Kalman Brattman: Cyberstalker
Kalman Brattman, originator of the iSurvived website, we believe meets the definitions of a cyberharasser and a cyberstalker. Brattman has attacked numerous innocent individuals and organizations. He has attempted to ruin the reputations of these people by his postings on the Internet. As many cyberstalkers, he is extremely tech saavy and computer literate. Using his numerous websites, he links to his websites, driving up the search rankings.
Countless individuals on the Internet have been victims of personal attacks by such hate on the Internet.
The purpose of this section is to explain this phenomenon and to show individuals how they can take steps to protect themselves from cyberattacks of this kind.
Information on Cyberstalking from the Website WiredSafety.org
“Cyberstalkers are often driven by revenge, hate, anger, jealousy, obsession and mental illness. While a cyberharasser may be motivated by some of these same feelings, often the harassment is driven by the desire to frighten or embarrass the harassment victim.
Sometimes the harasser intends to teach the victim a lesson in netiquette or political correctness (from the harasser’s point of view). Often the cyberharassment victim is merely in the wrong place at the wrong time, or has made a comment or expressed an opinion that the cyberharasser dislikes. We have even seen cases where the victim is merely being targeted because they are the first ones the cyberharasser encounters when they are in a ‘bad mood.’” [Downloaded 7/5/08 from
The website WiredSafety.org lists three types of cyber stalkers: obsessional, delusional and vengeful.
Delusional stalkers “frequently have never had any contact with their victim beyond the boundaries of their own mind. They may suffer from mental illness like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or erotomania. What they have in common is a false belief that keeps them tied to their victims. ….
“A delusional stalker is usually a loner, unmarried, socially immature and does not possess the interpersonal skills to maintain friendships and relationships….
“Delusional stalkers are very difficult to get rid of and many go on for many years fixated on one person.
“The last type of stalker is the vengeful stalker. They get angry at their victim due to some slight either real or imagined.”
[Downloaded 7/5/08 from:
Definitions of Cyberstalking
“Cyberstalking is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk someone."
“It has been defined as the use of information and communications technology, particularly the Internet, by an individual or group of individuals, to harass another individual, group of individuals, or organization. The behavior includes false accusations, monitoring, the transmission of threats, identity theft, damage to data or equipment, the solicitation of minors for sexual purposes, and gathering information for harassment purposes. The harassment must be such that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would regard it as sufficient to cause another reasonable person distress.” [Bocij, Paul. Cyberstalking: Harassment in the Internet Age and How to Protect Your Family. Praeger, 2004, p. 14.]
"Stalking is a form of mental assault, in which the perpetrator repeatedly, unwantedly, and disruptively breaks into the life-world of the victim, with whom he has no relationship (or no longer has), with motives that are directly or indirectly traceable to the affective sphere. Moreover, the separated acts that make up the intrusion cannot by themselves cause the mental abuse, but do taken together (cumulative effect)" (Royakkers 2000:7, cited in CyberStalking: menaced on the internet,
“When identifying cyberstalking "in the field," and particularly when considering whether to report it to any kind of legal authority, the following features or combination of features can be considered to characterize a true stalking situation: malice, premeditation, repetition, distress, obsession, vendetta, no legitimate purpose, personally directed, disregarded warnings to stop, harassment, and threats.” [Bocij, Paul. Cyberstalking: Harassment in the Internet Age and How to Protect Your Family. Praeger, 2004, pp. 9-10.]
. Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions, such as Wikipedia or Amazon.com.” [
Attempts to gather information about the victim
. Cyberstalkers may approach their victim's friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet, or hire a private detective. They often will monitor the victim's online activities and attempt to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims.” [McFarlane, L., & Bocij, P. (2003). An exploration of predatory behavior in cyberspace: Towards a typology of cyberstalkers. First Monday, 8(9). Downloaded 7/5/08 from
Case Study of Cyberstalking
For a case study of an attack see: Fighting Cyberstalking, by Skip Press.[
Analysis of Cyberstalking Behavior by McFarlane and Bocij
This article attempts to describe the predatory behavior of cyberstalkers, including statistical data on their actions and including their effect on their victims:
An exploration of predatory behavior in cyberspace: Towards a typology of cyberstalkers.
by Leroy McFarlane and Paul Bocij
Over the last few years governments, law enforcement agencies, and the media have noted increases of online harassment. Although there has been a great deal of research into 'offline stalking', at this moment in time there has been no formal research that attempts to classify cyberstalkers. This study aimed to identify a classification of cyberstalkers by interviewing victims. Twenty-four participants were interviewed and their responses logged on a 76-item Cyberstalking Incident Checklist. A typology of cyberstalkers was developed.
