nursing, 26, 436-442. doi:10.1177/1059840510380209

10.

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, 61-67. doi:10.1090/cyber.2012.0231

11.

Finn

(2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 468-483.

12.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2000, December). The sexual victimization of college women (NCJ 182369). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

13.

Fisher

B.S.

Cullen

F.T.

Turner

M.G.

(2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a national study of college women. Criminology & Public Policy, 1, 257-308.

14.

Fraser

Olsen

Lee

Southworth

Tucker

(2010). The new age of stalking: Technological implications for stalking. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 61, 39-55. doi:10.1111/j.1755-6988.2010.01051.x

15.

Himmelfarb

Yaeger

Mintz

(2006). Posttraumatic stress disorder in female veterans with military and civilian sexual trauma. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 19, 837-846. doi:10.1002/jts.20163

16.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

Palarea

Cohen

(2000). Breaking up is hard to do: Unwanted pursuit behaviors following the dissolution of a romantic relationship. Violence and Victims, 15, 73-90.

17.

Langton

Sinozich

(2014, December 11). Rape and sexual assault among college-age females, 1995-2013 (NCJ 248471). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

18.

Lee

. (1998). Romantic and electronic stalking in a college context. William & Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 4, 373-466.

19.

Lee

B. H.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

(2014). The ex-factor: Characteristics of online and offline post-relationship contact and tracking among Canadian emerging adults. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 23, 96-105. doi:10.3138/cjhs.2415

20.

Loh

Gidyez

C. A.

Lobo

T. R.

Luthra

(2005). A prospective analysis of sexual assault perpetration risk factors related to perpetrator characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 1325-1348.

21.

Lyndon

Bonds-Raacke

Cratty

A. D.

(2011). College students’ Facebook stalking of ex-partners. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 711-716. doi:10.1089/cyber.2010.0588

22.

MacDonald

Roberts-Pittman

(2010). Cyberbullying among college students: Prevalence and demographic differences. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 2003-2009.

23.

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, 47-56.

24.

McNamara

C. L.

Marsil

D. F.

(2012). The prevalence of stalking among college students: The disparity between researcher-and self-identified victimization. Journal of American College Health, 60, 168-174.

25.

Parsons-Pollard

Moriarty

L. J.

(2009). Cyberstalking: Utilizing what we do know. Victims & Offenders, 4, 435-441.

26.

Pew Research Center. (2007). Teens, social media and privacy. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/05/21/teens-social-media-and-privacy/

27.

Pew Research Center. (2014). Online harassment. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/online-harassment/

28.

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 & Justice, 36, 1-17. doi:10.1080/0735648X.2011.641816

29.

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, 998-1005.

30.

Reyns

B. W.

Henson

Fisher

B. S.

(2011). Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle-routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1149-1169.

31.

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, 1-25.

32.

Ritter

B. A

. (2012). Say that to my face: Factors inherent to the online environment that increase the likelihood of harassing and prejudicial behavior. In Wankel

Wankel

L. A.

(Eds.), Misbehavior online in higher education (pp. 25-42). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

33.

Roberts

(2008). Jurisdictional and definitional concerns with computer-mediated interpersonal crimes: An analysis on cyber stalking. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2, 271-285.

34.

Sheridan

L. P.

Grant

(2007). Is cyberstalking different? Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 627-640.

35.

Langton

Sinozich

(2014). Rape and Sexual Assault Among College-Age Females, 1995-2013. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. NCJ 248471.

36.

Strawhun

Adams

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, 715-730. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.11-00145

37.

Thompson

C. M.

Dennison

S. M.

Stewart

(2012). Are female stalkers more violent than male stalkers? Understanding gender differences in stalking violence using contemporary sociocultural beliefs. Sex Roles, 66, 351-365. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9911-2

38.

Tjaden

P. G.

(2009). Stalking policies and research in the United States: A twenty year retrospective. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15, 261-278.

39.

Trottier

. (2012). Interpersonal surveillance on social media. Canadian Journal of Communication, 37, 319-332.

40.

Welsh

Lavoie

J. A. A.

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

41.

(2014). Fear of cyber crime among college students in the United States: An exploratory study. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 8, 36-46.

42.

Chou

(2009). Does authentic happiness exist in cyberspace? Implications for understanding and guiding college students’ Internet attitudes and behaviors. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 1135-1138.

43.

Zapp

. (2014). Sexual victimization and social norms on the college campus. EverFi Insight Report, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://info.everfi.com/rs/everfi/images/EverFiInsightReportWinter2015.pdf