An Exploratory Study of Stalking Behaviors and Intimate

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF STALKING BEHAVIORS AND INTIMATE

ABUSE PERPETRATION IN YOUNG ADULT WOMEN

by

ROBERT J. W. CLIFT

BSc, University of Victoria, 1998

THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS

in

THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

Department of Psychology (Forensics)

We accept this thesis as conforming

Tofthe inquired standard

THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

September, 2001

© Robert J. W. Clift In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.

Department of

The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada

Date

DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT

Women's perpetration of intimate abuse and stalking behaviors have remained relatively unexplored despite the fact that there is a mounting body of evidence suggesting that they are not rare occurrences (e.g., White & Koss, 1991; Fremouw, Westrup & Pennypacker 1997). The objectives of the current study, therefore, were to explore variables that may be related to stalking and abuse perpetration in women and to perform a test-retest of the Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS; Dutton, 1995b) and of Oldham and associates' (1985) Borderline Personality Organization (BPO) scale. These objectives were accomplished by having 65 women, who were in intimate relationships, complete both the PAS and BPO scale during the 1998-1999 school year (Time One). Two years later (Time Two), those same women were asked back to the lab. At that time they completed the PAS and BPO scale again. Those women who were still in the same relationship at Time Two as they were at Time One also completed the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex Scales (IIP-C; Alden, Wiggins & Pincus, 1990) and measures of psychological and physical abuse perpetration. Women who were no longer in their Time One relationship completed the IIP-C and two measures of stalking behaviors. Results from the current study would suggest that the prototypical physically and psychologically abusive woman is one who has borderline personality features, is affectively labile and was abused as a child. Additionally, abusive women score highly on the Vindictive and Domineering scales of the IIP-C. They may also suffer from trauma symptoms, but this relationship is less clear. A different stalking profile is produced whether one looks at correlational data, or at variables that added predictive value to a regression equation. The stalking profile produced with correlational data suggests that female stalkers have had negative childhood experiences and they display trauma symptoms. Additionally, female stalking perpetrators endorse vindictive and domineering traits as measured by the IIP-C. They also appear to be affectively labile, and display BPO. Based on multiple regression, female stalkers again presented with vindictive and domineering traits. Recalled Negative Parental Treatment also remained an important variable. The one new variable that was identified as important by multiple regression was the Intrusive scale of the IIP-C. This finding is not entirely surprising, however, as high Intrusive scorers are described as people who are attention seeking and find it difficult to spend time alone (Alden et al., 1990). Both the PAS and the Oldham and associates' BPO scale proved highly reliable over a two-year period. The same was true for each of the subscales, with the exception of the Identity Diffusion subscale on the BPO scale, which only had a marginally significant test-retest correlation over a two-year period. Ill

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 11

LIST OF TABLES vi

DEDICATION vii

INTRODUCTION 1

Prevalence of dating violence 1

Women's violence 3

Dating violence perpetrators 3 Demographic factors 3 Familial factors 4 Relationship factors 4 Situational factors 5 Attitudinal factors 6 Intrapsychic factors 6

A batterer typology 7

Prediction of intimate violence 8 Borderline personality organization 8 Propensity for abusiveness 9

Stalking and intimate violence 9

Stalking laws 10

Prevalence of stalking 10

Women's stalking 11

A stalking typology 12

Stalking perpetrators 12 Demographic factors 12 Familial factors 13 Relationship factors 14 Attitudinal factors 14 Intrapsychic factors 15

Current study 16 Intimate abuse perpetration 16 IV

Stalking perpetration 17 Test reliability 17

METHODS 17

Participants 17

Measures 18 Borderline Personality Organization scale 18 Propensity for Abusiveness Scale 19 Inventory of Interpersonal Problems 19 Conflict Tactics Scale 20 Psychological Maltreatment of Men 20 Stalking Behavior Checklist 21 Intrusiveness scale 21 Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding 22

Procedure 22

RESULTS 24

Psychological abuse 24

Verbal aggression/symbolic violence 25

Physical abuse 25

Stalking Perpetration 26

Stalking Victimization 26

Social Desirability 26

Test Reliability 27

DISCUSSION 27

Intimate abuse 27

Stalking 28

Test Reliability 29

Limitations and caveats 30

Conclusions and future directions 30 V

REFERENCES 32

APPENDIX 41 VI

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Correlations of Two Measures of Abusiveness, the PMMI and the CTS, with Women's Self-Report on the BPO scale, the PAS and the IIP-C 36

Table 2. Correlations of Two Measures of Stalking, the Intrusiveness Scale and the SBC, with Women's Self- Report on the BPO scale, the PAS and the IIP-C For Both Women and Their Former Partners 38

Table 3. Test-Retest Correlations for the BPO Scale and the PAS After a Two Year Period 40 DEDICATION

To my mother, Joyce, and my father, Walter— two people who support and encourag in whatever path I choose. 1

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY OF STALKING BEHAVIORS AND INTIMATE ABUSE PERPETRATION IN YOUNG ADULT WOMEN

INTRODUCTION

The research presented in this thesis was intended to elucidate some of the variables that are related to college women's perpetration of dating violence and stalking behaviors. These areas have remained relatively unexplored despite the fact that there is a mounting body of evidence suggesting that they are not rare occurrences (e.g., White & Koss, 1991; Fremouw, Westrup & Pennypacker 1997).

Prevalence of dating violence In Makepeace's (1981) seminal article on "courtship violence," he reported that one-fifth of students at a college in Minnesota had experienced an incident of violence in a dating relationship. Although Makepeace reported incidents ranging from threats to assault with a weapon, the most common forms of violence were pushing and slapping. Oddly, Makepeace did not report whether it was the man or woman who used violence. He did, however, ask respondents if they felt like they were the "victim" or the "aggressor" in the situation. Women were much more likely than men to report themselves as feeling like the victim (91.7% versus 30.8%), but unfortunately, subjects were not able to report that they felt like both a victim and an aggressor. Since Makepeace's article, many researchers have tried to replicate his findings. In 1989, Sugarman and Hotaling conducted a review of published prevalence rates for dating violence. At that time more than 20 articles had been published on high school and college dating violence. Unfortunately, as the authors pointed out, it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons across studies for several reasons. Although most researchers have used Straus' (1979) Conflict Tactics Scale or a variant of it to measure violence, authors diverge in what they are willing to label violence. Some authors only include acts of physical violence, whereas some include threats, and others include verbal aggression. Also, some studies look at incidence of abuse (abuse that occurred in the year before the study) whereas others look at the prevalence (events that occurred over a longer time period—often one's entire life; DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998). Because of these variations in methodology, Sugarman & Hotaling (1989) recommend that readers use caution when comparing different statistics. In their review Sugarman & Hotaling (1989) found that estimates of lifetime prevalence rates for dating violence vary from 9 to 65%. Overall, college samples . reported an average prevalence of 31.9% whereas high school samples reported an average prevalence of 22.3%. Sugarman and Hotaling also found evidence for regional variations in dating violence. Studies conducted in the southern United States found a much higher average prevalence rate (43.8%) than in the East (22.8%), Midwest (25.7%) or West (27.5%). In terms of gender differences, the authors note that some studies have found women to be less violent than men, as Makepeace's original article suggested, but others have found that women perpetrate more violence than men (e.g., Magdol et al., 2

1997).1 One finding that is fairly consistent across studies, however, is that violence between the sexes is often, if not usually, a mutual occurrence. In order to get a more complete understanding of incidence rates, White and Koss (1991) conducted a national survey of college students in the United States. The total sample consisted of 2602 women and 2105 men who were thought to be representative of American college students.2 The authors assessed both verbal-symbolic aggression and physical aggression using Straus' conflict tactics scale (1979). No statistically significant differences were found between men and women in terms of perpetrating or sustaining verbal-symbolic or physical aggression. Overall, 36.7% of men reported inflicting physical aggression and 38.7% reported sustaining physical aggression in an intimate relationship in the previous year. Likewise 35.1% of women reported inflicting physical aggression and 32.4% reported sustaining it. Over 80% of both male and female participants reported inflicting and receiving verbal-symbolic aggression. DeKeseredy and Kelly conducted a Canadian National Survey (CNS) of dating violence at universities and colleges in 1992 (DeKeseredy and Schwartz, 1998). The CNS sample consisted of over 3000 men and women and was thought to be nationally representative.3 Because the intent of the study was largely to look at male violence directed at female victims, men and women were given different surveys. To some degree this limits the conclusions that can be drawn from the CNS, but it remains the most comprehensive survey on dating violence conducted in Canada. On Straus' Conflict Tactics Scale 13.7% of males reported physically abusing their partners in the previous year while 22.3% of women reported that they had sustained physical abuse (DeKeseredy and Schwartz, 1998). Since leaving high school, 35%) of women reported having been physically abused and 17.8% of men reported that they had been perpetrators of physical abuse. As is typically found, "milder" forms of violence such as pushing and shoving were more commonly reported than more severe forms such as punching. With respect to psychological abuse, 74.1% of men reported perpetrating it in the previous year, and 79.1% of women reported sustaining it. The number of men who reported perpetrating psychological abuse increased to 80%> when looking at their behavior since leaving high school. The comparable figure was not given for women. Although men were not asked about their victimization in the CNS, women were asked about their perpetration of physical abuse in intimate relationships (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998). Since leaving high school, 46.1% of women reported using violence of some form. Perpetration of "milder" forms of violence was reported by 38.4% of women

1 Working with a sample of over 800 men and women in New Zealand, Madgol and associates (1997) found that 37.2% of women and 21.8% of men claimed to have committed an act of violence in an intimate relationship. Men's and women's reports of victimization were similar. That is, men reported greater victimization than women. 2 The criteria for selection of institutions in White and Koss' (1991) study included regional location, size of metropolitan area, enrollment size, type of institutional authority (public, private, religious or secular), type of institution (university, college or technical school) and percentage enrollment of minority students. Within each institution that was chosen, a random sample of classes was selected. 3 The criteria for selection of institutions in DeKeseredy and Schwartz's (1998) study included geographical location, type of institution (college or university) and language (English or French). Two classes were chosen at each institution to represent incoming students and more advanced students. Finally, the type of class was taken into consideration (e.g., art or science). 3

and 19.2% reported using severe forms of violence. Women were also asked what percentage of their violence was used in "self-defense," what percentage was "fighting back" and what percentage of the time they initiated the attack. Of those women who had used minor violence, 37% said that they had initiated the violence at least some of the time. Forty-three percent of women who had used severe violence made this admission. Overall then, 8.4% of women surveyed claimed to have initiated an act of severe violence since leaving high school and 13.2% claimed to have initiated minor violence. It is difficult to compare these figures to the ones given for men's violence because men were not asked whether they initiated acts of violence, and their responses are not broken down into minor and severe categories.

Women's violence Although a range of dating violence prevalence rates have been found, most studies find that women use violent tactics about as frequently as men do (Lewis & Fremouw, 2001; Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989). Furthermore, like their male counterparts, women have been found to use both "mild" and severe forms of aggression (e.g., DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1998). This finding lead Billingham and associates to conclude that "perhaps it is time for society to accept the fact that in dating relationships women are as aggressive and violent as are men" (Billingham, Bland, & Leary, 1999, p. 577). On the other hand, some researchers assert that equating men's violence to women's based solely on hit counts is naive. One reason for this assertion is that studies consistently find women to be more likely to sustain both physical and emotional injuries as the result of dating violence (e.g., Molidor & Tolman, 1998). Additionally, as DeKeseredy and Schwartz (1998) found, much of women's violence is due to self- defense, or fighting back. DeKeseredy and Schwartz did not analyze men's use of self- defense for comparison, however, and at least one study has found that being a victim of intimate violence is the best predictor of perpetrating violence for both men and women (Bookwala, Frieze, Smith & Ryan, 1992). The position I take is that men may instigate more violence and cause more injury to their partners than women, but women's violence is important nonetheless. Women's dating violence is important for at least two reasons: (1) because some men are injured by female initiated violence; both physically and emotionally (e.g., Foshee, 1996; George, 1999); and (2) because women themselves experience negative consequences from their violence. The most common emotional response that both women and men have following perpetration of dating violence is sorrow (Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989). Although in most cases the trauma reported is mild, some perpetrators—particularly women—report severe emotional trauma after perpetrating abuse. I now turn to what is known about violent men and women.

Dating violence perpetrators Demographic factors Several researchers have tried to differentiate people involved in violent dating relationships from those who are not based on demographic variables. In the American national survey, White and Koss (1991) found no significant differences between violent and non-violent college women in terms of the size of the town they were living in, type of institution they were attending, their ethnicity, and family income. Regional 4

differences were found for men, however. Men attending colleges in the Great Lakes area and the Southeast were more likely to report the use of symbolic and physical aggression than their counterparts in other areas of the country. They were also more likely to report that their female partners used physical aggression. Although the American national survey found no effect of parental income, studies have generally found that people of lower socioeconomic status (SES) perpetrate more dating violence than those of higher SES (Lewis & Fremouw, 2001); this effect is particularly pronounced for men (Magdol et al., 1997; Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989). There also appears to be what Sugarman and Hotaling (1989) refer to as a "status- incongruence" effect where victims of dating violence are disproportionately represented by the wealthy and perpetrators are more often poor (p. 21). No particular religion has been associated with dating violence although there is some evidence to suggest that people who rarely, or never attend church are more violent than people who do attend church (Magdol et al., 1997; Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989). People who are brought up in cities are also more likely to report violence in dating relationships than those raised in rural areas (Lewis & Fremouw, 2001; Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989), although a study by Reuterman and Burcky (1989) found the opposite.

Familial factors In addition to demographic variables, several authors have suggested that experiencing violence in the family of origin may be related to later perpetration of dating violence. Empirical support for this claim has been weak, however. In Sugarman and Hotaling's (1989) review, they cite seven studies that found experiencing violence as a child to be a risk factor for becoming violent in dating relationships. Nevertheless, five of the studies they reviewed did not find a relationship. Similar results have been found with men and women who witnessed parental violence as children leading Sugarman and Hotaling (1989) to conclude that "[njeither offenders nor victims of dating violence are any more likely to have been exposed to violence between parents during childhood than their nonviolent counterparts" (p. 17). On the other hand, noting that many studies do find an effect of parental violence and/or childhood victimization, Lewis and Fremouw (2001) suggest that there may be a mediating variable involved in the intergenerational transmission of abuse. Supporting this theory are studies such as O'Keefe's (1998) which found that the combination of experiencing childhood abuse and witnessing parental aggression is associated with perpetrating dating violence in women.

