Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In this article, we review the literature on the risk factors that are associated with stalking victimization and perpetration using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. More specifically, we identified individual-level (sociodemographic), interpersonal-level (the relationship between the perpetrators and victims), societal-level (policies), and cultural-level (gender role socialization and social norms) factors that are associated with stalking behavior. We then draw implications from our review for assessment, prevention, and intervention strategies for social workers who are working with victims and perpetrators of stalking.

Keywords

ecological systems theory gender intimate partner violence social work stalking

Stalking has been the focus of many research studies over the past two decades. A recent report found that approximately 1 in 6 women (16.2%) and 1 in 19 men (5.2%) in the United States had experienced stalking at some point during their lifetimes (Black et al., 2011). The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the Department of Justice also reported that 3.4 million persons, aged 18 and older, were victims of stalking (Baum, Catalano, & Rand, 2009). Stalking is characterized as persistent harassment through unwanted communication or contact (Mullen, Pathé, & Purcell, 2001; Rosenfeld, 2000; Westrup & Fremouw, 1998). According to the National Institute of Justice (2007), stalking behavior refers to following a victim relentlessly through repeated behaviors (such as sending gifts, writing letters, and waiting outside the victim’s workplace), which would not constitute criminal activity on their own. However, when these actions are combined with the intent to inflict fear or harm, they may constitute illegal activities.

Stalking is detrimental to victims’ physical, psychological, and social functioning, irrespective of whether the victims are physically assaulted (McEwan, Mullen, & Purcell, 2007), and most stalking victims experience symptoms of traumatic stress and other forms of social and psychological damages (Abrams & Robinson, 1998; Davis, Coker, & Sanderson, 2002; Sheridan, Blaauw, & Davies, 2003). Given the severity of stalking and the negative outcomes associated with this behavior, a number of studies on the risk factors for stalking victimization and perpetration have been conducted. These studies have significantly enhanced the understanding of this behavior, especially with regard to individual-level factors for stalking victimization and perpetration, such as the gender of the victims and the psychiatric problems of the perpetrators and victims. For instance, it has been found that men are more likely than women to stalk (Basile, Swahn, Chen, & Saltzman, 2006; Melton, 2007; Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2003) and that perpetrators of stalking are more likely than nonperpetrators to be diagnosed with psychiatric problems, such as schizophrenia and obsessive–compulsive disorders (Douglas & Dutton, 2001; Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2003).

However, given that not all men with psychiatric symptoms engage in stalking, placing a sole emphasis on individual factors can overlook salient broad-level correlates, such as societal and cultural factors, that are indirectly related to stalking behavior. These broad-level correlates may influence individual factors, so that some individuals are likely to stalk or be stalked while others are not. Thus, a better understanding of and approaches to stalking can be obtained when individual and direct-level risk factors are examined in the context of broad-level factors. To explicate the various levels of influences on stalking, this article uses ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) to review the findings from empirical studies on the risk factors for stalking victimization and perpetration, which is then followed by a discussion of implications for social work practice.

Ecological Systems Framework

Studies have indicated that there are multiple levels of correlates of stalking behavior. Ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) provides a useful theoretical framework for understanding the configuration of the risk factors associated with stalking behavior. This theory facilitates a broader understanding of a social phenomenon, which can enhance the understanding of risk factors for stalking victimization and perpetration. According to Bronfenbrenner’s (1977) ecological systems framework, stalking is a phenomenon that has been established and perpetuated over time as a result of the interrelationships between inter- and intraindividual factors. The ecological framework is based on evidence that no single factor can explicate why some individuals or group of individuals are at a higher risk of stalking victimization or have a greater propensity for the perpetration of stalking than are others. This framework treats stalking as the outcome of interactions among multiple-level factors, namely, the individual, interpersonal, societal, and cultural. Because there are multiple levels of influences on behavior, it is imperative that the interrelationships between the individual (the stalking victim and perpetrator) and his or her environment are understood.

We first review individual-level factors (sociodemographic characteristics) that are mainly associated with the stalking behavior, then interpersonal factors (the relationship between the perpetrators and victims), societal (policies), and cultural factors (gender role socialization), which provide broader contexts within which stalking occurs.

