Stalking and Attachment Theory: Causes and Management

City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works

Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects CUNY Graduate Center

9-2020

Zoe Turner The Graduate Center, City University of New York

How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know!

More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/4048 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu

This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected]

STALKING AND ATTACHMENT THEORY: CAUSES AND MANAGEMENT

ZOE TURNER

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Psychology in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York

2020

ZOE TURNER

Stalking and Attachment Theory: Causes and Management

Zoe Turner

This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Psychology in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

______Date Phil Yanos, Ph.D. Chair of Examining Committee

______Date Richard Bodner, Ph.D. Executive Officer

Supervisory Committee:

Elizabeth Jeglic, Ph.D. Louis Schlesinger, Ph.D. Philip Erdberg, Ph.D. Ali Khadivi, Ph.D.

THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

iii

ABSTRACT

Stalking and Attachment Theory: Causes and Management

Zoe Turner

Advisor: Phil Yanos, Ph.D.

Stalking is an issue that has drawn increasing attention over the past four decades.

Approximately 6 million Americans report being the victims of stalking each year. The psychological and physical effects of stalking can be severe, ranging from anxiety and depression to physical harm and even death. With the rise of technology and social media, cyberstalking has become an additional problem in recent years. It is vital to understand the root causes of stalking behavior from a psychological perspective in order to create appropriate management and treatment plans. The current research investigates the role of attachment theory in stalking. Within the field of psychology, there are several different attachment styles, including secure, insecure avoidant, and insecure ambivalent. The central hypothesis guiding this research is that stalking is closely associated with an insecure attachment style. Data was collected from 3 samples (n = 679) to assess the link between stalking behavior and attachment styles. The results indicated that higher rates of cyberstalking are associated with insecure anxious attachment, but not avoidant attachment. This result was seen across each sample and, as hypothesized, the most common type of cyberstalker was an ex-intimate seeking reconciliation.

These insecure attachments are formed during childhood and persist into adulthood, which ultimately have the potential to impact the ability to establish and maintain healthy relationships.

Based on these findings, further research is recommended in the areas of attachment and cyberstalking.

Table of Contents Abstract 3 Chapter 1: Introduction 4 1.1 A Brief History of Stalking 5 1.2 Stalking Laws 6 1.3 Prevalence in the United States 7 1.4 What Constitutes Stalking? 9 1.5 Legal Definitions 11 1.6 Psychological Definitions 13

Chapter 2: Literature Review 15 2.1 Psychological Theories of Stalking 15 2.1.1 Attachment Theory 15 2.1.2 Relational Goal Pursuit Theory 18 2.2 Physiological Factors Associated with Stalking 20 2.3 Stalking Typologies 21 2.3.1 Stalking Typology Related to Psychiatric Diagnosis 21 2.3.2 Stalking Typology and Relationship to Victim 23 2.3.3 Typology for the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry 24 2.3.3.1 The Rejected Stalker 25 2.3.3.2 The Resentful Stalker 25 2.3.3.3 The Stranger Stalker: Intimacy Seekers 25 2.3.3.4 The Incompetent Suitor 26 2.3.3.5 The Predatory Stalker 27 2.4 Ex-Intimate Partner Stalking 28 2.4.1 Violence and Ex-Intimate Partner Stalkers 28 2.5 Management of Stalking 32 2.6 Risk Factors 32 2.6.1 Psychopathology 34 2.6.2 Psychopathy 35 2.7 Assessment of Stalkers 36 2.7.1 Stalking Assessment and Management (SAM) 37 2.7.2 The Stalking Risk Profile (SRP) 38 2.7.3 Self-Report Measures 39 2.8 Perception of Stalking 41 2.8.1 Police Involvement 43 2.8.2 Court Disposition in Stalking Cases 44 2.9 Recidivism and the Stalker 46 2.10 Cyberstalking 46

Chapter 3: Methodology 52 3.1 Research Aims and Hypotheses 52 3.2 Method 54 3.2.1 Participants 54 3.2.2 Procedure 55 3.3.3 Measures 55

Chapter 4: Results 58 Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 84 References 89

v CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

Stalking is a significant problem in the United States. The National Crime Victimization

Survey estimated that in a single year, 5,857,030 Americans were victims of stalking and harassment (Baum, Catalano, Rand & Rose, 2009). The effects of stalking are also well- documented; over half of the sample cited above changed their behaviors predominantly due to fear. Those who identified as being stalked changed their daily activities (21.6%), stayed with family and friends (18.1%), installed caller ID (18.1%), and changed their locks/got a security system (13.2%). In addition, 6% of stalking victims obtained pepper spray and 2.9% got a gun.

41% of female and 36.8% of male stalking victims reported the stalking behavior to the police.

Psychopathology has also been studied in victims of stalking and harassment. Pathé and

Mullen (1997) found that heightened anxiety (83%), chronic sleep disturbance (74%), and appetite disturbance (48%) were common among victims. In addition, a further 24% of their sample reported that they attempted suicide or seriously considered it. Other studies have found similar rates (Brewster, 1997; Hall, 1998). The literature shows a clear problem – rates of stalking and harassment are high and the effects on victims is significant.

To qualify as stalking, three elements are required to occur in tandem. These elements specify that the stalking behavior needs to be directed at one specific person, that the behavior intends to place that person in fear for his or her safety, and that the behavior places that person in fear for their safety (Owens, 2016). In addition, to be classified as stalking, the behavior must occur more than once. However, most research studies include harassment behaviors in their samples. Consequently, when designing measures researchers typically include both stalking and harassment behaviors in their criteria.

Stalkers utilize multiple methods to stalk and harass their victims. These include sending letters or emails, spreading rumors, following, showing up at their home or work, sending gifts, and threatening or even assaulting their victims. In addition, technological advances and social media have given stalkers additional ways to stalk and harass their victims, leading to a rise in cyberstalking.

1.1 A Brief History of Stalking

The word “stalk” has a long history. In Old English (circa 1500), the expression meant to walk cautiously or stealthily and was initially intended to describe hunting behaviors (OED,

2017). However, the term stalking, as it relates to today’s understanding, is a relatively new concept that has only been in use in recent decades. For example, in 1975, a rapist described the excitement he experienced while stalking his victims (Footlick, Howard, Camper, Sciolino, &

Smith, 1975). Further, in 1985, the serial killer Richard Ramirez was labelled “the night stalker” by Los Angeles newspapers (Kamir, 2001). It was also during this time that our current understanding of stalking as a construct developed. The expression was first mentioned in the literature in 1990 and was used to describe an obsessive harasser (Mullen, Pathe, & Purcell,

2009). However, although the use of the word is relatively new, the behaviors now called stalking have likely been in existence since time immemorial.

Stalking first came into the spotlight with the publication of several high-profile stalking cases. One infamous case involved the actress and model Rebecca Schaffer, who was brutally murdered by Robert John Bardo (Gilligan, 1992). Bardo had been stalking Schaffer for three years. On July 18, 1989, Bardo went to Schaffer’s home in California and fatally shot her in the chest. In 1982, Theresa Saldana was also the victim of stalking and a subsequent attack

(Markman & LaBrecque, 1994). Arthur Richard Jackson was an obsessed fan from Scotland who

illegally entered the USA to stalk and kill Saldana. He believed that when he was executed for her murder, they would be together in the afterlife. Jackson initially hired a private detective to find Saldana’s address. He then waited outside her home and when she came out, he stabbed her ten times. Saldana survived, but her attack, the death of Schaffer, and other similar cases outraged the public, which prompted political action and consequently led to the first anti- stalking laws.

1.2 Stalking Laws

California was the first state to adopt anti-stalking laws, which officially criminalized stalking in 1990 via California Penal Code §646.9. The law stated that any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or willfully and maliciously harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family is guilty of the crime of stalking. Other states followed suit. In 1992, thirty states enacted or amended existing laws to address stalking behaviors, and by 1993, an additional nineteen jurisdictions had passed anti-stalking laws

(Mullen, Pathe, & Purcell, 2009). Stalking behavior is also addressed via criminal harassment laws. For example, many parts of the Western world, including Canada, enacted criminal harassment laws to specifically address stalking.

The United Kingdom had anti-stalking laws in effect before the United States.

The Public Order Act of 1986 addressed behaviors that are common in stalking offenses (El

Asam & Samara, 2016). The act made it illegal to harass, alarm, or distress another person. In addition, the law made it an offense to provoke another person with the intent of producing fear.

Actual acts or the writing of threatening, abusive or insulting material were included. The law was originally designed to address political unrest in the United Kingdom and to prevent the

public from disparaging and pestering politicians and other public figures and were not initially designed to protect the general public from stalking (El Asam & Samara, 2016). However, the now prevalent media attention on stalking, combined with pressure from other countries to enact similar laws which protected the general public resulted in the Protection from Harassment Act.

This act was introduced into British Law in 1997 (Sheridan & Davis, 2001). However, the term stalking was still absent from this law even though it was designed specifically to address stalking in non-celebrities. It took a further 15 years before the act added the term stalking to its description.

1.3 Prevalence in the United States

Estimates of stalking have varied since anti-stalking laws appeared in the 1990s. The

National Opinion Polls research group (1997) in the United Kingdom conducted a telephone survey to assess the presence stalking. Of the 1,031 respondents, 25% indicated that they knew someone who had experienced stalking and over half of the reported victims were women. In the

United States, Tjaden and Thoennes (2000) reported more extensive statistics from the National

Violence Against Women Survey. Approximately 8000 men and 8000 women responded to the survey. Results indicated that 8.1% of women had experienced stalking over their lifetime using a strict legal definition and that prevalence increased to 12.1% when the victims self-reported definition of stalking was utilized. Not surprisingly, the numbers were lower for male respondents at 2.2% using the stringent definition and 4% when not. It should be noted that data collection methods during this time limited the researcher’s ability to draw generalizable conclusions. For example, they lacked information on minority women’s experiences, and the survey was conducted over the telephone, meaning those without a telephone were unable to respond to the survey. The lack of diversity in the sample is problematic.

More recent estimates show a similar prevalence of stalking, and this data was collected using stronger methods. For example, in the 2006 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the Office of Violence Against Women and the Bureau of Justice convened an expert group to discuss definitional and methodological issues regarding the concept of stalking. In addition, they formed a work group who met weekly for 12 months to create an appropriate survey instrument. This instrument was then piloted on known stalking victims. Finally, the term stalking was removed from the instrument in order to avoid biased responses (Catalano, 2012).

They collected data on stalking from approximately 221,000 men and women via in person interviews and over the phone.

Over a 12-month period, it was estimated that 3.3 million people age 18 or older were victims of stalking in the United States (Catalano, 2012). When harassment was included in the definition of stalking behavior, the number of victims increased to over 5.3 million, a staggering number. Of these victims, 4.8% were women who were divorced or separated, and/or knew their stalker in some way (63.1%). In addition, the average duration of stalking was six months or less with the most frequent behavior being unwanted telephone calls and messages. However, approximately 82% of the responders were white, again highlighting the lack of racial diversity in the sample.

In a similarly designed survey that collected data during 2011, the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC, 2014) reported in their National Intimate Partner and Sexual

Violence Survey that 16.2% of women over 18 years have experienced stalking during their lifetime and 4.3% of women were stalked in the 12 months before taking the survey. Regarding race, estimates indicate that women of mixed racial heritage experienced stalking at higher rates

(30.6%) followed by women from American Indian backgrounds (22.7%). White, black, and

Hispanic women experienced stalking at similar rates: 16%, 19.6%, and 15.2% respectively.

Moreover, the majority of stalking occurred among ex-intimates (60.8% for women and 43.5% for men). However, these estimates were based on the responses of 12,727 men and women, the majority being white. As indicated, this is likely because approximately 76% of the United States is white.

1.4 What Constitutes Stalking?

Stalking encompasses a wide range of behaviors. The most common behavior reported in the literature is unwanted telephone calls and messages (Hall, 1998; Pathe & Mullen, 1997;

Sheridan & Davis, 2010). However, with the advancement of technology, the method of leaving messages has likely changed. For example, before the creation of cell phones, messages were left on home telephones. Today, stalkers have a choice among voicemail, email, texts, and paper.

Likewise, the National Crime Victimization Survey on stalking (Catalano, 2009) reported that

66.7% of stalking victims experienced unwanted phone calls. This was the most common behavior conveyed. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2014) reported similar numbers regarding unwanted telephone calls (55.3%). However, stalkers utilize multiple methods to stalk and harass their victims. These include sending letters or emails, spreading rumors (e.g. suggesting that the victim has a sexually transmitted disease), following, showing up at their home or work, sending gifts, and threatening or even assaulting their victims

(Catalano, 2009). In addition, technological advances and social media have given stalkers additional ways to stalk and harass their victims. Stalking now occurs via platforms such as,

Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and via other avenues on the Internet (DreBing, Bailer, Anders,

Wagner, & Gallas, 2014; Fox & Tokunaga, 2015). Indeed, cyberstalking is now considered a subtype of stalking behavior (Sheridan & Grant, 2007).

There are eight clusters of distinguishable stalking behaviors: hyper-intimacy, mediated contacts, interactional contacts, surveillance, invasion, harassment and intimidation, coercion and threat, and aggression (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2004). Hyper-intimacy involves common courtship behaviors such as, sending flowers, but done to an extreme. Research indicates that this type of behavior can be rewarding to the stalker because hyper-intimacy behaviors can produce ambivalence in victims (Dunn, 2002). In a lab-based scenario, uninvited men showed up with flowers at the home of a women after just one date. Results indicated that the women felt somewhat threatened, but also flattered by the behavior. This ambivalence may serve to inhibit a more forceful rejection, prolong the opportunity of contact, and ultimately make it more difficult for potential victims to remove themselves from the stalking situation (Cupach & Sptizberg,

2007). In addition, it is likely that some stalkers believe their victim is playing hard to get, and as a result, persist with their pursuit.

Mediated contact, which I will refer to as cyberstalking going forward, involves all forms of communication through electronic devices and technology. The internet, email, phones,

Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and all forms of social media fall within this realm. Contact through cell phones has been well documented in the literature; however, the research on stalking via newer technologies is still under-studied. What is clear about cyberstalking is that it occurs most often in ex-intimate relationships (Cavessa & McEwan, 2014; DreBing, et al.,

2014). This makes sense because ex-intimates are likely to have had access to email addresses and other social media before the break-up and likely communicated through them when they were together.

Interactional contact is contact with overt awareness (face to face or a close encounter), whereas surveillance tactics are usually covert. Invasion tactics, however, involve the violation

of normatively prescribed personal and legal boundaries such as illegally obtaining information, trespassing, or breaking into victims’ homes (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2007). The most serious stalking behavior involves threats, intimidation, and actual assault. The first category includes spreading rumors, insults, attempts to harm reputation, and harassment behaviors. Rumors are generally intended to harm the victim’s reputation. For example, a stalker might tell the victim’s family, employers, or friends that they are engaging in distasteful behavior such as sleeping around or stealing. They might attempt to affect their employment by reporting damaging information to their boss. Insults are also intended to psychologically harm the victim. The stalker may verbally curse the victim in person or send insulting messages via electronic methods. Harassing behavior often encompasses the previous examples but can also involve an unwanted persistent presence or seemingly benign behaviors such as ‘accidently meeting,’ which can frighten the victim. Aggression involves behaviors such as vandalism, use of a weapon, attempted and actual assault, homicide, or sexual assault. It is clear that stalking behaviors exist on a wide continuum from harassment to homicide.

1.5 Legal Definitions

Stalking laws and definitions vary across states. The variation is due to their relatively new existence and the fact that the laws are continually being updated (Beatty, 2003; Mullen,

Pathe, & Purcell, 2000, Tjaden, 2003). However, the laws are similar in many ways as they usually require three elements to occur in tandem (Owens, 2016). These elements specify that (a) the stalking behavior needs to be directed at one specific person; (b) that the behavior intends to place that person in fear for his or her safety, and (c) that the behavior places that person in fear for their safety (Beatty, 2003). In addition, to be classified as stalking, the behavior must occur more than once. Stalking is unlike other crimes in this sense because most crimes only need to

occur once to qualify for an arrest; assault, for example. What is clear is that most states require the victim to experience fear. However, others require more stringent criteria such as the presence of an actual threat. Unfortunately, these varying requirements can complicate matters because many stalking behaviors are perceived as an annoyance rather than life threatening.

Sending flowers, love notes, and leaving messages might not produce fear and the behavior would not ordinarily constitute a threat. In the case of a stalker, however, these behaviors can be the markings of a threat. Stalkers can often avoid interacting with the law because these behaviors can be misinterpreted by law enforcement officials as benign.

To address the ambiguous representation of stalking, many states have amended their laws in order encompass less rigid descriptions of stalking behavior. In consequence, many laws and subsequent definitions of stalking have improved, at least from the prosecution/victim perspective. The state of California changed its legal wording from “reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm” to “reasonable fear” (Dietz & Martin, 2007). Lowering the standard potentially improves protection to victims. With the amendment, protection to victims could be provided sooner and before actual harm is caused. However, the loosening of the law can also leave those accused with little protection.

Cases involving false allegations could result in an arrest and prosecution of a suspect simply because a victim reports experiencing fear. However, this is thought to be rare. For example, if a victim alleged stalking to elicit sympathy, the result may be disappointing due to the lack of services available to stalking victims (Mullen, Pathe, & Purcell, 2009). In addition, there have been limited studies on this phenomenon. In their clinical practice, Pathe et al. (1999) studied eighteen false victim cases and found that almost half had a diagnosis of delusional disorder. A more recent study compared false reported stalking to genuine reports of stalking

(Sheridan & Blaauw, 2004). The researchers found no significant differences between the groups; however, the stalkers in the false reporting cases tended to be older and strangers. A search of the literature and the internet revealed no cases of erroneous stalking prosecution, perhaps because those falsely accusing others have little in the way of evidence. This lack of cases may also be because most stalkers are charged with a misdemeanor such as harassment, intimidation, or violating an order of protection rather than the more serious stalking charge

(Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).

Amendments to stalking definitions have provided protection to victims, and less serious behaviors that do not meet a legal definition of stalking are categorized as offences under harassment laws. Like stalking laws, harassment laws also vary from state to state, but contain similar criteria. In New York, Penal Law § 240.26 states that a person is guilty of harassment in the second degree if with intent they harass, annoy or alarm another person. Behaviors that constitute harassment include following and/or repeatedly committing acts which alarm or seriously annoy another person, and which serve no legitimate purpose. While many stalking laws require the victim to experience fear or actual threats, it is not required for a harassment charge. Conduct such as sending flowers, gifts, or repeatedly calling could fall under this domain; potentially an annoyance, but not necessarily a threat or cause for fear.

1.6 Psychological Definitions

Laws define stalking and harassment differently, but the psychological literature on stalking treats them as different degrees of the same problem. Most research on stalkers in forensic populations include offenders with both harassment and stalking charges in their samples (Logan & Cole, 2007; Mackenzie, Mullen, Ogloff, McEwan, & James, 2008; McEwan,

MacKenzie, Mullen, & James, 2012; Meloy & Gothard, 1995). One reason why most researchers

who study stalking behavior include participants with mixed charges of stalking and harassment is due to the nature of the legal system. Stalking is a harder crime to prosecute due to the rigid wording in most stalking laws. In addition, even when a perpetrator is charged with stalking, due to court costs and the desire to avoid lengthy trials, plea bargaining deals are often struck by prosecutors. In a report published by the Bureau of Justice, 90-95% of cases result in plea bargaining (Devers, 2011). These deals usually involve dropping a stalking charge down to a lesser offense such as harassment, which can also lower the class of offense from a felony to a misdemeanor. As a result, it is likely that many potential research participants who have been convicted of harassment were originally arrested for stalking. However, without access to extensive court records, it is difficult to determine how often this occurs. The nature of the legal system, therefore, results in an overlap between stalking and harassment that cannot be easily differentiated, leading to both groups of participants being included in most research on stalking.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

Stalking is a relatively new construct that has recently received much attention in the literature. A search of Psycinfo reveals that the first article about stalking was published in 1993 and discussed newly developed anti-stalking laws. By 2000, approximately 80 articles and book chapters were available. Today, there are over 1000 publications pertaining to stalking. The purpose of this chapter is to review the theoretical, legal, and empirical research on stalking.

This literature review will outline the major theoretical theories of stalking, including strong evidence for attachment theory. Attachment theory is under-researched, particularly in stalkers.

However, there is strong evidence that stalkers display insecure attachment styles, particularly preoccupied and anxious types. This review will address this research. In addition, a discussion about cyberstalking is included and how it differs from offline stalking. Finally, I will address what is missing in the literature with regards to cyberstalking by discussing adult attachment styles and predictors by stalker motivational and relationship subtypes.

