online stalking in real-space and cyber-space: bridging the domains

H. Spitzberg

School of CommunicationSan Diego State University

B rian

Presentation at the International Association for Intelligence Education,Washington DC

9 June 2011

2

Stalking: An unwanted and fear-inducing [intentional] pattern of intrusions or communication imposed on another (Mullen et al., 2000)

Cyberstalking: Using telecommunications device that transmits with intent to “annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass” (USC 47:5:II:23)

Obsessive Relational Intrusion (ORI): Unwanted pursuit of intimacy through repeated intrusions of privacy (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2001)

INTIMATE

RELATIONSHIPS

ORI

Stalking need not seek intimacy

ORI need not cause fear or threat

Cyber-

bullyingSTALKING

IPV

Stalking vs. ORI

Stalking MotivesThe desires of the heart are as crooked as corkscrews.

W. H. Auden. 1937 INSTRUMENTAL (persecutory*, predatory**, revenge***, proactive): Agenda (“issue-based” stalking, disputes) Control (control, intimidation, isolation, possession) Instrumental Affect (attention-seeking, harass,

humiliate, revenge, jealous possessiveness, scare)EXPRESSIVE (amorous*, affective**, love***, reactive): Affective: love, infatuation, jealousy, envy, betrayal Affective: anger, rage, grief Relational Bid: contact, initiation, friendship, courtship,

escalation, reconciliation, etc. Sexual *Harmon et al. ‘98; **Meloy ‘01; ***Rosenfeld ‘00

3

Stalking MotivesThe desires of the heart are as crooked as corkscrews.

W. H. Auden. 1937 PERSONALOGICAL: Incompetence: mental disorder, social incompetence Personality disorder: psychopath, obsessive, antisocial

CONTEXTUAL: Break up/separation Incidental, episodic, periodic, ritual Interactional/interdependence Relational nostalgia Rival

4

Mode x Motive Typology

MotiveAffiliative AggressiveM

ode

Inst

rum

enta

l

E

xpre

ssiv

e Disorganized(reactive)

(proactive)OrganizedIntrusive

Annoying

HighRisk

HighRisk

Mod.Risk

LowRisk

8

POPULATION TYPEClinical/ Forensic

General Population Collegiate

% SD N % SD N % SD N% Victim Prevalence** 39 26 122 20 16 77 28 18 76% F Victim Prevalence*** 53 24 122 19 14 77 26 15 76% M Victim Prevalence 14 1 122 13 14 77 22 14 76% Threat*** 52 21 122 43 23 77 27 21 76% Physical Violence** 38 22 122 33 22 77 22 18 76% Sexual Violence 10 10 122 11 10 77 14 7 76# Duration (Months)** 10 8 122 28 23 77 4 2 76% Previously known* 82 14 122 78 13 77 76 17 76% Previously romantic 49 22 122 38 20 77 46 24 76% M Perp. Proportion** 79 18 122 73 21 77 60 34 76

Nature & Prevalence

* P < .05 ** < P < 01; P < .001

2

.12

.33

.09

.16

.08

.01

.29

.06

.04

.10Descriptive meta-analysis based on 281 studies, representing > 290,000 cases/persons

R

9

Across 36 studies of any of these types of stalking there was a rate of 27% (N = 9507; Spitzberg, Dutton & Kim, 2010)

The Paradox of Repetition

10

Persistent: extends relatively continuously over time with particular consistent target(s)

Serial: extends sequentially over different, largely nonoverlapping times and different targets of pursuit

Concurrent: extends across different targets of pursuit during the same episode of time

Recidivist: punctuated or interrupted pattern extending over distinct times toward given target(s)

(Bjerregaard, ’00; Cupach & Spitzberg, ‘00; Davis et al., 2002; Sinclair & Frieze, ’00; Tjaden & Thoennes, ’00; Tjaden et al., ’00)

Perhaps males are…?: Pigs? more pursuer, & females more ‘gatekeeper’ less fearful of stalking, and… less likely to define stalking as stalking, more embarrassed to report.