Individual-Level Factors

Gender

Studies have consistently found that men are more likely than women to engage in stalking (Basile et al., 2006; Melton, 2007; Phillips, Quirk, Rosenfeld, & O’Connor, 2004; Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2003), although researchers have recognized that stalking by women is not uncommon (Meloy, Mohandie, & Greene, 2011; Purcell, Pathé, & Mullen, 2001, 2002). In the broader context of interpersonal violence among adults, including intimate partner violence, there is converging evidence that violence by men differs from violence by women in the nature, context, and consequences (Archer, 2000; Cho & Wilke, 2010). Similar patterns of gender differences as in intimate partner violence may exist in stalking.

Until recently, little was known about the similarities and differences between the perpetration of stalking by men and women. According to a study based on a small sample in Australia, male stalkers reported a history of criminal offenses and substance abuse more than did female stalkers, whereas female perpetrators tended to stalk professional contacts and acquaintances rather than strangers (Purcell et al., 2001). Another study that used a clinical sample found that female stalkers had different motivations for stalking and were more persistent in their pursuits than were male stalkers (McEwan, Mullen, & MacKenzie, 2009).

Age

In addition to the gender of the victims and perpetrators, the age of the victims is another major individual-level risk factor for stalking victimization. Studies have consistently reported that younger women are significantly more likely than are older women to be victims of stalking (Basile et al., 2006; Melton, 2007; Palarea, Zona, Lane, & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999; Purcell et al., 2002; Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2003). Basile, Swahn, Chen, and Saltzman’s (2006) study, which included a national sample of 9,684 adults aged 18 and older in the United States, found that younger women were significantly more at risk of victimization by stalking than were older women (aged 55 or older). Melton’s (2007) study, which examined the prevalence of victims of intimate partner violence who were stalked, reported that that 44.4% of the victims were aged 18–29 and 13.5% were aged 45 or older. However, there was a notable difference in the findings on age when the type of stalking behavior was controlled for. For example, Palarea, Zona, Lane, and Langhinrichsen-Rohling (1999) investigated victim–suspect relationships by comparing 223 cases of intimate partner and nonintimate partner stalking. They found that victims of intimate stalking were typically younger, while victims of nonintimate partner stalking were middle aged.

Psychiatric and personality disorders

A number of studies have consistently reported the presence of psychiatric symptoms (such as delusional disorder, schizophrenia, schizo-affective disorder, and bipolar disorder; Rosenfeld, 2000; Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2003) and personality disorders (Douglas & Dutton, 2001) among all types of perpetrators of stalking. According to Zona, Palarea, and Lane (1998), the three primary Axis I disorders of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994), with which stalkers are afflicted are thought disorders, mood disorders, and substance abuse disorders. Psychosis has also been linked to stalking behavior, as some studies have indicated (Kienlen, Birmingham, Solberg, O’Regan, & Meloy, 1997). Kienlen, Birmingham, Solberg, O’Regan, and Meloy (1997) compared psychotic and nonpsychotic stalking with 25 forensic subjects whose criminal behaviors met the legal definition of stalking. The found that nearly one third of all the subjects had an Axis I psychotic disorder and were delusional and their pursuit of the victims was related to delusion and symptoms of psychosis. The nonpsychotic subjects, on the other hand, exhibited Axis I disorder (such as depression, adjustment disorder, or substance use) as well as Axis II personality disorder. These subjects were motivated by anger, hostility, projection of blame, dependence, minimization and denial, and jealousy.

Researchers have also found a link between delusional disorder and erotomania, which lead to obsessional fixation and harassment (Kennedy, McDonough, Kelly, & Berrios, 2002; Rosenfeld, 2000). According to DSM-IV (APA, 1994), erotomania is defined as one of the five subtypes of delusional disorder. Kennedy, McDonough, Kelly, and Berrios (2002), who evaluated criteria for diagnosing and classifying erotomania among 15 perpetrators of stalking, found that 40% of the erotomanic stalkers had a psychiatric history with the presence of delusional disorder. In sum, symptoms of psychopathology appear to be present in the majority of perpetrators of stalking.

