Chapter 1

3 downloads 0 Views 158KB Size Report
... it has begun. Keywords: Cyberstalking, intimate partner violence, stalking .... Types of cyberstalking include mailbombing (sending a large number of messages to ... the victim's name and contact details on the internet (Duggan, 2014; Parsons- ... insecurity due to the perpetrator's ability to “generate impressions that they.
Chapter

STALKING: AN AGE OLD PROBLEM WITH NEW EXPRESSIONS IN THE DIGITAL AGE Nicola Cheyne, PhD* Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research, CQU, Brisbane, Queensland

Marika Guggisberg, PhD Queensland Centre for Domestic and Family Violence Research, CQU, Perth, Western Australia

ABSTRACT This chapter explores stalking as a phenomenon that began in physical spaces but has now expanded into digital space with the advent of the internet and digital devices. This form of intimate partner violence is often misunderstood by lay persons as well as professionals within the criminal justice system, which furthers the negative impact for the largely female victims of this violence. In this chapter, definitions are first provided for stalking and cyberstalking before moving to examining the prevalence of, and motivations for, stalking and cyberstalking. Impacts of this behaviour are explored before examination of the issues in relation to seeking assistance from the criminal justice system and finally covering the informal measures that

*Corresponding

Author: [email protected]

2

Cheyne & Guggisberg

may be adopted in attempts to prevent stalking and cyberstalking or stop the stalking after it has begun. Keywords: Cyberstalking, intimate partner violence, stalking

INTRODUCTION Stalking is overwhelmingly a crime of violence against women carried out by men (Mohandie, Meloy, McGowan, & Williams, 2006). This constellation of behaviours has existed for centuries, in the guise of ordinary and socially accepted relationship pursuit behaviours, and has only recently been recognised as unlawful, much like violence against an intimate partner (Smoker & March, 2017). Stalking is often thought of as an issue that occurs among strangers; this has been driven by media representations and indeed by the origins of legislation prohibiting this behaviour. Legislation was first introduced in California in 1990 (Gilligan, 1992; Tjaden, 2009), with Queensland being the first state in Australia to introduce stalking legisation in 1993 (Kift, 1999). The Californian legislation was largely prompted by the case of an actress stalked and then murdered by an obsessed fan (Ngo & Paternoster, 2013). Other celebrity stalking cases, as well as media representations of stalking, have driven a common misperception that stalking is largely engaged in by strangers (Weller, Hope, & Sheridan, 2013). In fact, stalking is most often engaged in by male romantic partners as opposed to someone unknown to the victim (Buzawa, Buzawa, & Stark, 2017; Mullen et al., 2006). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey in the US found that of all women who reported stalking victimisation, only 13% were stalked by a stranger (Buzawa et al., 2017). It follows that stalking often forms part of intimate partner violence, where the stalker’s control is further extended over the victim’s life, a fact thatis being increasingly recognised in the research literature (Kraaij, Arensman, Garnefski, & Kremers, 2007; Mechanic, Weaver, & Resick, 2008; Walker, 2017). Buzawa and colleagues (2017) indicated that the majority of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrators commenced their stalking behaviours while the relationship was

Stalking

3

ongoing, with control tactics involving threats of or actual violence and sexual assault. There is a distinct difference between partner stalking and stranger stalking. An intimate partner knows the actions that will arouse the most fear for victims and the victim knows even seemingly inconsequential behaviours by the stalker possess a specific intent to intimidate and cause fear (Fraser, Olsen, Lee, Southworth, & Tucker, 2010). Stalking by a partner is more dangerous than stalking by a stranger, with threats being most often delivered by ex-partner stalkers (Mullen et al., 2006; Mullen, Pathé, & Purcell, 2000), and such threats being used as coercive control tactics (Buzawa et al., 2017). Previous research has outlined that ex-intimates engaged in more severe cyberstalking behaviours including delivering threats over the internet (Barnes & Biros, 2007). Women were more likely to be physically harmed by a stalker who was their current or former partner (Björklund, Häkkänen-Nyholm, Sheridan, & Roberts, 2010; Rosenfeld, 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Indeed, previous violence and threats by ex-partners were the best predictors of future stalking violence (McEwan, Mullen, MacKenzie, & Ogloff, 2009). A recent national US study found that 31% of women stalked by their partners were also sexually assaulted by them (Buzawa et al., 2017). Concerningly, Mohandie et al. (2006) found that male ex-intimate partners were more likely than strangers to persist in their stalking behaviours even after legal interventions. All of this evidence suggests that current or former intimate partners are largely perpetrating stalking against their female partners and that more serious types of stalking are likely to be engaged in by these partner stalkers. In addition, partner stalkers often use information technology as a further tool to extend their power and control over their victims (Woodlock, 2017). Cyberstalking has emerged as a new type of stalking since the introduction of the Internet and mobile phones. However, this is an under-researched area in comparison to stalking that occurs offline (Ménard & Pincus, 2012).This chapter sets out to clarify the definition of stalking before moving to discuss the latetst incarnation of this set of behaviours, cyberstalking. In this regard, it is important to note that in-person stalking and cyberstalking tend to overlap, particulary in relation to IPV (Breiding et al., 2014; Groban, 2016). The prevalence and impact of stalking will then be examined before moving to a discussion of the inherent difficulties involved in meeting both common and

4

Cheyne & Guggisberg

legislative definitions of stalking to assist with accessing the criminal justice system. The chapter will conclude with some preventative strategies that could be adopted to try to prevent stalking from occurring or stop the stalking after it has begun.