2.1 Psychological Theories of Stalking

There are several theories that have been developed to try to understand the causes of and motivation for stalking. These include attachment theory and relationship goal pursuit theory.

2.1.1 Attachment Theory of Stalking. Attachment theory is a psychoanalytic theory that attempts to understand basic human interpersonal interactions from birth to adulthood (Fonagy,

2001). Attachment theory originates from the seminal work of John Bowlby. Bowlby treated emotionally distressed children in a London clinic and observed their interactions with their caregivers. Through these observations, he came to believe that a strong attachment to a caregiver provided a sense of security and foundation to an infant (Bowlby, 1969). Bowlby’s

work spurred the future work of Ainsworth et al. (1978) and laid the foundation for research on attachment and dysfunctional relationships. For example, attachment theory has been used to explain dysfunctional relationships in cases of intimate partner violence, which has been linked to stalking behavior (Dutton & Golant, 1995; Cupach & Spitzberg, 2007).

Attachment theory posits that parental attachment style during childhood influences adult behavior. Ainsworth et al. (1978) contributed significantly to the understanding of childhood attachment styles. By experimentally observing interactions between caregiver and child, they identified three different attachment styles; secure, insecure avoidant, and insecure ambivalent.

Children who are securely attached appear confident that their caregiver can meet their needs.

Securely attached children are easily soothed, feel safe to explore their environment, and seek their caregiver in times of distress (Main & Cassidy, 1988). Those with insecure avoidant attachments are physically and emotionally independent from their caregiver (Behrens, Hesse, &

Main, 2007). In addition, they are less likely to seek out their caregiver when distressed. It is thought that children with avoidant attachment styles have caregivers that are rejecting and insensitive to their child’s needs (Ainsworth, 1979). Children with insecure ambivalent attachment styles typically exhibit clingy and dependent behavior but will display distress when separated. However, they are not comforted when their caregiver returns (Ainsworth et al.,

1978).

Children who experience a secure attachment style generally develop into psychologically healthy adults, whereas those who are insecurely attached grow to perceive the world as a cold and rejecting place and behave accordingly. Research in this area suggests that many stalkers have insecure attachment styles (Cupach et al., 2000; Hazen & Shaver, 1987;

Kienlen, 1998). Depending on the author, the stalking literature describes several adult

attachment styles. For example, Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) tested a four-category model of attachment and proposed four adult attachment styles; secure, preoccupied, fearful and dismissing. As the name implies, there is evidence that preoccupied individuals have been found to engage in obsessive relational intrusion (Dutton & Winstead, 2006).

MacKenzie et al. (2008) explored attachment styles in their sample of stalkers. They recruited 122 stalkers from a specialist forensic clinic in Australia. The stalkers were classified by their motivation to stalk and their relationship to their victim. Participants then completed the self-report Adult Attachment Style (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) and the Parental Bonding

Instrument (Parker, Tupling & Brown, 1979) to measure attachment. They found that compared with members of the general public, stalkers remembered their parents as significantly less caring and more emotionally neglectful. In addition, on the Adult Attachment Style measure, most stalkers self-identified as having an insecure attachment style. A large majority (81.8%) of stalkers met criteria for insecure attachment. In addition, except for predatory type stalkers, they were more likely to select the preoccupied style of attachment than the community sample

(MacKenzie et al., 2008). Other studies have also demonstrated that preoccupied attachment is associated with stalking (Dutton & Winstead, 2006; McMillan, 2010).

An additional way to conceptualize adult attachment is through a two-dimensional model.

Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) conducted a large-scale study to develop a reliable measure of adult attachment. They constructed the 36-item self-report Experiences in Close Relationships scale (ECR) that comprised of two scales; avoidance and anxiety. Avoidant individuals are uncomfortable with intimacy and are generally independent, whereas those endorsing the anxiety items tend to fear abandonment and rejection. The scale was revised (ECR-R) by analyzing

commonly utilized attachment instruments and continues to support the original two factor model (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan, 2000).

Several studies utilizing the ERC-R have found that stalkers are insecurely anxiously attached. Via a web-based survey, Patton, Nobles, and Fox (2010) collected data on attachment and stalking from 2,783 individuals at a large university. Within their sample, 5.8% self-reported stalking perpetration. The anxious scale on the ECR-R was highly predictive of stalking perpetration whereas the avoidant scale was non-significant. These results found general support for earlier theories identifying insecure attachment as an antecedent to stalking (Langhinrichsen-

Rohling & Rohling, 2000; Tonin, 2004).

2.1.2 Relational Goal Pursuit Theory of Stalking. Relational goal pursuit theory has also been utilized to explain the development of stalking behaviors (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2007).

The theory postulates that obsessive relational pursuers associate the goal of having a relationship to higher-order goals such as, happiness and self-worth. This belief exaggerates the need to achieve the relational goal. When that goal is blocked, the pursuer experiences rumination and negative affect, which motivates persistence of pursuit of the desired relationship

(Cupach & Spitzberg, 2007). In other words, when the relationship ends or the fantasy of an unrequited relationship ends, the snubbed party engages in harassing or stalking behavior because their self-worth and happiness is dependent on the relationship.

This theory of stalking fits well with The Core Conflictual Relationship Theme (CCRT).

The CCRT is a psychodynamic method used to measure the process of transference in psychotherapy (Book, 1998; REF). Transference is viewed as a manifestation of a core relationship pattern that has historical antecedents and is also expressed in current relationships, including the therapeutic relationship. The CCRT contain three components: a statement of the

patient’s wish (W); the anticipated response from the other (RO), and the subsequent response

(RS) from the self (Book, 1998). Using this method to view stalking behavior, the wish (W) is to be in a particular relationship, the response from the other is rejection (RO) and the consequence is that the person seeking the relationship becomes dysphoric, ruminative, and begins to stalk the other to fulfill their fantasy (RS). This method of conceptualizing stalking works well with all subtypes of stalkers because the fantasy can be reconciliation, harm, or revenge. However, the

CCRT has not been empirically tested on stalkers. The CCRT is not part of relationship goal pursuit theory, but it fits well with it conceptually and is worth exploring.

Relationship Goal Pursuit Theory was tested with individuals who reported having difficulty moving on when a romantic relationship ended (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). Dutton-

Green (2004) found that rumination, along with feelings of anger and jealousy after the breakup were associated with the degree of post-breakup pursuit of the former relationship. In another study of terminated romantic relationships, it was found that rumination and the belief that the rejected partner could obtain their relational goal (reconciliation) strongly predicted persistence of reconciliation attempts (Cupach, Spitzberg, Younghans, & Gibbons, 2006).

Similarly, pathological narcissism has been found to be related to stalking. When rejected, those high in pathological narcissism experience a narcissistic injury and pursue the other in order to restore self-esteem (Meloy, 1999). Restoring self-esteem may involve expressing anger at the other through vindictive behavior such as leaving offensive messages or posting once-private pictures on the internet. Narcissistic individuals have an inflated sense of self and cannot understand why others do not share their view and therefore feel justified to stalk

(Menard & Pincus, 2012). In a study by Pincus (2013), a university recruited students for a self- report study that examined narcissism and stalking. A sample of 1,741 students was surveyed.

Results indicated that the narcissistic vulnerability scale on the Pathological Narcissism

Inventory (PNI; Pincus, 2013) predicted stalking behavior. Narcissistic vulnerability reflects poor self and emotion regulation in response to failures and ego threats (Pincus, 2013).

2.2 Physiological Factors Associated with Stalking

Physiological and biological factors have also been hypothesized to cause stalking behavior. Progressive dementia and organic brain syndromes may be associated with delusional jealousy that could initiate stalking (Miller, 2012). In addition, it is also well documented that drugs and alcohol can have disinhibiting effects and can produce psychotic-like experiences.

When in such states, perceptions about relational boundaries loosen and can often exacerbate or instigate stalking behaviors (Kingham & Gordon, 2004; Michael et al., 1995; Pillai & Kraya,

2000). To be clear, alcohol and illicit drugs do not cause stalking; however, those susceptible to stalking behaviors may self-medicate with substances, which in turn leads to further rumination and distress. This distress and the loosening of inhibitions when intoxicated may lead to stalking behavior. It is commonly known that persons become uninhibited while intoxicated and engage in behaviors that might not occur when sober. Therefore, it is plausible to posit that those vulnerable to stalking may engage in stalking while under the influence.

More specifically in relation to physiology, the aggressive and obsessive nature of stalking has been hypothetically linked to increased dopamine and decreased serotonin activity in the brain (Meloy & Fisher, 2005). This is not surprising since the dopaminergic system is often called the “pleasure seeking system” (Stewart & Panksepp, 2013). Both dopamine and serotonin are linked with pleasurable experiences and so it makes sense that the stalker would derive some sort of pleasure or gratification from the behavior or else there would be no reason to repeatedly engage in it. However, this theory remains empirically untested and further research is needed to

explore the etiological factors associated with stalking. There is, however, good evidence that problematic attachment is linked to psychopathology and associated with stalking. This will be discussed next within the context of stalking typologies.

2.3 Stalking Typologies

Several stalker typologies have been proposed in the last 20 years. To date, there are over

20 different typologies (Mullen, Pathe, & Purcell, 2009). Although there are numerous typologies, I will discuss the most commonly utilized typologies in the research literature. These are: stalking related to psychiatric diagnoses, stalking and the relationship to the victim, and the dual axis motivational and relationship typology. It should be noted that although useful for clinicians and researchers, to date, typologies neither provide an explanation of behavior nor a complete theory, nor are they statistically derived (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2007).

The first typologies surfaced around the same time that stalking laws came into effect.

They depended heavily on an older version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders (DSM – III-R). This method seemed appropriate at the time since it was estimated that up to half of stalkers have some form of diagnosable mental disorder (Mullen, et al., 1999;

Whyte et al., 2007; Zona et al., 1998).

2.3.1. Stalking Typology Related to Psychiatric Diagnosis. Regarding the development of stalking typologies, Zona, Sharma, and Lane (1993) drew from the diagnoses of delusional disorder and erotomania and classified their stalkers into groups: simple obsessional, love obsessional, and erotomanic.

The simple obsessional stalker was described as having a personality disorder and a substance abuse problem. Typically a male, the simple obsessional stalker would engage in stalking due to a perceived injustice, for example, being fired or rejected by a former partner.

The love obsessional stalkers were primarily delusional in nature and were most often diagnosed with a major mental illness, such as schizophrenia. Love obsessional stalkers believed that a relationship existed between themselves and the other and that love was inevitable. Intense infatuation was common. Unlike the simple obsessional stalker, however, love obsessional stalkers and their victims were strangers, with no prior relationship with their victim.

The erotomanic stalkers had no prior relationship with their victim. Erotomanic stalkers were usually obsessed with celebrities, were often female, and were suffering from a delusional disorder.

It should be noted that Zona, Sharma, and Lane’s (1993) data was drawn from the Los

Angeles Police Department’s Threat Management Unit (TMU). The unit was established to investigate obsessional or abnormal long-term patterns of threat or harassment (Mullen, Pathe &

Purcell, 2009). As such, the majority of cases utilized to develop this typology were people that stalked celebrities. The authors reviewed 74 TMU case files and spoke with the victims about their experience of stalking. No interviews or self-report questionnaires were administered, which is methodologically problematic because drawing conclusions from limited sources can limit the validity of the data. However, since stalking research was in its infancy at that time no appropriate measures existed. Los Angeles is the celebrity capital of the U.S. and stalking was a relatively new concept at the time the typology was developed; therefore, it makes sense that the sample would contain such a high proportion of celebrity stalkers.

Many other typologies have been created to categorize stalkers and their behavior. For example, Kienlen et al. (1997) divided 25 stalkers into psychotic and non-psychotic groups in order to compare differences. They reviewed the case files of offenders convicted of stalking-like offenses and based on forensic reports determined whether they were psychotic or not at the time

of the stalking behavior. Their findings indicated that psychotic stalkers behave differently than non-psychotic stalkers. They found that psychotic stalkers were more likely to visit the home of their victim but were less likely keep them under surveillance. In addition, non-psychotic stalkers were more verbally aggressive and were at a higher risk of assaulting their victim. However, their sample of 25 was too small to generalize from and their methodology was flawed as their typology did not address the motivation to stalk or the choice of victim (Mullen, Pathe, &

Purcell, 2009). The authors divided their stalkers into two groups based on psychosis alone.

Psychosis can present in several psychological disorders and can vary significantly. However, whether a stalker has psychosis or not during a stalking episode is an important variable in predicting violence and risk of escalation. Escalation has been described in the literature as moving from communication to approach. In a study that specifically examined escalation in 211 stalkers referred to a specialist clinic, the presence of psychosis was one of the strongest predictors (McEwan, MacKenzie, Mullen, & James, 2012).

2.3.2 Stalking Typology and Relationship to Victim. Zona, Sharma, and Lane’s (1993) typology was primarily developed from the type of underlying psychological disorder. Other typologies categorize stalkers by their relationship with their victim or motivation to stalk. For example, Rosenfeld (2000) posited a diagnostic typology based on the motivations of love and revenge. In addition, Harmon, Rosner, and Owens (1998) conceptualized stalking from a motivation/relationship perspective. They reviewed the records of 175 offenders convicted of mainly harassment charges and classified them according to their prior relationship with the victim and their stalking objective. Regarding prior relationships, their groups were intimate, acquaintance, and no relationship. Stalking objectives, however, were classified as persecutory and amorous. They found a statistically significant correlation between the type of relationship

and motivation for harassment. 75% of prior intimates fell under their amorous motivation category. The results were mixed for acquaintances with approximately 55% motivated by persecution and 45% due to amorous needs. This typology represents another early attempt to classify stalkers.

Behavior based models have similar methodological problems. Canter and Ioannou

(2004) attempted to find a behavior-based model of stalking. They examined the records of 50 stalking cases from the LAPD’S Threat Management Unit (TMU) in order to classify stalkers based on their behavior. They examined the frequency of behaviors such as phone calls, sending gifts, and destroying a victim’s property. They found 23 behavioral variables in their sample; however, they were unable to identify any meaningful patterns. Perhaps this was due to the widely-varied behaviors that stalkers from all motivations and relationships engage in. Indeed, each of their behavioral variables are not specific to any one stalker but are likely seen across all typologies.

2.3.3 Typology for the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry. Reviewing the recent literature indicates that the most common typology currently utilized in stalking research is the typology developed by Mullen et al. (1999). This typology is also endorsed as the standard in the field by the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (Pinals, 2007). The typology encompasses two axes; a behavioral or motivational axis and a relationship axis. The behavioral types proposed are the rejected stalker, the intimacy seeker, the incompetent suitor, the predatory stalker, and the resentful stalker. The second axis describes the relationship with the victim: prior intimates, professional contacts, work-related contacts, casual acquaintances and friends, and the famous or strangers.

2.3.3.1 The Rejected Stalker. The rejected stalker typically pursues ex-intimates with the hope of reconciliation. However, they may vacillate between taking revenge for the rejection and attempting to reconcile (Mullen et al., 1999). They make up the largest group of stalkers and have the lowest levels of diagnosable mental disorders (McEwan, 2007; Mullen & Pathe, 2002).

However, they have high levels of personality disorders and significant problems with substance abuse (McEwan, 2007; Mullen, Pathe, & Purcell, 2009). Rejected stalkers are also more likely to externalize blame (McKenzie et al., 2008) and they are most likely to utilize intimidation and assault in their pursuit (Mullen et al., 2009).

2.3.3.2 The Resentful Stalker. The resentful stalker’s motivation is the desire for retribution or revenge. However, the retribution is not due to rejection, but some perceived injustice. Their aim is to frighten and distress their victim. The victim may be an individual, a company, or even the system, for example, a governmental agency. Psychopathology is relatively high in this group. Paranoia is common, as is substance abuse (Mullen et al., 2009).

Personality testing in this group revealed defensiveness and denial with high rates of poor frustration tolerance and anger suppression (MacKenzie, et al., 2008). In addition, MMPI profiles in 24 resentful stalkers indicated that they felt misunderstood and mistreated (Mullen et al., 2009).

2.3.3.3 The Stranger Stalker: Intimacy Seekers. The majority of stranger stalkers fall into the intimacy seeking and incompetent suitor typologies. The intimacy seeker endeavors to form a relationship with the object of their desire. Women prevail in this group (Mullen et al.,

2009), but clearly men can engage in similar behaviors. Generally, intimacy stalkers are lonely people looking for love. This group is most likely to be severely mentally disordered and has the highest levels of schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders (Mullen, 1999). Of all the groups,

intimacy seekers stalk for the longest period. In their sample, Mullen et al. (1999) intimacy seekers stalked their victims for an average of three years even when their advances were unrequited. In addition, intimacy stalkers are more likely to physically approach their victims.

McEwan et al. (2012) analyzed the behaviors of non-ex-intimate stalkers and found that stalkers driven by intimacy seeking were significantly more likely to approach their victims. This group also had the highest levels of psychotic illness. Their findings indicate that it is those with psychotically driven desires for intimacy with a given individual are more prone to approach their victim (Mullen et al., 2009).

2.3.3.4 Incompetent Suitors. Incompetent suitors are similar in many ways to intimacy seekers. They too are attempting to establish a relationship and their victims are usually strangers. However, there are numerous differences. Although they are seeking a relationship, they are motivated by the desire to date their victim or engage in a sexual encounter. Conversely, intimacy seekers are driven by the fantasy of being in love. The incompetent suiter stalks for a relatively brief period compared to other typologies; however, the likelihood of recidivism is high. Though when they reoffend it is usually with a new victim (Mullen et al., 2009). As the name suggests, the incompetent suiter is incompetent. This group has the lowest levels of IQ and levels of education (MacKenzie, 2006). In addition, they are unskilled in social situations and relationship etiquette. Their advances are unsophisticated and usually not taken seriously.

Perception of the encounter is distorted. Understanding perception in this group of stalkers is of the utmost importance (Sinclair & Frienze, 2005). The victim may unintentionally encourage their incompetent stalker simply by being polite. The vital feature of the relationship is that it is interactional and interdependent (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2001). For example, a response to the would-be suitor’s romantic gesture is necessary. Even if the response is negative, stalking

behavior ensues. Regarding psychopathology, incompetent stalkers have low levels of psychotic disorders, but higher levels of personality disorders, particularly the obsessive and narcissistic types (Mullen et al., 2009). Anger does not appear to be an issue with this group (MacKenzie,

2006).

2.3.3.5 The Predatory Stalker. Mullen et al.’s (2009) final typology describes the smallest, but potentially the most dangerous, group of stalkers – the predatory stalker. The fundamental features of this group include being male, having multiple victims (usually female), and brief periods of stalking, which are employed to gather information and rehearse a fantasy

(Mullen et al., 2009). Predatory stalkers gain pleasure from watching and planning an assault on their victims. The assault is often sexual in nature. They delight in the sense of control and power

(Mullen, Pathe, & Purcell, 2009). This kind of stalking may be a prelude to a more serious pattern, such as serial rape or homicide (Schlesinger, 2002). Paraphilia’s are common in this group. In a study of 145 stalkers, the majority of predatory stalkers received a diagnosis of paraphilia (Mullen et, al, 1999). More recently, MacKenzie (2006) found that 37.5% of predatory stalkers in her sample met diagnostic criteria for a paraphilia. In addition, 62% of the predatory stalkers had a personality disorder, most commonly Cluster B types.

An important consideration in this group is their similarity to sex offenders in both behavior and management. Poor self-esteem, sexual perversion, and low self-efficacy in social situations (Mullen, et al., 2009) are seen in both predatory stalkers and sex offenders (Hall 1989).

Complications can arise when such offenders are arrested. They may be arrested for a sexual offense, while their stalking behavior is overlooked. Overlooking their stalking behavior is often a mistake because approaching stalking as a homogenous entity may neglect the driving force and context behind the behavior (Mullen, et al., 2009). In other words, ignoring the who, the

what, and the why of stalking behavior in predatory types could lead to a stalking offender being mismanaged and treated inappropriately and ineffectively. Interestingly, Mullen et al. (2009) express caution in treating predatory stalkers the same as sex offenders; however, they recommend sex offender treatment programs, which seems contrary to their argument. They suggest that clinicians take note of the differences yet suggest that we treat them the same as other sex offenders. However, they justify their recommendation due to this group’s high potential for committing sexual assault. Understandably, there is no individualized treatment currently available for predatory stalkers, and some treatment for stalking is possibly better than none. Nevertheless, more research in the differences between sex offenders and predatory stalkers needs to be done.