Interpersonal-Level Factors

Intimate partner stalking constitutes the majority of stalking cases (Black et al., 2011; Douglas & Dutton, 2001; Mohandie, Meloy, McGowan, & Williams, 2006; A. Roberts & Dziegielewski, 2006; Spitz, 2003; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). For instance, the National Violence Against Women Survey estimated that 80% of stalking victims were physically assaulted by their former or current intimate partners (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Even more chilling, some studies have found that about half the female murder victims in the United States were victimized by their intimate partners, and the majority of those murder cases involved stalking (Campbell, Glass, Sharps, Laughon, & Bloom, 2007; Campbell et al., 2003; McFarlane, Campbell, & Watson, 2002; Office of Justice Programs, 1998). Intimate partner stalking occurs frequently when the victim has attempted to or recently terminated the relationship with the perpetrator, often because of violence and abuse (Davis, Ace, & Andra, 2000; National Institute of Justice, 2007). In this context, research has found that violence in intimate relationships often leads to future stalking as an extension of intimate partner violence (Logan, Leukefeld, & Walker, 2000).

However, the nature and processes of such a transition from intimate partner violence to stalking has not been clearly delineated. On one hand, psychological, emotional, and verbal threats and violence in the intimate relationship were reported to be associated with stalking more than was physical violence (Brewster, 2002; Mechanic, Weaver, & Resick, 2000). On the other hand, severe physical violence experienced in the intimate relationship was reported to predict severe stalking (Logan & Walker, 2010; Mechanic, Uhlmansiek, Weaver, & Resick, 2000; Melton, 2007; K. A. Roberts, 2005). While these results indicate that the type, severity, and contexts of intimate partner violence may affect future stalking, little is known about the interconnected relationships among them.

Societal-Level Factors

As mythology, folklore, religious scripts in medieval Europe, and modern literary fiction have revealed (Kamir, 1995), stalking has been with us for a long time. One reason why stalking has not being recognized as a problem may be social norms. Films, television shows, and songs have often portrayed stalking as romantic or comedic, which sends a message that stalking is harmless and unthreatening (Garcia, 2010).

Changing social norms that delegitimate stalking require policies that recognize stalking as a serious social problem. However, it was not until 1990, when the first antistalking law in the United States was passed in California, that stalking was recognized as a crime (Hunzeker, 1993). In 1994, the Violence Against Women Act specified that stalking is a type of violence, and all states and the District of Columbia eventually criminalized stalking by 1999 (Garcia, 2010). Although it is encouraging that stalking is recognized as a crime, it is unclear if the current laws and policies have been established and implemented successfully. This point is important in addressing stalking because the ill-established and poorly implemented laws may have limited effects on achieving their intended goals. For instance, research on criminal justice interventions for intimate partner violence has suggested that enacting a policy does not necessarily lead to its effective implementation and to achieving its goals and expected outcomes (Cho & Wilke, 2010).

A limited number of studies have also revealed that stalking laws and policies vary widely across the states, and many practitioners who work with victims of intimate partner violence and stalking are unclear about the definition of stalking (Jordan, Logan, Walker, & Nigoff, 2003; Thompson & Dennison, 2008; Tjaden, 2009). Thus, practitioners and service providers are sometimes unable to identify stalking or are unsure about how to counsel victims of intimate partner stalking effectively (Logan, 2010). In addition, Logan and Walker (2010) found that service providers and criminal justice professionals do not understand the extent or severity of the harms caused by stalking, especially when contrasted with victims’ reports.

Thus, law enforcement responses to stalking may not be consistent across jurisdictions, and many stalking cases that are filed by law enforcement personnel may not be processed effectively. Although little research has been conducted on the implementation of stalking laws, the results from past studies seem to suggest that stalking laws have not been well implemented, which may contribute to further stalking. Two national surveys of police departments between 1998 and 2000 revealed that only 13% provided stalking-specific training to police officers (Tjaden, 2009); a study of the handling of stalking cases in one police department found that only 1 of the 285 reports related to stalking led to an arrest (Tjaden & Thoeness, 2000), and for every 1 stalking case that the police identified, 21 were dismissed (Klein, Salomon, Huntington, Dubois, & Lang, 2009). A secondary case analysis of the processing of stalking cases showed that more than a half of stalking cases were dismissed (Jordan, Quinn, Jordan, & Daileader, 2000). A recent study, which investigated Florida law enforcement officers’ knowledge of and training in Florida’s statewide antistalking law, found that cases that were not classified as stalking received little or no follow-up. The findings also indicated that unwanted communication from the perpetrator—the most common form of stalking behavior—was the form of behavior that officers were least likely to classify as stalking (Woodroof, 2010).