DEFINING STALKING Stalking is commonly described as the repeated harassment of a person which would cause the victim, or a reasonable person in the same situation, to fear for their safety (Abrams & Robinson, 2011; Dennison, 2007; Diette, Goldsmith, Hamilton, Darity, & McFarland, 2014; Dunlap, Hodell, Golding, & Wasarhaley, 2012; Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011; Lambert, Smith, Geistman, Cluse-Tolar, & Jiang, 2013). Stalking incorporates a range of actions, from seemingly innocuous overtures that would not otherwise be thought of as criminal, such as giving gifts or sending emails, to threats of or actual violence against a person (Brewster, 2000; Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Sheridan, Davies, & Boon, 2001). Stalking most often involves the harassment or pursuit of a person to exert control, intimidate and/or cause fear rather than the physical assault of the victim (Brewster, 2001, 2003; Buzawa et al., 2017). It is important to note that even innocuous acts, when repeated over a period of time, can cause a person to feel fearful (Dutton & Winstead, 2011). Therefore, the three key premises of stalking are (1) the varied nature of stalking actions, (2) the repeated nature of the actions, and (3) the fear felt by the victim. Stalking is a special type of crime as so many actions are considered to constitute stalking, and these actions can occur in physical or digital spaces. For example, stalking can consist of actions such as the stalker hanging around the victim, telephone calls, text messages, emails, GPS tracking, letters, offensive items given to the victim, threats of violence, and violent actions towards the victim (Buhi, Clayton, & Surrency, 2009; Sheridan & Lyndon, 2012). The stalker may also recruit other people to obtain information about the victim or engage in stalking behaviours against the victim (Spitz, 2003). Moreover, the acts considered to be stalking differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and from country to country, with no commonly agreed upon definition as to what constitutes stalking (Amar, 2007; Blaauw, Sheridan, & Winkel, 2002). However, the commonality across jurisdictions and countries is that stalking behaviours exist on a continuum, from actions that would not otherwise be

Stalking

5

considered criminal, such as telephone calls, to actions involving violence (Brewster, 2000; Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Sheridan et al., 2001). The crucial elements in defining these disparate actions as stalking are the repetition of the perpetrator’s behaviours and the psychological reactions they invoke in the victim. For other types of crimes,one act would be sufficient to constitute a crime. For stalking to be recognised, however, actions must be repeated or they must occur on one occasion over a long time period (Cass, 2011; Cass & Rosay, 2012; Davis, Swan, & Gambone, 2012). This repetition is required to demonstrate that a course of conduct is being engaged in by the stalker against the victim. The same action does not need to be engaged in on these repeated occasions. Any of the actions, as long as they are repeated, constitute stalking, if the victim experiences a negative psychological reaction to those actions. The requirement of repetition is another reason stalking is a special type of crime. The final reason stalking is a special type of crime is the requirement that the victim must experience fear or psychological harm such as extensive distress. For other crimes, the emotions of the victim would be irrelevant in categorising the violent action against the victim as criminal. Regarding stalking, the victim, or a reasonable person in the same situation (the ‘reasonable person test’), is required to interpret the actions as fearful in order for a crime to be recognised (Cass, 2011; Cass & Rosay, 2012; Davis et al., 2012). For example, if a person received five emails from a current or expartner, unless they acknowledged these actions as frightening or that a person in the same situation would experience fear, these actions would not be considered stalking. Ultimately, whether someone interprets an action as ordinary relationship/pursuit behaviour or threatening/harassing behaviours depends on the victim’s subjective interpretation of the circumstances (Campbell & Moore, 2011; Strawhun, Adams, & Huss, 2013). The psychological reactions of victims are vital to the identification of behaviours as stalking, and therefore, their designation as criminal actions (Campbell & Moore, 2011). This is because the interpretation of actions as stalking may be assisted by how the person feels in relation to those actions (Abrams & Robinson, 2011; Amar, 2007; Kamphuis & Emmelkamp, 2001). In fact, many women who are stalked by their intimate partners do not recognise the behaviour as stalking (Woodlock, 2017). There is some concern over the

6

Cheyne & Guggisberg

victim’s experience of fear as the sole measure of psychological reaction to stalking, because not all women may experience extensive fear in relation to stalking events. For example, Dietz and Martin (2007), analysed data from the National Violence Against Women survey and found that 25% of female stalking victims reported that they did not feel fearful. Therefore, some women do not recognise that they are stalked, and others may feel the actions they have experienced constitute stalking, but they have not experienced the fear required by legislationso that the behaviour may be defined as a crime (Blaauw et al., 2002). With the emergence of the internet as a global medium, men who use violence against their intimate partners now have an additional tool to control their female partners by using all manner of surveillance techniques to elicit a sense of entrapment, distress or fear. Discussion will now turn to the definition of cyberstalking.

DEFINING CYBERSTALKING Cyberstalking is defined as using email, the internet or other electronic communication to engage in repeated harassment or threats, which cause fear for the victim or a reasonable person in the same situation (Parsons-Pollard & Moriarty, 2009; Shimizu, 2013; Strawhun et al., 2013). This type of stalking can occur as an extension of offline stalking, or it may involve only online stalking (Barnes & Biros, 2007; McFarlane & Bocij, 2003). Ready access to cheap digital technology extends stalkers’ reach, allowing them access to their victim in additional and subtle ways, creating further intrusions into the victim’s life (Boland, 2005; Fraser et al., 2010; Strawhun et al., 2013). Indeed, each new digital advance brings with it attendant opportunities to engage in new stalking behaviours (Fraser et al., 2010). In opposition to offline stalking, cyberstalking does not require physical proximity. In addition, victims do not need to be online in order for stalkers to make contact with them, and, often much less effort is required to engage in actions against the victim (Nobles, Reyns, Fox, & Fisher, 2014; Shimizu, 2013). Cyberstalkers also may recruit others to harass or threaten their victims (Shimizu, 2013; Woodlock, 2017). Types of cyberstalking include mailbombing (sending a large number of messages to the victim’s email address or mobile phone), spamming, identity

Stalking

7

theft, gaining access to the victim’s computer, infecting the victim’s computer with a virus (McFarlane & Bocij, 2003), posting sexualised content along with the victim’s name and contact details on the internet (Duggan, 2014; ParsonsPollard & Moriarty, 2009; Wolak, Finkelhor, Walsh, & Treitman, 2017), using GPS to track the victim (Boland, 2005; Breiding et al., 2014; Groban, 2016; Hamid & Maple, 2013), and using social media platforms to embarrass, humiliate and isolate victims (Woodlock, 2017). Research on cyberstalking is growing, which may assist understanding of the extent and impacts of this type of stalking as well as offering women additional ways of managing the behaviours that they experience (Strawhun et al., 2013).

