Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Perceived threat regarding stalking behaviours stems from stalking stereotypes involving gendered dyads, often with men as the perpetrators and women as victims. As limited research has examined threat perceptions that deviate from this dyad, the present study investigated whether same-gender and non-binary stalking dyads are perceived as less threatening than man-to-woman dyads. University students (N = 243) completed a vignette survey manipulating perpetrator gender, victim gender and relationship type. Quantitative analyses revealed that perpetrator gender and relationship type affected perceived threat, with victim gender only being significant when interacting with the perpetrator's gender. Men perpetrators categorized as strangers were rated with the highest perceived threat compared to all other dyads. The study's findings suggest that gender identification and relationship type impact perceptions of stalking threat. As our understanding of gender diversity expands, the legal system must evolve by investigating a variety of perpetrators and relationships to better support responses to stalking to avoid further harm to victims outside of man-to-woman stalking dyads.

Keywords

stalking gender dyad threat perception

Although stalking or harassment is not a nascent construct, recognizing such conduct as unlawful certainly is (Kropp et al., 2002; Meloy, 1999). Since the passing of the first anti-stalking law in 1990, there has been increasing recognition of the impact of stalking, with the Californian law inspiring additional states and countries to criminalize the behaviour; yet global responses remain inconsistent and resistant (Hare, 2020; Lowney and Best, 2017; Pathé and Mullen, 1997; van der Aa, 2018). Nevertheless, progress continues, with Malaysia being the most recent country in 2023 to pass anti-stalking and protection order laws (Hafarizam Wan & Aisha Mubarak [HWAM], 2023). With this expansion of legislation, definitions of stalking have varied widely nationally and internationally.

The Guidelines for Stalking Assessment and Management (SAM; Kropp et al., 2008) defines stalking as ‘unwanted and repeated communication, contact, or other conduct that deliberately or recklessly causes people to experience reasonable fear or concern for their safety or the safety of others known to them’ (p. 1). This definition aligns with criminal and civil (tort) law in Canada and the United States. However, as terms such as ‘reasonable fear’ are subjectively interpreted in both risk assessment and legal contexts, assessing and managing stalking is complex. These ambiguities in language, coupled with the public and law enforcement's unfamiliarity with various definitions of stalking and harassment, contribute to ongoing misconceptions and stereotypes regarding how stalking perpetrators and victims are identified and understood (Mullen et al., 2001; Pathé and Mullen, 1997).

Victims play a critical role in shaping social and legal responses to stalking, as they must first determine if they feel fear before reporting harassment to support persons or authorities, a process driven by determinations of potential threat posed (i.e. how the perpetrator's actions and intentions affect a victim's sense of safety; Dennison and Thomson, 2000). Such determinations depend on the severity and persistence of the conduct, or worry that the conduct may escalate (McEwan et al., 2007; Purcell et al., 2004). Fear is likely further influenced by victim beliefs about the motivations of perpetrators or hesitancy as to whether their experiences equate to ‘victimization’ (Dunlap et al., 2014; Spitzberg, 2017). Spitzberg (2017) found that 40% to 45% of university participants misidentified their own experiences with stalking, either over- or under-recognizing their victimization. Without appropriate recognition and reporting, legal and social systems may not address stalking-related harm adequately.

Deeply ingrained social attitudes about courtship behaviours have also contributed to a societal tendency to blame victims and romanticize harmful behaviours (McKeon et al., 2015). For example, victims who fall outside socially determined (i.e. heteronormative) roles may be underserved and experience secondary harm following stalking victimization (Habarth, 2015; Hyde et al., 2019). As gender is a non-binary construct (i.e. gender does not follow the binary assumption of male and female), individuals whose identity does not align with dominant gender categories may have victim experiences that do not fully align with heteronormative scripts (Hyde et al., 2019; Ryan, 2011). Victims who do not identify with a ‘strong’ gender stalking script (i.e. man perpetrator/woman victim) may not recognize and acknowledge the victimization themselves or may be inadequately acknowledged by others as having been victimized. Consequently, unacknowledged victims may experience not only the negative impacts of stalking (Koss et al., 1988; McMullin and White, 2006; Ryan, 2011) but may also not receive the full protection and support from systemic legal, social or community systems.

Gendered Perpetrator-Victim Stalking Dyads

A stranger perpetrator identifying as a man pursuing a woman victim is often considered the ‘model’¹ stalking relationship, despite stalking being a gender-neutral behaviour (Meloy et al., 2000; Purcell et al., 2001). Prevalence data indicate that 50% to 85% of individuals who engage in stalking behaviours are men targeting women (Chen et al., 2023; Stalking Prevention, Awareness, and Resource Center [SPARC], 2021). Given this disproportionate rate, most research has focused on men as perpetrators, potentially overlooking other gender identities and stalking dyads (Brooks et al., 2021). Nevertheless, there has been a steady increase in studies focused on women perpetrators, as well as same-gender and non-binary stalking dyads, and how they fit into social attitudes toward gendered stalking (Meloy et al., 2011; Meloy and Boyd, 2003; Pathé et al., 2000; Strand and McEwan, 2011).

Although research on non-traditional stalking dyads is growing, research on women perpetrators remains sparse. Given the limited studies on women as perpetrators, the public may minimize the threat women perpetrators pose, thereby diminishing the seriousness of stalking and contributing to skepticism faced by victims when seeking aid following women-perpetrated stalking (Brooks et al., 2021). Indeed, due to a general assumption that women are less capable of physical violence than men, it is often believed that men should be ashamed of being frightened of a woman perpetrator (Cass and Mallicoat, 2014). Women victims, on the other hand, are often perceived as being responsible for their victimization (Cass and Mallicoat, 2014). Compared to men victims, women victims are not judged regarding their physical capability relative to the perpetrator, but rather, how their displays of femininity may be ‘leading on’ the perpetrator (Cass and Mallicoat, 2014). Within heteronormative cross-gender relationships, gender stereotypes play a significant role in perceptions of threat and responsibility, both for perpetrators as well as victims. Therefore, it is essential to assess how stereotypes could affect victims (e.g. contributing to over- or under-estimation of harm) and whether these gendered beliefs are as prevalent or impactful within diverse gender stalking pairings.

