Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40271872›Full record

SynthesisTrauma, violence & abuse2026

Cyberstalking Perpetrators and Their Methods: A Systematic Literature Review.

Cassidy J Weekes, Jennifer E Storey, Afroditi Pina

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Trauma, violence & abuse, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Cassidy J WeekesUniversity of Kent, Canterbury, UK.ORCID 0009-0007-7758-1375
Jennifer E StoreyUniversity of Kent, Canterbury, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6432-2514
Afroditi PinaUniversity of Kent, Canterbury, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The existing body of research on cyberstalking has identified the prevalent nature of this behavior, and the detrimental impact that cyberstalking has on victims and society. This systematic review aims to summarize literature on the perpetration of cyberstalking with two research questions: (a) Who are the perpetrators of cyberstalking? and (b) What are the methods of cyberstalking? Two literature databases (SCOPUS and Web of Science) were searched for empirical research or literature reviews examining cyberstalking perpetration and/or methods. Following screening, 80 articles were identified and rated as highly relevant based on their applicability to the research questions. Perpetrators of cyberstalking were found to lack social skills, have low self-control, have experienced physical abuse victimization, endorsed stalking-related attitudes, and have higher rates of Internet use. Perpetrators were motivated by trying to reconcile a relationship, exact revenge, seek a relationship, or establish control over the victim. The most commonly reported methods of cyberstalking were unwanted and repeated online contact through email, social media, or text message. Other methods of cyberstalking include accessing the victim's accounts, tracking their GPS location, posing as the victim online, or contacting friends/family of the victim. The findings of this review highlight precursors to, and patterns of, cyberstalking perpetration, and future research is required to explore how existing "offline" stalking risk assessments and typologies can be applied to cases of cyberstalking, which would allow authorities to develop effective case management strategies.

Indexed as

Crime VictimsStalkingHumansInternetcyberstalkingdigital violenceperpetrationstalkingsystematic reviewtechnology-facilitated abuse

Identifiers

PMID40271872
PMCPMC13287456

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.