EXTENT OF STALKING AND CYBERSTALKING In-person stalking and cybertstalking affect a large proportion of society. Tjaden and Thoennes (1998) examined the results of an American-wide survey of 16,000 males and females and discovered that 2.2% of males and 8.1% of females had experienced stalking victimisation in their lifetime. Fisher, Cullen, and Turner (2002) found higher rates again when examining stalking among a national study of female college students, with 13.1% having been stalked. Dressing and colleagues (2005) analysed data from 679 participants (400 women and 279 men) using a postal survey in Mannheim, Germany. The researchers found that 17% of females and 3.6% of males had been stalked. In addition, Purcell, Pathé, and Mullen (2002) in the Australian state of Victoria, found that almost 25% of 1,844 participants who completed a postal survey would have satisfied the Victorian legal requirements for being a stalking victim. The lifetime prevalence rate for female victims was 32.4%, and 12.8% for male victims. Weller et al. (2013) noted that the lifetime prevalence rates of stalking for women ranged from 12% to 32% and for men from 4% to 17%. It is important to note that no universally accepted definition of stalking exists (Campbell & Moore, 2011), which may explain the discrepancy in results along with varying methodologies that are applied to gauge prevalence estimates (Nobles et al., 2014). Regardless, existing research clearly demonstrates that victims are primarily female (Amar & Alexy, 2010; Baum, Catalano, Rand, & Rose, 2009; Björklund et al., 2010; Budd & Mattinson, 2000; Fox, Gover, & Kaukinen, 2009; Purcell et al., 2002; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; Tjaden &

8

Cheyne & Guggisberg

Thoennes, 1998) whereas it has been found that stalkers are usually male (Baum et al., 2009; Björklund et al., 2010; Budd & Mattinson, 2000; Purcell et al., 2002; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Some studies have also been conducted to examine the characteristics of cyberstalking. The results of a study at a large American university with a random sample of 974 students indicated that 46.3% of the women had been cyberstalked (Reyns, Henson, & Fisher, 2012). The researchers found that women experienced cyberstalking at a significantly higher rate than men. Research has consistently indicated that young women are particularly vulnerable to cyberstalking. A large American survey of 2,849 internet users found that women were over three times more likely to experience cyberstalking when compared to men. Duggan (2014) reported that 26% of women compared to 7% of men aged 18 to 24 stated that they were cyberstalked. Overall, 9% of women in the sample had been cyberstalked compared to 6% of men. Researchers contend that stalking is most likely to occur amongst people that are currently, or were formerly, intimate partners (Bennett Cattaneo, Cho, & Botuck, 2011; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). Some research also demonstrates that this is the case with cyberstalking (Sheridan & Grant, 2007). Tjaden and Thoennes(1998) conducted a national study of victimisation in the USA,while Bjerregaard (2000) examined a sample of 788 American university students. Between 42% and 59% of women were stalked by a current or former intimate partner. Spitzberg and Cupach (2007), in a meta-analysis of 175 stalking studies, found that 49% of all stalkers were intimates (no differentiations were made by gender of the stalking victim; although, it was noted that the majority of victims were women across the studies). In-person stalking and cyberstalking are now recognised as common behaviours when women experience intimate partner violence (Buzawa et al., 2017; Nobles et al., 2014; Woodlock, 2017). Buzawa and colleagues (2017) argued that the key tactic of perpetrators is to instil fear and to attack women’s sense of safety by conveying omnipotence and omnipresence. Along the same lines, Woodlock (2017, p. 602) found that women experienced a great sense of insecurity due to the perpetrator’s ability to “generate impressions that they know and see everything”. Furthermore, while stalking often commences during the relationship, the risk of severe violence and even femicide increases

Stalking

9

when the couple is separated (Buzawa et al., 2017). In this regard, Doerner and Lab (2017) explained that women are most at risk when they want to break the cycle of violence and leave the abusive relationship. They stated,“...once the woman is determined to abandon the abusive relationship, the male...may resort to stalking activity or threats in an effort to thwart her escape and re-establish control over the victim” (p. 280).

MOTIVATIONS FOR STALKING Theories of Stalking

Explanations of the motivations for stalking include a range of theories. These theories include attachment theory (Patton, Nobles, & Fox, 2010), learning theories of crime and delinquency (Ménard & Pincus, 2012), evolutionary theory (Duntley & Buss, 2012), feminist approaches (Brewster, 2003) and relational goal pursuit theory (Cupach, Spitzberg, Bolingbroke, & Tellitocci, 2011; Cupach, Spitzberg, & Carson, 2000).These will be briefly outlined below. The most commonly applied theory to explain stalking perpetration is attachment theory (Brewster, 2003; Davis, Ace, & Andra, 2000; Dutton & Winstead, 2006; Dye & Davis, 2003; Hazan & Shaver, 1987; MacKenzie, Mullen, Ogloff, McEwan, & James, 2008; Ménard & Pincus, 2012; Morrison, 2008; Patton et al., 2010; Tonin, 2004). Bowlby (1988), a psychoanalytist like Freud, explained mental health and behavioural problems as stemming from issues with early childhood attachment. The proposition is that if children’s needs are not fulfilled due to maternal failure to initiate appropriate bonding, or if bonding is disrupted, longterm consequences will occur. These consequences include psychopathy, increased aggression and delinquency. Attachment theory is one of the best known psychological theories of delinquency, particularly the notion of ‘maternal deprivation’. There is much evidence that associates family dysfunction with delinquency in general as well as well as specifically to stalking behaviours (Newbury, 2017). For example, it has been theorised that disorders of attachment to the parent in early childhood have a consequent impact on adult attachment to romantic partners, which then leads to stalking (Brewster, 2003). Stalking perpetration was found to be significantly

