## 3 Discussion  
The aim of this study was to investigate the difference between cyberstalking victims who have experienced one or more than one type of cyberstalking. As suggested by the literature [1; 7; 9], \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline  & **Never** & **OneType** & **MoreType** & & & \\  & **(_n = 118_)** & **(_n = 49_)** & **(_n = 62_)** & **F** & **\(p\)** & \(\eta^{2}\) \\  & **M (SD)** & **M (SD)** & **M (SD)** & & & \\ \hline Depression symptoms & 3.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) (3.324) & 3.98 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) (3.822) & 5.56 \({}^{\text{b}}\) (5.348) & 7.004 & \(<\)0.001 & 0.073 \\ Anxiety symptoms: & & & & & & \\ state inventory & 40.90 (11.700) & 40.62 (10.620) & 43.03 (10.856) & 0.828 & n.s. & 0.008 \\ (Range: 20–80) & & & & & & \\ Anxiety symptoms: & & & & & \\ trait inventory & 42.04 (10.959) & 43.00 (10.811) & 45.03 (9.875) & 1.524 & n.s. & 0.014 \\ (Range: 20–80) & & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Depression and anxiety symptoms: comparison between Never, OneType, and MoreType (one-way ANOVA) victims. Notes: M, mean; SD, standard deviation; F, Fisher’s ratio; n.s., not statistically significant. Significantly different means are indicated with different superscript letters. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline  & **OneType** & **MoreType** & & & \\  & **(_n = 49_)** & **(_n = 62_)** & **x\({}^{2}\)** & **p** & **\(\varphi\)** \\ \hline Collect evidence & 11 (25.6) & 25 (41.0) & 2.64 & n.s. & 0.159 \\ Decrease use of Internet & 6 (14.3) & 20 (32.8) & 4.51 & 0.027 & 0.209 \\ Have a safety plan & - & 2 (3.3) & 1.43 & n.s. & 0.118 \\ Increase social contact & 9 (21.4) & 15 (24.6) & 0.14 & n.s. & 0.037 \\ Increase misuse of alcohol & 1 (2.4) & 9 (14.8) & 4.34 & 0.035 & 0.205 \\ Increase use of drugs & 1 (2.4) & 2 (3.3) & 0.07 & n.s. & 0.026 \\ Decrease social contact & 1 (2.4) & 4 (6.6) & 0.94 & n.s. & 0.095 \\ Increase use of psychotropic substances & 1 (2.4) & 4 (6.6) & 0.94 & n.s. & 0.095 \\ Buy a weapon & - & 5 (8.2) & 3.62 & n.s. & 0.187 \\ Try to reason with cyberstalker & 5 (11.9) & 20 (32.8) & 5.90 & 0.012 & 0.239 \\ Stop the online contact & 24 (57.1) & 48 (78.7) & 5.49 & 0.017 & 0.231 \\ Ask for an intervention by a social network administrator & 5 (11.9) & 17 (23.3) & 3.94 & 0.039 & 0.197 \\ Ask for an intervention by a phone administrator & - & 4 (6.6) & 2.91 & n.s. & 0.169 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Coping strategies: comparison between OneType and MoreType (percentage in brackets) victims. Note: \(\chi^{2}\) = chi-square value; n.s. = not statistically significant, \(\varphi\) = phi value. we investigated this phenomenon among young people, who are more prone to use the Internet and social networks to increase social contact, play games, and keep in touch with parents and friends [7]. According to the literature, in our sample, about half of the participants experienced at least one cyberstalking behavior. Among them, more than half experienced more than one type of cyberstalking behavior. Victims showed a higher level of depression than those who had never experienced cyberstalking, with MoreType victims of cyberstalking behaviors reaching the cut-off for mild depression. This finding suggests that MoreType victims need an effective strategy to cope with cyberstalking behaviors. As suggested by the literature, active coping strategies, such as the increase of social contact and the avoidance of the Internet (e.g., to stop the online contact), could be more effective than other methods (e.g., increasing the use of psychotropic substances) [21]. In MoreType victims, the experience causes pessimism, life stress, and emotional reactions that have an impact on the victim's quality of life [22]. For anxiety (both state and trait), no statistically significant difference emerged. Even if the MoreType victims indicated higher levels of anxiety symptoms than other groups, the findings showed that they did not reach the cut-off for mild anxiety symptoms. Thus, hypothesis 1 was only partially confirmed.