Relationship factors In terms of relationship commitment, most studies have found that dating violence is more likely in longer relationships and in relationships that involve cohabitation (Sugarman and Hotaling, 1989). For example, in the CNS, DeKeseredy and Schwartz (1998) found that cohabiting men were more likely to be physically abusive than non- cohabiting men. Men in self-defined "serious" relationships were also more physically abusive than men in men in self defined "casual" relationships. The same results were found for women reporting on their victimization. Unfortunately, as previously mentioned, the authors did not ask about male victimization or female perpetration. In another study of Canadian university students, Pedersen and Thomas (1992) found that students who had experienced violence had been in relationships longer than 5

students who had not experienced violence. They were also more committed to their relationships, and reported more frequent use of verbal aggression by themselves and their partners (Pedersen & Thomas, 1992). Although relationships certainly end due to violence, the percentage of research participants that report their relationship ending varies from study to study. In a study of Californian high school students, less than 15% of victims and perpetrators reported that violence ended the relationship prompting the authors to conclude "that violence in an of itself was usually not [considered by respondents to be] sufficient grounds for ending a relationship" (O'Keeffe, Brockopp & Chew, 1986, p. 467). Similarly, almost half of the university students in Makepeace's (1981) study who had experienced violence reported still being in the relationship. Of those people who report staying in violent relationships, many actually claim that the relationship improved after violence. For example, O'Keeffe, Brockopp and Chew (1986) found that 21% of victims and 17% of perpetrators said that the relationship improved after violence. In total, 51% of victims and 54% of perpetrators reported that there was either no change in the relationship or that there was an improvement after the violent incident. In a study conducted by Matthews (1984), only 31 % of college students claimed that their relationship worsened after the violence while 43% said it improved. This may relate to the fact that 61%> of men and 39% of women in Mathews' study reported that they reacted to violence by talking with their partner. Along similar lines, there is some preliminary evidence to suggest that poor communication skills lead to dating violence (Lewis & Fremouw, 2001). The relationship is not as strong or as clear as one may expect, however.

Situational factors In Makepeace's (1981) preliminary study on courtship violence, he found that the most common reasons given for violent arguments were jealousy (27.2%); disagreements over drinking behavior; and, denial of sexual activity. Almost a third of respondents said that they had been drinking at the time of the incident and half said that their partner had been drinking. Although men were more likely to report drinking at the time of the incident than women, this difference was not statistically significant. In a later study by Matthews (1984), 31% of respondents cited involvement, or perceived involvement, in another relationship as the reason for the argument. This is comparable to Makepeace's (1981) findings about jealousy. The most common reason cited for violence in Matthews' study was communication difficulties (34%). Unlike Makepeace's findings, relatively few fights were reportedly started due to a lack of sexual contact (6%). Forty-five percent of the subjects in Matthews' study reported that either they, or their partner, or both, were drinking at the time that violence occurred. Additionally, 25%> of the subjects in Matthews' study reported that either they, or their partner, or both, were using drugs at the time of the incident. Consistent with the findings of Makepeace's (1981) and Matthews' (1984) studies, Lewis and Fremouw (2001) concluded in their recent review that alcohol is a factor in dating violence. Some studies have found that it is more influential in men's violence than women's violence, although the opposite has also been found (e.g., Foshee, Linder, MacDougall & Bangdiwala, 2001). Also consistent with Makepeace's (1981) and Matthews' (1984) studies is the finding by Sugarman and Hotaling (1989) that jealousy is 6 the most common reason cited for violent interactions (although it was marginally less common in Mathews' study). Along these lines, the emotions most commonly associated with dating violence are anger and confusion (Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989).

Attitudinal factors Studies have consistently shown that men's attitudes towards premarital violence are predictive of their own use of violence in dating relationships (Bookwala et al., 1992; Foshee et al, 2001; Sugarman and Hotaling, 1989). That is, intimately violent men are generally more accepting of violence. Even so, Sugarman and Hotaling (1989) point out that this does not necessarily mean that acceptance of violence leads to violence; it may be that men's attitudes towards violence are formed on the basis of their own behavior. The relationship between women's acceptance of intimate violence and their use of violence remains equivocal (Sugarman and Hotaling, 1989). Although several studies have found no relationship in women, at least one study has found that violent woman may be less accepting of violence than their non-violent counterparts (Bookwala et al., 1992). In terms of adherence to traditional sex role attitudes, studies have failed to reach a consensus (Sugarman and Hotaling, 1989). One possible explanation for this is that it is not how traditional a man or woman's beliefs are that matter, but rather how much their sex-role beliefs differ from their partner's. At least one study has found this (Sigelman, Berry & Wiles, 1984). Going beyond attitudes, Stets and Pirog-Good (1987) looked at the expression of male and female personality traits. They found that expressiveness (a stereotypically female trait) was positively related to men's, but not women's, perpetration of violence. Expressiveness is indicative of dependency and therefore it makes intuitive sense that expressive individuals would want to control and be controlled. It is interesting, therefore, that expressiveness was not related to violence in women. In a latter study, Burke, Stets and Pirog-Good (1989) did find that both men and women with less masculine (and more feminine) gender identities are more likely to use violence against their partners.

Intrapsychic factors In the dating violence literature there has been limited work done on intrapsychic factors. The intrapsychic trait that is most commonly studied in conjunction with dating violence is self-esteem. There appears to be a relationship between perpetrating abuse and low self-esteem in males (Lewis & Fremouw, 2001), although some studies have failed to find an effect (e.g., Pedersen & Thomas, 1992), and one study found a positive relationship between men's self-esteem and perpetrating abuse (Stets & Pirog-Good, 1987, cited in Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989). If there is a relationship between low self- esteem and abuse, it is not clear if low self-esteem precedes, or follows abuse (Lewis & Fremouw, 2001). It is also possible that some third variable, such as one's own victimization, is confounding the relationship. Regardless, the relationship is presently equivocal in men and highly questionable in women (Lewis & Fremouw, 2001). In a recent study, Davis, Ace and Andra (2000) looked beyond self-esteem at several other intrapsychic variables. In two separate samples of male and female undergraduate students, they found that perpetration of psychological abuse was 7

positively correlated with need for control, and anxious attachment4 A combined Anger- Jealousy variable was also significantly correlated with perpetration of psychological abuse in one sample, but not in the other. Although Davis and associates' (2000) findings on anger and jealousy were inconclusive, a study by Makepeace (1986) would suggest that anger is an important variable in abuse perpetration. He found that 24.2% of college women and 28.3% of men admitted that they had used violence against their intimate partner due to "uncontrollable anger." Jealousy also appears to be an important variable. A study by Bookwala and associates (1992) found that romantic jealousy was related to perpetration of intimate violence in college women, although not in men. Stets and Pirog-Good (1987) also found that a jealousy-producing situation was related to women's use of violence.

A batterer typology Although there has been limited work with personality variables in the dating violence literature, marital violence researchers have studied them extensively. It is difficult to know whether people who perpetrate courtship violence share personality characteristics with perpetrators of marital violence, but the two phenomena certainly have some features in common (Carlson, 1987). Therefore, I will briefly describe maritally violent men. There appears to be 3 subtypes of martially violent men, although other smaller subgroups are sometimes found (e.g., Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge & Tolin, 1996; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994; Saunders, 1992; Tweed & Dutton, 1998). These subtypes are differentiated based on their psychopathology and personality disorders as well as the severity and generality of their violence (Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994). There is some disagreement over the exact characteristics of the three groups and what they should be called. Therefore, for conciseness I will only summarize Holtzworth- Munroe and Stuart's (1994) model here. Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) labeled their three subtypes family only, Dysphoric-Borderline and generally violent-anti-social. The family only group, as the name implies, are thought to only use violence in the family setting. They either have no personality disorder or possibly Passive-Dependant Personality Disorder. Dependant Personality Disorder is characterized by an excessive need to be taken care of (APA, 1994). Family only batterers are also thought to use the least severe marital violence, and are less likely to psychological or sexually abuse their wives. Dysphoric-Borderline batterers engage in moderate to severe physical abuse; they may also psychologically and sexually abuse their partners. Dysphoric-Borderline batterers generally limit their violence to family members, but some extramarital violence may occur. They are the most dysphoric, emotionally volatile, and psychologically distressed of the three subtypes. As the name implies, the Dysphoric-Borderline group may be suffering from borderline or schizoidal personality characteristics. Borderline Personality Disorder is characterized by a "pervasive pattern of instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity" (APA, 1994, p. 650). Schizoidal Personality Disorder on the other hand is associated with detachment

4 Both "fearful" and "preoccupied" attachment styles are subsumed by the label anxious attachment (Bartholomew and Shaver, 1998). Anxiously attached individuals are typified by a negative view of themselves and a fear of abandonment (Bartholomew and Shaver, 1998; Davis et al., 2000). 8

from social relationships and a restricted range of expression of emotions (APA, 1994). Dysphoric-borderline batterers may also abuse drugs and alcohol. The final group, generally violent-antisocial batterers, engages in moderate to severe violence and may also use psychological and sexual abuse. They are the most likely to use extramarital violence, have a criminal history, and have Antisocial Personality Disorder (APD) or Psychopathy. Antisocial Personality is exemplified by a pattern of "disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others" (APA, 1994, p. 645). Psychopathy is a personality disorder that combines features of APD with an emotional/affective component (Cleckley, 1976; Hare, 1970). Affectively, people with Psychopathy display a variety of unusual traits including shallow emotions, and a lack of empathy. The generally violent-antisocial batterers are also the most likely to use drugs and alcohol.

Prediction of intimate violence Borderline personality organization A number of scales have been identified that are predictive of intimate abusiveness. For the purposes of this discussion, however, I will focus on two that are used in the current paper. One of these scales is Oldham and colleagues' Borderline Personality Organization (BPO) scale (1985). Borderline personality organization is related to, but not synonymous with Borderline Personality Disorder (Oldham et al., 1985). Borderline personality organization, as captured by Oldham and colleagues' BPO scale, applies to patients suffering from many DSM-IV (APA, 1994) axis two disorders including: Paranoid, Schizoid, Histrionic, Narcissistic, Antisocial and Borderline personality disorders. The central components of borderline personality organization are identity diffusion, primitive defenses and reality testing. Identity diffusion items on Oldham and colleagues (1985) BPO scale reflect an uncertainty about, or fluctuations in, the sense of self; uncertainty about others; instability in intimate relationships; and contradictory behaviors. The primitive defense items reflect splitting (the tendency to divide the self and external objects into "all good" and "all bad" derivatives); omnipotence; idealization; and projective identification. The reality testing items are thought to reveal the transient psychotic episodes that borderlines experience.5 Items in this category incorporate differentiation of the self from the non-self; differentiation of external from internal origins of perceptions or stimuli; evaluation of behavior in terms of social criteria; and internal reality testing. Working with assaultive males, Dutton has shown that the BPO scale is significantly correlated with men's self-reports of perpetrating both psychological and physical abuse (Dutton, 1995a). Abusive men's scores on the BPO scale have also been shown to correlate with their partners' reports of physical and psychological abuse victimization. Finally, assaultive males who score in the upper and lower quartiles on the BPO scale have been shown to score significantly different on measures of jealousy, anger, verbal abuse and physical abuse (Dutton, 1994).

5 Whether borderlines experience psychotic episodes remains a topic of debate. See Oldham and associates' (1985) for details. 9

Propensity for abusiveness A second measure that has been shown to predict men's abusiveness is Dutton's (1995b) Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS). Dutton developed the PAS because most other measures of abuse are highly reactive. That is, men's reports on many measures of abusiveness are correlated with their reports on measures of social desirability. Consequently, the PAS was developed by selecting the most highly correlated items from other less reactive scales that are related to abuse. Items were taken from the Multidimensional Anger Inventory (MAI; Siegel, 1986), the Trauma Symptom Checklist (TSC-33; Briere & Runtz, 1989), the Egna Minnen Betraffande Uppfostran (EMBU; Perris, Jacobsson, Lindstrom, von Knorring & Perris, 1980), the Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994), and the BPO scale (Oldham et al., 1985). These scales measure anger, trauma symptoms, memories of parental warmth and rejection, adult attachment styles, and borderline personality organization, respectively. Since its development, the PAS has been shown to correctly classify men as high (one standard deviation above the mean) or low (one standard deviation below the mean) in psychological abusiveness 82% of the time (Dutton, 1995b). The PAS has also been shown to be significantly correlated with psychological and physical abusiveness in a sample of men in treatment for intimate assault; a sample of gay men; and a sample of male college students (Dutton, Landolt, Starzomski & Bodnarchuk, 2001). Furthermore, the PAS has been shown to correlate with psychological abusiveness in a control group of non-assaultive males, and a group of clinical outpatients.

Stalking and intimate violence Many researchers believe that stalking and intimate assault share a common etiology. For example, Kurt (1995) concluded, "there is no doubt that some stalking behavior represents a form of domestic violence and can be construed, at the very least, as a type of interpersonal coercion" (p. 221). Research by Davis, Ace and Andra (2000) supports Kurt's assertion. Working with both male and female undergraduates, Davis and colleagues found that use of psychological abuse during a relationship was significantly correlated with stalking perpetration after the relationship ended. Along a similar line, Coleman (1997) hypothesized that stalking may actually play into a cycle of violence. That is, she theorized that men who are abusive during a romantic relationship would be more likely to stalk their partners after the termination of the relationship. In order to test this theory, Coleman (1997) asked college women about their experiences with stalking and abuse. As anticipated, those women who had been stalked after a romantic relationship dissolved were significantly more likely to report that they experienced verbal and physical abuse during the relationship. Since Coleman's study, Logan, Leukefeld, and Walker (2000) have replicated her results with psychological and physical abuse victimization in women. A relationship between psychological abuse and stalking victimization was found in men as well, but no relationship was found between physical abuse and stalking victimization. Tjaden and Thoennes (2000) looked at the stalking-intimate violence relationship from a different perspective. They analyzed domestic violence crime reports produced by the Colorado Springs police department and determined that 18.3%o of women who reported intimate violence victimization to police were also stalked. The comparable 10

figure for men was 10.5%. Interestingly, although there were 285 behavioral descriptions of stalking found in police reports from January to September, 1999, the vast majority of reports did not use the word "stalking," and only one suspect was charged with stalking. It is not clear why the remaining 284 men and women were not charged; it may be that victims and police are unfamiliar with stalking legislation due to its relative youthfulness.

Stalking laws The first stalking law was passed in 1990 in California and by 1995 all American states had anti-stalking laws. Then, in 1996 a federal law was passed preventing stalkers from crossing state lines (Tjaden, Thoennes & Allison, 2000). Just what constitutes stalking varies from state to state, but most states define it as "the willful, malicious, and repeated following and harassing of another person" (Tjaden et al., 2000, p. 7). Some states require evidence that the act was not an isolated incident. Some states also require that the stalker make a credible threat, where as others only require an implied threat. In Canada, stalking was introduced into the criminal code as "criminal harassment" in 1993 (section 264 of the Criminal Code; Canada Department of Justice, 1996). Essentially, the anti-stalking law in Canada states that a person may not repeatedly follow, visit, call, or write someone, either directly or indirectly, who does not want this contact. Under the criminal harassment laws it is also illegal to watch someone, their home, or their workplace, or do anything that threatens them, or a member of their family. The behavior has to occur more than once to be considered stalking, with the exception of watching someone or acting in a threatening way towards them. Additionally, under Canadian law, the behavior must be such that it would cause fear for a "reasonable" person.