Further complicating our understanding of the impact of gender identity in stalking threat is the fact that gender has historically been considered binary (i.e. ‘male’ and ‘female’) in stalking research, and even contemporary studies fail to explicitly examine the experiences of perceived threat within gender minority (e.g. non-binary) victims (Hyde et al., 2019). The limited data available suggest non-binary persons are at a higher risk of experiencing violence, including intimate partner violence (IPV) and stalking, compared to their cisgender peers (Langenderfer-Magruder et al., 2020). For example, Cantor et al. (2020) found that 14.3% of transgender and non-binary American university students reported stalking victimization compared to 10% of cisgender women. When navigating a cisgender and heteronormative society, non-binary and transgender individuals may also have their non-conforming gender identity become a target for stalking perpetrators (Langenderfer-Magruder et al., 2020; Rogers, 2021), resulting in compounded psychological distress and hypervigilance (Kurbatfinski et al., 2024). To better understand how gender identity shapes perceived threat, more research is needed on gender non-conforming stalking dyads.

Relationship Between Perpetrator and Victim

Studies have consistently shown the public's misconception that strangers are more threatening to victims compared to all other relationship classifications, including ex-intimate partners (Chung and Sheridan, 2021; Hills and Taplin, 1998; Scott et al., 2010, 2014a, 2014b; Scott and Sheridan, 2011; Sheridan et al., 2003). The misconception of ‘stranger danger’ sharply contrasts with the realities of stalking (SPARC, 2017) and is deeply troubling. A possible explanation for the underestimation of threat may be attributed to societal beliefs that the victim's shared history with the perpetrator affords the victim some insight into the perpetrator's intent and motivations, thereby reducing the likelihood of serious harm (Hills and Taplin, 1998; Mohandie et al., 2006; Weller et al., 2013). Instead, perpetrators often use the prior relationship to exert power and control over the victim (SPARC, 2017). Consequently, societal relationship misconceptions may result in an underestimation and minimization of threat toward victims of ex-intimate partner harassment (Sheridan and Lyndon, 2010).

Past research has primarily focused on prevalence data and factors that contribute to stalking behaviours. Studies dedicated to perceived threat concerning stalking are often limited to binary gender identities (i.e. man and woman), and confuse them with sex-based classifications (i.e. ‘male’ or ‘female’). For example, one recent study found that, in comparison to ‘female’ perpetrators, ‘male’ perpetrators caused greater perceived victim distress (Brenik et al., 2025), but did not examine the influence of gender minority identities on perceived threat. Only a handful of studies have acknowledged and explored the experiences of sexual and gender minority victims and their perception of stalking threat (Cook and Duff, 2022; Edwards et al., 2022; Sheridan et al., 2019), and even fewer have examined how gender diverse perpetrators and victim dyads influence threat perceptions. Therefore, the primary aim of the current study was to address these gaps by examining how perceptions of stalking are influenced by the gender identity of the perpetrator and victim, as well as relationship type. These findings may inform professionals about the influence of gender and relationship-based stereotypes when assessing or managing stalking cases.

Present study

This study examined social attitudes that influence public perceptions of physical and psychological threat in stalking relationships. This study aimed to: (1) examine threat perceptions in man-perpetrator/woman-victim stalking dyads compared to same-gender and non-binary stalking dyads and (2) assess correlations between self-reported stalking attitudes and perceived threat. For the first aim, we hypothesized that, when controlling for stalking attitudes, stalking dyads with a man perpetrator and woman victim in stranger relationships would be perceived as more physically and psychologically threatening than other gender dyads within any relationship type (H1), and stranger-stalking dyads with a woman victim would be perceived as more physically and psychologically threatening than other gender dyads in any relationship type (H2). For the second research aim, we had a single hypothesis that participants who expressed stronger agreement with stalking-supportive attitudes would endorse lower perceptions of threat (H3).

Materials and methods

Participants and design

Participants were a convenience sample of undergraduate psychology students recruited through a research participation pool at a mid-sized Canadian university. They received one research credit as compensation. To be eligible, participants had to be undergraduate students aged 18 years or older. All participants read and signed a consent form before completing the survey.

A total of 457 participants took part in this study from January to March 2024. Nearly half of the participants (n = 214) were screened out for failing at least one manipulation check (n = 97), failing the screening questions (n = 51), incomplete responses (n = 41), withdrawal from the study (n = 15) or failing the attention check (n = 10). The final sample consisted of 243 participants aged 18 to 56 years old (M = 19.84, SD = 4.37; see Supplemental material; Vovchuk et al., 2025), the majority of whom were born in Canada (n = 158, 65.02%) and identified as White (n = 133, 54.73%), Black (n = 32, 13.17%) or Indigenous (n = 29, 11.93%). Most of the sample identified as women (n = 187, 76.95%), with participants primarily identifying as heterosexual (n = 178, 73.25%) and single (n = 152, 62.55%).

Procedure

A quantitative study design was used to examine perceptions of threat associated with stalking depending on the gender of the perpetrator and victim and the type of relationship. The study was administered using an online Qualtrics (https://www.qualtrics.com) survey link posted on the undergraduate research system. Participants answered two screening questions to ensure eligibility before being randomly assigned to read a version of the Scott et al. (2013) vignette (see Supplemental material; Vovchuk et al., 2025). Participants then rated perceived threat using the five-item Stalking Scale (Scott and Sheridan, 2011) and reported their attitudes toward stalking by completing the Stalking Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ; McKeon et al., 2011; detailed below). Three manipulation checks were employed to observe whether participants understood the manipulations within the vignette. Participants were also asked a series of demographic questions. The survey took approximately 20 minutes to complete. A GPower (Faul et al., 2009) indicated that a minimum of 198 participants were required to achieve 80% power (α = .05) for the planned analyses. The study's pre-registration and materials are available on the Open Science Framework (Vovchuk et al., 2025). Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Board at the University of Manitoba.

Stimulus material

An adaptation of the 139-word vignette from Scott et al. (2013) was used as the primary manipulation for the present study (see Table 1). The three conditions created a 3 (perpetrator gender: man, woman or non-binary) × 3 (victim gender: man, woman or non-binary) × 2 (relationship: stranger or ex-intimate) factorial between-subjects design, resulting in 18 versions of the vignette. The manipulations (independent variables) aimed to observe how the variance of the independent variables affected participants’ perceptions of the threat posed by the perpetrator toward the victim (the dependent variable). We assumed that most participants would consider the manipulations of man and woman to be cisgender, given the tendencies toward heteronormative beliefs.

