1 / 27

Online Stalking in Real-Space and Cyber-Space: Bridging the Domains

Online Stalking in Real-Space and Cyber-Space: Bridging the Domains. B rian. H . S pitzberg. School of Communication San Diego State University. Presentation at the International Association for Intelligence Education, Washington DC 9 June 2011 . Stalking vs. ORI. INTIMATE

tayten
Télécharger la présentation

Online Stalking in Real-Space and Cyber-Space: Bridging the Domains

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Online Stalking in Real-Space and Cyber-Space: Bridging the Domains Brian H.Spitzberg School of Communication San Diego State University Presentation at the International Association for Intelligence Education, Washington DC 9 June 2011

  2. Stalking vs. ORI INTIMATE RELATIONSHIPS • 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) Stalking need not seek intimacy ORI need not cause fear or threat IPV Cyber- bullying ORI STALKING 2

  3. Stalking Motives The 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

  4. Stalking Motives The 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

  5. Mode x Motive Typology Mode Annoying Disorganized (reactive) Low Risk High Risk Motive Affiliative Aggressive Mod. Risk High Risk Instrumental Expressive (proactive) Organized Intrusive 8

  6. Nature & Prevalence R Descriptive meta-analysis based on 281 studies, representing > 290,000 cases/persons 9 * P < .05 ** < P < 01; P < .001

  7. The Paradox of Repetition • 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) Across 36 studies of any of these types of stalking there was a rate of 27%(N = 9507; Spitzberg, Dutton & Kim, 2010) 10

  8. The Gender Difference? Females are 73% of victims (n=88) Males are 74% of pursuers (n=96) 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. (Bjerregaard, ’00; Cupach & Spitzberg, ‘00; Davis et al., 2002; Sinclair & Frieze, ’00; Tjaden & Thoennes, ’00; Tjaden et al., ’00) 11

  9. The Gender Difference? • 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 (Spitzberg, Cupach, & Ciceraro, 2008)

  10. Interactional Profile (> 250 tactic labels, study N = 40, Spitzberg, 2002) ORI/STALKING TOPOGRAPHY: • HYPER-INTIMACY TACTICS • MEDIATED CONTACTS • INTERACTIONAL CONTACT TACTICS • SURVEILLANCE TACTICS • INVASION TACTICS • HARASSMENT & INTIMIDATION • COERCION & THREAT TACTICS • AGGRESSION/VIOLENCE TACTICS IX. PROXY PURSUIT 13

  11. Cyber-stalking: Prevalence Cyber-stalking prevalence: Baum et al. (n=65,000; Baum et al., 2009) 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 14

  12. Cyber-stalking: Prevalence 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: Extracted from: http://www.haltabuse.org/resources/stats/index.shtml 15

  13. Cyber-stalking: Some Key Dimensions Actual Disorganized Affiliative Virtual Disorganized Affiliative Disorganized Organized Aggressive Affiliative Actual Virtual Actual Organized Affiliative Virtual Organized Affiliative Actual Disorganized Aggressive Virtual Disorganized Aggressive Actual Organized Aggressive Virtual Organized Aggressive 16

  14. Stalking Violence & Threats Thus, the most dangerous stalker is usually not the psychopath, but the person you slept with; who ‘flew in under your relational radar’ • Threat use: 44% (n=91) • Sexual aggression: 12% (n=47) • Violence: 34% (n=98) • > 50% with prior sexual relationship (Meloy, 2000; Rosenfeld, 2006) • Mental disorder decreasesthe risk of violence Perhaps “dangerous” people use threats “routinely,” but “normal” people tend to use them only when they really mean them. • Stalking predicts violence • Threats predict violence (r = .37) (n=73, p<.001) ) • However: • false positive rates = 62% (n = 12) • false negative rates = 16% (n = 10) (C&S, 2004 17

  15. Cyber-stalking: Predicting violence * As good as the raw predictive value of S. Smith’s threat language variables. 21

  16. Predicting violence overall 22

  17. Stalking Effects/Symptoms 4thLEVEL EFFECTS: Law Enforcement Moral Panic Societal Costs 3rdLEVEL EFFECTS: ‘Direct’ Impacts on Children Family Friends Colleagues 2ndLEVEL EFFECTS: Relations-Children Relations-Family Relations-Friends Relations-Colleagues 1stLEVEL EFFECTS: Physical Psychological Emotional Social Resource 23

  18. Effects/Symptoms (Spitzberg, 2002, Study N ≈ 60, Tactic N ≈ 800) GENERAL DISTURBANCE :e.g., injured emotionally or psychologically; personality changed; PTSD; quality of life costs; etc. AFFECTIVE HEALTH: e.g., anger; anxiety, depression, fear, frustration, feeling imprisoned, intimidated, jealousy, paranoia, stress, etc.; COGNITIVE HEALTH: e.g., confusion; distrust, loss of self-esteem, suspiciousness, helplessness/powerlessness; suicide ideation;, etc. PHYSICAL HEALTH: e.g., immunuo-deficiency, alcohol problems; appetite disturbance; cigarette smoking; insomnia; nausea; physical illness; suicide; etc. BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE: e.g., changing behavioral routines, change work/school/residence, etc.; SOCIAL HEALTH: e.g., avoid certain places/people; cautiousness; relationship deterioration; lifestyle disruption; etc. RESOURCE HEALTH: e.g., disruption of work or school; financial costs; lost time from work; etc. SPIRITUAL HEALTH: e.g., loss of faith, loss of religion, loss of belief in social institutions; etc. RESILIENCE: e.g., develop stronger relationships with family or friends, develop greater self-efficacy/self-concept, etc. 24