The effects of stalking upon its victims have been well documented. Months or even years of continuous exposure to unwanted attention and/or threats often lead victims to change their daily habits, and even cause psychological trauma. Fremouw et al. (1997), in their study of 600 psychology undergraduates, found that some of the victims were willing to disrupt their normal routines in order to avoid their stalker. Some were even willing to carry pepper spray, a knife, or even a gun. Pathé and Mullen (1997) found in their investigation that over 75 percent of the victims reported feelings of powerlessness and a quarter of their respondents admitted that they had seriously considered or actually attempted suicide. A study by Sheridan et al. (2001), which involved a survey of 95 stalking victims in the U.K. found that 59 percent of respondents reported feeling frightened, and 44 percent altered their behaviour as a result of being stalked.
Despite more than a decade of research into stalking there is still no clear definition of this phenomenon. Meloy and Gothard have defined it as "an abnormal or long term pattern of threat or harassment directed toward a specific individual"
. Pathé and Mullen have described it as "a constellation of behaviours in which one individual inflicts on another repeated unwanted intrusions and communications"
. These behaviours include "... following, loitering nearby, maintaining surveillance and making approaches ... [via] letter, the telephone, electronic mail, graffiti or notes attached for example, to the victim’s car"
. Westrup proposed it as "one or more of a constellation of behaviours that (a) are directly repeatedly towards a specific individual (the target), (b) are experienced by the target as unwelcome and intrusive, and (c) are reported to trigger fear or concern in the target"
The authors also put forward the fact that in all the classifications concerning offline stalking (for example, Zona et al., 1993; Mullen et al., 1999; Sheridan et al.
, 2001), many perpetrators tend to focus their obsession on one victim at a time, due the time and energies needed for the surveillance of their target. These typologies, (as well as other offline classifications), do not explain the case study that was presented by Bocij et al. (forthcoming) where the cyberstalker harassed a number of victims online. If the view that cyberstalking is a natural extension of stalking is to be maintained then these points (and others presented in the paper) need to addressed. […]
Bocij and McFarlane (2002) have attempted to put forward a more comprehensive definition:
"A group of behaviours in which an individual, group of individuals or organisation uses information technology to harass one or more individuals. Such behaviour may include, but are not limited to, the transmission of threats and false accusations, identity theft, data theft, damage to data or equipment, computer monitoring and the solicitation of minors for sexual purposes. Harassment is defined as a course of action that a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would think causes another reasonable person to suffer emotional distress."
Mullen et al. (1999) … classified five types of stalkers [including]: Resentful stalkers harass their victims with the specific intention of causing fear and apprehension out of a desire for retribution for some actual or supposed injury or humiliation.
The Cyberstalker’s Motivation
Four major themes surrounding the cyberstalking relationship emerged from the data. They were the 'vindictive', 'composed', 'collective', and 'intimate' cyberstalkers.
This group is so named due to the ferocity to which they victimise those whom they pursue. They threatened their victims more than any other group and in the majority of cases they actually stalked their target offline. A third of the perpetrators were known to have had a previous criminal record, and two-thirds were known to have victimised others before.
In half the cases the participants stated that the harassment started over a trivial debate or discussion, which blew up out of all proportion. In a third of cases there was no apparent reason and the rest of the victims commented that there was an active argument involving both parties. The victims estimated that these cyberstalkers had a medium to high level of computer literacy. The vindictive cyberstalker utilised the widest range of ICT methods to harass their target (for example, spamming, mailbombing, and identity theft) than any other group. They were also only group to use Trojans to gain access to their victim’s machines and/or infect them with viruses. Three-quarters of victims also declared that they received disturbing messages from the communications of this group, for example, bizarre comments, rambling conversations, unclear unrelated comments, intimidating multimedia images and/or sounds, for example skull and crossbones, pictures of corpses, screams, etc. These messages possibly indicated the presence of severe mental health issues.