2.4 Ex-Intimate Partner Stalking

Stalking was initially conceptualized as a celebrity phenomenon, only occurring in the rich and famous. However, the literature tells a different story. In fact, the majority of stalking occurs between ex-intimates (Mullen et al., 2009). Regardless of the typology utilized to categorize stalkers, ex-intimates make up the largest group. An estimated 60.8% of female stalking victims were stalked by a current or former intimate partner (Center for Disease Control

& Prevention, 2014). Similarly, the National Crime Victimizations Survey estimated that 70% of victims knew their stalker in some capacity with the majority identifying them as a former intimate partner (Catalano, 2012). University based research has found similar numbers (Davis,

Ace, & Andra, 2000; Dye & Davis, 2003; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000).

2.4.1 Violence and Ex-Intimate Partner Stalkers. Intimate partner violence has also become an integral part of stalking research. Proponents of the violence against women movement claim that stalking is simply an extension of domestic violence. Walker and Meloy

(1998) state that stalking combines with a range of behaviors that batterers engage in to force their female partners to stay in the relationship. It is clear that stalking can occur after the break- up of a relationship, but usually the behavior is confined to information gathering, confronting the spouse for alleged indiscretions, or verbal accusations and threats (Mullen, Pathe, & Purcell,

2009). Defining stalking as an extension of domestic violence limits the understanding of stalking because advocates exclusively see women as victims and men as the perpetrators, however, stalking can occur independent of intimate relationships and across all genders.

Although males tend to be the perpetrators more frequently, batterers, stalkers, and victims can be any gender or sexual orientation. In addition, the stalking could be an extension of prior aggression within a relationship or a new behavior when the relationship terminates.

The majority of stalking research has focused on opposite sex relationships and ignored same-sex stalking. However, several studies have recently examined same-sex stalking. For example, when Strand and McEwan (2011) examined 160 stalking cases in order to compare same-sex and opposite-sex stalkers, they found that 32% of their stalkers were in the same-sex group. The stalkers in this group were more likely to be female, not an ex-intimate, and motivated by revenge or resentment. There were no differences in psychiatric diagnoses, threat or violence between the groups, but those in the opposite-sex group were more likely to be male, follow and approach their victim, and be ex-intimates. Similarly, in their self-defined sample of

872 victims of stalkers, Sheridan, North, and Scott (2014) found few differences between same- sex and opposite-sex stalkers. Their sample consisted of four stalker dyads comprised of both male and female victims and stalkers. They found no significant differences between the groups except that female victims reported more fear than males. To date, due to the lack of evidence supporting differences between same-sex and opposite-sex stalking, they are categorized the

same way. However, the variables involved in same-sex ex-intimate stalking need further study to determine whether there are unique characteristics that differ from opposite-sex ex-intimate stalking.

The literature tells us that the women’s movement against violence views stalking as an extension of intimate partner violence. Indeed, ex-intimate partner stalkers do engage in violence and often at higher levels then other stalker types (Coleman, 1997; Harmon et al., 1998; Kohn et al., 2000; Meloy, 1996; Mullen et al., 1999; Sheridan & Davis, 2001; Tjaden & Thoenes, 2000).

However, one question in this area is: do intimate partner violence perpetrators continue to commit violence during stalking or do stalkers with no history of intimate partner violence engage in assaultive and aggressive behavior? Burgess et al. (1997) tested this hypothesis. They surveyed 120 intimate partner violence offenders and their partners regarding stalking behavior after a breakup. In their sample, 30% of the offenders admitted to stalking their partners. This indicates that many intimate partner violence offenders continue their pattern of harassing behavior once the relationship is over. Other studies have also found a relationship between measures of stalking and intimate partner violence (Dutton et al., 1996; Spitzberg & Rhea, 1999).

More recently, Norris, Huss, and Palarea (2011) analyzed the relationship between stalking and intimate partner violence. They found a significant relationship between stalking-related behavior, higher levels of intimate partner violence, and the narcissistic, sadistic, histrionic, and drug and alcohol dependence scales on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory – III (Millon,

Davis, & Millon, 1997). However, few studies can assess a direct link between intimate partner violence and stalking. Nevertheless, between 30% and 65% of stalking cases involve ex- intimates who also had a history of violence in their relationships (Douglas & Dutton, 2001).

Studies such as these suggest that those who engage in intimate partner violence often continue a pattern of violence once the relationship has ended.

A clear pattern in the research shows that ex-intimate stalkers exhibit more violence and aggression toward their victims than other stalker typologies. Threats made by stalkers were more frequent among ex-intimate stalkers (Meloy & Gothard, 1995). Schwartz-Watts and

Morgan (1998) found that 80% of their violent stalker sample were violent towards an ex- intimate. Similarly, in a study conducted by the United States Department of Justice (1996) ex- intimate stalkers were found to be frequently violent. Approximately 80% of female victims experienced direct violence during a stalking episode by their ex-partner.

Ex-intimate stalkers have also been identified as engaging in severe violence and even homicide. Moracco et al. (1998) examined the records of 586 femicide victims in North

Carolina. They found that a current or former partner had perpetrated the offense in over half the sample and that 23.4% of the group were stalked prior to the offense. More recently,

MacFarlane, Campbell, and Watson (2002) examined the records of 821 women to explore risk factors in femicide. One hundred and seventy-four women in the sample had survived an attempt on their life by their intimate partner, 263 were killed by their intimate partner, and the remaining women were abused. The results indicated that the occurrence of stalking was significantly higher in the attempted and actual femicide groups. In addition, threatening to kill (54%) and frightening the women with a weapon (40%) were the most common behaviors. These behaviors were significantly higher in the attempted and actual femicide groups. Of these women, 69% reported they had experienced physical violence within their relationship within the year prior to the actual or attempted femicide.

Schwartz-Watts and Morgan (1998) also analyzed predictors for femicide. They found that being followed or spied on significantly increased the risk of actual or attempted femicide, and that African American women were four times more likely than white women to become a femicide victim. Issues of race and ethnicity in victims are often neglected in the stalking literature; as discussed it is rare to see ethnicity reported in the majority of studies, and when race is disclosed the majority of participants are white. Clearly, more research is needed in the area.

2.5 Management of Stalking

With the blooming literature on stalking came the need for effective ways to evaluate and manage stalkers. Early interventions were based on clinical judgement and prescribing medications (Opler, et al, 1995; Gillett, Eminsom, & Hassanyeh, 1990). Today, these methods are still utilized and are necessary in many cases; however, current trends in the education of assessment and evaluation specify the need for multiple methods to evaluate and classify patients and offenders. Stalkers experiencing psychotic delusions likely need anti-psychotic medication to help manage their behavior, and predatory stalkers who exhibit dangerous sexual conduct would likely need to be detained in the form of incarceration or civil commitment; however, the picture is not as clear with other types. Accordingly, recent research has focused on creating assessment tools to help law enforcement and clinicians evaluate risk factors for violence and recidivism in stalkers.

2.6 Risk Factors

Assessing risk in stalkers begins with utilizing known risk factors. As discussed, ex- intimates are the most persistent stalkers and they stalk for longer periods of time. However, there are other risk factors. Rosenfeld (2004) conducted a meta-analysis in order to examine risk factors in stalking. Twelve studies encompassing 1,155 stalkers were synthesized. He concluded

that the best predictors of violence were a prior intimate relationship between stalker and victim, presence of explicit threats, a history of substance abuse, and an absence of psychosis in the stalker. In addition, Purcell et al. (2004) found a duration of two weeks to be a critical threshold in stalking. In other words, when stalking lasted longer than two weeks, the median duration of stalking increased to over six months. If the stalking behavior lasted longer than two weeks, it was more likely to persist. Of those who stalked for longer periods of time, 82% knew their victim, and 21% of those victims were ex-intimates. In addition, those engaging in stalking for longer periods of time were more likely to utilize surveillance techniques, loitering, repeated phone calls, and other forms of contact. As previously discussed, ex-intimate stalking and particularly those that engage in following and spying on their victims are at a higher risk of violence. McEwan, Mullen, and MacKenzie (2009) examined the records of 178 stalkers in order to find predictors of persistence in stalking. Their results were similar to those reported by

Mohandie et al. (2006): strangers stalked for the shortest period whereas those having a prior relationship with their victim engaged in longer periods of stalking.

It is unclear if a history of prior criminal offending in stalkers is a predictor of later stalking behavior, but some studies have analyzed this variable. Rosenfeld and Harmon (2002) and Meloy et al. (2001) found no relationship between having a prior conviction, past general violence, and violence in the stalking situation. Palarea et al. (1999) found a similar pattern in their study. Not surprisingly, however, when a history of general violence was linked with ex- intimate stalking, it contributed significantly to the prediction of future violence against the victim. This research suggests that violent people tend to be violent when they stalk.

Other factors that physically bring stalker and victim together can also increase the risk of stalking (Palarea et al., 1999). These include living in the same neighborhood, working in the

same office, or sharing a child in the case of ex-intimates. These factors may prompt another stalking episode or increase the duration of stalking because of accessibility and continued maintenance of contact. It is usually hard for most people to let go of a relationship when there are frequent reminders of that relationship. Brewster (2000) and Roberts (2005) also found a positive relationship between substance abuse and violence in ex-intimate partner stalking. Other studies of risk factors have found similar results (Harmon et al., 1998); Rosenfeld & Harmon,

2002; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; Zona et al., 1993). As previously discussed, these predictors of risk fit well with Meloy’s (1999) theory that violence is often a function of a strong attachment to the victim and the intense emotions evoked by the termination of that relationship (Mullen et al., 2009).

2.6.1 Psychopathology. Early typologies and ways of conceptualizing stalking were derived from mental illness (Zona, Sharma, & Lane,1993). However, there is no one mental disorder associated with stalking (McEwan & Strand, 2013) as stalkers are diagnosed with a wide range of psychological disorders. The majority of research on psychopathology and stalking has focused on the psychotic disorders (McEwan & Strand, 2013; Mullen et al., 2009).

Generally, it was found that psychotic stalkers are less likely than non-psychotic stalkers to engage in physical violence (Kienlen et al., 1997; Mullen et al., 1999; Farnham et al., 2000;

Meloy et al., 2001). Among those who are likely to engage in physical violence are stalkers with a personality disorder and/or a paraphilia (Mullen et al., 1999). This finding is consistent with the research that has found that predatory stalkers are commonly diagnosed with paraphilia’s and that they engage or wish to engage in assaulting their victims (Mullen et al., 2009). However, other studies have found no relationship between a diagnosis of personality disorder and violence in stalking (Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2002; Meloy et al., 2001).

In studies such as these, it appears that the sample is an important factor; both the size and the source. For example, purely forensic samples are likely to be very different from community samples. In addition, many studies are conducted at universities where the population is predominately young and depending on where the university is located the student body is likely primarily white. Again, this causes a population bias that leads to a potential sampling error. As discussed, the majority of studies lack diverse samples. Accordingly, generalizing results to other ethnicities, ages, and places would be rash.

Given their violent tendencies, it is surprising that anti-social personality is not prevalent in stalkers (Rosenfeld, 2000). The majority of stalkers diagnosed with a personality disorder fall into the ‘Not Otherwise Specified’ category and do not receive diagnoses of anti-social personality disorder at high rates (Harmon, Rosner, & Owens, 1995; Meloy & Gothard, 1995;

Meloy et al., 2000). This indicates that stalkers have traits of varying personality types, which can include anti-social traits. This makes sense, since stalking behavior is generally characterized as an attempt to instigate, maintain, or renew a relationship whereas those with anti-social personality disorder tend to lack the capacity to care.

2.6.2 Psychopathy. Similarly, psychopathy is characterized by the lack of desire and capacity to form close attachments unless the relationship benefits the person with psychopathy in some way (Hart, 1998). Accordingly, rates of psychopathy are low in stalkers (Storey et al.,

2009; Rosenfeld, 2012). The first study to examine psychopathy in stalkers was conducted by

Kropp et al (2002). They examined the level of psychopathy in 106 forensic psychiatric patients with harassment charges. They found a mean score of 10.8 on the Psychopathy Checklist:

Screening Version (PCL:SV). Typically, a score of 18 is required to meet criteria for psychopathy. Reavis, Allen, and Meloy (2008) examined a sample of 78 male and female

stalking offenders. They also found low rates of psychopathy in their sample (mean PCL:SV score of 11.6). However, twelve people (15%) in their sample did meet criteria for psychopathy, and nine of those were prior sexual intimates. Nevertheless, offenders who stalked strangers had higher PCL:SV scores. Storey et al. (2009) replicated and extended this study using a sample of

61 adult males convicted of stalking related offenses in Canada. Only one case exceeded the recommended cut off score of ≥18 for psychopathy. They also wanted to examine whether psychopathy was associated with the acquaintanceship between stalkers and their victims. Again, there was no relationship. Based on their findings they suggest that although psychopathy is found in low rates among stalkers, when it is present professionals should pay close attention due to the risk of escalation, instrumental violence, and serious physical harm. Instrumental violence and aggressiveness are behaviors that are commonly seen in psychopaths (Hart, 1998).

2.7 Assessment of Stalkers

Until recently, the assessment of stalkers was undertaken in an unstandardized and haphazard way. Psychologists and psychiatrists utilized clinical interviews and generally accepted violence risk assessments, such as the Historical Clinical Risk Management - 20 (HCR-

20) to assess stalking. The assessment consisted of probing for signs of mental illness to explain behavior and utilizing risk ratings to prevent future violence. As the literature on stalking increased, it was clear that instruments like the HCR-20, although well validated for violence risk assessment, were lacking in their ability to encompass the varied nature of stalking behavior.

Consequently, risk assessment tools were developed to specifically assess stalking. Currently, there are two published instruments designed to assess risk in stalking. The Stalking Assessment and Management (SAM) and the Stalking Risk Profile (SRP).

2.7.1 Stalking Assessment and Management (SAM). The SAM was developed by

Kropp, Hart, and Lyon (2008) and approaches risk assessment from a structured professional judgement perspective. This method fosters decision-making by following a set of guidelines that have been developed based on current scientific knowledge and practice (Borum, 1996). The

SAM was designed for use by the criminal justice system and mental health professionals in a variety of settings. The instrument contains three domains: Nature of Stalking, which is related to the pattern of stalking behavior; Perpetrator Risk Factors, which reflect psychosocial adjustment, and Victim Vulnerability, which addresses the psychosocial history and background of the victim (Kropp, Hart, Lyon, & Storey, 2011). Items on the nature of stalking domain ask about communication about or with the victim, whether there is any approach behavior, and whether that behavior is threatening or aggressive. Perpetrator risk factors contain items that assess anger, obsession, unrepentant behavior, and problems with substance abuse, criminality and employment. Finally, victim vulnerability items assess for inconsistent behavior or communication with or about the perpetrator, relationships problems, resources, as well as problems with substance abuse, employment, and their living situation. Through case review and an in-person interview, clinicians then make an overall judgment related to risk and classify the perpetrator as low, moderate, or high risk.

Preliminary results of a validation study suggest that the measure is promising. It displayed good interrater reliability (0.79) and good concurrent validity with both the PCL:SV

(0.28) and the Violence Risk Appraisals Guide (0.15). Foellmi, Rosenfeld, and Galietta (2016) examined the predictive validity of the SAM and they found mixed results. The SAM’s numeric scores show some utility in predicting re-offense, but not violence. In addition, the risk ratings did not predict violence or re-offense; however, the authors note that their results may be due to

limitations in their sample. For example, the majority of their sample consisted of predominantly low and moderate risk offenders. More importantly, the participants were evaluated with the

SAM prior to completing an intensive program specifically designed to address stalking. The intervention could have skewed the results.

2.7.2 The Stalking Risk Profile (SRP). The SRP was developed by MacKenzie et al.

(2009) and is also a structured professional judgment instrument that is administered via an interview with the perpetrator. It utilizes Mullen et al’s (2009) motivational stalker types. The measure acknowledges that some risk factors are common to all stalkers, but also considers risk factors relevant to each motivational group. The measure contains four risk domains: persistence

(likelihood the stalker will continue to stalk), violence, recurrence (likelihood they will resume at some later date), and psychosocial damage to the stalker that might increase destabilization. The measure also takes into consideration the nature of the relationship between stalker and victim, offender motivation, offender psychopathology, psychological and social characteristics of the stalker, psychological and social characteristics of the victim, and the legal and mental health context of the stalking.

A recent validation study on the SRP revealed good interrater reliability with respect to stalkers types (0.98). Reliability for risk judgments were also good and ranged from 0.76 – 0.90.

However, evidence for the predictive validity and discrimination between stalking recidivists and non-recidivists for risk judgement depended on the follow-up duration (McEwan, et al., 2016).

Over the total follow-up period of 468 weeks, stalkers rated as high risk reoffended more often and more quickly against the same victim. However, the measure failed to discriminate between recidivists and non-recidivists in a shorter six-month follow-up period. The authors note that the instrument is a better measure of static risk than they originally proposed; however, it has

weaknesses and further validation and refinement is necessary, for example, simplifying the structure and combining some risk domains.

2.7.3 Self-Report Measures. Several self-report measures have been designed to assess stalking. Some enquire about stalking from the victim’s perspective while others assess the actual stalker. These self-report measures have largely been studied in college populations with more basic research hypothesis-testing objectives (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2014). A common measure seen in the literature includes the victim-based Obsessive Relational Intrusion (ORI).

The ORI has two versions, a 28-item short form and the full 68-item version (Cupach &

Spritzberg, 2004). It measures unwanted stalking related behaviors from the victim’s perspective and is commonly used in the literature (Menard & Pincus, 2012). Other examples of self-report victim-based questionnaires include The Stalking Behavior Checklist (Coleman, 1997), The

Unwanted Pursuit Behavior Inventory (Palarea & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1998), The

Harassment in Abusive Relationship scale (Sheridan, 2001), and the National Violence Against

Women Survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). However, many researchers modify current measures or create their own (Finn, 2004; Alexy, Burgess, Baker, & Smoyak, 2005; Lee &

O’Sullivan, 2014).

Stalker-based self-report measures are less common and have the added problem of social desirability. If one asks a stalker about their behavior directly there is the possibility that they might bend the truth in an effort to appear less culpable or they might even outright deny such behaviors. However, it is equally possible that they could be truthful due to the confidentiality in place during research studies. However, these issues are commonly known to be problematic in all self-report measures. Adding a social desirability measure might manage this issue as well as using different instruments that measure the same construct. Examples of self-report stalker

measures include the Electronic Use Pursuit Behavioral Index – Perpetrator Version (EUPBI-P;

Huss & Strawhun, 2008), and the Risk Assessment Inventory for Stalking (RAIS; Palarea,

Scalora, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999).

The RAIS is a 36-item self-report measure of stalking related behaviors, their severity, and their impact on victims. The measure was designed with careful wording to encourage honest responding (Norris, Huss, & Palarea, 2011). The RAIS has 27 items organized into four subscales: Distant Contact (e.g. making unwanted phone calls); Proximate Contact (e.g. an unwanted visit); Threat Behaviors (e.g. threatening to hurt self); and Harm Behaviors (e.g. harming a pet). The questions also enquire whether the victim’s response was positive or negative, the length of stalking, and the motive for stalking. Participants rate their responses on a

6-point Likert scale. The alpha reliabilities for the individual scales are: Distant Contacts, .60;

Proximate Contacts, .87; Threat Behaviors, .90; and Harm Behaviors, .68 (Norris, Huss, &

Palarea, 2011).

The EUPBI – P is a 42-item self-report questionnaire that asks responders if they have engaged in cyberstalking. On a 5-point Likert scale, participants respond to questions about their experiences with online harassment, such as contacting someone anonymously, sending inappropriate pictures, or obtaining private personal information. Scores range from 0 -168 and are simply totaled. In addition, the measure enquires about the response of the victim; whether it was positive, negative, or neutral/none. The instrumental ends with two open-ended questions which ask the responder if they believe they ever stalked someone or whether they have ever been stalked via the internet. In the reported study, Cronbach’s alpha for the perpetrator scale was 0.78.

