Sex Roles (2012) 66:328–339 DOI 10.1007/s11199-010-9882-3

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Why Doesn’t He Just Leave Me Alone? Persistent Pursuit: A Critical Review of Theories and Evidence

Keith E. Davis & Suzanne C. Swan & Laura J. Gambone

Published online: 19 September 2010 # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract An integrative review of three theories that explain Similarly, wanting a romantic relationship with another why some individuals engage in persistent pursuit—coercive person who does not reciprocate one’s desire is quite a control theory, relational goal pursuit, and attachment theory— common experience, perhaps in all cultures (Jankowiak is presented. The meta-analytic evidence pointing to persistent 1995). In samples of U.S. undergraduates, 80–90% report pursuit as a gendered behavior is reviewed, and coercive having the experience of unrequited love (Aron et al. 1998; control theory is used to explain gender differences. The strong Baumeister et al.). The occurrence of unrequited love as a conceptual and empirical overlap between coercive control as a theme in literate societies and as cautionary tales in folk form of intimate partner violence and persistent pursuit is societies suggests its pervasiveness (Jankowiak 1995). The examined. It is suggested that persistent pursuit measures do strong connection between jealousy and unrequited love not adequately assess behaviors that may be used more has been shown among the Maori (Harris 1995). Chinese commonly by women, such as use of physical attractiveness (Paderni 2002) and Japanese (Kafu 2007) literature have or gossip to damage one’s reputation. Given the promising documented the same patterns in novels and folklore. empirical support for the theories, longitudinal and compara- Fortunately, most people are able to get over break ups tive evaluations, with new methods are needed. and unrequited love and move on. But a significant subset of both women and men engage in persistent pursuit, Keywords Persistent pursuit . Attachment . Coercive which, on some occasions, rises to the level of legally control . Gender . Relational goal pursuit . Stalking defined stalking. The goal of this paper is to provide a review and integration of the major theories relevant to persistent pursuit and stalking. These theories are (a) Introduction coercive control theory (Dutton and Goodman 2005; Stark 2007), (b) relational goal pursuit theory (RGP; Cupach and The ending of a relationship with a loved one is a near- Spitzberg 2004; Cupach et al. 2006; Spitzberg et al. 2008), universal experience, at least in Western societies. For most and (c) adult attachment theory (Cassidy and Shaver 2008; people who become objects of rejection, the break up Mikulincer and Shaver 2007). Self-regulation, as an occasions a period of loss and sadness or anger or both, but underlying construct for all three of these theories, is these are of limited duration (Baumeister et al. 1993). described. The empirical data that we draw from comes from studies done in four English speaking nations (Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States), : : K. E. Davis (*) S. C. Swan L. J. Gambone as few empirical studies have been conducted in other Barnwell College, Department of Psychology, nations. University of South Carolina, The paper also discusses the relatively unexplored area 1512 Pendleton St., Columbia, SC 29208, USA of persistent pursuit behaviors that occur in ongoing e-mail: [email protected] relationships, and contend that there is much conceptual S. C. Swan and empirical overlap between coercive control as an aspect e-mail: [email protected] of intimate partner violence (IPV) and persistent pursuit or Sex Roles (2012) 66:328–339 329 stalking. We review the meta-analytic evidence for gender their own behavior as frightening or illegal. Cupach and differences in persistent pursuit, and use coercive control Spitzberg (2004); Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. (2000), theory to explain these differences. Finally, we conclude and Sinclair and Frieze (2000, 2005) all found that among with an integration of the major reviewed theories and individuals who self-reported engaging in persistent pursuit suggestions for promising next steps for the field. behaviors, few believed that their behaviors frightened the target or that it constituted “stalking.” Targets of persistent Importance pursuit reported higher rates of being stalked, harassed, and experiencing fear (particularly among women) as compared The question of what drives some individuals to engage in to pursuers’ self-reports (Spitzberg and Cupach 2007). stalking is a critical one, as being stalked can result in very serious consequences. The National Violence against Contexts for Persistent Pursuit Women Survey found that 45% of female and 43% of male stalking victims were overtly threatened by their The present paper focuses on three contexts in which stalkers (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000; replicated by Basile et persistent pursuit frequently arises: (a) Rejection by a al. 2006). Furthermore, the National Crime Victimization former intimate partner. Rejection is the most common survey of 2006 found that 21% of stalking victims were precipitator of stalking, both within forensic and clinical physically attacked by the stalker; 24% experienced samples and within college samples (Mullen et al. 2000; property damage or illegal entry into their home or car by Sheridan and Boon 2002; Zona et al. 1998). Spitzberg et al. the stalker; and 15% reported that the stalker attacked a (2010) recent meta-analysis confirms that more than 50% of family member, friend, co-worker, or pet (Baum et al. cases arise in this context. (b) Unreciprocated desires for a 2009). romantic relationship constitute a second large category of stalking cases. As Dunn (1999) has shown, the mythology Definitions of Stalking and Persistent Pursuit that a man’s persistence will eventually win the heart of the woman he desires permeates Western popular culture. (c) Legally, stalking has been defined as “the willful, mali- Persistent pursuit in intact relationships. Unwanted pursuit cious, and repeated following and harassing of another behaviors and harassment also occur in intact romantic person that threatens his or her safety” (Meloy and Gothard relationships, especially those that are violent (Davis et al. 1995, p. 258). The National Criminal Justice Association 2008; Logan et al. 2006; Tjaden and Thoennes 2000). project (1993) defined stalking as “a course of conduct Within intact relationships, these behaviors often function directed at a specific person that involves repeated visual or as coercive control, a pattern of attempted control over all physical proximity, non-consensual communication, or aspects of the partner’s life, including relationships with verbal, written, or implied threats or a combination thereof, family and friends, money, food, transportation, coming that would cause a reasonable person fear” (pp. 43–44). and going, and sexuality (Stark and Flitcraft 1996). The Thus, the term “stalking” refers to a legal definition, with coercion is enforced by threats, intimidation, isolation, and criteria that include repeated actions, victim fear, and, in some emotional abuse (Stark & Flitcraft). The motives most states, the intent to produce fear. In contrast, unwanted pursuit consistently associated with persistent pursuit are (a) a behavior has been defined by Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. desire to control the partner, (b) jealousy of the partner’s (2000)as“ongoing and unwanted pursuit of romantic interest in others, (c) fear of abandonment, and (d) a feeling relationships between individuals [who are either] not of entitlement to maintain the existing norms of gender currently involved with each other” or who have broken up inequality (Stark 2007). Many relationships characterized with each other (p. 212). Obsessive relational intrusion (ORI, by violence and coercive control during the relationship Cupach and