The composed cyberstalker is so named because it is theorized that their actions are aimed at causing constant annoyance and irritation to their victims. These cyberstalkers were not trying to establish a relationship with the victim but wished to cause distress. These types of perpetrators generally issued threats.
On the whole, participants estimated that these cyberstalkers had a medium to high level of computer literacy. Only one of the cyberstalkers in this group was known to have a criminal record, and only one was known to have had a previous history of victimization. No members of this group was known to have had a psychiatric history, however three of the perpetrators went on to conventionally stalk their victims.
McFarlane, L., & Bocij, P. (2003). An exploration of predatory behavior in cyberspace: Towards a typology of cyberstalkers. First Monday, 8(9). [Downloaded 7/5/08 from
“Cyberstalking,” by the National White collar Crime Center (Excerpts)
Cyberstalking is the online version of and is often an extension of offline stalking.
There is some debate about exactly what behaviors constitute as cyberstalking; however, a common definition is “an escalated form of online harassment directed at a specific person that causes substantial emotional distress and serves no legitimate purpose. The action is to annoy, alarm, and emotionally abuse another person.”
Perpetrators utilize social media accounts, publicly accessible information and sometimes illegally accessed information to learn more about their targets. The perpetrators may also spread rumors and misinformation to discredit or intimidate them. Regardless of the methods used, cyberstalking is an online crime that disrupts lives, instills fear, and if taken offline may result in physical violence to the targeted victim.
The growth of the Internet, a multitude of social media websites, and the proliferation of information available online creates new arenas that cyberstalkers use to hunt and terrorize their victims. Those new arenas combined with advancements in technology that allow individuals to access social media accounts and the Internet at large from any location, lead to a situation in which victims of cyberstalking may experience constant bullying and/or harassment.
Cyberstalkers may obtain personal information about their victims (e.g., home address, phone number) from the Internet and utilize this information to meet their victims in person. They can use any of a number of methods available online to assist them in their endeavors…. […]
How It Happens
Put simply, Cyberstalking is a form of harassment that takes advantage of the anonymity and relative protection the Internet provides from law enforcement. Marian Merritt of Norton explains, “…harassment can take on many forms, but the common denominator is that it's unwanted, often obsessive, and usually illegal.”
[…] The following is a list of actions that cyberstalkers use to abuse their victims. Keep in mind that these actions alone or in some combination do not necessarily constitute cyberstalking; rather cyberstalking is more often a combination of these actions in conjunction with repeated behaviors specifically intended to intimidate or harm a person.
- Leaving messages or comments on an individual’s online post, publication, web blog, or website with the intent to threaten, harass, or cause emotional distress.
- Sending online correspondence that is inappropriate and unwanted.
Posing as another person and posting material online using that person’s name or likeness.
- Creating online material (including websites, blogs, and social media pages) with the name and/or likeness of another person in order to disseminate false and defamatory information or pictures.
- Sending defamatory and/or harassing messages to an individual’s friends, family, employer, coworkers, neighbors, students, teachers, or other community members either in their name or the victim’s name.9
While not exclusively about cyberstalking, a 2009 stalking victimization study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Institute of Justice did measure some aspects of cyberstalking. Namely, it measured how many victims receive “unsolicited or unwanted letters or e-mails”, and how often a stalkers actions include “posting information or spreading rumors about the victim on the Internet, in a public place, or by word of mouth.
12 This study employed data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, specifically its Supplemental Victimization Survey (SVS). Based on this data researchers estimate that 5.3 million U.S. residents 18 years of age or older were stalked or harassed in the year prior to the SVS interview process. Of that number, 1.5 percent of those people were victims of stalking which was defined in this study as “repetitive behaviors associated with stalking in addition to feeling fear or experiencing behaviors that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear.”
13 Individuals in online environments also experience harassment, typically seen as separate from stalking, from both known persons and strangers. For the purposes of this study, victims of harassment were signified as experiencing “behaviors associated with stalking but neither reported feeling fear as a result of such conduct nor experienced actions that would cause a reasonable person to feel fear.”
There is little recent research that specifically discusses victims of cyberstalking detached from instances of traditional stalking. One academic attempt comes from the University of Bedfordshire’s National Centre for Cyberstalking Research (NCCR). The Centre’s first major research project culminated in the Electronic Communications Harassment Observation (ECHO) 2011 report.