Prevalence of stalking Tjaden, Thoennes, and Allison (2000) conducted a study of stalking victimization in the United States with a nationally representative sample. Approximately 8000 men and 8000 women were surveyed; all of whom were over the age of 18. Subjects were asked both directly and indirectly whether they had been stalked. Using a legal definition of stalking, 2.2% of men and 8.1% of women surveyed had been stalked at some point in their lives. When asked directly, however, "Have you been stalked?" 6.2% of men and 12.1% of women responded affirmatively. For the people who met the self-defined criteria, but not the legal criteria (4% of men and 4.4% of women) the most common reason (accounting for more than 60% of the cases) was that they did not meet the fear standard (Tjaden et al., 2000). That is, either they were not "very frightened" by the behavior, or they did not think that they, or someone close to them, would be harmed; one of these two assertions had to be made in order to meet the legal definition of stalking that was used. Almost one percent (0.8%) of men and 2.2% of women met the legal definition of a stalking victim but did not self-identify as a victim. Overall, men were significantly more likely to fall in this category. However, both men and women were more likely to say they were stalked if the perpetrator was a former intimate. In reality, the national survey found that women are more likely to be stalked by former intimates, but men are more likely to be stalked by strangers and acquaintances. 11

There has not been a national study of stalking prevalence in Canada, but there is some information available from police records. A group of 106 Canadian police forces reported that there were 5,382 incidents of Criminal harassment in 1999 (Statistics Canada, 2000). While these police forces are not nationally representative, they do deal with 41% of the national volume of crime in Canada. Extrapolating from this information, it is reasonable to assume that there are well over 10,000 cases of criminal harassment per year in Canada. Approximately 75% of the reported cases involved female victims. As with the American sample, most female stalking victims were stalked by either a current or former partner, whereas men were more likely to be stalked by casual acquaintances. The American national sample and Canadian statistics deal with all stalking victims, but there have been some studies restricted to college students. Fremouw, Westrup and Pennypacker (1997) have reported on two studies of college students. Each sample consisted of approximately 300 subjects recruited from psychology classes. Across the two studies, 30.7% of women and 16.7% of men claimed to have been victims of stalking according to a legal definition. In total, men were stalked 48% of the time by someone they had either seriously or casually dated; the comparable figure for women was 65%. When asked how they coped with their stalking victimization, one of the least common responses was to call the police, suggesting that the limited Canadian data is an underestimate of actual stalking rates in this country. Bjerregaard (2000) conducted a stalking victimization survey on a sample of almost 800 undergraduate and graduate students who were randomly selected from a university in the southeastern United States. Overall 25% of women and 11% of men reported that they had been stalked at some point. Interestingly, when asked about the characteristics of their stalkers, only the minority of respondents said that their stalker was a student. As with previous studies, the majority of victims were acquainted with their stalkers and a large percentage of both female (41.8%) and male (40.7%) victims were stalked by former partners.

Women's stalking The evidence on stalking shows that women are substantially more likely than men to report being victims of stalking (e.g., Bjerregaard, 2000; Statistics Canada, 2000; Tjaden et al., 2000; Fremouw et al., 1997). There is also some limited evidence to suggest that men are more likely than women to report being a stalker, although both sexes are unlikely to answer yes to the question "Have you ever stalked someone?" (Fremouw et al., 1997). In terms of contact with the criminal justice system, again men are more often implicated as stalkers (e.g., Zona, Sharma & Lane, 1993). Therefore, it would appear that men are far more likely to perpetrate stalking behaviors. Women do stalk, however, and when one looks at samples of college students following a breakup, the number of stalking-like behaviors perpetrated by women is very similar to those perpetrated by men (e.g., Davis et al., 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Palarea, Cohen & Rohling, 2000). This would suggest that, at least in the context of post-relationship stalking, it is worthwhile to study both men and women. I now turn to what is known about both male and female stalkers. 12

A stalking typology The most accepted stalking typology was developed by Zona, Sharma, and Lane (1993). Zona and colleagues identified three types of stalkers: Erotomanic stalkers (people suffering from Erotomania), Love Obsessional stalkers and Simple Obsessional stalkers. Erotomania, also known as de Clerambault's Syndrome is a delusional disorder that causes the afflicted to believe that someone passionately loves them. Usually the object of their delusion (from here on referred to as "object") is someone who they have never met, or have only had brief contact with. The object is often someone of higher social status, who is unattainable to the stalker, such as a movie star or politician. Erotomanic stalkers believe that the object is prevented from showing affection to them by some external influence. They also believe that certain events or actions on the part of the object have special meaning intended specifically for them. Apart from their delusion, however, Erotomanic stalkers' behavior is seen as normal. Although many people suffering from Erotomania keep the delusion a secret, some will repeatedly attempt to contact the object and therefore become known to police. Love Obsessional stalkers can be further divided into two groups (Zona et al., 1993). The first group is much like the Erotomanic stalkers; they delusionally believe that a stranger or someone who they are scarcely acquainted with is in love with them. The key difference between this group and the Erotomanic group is that their Erotomania is secondary to another major psychiatric diagnosis. The second group of Love Obsessional stalkers is also zealously in love with the stalking object, but they do not believe that the object loves them. Some Love Obsessional stalkers do hold the belief, however, that the object would come to love them if given the chance. The final group, Simple Obsessional stalkers, differs from the other two in that they are acquainted with the object (Zona et al., 1993). The relationship between the stalker and the object varies markedly, from customer, to neighbor, to lover. The obsessional activities of this group usually begin following either the ending of the relationship, or after the stalker perceives that they have been slighted in some way. The two motives of Simple Obsessional stalkers appear to be to regain the relationship that was lost or to seek retribution for the perceived wrong they have suffered. Although most of the early literature focused on Erotomanic stalkers, the majority of stalkers fall into the Simple Obsessional group (see "stalking prevalence" above), and research on this group is quickly expanding. Incidentally, Simple Obsessional stalkers are also the most likely to use violence (Meloy, 1999). The remainder of this paper focuses on Simple Obsessional stalkers; therefore, the term stalker should be understood to mean Simple Obsessional stalker unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Stalking perpetrators Demographic factors Accurate demographic information on stalkers is difficult to obtain. As Bjerregaard (2000) pointed out, most studies of stalking offenders have not used random samples. Additionally, most studies involve small sample sizes, and some characteristics of stalkers, such as race, are rarely reported. Many studies also do not adhere to a stalking typology; hence, Simple Obsessional stalkers are often lumped in with Love Obsessional stalkers and Erotomanic stalkers. 13

Meloy (1999) describes the modal stalker as male, unemployed or underemployed, and between the ages of 30 and 40. He also states that the modal stalker has a high school or college education; is more intelligent than other criminals; and does not fall into any particular ethnic group. Although these assertions appear to be based on mixed samples of stalkers, most of them are supported in studies of Simple Obsessional stalkers. For example, in Brewster's (2000) study of women who were stalked by former intimate partners, she found a large range in the reported ages of stalking perpetrators (from 17-57) with a mean of 31. Educational attainments of stalkers ranged from some elementary school through to completion of a doctoral program. However, most stalkers had obtained a high school diploma (77%) and many had completed some college (45%). Although the majority were employed (some in white color positions; 26%) a large percentage were unemployed (22.5%) or incarcerated (5%). Looking at the differences between stalkers and non-stalkers, Coleman's found that male stalkers were no different from other men in terms of age, ethnicity, and mothers' or fathers' level of education. Likewise, in a sample of domestic violence perpetrators, Burgess and colleagues (1997) found no difference between stalkers and non-stalkers in terms of age, race, or sex. They did find, however, that stalkers were more likely to live alone, live without children, be unmarried, and be known abusers of alcohol. In Tjaden and Thoennes (2000) study of domestic violence crime reports they found that women who were victims of domestic violence were more likely to be stalked by unemployed people. The age and race of the perpetrator were not found to be factors in stalking for female victims. For male victims of domestic violence, there was no relationship between stalking victimization and perpetrators' age, race, or employment status.

Familial factors Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Rohling (2000) looked at the relationship between college students' families of origin and their perpetration of unwanted pursuit behaviors following the undesired break-up of a relationship. Although there was no relationship found for women, men with a history of parental breakup and separation perpetrated significantly greater amounts of unwanted pursuit behaviors. Men from currently divorced or separated parental homes also perpetrated significantly more unwanted pursuit behaviors following the undesired termination of a relationship. Interestingly, no relationship was found between witnessing parental violence and unwanted pursuit behaviors for either gender. Looking at the Children's Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale (CPICS; Grych, Seid & Fincham, 1992), Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Rohling (2000) found that women's reports of intense and threatening parental conflict were significantly correlated with their reports of perpetrating unwanted pursuit behaviors. Additionally, triangulation during parental conflict, degree of self-blame for parental arguments, and difficulty coping with parental conflict were all correlated with women's perpetration of unwanted pursuit behaviors. No relationship was found between men's unwanted pursuit behaviors and their responses on the CPICS. 14

Relationship factors Studies reviewed previously (see "Prevalence of stalking") would suggest that most women and a large percentage of men who are stalked are victimized by current or former intimates (Statistics Canada, 2000; Tjaden et al., 2000). Moreover, studies that have looked at relationship dissolution find that stalking is most likely to occur after the break-up of a relationship, although it may occur during the relationship, particularly in the context of domestic violence (Coleman, 1997). The context of who left who is also an important factor in stalking. Working with university men and women, Davis, Ace and Andra (2000) found that people who were on the receiving end of a breakup (i.e., did not initiate the breakup and it was not mutual) were much more likely to be angry and jealous after the breakup than people who ended the relationship. Breakup "receivers" were also more likely to try to reunite with their former partner; to let their former partner know that they still loved them; and to stalk their former partner. Davis and colleagues also found that the number of break-ups was related to stalking behavior in that having more than one break up increased the probability that one would report stalking behaviors. Although stalking appears to be most commonly perpetrated by former intimates, "courtship persistence" may also blur the line between acceptable courtship behavior and stalking (Sinclair & Frieze, 2000). By courtship persistence I mean the act of persisting in trying to establish a relationship after one has been rejected (Sinclair & Frieze, 2000). In an effort to understand this phenomenon, Sinclair and Frieze (2000) asked university students about their experiences with being in love with people who did not reciprocate. Although 11% of the sample said that they had had this experience with a stranger, most were acquainted with the love-interest. The most common relationship was friend, but many said they had experienced unrequited love with an acquaintance, a classmate, a friend of a friend, or a date. In Sinclair and Frieze's sample (2000), courtship behaviors that closely resemble stalking were not uncommon. Overall, 28% of women and 30% of men reported using intimidation with their love-interest. Intimidation included behaviors such as trying to manipulate or coerce the love-interest, and secretly taking his/her belongings. Verbal abuse and mild aggression were reported by 25% of women and 19% of men. Behaviors in this category ranged from "attempted" verbal abuse (e.g., using obscene language) to inflicting mild physical harm on the love-interest. Physically violent behavior directed at the love-interest or a third party was also not uncommon; 14% of women and 12% of men reported inflicting what the authors labeled "extreme harm." Although the love-interests were not interviewed, the subjects were asked to report on their reactions (Sinclair & Frieze, 2000). Men who said that their love-interest responded with fear were most likely to have used intimidation and surveillance. Likewise, female pursuers' acts of intimidation were most likely to cause their love- interest to be fearful. Consequently, the authors suggested that intimidation might be an appropriate place to draw the line between normal courtship behavior and stalking.

Attitudinal factors In Sinclair and Frieze's (2000) study of unrequited love, they also included a measure of sex-role beliefs. They hypothesized that courtship persistence may be related 15

to adversarial sex-role beliefs such as "many times a woman will pretend that she doesn't want to date you, but really she just wants to be pursued more" (p. 28). As expected, adversarial sex-role beliefs were related to courtship persistence. For male pursuers, adversarial sex-role beliefs were correlated positively with their use of approach, surveillance and intimidation behaviors. For female pursuers, Adversarial sex-role beliefs were only significantly correlated with their use of intimidation tactics.

Intrapsychic factors Studies of stalkers' psychological functioning have consistently found that they suffer from a plethora of axis I and axis II disorders (e.g., Kienlen, Birmingham, Solberg, O'Regan & Meloy, 1997; Mullen, Pathe, Purcell & Stuart, 1999; Schwartz-Watts & Morgan, 1998; Silvia, Derecho, Leong & Ferrari, 2000). However, most of these studies have been conducted on mixed samples of stalkers who were involved with the legal system. Recent evidence suggests that most stalkers do not come into contact with the legal system (e.g., Fremouw et al., 1997), and if they do, often they are not charged with stalking (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Therefore, it is unlikely that studies finding severe pathology to be common among stalkers are accurate (Lewis, Fremouw, Ben & Fair, 2001). Lewis and associates (2001) examined intrapsychic variables in a sample of college students that had stalked. Although college students may not be representative of stalkers as a group, they are likely more typical than incarcerated psychiatric patients. In Lewis and colleagues' sample, both male and female stalkers (as identified by the Stalking Behavior Checklist; Coleman, 1997) scored significantly lower than non-stalkers on a measure of secure attachment and significantly higher than non-stalkers on a measure of nonsecure attachment (a score produced by amalgamating "ambivalent" and "avoidant" attachment).6 Securely attached individuals are said to have "high self-esteem and an ability to establish and maintain close intimate bonds with others without losing a sense of self (Bartholomew, Kwong & Hart, 1990). Nonsecure individuals, on the other hand, display a lack of trust, ambivalence regarding commitment, and a generally dysfunctional approach to relationships (Lewis et al., 2001). The stalking group in Lewis and associates (2001) study also scored significantly higher on a measure of borderline personality "features." The authors interpreted this as meaning that the stalking group "has difficulty sustaining interpersonal relationships, is emotionally unstable and labile, and [is] ambivalent about interactions with others" (p. 83). Although the authors also assessed empathy and problem solving skills, there was no difference between stalkers and non-stalkers in terms of empathy scores, and results concerning problem-solving skills were inconsistent. Davis and associates (2000) also assessed stalking behavior in college men and women. Across two separate samples, they found that stalking perpetration was correlated with need for control, anxious attachment and a combined anger-jealousy variable. A path analysis performed on the data further demonstrated that the anger- jealousy variable and need for control were predictive of stalking behaviors. The anxious attachment variable failed to reach significance in this assessment, however.

6 Attachment disorders have been given a number of different labels and descriptions (e.g., Bartholomew and Shaver, 1998). For the current discussion, it will suffice to differentiate secure attachment from nonsecure attachment. 16

Dutton, van Ginkel and Landolt (1996) have studied similar variables in a sample of self-referred and court-referred intimately assaultive males. Men's self-reported jealousy was found to be significantly correlated with their former partners' reports on the Intrusiveness scale, a measure of stalking behavior. Additionally, a multiple regression performed on Intrusiveness scores using men's self-reports of borderline personality organization, jealousy, trauma symptoms, and fearful attachment accounted for 65% of the variance in stalking behaviors.7 Clearly this line of research is promising.

Current study The current study was conducted with three goals in mind: (1) to explore potential correlates of physical and psychological abusiveness in young women; (2) to explore potential correlates of stalking behaviors in young women; and (3) to determine the test- retest reliability of the Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS; Dutton, 1995b), and Oldham and associates' BPO scale (1985) over a two year period.