The criminalization of stalking has also led to the greater likelihood of arrests for stalking. Hamilton and Worthen (2010) found that although a variety of factors (such as the perpetrator’s prior assaultive behavior, hostile attitude, and race/ethnicity and the presence of an injury) were important in the arrest outcome, there was a major difference when gender and sexuality were considered. They found that heterosexual male perpetrators were more likely to be arrested than were heterosexual female perpetrators and that gay male perpetrators were more likely to be arrested than were female perpetrators in a lesbian relationship. These results suggest that the implementation of stalking laws and policies involves a series of steps and processes that are influenced by a variety of factors, but the complicated relationship among those factors and the implementation of laws and policies is not clear. In sum, laws and policies seem to have been implemented to various degrees across jurisdictions, but the scarcity of research makes it hard to confirm their effectiveness in preventing and deterring stalking.

Cultural-Level Factors

The overwhelming majority of stalking cases involve male perpetrators, although female stalkers and same-sex stalking have been reported as well (Basile et al., 2006; Meloy et al., 2011; Melton, 2007; Phillips et al., 2004; Purcell et al., 2001; Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2003). Some men may stalk women from a sense of entitlement; these men may have been socialized to believe that it is socially acceptable and even desirable to pursue women, often inflicting fear or harm (see Lyndon et al., 2012; Meloy, 1999; Mullen et al., 2001). Women may perceive certain behaviors as fearful and harmful, while men may perceive the same behaviors as loving or even flirting (see Duntley & Buss, 2012, for a review; see also Jordan et al., 2000).

Moreover, gender-role socialization has often been examined in relation to perceptions of stalking. Some studies, which investigated stalking behaviors among college students, found that female victims expressed fear for their safety more than did male victims when they had similar stalking experiences (Bjerregaard, 2000), and female victims were more likely than male victims to label certain behaviors as stalking (Dennison & Thomson, 2002). According to gender-role socialization theory, males are socialized from childhood to avoid expressing their emotions. Male competitiveness, homophobia, eschewing vulnerability and openness, and the lack of appropriate role models are barriers that prevent male victims from expressing themselves emotionally. Thus, male victims may minimize the display of vulnerability, guilt, fear, and victimization (Sanchez-Nuñez, Fernandez-Berrocal, Montanes, & Latorre, 2008).

Discussion

Implications for Social Work Practice

Our review revealed that various factors interact to affect stalking. For instance, a young woman who is ending a dating relationship with a man with a personality disorder may be more vulnerable to stalking in a society where the lack of effective measures and gender-role socialization are pervasive than in a society where stalking is treated as a serious crime. Several individual-level factors (such as women, young age, and personality disorder) and interpersonal factors (like the termination of the intimate relationship) may increase the risk of stalking victimization, but broader-level factors (like gender-role socialization and the lack of effective measures) may also moderate and/or mediate the influences of those factors on stalking. Although the results of research on those relationships are inconsistent and thus further examination is needed, the ecological understanding of factors for stalking provides implications for social work practice.

Social work practitioners may consider the results of individual-level risk factors in their assessments of stalking to identify high-risk victims and perpetrators so as to provide services, such as treatment and education. Since perceptions of stalking seem to vary across different groups, which can affect the behaviors of victims and perpetrators, social work practitioners and advocacy groups need to forge collaborative efforts to educate not only victims but the general public on the issue of stalking and the serious consequences that are associated with this behavior. Such efforts can lead to the more systematic reporting of and responses to stalking incidents. In addition, they can help potential victims of stalking to detect early signs of stalking and take preventive measures and help potential perpetrators to gain a better understanding of the nature and consequences of stalking. In addition, because education and training are keys to raising awareness of stalking and making perceptions of stalking among the public clear and consistent, social workers can also provide training to law enforcement officers and staffs of battered women’s shelters, so they can gain a better understanding of the nature, legal definitions, risk factors, and consequences of stalking behavior.