Table 1.
Vignette Manipulations.

Manipulations Vignette

Perpetrator gender

Man John (he/him)

Woman Linda (she/her)

Non-binary Blake (they/them)

Victim gender

Man Luke (he/him)

Woman Suzanne (she/her)

Non-binary Robin (they/them)

Relationship

Stranger [victim gender] first met [perpetrator gender] when [victim pronoun] visited the estate agents where [perpetrator pronoun] works to renew the lease on [victim pronoun] apartment.

Ex-intimate [victim gender] and [perpetrator gender] had been in a relationship for 3 months when [victim gender] ended it.

The vignette was piloted with 50 undergraduate students to assess the utility and effectiveness of the three manipulations. Of these, 48 completed the perpetrator and victim gender manipulation checks, and 49 completed the relationship check. Nearly a third failed to correctly identify either the perpetrator's (n = 15, 31.25%) or victim's gender (n = 15, 31.25%), whereas most correctly recalled the relationship type (n = 41, 83.67%). To improve clarity, bracketed pronouns (he/him, she/her, and they/them) were added to the vignette for the current study. This significantly improved recall for perpetrator (n = 284, 83.53%) and victim (n = 291, 85.58%) gender, with a slight improvement in the relationship manipulation (n = 292, 85.88%).

Measures

Perceived Threat

The Stalking Scale (Scott and Sheridan, 2011) is a five-item self-report measure to assess perceived threat. Item 1 asks whether the vignette depicts stalking (0 = definitely not stalking,* 10 = definitely stalking), and item 2 assesses the perceived necessity of police intervention (0 = not at all necessary, 10 = extremely necessary). Items 3 and 4 measure whether the perpetrator's behaviour would alarm the victim and whether it would cause the victim to fear escalating physical violence (0 = definitely not, 10 = definitely). Item 5 assesses victim blame for the perpetrator's behaviour (0 = not at all responsible, 10 = totally responsible, reverse-coded). Scores from the five items were summed to produce a single total score per participant, with higher values suggesting greater threat perceptions (see Table 2). The scale demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach's α = .80) in the present sample.

Table 2.
Perceived Threat Means and Standard Deviations.

Stranger Ex-intimate

Manipulations n M SD n M SD

Man perpetrator

Man victim 12 43.42 7.41 19 35.62 6.66

Woman victim 17 46.16 5.10 16 42.32 9.01

Non-binary victim 12 42.12 9.39 11 40.29 8.23

Woman perpetrator

Man victim 12 33.95 6.50 17 30.71 5.38

Woman victim 14 40.84 5.94 15 33.06 8.13

Non-binary victim 12 39.30 4.86 12 38.69 5.48

Non-binary perpetrator

Man victim 11 42.38 8.77 17 38.32 6.70

Woman victim 7 39.55 10.34 16 39.96 6.53

Non-binary victim 12 39.54 7.48 11 38.30 5.41

N = 243. Lower mean scores indicate lower perceived threat, and higher mean scores indicate higher perceived threat.

Stalking Attitudes Questionnaire

The SAQ (McKeon et al., 2011) is a revised version of the original Stalking Related Attitudes Questionnaire (SRAQ; McKeon et al., 2002) and consists of 22 self-report items that assess beliefs, values and attitudes toward stalking. The SAQ uses a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree). Items are grouped into three factors: the ‘pursuit is okay if’ factor (9 items), measuring justifications for romantic pursuit (e.g. ‘If you keep showing someone that you like them, eventually they will start to like you back’); the ‘it's not my fault’ factor (9 items), capturing beliefs that minimize perpetrator responsibility (e.g. ‘People are paranoid nowadays; they overreact to normal behaviour and call it stalking’); and the ‘victim blaming’ factor (4 items), assessing attitudes that shift blame to victims (e.g. ‘Victims of stalking are usually at least a little bit to blame for what happened’). Higher summed total scores indicate a stronger endorsement of stalking-supportive attitudes. The total score was used in primary analyses, whereas subscale scores were analysed descriptively. The SAQ demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach's α = .87) in the current sample.

Statistical Analysis

Preceding statistical analyses, all data were reviewed for missing data and response to manipulation checks (N = 457). All assumptions, except normality, were met for the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) and regression analyses. To address the violation of normality, the data were transformed using Templeton's (2011) two-step approach. After conducting the transformation, the assumption of normality was met. Statistical analyses of the data utilized both multiple linear regression and a 3 (perpetrator gender: man, woman or non-binary) × 3 (victim gender: man, woman or non-binary) × 2 (relationship: stranger or ex-intimate) between-subject ANCOVA model using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28).

Results

Manipulation Check

Before conducting the primary statistical analyses, participants’ understanding of the three vignette manipulations were checked using chi-square analyses. Results demonstrate that the majority of participants understood the manipulations with respect to perpetrator gender (n = 284, 83.53%), victim gender (n = 291, 85.59%) and type of relationship (n = 292, 85.88%); however, there was a significant difference in pass rates across the three levels of the perpetrator gender: man (n = 105, 92.92%), woman (n = 95, 84.82%) and non-binary (n = 84, 73.04%), χ² (4, N = 340) = 390.34, p < .001, φ_c = .76. Although participants who failed the perpetrator gender manipulation check were more likely to assume the perpetrator had been a man (n = 26, 48.15%) rather than a woman (n = 15, 27.78%) or non-binary (n = 13, 24.07%) perpetrator, these differences were not significant, χ² (2, N = 340) = 2.20, p = .333, φ_c = .08. Similar differences in accuracy of the victim gender manipulation were also found: man (n = 101, 86.32%), woman (n = 107, 95.54%) and non-binary (n = 83, 75.55%), χ² (4, N = 340) = 421.83, p < .001, φ_c = .79. Again, although most participants who failed the victim gender manipulation assumed the victim had been a woman (n = 24, 48.00%), followed by the assumption of a man (n = 16, 32.00%) or non-binary (n = 10, 20.00%) victim, these differences were not significant, χ² (2, N = 340) = 2.54, p = .280, φ_c = .09. Participants were also significantly more likely to pass the relationship manipulation check when the perpetrator and victim were former intimate partners (n = 161, 94.15%) compared to strangers (n = 131, 77.51%), χ² (1, N = 340) = 179.86, p < .001, φ_c = .73. All participants who failed any of the three manipulation checks were excluded from the study (n = 97), leaving a total of 243 participants for analysis.