Intimate abuse perpetration Limited research has been conducted on the correlates of young women's intimate abuse perpetration. I chose the PAS and the BPO scale as potential correlates, in part because of their success at predicting abuse with other populations (e.g., Dutton, 1995a; Dutton, Landolt, Starzomski & Bodnarchuk, 2001). However, there was somepima facie evidence to suggest that the PAS and the BPO scale should correlate with women's abusiveness. The PAS was created with items taken from scales that assess trauma symptoms, anger, negative parental treatment, insecure attachment styles, and borderline personality organization; many of these variables seem to have a relationship with women's perpetration of abuse. For example, it has been found that both women and men who perpetrate intimate abuse may suffer from trauma symptoms (Sugarman and Hotaling, 1989) . Studies have also found that there is a link between experiencing child abuse and perpetration of dating violence in women (e.g., O'Keefe, 1998), and there is evidence to suggest that anger is related to women's abuse. For example, 24.2%> of the women in Makepeace's (1986) study reported that they had used violence due to uncontrollable anger. Finally, In Davis and associates' (2000) path analysis of the predictors of psychological abuse, they found that anxious attachment was predictive of psychological abusiveness in both men and women. Although Oldham and associates' Borderline Personality Organization scale has not been studied in intimately assaultive females either, borderlines have been characterized as having unstable intimate relationships. They also have difficulty evaluating their behavior in terms of objective social criteria, and they have a tendency to think of people in "all good" and "all bad components" (Oldham et al., 1985). Intuitively, these personality traits should relate to intimate abuse in both sexes. The last measure that I thought would relate to intimate abusiveness is a modified version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, the IIP-C (Alden, Wiggins & Pincus, 1990) . The IIP-C is a global assessment of interpersonal functioning. I hypothesized that women's abusive behaviors would be positively correlated with their scores on the

7 Fearful attachment is a type of anxious attachment, typified by a negative view of the self and a negative view of the attachment object (Bartholomew & Shaver, 1998). 17

Domineering scale, and the Vindictive scale of the IIP-C (see "Measures" for complete scale descriptions). High scores on the Domineering scale are indicative of problems with controlling, manipulating, and aggressing toward others (Alden et al., 1990). Several studies have found that abusive women have similar problems. For example, in Davis and colleagues' (2000) path analysis of the causes of psychological abuse, they found that expression of high levels of control behaviors was a significant factor in both men's and women's perpetration of psychological abuse. The Vindictive scale on the IIP-C identifies men and women who have problems related to distrust and suspicion of others. It would seem that intimately abusive women should score highly on the Vindictive scale because of their high levels of expressed jealousy (e.g., Bookwala et al., 1992; Davis et al., 2000; Stets & Pirog-Good, 1987).

Stalking perpetration Because of the close connection between intimate abuse and stalking, I hypothesized that perpetration of stalking behaviors after a relationship breakup would be correlated with the same measures as perpetration of intimate assault during a relationship. Although there is limited research on stalking perpetrators, there is some evidence to suggest that this hypothesis is accurate. For example, two studies have found that perpetration of stalking behaviors is correlated with insecure attachment in college men and women (Davis et al., 2000, Lewis et al., 2001). Additionally, Davis and associates (2000) found that a combined variable addressing anger and jealousy related to the perpetration of stalking behaviors. Both anger and insecure attachment are assessed by the PAS, suggesting that it should be correlated with stalking. In addition to the PAS, there is evidence that Oldham and associates' BPO scale should be related to stalking perpetration. In a study by Lewis and associates (2001) a relationship was found between borderline personality characteristics and stalking perpetration. Although Lewis and colleagues did not use Oldham and associates' scale to measure borderline personality, they were looking at similar features. Finally, there is evidence to suggest that the IIP-C would identify stalking perpetrators. As well as finding that a combined anger-jealousy variable was related to stalking perpetration, Davis and associates (2000) found a relationship between controlling behaviors and stalking perpetration. Combined, these two findings would suggest that stalkers should score highly on both the Domineering and Vindictive scales of the IIP-C.

Test reliability In addition to addressing abuse and stalking perpetration, I assessed the test-retest reliability of the PAS and Oldham and colleagues BPO scale. This was possible because participants in the study completed both measures at two time periods, separated by approximately two years. If the PAS and BPO scale are going to be used to predict behavior, it is important that they are reliable.

METHODS Participants During the 1998-1999 school year (Time One), 66 female first and second-year undergraduate psychology students were assessed with Oldham and associates (1985) 18

Borderline Personality Organization (BPO) scale and Dutton's (1995b) Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS). The only qualification for inclusion in the study was that participants must have been in a heterosexual relationship for at least six months. During the 2000-2001 school year (Time Two), these same women were asked to return to the lab; in total, 37 women (56%) agreed. The remaining women either refused, or could not be contacted. The women who participated in the second part of the study did not differ significantly from the non-participants in terms of their scores on the PAS or BPO scale at Time One. Participants also did not differ significantly from non-participants in terms of age, or length of relationship at Time One. The 37 subjects who chose to participate at Time Two had a mean age of 21.5 years; they were 27% Caucasian, 68%> Asian and 5%> "other." At Time Two, 15 women (41%>) reported that they were still in a relationship with their partner from Time One. In addition to being reassessed on the PAS and BPO scale, these women were assessed for interpersonal problems, psychological abusiveness, physical abusiveness and social desirability. Added to this group were five women who only participated at Time Two. These women were partners of male participants who were in the study (not reported on here). These women had an average age of 21.6; three were Caucasian, one was Asian and one was "other." They completed the PAS, the BPO scale, measures of abusiveness and a measure of social desirability. Overall, the group of 20 women who were assessed for physical and psychological abusiveness had an average age of 21.8 years and had been in their relationships an average of 48 months. Four of these women (20%) reported that they are currently living with their partner. At Time Two, 22 women (59%) reported that they were no longer dating their partners from Time One. These women were also reassessed with the PAS and the BPO scale. In addition, they completed a measure of interpersonal problems, two measures of stalking behaviors and a measure of social desirability. This group had an average age of 21.3 years and their relationships ended an average of 15 months before Time Two testing. Ten of these women (45%>) reported that they had a new partner.

Measures Borderline Personality Organization scale Borderline personality organization was assessed with Oldham and associates' (1985) Borderline Personality Organization (BPO) scale at Time One and at Time Two. The BPO scale was developed by having diagnosed borderlines, non-borderlines, psychotics, and normals rate 130 items on a five-point Likert-type scale indicating how true each item was of them. Three subscales were identified, each having a high-internal consistency (as represented by their Chronbach's alphas). The three subscales and their respective Cronbach's alphas are: Identity Diffusion (.92), Primitive Defenses (.87), and Reality Testing (.84). Identity Diffusion items on the BPO scale reflect a poorly integrated sense of self or of significant others. Items on the Primitive Defenses subscale reflect splitting, omnipotence, idealization, and projective identification. The Reality Testing items are thought to reveal the transient psychotic episodes that some authors believe borderlines experience. Items in this category measure differentiation of the self from non-self; evaluation of behavior in terms of social criteria; differentiation of external from internal origins of perceptions or stimuli; and internal reality testing. 19

Oldham and associates chose the ten items from each subscale that had the highest correlation with that subscale's total score. The resulting 30-item measure constitutes the current form of the BPO scale. The BPO scale has been shown to successfully differentiate borderlines from non-borderlines, psychotic patients, and normals.

Propensity for Abusiveness Scale The Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS) was given to subjects at Time One, and then again at Time Two (Dutton, 1995b). The PAS was produced by taking items from other scales that measure anger, trauma symptoms, memories of parental warmth and rejection, adult attachment styles, and borderline personality organization. The items that were chosen "loaded most heavily on a discriminant function for emotional abusiveness" (Dutton, 1995b, p. 206). The PAS consists of 29 items, each rated on a Likert-type scale; it has a Cronbach's alpha of .92. The first 12 items, which form the Affective Lability subscale, are answered on a five-point scale with possible scores ranging from one to five. Items on the Affective Lability subscale assess anger, borderline personality, and insecure attachment. Items 13 to 19 on the PAS form the Trauma Symptoms subscale. Possible responses on the Trauma Symptoms subscale range from zero to three. As the name implies, this subscale assesses symptoms that are reflective of trauma exposure such as nightmares and anxiety attacks. The final 10 items on the PAS form the Recalled Negative Parental Treatment (RNPT) subscale. The items on the RNPT subscale ask about negative treatment received from the respondent's father. Possible answers on this scale range from "never happened" (zero) to "always occurred" (four), making the range of possible scores on the PAS 22 to 121. Since its development, the PAS has been shown to correlate with psychological and physical abusiveness in gay men, assaultive males, and male college students (Dutton, Landolt, Starzomski & Bodnarchuk, 2001). Furthermore, the PAS has been shown to correlate with psychological abusiveness in a control group of non-assaultive males, and a group of clinical outpatients. The current study represents the first effort to relate the PAS to women's abusiveness.

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Interpersonal functioning was assessed with the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Circumplex Scales at Time Two (IIP-C; Alden, Wiggins and Pincus, 1990). The circumplex scales are based on the original version of the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP; Horowitz, Rosenberg, Baer, Ureno & Villasenor, 1988), but are organized around the dimensions of dominance versus submissiveness and nurturance versus coldness. The eight circumplex scales of the IIP-C, and their respective Cronbach's alphas are: Domineering (.77), Vindictive (.80), Cold (.81), Socially Avoidant (.85), Nonassertive (.85), Exploitable (.82), Overly Nurturing (.76), and Intrusive (.72). Subjects who score highly on the Domineering scale have problems with controlling, manipulating, and aggressing toward others (all subscale descriptions are from Alden et al., 1990). Opposite the Domineering scale on the circumplex is the Nonassertive scale. High scorers on the Nonassertive scale have difficulty making their 20

needs known; they do not like being in an authoritative position; and they have difficulty being firm and assertive. High scorers on the Vindictive scale report issues related to distrust and suspicion of others. They also report an inability to care about others' needs and happiness. Opposing the Vindictive scale is the Exploitable scale. Highly exploitable individuals have difficulty feeling and expressing anger. They also report being gullible and easy to take advantage of. The Cold scale is indicative of people who cannot express affection for others or feel love for them. High scorers on the Cold scale also report having difficulty making long term commitments, being generous, forgiving, and getting along with others. Opposite the Cold scale on the circumplex is the Overly Nurturant scale. Overly Nurturant men and women report that they try too hard to please others. Overly Nurturant people also report being too generous, trusting, caring, and permissive with others. High Socially Avoidant scorers feel anxious and embarrassed around others. They have difficulty initiating social interactions, expressing their feelings and socializing with others. The final scale, which opposes Socially Avoidant on the circumplex, is the Intrusive scale. High scorers on the Intrusive scale are inappropriately self-disclosing and attention seeking. Highly intrusive people also find it difficult to spend time alone. Each scale is based on eight five-point Likert-type items; subjects are asked to state how distressing a list of interpersonal problems have been for them from zero ("not at all") to four ("very much"). Although the IIP-C is a measure of interpersonal functioning, the circumplex scales have been shown to correlate well with their respective measures of personality (Alden et al., 1990).

Conflict Tactics Scale At Time Two, women who where still with their partners from Time One were assessed for perpetration of physical abuse with the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979).8 The CTS asks respondents to state how often in the last year they have used 19 different tactics to solve disputes with their intimate partner. The possible answers for all questions range from "never" (scored as zero) to "more than 20 times" (scored as six). The three subscales of the CTS are Reasoning, Verbal Aggression, and Violence. An example of a Reasoning item would be "discussed the issue calmly." The Verbal Aggression scale contains items that reflect both verbal and symbolic aggression such as "insulted, yelled or swore at the other one" and "threw or smashed or hit or kicked something." Finally, the Violence subscale asks about acts of violence directed at the respondent's intimate partner. Examples of violence are: "threw something at the other one," "slapped the other one," and "beat up the other one." Straus reported Cronbach's alphas for the three subscales of .50 (Reasoning), .80 (Verbal Aggression), and .83 (Violence) for tactics used by husbands, and .51 (Reasoning), .79 (Verbal Aggression), and .82 (Violence) for tactics used by wives.

Psychological Maltreatment of Men The Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PMWI; Tolman, 1989) was modified to assess psychological maltreatment of men (Psychological Maltreatment of Men Inventory; PMMI). Therefore, although the order and structure of the items was

The CTS asks about both perpetration and victimization, but only perpetration is reported on here. 21

left in tact, they were changed to reflect self-reported abuse of men. Like the CTS, the PMMI was only given at Time Two to those women who were still in their Time One relationship. The PMWI, as developed by Tolman (1989), asks respondents about their use of 58 psychologically abusive behaviors in the last year. Each item is scored on a five-point Likert-scale from never (scored as one) to very frequently (scored as five). If the item does not apply to the respondent, they circle "not applicable" (scored as zero). The PMWI contains two subscales, one measuring Dominance-Isolation and the other measuring Emotional-Verbal abuse. Examples of Dominance-Isolation items are: "Insulted her or shamed her in front of others" and "tried to keep her from doing things to help herself." Examples of Emotional-Verbal abuse items are: "Treated her like she was stupid" and "blamed her when I was upset about something, even when it had nothing to do with her." In Tolman's original sample of male batterers and battered women, both the Dominance-Isolation factor and the Emotional-Verbal factor were highly internally consistent (Cronbach's alphas over .90 for both factors).

Stalking Behavior Checklist The Stalking Behavior Checklist (SBC, Coleman, 1997) was given to women at Time Two who were no longer in a relationship with their partner from Time One. The SBC asks subjects to report how frequently their former partner engaged in 25 different stalking-type behaviors in the past 12 months from "never" (scored as one) to "once a day or more" (scored as five). The SBC has two subscales, the Violent Behavior subscale and the Harassing Behavior subscale, each with high internal consistency (Cronbach's alphas of .78 and .83, respectively). The Harassing Behaviors subscale contains items such as "sent me letters," "made hang-up phone calls," and "followed me." The Violent Behaviors subscale, on the other hand, contains items such as "broke into my car," "threatened to harm me," and "threatened to harm himself." In the original study, both subscales of the SBC differentiated women who met a legal definition of stalking victims from women who had been "harassed" and women who had not been stalked or harassed. In the current study, participants were asked to report on stalking behaviors used by their former partners in the last year, or since their relationship ended, if it had not been a year. Additionally, women were given a modified version of the SBC and asked to report on their perpetration of stalking behaviors in the last year, or since their relationship ended, if it had not been a year.

Intrusiveness scale As with the SBC, the Intrusiveness scale was given to women at Time Two who were no longer in a relationship with their partner from Time One. The Intrusiveness scale is also a measure of stalking-like behaviors (Dutton et al., 1996). It consists of 17 Likert-type items that are based on the Canadian Criminal Code. Subjects are asked how frequently their partner performed each of the listed intrusions in the last year on a scale from never (scored as zero) to more than 50 times (scored as a seven). Examples of items on the Intrusiveness scale are "my partner followed me from place to place" and "my partner relocated his place of residence so that he/she would be closer to me." In a previous study using the Intrusiveness scale, women's reports of their husbands' intrusiveness were shown to be correlated with their reports of jealousy (Dutton et al., 1996). In the current study, women were asked to report on their former partners' 22

intrusive behaviors, as well as their own intrusive behaviors (on a modified version of the form).

Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR), which was given to all participants at Time Two, measures two types of socially desirable responding: Impression Management (IM) and Self-Deception (SDE; Paulhus, 1991). The BIDR contains a list of 40 desirable behaviors and beliefs that any one person is unlikely to have in combination. Therefore, if a respondent scores highly on the BIDR, it is likely that they are responding in a socially desirable fashion, either intentionally or unintentionally. The tendency to intentionally distort one's responses is measured by the IM subscale of the BIDR. The IM subscale contains statements that reflect overt behaviors such as "I always declare everything at customs" and "I never swear." Respondents are presumably aware of their own past behaviors; therefore, "any distortion is presumably a conscious lie" (Paulhus, 1991, p. 37). Alpha coefficients (internal consistency) in reported studies have ranged from .75 to .86 for the IM scale. The SDE subscale is intended to assess respondents' tendency to give self-reports that are "honest, but positively biased" (Paulhus, 1991, p. 36). The items on the SDE scale are thought to represent an overconfidence in one's rationality and judgments. Examples of SDE items are "I have not always been honest with myself and "I never regret my decisions." Alpha coefficients (internal consistency) in reported studies have ranged from .68 to .80 for the SDE scale. Both the IM subscale and the SDE subscale contain 20 items, each responded to on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "not true" to "very true." Although there is more than one method of scoring the BIDR, the method employed in the current study was to give subjects one point for each item they answered as a six or seven, and a zero for all other responses (after reverse-scoring items that are keyed in a negative direction). Therefore, possible scores on each subscale range from zero to 20. Using this scoring method, average scores have ranged from 4.3 to 11.9 for the IM scale and from 6.8 to 7.6 for the SDE scale in previous studies with varying populations (see Paulhus, 1991 for a review).

Procedure The current study was conducted as part of a larger study on personality and relationships. A sign was posted in the psychology building at the University of British Columbia (UBC) during the 1998-1999, school year (Time One) asking for participants to volunteer to "listen to some short audiotapes." Men and women who volunteered were contacted by phone and given a screening interview. In order to be selected for participation, the respondent had to be in a heterosexual relationship that was at least six months long. At Time One, all subjects who met the relationship requirement were given a battery of tests that included, among others, the PAS and Oldham and associates' BPO scale. They were also asked for permission to contact them, and their partner at a later date. At Time One, participants were compensated with subject credit. That is, participants volunteered as part of a course requirement. 23

Two years later, during the 2000-2001 school year (Time Two), the same participants were contacted by phone, or e-mail, and asked to participate in the second part of the study (although only women are reported on here). Those that agreed either came to UBC and picked up a package, or were mailed a package, if they were no longer attending UBC. The measures that were in the package varied depending upon whether the participant was still in their relationship from Time One or not. For those women that were still in their Time One relationship, they were asked to supply demographic information and information about their relationship; they also completed the PAS, the IIP-C, the BPO scale, the BIDR, and two measures of abuse perpetration, the CTS and the PMMI.9 Men and women who were not in their Time One relationship at Time Two also supplied demographic and relationship information and completed the PAS, the IIP-C, the BPO scale and the BIDR. Instead of completing abuse measures, however, they completed two measures of stalking-behaviors, the Intrusiveness scale and the SBC. I chose to use two measures of stalking behavior because there is little consensus in the literature as to which instrument is the most appropriate. When participants completed the Intrusiveness scale and the SBC, they did so in reference to their own perpetration of stalking behaviors, and also their former partners' perpetration of such behaviors. The reason I asked participants about their former partners behaviors was not to determine a victim profile per se, but rather, to ensure that the victim profile was not the same as the stalker profile. I was concerned about this issue for two related reasons. The first reason is that previous research has shown that one of the best predictors of perpetrating stalking behaviors is, in fact, being in receipt of stalking behaviors (e.g., Logan et al., 2000). The second reason is that I did not specifically ask participants whether they had stalked their former partner, nor did I ask them if their behavior caused their former partner fear. I did not ask about stalking perpetration specifically because surveys in the past have had low response rates to this question (e.g., Fremouw et al., 1997). I did not ask about fear because some stalkers may not be aware that their behavior is causing fear.10 Not asking about stalking and fear, however, also leaves open the possibility that their former partners appreciated the behaviors. For example, one of the behaviors listed on the SBC is "sent him/her gifts." If the stalker profile does not look like the victim profile, however, one can be more confident that the behaviors were not desired; or at least that they were one-sided. Regardless of which package the participants were completing, they were allowed to take it away and fill it out at their leisure. This was done so that they could fill the forms out wherever they liked, and take as many breaks as they chose to. It was hoped that this procedure would allow for the greatest feelings of anonymity, and therefore facilitate disclosure. After the participants completed their packages, they returned them to my laboratory at the University of British Columbia (UBC), at which time they received a $20 honorarium. They were also given a debriefing form that contained an explanation of what was being studied and a list of phone numbers for counseling services that they could call should they wish to discuss these issues further.

9 The PMMI is an adaptation of the PMWI (as described in "Measures"). 1 In fact, many stalkers are not trying to cause their victim fear, but rather, are trying to express love to them (e.g., Davis et al., 2000). 24

In the final phase of the study, I contacted the participants' partners, or former partners, and asked them to participate in the study (if the participant supplied contact information). The partners' data is not reported on here due to a low response rate, with the exception of five female partners who were in relationships at Time Two with men that completed the study. These women were added to the data on intact partners; however, they did not complete all the forms. Specifically, they did not complete the IIP- C, nor did they complete any forms at Time One. Due to the small sample size, and because this was an exploratory study, I have chosen to accept a liberal cutoff of a = .10, two tailed, for statistical significance in all comparisons. Functionally, however, because each of my hypotheses is directional, a can be viewed as .05, one-tailed. In each case, the significance level that was obtained is noted.

RESULTS Psychological abuse As expected, women's scores on the BPO scale and the PAS both at Time One and Time Two were significantly correlated with their perpetration of both forms of psychological abuse (Emotional-Verbal and Dominance-Isolation) (see Table 1). Furthermore, participants' scores at Time One and Time Two on all three subscales of the BPO scale were highly and significantly correlated with their reports of Emotional- Verbal abuse and Dominance-Isolation at Time Two. While women's perpetration of Emotional-Verbal and Dominance-Isolation abuse was significantly correlated with their scores on both the Affective Lability subscale and the Trauma Symptoms subscale of the PAS at Time One, only their scores on the Affective Lability subscale were significantly correlated at Time Two. Surprisingly, Women's psychological abusiveness did not significantly correlate with their scores on the Recalled Negative Parental Treatment subscale of the PAS at either testing time. As hypothesized, both forms of women's psychological abusiveness were related to their scores on the Dominance subscale and the Vindictive subscale of the IIP-C. Women's perpetration of both forms of psychological abusiveness was also related to their scores on the Cold subscale and on the Intrusive subscale, however, and their perpetration of Emotional-Verbal abuse was negatively correlated with their scores on the Exploitable scale. These findings were unexpected. High scorers on the Intrusive subscale are thought to be inappropriately self-disclosing which could help explain this correlation. Along these lines, women's scores on the Intrusive subscale were negatively correlated with their scores on the Impression Management subscale of the BIDR (across both conditions, r = -.339, n = 37,p< .05). A forced entry multiple regression performed on the Emotional-Verbal subscale using Time Two scores on the Vindictive, Cold, and Domineering scales of the IIP-C, the Trauma Symptoms and Affective Lability11 subscales of the PAS and all three BPO subscales. The resulting R was .940, corresponding to an R square of .884 and an adjusted R square of .729. The most predictive forced entry multiple regression performed on the Dominance-Isolation Subscale utilized Time Two scores on the Domineering and

11 Items 4-9 on the Affective Lability subscale are taken from Oldham and colleagues BPO scale. Therefore, these items were removed before the regression was performed to prevent redundancy. 25

Vindictive scales of the IIP-C, the Trauma Symptoms and Recalled Negative Parental Treatment subscales of the PAS, and the Identity Diffusion and Primitive Defenses subscales from the BPO measure. This regression produced an R of .981 corresponding to and R square of .963 and an adjusted R square of .936.

Verbal aggression/symbolic violence Women's Verbal Aggression scores on the CTS at Time Two were significantly correlated with their overall BPO score at Time One, but not Time Two (Table 1). Overall PAS scores at both Time One and Time Two were also significantly correlated with Time Two Verbal Aggression scores. Looking at the subscales of the BPO scale, Reality Testing at both Time One and Time two was significantly correlated with Time Two Verbal Aggression, and scores on the Primitive Defenses subscale at Time One, but not Time Two were significantly correlated with Time Two verbal aggression. Scores on the PAS subscales were more difficult to interpret. Scores at Time One on the Recalled Negative Parental Treatment subscale were related to Time Two Verbal Aggression, but Time Two Scores on the Recalled Negative Parental Treatment subscale were not. Time Two scores on the Affective Lability subscale were significantly correlated with Verbal aggression; however, Time One scores were not. As with Psychological abuse, both the Dominance subscale and the Vindictive subscale of the IIP-C were significantly correlated with women's reports of Verbal Aggression. Additionally, the Intrusive subscale was positively correlated with Verbal Abuse and the Exploitable subscale was negatively correlated with Verbal Abuse on the CTS.

Physical abuse Overall, the PAS and the BPO scale did not perform as well at predicting violence as they did at predicting other forms of abuse (Table 1). Time One scores on the Reality Testing subscale of Oldham and associates BPO scale were correlated with Time Two Violence scores on the CTS, but overall Time One BPO scores were not. Participants' scores on the BPO scale were not significantly correlated with their Violence scores at Time Two either. The same was true for each of the BPO scale's subscales. Overall PAS scores at Time One were significantly correlated with Time Two abusiveness, however, as were scores on the Recalled Negative Parental Treatment subscale at both Time One and Time Two. Overall PAS scores at Time Two were also positively correlated with abuse, but this correlation was not statistically significant. As with all other measures of abuse, scores on the Dominance subscale, the Vindictive subscale and the Intrusive subscale were all significantly correlated with violence. Both the Exploitable subscale and the Nonassertive subscale were also negatively correlated with violence. A forced entry multiple regression performed on the Violence subscale of the CTS produced an R of .934, with a corresponding R square of .871 and an adjusted R square of .775. Variables included in the regression were the Reality Testing and Identity Diffusion subscales of the BPO measure, the Vindictive scale of the IIP-C and all three PAS subscales.12

Items 4-9 on the Affective Lability subscale are taken from Oldham and colleagues BPO scale. Therefore, these items were removed before the regression was performed to prevent redundancy. 26

Stalking Perpetration Because less than 14% (3/22) of women in the study reported perpetrating any behaviors on the Violence subscale of the SBC, scores on that subscale were not analyzed. Women did report perpetrating a range of behaviors on the Harassment subscale, however, and scores on the Harassment subscale were highly correlated with scores on the Intrusiveness scale (r = .597, p = .003, n = 22). Although the Harassment subscale of the SBC was highly correlated with the Intrusiveness scale, virtually none of the other scales correlated with the Harassment subscale (Table 2). Scores from Time One on the Recalled Negative Parental Treatment subscale of the PAS did correlate with the Harassment scale, however. Scores on the Dominance subscale of the IIP-C were also significantly correlated with Harassment scores. Several measures did correlate with stalking perpetration on the Intrusiveness scale. Specifically, overall PAS scores at both Time One and Time two correlated significantly with Time Two stalking perpetration on the Intrusiveness scale. Both Time One and Time Two scores on the Recalled Negative Parental Treatment subscale of the PAS also correlated significantly with Intrusiveness scores, as did Time Two scores on the Trauma Symptoms subscale of the PAS. The Reality Testing subscale and the Primitive Defenses subscale on the BPO measure were also correlated with perpetration of stalking-like behaviors at Time Two. As predicted, the only scales on the IIP-C to be related with stalking perpetration were the Dominance scale and the Vindictive scale. A forced entry multiple regression performed on the Intrusiveness scale using Time Two scores on the Domineering, Intrusive and Vindictive scales of the IIP-C, and the Recalled Negative Parental Treatment subscale of the PAS produced a multiple R of .732 corresponding to an R square of .536; the resulting adjusted R squared was .427.

Stalking Victimization The profile for stalking victimization shared little in common with stalking perpetration (Table 2). Similar to the results found with perpetration, stalking victimization scores on the Harassment subscale were highly correlated with victimization scores on the Intrusiveness scale (r = .676, p = .001, n = 22). However, no other measures correlated with stalking victimization on the Harassment subscale. Victimization as measured by the Intrusiveness scale was positively correlated with Recalled Negative Parental Treatment scores at both Time One and Time Two and with scores on the Primitive Defenses subscale of the PAS at Time One. No other correlations were significant.

Social Desirability Subjects' scores on the BIDR would suggest that they were responding openly and honestly. Women who were still in their Time One relationships at Time Two (n = 20) had an average score of 5.00 on the Self-Deception subscale and 6.45 on the Impression Management subscale of the BIDR. Women who where not in their Time One relationships at Time Two (n = 22) had an average score of 6.37 on the Self-Deception subscale and 4.55 on the Impression Management subscale. These scores are comparable 27

to scores previously obtained with a group of university women (6.8 and 4.9 on Self- Deception, and Impression Management, respectively; Paulhus, 1988).

Test Reliability Women's scores on both Oldham and associates' BPO Scale and the PAS at Time One were positively and significantly correlated with their scores at Time Two (Table 3). In addition, women's Time One and Time Two scores on each of the subscales of the PAS and BPO scale were positively and significantly correlated. All correlations were high, with the notable exception of the correlation between the Identity Diffusion subscale at time One and Time Two. Although marginally significant (p = .071), this correlation was only .300 (n = 37).

DISCUSSION Intimate abuse As expected, women's use of psychological abuse was highly related to their borderline personality organization (BPO; Oldham et al., 1985) and their scores on the Propensity for Abusiveness Scale (PAS; Dutton, 1995b). This relationship was equally strong whether current psychological abusiveness was compared with BPO and PAS scores obtained at Time One or Time Two. Although perpetration of physical abuse also showed a strong correlation with the PAS and the BPO scale, these correlations were not significant. A larger sample may change this finding, however. Findings on the subscales of the PAS and BPO scale were less consistent than full scale scores. For example, scores on the Trauma Symptoms subscale of the PAS at Time Two were not significantly correlated with perpetration of psychological or physical abuse. In fact, trauma symptoms at Time Two were negatively associated with women's perpetration of physical abuse. This finding was unexpected because previous research would suggest that trauma symptoms are related to being either a victim, or a perpetrator of abuse (Sugarman & Hotaling, 1989). Clearly, future research with abusive women will need to address this contradiction. Although, the Affective Lability subscale of the PAS was highly related to perpetration of psychological abuse, its relationship with physical abuse perpetration was not as strong. The same can be said for most of the BPO subscales, with the possible exception of Reality Testing, suggesting that physically abusive women experience transient psychotic episodes (Oldham et al., 1985). In the past, receiving negative parental treatment has also been related to women's use of violence (e.g., O'Keefe, 1998). Findings in the current study were consistent with this. However, the relationship between receiving negative parental treatment and perpetrating psychological abuse was not as strong. Women were not asked about their motivations for using psychological or physical abuse, but findings from the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP-C; Alden et al., 1990) give some indication. There was a very strong relationship between women's use of both psychological and physical abuse and their scores on the Vindictive and Domineering scales of the IIP-C. High scorers on the Domineering scale are reportedly controlling, manipulative and aggressive (Alden et al., 1990). High scorers on the Vindictive scale report that they have problems caring about others' happiness. It seems likely, therefore, that women in the current sample were using their abusiveness 28

proactively to control and manipulate. Supporting this assertion is the fact that abusive women did not demonstrate problems with assertiveness or being exploited. In fact, women's scores on both the Nonassertive scale and the Exploitable scale were highly negatively correlated with their use of violence. Of some concern is the fact that women's scores on the Intrusive scale were strongly positively correlated with their reports of abusiveness. High scorers on the Intrusive scale are thought to be inappropriately self-disclosing and attention seeking. The concern, therefore, is that high Intrusive scorers may simply be disclosing high amounts of problems in all domains (including abusiveness), whereas low Intrusive scorers are not. This does not appear to be the case, however, as several of the IIP-C scales were negatively correlated with abuse. Additionally, the Intrusive scale did not add predictive power to regression equations produced from the data. The current study would suggest that the prototypical physically and psychologically abusive woman is one who has borderline personality features, is affectively labile and was abused as a child. Additionally, abusive women endorse more items on the Vindictive and Domineering scales of the IIP-C. They may also suffer from trauma symptoms, but this relationship is less clear.