Preventive efforts need to be made at each of the life developmental stages, considering that stalking is not an isolated problem for a specific age group, but one that is embedded in sociocultural contexts. Children and adolescents also need to be educated at school regarding healthy interpersonal and intimate partner relationships, for which the education and training of teachers and school staff are essential. Inviting and communicating with parents in these efforts and providing proper information and resources to them are also critical. The college years are especially important in preventing and intervening in stalking because young adults are one of the populations that are most vulnerable to stalking (Melton, 2007). Student services, counseling centers, and health clinics in colleges need to update students consistently with information and resources related to stalking and intimate partner violence (such as dating violence). Moreover, students who are affected by stalking on college campuses need to be provided with appropriate services.

Given that the majority of stalking cases are related to intimate partner violence, service providers need to incorporate programs related to stalking when they provide services to victims and perpetrators of intimate partner violence. More specifically, information and resources need to be provided to victims so that they can better understand that intimate partner violence can escalate into stalking and take precautionary measures (such as safety planning; Davis et al., 2002), if needed. Because the criminal justice system provides prolonged safety and protection for victims of stalking and intimate partner violence, effective screening tools for law enforcement agencies are essential (Kropp, Hart, & Lyon, 2008; MacKenzie et al., 2009). The screening tools can be used to identify those who display a propensity for stalking behavior as well as those who are at risk of stalking victimization (Belfrage & Strand, 2009; Bell, Cattaneo, Goodman, & Dutton, 2008; Kropp, Hart, & Lyon, 2002, 2008). While many of these tools are developed by experts in mental health and relevant disciplines, practitioners in the social service and criminal justice fields also need to be informed of the availability, necessity, and importance of these tools. Effective prevention and intervention efforts require joint collaborative efforts among multiple stakeholders, including social work professionals. In particular, community-coordinated efforts across various agencies and practitioners can yield more effective services for the victims and perpetrators of stalking.

Conclusion

This review examined the risk factors for stalking within immediate and distal contexts. As the findings from the aforementioned studies indicated, stalking may be influenced by individual-level (sociodemographic characteristics), interpersonal-level (intimate partner relationships), societal-level (societal norms and policies), and cultural-level factors (gender-role socialization). In sum, risk factors for stalking behavior are multifaceted and are shaped by broader-level factors. Working toward changes at multiple levels of social ecology may seem insurmountable. However, many of the risk factors can be addressed through the implementation of policies and programs that are focused and systematic. Assessing the social ecology of stalking behavior can be valuable in effectively addressing and ending the perpetration of stalking.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Abrams

K. M.

Robinson

G. E.

(1998). Stalking part I: An overview of the problem. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 473–476.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Archer

(2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651–680.

Basile

K. C.

Swahn

M. H.

Chen

Saltzman

L. E.

(2006). Stalking in the United States: Recent national prevalence estimates. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31, 172–175.

Baum

Catalano

Rand

(2009). National crime victimization survey: Stalking victimization in the United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/svus.pdf

Belfrage

Strand

(2009). Validation of the stalking assessment and management checklist (SAM) in law enforcement: A prospective study of 153 cases of stalking in two Swedish police counties. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 11, 67–76.

Bell

Cattaneo

Goodman

Dutton

(2008). Assessing the risk of future psychological abuse: Predicting the accuracy of battered women’s predictions. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 69–80.

Bjerregaard

(2000). An empirical study of stalking victimization. Violence and Victims, 15, 389–405.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

10.

Brewster

M. P.

(2002). Stalking by former intimates: Verbal threats and other predictors of physical violence. In Davis

K. E.

Frieze

I. H.

(Eds.), Stalking: Perspectives on victims and perpetrators (pp. 292–311). New York, NY: Springer.

11.

Bronfenbrenner

(1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531.

12.

Campbell

J.C.

Glass

Sharps

Laughon

Bloom

(2007). Intimate partner homicide: Review and implications of research and policy. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8, 246–269.

13.

Campbell

J. C.

Webster

Koziol-McLain

Block

Campbell

Curry

M. A.,

Laughon

(2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1089–1097.

14.

Cho

Wilke

D. J.

(2010). Gender differences in the nature of the intimate partner violence and effects of perpetrator arrest on revictimization. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 393–400.