10

Cheyne & Guggisberg

associated with an insecure attachment style, which included elements of anxiety that drove the stalkers to engage in stalking behaviours in attempts to re-establish the relationship (Patton et al., 2010). Learning theories explain offending as learned behaviour,whereby children learn violent behaviours from their parents and reproduce these behaviours in their later relationships (Ménard & Pincus, 2012). Behaviours are a consequence of interaction with others, particularly family and peers, which introduces people to particular social norms. Through learning and imitation, attitudes towards rules (including the law and its transgression) are learned. Attitudes favouring deviance then influence engagement in deviant behaviours (Rothwell & Hawdon, 2008). Consequently, learning takes place in a social context and the reproduction of behaviour is a conscious process (Newbury, 2017). In this regard, McGuire (2004) stated that criminal behaviour is a process and the result of “activities such as thoughts, feelings, attitudes or interpersonal exchanges” (p. 71). Empirical evidence suggests that stalking perpetrators learn from their parents or peers that stalking is an acceptable behaviour to engage in and then reproduce this behaviour (Fox, Nobles, & Akers, 2011; Ménard & Pincus, 2012). Evolutionary theorists have highlighted the biological imperatives that drive stalking perpetration (Duntley & Buss, 2012). Darwin (1871) posited that natural and sexual selection is related to human adaptation to the environment through psychological, physical and behavioural mechanisms to secure survival and reproduction. Sexual conflict evolves because of the different adaptations of females and males. Duntley and Buss (2012) offered an evolutionary theory of stalking suggesting that the behaviour is a successful strategy to regain sexual access to a former intimate partner. The theorists further stated that stalkers “operate largely out of conscious awareness” (p. 314), and their actions are an expression of adaptive behaviours to ensure human evolution and represent a beneficial strategy “to try to bring a lost mate back into the relationship” (p. 315). It was further acknowledged that sexual exploitation and predatory stalking is predominantly used by men. Feminist approaches have drawn attention to the gendered nature of violence against women and children (Guggisberg, 2010). Historically, attention to violence against women was very limited and men’s behaviours were rarely scrutinised. Tacit acceptance of male violence against women and

Stalking

11

rationalisation of this behaviour was common. Only in the 1970s did this violence begin to be challenged by feminist work that made female victimisation visible and illustrated the danger in the family home (Marin & Russo, 1999). Power and control were acknowledged as motivating factors for sexual and physical violence and also as reasons for why the criminal justice system failed to respond appropriately to the violence, given this was a maledominated system that stereotyped and blamed victimised females. It is important to note that there are numerous feminist approaches. However, there are shared principles, such as the notion of gender being a social construct of attitudes, values, beliefs and behaviours and the need for this to be recognised in relation to violence against women (Guggisberg, 2010). Feminist-informed theories have been used to explain stalking, particularly in the context of intimate partner violence (Basile, Hall, & Walters, 2013). Using a feminist approach, stalking is seen to be another element of partriachal society, where the accepted gender roles consist of dominant menwho are active pursuers of their selected women who are expected to be subservient recipients of their advances (Brewster, 2003). Consequently, stalking is seen as an extension of the man’s ‘right’ to control the woman who, as a function of being in a relationship with the man, belongs to him. Finally, relational goal pursuit theoryposits that intimate relationships and connectedness are human needs (Cupach et al., 2011). A break up of a relationship elicits strong emotions including sadness, frustration, jealousy and anger of varying intensity. Research evidence suggests that the greater the negative emotion, the greater the risk of engaging in harassment and stalking, because the pursuer is overwhelmed by negative emotions that serve as constant reminders of rejection (Davis et al., 2012). The use of stalking behaviours is explained as a coping strategy to relieve negative emotions and fulfil the relational goal to (re)connect. However, possessive acts due to jealousy may result in compounded guilt from rejection and the experience of shame may cause the pursuer to seek revenge. In such cases, the goal is to inflict harm to the person who rejected the stalker, which may become dangerous as stalking escalates and the behaviour threatens the safety of the victim (Cupach et al., 2000). Angry temperament and a need for control due to attachment issues in childhood have been found to be related to intimate partner stalking behaviours (Davis et al., 2012). The theory has been found to successfully explain stalking

12

Cheyne & Guggisberg

perpetration, whereby ex-partners strongly believe that attempts at reconciliation will be successful and they pursue their partner in order to meet their important life goal of being in a relationship (Cupach et al., 2011; Spitzberg, Cupach, Hannawa, & Crowley, 2014; Winkleman & Winstead, 2011). Typologies of Stalking

In addition to theoretical explorations of stalking, a number of typologies have been advanced to classify stalkers according to their motivations for pursuit (see for example Harmon, Rosner, & Owens, 1995; Kienlen, Birmingham, Solberg, & O'Regan, 1997; Wright et al., 1996; Zona, Sharma, & Lane, 1993). A typology by Mullen, Pathé, Purcell, and Stuart (1999) classified stalkers by placing them into five categories: rejected (usually an ex-intimate partner who cannot accept the end of a relationship and stalks out of revenge but also the desire to reconcile with the victim); intimacy seekers (who wish to establish a relationship with the victim, while also believing that the victim returns their affections); incompetent suitors (who also seek to develop a relationship but through socially unacceptable means as they are socially inept or intellectually challenged); resentful (they engage in stalking to cause fear and apprehension in the victim as the stalker believes the victim has wronged them); and predatory (they collect information about the victim in preparation for a sexual attack). McFarlane and Bocij (2003) devised a typology of cyberstalkers based on the accounts of 24 victims. The four categories cross over to some extent with Mullen et al.’s typology (1999): intimate (ex-intimates or those infatuated with the victim who wish to gain the affections or attentions of the victim); vindictive (ferociously pursue their victim and are likely to threaten their victim); composed (do not wish to establish a relationship with the victim but want to cause them distress and wish to cause constant annoyance and irritation); and collective cyberstalkers (corporations or groups pursuing victims online to get back at the victim for criticising the corporation or for a perceived wrong against the group). It is important to note that many of these typologies have been largely based on forensic or clinical samples. The existing research on stalkers outside of clinical samples suggests that some stalkers had a history of childhood