2.8 Perception of Stalking

The management of stalkers initially has a lot to do with the perception of the stalking on the part of the victim. Stalking behavior can occur from an objective standpoint, but if the victim perceives that behavior merely as an annoyance or expects it to subside naturally then reporting that behavior may be less likely to occur. However, if a victim does report harassment or stalking, then law enforcement would need to take their report seriously in order to act, which is not always the case. Perceptions of stalking have changed significantly over the decades. Early views on stalking considered it a celebrity phenomenon (Mullen et al., 2009, p.5). However, as discussed, this perception changed with the murder of Rebecca Schaffer. Differences have been noted, however, in the perception of stalking by victims (Brewster, 2001). Studies show that victims are more likely to report stalking behavior to the police when the stalker was unknown to them, when the stalking involved serious physical or psychological harm to the victim, or when it persisted longer than a few weeks (Brewster, 2001; Nicastro, 2000). In addition, it is common for victims to engage in non-legal tactics to deter their stalkers before seeking legal action. For example, victims might first try ignoring or attempting to reason with their stalker. This indicates that the stalking persists for a period before victim’s report stalking to the police. However, there does not appear to be any data on the time between the onset of stalking and reporting.

Studies of the perception of stalking indicate that there are differences between men and women. Men are perceived as having a greater capacity to alleviate stalking on their own

(Sheridan et al., 2003) and hence less need for police involvement. In addition, police involvement was deemed more necessary in cases of women stalked by men (Phillips et al.,

2004). Moreover, society appears to trivialize and normalize female perpetrated acts of violence

(Nabors et al., 2006) perhaps due to the commonly lesser physical power of women compared

with men. That said, men are often victims of stalking, but do not experience the same magnitude of fear as women (Cupach & Spitzberg, 1998). In addition, men may be reluctant to report their victimization to the police due to societal stereotypes that they have little to fear from women (Nicastro, 2000). They may also fear that they will not be taken seriously by law enforcement.

In same-sex ex-intimate stalking, this power differential might be different; however, as discussed, the current research on same-sex stalking indicates that the majority of same-sex stalking is observed in heterosexuals (Sheridan, North, & Scott, 2011). However, more research is needed in this area. In addition, due to male bravado, perhaps reporting an assault or stalking behavior to the police would be perceived as weak or pathetic by their peers. The likelihood of men reporting being victims of stalking is especially evident in cases of ex-intimate stalking.

Cass and Mallicoat (2015) presented stalking scenarios to 527 undergraduate students at a large east coast university. They found that male victims and victims of ex-intimate stalking were significantly less likely to report their problem to the police. In addition, a survey-based study at a large Midwest university asked undergraduates about their perception of stalking. The response sample consisted of 2,174 students. They found comparable results; women viewed stalking as pervasive and harmful whereas men endorsed items that blamed the victim, and viewed stalking as involving strangers (Lambert et al., 2013). Perception of stalking has also been examined in police officers. Weller, Hope and Sheridan (2013) presented three different stalking scenarios, where the nature and relationship of victim and stalker were manipulated, to

132 police officers and 225 lay persons. Their results indicated that the victim-offender relationship significantly impacted how stalking scenarios were evaluated with the stranger stalker scenario perceived as the strongest case of stalking. These findings suggest that

misconceptions in stalking both in the community and within police departments need to be addressed, and that they potentially create barriers to adequate involvement of the criminal justice system in stalking cases involving ex-intimates.

2.8.1 Police Involvement. Police intervention in harassment and stalking cases varies significantly depending on police practices and the laws of the jurisdiction. For example, police in Canada and the United Kingdom can give perpetrators formal warnings to cease their behavior and have them sign the warning to confirm their understanding (Storey & Hart, 2011). This strategy might be appropriate for first time non-violent transgressions; however, if the behavior constitutes a serious offense involving violence, harassment, or destruction of property it is reasonable to believe that most officers would spring into action and initiate an arrest.

Nevertheless, because most stalking cases involve ex-intimates and they often have no prior offenses, there are limitations regarding management via law enforcement. It seems that law enforcement is required to wait until the behavior escalates before any substantial intervention is put in place. Indeed, at times it is even difficult for law enforcement to determine whether an actual offense has occurred due to the vagueness of the stalking laws (MacKenzie & James,

2011). For example, an ex-lover who sends flowers and shows up at the victim’s home may be perceived by the police as harmless even though the victim reports being afraid; it is perceived as a case of his word against hers. His behavior would unlikely be cause for an arrest so a warning may be given at the officer’s discretion.

In 1993, the National Institute of Justice collected data from 95 police agencies in the

United States and 50 in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Their findings indicated that agencies use different approaches to manage stalking. The report stated that 81% of jurisdictions with anti-stalking laws charged the stalker with non-stalking offenses such as

trespassing, and those without specific anti-stalking laws utilized lesser charges 74% of the time

(National Institute of Justice, 1993). This practice indicates that stalking is harder to prosecute.

When clear stalking behaviors are present, police involvement likely escalates, perhaps when a threat or actual assault occurs. Involving the police under these circumstances could result in an arrest and subsequent order of protection (OOP) or restraining order. Orders of protection are designed to prevent stalkers from contacting their victim, and depending on the individual, they can be very effective (Cattaneo, Cho, Botuck, 2011). However, that is not always the case especially in ex-intimate partner stalking where the motivation to remain in contact is often high

(Spitzberg, 2002). Moreover, at times an OOP can even exacerbate stalking behavior (Benitez,

McNiel, & Binder, 2010) due to provocation because the OOP creates a roadblock that the stalker works harder to overcome.

2.8.2 Court Disposition in Stalking Cases. Stalkers who are brought to the attention of law enforcement and are ultimately arrested and charged, are dealt with in the courts. However, a conviction of stalking or harassment does not necessarily mean jail time. Community service, bail, and fines are sentencing options for judges (Beaty, 2003) and these likely vary depending on the jurisdiction. Moreover, courts often fail to refer stalkers for assessment and treatment even when they suffer from a serious mental illness (MacKenzie, Mullen, Ogloff, 2006). This knowledge seems to be an oversight considering the evidence about risk of violence in certain groups of stalkers. Those that are referred are subject to assessment, but methods of assessment vary significantly depending on the state and where the stalker is referred, a hospital versus specialized clinic, for example (Beaty, 2003). Even with a thorough assessment, empirically based psychological treatment options are very limited and the most common outcome is a criminal sanction such as bail or community service (MacKenzie & James, 2011).

The only treatment study that has investigated the efficacy of treatment in court mandated stalkers was conducted by Rosenfeld et al. (2007). The study utilized dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT), which was adapted from Linehan’s (1993) original work. Twenty-nine offenders were subject to an intake to determine presence of psychopathology and assessed for risk of violence. The treatment consisted of 24-weeks of individual and group DBT. The majority of offenders were ex-intimates (86%) that had violated an OOP (70%). Violating an OOP was the minimum criteria for inclusion in the study. This low bar provides another example of the blurry lines used to classify stalking. Only 14 participants completed treatment, the others either failed to attend (n = 2), dropped out prior to treatment completion (n = 7), were terminated from the program (n = 4), or were rearrested during the study (n = 2)

Results indicated that those completing treatment were significantly less likely to reoffend with another stalking offense compared with those who dropped out of treatment at 12- months post completion. None of the completers had stalking re-offenses at 12-months post completion. However, two were arrested for non-stalking offenses. Completers were also classified as low risk at intake. Risk was determined at intake by administering the PCL:SV and the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA; Kropp, Hart, Webster, & Eaves, 1995).

Therefore, one cannot dismiss the possibility that those who dropped out of treatment were the participants more likely to reoffend. In addition, the authors discuss several limitations in their study. Participants were not randomized to treatment, there was no control group, and the treatment was a modified version of DBT. Nevertheless, DBT shows some promise with low risk stalking offenders.

2.9 Recidivism and the Stalker

The first large scale analysis of recidivism in convicted stalkers was conducted by

Rosenfeld (2003). Recidivism data was collected from mental health records, police reports, court records, and victim reports of 189 offenders, which spanned a 2.5 to 13-year period. 49% of the sample reoffended during the follow-up period. Of those that did re-offend, 80% did so in the first year. Rosenfeld’s (2003) strongest predictors of recidivism were having a personality disorder, particularly cluster B types, and a history of substance abuse. In addition, offenders with a prior intimate relationship with their victim were significantly more at risk for reoffending

(Rosenfeld, 2003).

A Dutch sample of 709 convicted stalkers were observed for up to seven years (Malsch,

Keijser, & Debets, 2011). They found that 53% of stalkers reoffended with any offense during their observation period. Those reoffending via a stalking crime (11%) did so quickly; over half reoffended within 7 months. Similarly, Eke et al. (2011) analyzed the records of 78 stalking offenders. Most of their sample were male and stalked prior intimate females. 77% committed a new offense during their follow-up period of approximately 8 years. Of those re-offending, 56% were due to new stalking related behaviors. It is clear that more research is needed to address reoffending in this population.

2.10 Cyberstalking

The majority of research seen in the literature has concerned stalking in the traditional sense, where the stalker approaches, follows, and harasses their victim. However, due to advances in technology, the face of stalking has changed. In the past, stalkers had limited methods at their disposal to contact their victims, which included approaching, calling, and mailing their victims. Today, however, stalkers have multiple methods to contact, observe, and follow their victims, including monitoring activity and maintaining contact through social media

outlets such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Snapchat, and communicating via texting, instant messaging, and emails. In addition, the techno-savvy stalker may even utilize GPS technology installed on many smartphones to monitor the actual movements of their victims.

Cyberstalking has been defined as a set of behaviors that involve repeated threats, harassment, or other unwanted contact via the use of a computer or other electronic communication-based technology (Miller, 2012). As technology advances and new social media applications become available, it seems plausible that more people will utilize these methods to pursue relationships and or fulfill a desire for revenge (Parsons-Pollard & Moriarty, 2009). The cyberstalker sends repeated messages through electronic means, posts false or hostile information online, impersonates someone online, recruits’ others to harass or threaten the victim, and/or hacks the victim’s personal accounts (Sheriden & Grant, 2007).

According to Jouvenal (2013), an extreme case of cyberstalking occurred in 2013. A disgruntled ex-partner began the harassment by sending multiple emails and phone calls over a four-month period, which resulted in the victim obtaining a restraining order. However, the stalker then turned to the Internet to continue the harassment. He posted fake ads for casual sex partners and advertised pornography for sale with the victim as the person offering the casual sex and starring in the pornography, and he publicly listed the victim’s name and address in connection with these ads. According to the victim, she was receiving up to six interested men daily. Some refused to leave, performed sex acts in her driveway, and one even drove through her gate. Pretending to be her, the ex-partner encouraged these behaviors (Jouvenal, 2013). He was convicted of stalking in August 2013.

Since cyberstalking is a relatively new construct, epidemiological prevalence estimates are lacking (Cavessa & McEwan, 2014) with most of the data on the presence of cyberstalking

coming from university-based studies. For example, Finn (2004) conducted an exploratory study of 339 students at the University of New Hampshire. He found that 10-15% of the students reported receiving some form of online message that was perceived as threatening. In addition,

Reyns, Henson, and Fisher (2012) surveyed 974 students at a large Midwest university and found that 40.8% of their sample reported experiencing cyberstalking victimization. In the same study, the authors also enquired whether any participants had engaged in cyberstalking; approximately

4.9% reported that they had been the perpetrator. The great divide in those reporting being the victim versus the perpetrator is not surprising considering the method of collection. The questions utilized direct language, which participants might be less inclined to openly admit. For example, one question asked, “Have you repeatedly made sexual advances to someone online after they asked/told you to stop?” Depending on when and where questions regarding the prevalence of cyberstalking are asked, rates can vary significantly. For example, using victim samples, they ranged from 7% to 43% (Cavessa & McEwan, 2014). The varying rates are likely due to the different measures and definitions of cyberstalking utilized in each of the studies.

Moreover, since the majority of research on cyberstalking comes from victims found in college samples, there are no reliable prevalence rates of cyberstalker perpetrators.

There is a debate as to whether cyberstalking is a distinct form of harassment or whether it is simply another tool in the stalker’s belt (Sheriden & Grant, 2007). In order to explore this question, Nobles, Reynes, Fox, and Fisher (2012) analyzed the data from the 2009 National

Crime Victimization Survey and compared cyberstalking victims (n = 296) to offline stalking victims (n = 1237). They found that the cyberstalking victims were younger, had higher household incomes, and higher levels of education, and were more likely to be white and male.

Their results are contrary to the literature. However, the authors suggested that their results were

consistent with the digital divide; younger and affluent individuals have more access to technology.

A large self-identified victim-based study also explored whether there are differences between online and offline stalking (Sheridan & Grant, 2007). Nearly 1,300 participants responded to a questionnaire about their victimization experiences via an internet link released by news media in the United Kingdom and the United States. Most participants were female

(86.8%), white (90.7%), and knew their stalker (93.8%). Based on their responses, they were divided into four groups and then compared: purely online, cross-over (4-weeks online then offline), proximal with online, and purely offline. Results indicated that cyberstalking does not significantly differ from traditional stalking. However, they found that those engaging in purely online stalking were perpetrated less often by ex-intimate partners.

The previous studies examined victimology and cyberstalking, but there is also research in forensic populations. The files of 271 clients of a forensic specialty clinic were examined to determine the presence of cyberstalking (Cassessa & McEwan, 2014). Cyberstalking was defined as using the internet to stalk the victim and included contact via email and social networking sites. Once the cyberstalkers were identified, they were further categorized into communicative

(attempted to contact the victim directly) and non-communicative (talking about the victim online, impersonating them, and/or posting about them). Once categorized, the cyberstalkers were then compared with matched offline stalkers. Results indicate that the majority of cyberstalkers also utilized offline methods to stalk their victims. In addition, there were no significant differences in criminal history, clinical diagnoses, and stalking duration.

Cyberstalkers were more likely to be ex-intimates, be the subject of a restraining order, and significantly less likely to engage in approach behaviors. The study was the first to utilize a

forensic population; however, their sample was relatively small (N = 36) and their data relied on collateral information. Nevertheless, based on their results, it suggests that there are few differences between cyberstalkers and off-line stalkers in forensic settings; however, follow-up studies are needed with larger samples.

Currently, there is only one study that looked at predictors of cyberstalking. Using a student sample, Menard and Pincus (2012) collected self-report data on gender, childhood trauma, alcohol, narcissism, and attachment from 1,741 men and women (84% were white).

They found that males who endorsed cyberstalking scored higher on a measures of childhood abuse, preoccupied attachment, and narcissistic vulnerability. As previously discussed, these results are not surprising based on Meloy’s (1998) theory of insecure attachment in stalkers. This theory states that childhood abuse contributes to an insecure attachment style in relationships. A narcissistic injury spurs the stalker into action to renew the relationship or exact some revenge to restore self-esteem.

There is very little research on cyberstalkers. The studies that do exist found that cyberstalkers who also engage in offline stalking have a preoccupied insecure attachment. Prior studies also lack ethnic and racial diversity, which is a clear limitation. However, there is a dearth of evidence on purely online cyberstalkers. One could hypothesize that they appear to be disengaged from the world, at least with regards to relationships. It would be interesting to see how they fair on measures of attachment and whether the relationship to their victim has an effect. For example, one could hypothesize that pure cyberstalking motivated by revenge for some wrongdoing, but with no prior relationship with the victim might reveal an avoidant attachment style. Perhaps their connection through a computer provides the distance needed to engage in such behaviors. Meloy (1998) described the internet as providing unique elements for

stalkers: a lack of social constraints inhibiting aggression, a lack of sensory stimuli leading to a greater fantasy in the offender, and the opportunity for deception, Accordingly, it seems important to differentiate between purely online stalkers and those that engage in mixed behavior.

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Aims and Hypotheses

The purpose of the current study is to determine if the above described profile of the stalker is replicable in a general population and if that profile varies as a function of Mullen’s

(1999) motivational stalker types. The central hypothesis is, that the aforementioned profile of stalkers will be replicated in a general population, that it will apply to prospective stalkers, and that the most extreme scores of psychopathology will be found in people who could be classified as “rejected stalkers.” This hypothesis was tested with the following specific aims.

Research Aim 1: To determine if people who engage in stalking have an insecure attachment style.

Hypothesis 1: Stalkers will be more likely to display an insecure attachment style than non- stalkers.

Research Aim 2: To determine if stalkers report current anxious and depressive symptoms.

Hypothesis 2: Stalkers will report significantly more anxious and depressive symptoms than non-stalkers.

Research Aim 3: To determine if stalkers report current problems with work/school.

Hypothesis 3: Stalkers will report significantly more problems with work/school than non- stalkers.

Research Aim 4: To determine if stalkers report current problems with relationships in general.

Hypothesis 4: Stalkers will report significantly more problems with relationships in general than non-stalkers.

Research Aim 5: To determine if Mullen’s (1999) motivational types apply to stalkers and potential stalkers equally.

Hypothesis 5: Mullen’s types will apply to stalkers and non-stalkers and that the rejected stalker type will be most frequently found in the sample.

3.2 Method

To answer these research questions, this study employed a quantitative cross-sectional research design. Multiple linear regression was utilized to test whether the attachment and other background variables were related to stalker type. Logistic regression was conducted to evaluate the probability of a rejected stalker type as a result of gender, arrested status, believed to have bothered other individual, sexual orientation, and household income.

3.2.1 Participants. Participants 18-years and older were recruited from three independent sources. The first group of participants consisted of undergraduate students enrolled in

Psychology 101 at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Students enrolled in the class were given the opportunity to complete in-house research studies for course credit (students were able to complete writing assignments as an alternative). An online description and link to the study were posted on the college’s Research Experience Program website. Participants were given one credit towards their required 20 credits for participating. Two-hundred ninety-nine students responded to the study. The second group of participants was recruited from Reddit.com’s r/SampleSize community. This online community is dedicated to surveys, polls, and research studies and is monitored by site moderators to ensure appropriate content. Two hundred and twenty-six adults completed the study. They were not compensated for their participation. The final group of participants was recruited from Psychological Research on the Net

(https://psych.hanover.edu/research/exponnet.html). The website is dedicated to online research

studies and is monitored and managed by the Department of Psychology at Hanover College in

Indiana. One hundred and fifty-four participants completed the study and they were not compensated for their participation.

3.2.2 Procedure. Institutional review board permission was obtained and approved prior to all data collection. An identical invitation to participate in the online studies was posted on all three online platforms. The studies were titled “Relationship Study.” Data collection occurred between October 2018 and April 2019. After reading study instructions and consenting to participation, the participants were then directed to complete the online measures of attachment, psychopathology, stalking, and a demographics questionnaire. Each study was identical, and measures were presented in the same order with identical instructions. Personal information such as name and date of birth were not collected. In addition, to protect the privacy of participants IP addresses were not collected. Inclusion criteria included being U.S.-based and 18 years old and older.

3.3.3 Measures. Demographic Questionnaire. A standard demographic questionnaire was used and included information on relationship status, age, sex, gender, current work/school situation, socio-economic status, and ethnicity.

Experiences in Close Relationships - Revised (ECR-R): The ECR-R is a 36-item self- report measurement of adult attachment (Brennan, Clark, and Shaver,1998). It is comprised of two scales; avoidance and anxiety. Avoidant individuals are uncomfortable with intimacy and are generally independent, whereas those endorsing the anxiety items tend to fear abandonment and rejection. The scale was revised (ECR-R) by analyzing commonly utilized attachment instruments and continues to support the original two factor model (Fraley, Waller, & Brennan,

2000). It is the most widely utilized self-report measure of attachment and has displayed good

reliability and validity (Avoidance 훼 =0.93; Anxiety 훼 = 0.95). While the Adult Attachment

Interview (AAI) is well known in psychological circles to be the gold standard of measuring attachment, it was not suitable for the current study as it requires in person contact. In addition, the AAI and the ECR-R were developed completely independently and for quite different purposes. The ECR-R asks about a person's feelings and behaviors in the context of romantic or other close relationships while the AAI is used to make inferences about the defenses associated with an adult's current state of mind regarding childhood relationships with parents. However, a meta-analysis was conducted to analyze the validity between the AAI and self-report measures of attachment. The average effect size across all measures was r = 0.9 (Roisman, Holland,

Fortuna, Fraley, Clausell, & Clarke (2007).

Electronic Use Pursuit Behavioral Index (EUPBI – P): The EUPBI – P (Huss &

Strawhan, 2008) is a 42-item self-report questionnaire that asks responders if they have engaged in cyberstalking. On a 5-point Likert scale, participants respond to questions about their experiences with online harassment. For example, contacting someone anonymously, sending inappropriate pictures, or obtaining private personal information. Scores range from 0 -168 and are simply totaled. There is no available guideline or cutoff score to classify stalkers with this measure. In the current study, a generous cutoff score of 84 was utilized to indicate the presence of staking. The instrument concludes with three questions, which asked the responder if they believed they ever bothered someone via the internet (Yes/No); their reason for the contact

(Seeking reconciliation/Seeking Revenge/Seeking an Intimate Relationship/To Satisfy a Sexual

Fantasy); and finally, who was the target of the pursuit. These three questions provide the information necessary to classify Mullen et al.’s (2009) stalker types. Cronbach’s alpha for the perpetrator scale was 0.78.