Females are 73% of victims (n=88)Males are 74% of pursuers (n=96)

The Gender Difference?

11

(Spitzberg, Cupach, & Ciceraro, 2008)

A meta-analysis of 25 college samples (N>7,000, mostly SDSU college students), found:• ORI is more threatening to females than to males;• Females find male pursuers more threatening than

males find female pursuers;• Pursuers report perpetrating “unwanted pursuit” on

females more than on males;• But females and males do NOT differ in self-reported:

(1) ORI, (2) stalking victimization, or (3) stalking perpetration;…

• Thus, in college populations, sex is complicated

12

The Gender Difference?

(> 250 tactic labels, study N = 40, Spitzberg, 2002)

I. HYPER-INTIMACY TACTICS

II. MEDIATED CONTACTS

III. INTERACTIONAL CONTACT TACTICS

IV. SURVEILLANCE TACTICS

V. INVASION TACTICS

VI. HARASSMENT & INTIMIDATION

VII. COERCION & THREAT TACTICS

VIII. AGGRESSION/VIOLENCE TACTICS

ORI/STALKING TOPOGRAPHY:

IX.PROXY

PURSUIT

Interactional Profile

13

Cyber-stalking prevalence: Baum et al. (n=65,000; Baum et al., 2009)

14

Cyber-stalking: Prevalence

All Stalking Harassment

Any cyber-stalking or monitoring

• Cyber-stalking 26.6% 26.1% 27.4%

• Electronic monitoring 23.4 21.5 26.4

% of cyber-stalking involving: a

• E-mail 82.6% 82.5% 82.7%

• Instant messaging 28.7 35.1 20.7

• Blogs or bulletin boards 12.5 12.3 12.8

• Internet sites re: victim 8.8 9.4 8.1

• Chat rooms 4.0 4.4 3.4

% of monitoring involving: b

• Computer spyware 44.1% 33.6% 81.0%

• Video/digital cameras 40.3 46.3 19.3

• Listening devices 35.8 41.8 14.8

• GPS 9.7 10.9 5.2

a. Based on 1,217,680 total victims, 677,870 stalking victims, 539,820 harassment victims;b. Based on 314,400 total victims, 244,880 stalking victims, 69,530 harassment victims

WHOA receives reports from an estimated 50-75 cases per week. Victims are asked to complete a survey, and those who did are reflected below:

YEAR N MALE VICTIMS

FEMALE VICTIMS

PRIOR RELA-TIONSHIP

THEATEN TO HARM OFFLINE

REPORT TO POLICE/LAW

ENFORCEMENT?

2010 349 27% 73% 47% 26% 53%

2009 220 21 78 61 17 48

2008 234 21 71 57 25 31

2007 249 21 61 44 24 43

2006 372 29 70 49 22 37

2005 443 25 67 50 22 35

2004 196 18 69 45 41 31

2003 198 27 70 58 38 33

2002 218 28 71 59 34 38

2001 256 16 79 45 36 32

or M 2,735 23% 71% 52% 29% 38%

Cyber-stalking: Prevalence

Extracted from: http://www.haltabuse.org/resources/stats/index.shtml15

ActualOrganized Affiliative

VirtualOrganized Affiliative

ActualDisorganized

Affiliative

VirtualDisorganized

Affiliative

ActualOrganized Aggressive

VirtualOrganized Aggressive

ActualDisorganized Aggressive

VirtualDisorganized Aggressive

Actual Virtual

Aggressive

Affiliative

Diso

rgan

ized

Org

anize

d

Cyber-stalking: Some Key Dimensions

16

Stalking Violence & ThreatsThreat use: 44% (n=91)

Sexual aggression: 12% (n=47)

Violence: 34% (n=98)

> 50% with prior sexual relationship (Meloy, 2000; Rosenfeld, 2006)

Mental disorder decreases the risk of violenceStalking predicts violenceThreats predict violence (r = .37) (n=73, p<.001) )

Thus, the most dangerous stalker is usually not the

psychopath, but the person you slept with; who ‘flew in under your relational radar’

RClinical=.38p<.01, n=40

RGenPop=.57p<.002, n=30

RColl=.77p<.001, n=13However:

false positive rates = 62% (n = 12) false negative rates = 16% (n = 10) (C&S, 2004

17

Perhaps “dangerous” people use threats “routinely,” but

“normal” people tend to use them only when they really

mean them.