Stalking

13

trauma or experienced harsh parenting, which is associated with an insecure attachment style and personality problems (Kingham & Gordon, 2004; Ménard & Pincus, 2012) as discussed above. Research by Ménard and Pincus (2012) demonstrated that traumatic childhood events, sexual abuse and some aspects of narcissism predicted both offline and online stalking; although insecure attachment predicted cyberstalking. Further, Strawhun et al. (2013) found that problems with attachment, jealousy and violence in the relationship predicted cybertstalking. As outlined above, a number of theories have been suggested and typologies created by researchers and clinicians in recent years with the aim to better understand the motivations for stalking behaviours. What researchers and clinicians agree upon is that partner stalking is not only by far the most prevalent but also the most dangerous type of stalking (Björklund et al., 2010; Buzawa et al., 2017; Rosenfeld, 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Furthermore, stalkers have different motivations for stalking. However, obsession with the victim is one marked trait of stalking (Spitz, 2003), which leads to the examination of an important issue in relation to the motivation for partner stalking, which is sexual jealousy and possessiveness. Sexual jealousy and possessiveness have been associated with stalking behaviours and dangerous violence against an intimate partner. Men have been found to be much more prone to suffer from feelings of possessiveness and sexual jealousy than women with a rate of 95% versus 5%, with the majority of these mencohabitingwith their partner or being married (Kingham & Gordon, 2004). Men who experience possessiveness and sexual jealousy pose a danger to their ex-partners (Brownridge, 2009). The reason for this increased risk is because women who have left the relationship have, in these men’s minds, deprived them of their ownership, and, therefore, the men feel entitled to “take back their possession” (p. 67). Possessiveness and sexual jealousy are associated with irrational cognition and emotions along with controlling behaviour that includes physical and sexual violence and stalking (Buzawa et al., 2017). It is important to note that even when men are presented with evidence that their jealousy is unfounded, they do not seem able to modify their beliefs and reactions. Instead, they reject the evidence and continue to accuse their intimate partner of infidelity.These men have a sense of ownership of their partner and often justify violent behaviour as well as stalking as they believe

14

Cheyne & Guggisberg

their female partner is unfaithful and has provoked or actively encouraged their jealousy (Brownridge, 2009; Kingham & Gordon, 2004). Sexual jealousy then quickly becomes obsessional, which explains sustained stalking behaviours (Buzawa et al., 2017; Walker, 2017).

IMPACTS OF STALKING AND CYBERSTALKING The impacts of offline and/or online stalking are numerous and devastating for victims. In relation to cyberstalking, it is important to note that evidence suggests that the impacts are similar to those for traditional in-person stalking (Strawhun et al., 2013). A significant proportion of victims experience negative impacts from stalking, with in excess of 40% of victims in a national US study experiencing significant concern for their safety and more than a quarter seeking counselling (Ngo & Paternoster, 2013; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). The impact of stalking includes helplessness, fear, anxiety, depression, grief, attempted suicide, and alterations in behaviour (McFarlane & Bocij, 2003; Parsons-Pollard & Moriarty, 2009; Spitz, 2003). Women subjected to stalking have been found to experience financial consequences through loss of income, being too afraid to leave their homes for work, or being fired because they cannot concentrate at work, medical costs, legal costs, replacement costs for damaged property, and moving costs when relocating away from the stalker (Ngo & Paternoster, 2013; Spitz, 2003). Additionally, social consequences are numerous, such as having to change their routine, choosing to stay at home instead of going on social outings, leaving their job and even changing their identity, which all impact on victims’interpersonal relationships (Campbell & Moore, 2011; Sheridan & Lyndon, 2012; Spitz, 2003). Furthermore, multiple psychological and physical consequences include increased fear, distrust of others, nausea, gastro-intestinal conditions from chronic stress, eating disorders, anxiety, depression, panic attacks and sleep disturbances (Sheridan & Lyndon, 2012; Smoker & March, 2017). Importantly,while victims may take refuge within their own homes, they often feel unsafe in those homes (see for example Woodlock, 2017), which contributes to significant distress and mental and physical health problems (Buzawa et al., 2017). As a result, they often disengage from social activities, both offline and online (Walker, 2017).

Stalking

15

ISSUES AROUND HELP-SEEKING FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM The first step in seeking official help is the recognition that stalking is occurring. However, victims may not recognise the behaviour as stalking (Duntley & Buss, 2012; Woodlock, 2017). Often, members of the general public fail to understand the seriousness of stalking given the subtle nature of the majority of stalking. Behaviours such as telephone calls and text messages do not appear outwardly threatening; however, in the context of a repeated pattern of behaviours, these actions take on new meaning (Strawhun et al., 2013). Similar to societal perceptions of IPV, the psychological aspects of offline stalking and cyberstalking are often not seen as being as serious as physical and/or sexual violence. Furthermore, there is a lack of awareness in the general community and among many professionals in the health and criminal justice system that stalking behaviours often form part of the power and control tactics men apply in the context of IPV. Members of society tend to see partner stalking behaviours as misguided attempts at romantic pursuit (Parsons-Pollard & Moriarty, 2009), which may reinforce the perpetrator’s denial of harmful behaviours (Kingham & Gordon, 2004). Research has demonstrated that community members believe that stranger stalkers are more dangerous and require the intervention of police in comparison to intimate partnerstalkers (Scott, Lloyd, & Gavin, 2010). However, evidence demonstrates that partner stalkers are actually more dangerous. If victims manage to move past societal perceptions of stalking and recognise their own situations as comprising stalking, they may attempt to contact police for assistance. Police have been shown to take physical violence more seriously than non-physically violent methods of stalking, much like IPV (Weller et al., 2013). The relationship between stalkers and victims can also impact the way in which police view the behaviours, with strangers being more likely to be seen as‘real’ stalkers in comparison to intimate partners (Scott et al., 2010; Weller et al., 2013). Police may not recognise the seriousness of cyberstalking and ask victims to return to the police station when the stalker has issued physical threats against them (Parsons-Pollard & Moriarty, 2009). Furthermore, if the police do not have a dedicated computer crimes unit, they

16

Cheyne & Guggisberg

may be much less likely to pursue cyberstalking offenders than when specific cyber crime squads exist (Parsons-Pollard & Moriarty, 2009). The seriousness of stalking in the context of IPV has been well documented (Buzawa et al., 2017; Kingham & Gordon, 2004; Walker, 2017). Women’s increased risk of femicide at the hands of their intimate partner should be of particular concern to criminal justice officials, given that stalking behaviours have not always been taken seriously by police officers and often women who were murdered had previously taken out a restraining order against their expartner (Buzawa et al., 2017). Threats of homicide also have been found to frequently precede intimate partner homicide (Guggisberg, 2010; Kingham & Gordon, 2004). Therefore, the absence of physical violence should not be taken to indicate that there is no risk of harm to the victim.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS Given the challenges outlined above, a number of actions are recommended, both for general members of society and those who have already been subjected to stalking in an attempt to assist people to work preventatively and gain a better understanding of stalking behaviours.