Stalking The findings relating to women's stalking perpetration, as measured by the Stalking Behavior Checklist (SBC; Coleman, 1997) are perplexing. Few women in the sample used any of the behaviors on the SBC's Violence subscale. Additionally, the Harassing subscale did not show a consistent relationship with any of the variables except the Domineering scale of the IIP-C. The low correlations obtained with the Harassing subscale seem to be largely due to a lack of variation in scores.13 In the modified version of the SBC that was used, participants were asked to report on behaviors they performed in the previous 12 months (or since the breakup, if it had not been 12 months). In retrospect, it was unlikely that anyone would have performed some of the behaviors "once a day or more" for 12 months, which is the highest response on the SBC; for example, only one person claimed to have sent a photo on more than one occasion. The Intrusiveness scale (Dutton et al., 1996), on the other hand, did not suffer from a lack of variation in responses. This is because the Intrusiveness scale is scored on an eight-point scale anchored by "never" (scored as zero) and "more than 50 times" (scored as a seven). Even subjects that responded "more than 50 times" are not necessarily acknowledging the same level of repetition as those who respond "once a day or more" on the SBC. For example, "once a day or more" would amount to at least 365 repetitions of a behavior, if the couple had been separated 12 months. In future research, this will need to be addressed. That is, it would be sensible to either ask about a shorter time period on the SBC, or to change the highest category to a predetermined number which does not relate to the length of the breakup such as "50, or more." Looking at women's responses on the Intrusiveness scale, borderline personality organization at Time Two was positively correlated with stalking behavior perpetration. This correlation did not reach significance, however, largely due to the Identity Diffusion subscale which was unrelated to stalking. The Reality Testing subscale and the Primitive Defenses subscale on the other hand were significantly correlated with stalking

If a variable has no variation it cannot correlate with any other variable. 29

perpetration at Time Two suggesting that women who perpetrate stalking behaviors experience transient psychotic episodes, and use primitive defenses such as splitting. The PAS was significantly correlated with perpetration of stalking behaviors whether one looks at PAS scores from Time One or Time Two. This would suggest that it may be possible to profile future stalkers before the breakup. One of the best predictors of stalking perpetration was reporting negative parental treatment. This was not unexpected, however, due to Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Rohling's (2000) finding that women who perpetrate unwanted pursuit behaviors are more likely to report an intense and threatening environment in their family of origin. Langhinrichsen-Rohling and Rohling did not address child abuse specifically, however; therefore, to my knowledge, this is a unique finding. Affective Lability and Trauma Symptoms were also positively correlated with perpetration of stalking behaviors, but only Time Two Trauma Symptoms reached significance. Looking at women's receipt of stalking behaviors, the only measure that consistently correlated with women's receipt of stalking behaviors was Recalled Negative Parental Treatment. Otherwise, women's victimization profile was distinct from their perpetration profile. This suggests that if women's pursuit behaviors were not unwanted, they were at a minimum, unreturned. Furthermore, women's perpetration of stalking behaviors was significantly correlated with their scores on the Vindictive and Domineering scales of the IIP-C. High scorers on the Vindictive and Domineering scales are thought to distrust others and want to change them. This would also suggest that women who scored highly on the Intrusiveness scale were performing unwanted behaviors. A different stalking profile is produced depending on whether one looks at behaviors that are correlated with abuse, or those that added predictive value to a regression equation. The stalking profile that was produced with correlational data suggests that female stalkers had negative childhood experiences and display trauma symptoms. Additionally, female stalking perpetrators endorse more Vindictive and Domineering items on the IIP-C. They may also be affectively labile and display BPO, however, this relationship was less clear. Based on multiple regression, female stalkers again presented with vindictive and domineering traits. Recalled Negative Parental Treatment also remains an important variable. The one new variable identified as important by multiple regression is the Intrusive scale of the IIP-C. This finding is not entirely surprising, however, as high intrusive scorers are described as people who are attention seeking and find it difficult to spend time alone.

Test Reliability Both the PAS and the BPO were found to be highly reliable over a two year period. The same was true for each of the subscales found on the PAS and BPO scale. The one exception to this was the Identity Diffusion subscale on the BPO scale. When one looks at the items on the Identity Diffusion subscale, however, this is not of much of a revelation. An example of an Identity Diffusion item is "I see myself in totally different ways at different times." Therefore, one may expect scores on the Identity Diffusion 30

subscale to fluctuate somewhat over time. Over extended periods, it may be that the Identity Diffusion subscale has no predictive value at all.1

Limitations and caveats Although both the abuse and stalking results are promising, it is important to remember that this was an exploratory study. The total sample size was only 42 women and some correlations were performed with only 15 women. Additionally, the nature of the sample is important. The majority of participants were of Asian decent. A sample consisting of predominantly Caucasian women, as most samples in North America do, may find different results. With those caveats in mind, it would appear that many of the assessed variables are worthy of further study. Another point that requires further clarification relates to the definition of stalking that was used. I did not ask women whether their behaviors produced fear in their former partner. Because most definitions of stalking require that the victim be fearful (Tjaden et al., 2000), it is best to look at the current study as a study of stalking behaviors, rather than of stalking per se. One can be somewhat confident that the behaviors observed were undesired, or at least unreciprocated, simply because the stalking perpetration profile looks nothing like the stalking victimization profile. However, unwanted and fear- producing are not synonymous. We experience many events in life that are unwanted, but do not produce fear.

Conclusions and future directions The current study confirms earlier findings and adds to the extant literature on intimate abuse. It would appear that intimately abusive females can be profiled, and that their profile may not differ heavily from their male counterparts. Not only were the variables examined at Time Two related to abusiveness, but scores obtained on the PAS and BPO scale at Time One correlated well with current psychological abusiveness. Scores obtained on the PAS at Time One also correlated highly (r = .455) with physical abusiveness at Time Two suggesting that physical abusiveness may be foreseeable. Additionally, because both the PAS and BPO scale were found to be highly reliable at a two-year interval, it may be possible to push predictions further than they were in the current study. In terms of prevention implications, the current work gives tentative support to Foshee's (1996) suggestion that dating violence prevention programs should be opened up to both males and females. That is, both males and females should receive information on victimization and perpetration. It is important to note, however, that the current work does nothing to counter the evidence that females are more likely to suffer both physical and psychological injuries from intimate abusiveness (e.g., Molidor & Tolman, 1998; Sugarman and Hotaling, 1989). Therefore, females may require a different prevention protocol than men, as well as a different treatment protocol after abuse has occurred (Magdol et al., 1997). The current study also adds to the existing literature on stalking perpetration. Looking at the Intrusiveness scale (Dutton et al., 1996), it is apparent that a profile emerges for women who perpetrate stalking-like behaviors, and this profile is very

In the current study, the Identity diffusion subscale was only correlated with current psychological abusiveness; therefore, it may not be predictive of women's violence at all. 31 similar to the profile for intimately abusive women. Additionally, scores obtained on the PAS before the breakup were highly correlated (r = .523) with perpetration of stalking behaviors two years latter—after the breakup. Therefore, there is reason to believe that in the future Simple Obsessional stalkers could be profiled before the breakup. In fact, because many of the items on the PAS are not relationship dependant, it may be possible to profile Simple Obsessional stalkers before they have even entered a relationship. The next step in this line of research is to replicate these findings in a larger sample of men and women. Ideally, this larger sample would be tested at more than one time interval, possibly even before the participants enter a relationship. This may be difficult, however. In the current study I found that it was not easy to locate university students at a two-year time interval; longer time intervals may prove impossible. If retesting is not feasible in future research, using measures that have a high test- retest correlation such as the PAS and Oldham and associates' BPO scale is advisable. The higher the reliability of measures being used, the more one can be confident that findings can be applied to future profiling efforts. Scales with low test-retest reliability on the other hand are only useful for postdiction. That is, predicting what has already occurred. 32

REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC. Alden, L.E., Wiggins, J.S., & Pincus, L.E. (1990). Construction of circumplex scales for the inventory of interpersonal problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55(3-4), 521-536. Bartholomew, K., & Shaver, P. (1998). Methods of assessing adult attachment: Do they converge? In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.). Attachment Theory and Close Relationships (pp. 25-45). New York: Guilford. Bartholomew, K., Kwong, M.J., & Hart, S.D. (2001). Attachment. In J. Livesly (Ed.), The Handbook of Personality Disorders. New York: Guilford. Billingham, Bland, & Leary. (1999). Dating violence at three time periods: 1976, 1992, and 1996. Psychology Reports, 85, 574-578. Bjerregaard, B. (2000). An empirical study of stalking victimization. Violence and Victims, 75(4), 389-406. Bookwala, J., Frieze, I.H., Smith, C, & Ryan, K. (1992). Predictors of dating violence: A multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7(4), 297-311. Brewster, M.P. (2000). Stalking by former intimates: verbal threats and other predictors of physical violence. Violence and Victims, 15(1), 41-54. Briere, J., & Runtz, M. (1989). The trauma symptom checklist (TSC-33): Early data on a new scale. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4(2), 151-162. Burgess, A.W., Baker, T., Greening, D., Hartman, C.R., Burgess, A.G., Douglas, J.E., & Halloran, R. (1997). Stalking behaviors within domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12(4), 389-403. Burke, P.J., Stets, J.E., & Pirog-Good, M.A. (1989). Gender identity, self-esteem, and physical and sexual abuse in dating relationships. In M.A. Pirog-Good & J.E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues, (pp. 3-32). New York: Praeger. Canada Department of Justice. (1996). Stalking is a crime called criminal harassment. Ottawa, ON: Department of Justice Canada. Carlson, B.E. (1987). Dating violence: A research review and comparison with spouse abuse. Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, 68(1): 16-23. Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity (5th ed.) St Louis, MO: Mosby. Coleman, F.J. (1997). Stalking behavior and the cycle of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12(3), 420-432. Davis, K.E., Ace, A., Andra, M. (2000). Stalking perpetrators and psychological maltreatment of partners: Anger-jealousy, attachment insecurity, need for control, and break up context. Violence and Victims, 15(4), 407-425. DeKeseredy, W.S., & Schwartz, M.D. (1998). Woman abuse on campus. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dutton, D.G. (1995a). Intimate abusiveness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 2(3), 207-224. Dutton, D.G. (1995b). A scale for measuring propensity for abusiveness. Journal of Family Violence, 10(2), 203-221. 33

Dutton, D.G. (1994). Behavioral and affective correlates of borderline personality organization in wife assaulters. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 17(3), 265- 277. Dutton, D.G., Landolt, M.A., Starzomski, A., & Bodnarchuk, M. (2001). Validation of the propensity for abusiveness scale in diverse male populations. Journal of Family Violence, 7(5(1), 59-73. Dutton, D.G., van Ginkel, C., & Landolt, M.A. (1996). Jealousy, intimate abusiveness and intrusiveness. Journal of Family Violence, 77(4), 411-423. Foshee, V.A. (1996). Gender differences in adolescent dating abuse prevalence, types and injuries. Health Education Research, 77(3), 275-286. Foshee, V.A., Linder, F., MacDougall, J.E., & Bangdiwala, S. (2001). Gender differences in the longitudinal predictors of dating violence. Preventative Medicine, 32, 128-141. Fremouw, W.J., Westrup, D., & Pennypacker, J. (1997). Stalking on campus: the prevalence and strategies for coping with stalking. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42(4), 666-669. George, MJ. (1999). A victimization survey of female-perpetrated assaults in the United Kingdom. Aggressive Behavior, 25(1), 67-79. Griffin, D.W., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). The metaphysics of measurement: The case of adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships, Vol. 5: Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 17-52). London: Jessica Kingsley. Grych, J.H., Seid, M. & Fincham, F.D. (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child's perspective: The Children's Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale. Child Development, 63, 558-572. Hamberger, L.K., Lohr, J.M., Bonge D. & Tolin, D.F. (1996). A large sample empirical typology of male spouse abusers and its relation to dimensions of abuse. Violence and Victims, 77(4), 277-292. Hare, R.D. (1970). Psychopathy: Theory and research. New York: Wiley. Holtzworth-Munroe, A. & Stuart, G.L. (1994). Typologies of male batterers: Three subtypes and the differences among them. Psychological Bulletin, 77(5(3), 476-497. Horowitz, L.M., Rosenberg, S.E., Baer, B.A., Ureno, G. & Villasenor, V.S. (1988). Inventory of Interpersonal Problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 5(5(6), 885-892. Kienlen, K.K., Birmingham, D.L., Solberg, K.B., O'Regan, J.T., & Meloy, J.R. (1997). A comparative study of psychotic and nonpsychotic stalking. The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 25(3), 317-334. Kurt, J.L. (1995). Stalking as a variant of domestic violence. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 23(2), 219-230. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Rohling, M. (2000) Negative family-of-origin experiences: Are they associated with perpetrating unwanted pursuit behaviors? Violence and Victims, 75(4), 459-471. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Russell, E.P., Cohen, J. & Rohling, M.L. (2000) Breaking up is hard to do: Unwanted pursuit behaviors following the dissolution of a romantic relationship. Violence and Victims, 75(1), 73-90. 34

Lewis, S.F., & Fremouw, W. (2001). Dating violence: A critical review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(1), 105-127. Lewis, S.F., Fremouw, W.J., Ben, K.D., & Farr, C. (2001). An investigation of the psychological characteristics of stalkers: Empathy, problem-solving, attachment and borderline personality features. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46(1), 80-84. Logan, T.K., Leukefeld, C, & Walker, B. (2000). Stalking as a variant of intimate violence: Implications from a Young adult sample. Violence and Victims, 75(1), 2000. Magdol, L., Moffitt, T.E., Capsi, A., Newman, D.L., Fagan, J., & Silva, PA. (1997). Gender differences in partner violence in a birth cohort of 21-year-old: Bridging the gap between clinical and epidemiological approaches. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65(1), 68-78. Makepeace, J.M. (1986). Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Family Relations, 35, 383-388. Makepeace, J.M. (1981). Courtship violence among college students. Family Relations, 30, 97-102. Matthews, W.J. (1984). Violence in college couples. College Student Journal, (18)2, 150-158. Meloy, J.R. (1999). Stalking: An old behavior, a new crime. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 22(1), 85-99. Molidor, C.E., & Tolman, R.M. (1998). Gender and contextual factors in adolescent dating violence. Violence Against Women, 4(2), 180-194. Mullen, P.E., Pathe, M., Purcell, R., & Stuart, G. (1999). Study of stalkers. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 156(8), 1244-1249. O'Keefe, M. (1998). Factors mediating the link between witnessing interparental violence and dating violence. Journal of Family Violence, 75(1), 39-57. O'Keeffe, N.K., Brockopp, K., & Chew, E. (1986). Teen dating violence. Social Work, 57(6), 465-486. Oldham, J., Clarkin, J., Appelbaum, A., Carr, A., Kernberg, P., Lotterman, A., & Haas, G. (1985). A self-report instrument for borderline personality organization. In T.H. McGlashan (Ed.), The borderline: Current empirical research. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric. Paulhus, D.L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression management in self-reports: The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Unpublished manual, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Paulhus, D.L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, & L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. New York: Academic Press. Pedersen, P., & Thomas, CD. (1992). Prevalence and correlates of dating violence in a Canadian university sample. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 24(4), 490-501. Perris, C, Jacobsson, L., Lindstrom, H., von Knorring, L., & Perris, H. (1980). Development of a new inventory for assessing memories of parental rearing behavior. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia 61(4): 265-274. Reuterman, N., & Burcky, W. (1989). Dating violence in high school: A profile of the victims. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 26(4), 1-9. 35