Predicting the occurrence of violence based just on the mediated forms of ORI/stalking. (- Cyber RL items; trimmed model)Observed (N = 140 no violence, 104 some violence)

Predicted

Violence % correct0 1

Media 21 (OR=1.70) ‘Sabotaging’ your work/school reputation (e.g., spreading rumors …, your relationships or activities …networks…, etc.)

0=No Violence 147 11 93.01=Some Violence 78 42 35.0

68.0Media 3 (OR=1.30) Sending excessively “needy” or demanding messages (e.g., pressuring to see you, …arguing [for]…“another chance”, etc.)


70.5Media 26 (OR=3.57) Sending threatening written messages (e.g., suggesting harming you, your property, family, friends, etc.)


71.6Media 23 (OR=0.61) Cyber-harassing (e.g., dumped messages into email, intruded into chat or game space, crashed your computer, etc.)


74.8*

Cyber-stalking: Predicting violence

* As good as the raw predictive value of S. Smith’s threat language variables.

21

“Kitchen sink” model predicting occurrence of violence using all variables, & then trimming the model iteratively (excluding the “threaten” physically & with weapon items)Observed (N = 140 no violence, 104 some violence)

Predicted

Violence % correct0 1

Cope-Toward (OR=2.06) [i.e., pleading, talking to, or negotiating with the pursuer, composite of 7 items]


67.4Threat 4 (OR=2.50) Threatening to hurt you (e.g., made vague threats that something bad would happen to you, threatened to commit suicide, etc.)

0=No Violence 143 16 89.9

1=Some Violence 60 63 51.273.0

Interact 5 (OR= 1.32) Invading personal space (e.g., getting too close to you in conversation, touching you, etc.)


74.1ACE 1 (OR=2.50) Did parent or adult in household often or very often a) swear at you, insult you…, OR b) made you afraid you might be … hurt.

0=No Violence 136 23 85.5

1=Some Violence 46 77 62.6

75.5

Predicting violence overall

22

SOCIETAL

SOCIAL

RELATIONAL

PERSONAL

Stalking Effects/Symptoms

1st LEVEL EFFECTS:Physical

PsychologicalEmotional

SocialResource

2nd LEVEL EFFECTS:Relations-ChildrenRelations-FamilyRelations-Friends

Relations-Colleagues

3rd LEVEL EFFECTS:‘Direct’ Impacts on

ChildrenFamilyFriends

Colleagues

4th LEVEL EFFECTS:Law Enforcement

Moral PanicSocietal Costs

23

1. GENERAL DISTURBANCE :e.g., injured emotionally or psychologically; personality changed; PTSD; quality of life costs; etc.

2. AFFECTIVE HEALTH: e.g., anger; anxiety, depression, fear, frustration, feeling imprisoned, intimidated, jealousy, paranoia, stress, etc.;

3. COGNITIVE HEALTH: e.g., confusion; distrust, loss of self-esteem, suspiciousness, helplessness/powerlessness; suicide ideation;, etc.

4. PHYSICAL HEALTH: e.g., immunuo-deficiency, alcohol problems; appetite disturbance; cigarette smoking; insomnia; nausea; physical illness; suicide; etc.

5. BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE: e.g., changing behavioral routines, change work/school/residence, etc.;

6. SOCIAL HEALTH: e.g., avoid certain places/people; cautiousness; relationship deterioration; lifestyle disruption; etc.