Consequently, 87 participants (35.80%) received a vignette depicting a man perpetrator, 82 (33.74%) received the woman vignette manipulation, and the remaining participants (n = 74, 30.45%) received the non-binary vignette manipulation (see Figure 1). Similarly, there was an unequal distribution of the victim gender manipulation across the vignette conditions: man (n = 88, 36.21%), woman (n = 85, 34.98%) and non-binary victim vignette (n = 70, 28.81%), as well as for the relationship type manipulation: stranger dyad vignette (n = 109, 44.86%) and ex-intimate dyad vignette (n = 134, 55.14%).

Figure 1.
Flow of Participants.

Gendered Stalking Dyads, Relationship Type and Perceived Threat

Men perpetrators were rated as posing the highest perceived threat (M = 41.47, SD = 8.20; see Supplemental material; Vovchuk et al., 2025), followed by non-binary (M = 39.59, SD = 7.23) and women (M = 35.68, SD = 7.08) perpetrators. A one-way ANOVA revealed a significant difference in perceived threat among the three perpetrator conditions, F(2, 242) = 12.84, p < .001, η² = 0.10, and a Tukey post hoc test (Tukey, 1949) indicated that perceived threat for man (p < .001) and non-binary (p = .004) perpetrator conditions were significantly higher than the woman perpetrator condition.

Stalking vignettes with a woman victim were rated as having the greatest threat toward the victim, with a mean of 40.54 (SD = 8.26) compared to conditions with a man (M = 36.87, SD = 7.94) or a non-binary (M = 39.61, SD = 6.89) victim. A one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference in perceived threat among the three victims, F(2, 242) = 5.17, p = .006, η² = 0.04, and a Tukey post hoc test showed that perceived threat for the woman victim (p = .006) was significantly higher compared to the man victim, but not significant in comparison to a non-binary victim (p = .743). Notably, ex-intimate stalking dyads were rated as posing a significantly lower perceived threat (M = 37.20, SD = 7.65) to victims than strangers (M = 41.10, SD = 7.71), t(241) = 3.94, p < .001, d = 7.68.

Stalking Attitudes

All participants (N = 243, 100.00%) completed the SAQ. The average score was 51.6 (SD = 13.8, min = 22, max = 99) out of 132, indicating a low overall endorsement of stalking-supportive attitudes. A slight positive skew (.27) suggested that, although some participants scored rather high, most had low scores. Endorsement varied across the SAQ factors: victim blaming was minimal (M = 8.3, SD = 3.2), and participants more frequently endorsed absolving perpetrators of responsibility (M = 22.5, SD = 5.9) and acceptance of normalized romantic pursuit behaviours (M = 22.4, SD = 5.5).

Hypotheses 1 and 2: Gendered Stalking Dyad

The primary hypotheses were that stalking dyads with a man perpetrator and woman victim would be rated highest for perceived threat, and that dyads with women victims would be rated as more threatening than those with men victims. A 3 (perpetrator gender: man, woman or non-binary)×3 (victim gender: man, woman or non-binary)×2 (relationship: stranger or ex-intimate) between-subject ANCOVA was used to analyse these hypotheses. Results indicated that stalking-supportive attitudes were significantly related to perceived threat, F(1, 224) = 35.97, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .138. Additionally, there were significant main effects for perpetrator gender, F(2, 224) = 13.55, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .108, and type of relationship, F(1, 224) = 11.10, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .047, on perceptions of threat when controlling for stalking-supportive attitudes (see Supplemental material; Vovchuk et al., 2025). These results indicated that both the gender of the perpetrator (i.e. man, woman and non-binary) and the relationship between the perpetrator and victim (i.e. stranger and ex-intimate) significantly influenced perceptions of threat associated with stalking. Surprisingly, the main effect for victim gender was not significant when assessing perceived threat, F(2, 224) = 1.82, p = .164, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .016. The only significant interaction was between perpetrator and victim gender on perceived threat, F(4, 224) = 2.45, p = .047, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .042, indicating that the victim's gender influences perceptions of threat only when the perpetrator's gender is also considered. In sum, the first primary hypothesis was partially supported, and the second hypothesis was not.

Hypothesis 3: Attitudes of Stalking and Threat Perception

A multiple linear regression model tested whether stalking-supportive attitudes (i.e. SAQ total score), perpetrator gender, victim gender and type of relationship significantly predicted perceptions of threat. The regression results indicated that stalking attitudes, perpetrator gender, victim gender and type of relationship explained 21.70% of the variance in perceived threat, R² = .217, F(4, 238) = 16.48, p < .001 (see Supplemental material; Vovchuk et al., 2025). The independent variables of stalking attitudes, β = −.365, t(242) = −6.23, p < .001, and type of relationship, β = −1.97, t(242) = −3.41, p < .001, were significant predictors of perceived threat. As such, both stalking attitudes and relationship type had a significant inverse relationship with perceived threat (i.e. a lower score on stalking-supportive attitudes was associated with greater perceptions of threat). As hypothesized, higher stalking-supportive attitudes were associated with lower perceived threat; however, perpetrator and victim gender were not significant predictors for perceived threat, β = −.105, t(242) = −1.83, p = .068, and β = .085, t(242) = 1.47, p = .144, respectively.

Discussion

This study examined how diverse gender identities and relationship types affected perceived threat using stalking vignettes. Statistical analyses showed that perpetrator gender and relationship type significantly impacted threat perceptions, whereas victim gender did not, partially supporting the first hypothesis but not the second. Lower perceived threat was associated with stalking-supportive attitudes, fully supporting the third hypothesis. These results indicate that social attitudes play an important role in shaping threat perceptions, which could have real-world implications for stalking victims.