Obsessive Relational Intrusion – Perpetration (ORI-P): The ORI- P (Spitzberg &

Cupach, 2008) is a 28-item self-report measure of stalking and harassment perpetration.

Participants respond to questions on a 5-point Likert scale by indicating how many times they engaged in a behavior (0 = Never, 1 = only once, 2 = 2-3 times, 3 = 4-5 times, and 4 = over 5 times). The ORI-P has two factors: a pursuit/persistence factor (Cronbach's alpha = .84) and a physical threat/harassment factor (alpha = .93; Lau & Davis, unpublished). Similarly, there is no recommended cutoff score for classifying stalkers. Higher numbers indicate higher levels of stalking. For the current study, a cutoff score of 56 was utilized to indicate the presence of stalking.

Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45.2): The OQ-45 (Lambert et al., 2004) is a 45-item self- report measure of progress in therapy and following termination. However, it is a reliable measure of psychopathology. The measure has three subscales: symptom distress, which measures depression and anxiety, interpersonal relationships such as loneliness, conflict with others and relationship difficulties, and problems in the responder’s social role such as in the workplace, school or at home. Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Internal consistency values are high ( = .93) and the measure has good concurrent validity with several measures of depression and anxiety.

Measuring Mullen and Colleagues Stalking Typology: Mullen and colleagues’ (1999) typology of stalkers describes stalking behavior via two domains. As indicated above, to measure the two domains, questions were added at the end of the EUPBI-P. The first domain is based on the relationship to the victim and the second domain addressed the motivation to stalk. To capture these domains, the following questions were added: “Do you think you have bothered someone via the internet” (yes/no). “When thinking about the above behaviors, what was the

main reason for contacting them?” (Seeking reconciliation, seeking revenge, seeking an intimate relationship, to satisfy a sexual fantasy, N/A) Finally, “Who was the target of your pursuit/behavior?” (ex-intimate, professional relationship, workplace contact, family/friend, casual acquaintance, stranger, N/A). Stalkers were then classified as the following: seeking reconciliation/rejected stalker, seeking revenge/resentful stalker, seeking a relationship/intimacy seeking/incompetent suitor, and sexual predator.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

The data includes three separate datasets (Hanover, John Jay College, and Reddit), which were analyzed separately and then combined and analyzed again. The dependent variables of study were ECR-R anxiety, ECR-R avoidance, OQ-SD symptom distress, OQ-SR social role,

OQ-IR interpersonal relationship, and rejected stalker type (yes or no). The independent variables were ORI-P stalking and harassment, EUBI-P cyberstalking, ECR-R avoidance, OQ-

IR, OQ-SR, gender, arrested status, believed to have bothered other individual, sexual orientation, and household income. This chapter presents the descriptive statistics of the variables of interest along with an examination of the data and test of assumptions for all variables. Next, results from the multiple linear regressions are presented. A summary of the results concludes this chapter.

Description of the Sample

Participants were samples from three independent sources (Hanover, John Jay College, and Reddit). Participants under the age of 18 were excluded from the study prior to analysis. The

Hanover data revealed that among the 154 participants, the average age was 24 years old, ranging from 18 to 71. In addition, the majority of the participants were female (76.6%), had some college education (51.3%), and were cohabiting (29.2%). Thirty-three participants (21.4%) believed they had bothered someone via the internet, and 16 (10.4%) were seeking reconciliation with and ex-intimate partner. Table 1 presents the characteristics of the Hanover sample.

Table 1

Descriptive statistics for the categorical independent variables for Hanover (n=154)

Variable Category Frequency Percentage Female 118 76.6% Gender Male 35 22.7%

Other 1 0.65% Some high school 14 9.1% High school diploma 40 26.0% Some college 79 51.3% Two-year college 10 6.49% Level of education Four-year college 3 1.95% Some graduate work 1 0.65% Master/professional degree 7 4.55% Advanced/doctoral degree 0 0% Married 17 11% In a relationship, not living together 45 29.2% Divorced 2 1.3% Marital status Separated 3 1.95% Never married 6 3.9% Single 57 37% Co-habiting with partner 24 15.6% Christian 69 44.8% Catholic 32 20.8% Jewish 1 0.65% Muslim 1 0.65% Hindu 2 1.3% Religious preferences Buddhist 0 0% Atheist 6 3.9% Agnostic 4 2.6% No preference 35 22.7% Prefer not to say 4 2.6% White 100 65.4% Black/African American 16 10.5% Latino/Latina/Hispanic 21 13.7% Race/ethnicity American Indian/Alaskan Native 4 2.6% Asian 4 2.6% Other 8 5.2% Employed full-time 23 14.9% Employed part-time 17 11% Unemployed 8 5.2% Employment status Student, not employed 48 31.2% Student, employed part- or full-time 56 36.4% Homemaker 1 0.65% Retired 1 0.65% <$10,000 42 27.3% $10,000-$19,999 19 12.3% $20,000-$29,999 16 10.4% $30,000-$39,999 14 9.1% $40,000-$49,999 7 4.6% Household income $50,000-$59,999 14 9.1% $60,000-$69,000 5 3.3% $70,000-$79,999 3 2% $80,000-$89,999 7 4.6% $90,000-$99,999 8 5.2% $100,000-$149,999 14 9.1%

$150,000 or more 5 3.3% Straight 135 87.7% Gay 0 0% Sexual orientation Lesbian 3 2% Bisexual 13 8.4% Other 3 2% North East U.S. 26 16.9% North West U.S. 11 7.1% Geographic location South East U.S. 44 28.6% South West U.S. 23 15% Midwest U.S. 50 32.5% Have you ever been Yes 13 8.4% arrested No 141 91.6% Do you believe you have Yes 33 21.4% ever bothered someone No 121 78.6% via the internet? When thinking about 16 10.4% Seeking reconciliation/get back together online stalking behaviors 7 4.5% Seeking revenge/express anger you have done, what was 4 2.6% Seeking an intimate relationship the main reason for 3 1.9% To satisfy a sexual fantasy contacting them? 0 0% N/A 124 80.5% Ex-intimate partner 16 10.4% Family/friend 9 5.8% Who was the target of Professional contact 1 0.7% your pursuit/behavior? Workplace/school contact 8 5.2% Casual acquaintance 2 1.3% N/A 118 76.6%

The John Jay College data revealed that among the 299 participants, the average age was

20.3 years old ranging from 18 to 44. In addition, the majority of the participants were female

(74.9%), had some college education (42.8%), and were single (58.9%). Fifty participants

(17.7%) believed they had bothered someone via the internet and 12.7% were seeking reconciliation 13.4% of whom were an ex-intimate partner. Table 2 presents the characteristics of the John Jay College sample.

Table 2

Descriptive statistics for the categorical independent variables for John Jay College (n=299)

Variable Category Frequency Percentage Female 224 74.9% Gender Male 73 24.4%

Other 2 0.67% Some high school 0 0% High school diploma 99 33.1% Some college 128 42.8% Two-year college 64 21.4% Level of education Four-year college 7 2.3% Some graduate work 1 0.3% Master/professional degree 0 0% Advanced/doctoral degree 0 0% Married 4 1.3% In a relationship, not living together 90 30.1% Divorced 5 1.7% Marital status Separated 0 0% Never married 17 5.7% Single 176 58.9% Co-habiting with partner 7 2.3% Christian 68 22.7% Catholic 89 29.8% Jewish 1 0.33% Muslim 18 6% Hindu 5 1.7% Religious preferences Buddhist 4 1.3% Atheist 14 4.7% Agnostic 15 5% No preference 75 25.1% Prefer not to say 10 3.3% White 44 14.8% Black/African American 49 16.4% Latino/Latina/Hispanic 142 47.7% Race/ethnicity American Indian/Alaskan Native 2 0.7% Asian 21 7.1% Other 40 13.4% Employed full-time 19 6.4% Employed part-time 33 11% Unemployed 9 3% Employment status Student, not employed 112 37.5% Student, employed part- or full-time 126 42.1% Homemaker 0 0% Retired 0 0% <$10,000 46 15.4% $10,000-$19,999 41 13.7% $20,000-$29,999 60 20.1% $30,000-$39,999 29 9.7% $40,000-$49,999 21 7% Household income $50,000-$59,999 22 7.4% $60,000-$69,000 15 5% $70,000-$79,999 11 3.7% $80,000-$89,999 12 4% $90,000-$99,999 16 5.4% $100,000-$149,999 14 4.7%

$150,000 or more 12 4% Straight 250 83.6% Gay 3 1% Sexual orientation Lesbian 9 3% Bisexual 29 9.7% Other 8 2.7% North East U.S. 277 92.6% North West U.S. 17 5.7% Geographic location South East U.S. 4 1.3% South West U.S. 0 0% Midwest U.S. 1 0.3% Have you ever been Yes 24 8% arrested No 275 92% Do you believe you have Yes 50 17.7% ever bothered someone No 232 82.3% via the internet? When thinking about 38 12.7% Seeking reconciliation/get back together online stalking behaviors 15 5% Seeking revenge/express anger you have done, what was 7 2.3% Seeking an intimate relationship the main reason for 6 2% To satisfy a sexual fantasy contacting them? 0 0% N/A 233 77.9% Ex-intimate partner 40 13.4% Family/friend 26 8.7% Who was the target of Professional contact 1 0.3% your pursuit/behavior? Workplace/school contact 0 0% Casual acquaintance 6 2% N/A 226 75.6%

The Reddit data revealed that among the 226 participants, the average age was 25.6 years old ranging from 18 to 69. In addition, the majority of the participants were female (62%), had some college education (33.2%), and were in a relationship, but not living together (33.6%).

Fifty-two participants (23%) believed they had bothered someone via the internet and 21 (9.29%) identified the target as an ex-intimate. Eighteen were seeking reconciliation (13.4%) with an ex- intimate partner. Table 3 presents the characteristics of the sample.

Table 3

Descriptive statistics for the categorical independent variables Reddit (n=226)

Variable Category Frequency Percentage Female 140 62% Gender Male 74 32.7%

Other 12 5.3% Some high school 6 2.65% High school diploma 16 7.08% Some college 75 33.2% Two-year college 16 7.08% Level of education Four-year college 60 26.6% Some graduate work 28 12.4% Master/professional degree 20 8.85% Advanced/doctoral degree 5 2.21% Married 37 16.4% In a relationship, not living together 76 33.6% Divorced 4 1.77% Marital status Separated 1 0.44% Never married 10 4.42% Single 52 23% Co-habiting with partner 46 20.4% Christian 28 12.4% Catholic 11 4.87% Jewish 7 3.1% Muslim 1 0.44% Hindu 1 0.44% Religious preferences Buddhist 1 0.44% Atheist 57 25.2% Agnostic 49 21.7% No preference 60 26.6% Prefer not to say 11 4.87% White 194 86.2% Black/African American 2 0.89% Latino/Latina/Hispanic 8 3.56% Race/ethnicity American Indian/Alaskan Native 1 0.44% Asian 8 3.56% Other 12 5.33% Employed full-time 79 35% Employed part-time 23 10.2% Unemployed 14 6.19% Employment status Student, not employed 53 23.5% Student, employed part- or full-time 51 22.6% Homemaker 5 2.21% Retired 1 0.44% <$10,000 37 16.4% $10,000-$19,999 23 10.2% $20,000-$29,999 13 5.75% $30,000-$39,999 20 8.85% $40,000-$49,999 20 8.85% Household income $50,000-$59,999 18 7.96% $60,000-$69,000 9 3.98% $70,000-$79,999 13 5.75% $80,000-$89,999 10 4.42% $90,000-$99,999 13 5.75% $100,000-$149,999 20 8.85%

$150,000 or more 30 13.3% Straight 120 53.1% Gay 5 2.21% Sexual orientation Lesbian 13 5.75% Bisexual 76 33.6% Other 12 5.31% North East U.S. 74 32.7% North West U.S. 38 16.8% Geographic location South East U.S. 42 18.6% South West U.S. 22 9.73% Midwest U.S. 50 22.1% Have you ever been Yes 36 15.9% arrested No 190 84.1% Do you believe you have Yes 52 23% ever bothered someone No 174 77% via the internet? When thinking about 18 7.96% Seeking reconciliation/get back together online stalking behaviors 14 6.19% Seeking revenge/express anger you have done, what was 6 2.65% Seeking an intimate relationship the main reason for 4 1.77% To satisfy a sexual fantasy contacting them? 0 0% N/A 184 81.4% Ex-intimate partner 21 9.29% Family/friend 14 6.19% Who was the target of Professional contact 4 1.77% your pursuit/behavior? Workplace/school contact 7 3.1% Casual acquaintance 7 3.1% N/A 173 76.5%

The combined data revealed that among the 665 participants, the average age was 23 years old ranging from 18 to 71. In addition, the majority of the participants were female

(71.4%), white (50.3%) had some college education (41.8%), and were in a relationship, but not living together (31.4%). One hundred and thirty-two participants (24.8%) believed they had bothered someone via the internet and 77 (14.3%) identified the target as an ex-intimate.

Seventy-two were seeking reconciliation (13.4%) with an ex-intimate partner. Table 4 presents the characteristics of the sample.

Table 4

Combined descriptive statistics for the categorical independent variables (n=212) Variable Category Frequency Percentage

Female 475 71.4% Gender Male 175 26.3% Other 15 2.3% Some high school 12 1.8% High school diploma 153 23.0% Some college 278 41.8% Two-year college 90 13.5% Level of education Four-year college 70 10.5% Some graduate work 29 4.4% Master/professional degree 28 4.2% Advanced/doctoral degree 5 0.8% Married 58 8.7% In a relationship, not living together 209 31.4% Divorced 11 1.7% Marital status Separated 4 0.6% Never married 32 4.8% Single 275 41.4% Co-habiting with partner 76 11.4% Christian 163 24.5% Catholic 125 18.8% Jewish 9 1.4% Muslim 20 3.0% Hindu 8 1.2% Religious preferences Buddhist 5 0.8% Atheist 75 11.3% Agnostic 67 10.1% No preference 168 25.3% Prefer not to say 25 3.8% White 333 50.3% Black/African American 67 10.1% Latino/Latina/Hispanic 165 24.9% Race/ethnicity American Indian/Alaskan Native 6 0.9% Asian 31 4.7% Other 60 9.1% Employed full-time 121 18.2% Employed part-time 73 11.0% Unemployed 29 4.4% Employment status Student, not employed 203 30.5% Student, employed part- or full-time 231 34.7% Homemaker 6 0.9% Retired 2 0.3% <$10,000 122 18.4% $10,000-$19,999 78 11.7% Household income $20,000-$29,999 88 13.2% $30,000-$39,999 62 9.3% $40,000-$49,999 48 7.2%

$50,000-$59,999 54 8.1% $60,000-$69,000 28 4.2% $70,000-$79,999 27 4.1% $80,000-$89,999 29 4.4% $90,000-$99,999 37 5.6% $100,000-$149,999 45 6.8% $150,000 or more 47 7.1% Straight 492 74.0% Gay 8 1.2% Sexual orientation Lesbian 25 3.8% Bisexual 117 17.6% Other 23 3.5% North East U.S. 370 55.6% North West U.S. 63 9.5% Geographic location South East U.S. 88 13.2% South West U.S. 45 6.8% Midwest U.S. 99 14.9% Have you ever been Yes 73 11.0% arrested No 592 89.0% Do you believe you have ever bothered Yes 132 24.8% someone via the No 40 75.2% internet? When thinking about Seeking reconciliation/get back 72 13.3% online stalking together 36 6.7% behaviors you have Seeking revenge/express anger 16 3.0% done, what was the Seeking an intimate relationship 12 2.2% main reason for To satisfy a sexual fantasy 404 74.8% contacting them? N/A Ex-intimate partner 77 14.3% Family/friend 48 8.9% Who was the target of Professional contact 2 0.4% your pursuit/behavior? Workplace/school contact 4 0.7% Casual acquaintance 21 3.9% N/A 388 71.9%

Descriptive Statistics

This section presents the descriptive statistics for the variables by data source.

Hanover: Data was collected from 154 individuals. Investigation of descriptive statistics revealed missing values from less than 0.01% of the data. Missing data was addressed by utilizing imputation techniques. Table 5 presents the mean, standard deviation, and range for

each scale. The mean total scores for the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45) subscales Symptom

Distress (OQ-SD), Interpersonal Relations (OQ-IR), and Social Role (OQ-SR) were 60.3 [range:

19-125], 28.9 [range: 9-55], and 22.5 [range: 6-45], respectively. The mean total scores for the full OQ-45 scale, the Experience in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) anxiety subscale, and

ECR-R avoidance subscale were 111.8 [range: 34-225], 3.09 [range: 1-6.3], and 2.90 [range: 1.2-

5.6], respectively. The mean of the individual averages for the Electronic Use Pursuit Behavioral

Index-Perpetrator (EUPBI-P) scale score was 56.4 [range: 36-126] whereas the mean of the total score for the Obsessive Relational Intrusion-Perpetrator (ORI-P) scale was 30.1 [range: 27-83].

Table 5

Descriptive statistics for the continuous dependent and independent variables for Hanover sample

Variable n Mean [range] Std. Dev. Age 154 24.1 [18-71] 10.0 OQ-SD score 154 60.3 [19-125] 13.8 OQ-IR score 154 28.9 [9-55] 5.24 OQ-SR score 154 22.5 [6-45] 4.61 OQ total score 154 111.8 [34-225] 21.4 ECR-R anxiety score 134 3.09 [1-6.3] 1.26 ECR-R avoidance score 134 2.90 [1.2-5.6] 1.04 EUPBI-P score 120 56.4 [36-126] 14.7 ORI-P score 110 30.1 [27-83] 8.55

John Jay College: Data was collected from 299 individuals. Investigation of descriptive statistics revealed missing values from less than 0.02% of the data. Missing data was addressed by utilizing imputation techniques. Table 6 presents the mean, standard deviation, and range for each scale. The mean total scores for the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45) subscales Symptom

Distress (OQ-SD), Interpersonal Relations (OQ-IR), and Social Role (OQ-SR) were 58 [range:

31-104], 28.5 [range: 14-39], and 22.8 [range: 15-33], respectively. The mean total scores for the full OQ-45 scale, the Experience in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) anxiety subscale, and

ECR-R avoidance subscale were 109.3 [range: 62-171], 2.86 [range: 1-6.9], and 3.14 [range: 1.3-

6.4], respectively. The mean of the individual averages for the Electronic Use Pursuit Behavioral

Index-Perpetrator (EUPBI-P) scale score was 53.9 [range: 41-140] whereas the mean of the total score for the Obsessive Relational Intrusion-Perpetrator (ORI-P) scale was 29.9 [range: 27-93].

Table 6

Descriptive statistics for the continuous dependent and independent variables for John Jay sample

Variable n Mean [range] Std. Dev. Age 299 20.3 [17-44] 3.6 OQ-SD score 299 58 [31-104] 12.8 OQ-IR score 299 28.5 [14-39] 4.1 OQ-SR score 299 22.8 [15-33] 3.5 OQ total score 299 109.3 [62-171] 17.9 ECR-R anxiety score 293 2.86 [1-6.9] 1.2 ECR-R avoidance score 293 3.14 [1.3-6.4] 1.1 EUPBI-P score 286 53.9 [41-140] 12.5 ORI-P score 287 29.3 [27-93] 7.3

Reddit: Data was collected from 226 individuals. Investigation of descriptive statistics revealed missing values from less than 0.02% of the data. Missing data was addressed by utilizing imputation techniques. Table 7 presents the mean, standard deviation, and range for each scale. The mean total scores for the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45) subscales Symptom

Distress (OQ-SD), Interpersonal Relations (OQ-IR), and Social Role (OQ-SR) were 62.3 [range:

31-107], 27.5 [range: 15-38], and 21 [range: 12-34], respectively. The mean total scores for the full OQ-45 scale, the Experience in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) anxiety subscale, and

ECR-R avoidance subscale were 110.8 [range: 66-169], 3.22 [range: 1-7], and 2.86 [range: 1.3-

5.9], respectively. The mean of the individual averages for the Electronic Use Pursuit Behavioral

Index-Perpetrator (EUPBI-P) scale score was 57.6 [range: 43-165] whereas the mean of the total score for the Obsessive Relational Intrusion-Perpetrator (ORI-P) scale was 30.2 [range: 27-119].