Preventing Stalking From Occurring Broader societal education about in-person stalking and cyberstalking may assist community members to understand the behaviours that constitute stalking as well as the impacts on victims of these behaviours (Dhillon & Smith, 2017). Such education would assist community members to take actions to reduce their risk of being stalked but also to recognise stalking if they were to experience it and provide them with knowledge about how to proceed in terms of seeking assistance.

Preventing Stalking After it has Started Spence-Diehl (1999) stated that victims of stalking should trust their instincts and refrain from downplaying behaviours that they feel uncomfortable with, even when others believe the behaviours to be of little consequence. As

Stalking

17

has been demonstrated, professionals, family members and friends often lack knowledge and understanding of stalking behaviours. Therefore, their advice may not recognise the threat of harm and actually may be counterproductive. It is very important for victims to keep a record of the stalker’s conduct. Careful documentation may be critical in the case that the decision is made to involve the police (Fraser et al., 2010). As discussed in this chapter, stalkers often use technological devices to surveil, control and contact victims, which may provide critical evidence that can be provided to police (e.g. postings on social networking sites, text messages, photos, videos, emails and text messages) (Fraser et al., 2010; Hamid & Maple, 2013). Victims of stalking are also encouraged to devise a safety plan with help from a support person. This plan involves a risk assessment and incorporates considerations of the specific circumstances and options that may reduce the many harmful impacts of stalking victimisation along with increasing physical safety. For example, Spence-Diehl (1999) encouraged victims to install an alarm system, motion detector lights, and consider having a dog, which could all provide protection in the home. Alternative measures may be taken in the workplace and other settings, including having a varied schedule. In an online context, victims may wish to check their privacy settings, regularly change their passwords on accounts, and take care with the amount of information that is shared on social media accounts (Hamid & Maple, 2013). It is important that the suggestion is not made that victims cease use of technology altogether; the stalker ultimately is at fault for misusing technology. Also, if a stalker cannot contact the victim in the digital environment, this may enhance the likelihood of transferring their behaviours to a physical space and even using violence (Fraser et al., 2010). In relation to physical and mental health, Spence-Diehl (1999) suggested that victims seek counselling that may assist with stressreduction strategies, and address anxiety issues and frequently observed selfblame. Victim advocates play a critical role in providing education and assistance to victims. First, they can help victims recognise the behaviour as a stalking pattern and validate their fear as a normal reaction. It is important to be nonjudgemental as many victims maintain some level of contact with the stalker to ensure that they and their children are safe. Sometimes, women return to the stalker as a safety measure and may be in need of help to devise a safety plan

18

Cheyne & Guggisberg

(Spence-Diehl, 1999).Victim advocates can collaborate with professionals in the criminal justice system and health care providers and actively support the victim. Importantly, they may be required to provide education in the dynamics of stalking and help gather critical evidence in the case that law enforcement officials are involved. Additionally, law enforcement and other agencies that come into contact with stalking victims may require further education and training to effectively assist victims of stalking behaviour and to ensure they are not re-victimised by these statutory agencies (Weller et al., 2013). In the context of cyberstalking, as many behaviours such as text messages and emails occur through private channels, an opportunity exists to encourage companies to adopt some measure of corporate social responsibility for the stalking and assistin the prevention of cyberstalking behaviours (al-Khateeb, Epiphaniou, Alhaboby, Barnes, & Short, 2017; Dhillon & Smith, 2017). Corporations who facilitate communication between various parties should have a responsibility to take actions to protect women from harassment including stalking. Finally, further research is needed to better understand women victims’ experiences and their unmet needs in terms of protecting themselves and their children. It is hoped that in the future, knowledge of effective interventions will grow which will allow the development of evidence-based intervention programs.

Stalking

19

REFERENCES Abrams, K. M., & Robinson, G. E. (2011). Stalking by patients: Doctors' experiences in a Canadian urban area. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 199(10), 738-743. doi:10.1097/NMD.0b013e31822fc7aa al-Khateeb, H. M., Epiphaniou, G., Alhaboby, Z. A., Barnes, J., & Short, E. (2017). Cyberstalking: Investigating formal intervention and the role of Corporate Social Responsibility. Telematics and Informatics, 34(4), 339-349. doi:10.1016/j.tele.2016.08.016 Amar, A. F. (2007). Behaviors that college women label as stalking or harassment. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association, 13(4), 210-220. doi:10.1177/1078390307306289 Amar, A. F., & Alexy, E. M. (2010). Coping with stalking. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 31(1), 8-14. doi:10.3109/01612840903225602 Barnes, S. D., & Biros, D. P. (2007). An exploratory analysis of computer mediated communications on cyberstalking severity. The Journal of Digital Forensics, Security and Law, 2(3), 7-27. Basile, K., Hall, J., & Walters, M. (2013). Expanding resource theory and feminist-informed theory to explain intimate partner violence perpetration by court-ordered men. Violence Against Women, 19(7), 848-880. doi:10.1177/1077801213497105 Baum, K., Catalano, S., Rand, M., & Rose, K. (2009). National Crime Victimization Survey: Stalking victimization in the United States (NCJ No. 224527). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Bennett Cattaneo, L., Cho, S., & Botuck, S. (2011). Describing intimate partner stalking over time: An effort to inform victim-centered service provision. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(17), 3428-3454. doi:10.1177/0886260511403745 Bjerregaard, B. (2000). An empirical study of stalking victimization. Violence and Victims, 15(4), 389-406.