Gender Identity and Relationships in Stalking Research

This study examined gender identity rather than sex to evaluate threat perceptions more precisely with respect to gendered stalking perpetration and victimization. Despite clear guidelines and recommendations for researchers to recognize the distinction between gender and sex (Gartzia, 2024), recent studies still use these terms interchangeably (e.g. Brenik et al., 2025). This is particularly common regarding threat perception in stalking vignette studies, where perpetrators and victims are labelled by biological sex but analysed through a gendered lens (e.g. Brenik et al., 2025). Such inconsistencies are problematic, as ‘male’ and ‘female’ alone do not capture the full range of gender identities (i.e. how individuals identify and express themselves independent of birth sex; Hyde et al., 2019). Individuals who identify outside traditional gender norms (e.g. non-binary) may be more vulnerable to victim-blaming in stalking, a concern identified in research with non-binary sexual assault victims (DeFrain and Demers, 2025). The reliance on sex-based classifications (as opposed to gender-based identities) in stalking research may inadvertently reinforce heteronormative stereotypes and fail to capture the nuances of victimization experienced by gender-diverse individuals.

In light of the inconsistent use of gender versus sex in prior stalking research, direct comparisons between studies should be made carefully. If we assume that ‘male’ in prior studies refers to cisgender men, both the current study and prior studies (Phillips et al., 2004; Sheridan et al., 2003) found that men perpetrators were considered the most threatening to their victims, suggesting some consistency in results across sex- and gender-identity based vignette designs. The examination of gender diversity in the current study, however, also led to novel findings. Notably, non-binary perpetrators were perceived as more threatening than women perpetrators but less threatening than men, possibly due to the public's underestimation of the physical, psychological and financial harm caused by women and non-binary stalking perpetrators to victims (Meloy and Boyd, 2003). Though it remains unclear why participants believe the threat posed by gender minority (e.g. non-binary) perpetrators is different than men and women perpetrators.

Another novel finding within the study was that the perpetrator's gender, rather than the victim's gender, influenced threat perceptions in stalking cases. This finding builds on prior research suggesting there is often greater concern for women compared to men victims (Gavin and Scott, 2016; Phillips et al., 2004); however, it appears that, to fully understand public threat perceptions, we need to examine the identity of the perpetrator rather than exclusively focus on the gender of the stalking target. This finding further highlights the importance of examining gender and relationship diversity for both perpetrators and victims. Indeed, the most likely explanation for the difference between our results and prior studies is that prior studies often used a cross-gender approach where they compared men perpetrators stalking women victims to women perpetrators stalking men victims, thereby overlooking the interaction of perpetrator and victim gender. Future research should continue to incorporate a more diverse range of gender dyads to confirm the consistency of this finding beyond the current sample.

Our results also align with previous research findings that public threat perceptions are higher when the stalking perpetrators are strangers as opposed to ex-intimate partners, regardless of the gender identity of the perpetrator or victim (Chung and Sheridan, 2021; Hills and Taplin, 1998; Scott et al., 2010, 2014a, 2014b; Scott and Sheridan, 2011; Sheridan et al., 2003). As previously stated, this stereotype is not only misleading but also dangerous, as higher rates of attempted and lethal violence have been found in women victimized by men (ex)intimate partners (McFarlane et al., 1999). This misconception is also alarming for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ+) stalking victims as this demographic is also frequently targeted by current and former partners (SPARC, 2021). For instance, Kurbatfinski et al. (2024) found that many LGBTQ + individuals report higher distress as a result of stalking compared to the general population, but are, at times, failed by the legal system. This is often due to challenges with obtaining protection orders for IPV cases, especially when stalking deviates from a cisgender narrative, allowing perpetrators to continue harassing victims. Unfortunately, the current study confirms that the public misconception of strangers being more threatening than ex-intimate partners holds across diverse gender and sexual identities.

The pattern of results from the current study, in which stalking dyads involving strangers or men and non-binary perpetrators targeting women were perceived as most threatening, highlights the persistent influence of gendered stereotypes on threat perceptions posed in stalking cases. This pattern underscores the need to improve public knowledge and awareness of the diversity of stalking among a wide range of both sexual and gender identities to promote gender equity in both the identification and response to stalking. This could be addressed through both policy change and training aimed at facilitating an understanding of the definition of stalking and how the harm caused by stalking is not specific to a particular gender or relationship type. For example, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police launched the Canadian National Action Plan to promote gender equality by increasing gender diversity throughout all levels of Canadian policing (Government of Canada, 2024). Historically, research revealed that policing of domestic violence cases centred on women victims, leading to more advocacy and responsiveness in cases with women victims (Pattavina et al., 2007). When IPV occurred in same-gender relationships (particularly between women), officers were more inclined to make an arrest than with heterosexual cases of a similar offence severity (Pattavina et al., 2007). Further, some IPV risk assessment tools (namely, actuarial or predictive approaches) used by police and forensic evaluators were developed using heteronormative samples and may not be appropriate for use with gender-diverse or non-heterosexual dyads. To reduce systemic unfairness, officers and risk assessors must receive training in diversity and employ risk assessment tools that are appropriate for use with diverse perpetrators, victims and relationship types (e.g. discretionary or Structured Professional Judgment approaches).

Reporting and Stereotypes in Stalking Cases

Despite general disapproval of stalking behaviours in this study, societal misconceptions about appropriate romantic pursuit may still discourage stalking victims from reporting. Although participants showed low agreement with stalking-supportive attitudes generally and victim-blaming specifically,² beliefs that absolve perpetrators and normalize persistent romantic pursuit were still frequently endorsed. In other words, although overt support of stalking was rare in this sample, some misconceptions about ‘normal’ romantic pursuit behaviours were evident. Romanticizing unwanted or excessive pursuit behaviour can be damaging to victims as such justifications minimize the severity of the behaviour and could lead victims to doubt their victimization.