Spitzberg 2004) refers to engaging in unwanted, transition into persistent pursuit and stalking once the persistent attempts to achieve a relationship that the target relationship has ended (Logan and Walker 2009), as will be does not accept or wish to continue. When the persistent described in a later section of the paper. behaviors take forms that generate fear in the target, unwanted pursuit/ORI becomes stalking as legally defined. Persistent Pursuit and Gender The distinction between persistent pursuit and stalking should be kept in mind, as most of the data that we will Persistent pursuit and stalking are gendered phenomenon, and review comes from studies of self-reported engagement in can be summarized as follows: both men and women engage various forms of persistent pursuit or ORI. Thus we can in persistent pursuit; but women are more likely to be pursued, seldom conclude that the participants in the studies and men are more likely to do the pursuing. Furthermore, the acknowledged having engaged in behavior that met legal more dangerous and frightening the pursuing behavior, the criteria for stalking. Generally, stalkers do not recognize more skewed these gender differences become. A recently 330 Sex Roles (2012) 66:328–339 completed meta-analysis of persistent pursuit with over (Stark 2007). The need to focus on the relationships 270,000 respondents drawn from 260 samples (Spitzberg et between coercive control and persistent pursuit is essential al. 2010) provides the soundest evidence available regarding for several reasons. First, persons who use violence and these gendered trends. With regards to pursuit victimization coercive control during the relationship typically transition across sample types, women were over two times more into persistent pursuit and stalking behaviors once the likely than men to be victims of persistent pursuit, with an relationship has ended (Logan and Walker 2009). Thus, average of 38% of women reporting persistent pursuit vs. understanding why and how an abuser coerces his or her 16% of men. Further, men were three times more likely to partner during the relationship should help us understand persistently pursue: 60% of men across samples engaged in how the abuser is likely to behave when the partner leaves persistent pursuit, as compared to 19% of women. the relationship. Furthermore, several different research To account for differences in serious stalking versus teams have identified coercive control as a central feature of persistent pursuit that is annoying but not threatening, the IPV, which dramatically enhances the negative health and meta-analysis (Spitzberg et al. 2010) distinguished three mental health outcomes of IPV for victims (Mitchell and subtypes of samples: Clinical-forensic, general population, Anglin 2009; Davis et al. 2002). Finally, if persistent and college samples. The more serious, threatening stalking pursuit and stalking do occur after a violent and coercive that is captured in clinical/forensic samples was primarily relationship ends, the average duration that the victim will perpetrated by men and experienced by women. Clinical/ have to endure the stalking is almost 2 years (Spitzberg and forensic samples show that the proportion of victims was Cupach 2007). The sheer duration of the pursuit appears to 80% women and 20% men; the proportion of perpetrators wear down the physical and mental health of its victims— was reversed, at 20% women and 81% men. In contrast, both male and female (Davis et al. 2002). cases from college samples tend to be dominated by persistent pursuit that would not meet legal criteria for What is Coercive Control? The most careful and thoughtful stalking. In college samples, women are still more likely to recent treatises of coercive control have been those of Dutton be victims and men perpetrators, but the gender differences and Goodman (2005) and Stark (2007). In Dutton and are less skewed: the proportion of victims was 65% women Goodman’s view, successful coercion involves the following and 28% men, and the proportion of perpetrators was 44% crucial components: (a) surveillance of the target ’srelevant women and 60% men. behaviors, (b) making demands with a credible threat of While men and women both engage in persistent pursuit, harm if the demands are not met, (c) delivery of the men’s persistent pursuit is more likely to cross the threshold threatened consequences, (d) continued control of the into stalking, and to be perceived as frightening rather than target’s ecology so that perceived ways to avoid the merely a nuisance. For example, Dye and Davis (2003) consequences of noncompliance with the abuser’sdemands found that pursuit perpetration and abuse perpetration were are either severely reduced or nonexistent (e), and arranging more strongly correlated for men than for women. This the social ecology so that the target is isolated from normal study also found that the degree of anger over being sources of social support. Toward these ends, men (and, in rejected by the partner was more strongly correlated to some cases, women [see Rhodes 2000, for a biographical persistent pursuit for men than for women. Victims of example]) bent on exercising coercive control do so by persistent pursuit (both men and women) were 3.15 times moving their partner away from family and friends, restrict- more likely to perceive the pursuit as threatening when the ing the use of telephones, computers, and cell phones, pursuer was a man (Spitzberg et al. 2010). Furthermore, providing extremely limited financial resources, and insisting women were 1.8 times more likely than men to regard on knowing where she or he is at almost every moment. It is pursuit as threatening. Thus, the evidence is clear that clear that these coercive behaviors overlap with many of the persistent pursuit and stalking are gendered behaviors—but forms of surveillance and persistent communication used by why? Coercive control theory is the only theory of stalkers. persistent pursuit that directly addresses gender, and will The five conceptual aspects of Dutton and Goodman’s be explored in the next sections. (2005) analysis of coercive control provide a framework for the analysis of persistent pursuit and stalking behav- Coercive Control and Persistent Pursuit iors. The overlap between coercive control tactics and stalking behaviors (broadly conceived) may be seen as With few exceptions (Dunn 1999; Dye and Davis 2003; follows (See Table 1 for the categories and citations for Logan et al. 2006; Logan and Walker 2009), the field has empirical support): The pursuer’s surveillance parallels the not attended to the many ways in which highly coercively controlling partner’s surveillance. The pursuer’sthreatsof controlling behaviors parallel many of the behaviors physical harm to the target and others parallel a coercively included in legal definitions of stalking and harassment controlling partner’s credible threats for noncompliance. Sex Roles (2012) 66:328–339 331

Table 1 Comparison of coercive control with persistent pursuit and stalking

I. Coercive Control: Motives and Means A. Motives: 1. Control & Domination¹ 2. Maintain the Desired Relationship of Male Dominance² 3. Gaining an Obedient Servant and an Obedient Sexual Partner³ B. Means:4 1. Surveillance of the target’s relevant behaviors 2. Making demands with a credible threat of harm if the demands are not met 3. Delivery of the threatened consequences a. Humiliation b. Physical harm 4. Continued control of the target’s world to reduce means of avoiding negative consequences 5. Isolation of target from normal sources of social support II. Persistent Pursuit: Motives and Means A. Motives 1. Control of Former or Wished for Partner5 2. Establish a Romantic or Friendship Relationships with Target, or Re-establish a Threatened Close Relationship6 3. To Achieve Revenge on a Partner Who Has Hurt or Betrayed Self7 B. Means:8 1. Surveillance (spying on, following, showing up at the same venues) 2. Making demands for contact with target with a credible threat of harm to target or family and friends if demands are not met 3. Delivery of threatened consequences: a. Harassing (by damaging property, by communicating target’s deeds to friends and relatives) b. Physical harm 4. Exerting control by communicating with target against his/her will (phone calls, emails, letters

