## Results
### Coping Strategies  
In Table 2 are reported the means of the three categories of coping strategies in the total sample of victims. As we can see in Table 2, victims had a greater tendency to use avoidance coping strategies, followed by proactive coping and finally passivity strategies. One-way ANOVA was performed to compare males (\(n=63\)) vs. females (\(n=117\)). (Table 3). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Online**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Online**} \\  & **Online** & **Unwanted** & **Online Threats** & **Online Identity** \\  & **Contact** & **Harassment** & **Sexual** & **of Violence** & **Faud** \\  & **(\(n=67\))** & **Advances** & **(\(n=37\))** & **(\(n=43\))** \\  & & & **Perpetrator’s Gender** & & \\ male & 75\% & 75\% & 87\% & 69\% & 63\% \\ female & 25\% & 25\% & 13\% & 31\% & 37\% \\  & & **Relationship with the Perpetrator** & & & \\ friend or & 45\% & 52\% & 47\% & 58\% & 28\% \\ acquaintance & 45\% & 52\% & 47\% & 58\% & 28\% \\ partner or & 26\% & 14\% & 4\% & 17\% & 10\% \\ ex-partner & 29\% & 34\% & 49\% & 25\% & 62\% \\ Stray in contact with & & & & & \\ relatives/friends & 64\% & 57\% & 64\% & 60\% & 53\% \\ Study/Work & 28\% & 35\% & 24\% & 40\% & 47\% \\ Flirt & 3\% & 0\% & 4\% & 0\% & 0\% \\ Other motives & 5\% & 8\% & 8\% & 0\% & 0\% \\  & & **Time Spent on the Internet 1 (More than 3 h a Day)** & & & \\ Leisure & 54\% & 59\% & 58\% & 60\% & 45\% \\ Send messages & 42\% & 42\% & 43\% & 44\% & 50\% \\ Chat & 43\% & 42\% & 41\% & 47\% & 43\% \\ Videogames & 8\% & 14\% & 7\% & 9\% & 5\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Total percentages are over 100% because the different activities are not mutually exclusive.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Proactive** & **Avoidance** & **Passivity** \\  & **M (SD)** & **M (SD)** & **M (SD)** \\ \hline Coping strategies & 0.97 (1.02) & 1.27 (0.84) & 0.19 (0.55) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Notes: M, mean; SD, standard deviation; (Range: 0–4).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Coping strategies used in the sample of victims (\(n=180\)). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Males** & **Females** & **F** & \(p\) & \(\eta^{2}\) \\  & **M (SD)** & **M (SD)** & **F** & \(p\) & \(\eta^{2}\) \\ \hline Proactive coping & 0.93 (0.96) & 1.01 (1.07) & 0.22 & n.s. & 0.002 \\ \hline Avoidance coping & 1.09 (0.89) & 1.39 (0.79) & 4.69 & 0.03 & 0.03 \\ \hline Passivity coping & 0.33 (.076) & 0.11 (0.37) & 6.16 & 0.01 & 0.04 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Notes: M, mean; SD, standard deviation; (Range: 0–4).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Coping strategies: comparison on the basis of gender (one-way ANOVA). As we can observe in Table 3, the propensity to use avoidance coping strategies was greater in females, while the tendency to use passivity coping strategies was greater in males. No significant differences on the basis of gender were found with respect to proactive coping strategies. To analyze the use of different coping strategies on the basis of the different forms of cyberstalking, one-way ANOVA was performed. Coping strategies were introduced as dependent variables, while victims of each form of cyberstalking were compared, one by one, with all the other victims. The results are reported in Table 4.  
Although avoidance coping strategies had the highest mean levels for all the categories of cyberstalking, some differences were found in the case of proactive and passivity coping strategies. As we can observe in Table 4, there was a greater tendency to use proactive coping strategies by victims of online contacts and of online identity fraud, compared to victims of other forms of cyberstalking. Moreover, a significant difference was found in the case of victims of online threats, who had a greater propensity to use of passivity coping strategies compared to victims of other forms of cyberstalking.