In addition, although there are limited studies examining the secondary victimization that can result from unsuccessful or ineffective legal processes following stalking allegations, a study by Jackson et al. (2017) explored this issue within a sample of sexual minority men who had experienced sexual assault. The study found that all participants had experienced secondary victimization, defined as prolonged and compounded harms arising from judgemental attitudes, lack of support, condemnation and social alienation (Williams, 1984). Further, improper questioning by police caused added distress to victims, and a lack of follow up by law enforcement was common (Jackson et al., 2017). Data on Colorado police reporting patterns also noted disparities, where women report incidents of stalking at higher rates (30.6%) than men (22.7%), and transgender individuals report at the lowest rate (9.1%), despite experiencing the highest level of stalking victimization (Langenderfer-Magruder et al., 2020). Societal victim-blaming or ineffective policing methods may contribute to lower reporting rates among those who identify as sexual or gender minorities. Disseminating information regarding common and harmful stalking misconceptions or supporting further law enforcement training on the harms associated with gender profiling could improve the reporting, identification and response to stalking allegations made by persons of diverse genders.

Strengths and limitations

Stalking research has predominantly involved the collection of prevalence data or identification of risk factors for stalking, with little attention paid to the role of threat perceptions associated with stalking, and how such perceptions may differ for gender-diverse perpetrators and victims. As previously noted, examination of threat perceptions is important to understanding differential reporting of stalking and potential unfairness in systemic responses to stalking perpetration and victimization. Therefore, we examined diverse gender identities for perpetrators and victims and varied the relationship type to facilitate our understanding of how these factors may impact threat perceptions. This study also examined and controlled for stalking-supportive attitudes to isolate the effect of perpetrator gender, victim gender and relationship type on threat perceptions. Importantly, the inclusion of non-binary perpetrators and victims was intended to contribute to the growing literature on the experiences of gender-minority groups, with the hope of providing valuable insights for future research, policy and practice.

There were several limitations to the present study. Using a convenience sample of undergraduate students may limit the generalizability of these results to other populations. As such, future research should examine whether similar gender biases influence perceptions of stalking threat among law enforcement or forensic evaluators. Additionally, the written vignette consisted of a small paragraph, which may have influenced threat perceptions due to the limited information provided regarding the stalking behaviour. Lastly, this study did not collect data on the actual harm caused by stalking, preventing conclusions about whether specific gender dyads pose greater real-world risk to victims. Future research could expand on this study by using multimedia vignettes, diverse samples, and assessing the actual risks and harms of stalking behaviours in gender-diverse dyads.

Conclusion

This study focused on the stereotypes ingrained in stalking threat perceptions across diverse perpetrator and victim gender identities and relationships. As expected, based on prior studies, men perpetrators were viewed as the most threatening to victims; however, the current findings also revealed novel insights into the perceived threat of harm posed by women and non-binary perpetrators, thereby contributing to an under-examined area of research. Unfortunately, consistent with past studies, strangers were rated as the most threatening of all relationship types across sexual and gender identities, dangerously overlooking the reality of lethal violence posed by ex-intimate partners. Although this study found that societal attitudes toward stalking have progressed, misconceptions appear to persist and may help explain the ongoing underreporting of stalking by some victims. If law enforcement officers, forensic evaluators, or the judiciary rely on heteronormative models or tools developed with heteronormative samples, victims outside the traditional man-perpetrator and woman-victim stalking dyad may struggle to receive adequate support and protection from our legal systems and may therefore choose to stay silent. Future research must evaluate the effectiveness of existing forensic systems to ensure gender equity and responsiveness within training and threat assessment. Expanding beyond the concept of the ‘traditional’ perpetrator and victim, the true experiences of gender diverse victims can be fully recognized, understood, and integrated into forensic assessment and policy.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-fmh-10.1177_14999013251356519 - Supplemental material for University Students' Perceptions of Stalking Threat: The Role of Gender and Relationship Type

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-fmh-10.1177_14999013251356519 for University Students' Perceptions of Stalking Threat: The Role of Gender and Relationship Type by Abby Vovchuk, Brianne K Layden and Alicia Nijdam-Jones in International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-2-fmh-10.1177_14999013251356519 - Supplemental material for University Students' Perceptions of Stalking Threat: The Role of Gender and Relationship Type

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-fmh-10.1177_14999013251356519 for University Students' Perceptions of Stalking Threat: The Role of Gender and Relationship Type by Abby Vovchuk, Brianne K Layden and Alicia Nijdam-Jones in International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-3-fmh-10.1177_14999013251356519 - Supplemental material for University Students' Perceptions of Stalking Threat: The Role of Gender and Relationship Type

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-3-fmh-10.1177_14999013251356519 for University Students' Perceptions of Stalking Threat: The Role of Gender and Relationship Type by Abby Vovchuk, Brianne K Layden and Alicia Nijdam-Jones in International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-4-fmh-10.1177_14999013251356519 - Supplemental material for University Students' Perceptions of Stalking Threat: The Role of Gender and Relationship Type

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-4-fmh-10.1177_14999013251356519 for University Students' Perceptions of Stalking Threat: The Role of Gender and Relationship Type by Abby Vovchuk, Brianne K Layden and Alicia Nijdam-Jones in International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-5-fmh-10.1177_14999013251356519 - Supplemental material for University Students' Perceptions of Stalking Threat: The Role of Gender and Relationship Type

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-5-fmh-10.1177_14999013251356519 for University Students' Perceptions of Stalking Threat: The Role of Gender and Relationship Type by Abby Vovchuk, Brianne K Layden and Alicia Nijdam-Jones in International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

Manipulations	Vignette
Perpetrator gender
Man	John (he/him)
Woman	Linda (she/her)
Non-binary	Blake (they/them)
Victim gender
Man	Luke (he/him)
Woman	Suzanne (she/her)
Non-binary	Robin (they/them)
Relationship
Stranger	[victim gender] first met [perpetrator gender] when [victim pronoun] visited the estate agents where [perpetrator pronoun] works to renew the lease on [victim pronoun] apartment.
Ex-intimate	[victim gender] and [perpetrator gender] had been in a relationship for 3 months when [victim gender] ended it.