Table 7

Descriptive statistics for the continuous dependent and independent variables

Variable n Mean [range] Std. Dev. Age 226 25.6 [16-69] 7.23 OQ-SD score 226 62.3 [31-107] 15.1 OQ-IR score 226 27.5 [15-38] 4.76 OQ-SR score 226 21 [12-34] 4.03 OQ total score 226 110.8 [66-169] 21.7 ECR-R anxiety score 156 3.22 [1-7] 1.44 ECR-R avoidance score 156 2.86 [1.3-5.9] 1.04 EUPBI-P score 144 57.6 [43-165] 13 ORI-P score 132 30.2 [27-119] 9.45

Combined: The 3 data sets were then combined and reanalyzed. Among the 665 participants, the average age was 23 years old ranging from 18 to 71 (Table 8). The mean total scores for the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45) subscales Symptom Distress (OQ-SD),

Interpersonal Relations (OQ-IR), and Social Role (OQ-SR) were 60.1 [range: 19-125], 28.3

[range: 9-55], and 22.2 [range: 6-45], respectively. The mean total scores for the full OQ scale, the Experience in Close Relationships-Revised (ECR-R) anxiety subscale, and ECR-R avoidance subscale were 110.6 [range: 34-225], 3.0 [range: 1-7], and 3.0 [range: 1-7], respectively. The mean of the individual averages for the Electronic Use Pursuit Behavioral Index-Perpetrator

(EUPBI-P) scale score was 55.3 [range: 36-165] whereas the mean of the total score for the

Obsessive Relational Intrusion-Perpetrator (ORI-P) scale was 29.7 [range: 27-119].

Table 8 Combined descriptive statistics for the continuous dependent and independent variables Variable n Mean [range] Std. Dev. Age 665 23 [18-71] 7.2 OQ-SD score 665 60.1 [19-125] 13.9 OQ-IR score 665 28.3 [9-55] 4.7 OQ-SR score 665 22.2 [6-45] 4.0 OQ total score 665 110.6 [34-225] 20.2 ECR-R anxiety score 572 3.0 [1-7] 1.3 ECR-R avoidance score 572 3.0 [1-7] 1.1 EUPBI-P score 540 55.3 [36-165] 13.2

ORI-P score 520 29.7 [27-119] 8.2

Differences across the samples: Each data set was compared to determine if there were significant differences. Fisher’s exact tests, Chi-square, and t-tests were utilized. Results indicated significant differences across the majority of demographic groups (see descriptive statistics for further details). In addition, participants in the Hanover sample were significantly more likely to have bothered someone than the participants in the John Jay sample (5.51, p =

.019) and the John Jay students were significantly more likely to have bothered someone compared to the Reddit sample 2 = 18.1, p = <.001. T-tests revealed that the participants in the

Hanover sample endorsed ECR-R Avoidance more than the participants in the John Jay sample

(t = .236, p < .05) and similar results was observed in when John Jay students were compared to

Reddit participants (t = .278, p=.012). In addition, the participants in the John Jay sample endorsed significantly more stalking behavior as measured by the EUPBI-P than the participants in the Reddit sample (t= 3.68, p =.005).

Table 9

Differences across the three data collections sites using t-test, χ2, and Fisher’s exact tests (Hanover: n=154; JJ students: n=299; Reddit: n=226) Hanover vs JJ students Hanover vs. Reddit JJ students vs. Reddit Predictor Diff./χ2 p Diff./χ2 p Diff./χ2 p Gender (F) - .879 -*** .002 -*** .000 Age (t) 3.80*** .000 1.44 .103 5.24*** .000 Level of education (F) -*** .000 -*** .000 -*** .000 Marital status (F) -*** .000 - .059 -*** .000 Religious preferences (F) -*** .000 -*** .000 -*** .000 Race/ethnicity (F) -*** .000 -*** .000 -*** .000 Employment status (F) -* .013 -*** .000 -*** .000 Household income (F) - .812 -*** .000 -*** .000 Sexual orientation (F) - .787 -*** .000 -*** .000 Geographic location (F) -*** .000 25.3*** .000 -*** .000 Ever arrested (χ2) .023 .879 4.57* .033 7.94** .005 Bothered someone (χ2) 5.51* .019 1.95 .163 18.1*** .000 Reason for contacting (F) - .969 - .792 - .462 Target (F) -*** .103 - .266 -** .004 Rejected stalker type (χ2) .022 .881 .371 .543 .823 .364

OQ-SD (t) 2.28 .081 2.04 .183 4.32*** .000 OQ-IR (t) .460 .307 1.43** .006 .971* .013 OQ-SR (t) .290 .453 1.54*** .001 1.83*** .000 OQ total (t) 2.45 .198 .934 .679 1.52 .381 ECR-R anxiety (t) .230 .078 .131 .414 .361** .006 ECR-R avoidance (t) .236* .043 .041 .737 .278* .012 ORI-P (t) .737 .393 .165 .888 .903 .288 EUPBI-P (t) 2.47 .086 1.22 .475 3.68** .005 Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

Testing Assumptions

The analyses used to address the research questions were multiple linear regression and logistic regression. The primary variables of interest in the multiple linear regression were attachment (independent variable) and stalking (dependent variable) utilizing both the EUPBI and the ORI. However, the OQ-45 total score and subtest scores also acted as independent variables. For the logistic regression, Mullen and colleagues rejected stalker type was the dependent variable. There are five assumptions of multiple linear regression: normality of the residuals, no multicollinearity, homoscedasticity, independence of the residuals, and linearity

(Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Logistic regression is more robust to violations of linearity. Specifically, a linear relationship amongst the dependent and independent variables is not required (Kleinbaum, Dietz, Gail, Klien, & Klein, 2002). However, logistic regression does require the following assumptions to be met: no multicollinearity among the independent variables and linearity of independent variables and log odds (Kleinbaum et al., 2020).

Normality. To examine normality of the dependent variables, examinations of histograms and P-P plots for salary were conducted (Cohen et al., 2003). For each data source, the histograms and P-P plots follow a normal distribution for all dependent variables Therefore, the assumption of normality has been met for the Hanover, John Jay, and Reddit data sources.

Multicollinearity. The variance inflation factor (VIF) measures the degree of multicollinearity. A VIF of 10 or more suggests serious violations of multicollinearity (Cohen et al., 2003). The assumption of multicollinearity was met for all data sources.

Homoscedasticity. Scatterplots were used to evaluate homoscedasticity by assessing the shape of the residuals and predicted values (Cohen et al., 2003). For the Hanover data source, the variance of the residuals around the regression line is stable. The ECR-R anxiety and avoidance variance is slightly grouped to one side. However, since the residuals did not form a cone shape, the variance is considered relatively stable. This means that the assumption of homoscedasticity has been met. For the John Jay College data source, the variance of the residuals around the regression line is stable. The OQ-total variable is slightly grouped to the left but does not form a cone shape. This means that the assumption of homoscedasticity has been met. For the Reddit data source, the variance of the residuals around the regression line is stable for anxiety but slightly grouped to the left for the avoidance outcome variable. However, the variance does not create a cone shape and therefore, the variance of the residuals around the regression line is stable. This means that the assumption of homoscedasticity has been met.

Independence. A Durbin-Watson value between around or under two suggests independences of the residuals (Cohen et al., 2003). This assumption was met in each data source.

Linearity. To test the assumption of linearity, a series of scatterplots were produced to evaluate the independent variable against the dependent variables. The scatterplots follow a linear pattern for all analyses. The assumption of linearity was met for Hanover, John Jay

College and Reddit variables.

Results

This section presents the results organized by research question.

Research Question I

Hanover Data: To investigate whether stalkers are more likely to display an insecure attachment style, a series of multiple regressions were conducted. The first multiple regression was conducted with ORI-P, EUPBI-P, and ECR-R avoidance as independent variables, and the

ECR-R anxiety as the dependent variable. The results of the regression for Model 1 indicated that the model explained 17.02% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of

ECR-R anxiety, F(3, 106) = 7.76, p < .001. While ECR-R avoidance (B = .359, p < .001) and

EUPBI-P (B = .018, p < .001) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P did not (B = .017, p

> .05).

In Model 2, a multiple regression was carried out to investigate whether ORI-P, EUPBI-

P, and ECR-anxiety predict ECR-R avoidance. The results of the regression indicated that the model explained 9.85% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of ECR-R avoidance, F(3, 106) = 4.42, p < .001. While ECR-R anxiety (B = .262, p < .001) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = .001, p > .05) and EUBI-P (B = -.002, p > .05) did not.

Table 10 presents the multiple regression analyses for Models 1 and 2. Taken together, the results from the first regression analysis suggests that stronger stalking behavior engagement, as measured with EUPBI-P, predicts having an insecure (anxious) attachment style, as measured by

ECR-R anxiety.

Table 10

Multiple regression analyses for variables predicting ECR-R anxiety [Model 1] and ECR-R avoidance [Model 2] among participants in Hanover (n=110)

Model 1 Model 2 B Robust p Robust Predictor B p SE SE ECR-R anxiety - - - .262** .078 .001 ECR-R avoidance .359** .100 .001 - - - ORI-P .017 .012 .159 .001 .012 .940 EUPBI-P .018* .026 .000 -.002 .007 .760 Constant .538 .542 .323 2.14*** .431 .000 R2 .170 .099 F 7.76*** 4.42** Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p <.

John Jay Data: To investigate whether stalkers are more likely to display an insecure attachment style, a series of multiple regressions were conducted. The first multiple regression was conducted with ORI-P, EUPBI-P, and ECR-R avoidance as independent variables, and the

ECR-R anxiety as dependent variable. The results of the regression for Model 1 indicated that the model explained 19.47% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of

ECR-R anxiety, F(3, 280) = 18.24, p < .001. While ECR-R avoidance (B = .237, p < .001) and

EUPBI-P (B = .037, p < .001) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = -.001, p > .05) did not.

In Model 2, a multiple regression was carried out to investigate whether ORI-P, EUPBI-

P, and ECR-anxiety predict ECR-R avoidance. The results of the regression indicated that the model explained 6.42% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of ECR-R avoidance, F(3, 280) = 6.82, p < .001. While ECR-R anxiety (B = .228, p < .001) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = -.009, p > .05) and EUBI-P (B = .003, p > .05) did not.

Table 11 presents the multiple regression analyses for Models 1 and 2.

Table 11

Multiple regression analyses for variables predicting ECR-R anxiety [Model 1] and ECR-R avoidance [Model 2] among participants in John Jay College (n=284)

Model 1 Model 2 B Robust p Robust Predictor B p SE SE ECR-R anxiety - - - .228*** .058 .000 ECR-R avoidance .237*** .061 .000 - - - ORI-P -.001 .015 .159 -.009 .010 .344 EUPBI-P .037*** .007 .000 .003 .007 .695 Constant .161 .470 .323 2.58*** .288 .000 R2 .195 .064 F 18.2*** 6.82*** Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

Reddit Data: To investigate whether stalkers are more likely to display an insecure attachment style, a series of multiple regressions were conducted. The first multiple regression was conducted with ORI-P, EUPBI-P, and ECR-R avoidance as independent variables, and the

ECR-R anxiety as dependent variable. The results of the regression for Model 1 indicated that the model explained 28.20% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of

ECR-R anxiety, F(3, 128) = 11.67, p < .001. While ECR-R avoidance (B = .455, p < .001) and

EUPBI-P (B = .039 p < .05) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P did not (B = -.001, p >

.05).

In Model 2, a multiple regression was carried out to investigate whether ORI-P, EUPBI-

P, and ECR-anxiety predict ECR-R avoidance. The results of the regression indicated that the model explained 21.78% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of ECR-R avoidance, F(3, 128) = 18.56, p < .001. ECR-R anxiety (B = .259, p < .001), ORI-P (B = .-.036, p

< .001), and EUBI-P (B = .026, p < .01) contributed significantly to the model. Table 12 presents the multiple regression analyses for Models 1 and 2.

Table 12

Multiple regression analyses for variables predicting ECR-R anxiety [Model 1] and ECR-R avoidance [Model 2] among participants in Reddit (n=132)

Model 1 Model 2 Predictor B Robust SE p B Robust SE p ECR-R anxiety - - - .259*** .065 .000 ECR-R avoidance .455*** .124 .000 - - - ORI-P -.001 .027 .962 -.036*** .010 .000 EUPBI-P .039* .015 .012 .026** .010 .009 Constant -.251 .633 .693 1.60*** .281 .000 R2 .282 .218 F 11.7*** 18.6*** Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

Combined data: To investigate whether stalkers are more likely to display an insecure attachment style, two multiple regressions were conducted. The first multiple regression was conducted with ORI-P, EUPBI-P, and ECR-R avoidance as dependent variables, and the ECR-R anxiety as independent variable. The results of the regression for Model 1 indicated that the model explained 20.6% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of ECR-R anxiety, F(3, 513) = 31.18, p < .001. While ECR-R avoidance (B = .297, p < .001) and EUPBI-P

(B = .034, p < .001) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P did not (B = .004, p > .05).

In Model 2, a multiple regression was carried out to investigate whether ORI-P, EUPBI-

P, and ECR-anxiety predict ECR-R avoidance. The results of the regression indicated that the model explained 8.5% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of ECR-R avoidance, F(3, 513) = 17.95, p < .001. While ECR-R anxiety (B = .243, p < .001) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = -.009, p > .05) and EUBI-P (B = .003, p > .05) did not.

Taken together, the results from the first regression analysis suggests that stronger stalking behavior engagement, as measured with EUPBI-P, predicts having an insecure (anxious) attachment style, as measured by ECR-R anxiety.

Table 13

Multiple regression analyses for variables predicting ECR-R anxiety [Model 1] and ECR-R avoidance [Model 2] (n=517) Model 1 Model 2 Predictor B Robust SE p B Robust SE p

ECR-R anxiety - - - .243*** .039 .000 ECR-R avoidance .297*** .049 .000 - - - ORI-P .004 .011 .708 -.009 .006 .136 EUPBI-P .034*** .006 .000 .003 .005 .481 Constant .116 .325 .722 2.359 .191 .000 R2 .206 .085 F 31.18*** 17.95*** Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

Research Question 2 through 4 Preliminary Analyses

Hanover Data: To answer RQ2, RQ3, and RQ4, I used the OQ-45.2 total score and subscales OQ-SD, OQ-SR, and OQ-IR. To investigate whether stalkers report more anxious and depressive symptoms, a multiple regression was conducted to investigate whether ORI-P and

EUPBI-P predicted OQ-total. The results of the regression for Model 1 indicated that the model explained 8.93% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-total, F(2,

107) = 4.85, p < .05. While EUBI-P (B = .358, p < .01) contributed significantly to the model,

ORI-P (B = -.022, p > .05) did not. Table 14 summarizes the multiple regression analyses for

Models 1 through 4.

John Jay Data: To answer RQ2, RQ3, and RQ4, I used the OQ-45.2 total score and subscales OQ-SD, OQ-SR, and OQ-IR. To investigate whether stalkers report more anxious and depressive symptoms, a multiple regression was conducted to investigated whether ORI-P and

EUPBI-P predicted OQ-total. The results of the regression for Model 1 indicated that the model explained 14.59% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-total, F(2,

281) = 24.20, p < .001. While EUBI-P (B = .608, p < .001) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = -.191, p > .05) did not. Table 14 summarizes the multiple regression analyses for Models 1 through 4.

Reddit Data: To answer RQ2, RQ3, and RQ4, I used the OQ-45.2 total score and subscales OQ-SD, OQ-SR, and OQ-IR. To investigate whether stalkers report more anxious and

depressive symptoms, a multiple regression was conducted to investigated whether ORI-P and

EUPBI-P predicted OQ-total. The results of the regression for Model 1 indicated that the model explained 13.44% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-total score, F(2, 129) = 11.78, p < .001. While EUBI-P (B = .646, p < .001) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = -.427, p > .05) did not. Table 13 summarizes the multiple regression analyses for Models 1 through 4.

Combined data: To answer RQ2, RQ3, and RQ4, we used the OQ-45 total score and subscales OQ-SD, OQ-SR, and OQ-IR. A multiple regression was conducted to investigate whether ORI-P and EUPBI-P predicted OQ-Total Score. The results of the regression for Model

2 indicated that the model explained 15% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-Total, F(2, 514) = 28.96, p < .001. While EUBI-P (B = .611, p < .001) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = -.247, p > .05) did not.

RQ2: To investigate whether stalkers report more anxious and depressive symptoms, a multiple regression was conducted to investigated whether OQ-IR, OQ-SR, ORI-P and EUPBI-P predicted OQ-SD. The results of the regression for Model 2 indicated that the model explained

39% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-SD, F(4, 512) = 82.94, p < .001. While OQ-IR (B = 1,00, p < .001), OR-SR (B = 1.41, p < .001), and EUBI-P (B = .184, p < .01) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = -.085, p > .05) did not.

Research Question 3

Hanover Data: To investigate whether stalkers report more problems with work or school, a multiple regression was conducted to investigated whether OQ-IR, OQ-SR, ORI-P, and

EUPBI-P predicted OQ-SD. The results of the regression for Model 2 indicated that the model explained 34.75% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-SD, F(4,

105) = 10.90, p < .001. While OQ-IR (B = .649, p < .05) and OR-SR (B = 1.28, p < .001) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = .059, p > .05) and EUBI-P (B = .127, p < .05) did not.

To investigate whether stalkers report more problems with work or school, a multiple regression was conducted to investigated whether OQ-SD, OQ-IR, ORI-P and EUPBI-P predicted OQ-SR. The results of the regression for Model 3 indicated that the model explained

33.12% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-SR, F(4, 105) =

15.57, p < .001. While OQ-SD (B = .140, p < .001), OR-IR (B = .231, p < .05), contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = -.026, p > .05) and EUBI-P (B = .027, p > .05) did not.

John Jay Data: To investigate whether stalkers report more problems with work or school, a multiple regression was conducted to investigated whether OQ-IR, OQ-SR, ORI-P, and

EUPBI-P predicted OQ-SD. The results of the regression for Model 2 indicated that the model explained 49.55% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-SD, F(4,

279) = 85.46, p < .001. While OQ-IR (B = .901, p < .001), OR-SR (B = 1.80, p < .001), and

EUBI-P (B = .115, p < .05) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = -.063, p > .05) did not.

44.71% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-SR, F(4, 279) =

57.46, p < .001. While OQ-SD (B = .141, p < .001), OR-IR (B = .130, p < .01), contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = .000, p > .05) and EUBI-P (B = .028, p > .05) did not.

Reddit Data: To investigate whether stalkers report more problems with work or school, a multiple regression was conducted to investigate whether OQ-IR, OQ-SR, ORI-P, and EUPBI-

P predicted OQ-SD. The results of the regression for Model 2 indicated that the model explained

29.99% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-SD, F(4, 127) =

14.16, p < .001. While OQ-IR (B = 1.10, p < .05) and OR-SR (B = 1.34, p < .001) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = 0.124 p > .05) and EUBI-P (B = .145, p < .05) did not.

29.26% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-SR, F(4, 127) =

21.81, p < .001. While OQ-SD (B = .095, p < .001), OR-IR (B = .204, p < .05), and EUBI-P (B =

.063, p < .05), contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = -.047, p > .05) did not.

Combined data: To investigate whether stalkers report more problems with work or school, a multiple regression was conducted to investigated whether OQ-SD, OQ-IR, ORI-P and

EUPBI-P predicted OQ-SR. The results of the regression for Model 3 indicated that the model explained 33% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-SR, F(4,

512) = 74.76, p < .001. While OQ-SD (B = .107, p < .001), OR-IR (B = .182, p < .001), and

EUBI-P (B = .033, p < .05) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = -.013, p > .05) did not.

Research Question 4

Hanover Data: To investigate whether stalkers report more problems with relationships, a multiple regression was conducted to investigated whether OQ-SD, OQ-SR, ORI-P and

EUPBI-P predicted OQ-IR. The results of the regression for Model 4 indicated that the model

explained 19.92% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-IR, F (4,

105) = 6.22, p < .001. While OQ-SD (B = .075, p < .05) contributed significantly to the model,

ORI-P (B = -.008, p > .05), OR-SR (B = .244, p > .05), and EUBI-P (B = .006, p > .05) did not.