15.

Davis

K. E.

Ace

Andra

(2000). Stalking perpetrators and psychological maltreatment of partners: Anger-jealousy, attachment insecurity, need for control, and break-up context. Violence and Victims, 15, 407–425.

16.

Davis

K. E.

Coker

A. L.

Sanderson

(2002). Physical and mental health effects of being stalked for men and women. Violence and Victims, 17, 429–443.

17.

Dennison

Thomson

D. M.

(2002). Identifying stalking: The relevance of intent in commonsense reasoning. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 543–561.

18.

Douglas

K. S.

Dutton

D. G.

(2001). Assessing the link between stalking and domestic violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 519–546.

19.

Duntley

J. D.

Buss

D. M.

(2012). The evolution of stalking. Sex Roles, 66, 311–327.

20.

Garcia

M. M.

(2010). Voices from the fields: Stalking. National Institute of Justice Journal, 66, 14–15.

21.

Hamilton

Worthen

(2010). Arrest outcomes for interpartner violence: The myth of parity. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=997943

22.

Hunzeker

(1993). Stalking legislation update. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures.

23.

Jordan

C. E.

Logan

TK.

Walker

Nigoff

(2003). Stalking: An examination of criminal justice response. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 148–165.

24.

Jordan

C. E.

Quinn

Jordan

Daileader

C. R.

(2000). Stalking: Cultural, clinical and legal considerations. University of Louisville Law Journal, 38, 513–579.

25.

Kamir

(1995). Stalking: History, culture and law (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

26.

Kennedy

McDonough

Kelly

Berrios

G. E.

(2002). Erotomania revisited: Clinical course and treatment. Comparative Psychiatry, 43, 1–6.

27.

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, 317–334.

28.

Klein

A. K.

Salomon

Huntington

Dubois

Lang

(2009). A statewide study of stalking and its criminal justice response. (NCJ-228354). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

29.

Kropp

R. P.

Hart

S. D.

Lyon

D. R.

(2002). Risk assessment of stalkers: Some problems and possible solutions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 590–616.

30.

Kropp

P. R.

Hart

S. D.

Lyon

D. R.

(2008). Guidelines for stalking assessment and management (SAM). Vancouver, Canada: ProActive ReSolutions.

31.

Logan

TK.

(2010). Research on partner stalking: Putting the pieces together. Lexington, KY: Department of Behavioral Science and Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, University of Kentucky.

32.

Logan

TK.

Leukefeld

Walker

(2000). Stalking as a variant of intimate violence: Implications from a young adult sample. Violence and Victims, 15, 91–111.

33.

Logan

TK.

Walker

(2010). Toward a deeper understanding of the harms caused by partner stalking. Violence and Victims, 25, 440–455.

34.

Lyndon

A. E.

Sinclair

H. C.

MacArthur

Fay

Ratajack

Collier

K. E.

(2012). An introduction to issues of gender in stalking research. Sex Roles, 66, 299–310.

35.

MacKenzie

R. D.

McEwan

T. E.

Pathé

M. T.

James

D. V.

Ogloff

J. R. P.

Mullen

P. E.

(2009). Stalking risk profile: Guidelines for assessing and managing stalkers. Melbourne, Australia: StalkInc. and Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science, Monash University.

36.

McEwan

Mullen

MacKenzie

(2009). A study of predictors of persistence in stalking situations. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 149–158.

37.

McEwan

Mullen

P. E.

Purcell

(2007). Identifying risk factors in stalking: A review of current research. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30, 1–9.

38.

McFarlane

Campbell

J. C.

Watson

(2002). Intimate partner stalking and femicide: Urgent implications for women’s safety. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20, 51–68.

39.

Mechanic

M. B.

Uhlmansiek

M. H.

Weaver

T. L.

Resick

P. A.

(2000). The impact of severe stalking experienced by acutely battered women: An examination of violence, psychological symptoms and strategic responses. Violence and Victims, 15, 443–458.

40.

Mechanic

M. B.

Weaver

T. L.

Resick

P. A.

(2000). Intimate partner violence and stalking behaviors: Exploration of patterns and correlates in a sample of acutely battered women. Violence and Victims, 15, 55–72.