	Stranger	Ex-intimate
Man perpetrator
Man victim	12	43.42	7.41	19	35.62	6.66
Woman victim	17	46.16	5.10	16	42.32	9.01
Non-binary victim	12	42.12	9.39	11	40.29	8.23
Woman perpetrator
Man victim	12	33.95	6.50	17	30.71	5.38
Woman victim	14	40.84	5.94	15	33.06	8.13
Non-binary victim	12	39.30	4.86	12	38.69	5.48
Non-binary perpetrator
Man victim	11	42.38	8.77	17	38.32	6.70
Woman victim	7	39.55	10.34	16	39.96	6.53
Non-binary victim	12	39.54	7.48	11	38.30	5.41

Footnotes

Author note

This article is based on research conducted for Abby Vovchuk's undergraduate honours thesis completed at the University of Manitoba in April 2024. Preliminary findings were presented at the International Association of Forensic Mental Health Services Conference in San Francisco, USA in June 2024. We would like to thank Dr. Jessica Cameron for her consultation and expertise on the use of appropriate gender terminology and language throughout the article.

ORCID iDs

Abby Vovchuk

Brianne K. Layden

Alicia Nijdam-Jones

Ethical Considerations

This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines outlined in the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS-2). Ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Board at the University of Manitoba, under approval number HE2023-0352.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Data Availability Statement

Study pre-registration and materials are available on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/w8j4f). A de-identified copy of the dataset used and analysed for the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Brenik

Tuluceanu

A. C.

Smillie

Carpes Barros Cassal

Mead

Mojtahedi

(2025). Impact of perpetrator and victim gender on perceptions of stalking severity. Behaviorial Sciences, 15(2), 120. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15020120

Brooks

Petherick

Kannan

Stapleton

Davidson

(2021). Understanding female-perpetrated stalking. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 8(3), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000162

Cantor

Fisher

Chibnall

Harps

Townsend

Thomas

Lee

Kranz

Herbison

Madden

(2020). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and misconduct. Westat for the Association of American Universities (AAU). https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/aau-report_rev-01-17-2020.pdf

Cass

A. I.

Mallicoat

S. L.

(2014). College student perceptions of victim action: Will targets of stalking report to police? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(2), 250–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-014-9252-8

Chen

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

(2023). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2016/2017 report on victimization by sexual identity. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/98137/cdc_98137_DS1.pdf

Chung

K. L.

Sheridan

(2021). Perceptions of stalking: Examining perceivers’ country of origin, perpetrator-target prior relationship, and the mediating effect of victim responsibility. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(21–22), 10454–10481. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211042601

Cook

L. C.

Duff

S. C.

(2022). A comparison of public perceptions of cisgender male and transgender male stalking perpetrators. Journal of Criminal Psychology, 13(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcp-09-2021-0037

DeFrain

M. A.

Demers

J. M.

(2025). Binary interpretations of nonbinary features: The impact of victims’ gendered characteristics on perceptions of sexual violence scenarios. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000824

Dennison

Thomson

D. M.

(2000). Community perceptions of stalking: What are the fundamental concerns? Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 7(2), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710009524982

10.

Dunlap

E. E.

Lynch

K. R.

Jewell

J. A.

Wasarhaley

N. E.

Golding

J. M.

(2014). Participant gender, stalking myth acceptance, and gender role stereotyping in perceptions of intimate partner stalking: A structural equation modeling approach. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21(3), 234–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2014.951648

11.

Edwards

K. M.

Camp

E. E.

Lim

Logan

T. K.

Shorey

R. C.

Babchuk

(2022). Stalking among sexual and gender minorities: A systematic literature review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 66, 101777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2022.101777

12.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149

13.

Gartzia

(2024). Sex and attitudinal gender: A critical review and decomposition principle. Current Psychology, 43(40), 31416–31433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06410-w

14.

Gavin

Scott

A. J.

(2016). The influence of the sex of and prior relationship between the perpetrator and victim on perceptions of stalking: A qualitative analysis. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23(5), 716–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1142933

15.

Government of Canada. (2024, March). Royal Canadian Mounted Police implementation plan for Canada’s national action plan on women, peace, and security – 2023 to 2029. https://www.international.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/women-peace-security-femmes-paix-securite/2023-2029-implementation-plans-mise-ceuvre-rcmp-grc.aspx?lang=eng

16.

Habarth

J. M.

(2015). Development of the heteronormative attitudes and beliefs scale. Psychology & Sexuality, 6(2), 166–188. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2013.876444

17.

Hafarizam Wan Aisha Mubarak (HWAM). (2023, July). Section 507A of the penal code of Malaysia. HWAM. https://hwam.com.my/section-507a-of-the-penal-code-of-malaysia/

18.

Hare

(2020). Stalkers walk: A cultural analysis of the need for international stalking reform. George Washington Law Review, 52(2), 317–353.

19.

Hills

A. M.

Taplin

J. L.

(1998). Anticipated responses to stalking: Effect of threat and target-stalker relationship. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 5(1), 139–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719809524927

20.

Hyde

J. S.

Bigler

R. S.

Joel

Tate

C. C.

van Anders

S. M.

(2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist, 74(2), 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000307

21.

Jackson

M. A.

Valentine

S. E.

Woodward

E. N.

Pantalone

D. W.

(2017). Secondary victimization of sexual minority men following disclosure of sexual assault: “Victimizing me all over again…”. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14(3), 275–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-016-0249-6

22.

Koss

M. P.

Dinero

T. E.

Seibel

C. A.

Cox

S. L.

(1988). Stranger and acquaintance rape: Are there differences in the victim’s experience? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1988.tb00924.x

23.

Kropp

P. R.

Hart

S. D.

Lyon

D. R.

(2002). Risk assessment of stalkers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29(5), 590–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/009385402236734

24.

Kropp

P. R.

Hart

S. D.

Lyon

D. R.

(2008). Guidelines for Stalking Assessment and Management: User manual. ProActive ReSolutions.

25.

Kurbatfinski

Nixon

Marshall

Novick

McBride

Letourneau

(2024). That was terrifying!”: When 2SLGBTQQ+ individuals and rural women experiencing intimate partner violence are stalked. AIMS Medical Science, 11(3), 265–291. https://doi.org/10.3934/medsci.2024020

26.

Langenderfer-Magruder

Walls

N. E.

Whitfield

D. L.

Kattari

S. K.

Ramos

(2020). Stalking victimization in LGBTQ adults: A brief report. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(5–6), 1442–1453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517696871

27.

Lowney

K. S.

Best

(2017). Stalking strangers and lovers: Changing media typifications of a new crime problem. In J. Best (Ed.), Images of issues (2nd ed., pp. 33–58). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351310284-5

28.