Table 14

Multiple regression analyses for variables predicting OQ total [Model 1], OQ-SD [Model 2],

OQ-SR [Model 3], and OQ-IR [Model 4] among participants in Hanover (n=110)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 B Robust B Robust B Robust Robust Predictor B SE SE SE SE OQ-SD - - - - .140*** .033 .075* .032 OQ-IR - - .649* .275 .231* .116 - - OQ-SR - - 1.28*** .326 - - .244 .134 ORI-P -.022 .175 .059 .148 -.026 .051 -.008 .034 EUPBI-P .358* .168 .127 .095 .027 .026 .006 .023 Constant 96.0*** 6.31 4.29 9.11 6.76* 2.66 19.6*** 2.54 R2 .089 .348 .331 .199 F 4.85** 10.9*** 15.6*** 6.22*** Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 < .01. ***p < .001

John Jay Data: To investigate whether stalkers report more problems with relationships, a multiple regression was conducted to investigate whether OQ-SD, OQ-SR, ORI-P and EUPBI-

P predicted OQ-IR. The results of the regression for Model 4 indicated that the model explained

33.01% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-IR, F(4, 279) =

29.34, p < .001. While OQ-SD (B = .118, p < .001) and OR-SR (B = .218, p < .01), and EUBI-P

(B = .045, p < .05) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = -.012, p > .05) did not.

Table 15

Multiple regression analyses for variables predicting OQ total [Model 1], OQ-SD [Model 2],

OQ-SR [Model 3], and OQ-IR [Model 4] among participants in John Jay College (n=284)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 B Robust B Robust B Robust Robust Predictor B SE SE SE SE

OQ-SD - - - - .141*** .015 .118*** .022 OQ-IR - - .901*** .157 .130** .044 - - OQ-SR - - 1.80*** .196 - - .218** .078 ORI-P -.191 .203 -.063 .074 .000 .027 -.012 .043 EUPBI-P .608*** .095 .115* .052 .028 .017 .045* .021 Constant 82.4*** 5.53 -13.4** 4.20 9.43*** 1.15 14.7*** 1.58 R2 .146 .496 .447 .330 F 24.2*** 85.5*** 57.5*** 29.3*** Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

Reddit Data: To investigate whether stalkers report more problems with relationships, a multiple regression was conducted to investigated whether OQ-SD, OQ-SR, ORI-P and EUPBI-

P predicted OQ-IR. The results of the regression for Model 4 indicated that the model explained

25.12% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-IR, F(4, 127) =

14.08, p < .001. While OQ-SD (B = .059, p < .01), OR-SR (B = .156, p < .05), and EUBI-P (B =

.057, p < .05) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = -.020, p > .05) did not.

Table 16

Multiple regression analyses for variables predicting OQ total [Model 1], OQ-SD [Model 2],

OQ-SR [Model 3], and OQ-IR [Model 4] among participants in Reddit (n=132)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 B Robust B Robust B Robust Robust Predictor B SE SE SE SE OQ-SD - - - - .095*** .017 .059** .022 OQ-IR - - 1.10* .441 .204* .088 - - OQ-SR - - 1.34*** .346 - - .156* .068 ORI-P -.427 .268 -.124 .163 -.047 .030 -.020 .031 EUPBI-P .646*** .164 .145 .123 .063* .028 .057* .025 Constant 96.8*** 5.64 1.08 11.1 7.95** 2.31 19.4*** 1.53 R2 .134 .348 .293 .251 F 11.8*** 10.9*** 21.8*** 14.1*** Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

Combined data: To investigate whether stalkers report more problems with relationships, a multiple regression was conducted to investigated whether OQ-SD, OQ-SR,

ORI-P and EUPBI-P predicted OQ-IR. The results of the regression for Model 4 indicated that

the model explained 28% of the variance and that the model was a significant predictor of OQ-

IR, F(4, 512) = 42.89, p < .001. While OQ-SD (B = .091, p < .001), OR-SR (B = .219, p < .001), and EUBI-P (B = .040, p < .01) contributed significantly to the model, ORI-P (B = -.011, p > .05) did not.

Table 17

Multiple regression analyses for variables predicting OQ total [Model 1], OQ-SD [Model 2], OQ-SR [Model 3], and OQ-IR [Model 4] (n=517) Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 B Robust B Robust B Robust Robust Predictor B SE SE SE SE OQ-SD - - - - .107*** .011 .091*** .013 OQ-IR - - 1.00*** .143 .182*** .041 - - OQ-SR - - 1.41*** .166 - - .219*** .052 ORI-P -.247 .139 -.085 .077 -.013 .021 -.011 .023 EUPBI-P .611*** .091 .184** .053 .033* .014 .040** .014 Constant 87.5*** 3.838 -7.56 4.02 9.62*** .979 16.7*** 1.09 R2 0.15 0.39 0.33 .28 F 28.96*** 82.94*** 74.76*** 42.89*** Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001

Summary

In this chapter I explored the four research aims designed to address the central hypothesis of this study, which is that personality profile of stalkers will be replicated in a general population, that it will apply to prospective stalkers, and that the most extreme scores of psychopathology will be found in people who could be classified as rejected stalkers. The data analysis supports the use of ECR-R anxiety and ECR-R avoidance to predict cyberstalking and stalking and harassment. Chapter 5 will discuss a detailed summary of the findings, contributions of this study, theoretical and practical implications, limitations, and future directions.

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Stalking is a significant societal problem. It is estimated that over 5 million men and women are victims of harassment and stalking in the United States within a given year. Although men are sometimes victims of stalking, women are victims in considerably greater numbers. The most common stalking occurs in ex-intimate relationships where the victim is a woman and the perpetrator is a male. Stalking laws were developed to protect such victims; however, many cases are pled down and perpetrators are seldom punished for the actual crime of stalking. The law requires the victim to experience fear; however, as discussed unless the behavior is extreme, lesser charges are the norm.

The onset of new laws and media attention spurred researchers into action; however, due to the imprecise definitional nature of anti-stalking and harassment laws, both harassment and stalking cases were utilized in research studies, sometimes confounding the ability to accrue knowledge specifically about stalking. Creating research samples with people on harassment and stalking charges and convictions was done to increase participant numbers and gain a deeper understanding of stalking because both types of behaviors seem to be on the same spectrum.

Stalkers were then classified based on characteristics of their behaviors such as presence of psychopathology, relationship to the victim, and motivation to stalk. As a result, numerous typologies were developed to help researchers organize and statistically explain stalking. At the same time, theorists have been trying to understand the causes of stalking.

Currently, attachment theory appears to provide some explanation as to why stalkers stalk. Disrupted caregiver-child relationships during critical developmental periods is hypothesized to continue in adulthood. The current research demonstrates a clear pattern of

insecure attachment in cyberstalkers, particularly the anxious types. In the Hanover, John Jay

College, Reddit and combined samples, stronger cyberstalking behavior was associated with insecure anxious attachment, but less so with insecure avoidant attachment. This makes sense as those with a tendency to avoid others keep people at a distance rather than pursuing contact.

The current research also revealed that the EUPBI significantly contributed to each model; however, the ORI did not. The ORI measures traditional stalking whereas the EUPBI was designed to capture online activity. Based on this result, it appears that the face of stalking has changed. Participants were endorsing items related to cyberstalking rather than methods seen prior to the expansion and growth of social media. Again, these results are not surprising as electronic communication is the new norm and the average age across all samples was 20 to 26 years old, which is an age group that is generally very familiar with technology.

In addition, the results indicate that cyberstalkers were endorsing higher rates of anxiety, depression, and distress. These results also make sense as the most common type of cyberstalker found across each sample were ex-intimate’s seeking reconciliation (rejected stalker). When relationships break up, involved parties experience sadness and anxiety and often one party does not want the relationship to end so continues to pursue the other; this behavior has the potential to escalate into stalking or harassment. The current research was also interested in whether cyberstalking predicted problems with work and school and this result was observed in the John

Jay group as increases in cyberstalking as measured by the EUPBI predicted work and school problems. This result may be due to the younger demographic of this group as they have less life experience, and many are still developing their ability to tolerate stress. In addition, the sample was more diverse and predominantly female. The results also revealed that stalking increased relationship problems in the John Jay and Reddit groups, but not Hanover participants. Again,

the results may be due to the younger demographic seen in the John Jay Sample and the larger number of participants. The combined data revealed that increases in stalking as measured by the

EUPBI predicted problems with depression & anxiety, problems with work & school and also relationship problems. The sweeping results are likely due to the larger sample size and the variable nature of the group. However, across all participants a clear pattern was observed; increases in cyberstalking predicted increases in psychopathology as measured by the OQ-45.

There are several limitations in this study. Self-report measures were used which are well known to be subject to bias. Participants can exaggerate or refuse to answer questions and even deny a problem exists; therefore, potentially skewing the results. In addition, the sensitive nature of the questions may have caused participants to respond inaccurately due to embarrassment or a lack insight into their own behavior. However, self-report measures are commonly used in research and prior to completing this study, participants were warned about the sensitive nature of the questions, which potentially reduced the general concerns with self-report measures.

Moreover, the ORI in this study was not effective at capturing stalking behavior perhaps due to the traditional nature of the measures items. However, even though the EUBPI was a more robust measure, the measure is relatively new and there are no clear guidelines to determine what is or what is not cyberstalking. In addition, while the sample size in each group was adequate, those endorsing actual stalking behavior was relatively low, which suggests that the results cannot be generalized to the population.

The majority of participants in this study were female, white, and identified as straight, which again limits the generalization of the results. In addition, women are more likely to be victims of stalking rather than perpetrators so future research should focus on recruiting a larger male sample. Moreover, there is little research on minorities and stalking; therefore, future

studies should seek to recruit and include persons from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds as well as persons identifying as non-cis gender.

It is clear that more studies are needed particularly with regards to attachment style and cyberstalking. Biological theories are lacking and there is little research about what actually causes cyberstalking. Therefore, insecure anxious attachment appears to provide the best explanation as to why stalkers stalk, at least at the present moment. In addition, the literature has clearly defined that the type of relationship and the motivation of the stalker is very important.

Not only to predict risk, but also to determine level of care and likelihood of escalation. For example, we know that ex-intimates are the most common victims and that this factor increases the risk of assault and aggressive behavior especially in the presence of a threat. Knowledge of this particularly in law enforcement circles may cause officers to take reports of stalking behavior more seriously in order to prevent escalation, prevent physical harm, or even death.

These factors have been studied in offline stalkers; however, little is known about cyberstalking.

Although the research indicates that there might be few differences between cyberstalkers and offline stalkers, more research is needed to determine if this is true. Since the concept is relatively new, the current research is not as in-depth as the research in offline stalkers, and the majority of research has been completed with student samples that have utilized ‘homemade’ measures, which can be problematic due to lack of reliability and validity. Utilizing validated measures, future research should examine the differences between cyberstalkers and offline stalkers based on their motivation and relationship to their victim. In addition, exploring attachment style, narcissism, substance abuse, and psychopathology is this population is necessary to increase the knowledge and advance research.

There are several clinical implications of this study. Research has demonstrated that insecure attachments develop during the formative years and persist into adulthood. As adults, persons with anxious insecure attachments who are seeking reconciliation cross personal boundaries, which place their victim in fear. If the unwanted pursuit persists and the behavior escalates, the police and courts become involved. Early childhood interventions have the potential to lessen this risk. If at risk children received these early interventions, the hope is that they will develop into psychologically healthy adults and therefore have the psychological resources to manage break-up’s in a healthier manner. If this was the case, there would be less domestic incidents, less harassment, and ultimately less stalking. In addition, there would be less burden on the criminal justice system. Moreover, courts, police, and community members view stalking behavior negatively. However, the results of this study clearly demonstrate that stalkers are psychologically suffering. Perhaps reframing the way we think about these individual and finding treatments rather than punishments could be beneficial in reducing the negative behaviors associated with stalking. In addition, treatment has the potential to improve the overall mental health of the stalker and ultimately their victims. There is little research in this area so future research should focus on filling this gap.

References

Ainsworth, M. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: a

psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Ainsworth, M. S. (1979). Infant–mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34(10),

932-937. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.932

Alexy, E. M., Burgess, A. W., Baker, T., & Smoyak, S. A. (2005). Perceptions of

Cyberstalking Among College Students. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 5(3),

279-289. doi:10.1093/brief-treatment/mhi020

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L.M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of

four-category model. Journal of personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.

Beatty, D. (2003). Stalking legislation in the United States. In M. P. Brewster, M. P. Brewster

(Eds.), Stalking: Psychology, risk factors, interventions, and law (pp. 2-1). Kingston, NJ,

US: Civic Research Institute.

Behrens, K. Y., Hesse, E., & Main, M. (2007). Mothers' attachment status as determined

by the Adult Attachment Interview predicts their 6-year-olds' reunion responses: A study

conducted in Japan. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1553.

Benitez, C. T., McNeil, D. E., & Binder, R. L. (2010). Do protection orders protect? Journal of

the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 38(3), 376-385.

Book, H.E. (1998). How to practice brief psychodynamic therapy: The core conflictual

relationship theme method. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.

doi:10.1037/10251-000

Borum, R. (1996). Improving the clinical practice of violence risk assessment: Technology,

guidelines, and training. American Psychologist, 51(9), 945-956. doi:10.1037/0003-

066X.51.9.945

Bowlby, J. (1969). Disruption of affectional bonds and its effects on behavior. Canada's Mental

Health Supplement, 5912.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss. New York, NY, US: Basic Books.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult

attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson, W. S. Rholes, J. A. Simpson, W.

S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York, NY,

US: Guilford Press.

Brewster, M. P. (2000). Stalking by former intimates: Verbal threats and other predictors

of physical violence. Violence and Victims, 15(1), 41-54.

Brewster, M. (2001). Legal help-seeking experiences of former intimate-stalking victims.

Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12, 91-112.

Brewster, M. P. (2002). Stalking by former intimates: Verbal threats and other predictors

of physical violence. In K. E. Davis, I. H. Frieze, R. D. Maiuro, K. E. Davis, I. H. Frieze,

R. D. Maiuro (Eds.), Stalking: Perspectives on victims and perpetrators (pp. 292-311).

New York, NY, US: Springer Publishing Co.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). (2007). National Crime Victimization Survey: Stalking

victimization supplement [Computer File–ICPSR version]. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice.

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. doi:10.1023/A:1021931509143

Canter, D. V., & Ioannou, M. (2004). A multivariate model of stalking behaviors.

Behaviormetrika, 31(2), 113-130. doi:10.2333/bhmk.31.113

Cass, A. I., & Mallicoat, S. L. (2015). College student perceptions of victim action: Will targets

of stalking report to police? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2), 250-269.

doi:10.1007/s12103-014-9252-8

Catalano, S. (2012). Stalking victims in the United States – Revised (NCJ 224527). U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Cattaneo, L. B., Cho, S., Botuck, S. (2011). Describing intimate partner violence stalking over

time: An effort to inform victim-centered service provision. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 26 (17), 3428-3454. Doi:10.1177/0886260511403745

Cavezza C, McEwan T. Cyberstalking versus off-line stalking in a forensic sample.

Psychology, Crime & Law [serial online]. November 2014;20(10):955-970. Available

from: Criminal Justice Abstracts with Full Text, Ipswich, MA.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation

analysis for the behavioral sciences. (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Coleman, F. L. (1997). Stalking behavior and the cycle of domestic violence. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 12(3), 420-432. doi:10.1177/088626097012003007

Cupach, W. R., Spitzberg, B. H., & Carson, C. L. (2000). Toward a theory of obsessive relational

intrusion and stalking. In K. Dindia, S. Duck, K. Dindia, S. Duck (Eds.), Communication

and personal relationships (pp. 131-146). New York, NY, US: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2004). The dark side of relationship pursuit: From attraction

to obsession and stalking. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Cupach, W. R., Spitzberg, B. H., Bolingbroke, C. M., & Tellitocci, B. S. (2011). Persistence of

attempts to reconcile a terminated romantic relationship: A partial test of Relational Goal

Pursuit Theory. Communication Reports, 24(2), 99-115.

doi:10.1080/08934215.2011.613737

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.

Devers, L. (2011). Plea and charge bargaining: Research summary. Arlington, Virginia: Bureau

of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.

Dietz, N. A., & Martin, P. Y. (2007). Women who are stalked: Questioning the fear standard.

Violence Against Women, 13(7), 750-776. doi:10.1177/1077801207302698

Douglas, K. S., & Dutton, D. G. (2001). Assessing the link between stalking and domestic

violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6(6), 519-546. doi:10.1016/S1359-

1789(00)00018-5

Dreßing, H., Bailer, J., Anders, A., Wagner, H., & Gallas, C. (2014). Cyberstalking in a

large sample of social network users: Prevalence, characteristics, and impact upon

victims. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 17(2), 61-67.

doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0231

Dunn, J. (2002). Courting Disaster: Intimate Stalking, Culture, and Criminal justice: New York:

Aldine de Gruyter.

Dutton, D. G., Saunders, K., Starzomski, A., & Bartholomew, K. (1994). Intimacy-anger

and insecure attachment as precursors of abuse in intimate relationships. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 24(15), 1367-1386. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01554.x

Dutton, D. G., & Golant, S. K. (1995). The batterer: A psychological profile. New York, NY,

US: Basic Books.

Dutton, D. G., van Ginkel, C., & Landolt, M. A. (1996). Jealousy, intimate abusiveness,

and intrusiveness. Journal of Family Violence, 11(4), 411-423. doi:10.1007/BF02333425

Dutton, L. B., & Winstead, B. A. (2006). Predicting unwanted pursuit:

Attachment, relationship satisfaction, relationship alternatives, and break-up distress.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(4), 565-586.

doi:10.1177/0265407506065984

Dutton-Greene, L. B. (2004). Testing a model of unwanted pursuit and stalking.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rhode Island.

Dye, M. L., & Davis, K. E. (2003). Stalking and psychological abuse: Common factors

and relationship-specific characteristics. Violence and Victims, 18(2), 163-180.

doi:10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.163

Eke, A. W., Hilton, N. Z., Meloy, J. R., Mohandie, K., & Williams, J. (2011). Predictors of

recidivism by stalkers: A nine-year follow-up of police contacts. Behavioral Sciences &

The Law, 29(2), 271-283. doi:10.1002/bsl.975

El Asam, A. & Samara, M. (2016). Cyberbullying and the law: A review of psychological and

legal challenges. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 127-141.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.012

Finn, J. (2004). A Survey of Online Harassment at a University Campus. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 19(4), 468-483. doi:10.1177/0886260503262083

Foellmi, M. C., Rosenfeld, B., & Galietta, M. (2016). Assessing risk for recidivism in individuals

convicted of stalking offenses: Predictive validity of the guidelines for stalking

assessment and management. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(5), 600-616.

doi:10.1177/0093854815610612

Fonagy, P. (2001). Attachment Theory and Psychoanalysis. New York: Other Press

Footlick, J.K. Howard, L., Camper, D., Sciolino, E., & Smith, S. (1975). Rape alert. Newsweek,

70.

Fox, J., & Tokunaga, R. S. (2015). Romantic partner monitoring after breakups:

Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis

of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 78(2), 350-365. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.78.2.350

Attachment, dependence, distress, and post-dissolution online surveillance via social

networking sites. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 18(9), 491-498.

doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0123

Farnham, F., James, D., & Cantrell, P. (2000). Association between violence, psychosis,

and the relationship to victims in stalkers. Lancet, 355 - 199.

Gillett, T., Eminson, S. R., & Hassanyeh, F. (1990). Primary and secondary erotomania:

Clinical characteristics and follow-up. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 82(1), 65-69.

doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.1990.tb01357.x

Gilligan, M. J. (1992). Stalking the stalker: developing new laws to thwart those who terrorize

others. Georgia Law Review, 27, 285-342.

Häkkänen, H., Hagelstam, C., & Santtila, P. (2003). Stalking actions, prior offender-

victim relationships and issuing of restraining orders in a Finnish sample of stalkers.

Legal and Criminological Psychology, 8(2), 189-206. doi:10.1348/135532503322362960

Hall, D. M. (1998). The victims of stalking. In J. R. Meloy, J. R. Meloy (Eds.), The psychology

of stalking: Clinical and forensic perspectives (pp. 113-137). San Diego, CA, US:

Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012490560-3/50025-6

Harmon, R. B., Rosner, R., & Owens, H. (1995). Obsessional harassment and erotomania in a

criminal court population. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40(2), 188-196.

doi:10.1520/JFS15339J

Harmon, R. B., Rosner, R., & Owens, H. (1998). Sex and violence in a forensic population of

obsessional harassers. Psychology, Public Policy, And Law, 4(1-2), 236-249.

doi:10.1037/1076-8971.4.1-2.236

Hart, S. D. (1998). The role of psychopathy in assessing risk for violence: Conceptual and

methodological issues. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3(Part 1), 121-137.

doi:10.1111/j.2044-8333.1998.tb00354.x

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment

process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511

Jouvenal, J. (2013, July 14). Stalkers use online ads as weapon against victims. The

Washington post. Retrieved from http:/www.thewashingtonpost.com

Kamir, O. (2001). Every breath you take: Stalking narratives and the law. Ann Arbor, MI:

University of Michigan Press.