  19. Coping: Prevalence Mean • RELATIONAL RESPONSES:Prevalence • EXTRA-RELATIONAL RESPONSES: • Moving Against: Attempting to deter/punish pursuer 33% • Moving With: Attempting to negotiate/redirect relationship25% • Moving Away: Attempting to avoid pursuer 25% • Moving Outward: Mobilizing assistance/input of others 32% • Moving Inward: Working on oneself 17% 25 (> 18 studies, Spitzberg, 2002)

  20. Law Enforcement Contacts M N SD % Contact someone 779 21 % Friends/family contact 541425 % Contact police 434528 % Police “helpful” 509 27 % Police “NOT helpful” †416 16 • 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) 26

  21. Law Enforcement • 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%) 27 Dutton & Winstead (2010)

  22. Law Enforcement Protective Orders (PO) M N SD % Sought PO 432333 % POs Violated* 384324 % POs “Made Worse” 30729 • 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. 28

  23. If interested, contact me for attachments of manuscripts, references or questions: @ spitz@mail.sdsu.edu .sdsu.

  24. Selected Published & In Press References on Stalking Cupach & Spitzberg (1998) Obsessive relational intrusion and stalking. Spitzberg & Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships (pp. 233-263). LEA. Spitzberg, Nicastro & Cousins (1998) Exploring the interactional phenomenon of stalking and obsessive relational intrusion. Communication Reports, 11, 33-48. Spitzberg & Rhea (1999) Obsessive relational intrusion and sexual coercion victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 3-20. 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. Nicastro, Cousins & Spitzberg (2000) The tactical face of stalking. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 1-14. Cupach & Spitzberg (2001) Obsessive relational intrusion: Incidence, perceived severity, and coping. Violence and Victims, 15, 357-372. 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. Spitzberg, Marshall & Cupach (2001) Obsessive relational intrusion, coping, and sexual coercion victimization. Communication Reports, 14, 19-30. Spitzberg (2002) Policing unwanted pursuit. In Giles (Ed.), Law enforcement, communication and the community (pp. 173-200). Benjamins. 30

  25. Selected Published & In Press References, cont. Spitzberg & Cupach (2002) The inappropriateness of relational intrusion. In Goodwin & Cramer (Eds.), Inappropriate relationships (pp. 191-219). LEA. Spitzberg & Hoobler (2002) Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society, 4, 71-92. Spitzberg& Cupach (2002) What mad pursuit? Obsessive relational intrusion and stalking related phenomena. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 260, 1-31. Spitzberg (2002) The tactical topography of stalking victimization and management. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 3, 261-288. Spitzberg & Cadiz (2002) The construction of stalker stereotypes. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 9(3), 128-149. Spitzberg (2003) Stopping stalkers. Journal of Psychosocial Nursing., 41, 38-45. 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. Cupach & Spitzberg (2004). Unrequited lust. In Harvey, Wenzel, & Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close relationships (pp. 259-286). LEA. Cupach & Spitzberg (2004). The dark side of relationship pursuit: From attraction to obsession to stalking. LEA. Fleischmann, Spitzberg & Andersen & Roesch (2005). Tickling the monster: Jealousy induction in relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 49-73. 31

  26. Selected Published & In Press References, cont. 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. Spitzberg & Veksler (2007). The personality of pursuit: Personality attributions of unwanted pursuers and stalkers. Violence and Victims, 22, 275-289. Spitzberg & Cupach (2007). Cyber-stalking as (mis)matchmaking. In Whitty, Baker & Inman (Eds.), Online matchmaking. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Dutton & Spitzberg (2007). Stalking and unwanted relationship pursuit. In Giacomoni & Kendall-Tackett (Eds.), Intimate partner violence. CRI. Spitzberg & Cupach. (2007). The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior., 12, 64-86. Cupach & Spitzberg. (2008). Unwanted relationship initiation. In Sprecher (Ed.), Relationship initiation. LEA. Spitzberg & Cupach. (2008). Managing unwanted relationship pursuit. In Motley (Ed.), Studies in applied interpersonal communication. Sage. Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2009). Unwanted communication and abuse. In W. F. Eadie (Ed.), 21st century communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 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

  27. Selected Published & In Press References, cont. Spitzberg (2009). Aggression and violence. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Feeling hurt in close relationships (pp. 209-232). Cambridge. Spitzberg, B. H. (2010). Stalkers, Types. In B. Fisher, & S. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 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. 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. Spitzberg, B. H. (2010). Stalkers, Types. In B. Fisher, & S. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia of victimology and crime prevention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 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. 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. 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

More Related