McEwan

Mullen

P. E.

Purcell

(2007). Identifying risk factors in stalking: A review of current research. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2006.03.005

29.

McFarlane

J. M.

Campbell

J. C.

Wilt

Sachs

C. J.

Ulrich

(1999). Stalking and intimate partner femicide. Homicide Studies, 3(4), 300–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767999003004003

30.

McKeon

B. M.

McEwan

T. E.

Luebbers

(2015). “It’s not really stalking if you know the person”: Measuring community attitudes that normalize, justify and minimise stalking. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(2), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.945637

31.

McKeon

B. M.

Ogloff

J. R. P.

McEwan

T. E.

Mullen

P. E.

(2011). Stalking Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ). [Unpublished measure]. Monash University and Forensicare.

32.

McKeon

B. M.

Ogloff

J. R. P.

Mullen

P. E.

(2002). Stalking Related Attitudes Questionnaire (SRAQ). [Unpublished measure]. Monash University and Forensicare.

33.

McMullin

White

J. W.

(2006). Long-term effects of labeling a rape experience. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30(1), 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2006.00266.x

34.

Meloy

J. R.

(1999). Stalking: An old behavior, a new crime. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 22(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0193-953x(05)70061-7

35.

Meloy

J. R.

Boyd

(2003). Female stalkers and their victims. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31(2), 211–219. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12875500/

36.

Meloy

J. R.

Mohandie

Green

(2011). The female stalker. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(2), 240–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.976

37.

Meloy

J. R.

Rivers

Siegel

Gothard

Naimark

Nicolini

(2000). A replication study of obsessional followers and offenders with mental disorders. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45(1), 147–152. https://doi.org/10.1520/jfs14649j

38.

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 Sciences, 51(1), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2005.00030.x

39.

Mullen

P. E.

Pathé

M. T.

Purcell

(2001). Stalking: New constructions of human behavior. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35(1), 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-1614.2001.00849.x

40.

Pathé

M. T.

Mullen

P. E.

(1997). The impact of stalkers on their victims. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170(1), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.170.1.12

41.

Pathé

M. T.

Mullen

P. E.

Purcell

(2000). Same-gender stalking. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 28(2), 191–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139106863.010

42.

Pattavina

Hirschel

Buzawa

Faggiani

Bentley

(2007). A comparison of the police response to heterosexual versus same-sex intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13(4), 374–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801207299206

43.

Phillips

Quirk

Rosenfeld

O’Connor

(2004). Is it stalking: Perceptions of stalking among college undergraduates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(1), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854803259251

44.

Purcell

Pathé

M. T.

Mullen

P. E.

(2001). A study of women who stalk. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(12), 2056–2060. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.12.2056

45.

Purcell

Pathé

M. T.

Mullen

P. E.

(2004). Editorial: When do repeated intrusions become stalking? Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 15(4), 571–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789940412331313368

46.

Rogers

(2021). Domestic violence and abuse when survivors identify as trans or non-binary. In J. N. Nielsen & M. J. Walker (Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of domestic violence and abuse (pp. 283–296). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429331053-22

47.

Ryan

K. M.

(2011). The relationship between rape myths and sexual scripts: The social construction of rape. Sex Roles, 65(11–12), 774–782. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0033-2

48.

Scott

A. J.

Lloyd

Gavin

(2010). The influence of prior relationship on perceptions of stalking in the United Kingdom and Australia. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(11), 1185–1194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854810378812

49.

Scott

A. J.

Nixon

Sheridan

(2013). The influence of prior relationship on perceptions of stalking. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(12), 1434–1448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813494183

50.

Scott

A. J.

Rajakaruna

Sheridan

(2014a). Framing and perceptions of stalking: The influence of conduct severity and the perpetrator–target relationship. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(3), 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2013.770856

51.

Scott

A. J.

Rajakaruna

Sheridan

Sleath

(2014b). International perceptions of stalking and responsibility: The influence of prior relationship and severity of behavior. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(2), 220–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813500956

52.

Scott

A. J.

Sheridan

(2011). Reasonable’ perceptions of stalking: The influence of conduct severity and the perpetrator–target relationship. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17(4), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160903203961

53.

Sheridan

Gillett

Davies

G. M.

Blaauw

Patel

(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. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712603762842129

54.

Sheridan

Lyndon

A. E.

(2010). The influence of prior relationship, gender, and fear on the consequences of stalking victimization. Sex Roles, 66(5–6), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9889-9

55.

Sheridan

Scott

A. J.

Campbell

A. M.

(2019). Perceptions and experiences of intrusive behavior and stalking: Comparing LGBTIQ and heterosexual groups. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34(7), 1388–1409. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516651313

56.

Spitzberg

B. H.

(2017). Acknowledgement of unwanted pursuit, threats, assault, and stalking in a college population. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040205

57.

Stalking Prevention, Awareness, and Resource Center (SPARC) (2017). Stalking & intimate partner violence: Fact sheet. https://www.stalkingawareness.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Stalking-IPV-Fact-Sheet.pdf

58.

Stalking Prevention, Awareness, and Resource Center (SPARC) (2021). Stalking & LGBTQ+ individuals – fact sheet. https://www.stalkingawareness.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/SPARC_Stalking-LGBTQ-Fact-Sheet.pdf

59.

Strand

McEwan

T. E.

(2011). Same-gender stalking in Sweden and Australia. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(2), 202–219. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.981

60.

Templeton

G. F.

(2011). A two-step approach for transforming continuous variables to normal: Implications and recommendations for is research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28, https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.02804

61.

Tukey

J. W.

(1949). Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. Biometrics, 5(2), 99–114. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/3001913

62.

van der Aa

(2018). New trends in the criminalization of stalking in the EU member states. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 24(3), 315–333. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-017-9359-9

63.

Vovchuk

Layden

B. K.

Nijdam-Jones

(2025, April 24). University students’ perceptions of stalking threat: The role of gender and relationship type. Retrieved from https://osf.io/w8j4f

64.

Weller

Hope

Sheridan

(2013). Police and public perceptions of stalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(2), 320–339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512454718

65.

Williams

J. E.

(1984). Secondary victimization: Confronting public attitudes about rape. Victimology. 9, 66–81.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB

0.06 MB

0.07 MB

0.08 MB

0.06 MB