Saunders, D.G. (1992). A typology of men who batter: Three types derived from cluster analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62(2), 264-275. Schwartz-Watts, D., & Morgan, D.W. (1998). Violent versus nonviolent stalkers. The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 26(2), 241-245. Siegel, J.M. (1986). The multidimensional anger inventory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(1^ 191-200. Sigelman, C.K., Berry, C.J., & Wiles, K.A., (1984). Violence in college students' dating relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14(6), 530-548. Silvia, J.A., Derecho, D.V., Leong, G.B., & Ferrari, M.M. (2000). Stalking behavior in delusional jealousy. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45(\), 77-82. Sinclair, H.C., & Frieze, I.H. (2000). Initial courtship behavior and stalking: How should we draw the line? Violence and Victims, 15(\), 23-40. Statistics Canada. (2000, November 29). Criminal harassment. The Daily [On• line]. Available: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/001129/d001129c.htm Stets, J.E., & Pirog-Good, M.A. (1987). Violence in dating relationships. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50(3), 237-246. Straus, M.A. (1979). Measuring family conflict and violence. The Conflict Tactics Scale. Journal of Marriages in the Family, 41, 75-88. Sugarman, D.B., & Hotaling, G.T. (1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context, and risk markers. In M.A. Pirog-Good & J.E. Stets (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues, (pp. 3-32). New York: Praeger. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). The role of stalking in domestic violence reports generated by the Colorado Springs police department. Violence and Victims, 75(4), 427-441. Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N., & Allison, C.J. (2000). Comparing stalking victimization from legal and victim perspectives. Violence and Victims, 75(1), 2000. Tolman, R.M. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence and Victims, 4(3), 159-177. Tweed, R.G., & Dutton, D.G. (1998). A comparison of impulsive and instrumental subgroups of batterers. Violence and Victims, 13(3), 217-230. White, J.W., & Koss, M.P. (1991). Courtship violence: Incidence in a national sample of higher education students. Violence and Victims, 6(4), 247-256. Zona, M.A., Sharma, K.K., & Lane, J. (1993). A comparative study of erotomanic and obsessional subjects in a forensic sample. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38(4), 894- 903. 36

Table 1 Correlations of Two Measures of Abusiveness. the PMMI and the CTS. with Women's Self-Report on the BPO scale, the PAS and the IIP-C

Abuse measure

Measure PMMI-E-V PMMI-D-I CTS-VA CTS-V

Time One

Tl-BPO .662*** .656*** .451* .362 Tl-BPO-R .674*** .641** .592** .539** Tl-BPO-P .685*** .662*** .464* .397 Tl-BPO-I .551** .582** .292 .162 Tl-PAS 744*** 731 *** .489* .455* Tl-PAS-A .674** .607** .360 .268 Tl-PAS-T .485* 652*** .204 .165 Tl-PAS-R .412 .407 .606** 777***

Time Two

T2-BPO .585*** 712**** .357 .253 T2-BPO-R .508** 709**** .433* .406 T2-BPO-P .629*** .695*** .357 .253 T2-BPO-I .507** .628*** .263 .131 T2-PAS .602*** .638*** .385* .327 ggg*** T2-PAS-A .676*** .380* .343 T2-PAS-T .031 .077 -.006 -.215 T2-PAS-R .163 .261 .283 .413* IIP-D 719*** 745*** .538** .504* g28**** IIP-V g99**** .693*** .669*** IIP-C .443* 674*** .329 .240 IIP-S .014 .008 -.122 -.204 IIP-N -.278 -.300 -.424 -.456* IIP-E -.510* -.375 -.547** -.542** IIP-0 .092 .202 .052 .042 IIP-I .669*** .784*** .585** 711***

Note 1. PMMI-E-V = PMMI Emotional-Verbal; PMMI-D-I = PMMI Dominance- Isolation; VA = CTS Verbal Aggression; CTS-V = CTS Violence; TI = Time One; T2 = Time Two; BPO = overall BPO score, BPO-R = BPO Reality Testing; BPO-P = BPO 37

Primitive Defenses; BPO-I = BPO Identity Diffusion; PAS = overall PAS score; PAS-A = PAS Affective Lability; PAS-T = PAS Trauma Symptoms; PAS-R = Recalled Negative Parental Treatment; IIP-D = IIP Domineering; IIP-V = IIP Vindictive; IIP-C = IIP Cold; IIP-S = IIP Socially Avoidant; IIP-N = IIP Nonassertive; IIP-E = IIP Exploitable; IIP-0 = IIP Overly Nurturing; IIP-I = IIP Intrusive. Note 2. Significance level: * = p < .10;**=p< .05;*** = p< .01;**** = p< .001. Note 3. n = 15 for all Time One comparisons; n = 20 for Time two comparisons using the PAS and the BPO scale; n = 15 for Time Two comparisons using the IIP. 38

Table 2 Correlations of Two Measures of Stalking, the Intrusiveness Scale and the SBC, with Women's Self-Report on the BPO scale, the PAS and the IIP-C For Both Women and Their Former Partners

Stalking measure

Measure Intrusiveness SBC-H Intrusiveness-P SBC-H-P

Time One

Tl-BPO .261 .034 .260 .148 Tl-BPO-R .233 -.033 .169 -.045 Tl-BPO-P .341 .120 .415* .337 Tl-BPO-I .165 .016 .159 .138 Tl-PAS .523** .167 .182 -.013 Tl-PAS-A .231 -.033 -.074 -.099 Tl-PAS-T .303 -.006 .234 -.169 754**** 449** Tl-PAS-R .427** .200

Time Two

T2-BPO .290 .120 -.040 -.113 T2-BPO-R .371* .054 .006 -.216 T2-BPO-P .554*** .228 .318 .171 T2-BPO-I .007 .046 -.221 -.164 T2-PAS .508** .058 .190 -.173 T2-PAS-A .243 .123 -.082 -.210 433** T2-PAS-T -.085 .128 -.233 T2-PAS-R .651*** .036 .453** -.035 IIP-D .454** .492** .173 .227 IIP-V .408* .230 .119 .050 IIP-C .321 .155 -.025 -.109 IIP-S .213 -.083 .158 -.199 IIP-N .069 -.194 .158 -.116 IIP-E .118 -.012 .162 .106 IIP-0 .163 .216 .131 .098 IIP-I .237 .346 -.012 .023

Note 1. SBC-H = SBC Harassment subscale; Intrusiveness-P = partners' Intrusiveness scores; SBC-H-P = partners' SBC-H scores; TI = Time One; T2 = Time Two; BPO = 39 overall BPO score, BPO-R = BPO Reality Testing; BPO-P = BPO Primitive Defenses; BPO-I = BPO Identity Diffusion; PAS = overall PAS score; PAS-A = PAS Affective Lability; PAS-T = PAS Trauma Symptoms; PAS-R = Recalled Negative Parental Treatment; IIP-D = IIP Domineering; IIP-V = IIP Vindictive; IIP-C = IIP Cold; IIP-S = IIP Socially Avoidant; IIP-N = IIP Nonassertive; IIP-E = IIP Exploitable; IIP-0 = IIP Overly Nurturing; IIP-I = IIP Intrusive. Note 2. Significance level: * = p < .10;**=p< .05;*=p< .01;*=p< .001. Note 3. n = 22 for all comparisons Table 3 Test-Retest Correlations for the BPO Scale and the PAS After a Two Year Period

Time Two

Time One T2-BPO T2-BPO-R T2-BPO-P T2-BPO-I

Tl-BPO .624**** 590**** .586**** 581**** Tl-BPO-R g27**** 72i**** 527*** 539*** Tl-BPO-P 790**** .682**** .789**** 741**** Tl-BPO-I .304* .266 .284* .300*

Time One T2-PAS T2-PAS-A T2-PAS-T T2-PAS-N

Tl-PAS .851**** 719**** (514**** 6|5***=1: 783**** Tl-PAS-A .770**** 549**** .370** Tl-PAS-T .666**** 592**** .620**** .344** 57^**** Tl-PAS-N .307* .368** .789****

Note 1. TI = Time One; T2 = Time Two; BPO = overall BPO score, BPO-R = BPO Reality Testing; BPO-P = BPO Primitive Defenses; BPO-I = BPO Identity Diffusion; PAS = overall PAS score; PAS-A = PAS Affective Lability; PAS-T = PAS Trauma Symptoms; PAS-R = Recalled Negative Parental Treatment. Note 2. Significance level: * = p < .10;**=p< .05;***=p< .01;**** = p< .001 Note 3. n = 37 for all comparisons 41

APPENDIX

Scales 42

Borderline Personality Organization Scale

For each of the statements below, please indicate how true it is about you by circling the most appropriate number beside each statement.

1 2 3 4 5 never true seldom true sometimes often true always true true

1. I feel like a fake or an imposter, that others see me as quite 1 2 3 4 5 different at times. 2. I feel almost as if I'm someone else like a friend or relative or 1 2 3 4 5 even someone I don't know. 3. It is hard for me to trust people because they so often turn 1 2 3 4 5 against me or betray me.

4. People tend to respond to me by either overwhelming me 1 2 3 4 5 with love or abandoning me. 5. I see myself in totally different ways at different times 1 2 3 4 5 6. I act in ways that strike others as unpredictable and erratic 1 2 3 4 5 7. I find I do things which get other people upset and I don't 1 2 3 4 5 know why such things upset them. 8. Uncontrollable events are the cause of my difficulties. 1 2 3 4 5 9. I hear things that other people claim are not really there. 1 2 3 4 5 10. I feel empty inside. 1 2 3 4 5 11. I tend to feel things in a somewhat extreme way, 1 2 3 4 5 experiencing either great joy or intense despair. 12. It is hard for me to be sure about what others think of me, 1 2 3 4 5 even people who have known me very well. 13. I'm afraid of losing myself when I get sexually involved. 1 2 3 4 5 14. I feel that certain episodes in my life do not count and are 1 2 3 4 5 better erased from my mind. 15. I find it hard to describe myself. 1 2 3 4 5 16. I've had relationships in which I couldn't feel whether I or the 1 2 3 4 5 other person was thinking or feeling something. 43

1 2 3 4 5 never true seldom true sometimes often true always true true

17. I don't feel like myself unless exciting things are going on 1 2 3 4 5 around me.

18. I feel people don't give me the respect I deserve unless I put 1 2 3 4 5 pressure on them. 19. People see me as being rude or inconsiderate and I don't 1 2 3 4 5 know why. 20. I can't tell whether certain physical sensations I'm having are 1 2 3 4 5 real, or whether I am imagininq them.

21. Some of my friends would be surprised if they knew how 1 2 3 4 5 differently I behave in different situations. 22. I find myself doing things which feel okay while I am doing 1 2 3 4 5 them but which I later find hard to believe I did 23. I believe that things will happen simply by thinking about 1 2 3 4 5 them.

24. When I want something from someone else, I can't ask for it 1 2 3 4 5 directly.

25. I feel I'm a different person at home as compared to how I am 1 2 3 4 5 at work or at school.

26. I am not sure whether a voice I have heard, or something that 1 2 3 4 5 I have seen, is my imagination or not.

27. I have heard or seen things when there is no apparent 1 2 3 4 5 reason for it.

28. I feel I don't get what I want. 1 2 3 4 5 29. I need to admire people in order to feel secure. 1 2 3 4 5 30. Somehow, I never know quite how to conduct myself with 1 2 3 4 5 people. 44

Propensity for Abusiveness Scale PART 1

For each of the statements below, please circle the number to the right of the statement that most accurately describes how it applies to you, from 1 (completely undescriptive of you) to 5 (completely descriptive of you).

1 2 3 4 5

completely mostly partly mostly completely undescriptive of undescriptive of undescriptive & descriptive of descriptive of you you you partly you descriptive

1. I can make myself angry about something in the past just by 1 2 3 4 5 thinking about it.

2. I get so angry, I feel that I might lose control. 1 2 3 4 5

3. If I let people see the way I feel, I'd be considered a hard 1 2 3 4 5 person to get along with.

PART 2 For each of the statements below, please indicate how true it is about you by circling the appropriate number.

1 2 3 4 5

never true seldom true sometimes often true always true true

4. I see myself in totally different ways at different times. 2 3 4 5

5. I feel empty inside. 2 3 4 5

6. I tend to feel things in a somewhat extreme way, experiencing 1 2 3 4 5 either great joy or intense despair.

It is hard for me to be sure about what others think of me, 1 2 3 4 5 even people who have known me very well.

8. I feel people don't give me the respect I deserve unless I put 1 2 3 4 5 pressure on them.

Somehow, I never know quite how to conduct myself with 1 2 3 4 5 people. 45

PART 3

Please read each of the following statements and rate the extent to which it describes your feelings about romantic relationships by circling the appropriate number. Think about all of your romantic relationships, past and present, and respond in terms of how you generally feel in these relationships.

Not at all like me Somewhat like me Very much like me

1 2 3 4 5

10. I find it difficult to depend on other people. 1 2 3 4 5

11. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close 1 2 3 4 5 to others.

I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others. 1 2 3 4 5

PART 4

How often have you experienced each of the following in the last two months? Please circle the appropriate number.

0 1 2 3

never occasionally fairly often very often

13. Insomnia (trouble getting to sleep) 0 1 2 3

14. Restless sleep 0 1 2 3

15. Nightmares 0 -1 2 3

16. Anxiety attacks 0 ' 2 3

17. Fear of men 0 1 2 3

18. Feeling tense all the time 0 1 2 3

19. Having trouble breathing 0 1 2 3 46

PART 5

Beside each statement, please circle the number of the response listed below that best describes how often the experience happened to you with your mother (or female guardian) and father (or male guardian) when you were growing up. If you had more than one mother/father figure, please answer for the persons who you feel played the most important role in your upbringing.