Citations to literature with empirical support for each point. 1 Dutton and Goodman (2005); Stark (2007) 2 Logan et al. (2006, pp. 36–37) 3 Logan et al. (2006); Stark (2007) 4 Dutton and Goodman (2005); Stark (2007) 5 Davis et al. (2000); Dye and Davis (2003); Logan et al. (2006, pp. 53–54); Sheridan and Boon (2002) 6 Logan et al. (2006, pp. 54–55); Meloy (1998); Mullen et al. (2000); Sheridan and Boon (2002); Sinclair and Frieze (2000, 2005); Cupach and Spitzberg (2004; Spitzberg and Cupach 2007) 7 Logan et al. 2006, p. 55); Meloy (1998); Mullen et al. (2000) 8 Crick et al. (1996); Cupach and Spitzberg (2004, pp. 76–79); Davis et al. (2002, 2008); Meloy (1998); Mullen et al. (2000); Sinclair and Frieze (2000); Ostrov et al. (2006); Tjaden and Thoennes (2000)

The persistence and pervasiveness of the pursuer’s The overlap between these two concepts is considerable, attempts to control the target’s social ecology overlap as evidenced by findings that a person’s need to control an with those of the coercively controlling spouse/partner. intimate partner was a consistent predictor of psychologi- When a person is aware of being followed and aware that cally abusive behavior during the relationship, and of friends and possible dates or partners will be subjected to persistent pursuit after a breakup (Davis et al. 2000; Dutton harassment, it inhibits the exploration of their worlds. and Winstead 2006; Dye and Davis 2003). The primary Victimsofstalkingtendtowithdrawandtoincreasetheir difference seems to be that coercive control is conceptual- use of alcohol and other substances to cope with the daily ized as a set of behaviors that occurs in an intact stress of being pursued so persistently (Davis et al. 2002; relationship, whereas persistent pursuit is thought of as Davis and Mechanic 2009;Stuartetal.2006). Similarly, behaviors that occur in a relationship that has ended or in a being in a coercively controlling relationship feels like relationship that has not yet begun. In fact, the behaviors being behind bars or being entrapped (Logan and Walker may be very similar. The parallels between persistent 2009;Stark2007). pursuit and coercive control indicate that researchers 332 Sex Roles (2012) 66:328–339 examining these topics should consider assessing both in being home alone....I am very cautious. Another thing, if their studies. home by myself, whatever room I’m in I close the door. For one, when the door is open someone could be watching.... Gender, Persistent Pursuit and Coercive Control We argue And I am particularly cautious around men. They make me that the gendered patterns described above, for both nervous.” (p. 300). Men’s greater physical strength, and the persistent pursuit and coercive control, are a function of a fact that the majority of violent crimes are committed by larger social context that favors male dominance and men’s men (Pastore and Maguire 2005), doubtless contribute to role as the sexual aggressor (Dunn 1999). Broad gendered perceptions that men’s persistent pursuit is more likely than social forces that grant men a multitude of privileges, women’s to be threatening and frightening. including higher wages, greater representation in positions Coercive control theory deals with the cultural, hierar- of power in political systems, religious bodies, judicial chical constructions of gender that underlie persistent institutions, corporations, academic institutions, etc. are pursuit. Of course, most people do not engage in persistent reproduced in men’s coercive control and persistent pursuit pursuit when a relationship ends; coercive control theory (Stark 2007). Coercive control mirrors, in an exaggerated does not explain why the relatively few people who engage manner, cultural constructions of gender that stipulate that in persistent pursuit do so. We turn next to individual-level men should be dominant over women (Swan et al. 2009). theories that explain the relevant factors for particular Similarly, persistent pursuit draws from cultural con- individuals who engage in persistent pursuit structions of courtship idealized in countless movies and novels, in which the protagonist (almost always male) doggedly pursues his love interest despite continuous Self-Regulation Concepts and Theories Related rejections (Dunn 1999; Emerson et al. 1998). Ultimately, to Persistent Pursuit though they may be cloaked in tropes of romance, these behaviors are attempts to dominate another person and The principles of self-regulation underlie the persistent force him or her to bend to your will (e.g., you WILL have pursuit theories described here and thus will be briefly a relationship with me, whether you want to or not, because defined. Self-regulation may be defined as an ability to give I will continue to be a part of your life; Emerson et al. appropriate weights to contextual and personal factors in 1998). the pursuit of one’s goals. Self-regulation comes into play Of course, women also engage in coercive control and when persons are tempted to engage either in short-term persistent pursuit behaviors (Swan et al. 2009). In fact, rewarding behaviors at the expense of long-term welfare, or evidence indicates that women are just as likely to men to to lose perspective on what their goals are (Vohs and engage in less serious forms of persistent pursuit such as Baumeister 2004, pp. 1–2). Failures of self-regulation have following, showing up uninvited, and persistent telephon- been implicated in several specific pathologies, such as ing, texting, and emailing (Davis et al. 2008; Spitzberg et antisocial, addictive, or impulsive behaviors (Kring and al. 2010). The difference is that when women persistently Sloan 2010). Baumeister and colleagues (Baumeister et al. pursue, they don’t have the backing of a broad, well- 1998) liken self-regulation to exercising a muscle. As established cultural system that supports the cultural norm repeated exercise begins to sap one’s self-regulatory of a woman persistently and aggressively seeking a capacity, new efforts at self-regulation will be less effective. relationship. As we shall see, these processes are important in under- Furthermore, women’s persistent pursuit is rarely seen as standing the obsessive behavior of the persistent pursuer threatening or frightening, as shown in a study of men and (Baumeister et al. 1994; DeWall et al. 2007). Their major women who had experienced persistent pursuit (Emerson et additions to the model of self-regulation are twofold: (a) the al. 1998). As one of Emerson’s male participants put it, concept of willpower as the personal capacity that an “Didn’t want to be mean to the girl who followed me.... I individual can bring to bear in his attempts at self- didn’t really think she was psycho or anything.... Just felt regulation and (b) the variety of elegant experimental weird and thought she was strange. No real threat-she studies that have shown the plausibility and importance of couldn’t rape me or anything” (p. 300). In contrast, a this concept. They have shown that short-term mental effort female participant in this study stated, “I kind of am still of one kind will reduce one’s effectiveness in self-control in cautious all the time. For instance, if I pull into the another area in a number of contexts (especially in response apartment complex and someone pulls in beside me, I to provocations that normally elicit aggressive urges). In won’t park until they do. I look into my car before getting two sets of studies these concepts have been applied to the in. If it’s empty, I jump in and hurry and lock the door. And prediction of aggressiveness towards an intimate partner, then, I also make sure my feet are not close to the bottom of and shown to have significant predictive power (Finkel et the car so no one can cut my Achilles. I used to be scared of al. 