41.

Meloy

J. R.

(1999). Stalking: An old behavior, a new crime. Forensic Psychiatry, 22, 85–99.

42.

Meloy

J. R.

Mohandie

Green

(2011). The female stalker. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 240–254.

43.

Melton

H. C.

(2007). Predicting the occurrence of stalking in relationships characterized by domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 3–25.

44.

Mohandie

Meloy

J. R.

McGowan

M. G.

Williams

(2006). The recon typology of stalking: Reliability and validity based upon a large sample of North American stalkers. Journal of Forensic Science, 51, 147–155.

45.

Mullen

P. E.

Pathe

Purcell

(2001). Stalking: New constructions of human behaviours. Australian & New Zealand of Psychiatry, 35, 9–16.

46.

National Institute of Justice. (2007). Stalking. Retrieved from http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/stalking/welcome.htm

47.

Office of Justice Programs. (1998). Stalking and domestic violence: The third annual report to congress under the violence against women act (NCJ 172204). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

48.

Palarea

R. E.

Zona

M. A.

Lane

J. C.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

(1999). The dangerous nature of intimate relationship stalking: Threats, violence, and associated risk factors. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 269–283.

49.

Phillips

Quirk

Rosenfeld

O’Connor

(2004). Is it stalking? Perceptions of stalking among college undergraduates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 73–96.

50.

Purcell

Pathé

Mullen

P. E.

(2001). A study of women who stalk. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 2056–2060.

51.

Purcell

Pathé

Mullen

P. E.

(2002). The prevalence and nature of stalking in the Australian community. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 114–120.

52.

Roberts

Dziegielewski

(2006). Changing stalking patterns and prosecutorial decisions: Bridging the present to future. Victims and Offenders, 1, 47–60.

53.

Roberts

K. A.

(2005). Women’s experience of violence during stalking by former romantic partners: Factors predictive of stalking violence. Violence Against Women, 11, 89–114.

54.

Rosenfeld

(2000). Assessment and treatment of obsessional harassment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5, 529–549.

55.

Rosenfeld

Harmon

(2003). Factors associated with violence in stalking and obsessional harassment cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 671–691.

56.

Sanchez-Nuñez

M. T.

Fernandez-Berrocal

Montanes

Latorre

J. M.

(2008). Does emotional intelligence depend on gender? The socialization of emotional competencies in men and women and its implications. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6, 455–474.

57.

Sheridan

L. P.

Blaauw

Davies

G. M.

(2003). Stalking: Knowns and unknowns. Trauma, Violence and Abuse, 4, 148–162.

58.

Spitz

M. L.

(2003). Stalking: Terrorism at our doors—How social workers can help victims fight back. Social Work, 48, 504–512.

59.

Spitzberg

Cupach

(2007). The state of the art stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 64–86.

60.

Thompson

C. M.

Dennison

S. M.

(2008). Defining relational stalking in research: Understanding sample composition in relation to repetition and duration of harassment. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 15, 482–499.

61.

Tjaden

P. G.

(2009). Stalking policies and research in the United States: A twenty-year retrospective. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15, 261–278.

62.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence against Women Survey. Research in brief (Report No. NCJ 172837). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

63.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(2000). The role of stalking in domestic violence crime reports generated by the Colorado Springs police department. Violence and Victims, 15, 427–441.

64.

Westrup

Fremouw

W. J.

(1998). Stalking behavior: A literature review and suggested functional analytic assessment technology. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 255–274.

65.

Woodroof

(2010). An analysis of the police response to intimate partner stalking (Unpublished master’s thesis). Florida State University, Tallahassee.

66.

Zona

M. A.

Palarea

R. E.

Lane

J. C.

(1998). Psychiatric diagnosis and the offender-victim typology of stalking. In Meloy

J. R.

(Ed.), The psychology of stalking: Clinical and forensic perspectives (pp. 69–84). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

An Ecological Understanding of the Risk Factors Associated With Stalking Behavior

Abstract

Keywords

Ecological Systems Framework

Individual-Level Factors

Gender

Age

Psychiatric and personality disorders

Interpersonal-Level Factors

Societal-Level Factors

Cultural-Level Factors

Discussion

Implications for Social Work Practice

Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References