7. RESOURCE HEALTH: e.g., disruption of work or school; financial costs; lost time from work; etc.

8. SPIRITUAL HEALTH: e.g., loss of faith, loss of religion, loss of belief in social institutions; etc.

9. RESILIENCE: e.g., develop stronger relationships with family or friends, develop greater self-efficacy/self-concept, etc.

(Spitzberg, 2002, Study N ≈ 60, Tactic N ≈ 800)Effects/Symptoms

24

Moving Against: Attempting to deter/punish pursuer 33%

Moving With: Attempting to negotiate/redirect relationship 25%

Moving Away: Attempting to avoid pursuer 25%

Moving Outward: Mobilizing assistance/input of others 32%

Moving Inward: Working on oneself 17%

RELATIONAL RESPONSES: Prevalence

EXTRA-RELATIONAL RESPONSES:

Coping: Prevalence

(> 18 studies, Spitzberg, 2002)25

Mean

Contacts M N SD

% Friends/family contact 54 14 25% Contact someone 77 9 21

% Contact police 43 45 28% Police “helpful” 50 9 27% Police “NOT helpful” † 41 6 16

Law Enforcement

26

† Of those not reporting-- Reason: 8% “attacker was a police officer” (NVAW, Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000, “Extent…” Ex. 17, n = 16,000)

† Reason why police didn’t take action: 6% “offender was police officer” (Suppl. Victimization Survey, Baum et al., 2009, App. 12, n = 65,000)

Law Enforcement

27

Victim perceptions:• Moving with most effective, moving

outward, next, moving away/inward next. • What ended pursuit?

• Avoidance (26%)• Relocation (26%)• Pursuer-new relationship (23%)• Communication (20%)• Target new relationship (15%)• Hostile/aggressive confrontation (11%)• Legal intervention (4%)• Sought counseling (2%)

Dutton & Winstead (2010)

• Studies indicate POs are significantly associated with decreases in re-assault and harm (Logan & Walker, 2010a, b.

• Studies indicate even when violated, most women FEEL better for obtaining a PO, and perceive them as effective (Johnson, Luna &

Stein, 2003); Logan & Walker, 2010a, b.

Protective Orders (PO) M N SD

% Sought PO 43 23 33

% POs Violated* 38 43 24

% POs “Made Worse” 30 7 29

Law Enforcement

28

[email protected]

If interested,contact me for attachments

of manuscripts, references

or questions: @ .sdsu.

Selected Published & In Press References on Stalking1. Cupach & Spitzberg (1998) Obsessive relational intrusion and stalking.

Spitzberg & Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships (pp. 233-263). LEA.

2. Spitzberg, Nicastro & Cousins (1998) Exploring the interactional phenomenon of stalking and obsessive relational intrusion. Communication Reports, 11, 33-48.

3. Spitzberg & Rhea (1999) Obsessive relational intrusion and sexual coercion victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 3-20.

4. Cupach, Spitzberg & Carson (2000) Toward a theory of stalking and obsessive relational intrusion. In Dindia & Duck (Eds.) Communication and personal relationships (pp. 131-146). Wiley.

5. Nicastro, Cousins & Spitzberg (2000) The tactical face of stalking. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 1-14.

6. Cupach & Spitzberg (2001) Obsessive relational intrusion: Incidence, perceived severity, and coping. Violence and Victims, 15, 357-372.

7. Spitzberg & Cupach (2001) Paradoxes of pursuit: Toward a relational model of stalking-related phenomena. In J. Davis (Ed.) Stalking, stalkers and their victims (pp. 97-136). CRC.

8. Spitzberg, Marshall & Cupach (2001) Obsessive relational intrusion, coping, and sexual coercion victimization. Communication Reports, 14, 19-30.

9. Spitzberg (2002) Policing unwanted pursuit. In Giles (Ed.), Law enforcement, communication and the community (pp. 173-200). Benjamins.