1 2 3 4

never occurred occasionally occurred often occurred always occurred

Father or Guardian

20. My parent punished me even for small offenses. 12 3 4

21. As a child I was physically punished or scolded in the presence of 12 3 4 others.

22. My parent gave me more corporal (physical) punishment than I 12 3 4 deserved.

23. I felt my parent thought it was my fault when he/she was unhappy. 12 3 4

24. I think my parent was mean and grudging toward me. 12 3 4

25. I was punished by my parent without having done anything 12 3 4

26. My parent criticized me and told me how lazy and useless I was in front 12 3 4 of others.

27. My parent would punish me hard, even for trifles. 12 3 4

28. My parent treated me in such a way that I felt ashamed. 12 3 4

29. I was beaten by my parent. 12 3 4 47

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Listed below are a variety of common problems that people report in relating to other people. Please read each one and consider whether that problem has been a problem for you with respect to any significant person in your life. Then select the number that describes how distressing that problem has been, and circle that number.

Not at all A little bit Moderately Quite a bit Very much

0 1 2 3 4

1. Trust other people. 0 12 3 4 2. Say "no" to other people. 0 12 3 4 3. Join in on groups. 0 12 3 4 4. Keep things private from other people. 0 12 3 4 5. Let other people know what I want. 0 12 3 4 6. Tell a person to stop bothering me. 0 12 3 4 7. Introduce myself to new people. 0 12 3 4 8. Confront people with problems that come up. 0 12 3 4 9. Be assertive with another person. 0 12 3 4 10. Let other people know I'm angry. 0 12 3 4 11. Make a long-term commitment to another person. 0 12 3 4 12. Be another person's boss. 0 12 3 4 13. Be aggressive toward someone when the situation calls for it. 0 12 3 4 14. Socialize with other people. 0 12 3 4 15. Show affection to people. 0 12 3 4 16. Get along with people. 0 12 3 4 17. Understand another person's point of view. 0 12 3 4 18. Express my feelings to other people directly. 0 12 3 4 19. Be firm when I need to be. 0 12 3 4 20. Experience a feeling of love for another person. 0 12 3 4 21. Set limits on other people. 0 12 3 4 22. Be supportive of another person's goals in life. 0 12 3 4 23. Feel close to other people. 0 12 3 4 24. Really care about other people's problems. 0 12 3 4 25. Argue with another person. 0 12 3 4 26. Spend time alone. 0 12 3 4 27. Give a gift to another person. 0 12 3 4 28. Let myself feel angry at somebody I like. 0 12 3 4 29. Put somebody else's needs before my own. 0 12 3 4 48

30. Stay out of other peoples business. 0 12 3 4 31. Take instructions from people who have authority over me. 0 12 3 4 32. Feel good about another person's happiness. 0 12 3 4 33. Ask other people to get together socially with me. 0 12 3 4 34. Feel angry at other people. 0 12 3 4 35. Open up and tell my feelings to another person. 0 12 3 4 36. Forgive another person after I've been angry. 0 12 3 4 37. Attend to my own welfare when somebody else is needy. 0 12 3 4 38. Be assertive without worrying about hurting other's feelings. 0 12 3 4 39. Be self-confident when I am with other people. 0 12 3 4 Part II. The following are things that you do too much.

40. I fight with other people too much. 0 12 3 4 41. I feel too responsible for solving other people's problems. 0 12 3 4 42. I am too easily persuaded by other people. 0 12 3 4 43. I open up to people too much. 0 12 3 4 44. I am too independent. 0 12 3 4 45. I am too aggressive toward other people. 0 12 3 4 46. I try to please other people too much. 0 12 3 4 47. I clown around too much. 0 12 3 4 48. I want to be noticed too much. 0 12 3 4 49. I trust other people too much. 0 12 3 4 50. I try to control other people too much. 0 12 3 4 51. I put other people's needs before my own too much. 0 12 3 4 52. I try to change other people too much. 0 12 3 4 53. I am too gullible. 0 12 3 4 54. I am overly generous to other people. 0 12 3 4 55. I am too afraid of other people. 0 12 3 4 56. I am too suspicious of other people. 0 12 3 4 57. I manipulate other people too much to get what I want. 0 12 3 4 58. I tell personal things to other people too much. 0 12 3 4 59. I argue with other people too much. 0 12 3 4 60. I keep other people at a distance too much. 0 12 3 4 61. I let other people take advantage of me too much. 0 12 3 4 62. I feel embarrassed in front of other people too much. 0 12 3 4 63. I am affected by another person's misery too much. 0 12 3 4 64. I want to get revenge against people too much. 0 12 3 4 49

Conflict Tactics Scale

No matter how well two people get along, there are times when they disagree on major decisions, get annoyed about something the other person does, or just have spats or fights because they are in a bad mood or tired, or for some other reason. They also use different ways of trying to settle their differences. Below are listed a number of behaviours that people use to settle their differences. Please read each one and circle the number that best represents how often in the past year you and your partner have used these behaviors when dealing with each other.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Never Once Twice 3-5 Times 6-10Times 11-20 Times More than 20 Times

You - In Past Year Partner - In Past Year

a. Discussed the issue calmly. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

b. Got information to back up 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 (your/his/her) side of things.

c. Brought in or tried to bring in 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 someone to help settle things.

d. Argued heatedly but short of 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 yelling. e. Insulted, yelled or swore at 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 the other one. f. Sulked and/or refused to talk 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 about it. g- Stomped out of the room or 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 house (or yard). h. Cried. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

I. Did or said something to 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 spite the other one. j- Threatened to hit or throw 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 something at the other one. k. Threw or smashed or hit or 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 kicked something.

I. Threw something at the 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 other one. 50

m. Pushed,grabbed, or shoved 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 the other one. n. Slapped the other one. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 o. Kicked, bit, or hit with a fist. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

P- Hit or tried to hit with 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 something. q- Beat up the other one. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 r. Threatened with a knife or 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 gun. s. Used a knife or gun. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 t. Other: 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 51

Psychological Maltreatment of Men Inventory For each of the following statements please indicate how frequently you did this to your partner during the last year by circling the appropriate number.

0 1 2 3 4 5

not never rarely occasionally frequently very applicable frequently

1. Put down his physical appearance. 0 1 2 3 4 5

2. Insulted him or shamed him in front of others. 0 1 2 3 4 5

3. Treated him like he was stupid. 0 1 2 3 4 5

4. Was insensitive to his feelings. 0 1 2 3 4 5

5. Told him he couldn't manage or take care of himself 0 1 2 3 4 5 without me.

6. Put down his care of the children. 0 1 2 3 4 5

7. Criticized the way he took care of the house. 0 1 2 3 4 5

8. Said something to spite him. 0 1 2 3 4 5

9. Brought up something from the past to hurt him. 0 1 2 3 4 5

10. Called him names. 0 1 2 3 4 5

11. Swore at him. 0 1 2 3 4 5

12. Yelled and screamed at him. 0 1 2 3 4 5

13. Treated him like an inferior. 0 1 2 3 4 5

14. Sulked or refused to talk about a problem. 0 1 2 3 4 5

15. Stomped out of the house or yard during a disagreement. 0 1 2 3 4 5

16. Gave him the silent treatment, or acted as if he wasn't 0 1 2 3 4 5 there.

17. Withheld affection from him. 0 1 2 3 4 5 52

0 1 2 3 4 5

not never rarely occasionally frequently very applicable frequently

18. Did not talk to him about my feelings. 0 1 2 3 4 5

19. Was insensitive to his sexual needs and desires. 0 1 2 3 4 5

20. Demanded obedience to my whims. 0 1 2 3 4 5

21. Became upset if household work was not done when I 0 1 2 3 4 5 thought it should be.

22. Acted like he was my personal servant. 0 1 2 3 4 5

23. Did not do a fair share of household tasks. 0 1 2 3 4 5

24. Did not do a fair share of child care. 0 1 2 3 4 5

25. Ordered him around. 0 1 2 3 4 5

26. Monitored his time and made him account for where he 0 1 2 3 4 5 was.

27. Was stingy in giving him money. 0 1 2 3 4 5

28. Acted irresponsibly with our financial resources. 0 1 2 3 4 5

29. Did not contribute enough to supporting our family. 0 1 2 3 4 5

30. Used our money or made important financial decisions 0 1 2 3 4 5 without talking to him about it.

31. Kept him from getting medical care that he needed. 0 1 2 3 4 5

32. Was jealous or suspicious of his friends. 0 1 2 3 4 5

33. Was jealous of friends who were of my sex. 0 1 2 3 4 5

34. Did not want him to go to school or other self-improvement 0 1 2 3 4 5 activities.

35. Did not want him to socialize with his same sex friends. 0 1 2 3 4 5

36. Accused him of having an affair with another man/woman. 0 1 2 3 4 5 53

0 1 2 3 4 5

not never rarely occasionally frequently very applicable frequently

37. Demanded that he stay home and take care of the 0 1 2 3 4 5 children.

38. Tried to keep him from seeing or talking to his family. 0 1 2 3 4 5

39. Interfered in his relationships with other family members. 0 1 2 3 4 5

40. Tried to keep him from doing things to help himself. 0 1 2 3 4 5

41. Restricted his use of the car. 0 1 2 3 4 5

42. Restricted his use of the telephone. 0 1 2 3 4 5

43. Did not allow him to go out of the house when he wanted 0 1 2 3 4 5 to go.

44. Refused to let him work outside the home. 0 1 2 3 4 5

45. Told him his feelings were irrational or crazy. 0 1 2 3 4 5

46. Blamed him for my problems. 0 1 2 3 4 5

47. Tried to turn our family, friends, and/or children against 0 1 2 3 4 5 him.

48. Blamed him for causing my violent behavior. 0 1 2 3 4 5

49. Tried to make him feel like he was crazy. 0 1 2 3 4 5

50. My moods changed radically, from very calm to very 0 1 2 3 4 5 angry, or vice versa.

51. Blamed him when I was upset about something, even 0 1 2 3 4 5 when it had nothing to do with him.

52. Tried to convince his friends, family or children that he 0 1 2 3 4 5 was crazy.

53. Threatened to hurt myself if he left me. 0 1 2 3 4 5 54

0 1 2 3 4 5

not never rarely occasionally frequently very applicable frequently

54. Threatened to hurt myself if he didn't do what I wanted 0 1 2 3 4 5 him to do.

55. Threatened to have an affair with someone else. 0 1 2 3 4 5

56. Threatened to leave the relationship. 0 1 2 3 4 5

57. Threatened to take the children away from him. 0 1 2 3 4 5

58. Threatened to have him committed to a mental institution. 0 1 2 3 4 5 55

Stalking Behavior Checklist

People often have difficulty when a relationship ends. Below is a list of things you may have done when your long-term relationship ended. For each statement, describe how often you have done each thing IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS by circling the appropriate number. 1 2 3 4 5 6 never once 2-5 times Monthly weekly Once a day or more

1. Sent him letters. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Sent him photos. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. Sent him gifts. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Called him at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Called him at home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. Left messages on his machine. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Made hang-up phone calls. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Watched him. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Followed him. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. Went to his work/school. 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. Went to his home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Attempted to break into his car. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. Broke into his car. 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. Damaged his new partner's property. 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. Stole/read his mail. 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. Attempted to break into his home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. Broke into his home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. Threatened to harm yourself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. Physically harmed yourself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 20. Threatened to harm him. 1 2 3 4 5 6 21. Attempted to harm him. 1 2 3 4 5 6 22. Physically harmed him. 1 2 3 4 5 6 23. Violated a restraining order he had against me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 24. Made threats to his new partner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 25. Harmed his new partner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 56

Intrusiveness scale

Was there ever a restraining order that prohibited you from coming into contact with your partner? _Y _N

(If "Y" the order began month and year, and ended month and year)

If there was a restraining order in effect, please indicate how frequently you did the following things to your partner when the restraining order was valid.

If there was not a restraining order in effect, please indicate how frequently you did the following things to your partner during the past 12 months.

Never = 0 11-19 times = 3 40-49 times = 6 Less than 5 times = 1 20-29 times = 4 More than 50 times = 7 5-10 times = 2 30-39 times = 5

1. I followed my partner from place to place. [ ]

2. I followed someone my partners knows from place to place. [ ] Specify who:

3. I kept my partner under surveillance. [ ]

4. I kept someone else my partner knows under surveillance. [ ] Specify who:

5. I harassed my partner at home, at work, or anywhere else he happened to be. [ ] Specify where:

6. I harassed someone else my partner knows at home, at work, or anywhere else that person happened to be. [ ] Specify who: Specify where:

7. I communicated with my partner directly (e.g., on the telephone, in person, in writing). [ ]

8. I communicated with my partner indirectly (e.g., through a third party, by leaving anonymous notes or messages). [ ]

9. I communicated with someone my partner knows directly (e.g., on the telephone, in person, in writing). [ ] Specify who: 57

10. I communicated with someone my partner knows indirectly (e.g., through a third party, by leaving anonymous notes or messages). Specify who:

11. I engaged in threatening behavior directed at my partner.

12. I engaged in threatening behavior directed at one of my partner's family members

13. I have intruded upon my partner's life in other ways:

a. I have forced my way into my partner's home against his will

b. I broke into my partner's home.

c. I called my partner on the telephone despite him having asked me not to.

d. I left threatening or bothersome messages on my partner's answering machine.

e. I relocated my place of residence so that I would be closer to my partner.

14. My behavior caused my partner to fear for his safety. Y N

15. My behavior caused my partner to fear for the safety of other people. Y N Specify who: 58

Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding

INSTRUCTIONS: Using the scale below as a guide, please circle the number beside each statement to indicate how true it is.

Not True | Somewhat True | Very True 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. My first impressions of people usually turn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 out to be right.

2. It would be hard for me to break any of my 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 bad habits.

3. I don't care to know what other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 really think of me.

4. I have not always been honest with myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5. I always know why I like things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

6. When my emotions are aroused, it biases 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 my thinking.

7. Once I've made up my mind, other people 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 can seldom change my opinion.

8. I am not a safe driver when I exceed the 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 speed limit.

9. 1 am fully in control of my own fate. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

10. It's hard for me to shut off a disturbing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 thought.

11. 1 never regret my decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

12. I sometimes lose out on things because I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 can't make up my mind soon enough.

13. The reason I vote is because my vote can 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 make a difference.

14. My parents were not always fair when they 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 punished me. 59

Not True | Somewhat True I Very True "1 1 12 3 4 5 6 7 |

15. I am a completely rational person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

16. I rarely appreciate criticism. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. I am very confident of my judgments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

18. I have sometimes doubted my ability as a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 lover.

19. It's all right with me if some people happen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to dislike me.

20. 1 don't always know the reasons why 1 do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 the things 1 do.

21. 1 sometimes tell lies if 1 have to. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22. I never cover up my mistakes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23. There have been occasions when 1 have 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 taken advantage of someone.

24. I never swear. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25. I sometimes try to get even rather than 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 forgive and forget.

26. I always obey laws, even if I'm unlikely to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 get caught.

27. I have said something bad about a friend 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 behind his/her back.

28. When I hear people talking privately, I avoid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 listening.

29. I have received too much change from a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 salesperson without telling him or her.

30. I always declare everything at customs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31. When I was young I sometimes stole things. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 60

Not True | Somewhat True I Very True I 1 12 3 4 5 6 7

32. I have never dropped litter on the streets. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33. 1 sometimes drive faster than the speed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 limit.

34. 1 never read sexy books or magazines. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35. I have done things that I don't tell other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 people about.

36. I have never taken things that don't belong 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 to me.

37. I have taken sick-leave from work or school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 even though I wasn't really sick.

38. I have never damaged a library book or 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 store merchandise without reporting it.

39. I have some pretty awful habits. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

40. I don't gossip about other people's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 business.