16 For this study, the NCCR defines cyberstalking as “a course of action that involves more than one incident perpetrated through or utilising electronic means, that causes distress, fear or alarm.” Because there is not a common definition of cyberstalking in the United Kingdom (or anywhere else), the researchers chose to ask the respondents about exposure to harassment, how that harassment occurred, and what feelings the victims experienced. The researches then used the above definition of cyberstalking to identify data by those individuals who reported experiencing specific kinds of harassment and feelings; specifically fear.
The NCCR data showed:
- 92% of respondents reported experiencing cyberharassment.
- 81% of respondents were between 20 – 49 years of age.
- The largest age group, 30 – 39 years of age, represented 1/3 of respondents.
- 94% of those who reported an experience of cyberharassment also reported feeling distress in relation to that harassment. 81% reported they experienced fear.
- Females were more likely to experience both distress and fear than males.
- 24% reported feeling “primarily afraid of personal physical injury,” and almost twice the number of females than males reported being afraid of personal physical injury.
- Females were more concerned than males that their harasser would harm their family, colleagues, or pets.
- About 1/3 of respondents noted they were afraid of “damage to their reputation,” with almost 50% of male respondents indicating they feared “damage to their reputation.” About 25% of females indicated the same fear.
- Males were about twice as likely as females to fear a financial loss.18
The Pew Research Center’s Internet Project researchers also conducted a survey on cyberharassment. Like other similar surveys, few questions distinctly refer cyberstalking, but some aspects of their questions may also represent instances of cyberstalking. Harassment is typically defined as behaviors directed at an individual with the intent to consistently bother them and create a hostile and/or uncomfortable environment. For this study the researchers qualify the following common behaviors as harassment in an online environment: embarrassing someone, physically threatening someone, sexually harassing someone, stalking someone, harassing someone over a long period of time.
Pew’s data showed:
- Of respondents who indicated they witnessed another person experiencing harassment online, 24% reported seeing “someone being harassed for a sustained period of time and 18% reported seeing someone being stalked.
- Of those who reported experiencing online harassment, 8% reported being stalked and 7% reported being “harassed for a sustained period.”
- More men than women reported experiencing sustained periods of harassment, and more women than men reported being stalked.
- 27% of respondents described the harassment experience as either very or extremely upsetting.
- 38% of women and 17% of men reported feeling very or extremely upset by an online harassment experience.20
Cyber Stalking: An Analysis of Online Harassment and Intimidation
, by Michael L. Pittaro (Excerpts)
Our society has come to rely on the sheer size, technological power, and lightening fast speed of the Internet to seek out immeasurable pages of information, explore the unknown, and communicate with virtually anyone, anywhere, and at anytime across the globe. Conversely, the Internet has opened windows of previously unknown criminal opportunities that not only challenge, but also transcend all physical boundaries, borders, and limitations to detect, punish, and diminish what appears to be a mounting problem of global proportion. As such, the Internet has literally become a fertile breeding ground for an entirely new and unique type of criminal offender hereafter known as the cyber stalker – an offender who uses the Internet as a tool or weapon of sorts to prey upon, harass, threaten, and generate immense fear and trepidation in its victims through sophisticated stalking tactics. This paper presents a glimpse into the deviant behaviors and tactics associated with cyber stalking crimes, legislative intervention measures, and preventative initiatives created specifically to curtail this emerging global crime.
The Internet has undergone rapid growth in this millennium in that it has promoted advances in just about every aspect of society and is available and accessible in practically every corner of the globe (McFarlane & Bocij 2003; Jaishankar & Sankary 2005). The predicted benefits to society are incalculable. The Internet is primarily responsible for developing and enriching global commerce to previously inconceivable heights, fostering remarkable advancements in education and healthcare, and facilitating worldwide communication that was once perceived to be limited and costly (McFarlane & Bocij, 2003; Jaishankar & Sankary 2005). However, the Internet, with its infinite size and previously unimaginable capabilities, has a dark side in that it has opened windows of previously unknown criminal opportunities that not only challenge, but also transcend all physical boundaries, borders, and limitations to detect, punish, and diminish what appears to be a growing social problem of global proportions. The Internet has literally become a fertile breeding ground for an entirely new and unique type of criminal offender hereafter known as the cyber stalker. The cyber stalker is one who uses the Internet as a weapon or tool of sorts to prey upon, harass, threaten, and generate fear and trepidation in his or her victims through sophisticated stalking tactics, which for the most part, are largely misunderstood and in some cases, legal.