2009; Dewall et al. 2007). Finkel et al. demonstrated Sex Roles (2012) 66:328–339 333 that: (a) romantic partners, even when provoked by their popular and socially skilled person is unlikely to perceive partner’s behavior, were able to restrain impulses to any given partner as the exclusive link to life satisfaction, physically attack their partners, (b) partners whose self- given that other partners may eventually fulfill the higher regulatory powers were experimentally depleted were less order goal equally well. In the forensic literature, stalkers able to restrain themselves when provoked by their often appear socially unskilled and to have achieved few partners, and (c) partners who engaged in a two-week long satisfying relationships (Mullen et al. 2000; Sheridan and self-regulation enhancement program were better able to Boon 2002). Goal linkage, thus, leads individuals to believe resist the temptation to attack a provocative partner. In a that they have few alternatives, and only intimacy with a separate set of five studies, DeWall et al. demonstrated particular person will increase their happiness and self- similar findings and showed that high trait self-control was worth. Such linkage stimulates a sense of dependency on a reliable predictor of the ability to resist the urges to attack the object of their affection. Dependency is defined as the a partner who had delivered provocative insults. General perception that only a particular person or relationship can self-regulation theory has yet to be applied directly to the satisfy the individual’s needs, thus relying solely on that analysis of persistent pursuit. specific source for fulfillment (Attridge et al. 1998; Rusbult et al. 1998). Such beliefs are typical of those stalkers Relational Goal Pursuit Theory (RGP Theory) studied clinically (Meloy 1998; Mullen et al. 2000). Now if rejection is introduced into a situation of strong RGP theory is a variant of self-regulation theory with a goal linkage, the rejection fuels the pursuer’s effort and focus on the areas of failure in self-regulation that cause desire to meet his/her goal (Cupach and Spitzberg 2004). inappropriate persistence, as well as cognitive distortions This should especially be the case when an individual has concerning the significance of the pursuer’sbehaviorand few alternatives, is heavily invested in the relationship, and of the target’s reactions. The recipient of pursuit is highly dependent on the object of pursuit. Rejection feels frequently finds the persistent attempts at intimacy more painful, distressing, and embarrassing because it is bothersome, irritating, harassing, and, at their worst, coming from the one individual who can fulfill a primary threatening (Spitzberg et al. 2008). The theory posits that life goal. The rejected person frequently experiences persons experiencing jealousy, possessiveness, despera- emotions such as anger, jealousy, hurt, shame, and sadness. tion, insecure attachments, and intense attraction are more The individual, being unable to meet the goal of a likely to engage in obsessive relational intrusions (ORI, relationship with a desired other, dwells on the idea that Cupach and Spitzberg 2004).Themorethepursuer the goal is unsatisfied, thus creating more intense negative agonizes over the desired relationship, the more likely a feelings (Cupach and Spitzberg 2004). Thus rejection and pattern of ORI will develop. threat of losing face lead to further pursuit in order to fulfill the lower order goal. The pursuer becomes absorbed and Goal Linkage consumed by the negative feelings and is now suffering from thought intrusion, i.e. persistent, unwanted, and When relationships are developing, parties typically devel- irrepressible thoughts about the particular object of pursuit op goals such as to be with each other, do things together, (Rachman 1997). and become interdependent (Cupach and Spitzberg 2004). Cupach and Spitzberg (2004), following Wegner’s work When a pursuer’s goal for togetherness is unfulfilled, the on the paradoxes of thought suppression (Wegner and desire to achieve the goal intensifies, and the pursuer may Zanakos 1994), propose that attempting to suppress the direct more energy toward the relationship quest. This is the thoughts of the former or desired partner will lead to a root motive for persistent pursuit. The question becomes, rebound effect. Rebound occurs when the person exhibiting “Why do some quests terminate after continued failures and ORI desperately attempts to restrain any thoughts related to others intensify into full blown stalking (with demands for the recipient, paradoxically resulting in more intense excessive intimacy, surveillance, harassment, and intimida- thought intrusion. Ultimately, the obsessive pursuer is tion or aggression)?” unable to suppress the intrusive thoughts because the lower RGP theory posits the following answer. People set order goal of intimacy is perceived as necessary in order to goals hierarchically, placing certain goals higher in impor- achieve happiness. The pursuer fails to avoid or control the tance than others, and are sensitive to perceived opportu- thoughts, thereby amplifying thought intrusion and abating nities to fulfill goals as they arise. A potential relationship, efforts at suppression. The intense effort to suppress or one that has been terminated, constitutes a linkage thought intrusion and rebound is “absorbing and pre- between the desire for togetherness [interdependency occupying, and drives the motivation to pursue the (Rusbult 1983)] and the higher order goal of personal relational goal because goal achievement is the only happiness, meaning, and a place in the community. A pathway to relief from the distress” (Cupach et al. 2000, 334 Sex Roles (2012) 66:328–339 p. 140). The obsessive pursuer is confident that, after that organizes behavior in ways designed to foster individual constant and unrelenting attempts to attain the relational survival and reproduction in the face of environmental goal, success will be achieved in the end. The illusion that dangers and variations (Mikulincer and Shaver 2007). the target will eventually reciprocate drives the pursuer The normative model posits that any person separated from forward, and he perceives the desired result as likely an attachment figure will experience distress, and if the (Cupach and Spitzberg 2004). These illusions are often separation continues, will have characteristic emotional and aided by the gendered cultural narrative that if the man behavioral reactions to this distress. Adaptive behavioral persists long enough, he will eventually win over the sequences will be activated by separation from the attachment woman he desires (Dunn 1999). figure such as crying, searching for the attachment figure, and The processes of negative arousal and thought intrusion seeking emotional support, and these will continue until the incline the frustrated and often angry rejected pursuer to person senses the arrival of support, protection by the develop an obsession regarding the object of unrequited attachment figure or the like. Continued attachment distress affection. This obsession is expected to promote rational- has been shown to evoke specific patterns of responses based ization of otherwise inappropriate pursuit behavior. The on the history of learning with the person’s primary attachment loss of objectivity that arises in a case of dwelling on figures (e.g., caretakers or lovers). In adulthood, the primary another as an object of potential goal fulfillment reduces attachment strategy does not require the actual presence of the normal inhibitions, and reinforce the enactment of a other, but may operate with mental and symbolic representa- campaign of relational pursuit. That such pursuit sometimes tions of the other. Thinking about the one who provides love, takes on aggressive and retaliatory tones paradoxically responsiveness, and care can by itself soothe attachment illustrates the mixed motives of ORI. The object of concerns (Mikulincer and Shaver 2007, 2008). affection is desired, but aggression is