Cyberstalking scale: Development and relations with gender, FOMO and social media engagement
Open accessAbstract
Cyberstalking is a form of persecution that has proliferated with technology's evolution. The present research aimed to develop a cyberstalking measure and observe its relations with Fear of Missing Out (FOMO), social media engagement, and sociodemographic variables. To achieve these goals, two studies were performed. In the first study, 200 subjects (76.5% female, with a mean age of 21.6 years) answered the 15 items originally developed for the scale. These data went trough exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha to verify the reliability of the instrument. The results indicated the exclusion of five items, and after this removal, the scale was valid and reliable (α = 0.86). In the second study, which also had 200 subjects (65% female and an average age of 21.8 years), was realized confirmatory factor analysis (measuring the model fit), accompanied by correlations and mediation analysis. The analyzes demonstrated that the one-factor model was adequate (GFI = 0.98; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.02; SRMR = 0.06). Path analysis showed social media engagement as a significant mediator of FOMO and gender's impact on cyberstalking: Both had direct (FOMO: λ = 0.31; CI = 0.19-0.42; p < 0.01; Gender: λ = 0.12; CI = 0.02-0.22; p < 0.05) and indirect effects (FOMO: λ = 0.07; CI = 0.03-0.11; p < 0.01; Gender: λ = 0.04; CI = 0.01-0.07; p < 0.01).
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The original Cyberstalking Scale has a one-factor structure with 10 items and a Cronbach alpha of 0.82.
“The ten items solution presents a Cronbach alpha value of 0.82. A confirmatory factor analysis proved that the one-factor model was adequate [51].”
From Dark Personality Traits and Online Behaviors: Portuguese Versions of Cyberstalking, Online Harassment, Flaming and Trolling Scales (2023) · cites this paper as [51]
The Results report a single-factor Cyberstalking Scale, and the Confirmatory Factorial Analysis section reports adequate fit for its final 10-item model. That section gives its reliability as Cronbach’s α = 0.86, not 0.82. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredTraditional stalking is mostly practiced by male perpetrators, but women are more likely to engage in covert stalking behaviors such as cyberstalking and online harassment.
“Although traditional stalking is mostly practiced by male perpetrators, women are more likely to engage in covert stalking behaviors such as cyberstalking and online harassment [51].”
From Dark Personality Traits and Online Behaviors: Portuguese Versions of Cyberstalking, Online Harassment, Flaming and Trolling Scales (2023) · cites this paper as [51]
The Sociodemographic Variables and Cyberstalking section says traditional stalking is mostly represented by male perpetrators and that women are more likely to engage in covert stalking behaviors such as cyberstalking. The General Discussion also reports higher cyberstalking scores among women. The paper describes cyberstalking as a form of online harassment, but does not separately establish that women are more likely to engage in online harassment generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe alpha values found for the Cyberstalking scale are close to the original scale.
“The alpha values found are close to the original scale.”
From Dark Personality Traits and Online Behaviors: Portuguese Versions of Cyberstalking, Online Harassment, Flaming and Trolling Scales (2023) · cites this paper as [51]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 42 · Cited by 33
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Byrne BM Structural equation modeling with Mplus 2012 New York, NY Routledge
- Authors
- Silva Santos, I. L., Pimentel, C. E., & Mariano, T. E.
- Affiliations
- Universidade Federal da Paraíba (BR)
- Venue
- Current Psychology
- Published
- 2021-05-11
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 4802-4810
- ISSN
- 1046-1310 (ISSN-L)
- 1936-4733
- PMC
- PMC8112835
- OpenAlex
- W3160895158
- Cited by
- 33
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2
- FWCI
- 30.87
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Current Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- CNPq
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
- Keywords
- cyberstalking, fear of missing out, social media engagement, gender differences, scale reliability and validity, mediation, persecution, young adults
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