30

Selected Published & In Press References, cont.10. Spitzberg & Cupach (2002) The inappropriateness of relational intrusion. In

Goodwin & Cramer (Eds.), Inappropriate relationships (pp. 191-219). LEA. 11. Spitzberg & Hoobler (2002) Cyberstalking and the technologies of

interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society, 4, 71-92. 12. Spitzberg & Cupach (2002) What mad pursuit? Obsessive relational

intrusion and stalking related phenomena. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 260, 1-31.

13. Spitzberg (2002) The tactical topography of stalking victimization and management. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 3, 261-288.

14. Spitzberg & Cadiz (2002) The construction of stalker stereotypes. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 9(3), 128-149.

15. Spitzberg (2003) Stopping stalkers. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing., 41, 38-45.

16. Chapman & Spitzberg (2003). Are you following me A study of unwanted relationship pursuit and stalking in Japan: What behaviors are prevalent? Bulletin of Hijiyama University, 10, 89-138.

17. Cupach & Spitzberg (2004). Unrequited lust. In Harvey, Wenzel, & Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 259-286). LEA.

18. Cupach & Spitzberg (2004). The dark side of relationship pursuit: From attraction to obsession to stalking. LEA.

19. Fleischmann, Spitzberg & Andersen & Roesch (2005). Tickling the monster: Jealousy induction in relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 49-73.

31

Selected Published & In Press References, cont.21. Hanawa et al. (2006). "If I Can’t Have You, No One Can”: Development of a

Relational Entitlement and Proprietariness Scale (REPS). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21.

22. Spitzberg & Veksler (2007). The personality of pursuit: Personality attributions of unwanted pursuers and stalkers. Violence and Victims, 22, 275-289.

23. Spitzberg & Cupach (2007). Cyber-stalking as (mis)matchmaking. In Whitty, Baker & Inman (Eds.), Online matchmaking. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

24. Dutton & Spitzberg (2007). Stalking and unwanted relationship pursuit. In Giacomoni & Kendall-Tackett (Eds.), Intimate partner violence. CRI.

25. Spitzberg & Cupach. (2007). The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior., 12, 64-86.

26. Cupach & Spitzberg. (2008). Unwanted relationship initiation. In Sprecher (Ed.), Relationship initiation. LEA.

26. Spitzberg & Cupach. (2008). Managing unwanted relationship pursuit. In Motley (Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication. Sage.

27. Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2009). Unwanted communication and abuse. In W. F. Eadie (Ed.), 21st century communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28. Spitzberg, B. H. (2009). Stalking. In H. Reis & S. Sprecher (Eds.), The encyclopedia of human relationships (Vol. 3, pp. 1592-1594). Los Angeles: Sage.

32

Selected Published & In Press References, cont.30. Spitzberg (2009). Aggression and violence. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Feeling

hurt in close relationships (pp. 209-232). Cambridge.31. Spitzberg, B. H. (2010). Stalkers, Types. In B. Fisher, & S. Lab (Eds.),

Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

32. Spitzberg, B. H. (2010). Intimate violence. In W. R. Cupach, D. J. Canary, & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), Competence in interpersonal conflict (2nd ed., pp. 211-252). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.

33. Spitzberg, B. H. (2010). Intimate partner violence and aggression: Seeing the light in a dark place. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

34. Spitzberg, B. H. (2010). Stalkers, Types. In B. Fisher, & S. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

34. Spitzberg, B. H., Cupach, W. R., & Ciceraro, L. D. L. (2010). Sex differences in stalking and obsessive relational intrusion: Two meta-analyses. Partner Abuse, 1, 259-285.

35. Kim, C. W., Jr., & Spitzberg, B. H. (in press). Pursuing justice for unwanted pursuit: Stalking in the courtroom and beyond. In M. Motley (Ed.), Forensic communication: Application of communication science to courtroom litigation. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

36. Nguyen, L. K., Spitzberg, B. H., & Lee, C. (in press). Coping with obsessive relational intrusion and stalking: The role of social support and coping strategies. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

33

online stalking in real-space and cyber-space: bridging the domains

Documents