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. Journal of The American

Academy of Psychiatry and The Law, 25(3), 317-334.

Kienlen, K. K. (1998). Developmental and social antecedents of stalking. In J. R. Meloy, J. R.

Meloy (Eds.), The psychology of stalking: Clinical and forensic perspectives (pp. 51-67).

San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012490560-3/50022-0

Kingham, M., & Gordon, H. (2004) Aspects of morbid jealousy. Advances in Psychiatric

Treatment10:207-15.

Kleinbaum, D. G., Dietz, K., Gail, M., Klein, M., & Klein, M. (2002). Logistic regression. New

York: Springer-Verlag.

Kohn, M., Chase, J., & McMahon, P. (2000). Prevalence and health consequences of

stalking— Louisiana 1998-1999. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(20),

25-88.

Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Webster, C. D., & Eaves, D. (1995). Manual for the Spousal Assault

Risk Assessment Guide (2nd ed.). Vancouver, BC: British Columbia Institute Against

Family Violence .

Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., & Lyon, D. R. (2002). Managing stalkers: Coordinating treatment and

supervision. Stalking and psychosexual obsession: Psychological perspectives for

prevention, policing and treatment, 141-163.

Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., & Lyon, D. R. (2008). Risk assessment of public figure stalkers. In J.

R. Meloy, L. Sheridan, J. Hoffmann, J. R. Meloy, L. Sheridan, J. Hoffmann (Eds.),

Stalking, threatening, and attacking public figures: A psychological and behavioral

analysis (pp. 343-361). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.

doi:10.1093/med:psych/9780195326383.003.0015

Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., & Lyon, D. (2008). Guidelines for Stalking Assessment and

Management (SAM): User Manual. Vancouver, Canada: ProActive Resolutions Inc.

Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Lyon, D. R., & Storey, J. E. (2011). The development and validation of

the Guidelines for Stalking Assessment and Management. Behavioral Sciences & The

Law, 29(2), 302-316. doi:10.1002/bsl.978

Lambert, E. G., Smith, B., Geistman, J., Cluse-Tolar, T., & Jiang, S. (2013). Do men and women

differ in their perceptions of stalking: An exploratory study among college students.

Violence and Victims, 28(2), 195-209. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.09-201

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., & Rohling, M. (2000). Negative family-of-origin experiences: Are

they associated with perpetrating unwanted pursuit behaviors? Violence and Victims,

15(4), 459-471.

Lee, B. H., & O'Sullivan, L. F. (2014). The ex-factor: Characteristics of online and offline

post relationship contact and tracking among Canadian emerging adults. Canadian

Journal of Human Sexuality, 23(2), 96-105. doi:10.3138/cjhs.2415

Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New

York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

Lobbestael, J., Leurgans, M., & Arntz, A. (2011). Inter‐rater reliability of the Structured Clinical

Interview for DSM‐IV Axis I disorders (SCID I) and Axis II disorders (SCID II). Clinical

Psychology & Psychotherapy, 18(1), 75-79. doi:10.1002/cpp.693

Logan, T. K., & Cole, J. (2007). The impact of partner stalking on mental health and protective

order outcomes over time. Violence and Victims, 22(5), 546-562.

doi:10.1891/088667007782312168

MacKenzie, R. D., Mullen, P. E., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2006). Mental disorders in stalkers: The

importance of the nexus between mental health professional and the law. Paper presented

at the 6th Annual Conference of the International Association of Forensic Mental Health:

Amsterdam.

MacKenzie, R. (2006). The systematic assessment of stalkers: can typology enhance

management? Unpublished DPsych thesis, Monash University.

MacKenzie, R. D., Mullen, P. E., Ogloff, J. P., McEwan, T. E., & James, D. V. (2008). Parental

bonding and adult attachment styles in different types of stalker. Journal of Forensic

Sciences, 53(6), 1443-1449.

MacKenzie, R. D., McEwan, T. E., Pathé, M. T., James, D. V., Ogloff, J. R. P., & Mullen,

P. E. (2009). The stalking risk profile: Guidelines for the assessment and management of

stalkers. Melbourne: StalkInc. & Centre for Forensic Behavioral Science

MacKenzie, R. D., & James, D. V. (2011). Management and treatment of stalkers: Problems,

options, and solutions. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 29(2), 220-239.

doi:10.1002/bsl.980

Main, M., & Cassidy, J. (1988). Categories of response to reunion with the parent at age

6: Predictable from infant attachment classifications and stable over a 1-month period.

Developmental Psychology, 24(3), 415-426. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.24.3.415

Malsch, M., de Keijser, J. W., & Debets, S. C. (2011). Are stalkers recidivists? Repeated

offending by convicted stalkers. Violence and Victims, 26(1), 3-15. doi:10.1891/0886-

6708.26.1.3

Markman, R. & LaBrecque, R. (1994). Obsessed: The stalking of Theresa Saldana. New York,

NY, US: William Morrow & Co.

McEwan, T., Mullen, P. E., & Purcell, R. (2007). Identifying risk factors in stalking: A

review of current research. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(1), 1-9.

doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2006.03.005

McEwan, T. (2007). Assessing risk in the stalking situation. Unpublished DPysch thesis,

Monash University.

McEwan, T. E., Mullen, P. E., & MacKenzie, R. (2009). A study of the predictors of persistence

in stalking situations. Law and Human Behavior, 33(2), 149-158. doi:10.1007/s10979-

008-9141-0

McEwan, T. E., Pathé, M., & Ogloff, J. P. (2011). Advances in stalking risk assessment.

Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 29(2), 180-201. doi:10.1002/bsl.973

McEwan, T. E., MacKenzie, R. E., Mullen, P. E., & James, D. V. (2012). Approach and

escalation in stalking. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 23(3), 392-

409.doi:10.1080/14789949.2012.679008

McEwan, T. E., & Strand, S. (2013). The role of psychopathology in stalking by adult

strangers and acquaintances. Australian And New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 47(6),

546-555. doi:10.1177/0004867413479408

McEwan, T. E., Shea, D. E., Daffern, M., MacKenzie, R. D., Ogloff, J. R., &

Mullen, P. E. (2016). The reliability and predictive validity of the Stalking Risk Profile.

Assessment, 1073191116653470.

McFarlane, J., Campbell, J. C., & Watson, K. (2002). Intimate partner stalking and

femicide: Urgent implications for women's safety. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 20

(1-2), 51-68. doi:10.1002/bsl.47

McMillan, S. (2010, June). An investigation of the underlying mechanisms of stalking.

Research paper for M.Sc., Forensic Psychology, Glasgow Caledonian University.

Meloy, J. R., & Gothard, S. (1995). Demographic and clinical comparison of obsessional

followers and offenders with mental disorders. The American Journal of Psychiatry,

152(2), 258-263. doi:10.1176/ajp.152.2.258

Meloy, J. R. (1996). A clinical investigation of the obsessional follower. In L. B. Schlesinger, L.

B. Schlesinger (Eds.), Explorations in criminal psychopathology: Clinical syndromes

with forensic implications (pp. 9-32). Springfield, IL, US: Charles C Thomas Publisher.

Meloy, J. R. (1998). The psychology of stalking: Clinical and forensic perspectives. San

Diego, CA, US: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012490560-3/50020-7

Meloy, J. R. (1999). Stalking: An old behavior, a new crime. Psychiatric Clinics of North

America, 22(1), 85-99. doi:10.1016/S0193-953X (05)70061-7

Meloy, J., Rivers, L., Siegel, L., Gothard, S., Naimark, D., & Nicolini, J. (2000). A

Replication Study of Obsessional Followers and Offenders with Mental Disorders.

Journal of Forensic Sciences 45, (1) 147-152

Meloy, J. R. (2001). Threats, stalking, and criminal harassment. In G.-F. Pinard &

L.Pagani (Eds.), Clinical assessment of dangerousness: Empirical contributions (pp. 238-

257). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.2001-00676

01210.1017/CBO9780511500015.014.

Meloy, J. R., Davis, B., & Lovette, J. (2001). Risk factors for violence among stalkers.

Journal of Threat Management, 1, 3-16.

Meloy, J. R., & Fisher, H. E. (2005). Some thoughts on the neurobiology of stalking. J.

Forensic. Sci.50, 1472-1480. doi: 10.1520/JFS2004508.

Menard, K.S., & Pincus, A.L. (2012). Predicting overt and cyber stalking perpetration by male

and female college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27 (11), 2183-2207

Michael, A., Mirza, S., Mirza, K. A., Babu, V. S., & Vitahyathil, E. (1995). Morbid

jealousy in alcoholism. Br J Psychiatry1995; 167: 668-672.

Miller, L. (2012). Stalking: Patterns, motives, and intervention strategies. Aggression

and Violent Behavior, 17(6), 495-506. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.07.001

Millon, T., Davis, R., & Millon, C. (1997). MCMI-III manual (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN:

National Computer Systems

Mohandie, K., Meloy, J. R., McGowan, M. G., & Williams, J. (2006). The RECON typology of

stalking: Reliability and validity based on a large sample of North American stalkers.

Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(1), 147-155. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2005.00030.x

Morocco, K., Runyan, C., & Butts, J. (1998). Femicide in North Carolina, 1991-1993: A

statewide study of patterns and precursors. Homicide Studies, 2, 422-446.

Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., Purcell, R., & Stuart, G. W. (1999). Study of stalkers. The American

Journal of Psychiatry, 156(8), 1244-1249.

Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., & Purcell, R. (2000). Stalking. The Psychologist, 13(9), 454-459.

Mullen, P. E., & Pathe, M. (2002). Stalking. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and Justice: A

review of research (Vol. 29, pp. 273-318). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., & Purcell, R. (2009). Stalkers and their victims., 2nd ed. New York,

NY, US: Cambridge University Press.

Nabors, E. L., Dietz, T. L., & Jasinski, J. L. (2006). Domestic Violence Beliefs and Perceptions

Among College Students. Violence and Victims, 21(6), 779-795. doi:10.1891/vv-

v21i6a007

National Criminal Justice Association (1993). Project to develop a model Anti-stalking code for

States, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

National Opinion Polls Research Group. (1997). One in four young adults knows a victim of

stalking. London: Author.

Nicastro, A. M., Cousins, A. V., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2000). The tactical face of stalking. Journal

of Criminal Justice, 28(1), 69-82. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(99)00038-0

Nobles, M. R., Reyns, B. W., Fox, K. A., & Fisher, B. S. (2014). Protection

against pursuit: A conceptual and empirical comparison of cyberstalking and stalking

victimization among a national sample. Justice Quarterly, 31(6), 986-1014.

Norris, S. M., Huss, M. T., & Palarea, R. E. (2011). A pattern of violence: Analyzing the

relationship between intimate partner violence and stalking. Violence and Victims, 26(1),

103-115. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.26.1.103

Opler, L. A., Klahr, D. M., & Ramirez, P. M. (1995). Pharmacologic treatment of

delusions. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 18(2), 379-391.

Owens, J. G. (2016). Why definitions matter: Stalking victimization in the United States. Journal

of Interpersonal Violence, 31(12), 2196-2226. doi:10.1177/0886260515573577

Palarea, R. W., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1998). Unwanted Pursuit

Behavior Inventory, Unpublished measure.

Palarea, R. E., Scalora, M. J., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1999). Risk assessment inventory

for stalking. Unpublished measure.

Palarea, R. E., Zona, M. A., Lane, J. C., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1999). The dangerous

nature of intimate relationship stalking: Threats, violence, and associated risk factors.

Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 17(3), 269-283. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-

0798(199907/09)17:3<269: AID-BSL346>3.0.CO;2-6

Parker, G., Tupling, H., and Brown, L.B. (1979) A Parental Bonding Instrument. British Journal

of Medical Psychology, 1979, 52, 1-10.

Parsons-Pollard, N., & Moriarty, L. J. (2009). Cyberstalking: Utilizing what we do know.

Victims & Offenders, 4(4), 435-441. doi:10.1080/15564880903227644

Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (1997). The impact of stalkers on their victims. The British Journal of

Psychiatry, 17012-17. doi:10.1192/bjp.170.1.12

Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. (2002). The victim of stalking. In Boon, J., & Sheridan, L. (Eds.),

Stalking and psychosexual obsession: Psychological perspectives for prevention, policing

and treatment (pp. 1-22). Chichester, UK: Wiley.10.1002/9780470713037.ch1.

Patton, C. L., Nobles, M. R., & Fox, K. A. (2010). Look who's stalking: Obsessive pursuit

and attachment theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(3), 282-290.

doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.02.013

Phillips, L., Quirk, R., Rosenfeld, B., & O'Connor, M. (2004). Is it stalking? Perceptions of

stalking among college undergraduates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(1), 73-96.

doi:10.1177/0093854803259251

Pillai, K., & Kraya, N. (2000). Psychostimulants, adult attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

and morbid jealousy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 34(1), 160-163.

doi:10.1046/j.1440-1614.2000.00694.x

Pinals, D. A. (2007). Stalking: Psychiatric perspectives and practical applications. New York:

Oxford University Press.

Pincus, A. L. (2013). The Pathological Narcissism Inventory. In J. S. Ogrodniczuk, J. S.

Ogrodniczuk (Eds.), Understanding and treating pathological narcissism (pp. 93-110).

Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/14041-006

Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (2002). The incidence and nature of stalking in the

Australian community. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(1), 114-

120. doi:10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.00985.x

Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (2004). Editorial: When do repeated intrusions become

stalking? Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 15(4), 571-583.

doi:10.1080/14789940412331313368

100

Reavis, J. A., Allen, E. K., & Meloy, J. R. (2008). Psychopathy in a mixed gender sample of

adult stalkers. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(5), 1214-1217. doi:10.1111/j.1556-

4029.2008.00839.x

Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2012). Stalking in the twilight zone: Extent of

cyberstalking victimization and offending among college students. Deviant Behavior,

33(1), 1-25. doi:10.1080/01639625.2010.538364

Roberts, K. A. (2005). Women's experience of violence during stalking by former

romantic partners. Violence Against Women, 11(1), 89-114.

doi:10.1177/1077801204271096

Rosenfeld, B. (2000). Assessment and treatment of obsessional harassment. Aggression and

Violent Behavior, 5(6), 529-549. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(98)00039-1

Rosenfeld, B., & Harmon, R. (2002). Factors associated with violence in stalking and

obsessional harassment cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(6), 671-691.

doi:10.1177/009385402237998

Rosenfeld, B. (2003). Recidivism in stalking and obsessional harassment. Law and Human

Behavior, 27(3), 251-265. doi:10.1023/A:1023479706822

Rosenfeld, B. (2004). Violence risk factors in stalking and obsessional harassment: A review and

preliminary meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(1), 9-36.

doi:10.1177/0093854803259241

Rosenfeld, B., Galietta, M., Ivanoff, A., Garcia-Mansilla, A., Martinez, R., Fava, J., & ... Green,

D. (2007). Dialectical behavior therapy for the treatment of stalking offenders. The

International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 6(2), 95-103.

doi:10.1080/14999013.2007.10471254

101

Schlesinger, L. B. (2002). Stalking, homicide, and catathymic process: A case study.

International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(1), 64-74.

doi:10.1177/0306624X02461005

Schwartz-Watts, D., & Morgan, D. W. (1998). Violent versus nonviolent stalkers. Journal of The

American Academy of Psychiatry and The Law, 26(2), 241-245.

Sheridan, L., & Davies, G. M. (2001). Violence and the prior victim–stalker relationship.

Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 11(2), 102-116. doi:10.1002/cbm.375

Sheridan, L., & Davies, G. M. (2001). What is stalking? The match between legislation

and public perception. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6(1), 3-17.

doi:10.1348/135532501168163

Sheridan, L., Gillett, R., Davies, G. M., Blaauw, E., & Patel, D. (2003). 'There's no smoke

without fire': Are male ex-partners perceived as more 'entitled' to stalk than acquaintance

or stranger stalkers? British Journal of Psychology, 94(1), 87-98.

doi:10.1348/000712603762842129

Sheridan, L. P., & Grant, T. (2007). Is cyberstalking different? Psychology, Crime &

Law, 13(6), 627-640. doi:10.1080/10683160701340528

Sheridan, L. P., North, A. C., & Scott, A. J. (2014). Experiences of stalking in same-sex

and opposite-sex contexts. Violence and Victims, 29(6), 1014-1028. doi:10.1891/0886-

6708.VV-D-13-00072

Sinclair, H. C., & Frieze, I. H. (2005). When Courtship Persistence Becomes Intrusive

Pursuit: Comparing Rejecter and Pursuer Perspectives of Unrequited Attraction. Sex

Roles, 52(11-12), 839-852. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-4203-4

Smith, S.G., Chen, J., Basile, K.C., Gilbert, L.K., Merrick, M.T., Patel, N., Walling, M., & Jain,

102

B (2017). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-

2012 State Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Rhea, J. (1999). Obsessive relational intrusion and sexual coercion

victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(1), 3-20.

doi:10.1177/088626099014001001

Spitzberg, B. H., Marshall, L., & Cupach, W. R. (2001). Obsessive relational intrusion, coping,

and sexual coercion victimization. Communication Reports, 14(1), 19-30.

doi:10.1080/08934210109367733

Spitzberg, B. (2002). The Tactical Topography of Stalking Victimization and Management.

Trauma, Violence, and Abuse, 3 (4), 261-288.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of the

emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(1), 64-86.

doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.05.001

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2014). The dark side of relationship pursuit: From

attraction to obsession and stalking. New York: Routledge.

Stalk [Def. 3]. (n.d.) OED Online. In Oxford English Dictionary. Retrieved March 12, 2017,

from http://www.oed.com

Stewart, J., & Panksepp, J. (2013). Biological foundations: The SEEKING system as an affective

source for motivation and cognition. In S. Kreitler, S. Kreitler (Eds.), Cognition and

motivation: Forging an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 109-136). New York, NY, US:

Cambridge University Press.

Storey, J. E., Hart, S. D., Meloy, J. R., & Reavis, J. A. (2009). Psychopathy and stalking. Law

103

and Human Behavior, 33(3), 237-246. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9149-5

Storey, J. E., & Hart, S. D. (2011). How do police respond to stalking? An examination

of the risk management strategies and tactics used in a specialized anti-stalking law

enforcement unit. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 26(2), 128-142.

doi:10.1007/s11896-010-9081-8

Strand, S., & McEwan, T. E. (2011). Same-gender stalking in Sweden and Australia.

Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 29(2), 202-219. doi:10.1002/bsl.981

Strawhun, J., Adams, N., & Huss, M. T. (2013). The assessment of cyberstalking: An expanded

examination including social networking, attachment, jealousy, and anger in relation to

violence and abuse. Violence and Victims, 28(4), 715-730. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.11-

00145

Tjaden, P. G., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence

Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute

of Justice.

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). The role of stalking in domestic violence crime

reports generated by the Colorado Springs Police Department. Violence and Victims,

15(4), 427-441.

Tjaden, P. (2003). Prevalence and characteristics of stalking. In M. P. Brewster, M. P. Brewster

(Eds.), Stalking: Psychology, risk factors, interventions, and law (p. 1). Kingston, NJ,

US: Civic Research Institute.

Tonin, E. (2004). The attachment styles of stalkers. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry &

Psychology, 15(4), 584-590. doi:10.1080/14789940410001729644

Walker, L. E., & Meloy, J. R. (1998). Stalking and domestic violence. In J. R. Meloy, J. R.

104

Meloy (Eds.), The psychology of stalking: Clinical and forensic perspectives (pp. 139-

161). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012490560-3/50026-8

Weller, M., Hope, L., & Sheridan, L. (2013). Police and public perceptions of stalking: The role

of prior victim–offender relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(2), 320-339.

doi:10.1177/0886260512454718

Whyte, S., Petch, E., Penn, C., & Reiss, D. (2007). Factors associated with stalking behaviour in

patients admitted to a high security hospital. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry &

Psychology, 18(1), 16-22. doi:10.1080/14789940601012623

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.

Zona, M. A., Palarea, R. E., & Lane, J. J. (1998). Psychiatric diagnosis and the offender–victim

typology of stalking. In J. R. Meloy, J. R. Meloy (Eds.), The psychology of stalking:

Clinical and forensic perspectives (pp. 69-84). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.

doi:10.1016/B978-012490560-3/50023-2

105