20

Cheyne & Guggisberg

Björklund, K., Häkkänen-Nyholm, H., Sheridan, L., & Roberts, K. (2010). The prevalence of stalking among Finnish university students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(4), 684-698. doi:10.1177/0886260509334405 Blaauw, E., Sheridan, L., & Winkel, F. W. (2002). Designing anti-stalking legislation on the basis of victims' experiences and psychopathology. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 9(2), 136-145. doi:10.1375/13218710260612028 Boland, M. L. (2005). Model code revisited: Taking aim at the high-tech stalker. Criminal Justice, 20(1), 40-57. Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York, NY: Basic Books. Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Basile, K. C., Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Merrick, M. T. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization - National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention Morbity and Mortality Weekly Report - Surveillance Summaries, 63(8), 1-18. Brewster, M. P. (2000). Stalking by former intimates: Verbal threats and other predictors of physical violence. Violence and Victims, 15(1), 41-54. Brewster, M. P. (2001). Legal help-seeking experiences of former intimatestalking victims. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12(2), 91-112. Brewster, M. P. (2003). Power and control dynamics in prestalking and stalking situations. Journal of Family Violence, 18(4), 207-217. doi:10.1023/a:1024064214054 Brownridge, D. A. (2009). Violence against women: Vulnerable populations. New York, NY: Routledge. Budd, T., & Mattinson, J. (2000). Stalking: Findings from the 1998 British Crime Survey. London: Home Office. Buhi, E. R., Clayton, H., & Surrency, H. H. (2009). Stalking victimization among college women and subsequent help-seeking behaviors. Journal of American College Health, 57(4), 419-425. doi:10.3200/JACH.57.4.419-426

Stalking

21

Buzawa, E. S., Buzawa, C. G., & Stark, E. D. (2017). Responding to domestic violence: The integration of criminal justice and human services (5th ed.). New York, NY: Sage. Campbell, J., & Moore, R. (2011). Self-perceptions of stalking victimization and impacts on victim reporting. Police Practice and Research, 12(6), 506-517. doi:10.1080/15614263.2011.607668 Cass, A. I. (2011). Defining stalking: The influence of legal factors, extralegal factors, and particular actions on judgments of college students. Western Criminology Review, 12(1), 1-14. Cass, A. I., & Rosay, A. B. (2012). College student perceptions of criminal justice system responses to stalking. Sex Roles, 66(5), 392-404. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9934-3 Cupach, W. R., Spitzberg, B. H., Bolingbroke, C. M., & Tellitocci, B. S. (2011). Persistence of attempts to reconcile a terminated romantic relationship: A partial test of relational goal pursuit theory. Communication Reports, 24(2), 99-115. doi:10.1080/08934215.2011.613737 Cupach, W. R., Spitzberg, B. H., & Carson, C. L. (2000). Toward a theory of obsessive relational intrusion and stalking. In K. Dindia & S. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal relationships (pp. 131-146). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons. Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London, UK: John Murray. Davis, K. E., Ace, A., & Andra, M. (2000). Stalking perpetrators and psychological maltreatment of partners: Anger-jealousy, attachment insecurity, need for control, and break-up context. Violence and Victims, 15(4), 407-425. Davis, K. E., Swan, S. C., & Gambone, L. J. (2012). Why doesn’t he just leave me alone? Persistent pursuit: A critical review of theories and evidence. Sex Roles, 66(5), 328-339. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9882-3 Dennison, S. M. (2007). Interpersonal relationships and stalking: Identifying when to intervene. Law and Human Behavior, 31(4), 353-367. doi:10.1007/s10979-006-9067-3 Dhillon, G., & Smith, K. J. (2017). Defining objectives for preventing cyberstalking. Journal of Business Ethics(Advance online publication). doi:10.1007/s10551-017-3697-x

22

Cheyne & Guggisberg

Diette, T. M., Goldsmith, A. H., Hamilton, D., Darity, W., & McFarland, K. (2014). Stalking: Does it leave a psychological footprint? Social Science Quarterly, 95(2), 563-580. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12058 Dietz, N. A., & Martin, P. Y. (2007). Women who are stalked: Questioning the fear standard. Violence Against Women, 13(7), 750-776. doi:10.1177/1077801207302698 Doerner, W. G., & Lab, S. P. (2017). Victimology. New York, NY: Routledge. Duggan, M. (2014). Online harassment. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/onlineharassment/#. Dunlap, E. E., Hodell, E. C., Golding, J. M., & Wasarhaley, N. E. (2012). Mock jurors’ perception of stalking: The impact of gender and expressed fear. Sex Roles, 66(5), 405-417. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9970-z Duntley, J. D., & Buss, D. M. (2012). The evolution of stalking. Sex Roles, 66(5), 311-327. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9832-0 Dutton, L. B., & Winstead, B. A. (2006). Predicting unwanted pursuit: Attachment, relationship satisfaction, relationship alternatives, and break-up distress. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(4), 565-586. doi:10.1177/0265407506065984 Dutton, L. B., & Winstead, B. A. (2011). Types, frequency, and effectiveness of responses to unwanted pursuit and stalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(6), 1129-1156. doi:10.1177/0886260510368153 Dye, M. L., & Davis, K. E. (2003). Stalking and psychological abuse: Common factors and relationship-specific characteristics. Violence and Victims, 18(2), 163-180. doi:10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.163 Englebrecht, C. M., & Reyns, B. W. (2011). Gender differences in acknowledgment of stalking victimization: Results from the NCVS stalking supplement. Violence and Victims, 26(5), 560-579. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.26.5.560 Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a national study of college women. Criminology and Public Policy, 1(2), 257-308. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2002.tb00091.x