sometimes employed Individual variation in attachment styles exists in how as both an attempt to intimidate the person back into the one approaches the problem of persistent activation of the relationship and a simple act of retaliation for the hurt attachment system. Securely attached persons have been caused by the rejection. shown to handle a variety of distresses by effective problem The most recent versions of the theory have been tested solving of mild or temporary emotional distress (Mikulincer in two large cross-sectional surveys by Cupach et al. (2006) and Shaver 2007) whereas insecurely attached individuals and further developed in Spitzberg et al. (2008). Data from show two characteristic dysfunctions. Those who are these studies indicated that determination to win the partner anxiously attached (or preoccupied) have suffered from an back, goal linkage, and rumination were the most powerful inconsistent and intrusive pattern of caregiving. Preoccu- predictors of all forms of ORI among both those who had pied individuals exhibit a hyperactivation of the attachment rejected their partners and those who were rejected. For system with a magnification of emotional distress (both those who were rejected, the degree of emotional intensity anxiety and anger over perceived abandonment). In these and emotional flooding, i.e., depth of anger, distress, and individuals, their need for attention and reassurance about sadness also contributed to the prediction of ORI. These their acceptance by their partners makes them prone to findings all reflect straightforward failures of self- coercively controlling behaviors when threatened by the regulation, resulting in impulsive but purposeful and (real or imagined) loss of a partner. The research support persistent pursuit. The RGP model is promising, but has for this pattern is voluminous (Mikulincer and Shaver yet to receive a longitudinal test that will be essential to 2007). In contrast, individuals who have suffered from mapping the relational processes of the development of consistent inattention, rejection or angry responses tend persistent pursuit and stalking. Several measures of aspects quite naturally to learn that in their worlds their caretakers of RGP, including goal linkage, persistence, rumination, are not to be counted on for relief from distress and that and emotional intensity have been developed, and the they must, therefore, handle emotional distress on their outcome measure—the ORI-perpetration inventory—is one own. The attachment figure is seen as dangerous, capable of the most thoroughly tested instruments in the field. of harm, and as not to be trusted. Such a pattern of experience generates either compulsive self-reliance or an Adult Attachment Theory avoidant attachment style—which so far has shown little relevance to IPV or persistent pursuit. Attachment theory has both a normative and an individual Hazan and Shaver (1987) developed the first model of difference model. It was explicitly formulated by Bowlby individual differences in adult attachment in romantic (1969/1982) to involve the integration of ethology, automatic relationships based on Ainsworth’s studies of infant reactions self-control, and cognitive representation. The normative to the separation and reunion with attachment figures portion of the theory rests on the assumption that attachment (Ainsworth et al. 1978). After reviewing the attachment is a species-universal, biologically evolved neural program literature, Brennan et al. factor analysis (1998)provided Sex Roles (2012) 66:328–339 335 evidence of a four-category model with two dimensions, that gender differences in IPV and persistent pursuit by taking they conceptualized as (a) anxiety about abandonment vs. account of the socially structured discrepancies in access confidence in one’s self-worth and (b) avoidance vs. comfort to resources and power by men vs. women. As there has with and trust of others. Secure individuals are conceptual- been no comparative empirical test of the theories, our ized as high both in self-worth and in their comfort with and goal in this final section will be to point out linkages trust of intimate others. Consequently they are low in both among key concepts and alternative methods for engaging anxiety and avoidance. A generation of research has been in research. highly supportive of the two dimensional, four category Both RGP and attachment theory have similar logical model of attachment styles in adults (Mikulincer and Shaver structures. Each has a root motive that is similar—a desire 2007; Crowell et al. 2008). to achieve a satisfying intimate relationship. Each derives As attachment theory would predict, anxiously attached the urge to pursue from the distress felt over real or individuals are more likely to engage in physical and potential disruptions of such a desirable relationship. Each psychological abuse (Follingstad et al. 2002; Holtzworth- specifies conditions that intensify the urge to pursue— Munroe et al. 1997) as well as jealousy and surveillance attachment anxiety in one case and the failure to control (Guerrero 1998; Wigman et al. 2008). Follingstad et al. intrusive thoughts in the case of RGP theory. Each proposes found that anxious attachment resulting from early experi- that serious problems in self regulation stem from the ences resulted in the development of an angry temperament, emotional flooding (anxiety, anger, jealousy, sadness) which in turn led to a controlling style and eventually, occasioned by the disruption of the relationship. Each physical aggression. Four studies have found that anxious attributes the unrealistic judgments of possible success for attachment either relates directly to persistent pursuit, or the persistent pursuit to the impact of self-focused emotional relationship is mediated by conceptually relevant variables problem-solving used to deal with loss of the relationship. such as the degree of anger and jealousy at being rejected or Neither gives any special consideration to gendered differ- the degree of need to control one’s intimate partner (Davis ences in power and resources and thus to possible gender et al. 2000; Dutton and Winstead 2006; Dye and Davis differences in pursuit. Where they differ is in the overall 2003). In these studies, anxious attachment is clearly theoretical context in which their measures and predictions empirically linked to degree of anger over rejection and to are embedded. Attachment is part of a broader evolutionary jealousy of perceived rivals. theory and it has a nomological network of well-established A strength of the attachment model is its explicit predictions far beyond the scope of IPV and persistent formulation of the self-regulation of emotional distress pursuit. RGP theory was created specifically for the and its theoretical power to derive both current behavioral problem of pursuit and it has taken concepts and findings responses and the development of personality patterns from from general communication, social and clinical psycholo- repeated experiences of handling distress. Both normative gy and fused them into a specific theory. and individual difference formulations contribute to the One obvious point is that neither attachment theory nor understanding of the emotional and behavioral reactions to RGP theory has taken advantage of the insights from the relationship termination or rejection. Associated with the recent work in general self-regulation theory by several theory are well-developed assessment procedures (Crowell investigators—Baumeister, DeWall, and Finkel. They have et al. 2008) and a significant amount of research support for not, for example, used measures of dispositional self- its importance in understanding aspects of IPV and control strength such as that by Flora et al. (2003). Nor persistent pursuit. Although most of the research on it is has either group attempted to use training sessions in the cross-sectional, there are now several studies of individuals handling of rejection or the emotional distress associated and couples over significant periods of time