Despite nearly a decade of prominent criminological research, there is no concise, universally accepted definition of traditional stalking and to make matters worse, there is even less literature available in reference to cyber stalking (McFarlane & Bocij 2003). Consequently, the cyber stalkers’ behaviors, patterns, and tactics are largely misunderstood and to a certain extent – unknown (Mustaine & Tewksbury 1999). The term cyber stalking generally refers to the use of the Internet, email, or other electronic communication device to create a criminal level of intimidation, harassment, and fear in one or more victims (Petrocelli 2005; Reno 1999). As mentioned, there is very little known about cyber stalking, but what is accepted is that cyber stalking behaviors can vary from a non-threatening email to a potentially deadly encounter between the stalker and the targeted victim (Hutton & Haantz 2003). The obvious key to distinguishing traditional stalking from cyber stalking is that cyber stalkers rely predominantly on the Internet and other electronic communication devices to harass, threaten, and intimidate their targeted victims. Most cyber stalking behaviors are premeditated, repetitious, and can be quite aggressive in their approach, but border on being illegal under current statutory law in most states (Hutton & Haantz 2003).
Since cyber stalking is largely misunderstood, many incorrectly assume that cyber stalking involves an element of sexual obsession; however, the research findings are not as conclusive in that regard (Mustaine & Tewksbury 1999). Mustaine and Tewksbury (1999) propose that stalking is a criminal offense motivated by interpersonal hostility and aggressive behaviors stemming from power and control issues rather than material gain or sexual obsession. Cyber stalking, like traditional offline stalking, is fueled by rage, power, control, and anger that may have been precipitated by a victim’s actions or, in some cases, the victim’s inactions. The research suggests that the number of cyber stalking incidents will continue to mount, in part, because the Internet provides a safe haven in which an offender can theoretically hide and conceal one’s identity behind a veil of anonymity (Bowker & Gray 2004). With anonymity, an offender can literally pretend to be someone completely different, which is similar to an actor who conjures up a convincing persona to persuade the audience that the actor’s guise is, in fact, genuine (Bowker & Gray 2004). The anonymity of the Internet also affords the perpetrator an opportunity to contact virtually anyone with Internet access, at any time, with little fear of being identified and even less fear of being arrested and prosecuted under the current legal system in many jurisdictions (Bowker & Gray 2004).
Part I. Online Cyber stalking vs. Traditional Offline Stalking
[…] For one, both offender types, traditional and online, resort to tactics and behaviors that are primarily intended to harass, and in some cases, threaten or intimidate the victim (Petrocelli 2005). As mentioned, traditional stalkers and cyber stalkers will frequently react aggressively when confronted, scorned, rejected, or belittled by a victim (Bocij 2005). […]
Conversely, the research literature also suggests that many cyber stalkers have a prior criminal record, a history of substance abuse, or a personality disorder that directly or partly contributes to, and increases the likelihood of such antisocial behaviors (Hutton & Haantz 2003; Reno, 1999). […]
As repeatedly mentioned, many of the behaviors displayed by cyber stalkers resemble that of traditional stalkers; however, there are many notable differences that clearly distinguish the former from the latter. One of the most striking similarities is that both offender types are motivated by an insatiable desire and need to have power, control, and influence over the victim (Reno 1999). […]
[…] [Compared to the traditional stalker,] the cyber stalker is more inclined to choose his or her victims at random (Bocij & McFarlane 2003; Reno 1999). According to Reno (1999), nearly 50% of all cyber stalking incidents involved complete strangers who were initially contacted in some perceivably innocent manner via the Internet.