indicating both with a failure to achieve a desired relationship to see if the stability of the individual differences (Crowell et al.) either of these would reduce persistent pursuit. These are and their longitudinal predictive power (Cobb et al. 2001; clearly called for. Davila et al. 1999; Mikulincer and Shaver 2007). No one has yet, however, used attachment theory to longitudinally Where Does the Field Go Next? predict persistent pursuit or stalking over time. What are the high priority issues to address? In our view, Integration of Theories and Future Research Needs the single most important next step is the comparative evaluation of predictors and mediators from the different Of the theories reviewed, two rely on models of failure in theories in the prediction of specific types of persistent self-regulation as central to the prediction and understand- pursuit behaviors. This would allow us to understand what ing of relationship violence and stalking. In contrast, kinds of situations elicit specific types of pursuit (ranging coercive control theory builds in the basis for expecting from short-term harassment to long-term aggressive and 336 Sex Roles (2012) 66:328–339 dangerous stalking), and the particular characteristics of attached person’s high level of anxiety may prevent them people who engage in these different forms of pursuit. This from being able to effectively self-regulate their demanding kind of understanding is what is needed to design and intrusive behaviors. Such a person may be especially prevention programs and to intervene effectively in ongoing likely to engage in both IPV and persistent pursuit. In that pursuit situations. The current situation is that each team of person’s mind, once they have lost the relationship with the researchers proceeds with its own model and measures and desired person they have nothing left to lose; persistent seldom includes other theorists’ variables in their research. pursuit may seem like the only course of action that can In the following sections, we suggest some studies as provide relief. examples of potentially profitable integration. Secondly, longitudinal studies are needed. We know that A comprehensive study that includes variables from each stalking is a behavior that evolves over time, and that of the theories could address the following sorts of episodes of intrusive behavior that persist beyond two predictions. Cupach and Spitzberg’s(2004) RGP Theory weeks are more frightening to their targets, involve a proposes that stalkers become obsessed with the notion that broader range of harassing behaviors, and are more a relationship with a desired person is the only way to fulfill psychologically detrimental to the targets than the shorter the higher-order goal of personal happiness, meaning, and a episodes (Purcell et al. 2004). Longitudinal work would place in the community. This obsession leads to thought help us predict which stalking episodes are likely to intrusion, i.e. the inability to suppress thoughts about the become long-term and dangerous, and which will end desired person. The ability to successfully cope with quickly without escalation. Taking the theories together, unwanted thoughts that one has difficulty suppressing is a they suggest that an anxiously attached person, or a person task of self-regulation. Thus, a study combining RGP and with low self-control and limited social skills suffering Baumeister et al. (2007) self-regulation theory might from recent rejection by a highly desirable other, will be predict that persons experiencing thought intrusion regard- most likely to engage in stalking behaviors over time. Are ing a desired person who are also poor in dispositional self- all four of these conditions essential or is there a more regulation will be more likely to engage in persistent limited subset that would allow the prediction of persistent pursuit than persons with good self-regulation abilities. pursuit? Training in relevant self-regulation should enhance one’s Such studies could also help us identify what kinds of ability to desist in pursuit. victim behaviors may be more or less effective in If it is true that stalkers have poor self-regulatory extinguishing the behavior, as well as what kinds of law abilities, another prediction is that stalkers may show poor enforcement and other interventions may be effective, for self-regulation in other areas as well (e.g., drinking and what kinds of pursuers. Given the ethical complexities of a smoking, drug use, inability to keep a job, etc.). Forensic longitudinal study of stalkers currently engaged in stalking, case data seems to support some of these expectations case studies using archival data or interviews with stalkers (Meloy 1998; Mullen et al. 2000; Sheridan and Boon who have been incarcerated may be avenues for obtaining 2002). longitudinal data. Finally, a study examining attachment theory, RGP It is also possible to use short-term simulations of theory, and self-regulation in relation to persistent pursuit relationship development to get at the relevant dynamics might answer other questions as well. For example, of stalking. For example, Vicary and Fraley (2007) attachment theory would predict that the kind of person developed an interactive online method in which partic- who is most vulnerable to becoming obsessed with a ipants made choices about how to behave in a hypothetical desired but unobtainable person demonstrates an anxious relationship. These choices could be relationship-enhancing attachment style. A very anxiously attached person needs (e.g., a statement indicating that the participant trusts the constant reassurance that their partner loves them, will meet partner or cares about his/her feelings) or detrimental to the their emotional needs, and will not leave them. The very relationship. The study found that insecurely attached anxiously attached person will be hypervigilant to any cues people were less likely to choose relationship-enhancing (real or imagined) that the partner is emotionally withdraw- behaviors than those with a secure attachment style. This ing or is showing interest in someone else. Paradoxically, technique could be applied to the dynamics of persistent the very behaviors that anxiously attached persons engage pursuit. For example, participants could be given a in to relieve their anxiety may drive partners away. As the hypothetical scenario in which their partner has left them partner disengages from the relationship, the anxiously for someone else. Participants could then be given an array attached person may be more likely than a person with a of behavioral choices, ranging from forgetting about the secure attachment style to believe that the relationship with partner and moving on, to various forms of persistent the partner is the only way to fulfill the higher-order goal of pursuit. Individual differences in attachment style, RGP personal happiness (as per RGP Theory). The anxiously theory variables, self-regulatory strength and temporary Sex Roles (2012) 66:328–339 337 depletion of ego strength (Baumeister et al. 2007) could be desire for control of the partner and obsessive thoughts examined as predictors of participants’ behavioral choices. arise in the contexts of rejection, unrequited love, or ongoing conflict within an intimate relationship. And both Measurement Issues and Gender theories have a set of well-developed and validated measures of crucial parts of their theoretical networks. Our final critique of the state of the field is that that the Neither, however, provides an account of the role of the measurement of persistent pursuit may need to be more observed gender differences between women and men in attentive to gender than it has been so far. Women, with either victimization or perpetration, nor in the pattern of their different set of personal resources, may engage in behaviors for coercive control or persistent pursuit within types of persistent pursuit that are not well-assessed by relationships. But coercive control theory and feminist current measures. For example, a personal resource that