In fact, there has been a considerable increase in the number of stranger cases, particularly with cyber stalkers (Reno 1999). The Internet grants cyber stalkers access to a vast amount of personal information with relative ease (Reno 1999). […]
In addition to the people-search websites via Google and other popular search engines, the Internet is host to a number of sites that specifically promote retaliation and revenge, which is, in essence, a cyber stalker’s dream (Bocij 2005). […]
One obvious difference between traditional stalking and cyber stalking is the geographic proximity between the offender and the victim. In a traditional stalking case, the offender and victim often live or work within relatively close proximity of one another whereas cyber stalkers could literally be harassing the victim from the house across the street or from a coffee shop in another state, or even another country for that matter (Reno 1999). One of the many advantages that cyber stalkers have over the traditional stalker is that these offenders typically have a high level of computer proficiency and aptitude, essential skills that allow the stalker to take crucial steps toward avoiding detection (Hutton & Haantz 2003). As stated, the anonymity of the Internet allows the cyber stalker to easily conceal one’s identity through a variety of inexpensive and simple tactics. For instance, cyber stalkers can connect to several different Internet service providers, thereby creating a number of screen names, which will make it nearly impossible to track the origin of the emails (Reno 1999).
Even though most stalkers act alone, the Internet has made it much easier for cyber stalkers to conspire and encourage third parties to harass victims in chat rooms, discussion boards, and within Internet public forums (Reno 1999). […]
Part II. The Internet as a Medium for Online Predatory Behavior
The research findings strongly suggest that cyber stalkers use email as the primary means to harass and threaten victims, far more than any other electronic communication device (Petrocelli 2005). Emailing allows an offender to repeatedly transmit harassing, threatening, hateful, or obscene messages, including pictures, videos, or audio (Petrocelli 2005). […]
As such, revenge and retaliation appear to be the key components of cyber stalking (Hutton & Haantz 2003). […]
Part III. Typology, Etiology of Cyber stalking and Victims
a. Typology of Cyber stalkers
McFarlane and Bocij (2005) have conducted one of the most exhaustive studies on cyber stalkers and stalking victims. Four distinct types of cyber stalkers emerged from the data. There have been other studies, but the others pale in comparison to this particular study in this writer’s opinion. According to McFarlane and Bocij, the four types include the Vindictive Cyber stalker, the Composed Cyber stalker, The Intimate Cyber stalker, and the Collective Cyber stalker (McFarlane & Bocij 2005).
According to McFarlane and Bocij (2005), the Vindictive Cyber stalker is one that is particularly malicious. Offenders in this group were found to threaten and harass victims far more often than the other three groups (McFarlane & Bocij 2005). This group was more likely to employ a number of spiteful tactics that were intended to continuously harass victims through excessive spamming, email bombing, and identity theft (McFarlane & Bocij 2005). […] The group’s computer skills and proficiency ranged from medium to high and there was some indication that mental illness was present based on the bizarre, disturbing content that was often transmitted to victims (McFarlane & Bocij 2005). […]
The Composed Cyber stalker targeted victims in calm, poised, and unruffled manner (McFarlane & Bocij 2005). The primary purpose of the harassment was to cause constant distress in the victim through a variety of threatening behaviors (McFarlane & Bocij 2005). […]
b. Etiology of Stalking
Possible Psychological Explanation
As mentioned earlier, one commonly held myth is that cyber stalkers commit such crimes because of some mental abnormality (Bocij & McFarlane 2003). […] Cyber stalkers tend to be emotionally distant loners…. […]
Social Learning Theory
What is known is that both online and offline stalkers are driven by an underlying desire to exert some type of power and control over the targeted victim (Reno 1999). If one were to approach cyber stalking from a behaviorist’s perspective, one would start by citing the early research of B.F. Skinner and others who drew from the psychological research concerning classical and operant conditioning (Barkan 2006). In classical conditioning, the frequency of an exhibited behavior is often contingent upon the amount of external positive reinforcement received (Barkan 2006). With operant conditioning, certain behaviors are often repeated when rewarded and therefore, positively reinforced (Barkan 2006). If the same behavior is met with a negative response, the behavior is likely to diminish since a reward was not present (Barkan 2006). If a stalker makes contact with the victim and victim engages in a discussion whether positive or negative, the stalker is likely to repeat the action. In other words, it may be best to ignore the stalker rather than offer a negative response. Exhibitionists often display similar behaviors. Exposing one’s genitals to an innocent victim is likely to illicit a response, albeit a shocked response. Even though the response is typically negative, the behavior is still reinforced and therefore sought in all subsequent incidents.
[Downloaded 2/5/2017 from:
Resources and Information on Protecting Victims
for resources and information on protecting victims of cyberstalking.