accounts of the ways in which men are priviledged in most women may use differently than men to in attempts to known human communities can be used to supplement the achieve a relationship is physical attractiveness. A woman’s accounts of attachment and RPG theories. When one takes persistence may take the forms of flirting, being seductive, account of the differentials in resources typically available and engaging in attention getting behaviors. These kinds of to men, such as greater physical strength, socially scan- gendered behaviors are not adequately assessed by current tioned power, and control of wealth, it becomes clearer why persistent pursuit measures. women will more often be victims of coercive control while A second personal resource is one’s social networks, and in relationships, and persistent pursuit when attempting to one’s status within those networks. A growing body of leave abusive relationships. research suggests that young women’s aggressiveness can We suggest that methodological improvements can be take the form of gossip and ridicule, designed to damage made in the current standard instruments to assess persistent the reputation of someone who has hurt them (Crick et al. pursuit (Cupach and Spitzberg 2004; Langhinrichsen-Rohling 1996; Ostrov et al. 2006). These forms of persistent pursuit- et al. 2000) that may detect some tactics used by women related aggression may be used more frequently by women, more frequently than men. We also suggest a combination of and are just beginning to be assessed by current measures. (a) indepth interviews with convicted stalkers, (b) mining of For example, the Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. (2000) archival data, and (c) experimental simulations of the course Unwanted Pursuit Behavior Inventory (UPBI) has two of relationship development need to be conducted to provide items (of 26) assessing “releasing harmful information.” a more nuanced view of what happens between the initiation Similarly, the ORI-42 (Perpetration Self-report; Spitzberg of mildly annoying persistent pursuit and the development of and Cupach 2007) has two items that might elicit such dangerous stalking. information. Only Cupach and Spitzberg’s Cyberpursuit scale (2004) directly asks more extensively about forms of gossip that damage the target’s reputation, and it has References been used in just a few studies to date. Having a single, male-centric mold imposed on the assessment of persis- Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). tent pursuit may lead to an underestimation of the kinds Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the Strange of pursuit behaviors women may use more frequently. Situation. Hillsdale: Erlbaum. The currently used instruments seem to be open to the Aron, A., Aron, E., & Allen, J. (1998). Motivations for unrequited love. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 787–796. charge of being insufficiently sensitive to tactics poten- Attridge, M., Berscheid, E., & Sprecher, S. (1998). Dependency and tially used by women. We encourage the development of insecurity in romantic relationships: Development and validation gender-sensitive measures that will capture the full range of two companion scales. Personal Relationships, 5,31–58. of persistent pursuit as practiced by women as well as Basile, K. C., Swahn, M. H., Chen, J., & Saltzman, L. E. (2006). Stalking in the United States: Recent national prevalence men. estimates. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31, 172– 175. Conclusions Baum, K., Catalano, S., & Rand, M. (2009). Stalking victimization in the United States. Retrieved from National Criminal Justice Reference Service website: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/svus.pdf. We have established that the three theories under review Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. make important but distinct contributions to the under- (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? standing and prediction of pursisent pursuit among both Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265. women and men. Attachment and RGP theories provide a Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing — control: How people fail at self-regulation. New York: Academic. theoretical account of one of the primary motives fear of Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength abandoment, or distress over the failure to achieve a love model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological relationship—and both provide explanations of how a Science, 16, 351–355. 338 Sex Roles (2012) 66:328–339

Baumeister, R. F., Wotman, S. R., & Stillwell, A. M. (1993). and break-up distress. Journal of Social and Personal Relation- Unrequited love: On heartbreak, anger, guilt, scriptlessness, and ships, 23, 565–586. humiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, Dye, M. L., & Davis, K. E. (2003). Stalking and psychological abuse: 377–394. Common factors and relationship-specific characteristics. Vio- Bowlby, J. (1969/1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. lence and Victims, 18, 163–180. New York: Basic Books. Emerson, R. M., Ferris, K. O., & Gardner, C. B. (1998). On being Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report stalked. Social Problems, 45, 289–314. assessment of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Finkel, E. J., DeWatt, C. N., Slotter, E. B., Oaten, M., & Foshee, V. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close (2009). Self-regulatory failure and intimate partner violence relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford. perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of attachment: 483–499. Research, theory, and clinical applications (2nd ed.). New York: Flora, D. B., Finkel, E. J., & Foshee, V. A. (2003). Higher order factor Guilford. structure of a self-control test: Evidence from a confirmatory Cobb, R. J., Davila, J., & Bradbury, T. N. (2001). Attachment security factor analysis with polychoric correlations. Educational and and marital satisfaction: The role of positive perceptions and Psychological Measurement, 63,112–127. social support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, Follingstad, D. R., Bradley, R. G., & Helf, C. M. (2002). A model for 1131–1143. predicting dating violence in college students: Anxious attach- Crick, K. R., Bigbee, M. A., & Howe, C. (1996). Gender differences ment, angry temperament, and need for control. Violence and in children’s normative beliefs about aggression: How do I hurt Victims, 17,35–47. thee? Let me count the ways. Child Development, 67, 1003– Guerrero, L. K. (1998). Attachment-style differences in the experience 1014. and expression of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5, Crowell, J. A., Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Measurement of 273–291. individual differences in adolescent and adult attachment. In J. Harris, H. (1995). Rethinking Polynesian heterosexual relationships: Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: A case study on Mangaia, Cook Island. In W. R. Jankowiak Research, theory, and clinical applications (2nd ed., pp. 599– (Ed.), Romantic passion: A universal experience? (pp. 95–127). 636). New York: Guilford. New York: Columbia University Press. Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2004). Thedarksideof Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as relationship pursuit: From attraction to obsession and stalking. an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Psychology, 52,511–524. Cupach, W. R., Spitzberg, B. H., & Carson, C. L. (2000). Toward a Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Stuart, G. L., & Hutchinson, G. (1997). Violent theory of obsessive relational intrusion and stalking. In K. Dindia vs. nonviolent husbands: Differences in attachment patterns, depen- & S. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal relationships dence, and jealousy. Journal of Family Psychology, 11, 314–341. (pp. 131–146). NY: Wiley. Jankowiak, W. R. (1995). Romantic passion: A universal experience? Cupach, W. R., Spitzberg, B. H., Younghans, C. M., & Gibbons, B. S. New York: Columbia University Press. (2006). Persistent attempts to reconcile a terminated romantic Kafu, N. (2007) Rivalry. A geisha’stale. (S. Snyder, Trans.). New York: relationship: An application and partial test of relational goal Columbia University Press. (Original work published in 1918). pursuit theory. Palm Springs: Western States Communication Kring, A. M., & Sloan, D. M. (Eds.). (2010). Emotion regulation and Association Convention. psychopathology. New York: Guilford. Davila, J., Karney, B. R., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Attachment Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Palarea, R. E., Cohen, J., & Rohling, M. changes processes in the early years of marriage. Journal of L. (2000). Breaking up is hard to do: Unwanted pursuit behaviors Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 783–802. following the dissolution of a romantic relationship. Violence and Davis, K. E., Ace, A., & Andra, M. (2000). Stalking perpetrators and Victims, 15,73–90. psychological maltreatment of partners. Violence and Victims, 15, Logan, T. K., Cole, J., Shannon, L., & Walker, R. (2006). Partner 473–488. stalking: How women respond, cope, and survive. New York: Davis, K. E., Coker, A., & Sanderson, M. (2002). Physical and mental Springer Publishing Co. health effects of being stalker for men and women. Violence and Logan, T. K., & Walker, R. (2009). Partner stalking: Psychological Victims, 17, 429–443. dominance or “business as usual”? Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, Davis, K. E., & Mechanic, M. B. (2009). Stalking victimization: The 10, 247–270. management of its consequences. In C. Mitchell & D. Anglin Meloy, J. R. (1998). The psychology of stalking: Clinical and forensic (Eds.), Intimate partner violence: A health-based perspective (pp. perspectives. San Diego: Academic. 473–488). New York: Oxford University Press. Meloy, J. R., & Gothard, S. (1995). A demographic and clinical Davis, K. E., Swan S. C., Gambone, L., Snow, D., & Sullivan, T. comparison of obsessional followers and offenders with mental (2008) An examination of the function of women’s persistent disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 258–263. pursuit in violent relationships. Unpublished paper, available Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: from the authors, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC. Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford. DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., & Gailliot, M. T. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2008). Adult attachment and affect (2007). Violence restrained: Effects of self-regulation and its regulation. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of depletion on aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- attachment: Research, theory, and clinical applications (2nd ed., chology, 43,62–76. pp. 503–531). New York: Guilford. Dunn, J. L. (1999). What love has to do with it: The cultural Mitchell, C., & Anglin, D. (Eds.). (2009). Intimate partner violence: A construction of emotion and sorority women’s responses to health-based perspective. New York: Oxford University Press. forcible interactions. Social Problems, 46, 440–459. Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., & Purcell, R. (2000). Stalkers and their Dutton, M. A., & Goodman, L. A. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner victims. New York: Cambridge University Press. violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52,743–756. National Criminal Justice Association. (1993). Project to develop a Dutton, L. B., & Winstead, B. A. (2006). Predicting unwanted pursuit: model anti-stalking code for states. (NCJ 144477). Washington, Attachment, relationship satisfaction, relationship alternatives, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Sex Roles (2012) 66:328–339 339

Ostrov, J. M., Gentile, D. A., & Crick, N. R. (2006). Media exposure, relational intrusion and stalking. Presented at the International aggression and prosocial behavior during early childhood: A association for Relationship Research Conference, Providence, longitudinal study. Social Development, 15, 612–627. RI. Paderni, P. (2002). Fighting for love: Male jealousy in eighteenth Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in century China. Nan Nu, 4,35–69. personal life. New York: Oxford University Press. Pastore, A., & Maguire, K. (2005). Sourcebook for criminal justice Stark, E., & Flitcraft, A. (1996). Women at risk: Domestic violence statistics 2003. Washington DC: U. S. Department of Justice. and women’s health. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (2004). When do repeated Stuart,G.L.,Meehan,J.C.,Moore,T.M.,Morean,M.,Hellmuth, intrusions become stalking? [Editorial]. The Journal of Forensic J., & Follansbee, K. (2006). Examining a conceptual frame- Psychiatry & Psychology, 15, 571–583. work of intimate partner violence in men and women arrested Rachman, S. (1997). A cognitive theory of obsessions: Elaborations. for domestic violence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67,102– Behavior Research and Therapy, 35, 793–802. 110. Rhodes, R. L. (2000). A hole in the world: An American boyhood. Swan, S. C., Caldwell, J. E., Sullivan, T. P., & Snow, D. L. (2009). Tenth Anniversary Edition with a new preface and epilogue. Women’s use of violence with male intimate partners. In E. Stark Lawrence: University Press. & E. Buzawa (Eds.), Violence against women in families and Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The relationships (Vol. 3: Criminal justice and the law) (pp. 47–67). development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment. Santa Barbara: Praeger Perspectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45,101–117. Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The investment incidence, and consequences of violence against women. Wash- model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, ington, DC: National Institute for Justice and Centers for Disease quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relation- Control and Prevention. ships, 5, 357–391. Vicary, A. M., & Fraley, R. C. (2007). Choose your adventure: Sheridan, L., & Boon, J. (2002). Stalking and psychosexual obsession. Attachment dynamics in a simulated relationship. Personality London: Wiley. and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1279–1291. Sinclair, H. C., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Initial courtship behaviors and Vohs, K. D., & Baumeister, R. F. (2004). Understanding self- stalking: How should we draw the line? Violence and Victims, 15, regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook 23–40. of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 1–9). Sinclair, H. C., & Frieze, I. H. (2005). When courtship persistence New York: Guilford. becomes intrusive pursuit: A comparison of rejecter and pursuer Wegner, D. M., & Zanakos, S. (1994). Chronic thought suppression. perspectives of unrequited attraction. Sex Roles, 52, 839–852. Journal of Personality, 62, 615–640. Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). The state of the art of Wigman, S. A., Grahma-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2008). Investigating staking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and sub-groups of harassers: The roles of attachment, dependency, Violent Behavior, 12,64–86. jealousy, and aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 557– Spitzberg, B. H., Cupach, W. R., & Ciceraro, L. D. L. (2010). Sex 568. differences in stalking and obsessive relational intrusion: Two Zona, M. A., Palarea, R. E., & Lane, J. C. (1998). Psychiatric meta-analyses. Partner Abuse, 1, 259–285. diagnosis and the offender-victim typology of stalking. In J. R. Spitzberg, B. H., Cupach, W. R., Hannawa, A. F., & Crowley, J. Meloy (Ed.), The psychology of stalking: Clinical and forensic (2008). Testing a relational goal pursuit theory of obsessive perspectives (pp. 70–86). New York: Academic.