Stalking

23

Fox, K. A., Gover, A. R., & Kaukinen, C. (2009). The effects of low self-control and childhood maltreatment on stalking victimization among men and women. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(3-4), 181-197. doi:10.1007/s12103-009-9064-4 Fox, K. A., Nobles, M. R., & Akers, R. L. (2011). Is stalking a learned phenomenon? An empirical test of social learning theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 39-47. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.10.002 Fraser, C., Olsen, E., Lee, K., Southworth, C., & Tucker, S. (2010). The new age of stalking: Technological implications for stalking. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 61(4), 39-55. doi:10.1111/j.17556988.2010.01051.x Gilligan, M. J. (1992). Stalking the stalker: Developing new laws to thwart those who terrorise others. Georgia Law Review, 27(1), 285-342. Groban, M. S. (2016). Intimate partner cyberstalking - Terrorizing intimate partners with 21st Century technology. United States Attorneys' Bulletin, 64(3), 12-16. Guggisberg, M. (2010). Women, violence and comorbidity: The struggle with victimisation, mental health problems and substance use. Saarbrücken, DE: Lambert Academic Publishing. Hamid, T., & Maple, C. (2013). Online harassment and digital stalking. International Journal of Computer Applications, 76(12), 1-6. doi:10.5120/13296-8928 Harmon, R. B., Rosner, R., & Owens, H. (1995). Obsessional harassment and erotomania in a criminal court population. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40(2), 188-196. doi:10.1520/JFS15339J Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511 Kamphuis, J. H., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (2001). Traumatic distress among support-seeking female victims of stalking. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(5), 795-798. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.5.795 Kienlen, K. K., Birmingham, D. L., Solberg, K. B., & O'Regan, J. T. M., J Reid. (1997). A comparative study of psychotic and nonpsychotic stalking. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 25(3), 317-334.

24

Cheyne & Guggisberg

Kift, S. (1999). Stalking in Queensland: From the nineties to Y2K. Bond Law Review, 11(1), 144-156. Kingham, M., & Gordon, H. (2004). Aspects of morbid jealousy. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 10, 207-215. Kraaij, V., Arensman, E., Garnefski, N., & Kremers, I. (2007). The role of cognitive coping in female victims of stalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(12), 1603-1612. doi: 10.1177/0886260507306499 Lambert, E. G., Smith, B., Geistman, J., Cluse-Tolar, T., & Jiang, S. (2013). Do men and women differ in their perceptions of stalking: An exploratory study among college students. Violence and Victims, 28(2), 195-209. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.09-201 MacKenzie, R. D., Mullen, P., Ogloff, J. R. P., McEwan, T. E., & James, D. V. (2008). Parental bonding and adult attachment styles in different types of stalker. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(6), 1443-1449. doi:10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00869.x Marin, A. J., & Russo, N. F. (1999). Feminist perspectives on male violence against women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McEwan, T. E., Mullen, P., MacKenzie, R. D., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2009). Violence in stalking situations. Psychological Medicine, 39(9), 14691478. doi:10.1017/S0033291708004996 McFarlane, L., & Bocij, P. (2003). An exploration of predatory behaviour in cyberspace: Towards a typology of cyberstalkers. First Monday, 8(9), online article. doi:10.5210/fm.v8i9.1076 McGuire, J. (2004). Understanding psychology and crme: Perspectives on theory and action. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Mechanic, M. B., Weaver, T. L., & Resick, P. A. (2008). Mental health consequences of intimate partner abuse: A multidimensional assessment of four different forms of abuse. Violence Against Women, 14(6), 634-654. doi:10.1177/1077801208319283 Ménard, K. S., & Pincus, A. L. (2012). Predicting overt and cyber stalking perpetration by male and female college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(11), 2183-2207. doi:10.1177/0886260511432144

Stalking

25

Mohandie, K., Meloy, J. R., McGowan, M. G., & Williams, J. (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. Morrison, K. A. (2008). Differentiating between physically violent and nonviolent stalkers: An examination of Canadian cases. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(3), 742-751. doi:10.1111/j.15564029.2008.00722.x Mullen, P. E., Mackenzie, R., Ogloff, J. R. P., Pathé, M., McEwan, T., & Purcell, R. (2006). Assessing and managing the risks in the stalking situation. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 34(4), 439-450. Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., & Purcell, R. (2000). Stalkers and their victims. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., Purcell, R., & Stuart, G. W. (1999). Study of stalkers. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 156(8), 1244-1249. Newbury, T. (2017). Criminology (3rd ed.). London, UK: Routledge. Ngo, F., & Paternoster, R. (2013). Stalking strain, concurrent negative emotions, and legitimate coping strategies: A preliminary test of gendered strain theory. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(3), 369-391. doi:10.1007/s12103-012-9179-x Nobles, M. R., Reyns, B. W., Fox, K. A., & Fisher, B. S. (2014). Protection against pursuit: A conceptual and empirical comparison of cyberstalking and stalking victimization among a national sample. Justice Quarterly, 31(6), 986-1014. doi:10.1080/07418825.2012.723030 Parsons-Pollard, N., & Moriarty, L. J. (2009). Cyberstalking: Utilizing what we do know. Victims & Offenders, 4(4), 435-441. doi:10.1080/15564880903227644 Patton, C. L., Nobles, M. R., & Fox, K. A. (2010). Look who's stalking: Obsessive pursuit and attachment theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(3), 282-290. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.02.013

26

Cheyne & Guggisberg

Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (2002). The prevalence and nature of stalking in the Australian community. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(1), 114-120. doi:10.1046/j.14401614.2002.00985.x Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2012). Stalking in the Twilight Zone: Extent of cyberstalking victimization and offending among college students. Deviant Behavior, 33(1), 1-25. doi:10.1080/01639625.2010.538364 Rosenfeld, B. (2004). Violence risk factors in stalking and obsessional harassment: A review and preliminary meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(1), 9-36. doi:10.1177/0093854803259241 Rothwell, V., & Hawdon, J. E. (2008). Science, individualism and attitudinal tolerance of deviance: The influences of modernization and rationalization. Deviant Behavior, 29(3), 253-274. doi:10.1080/01639620701587950 Scott, A. J., Lloyd, R., & Gavin, J. (2010). The influence of prior relationship on perceptions of stalking in the United Kingdom and Australia. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(11), 1185-1194. doi:10.1177/0093854810378812 Sheridan, L., Davies, G. M., & Boon, J. C. W. (2001). The course and nature of stalking: A victim perspective. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(3), 215-234. doi:10.1111/1468-2311.00204 Sheridan, L., & Grant, T. (2007). Is cyberstalking different? Psychology, Crime & Law, 13(6), 627-640. doi:10.1080/10683160701340528 Sheridan, L., & Lyndon, A. (2012). The influence of prior relationship, gender, and fear on the consequences of stalking victimization. Sex Roles, 66(5), 340-350. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9889-9 Shimizu, A. (2013). Domestic violence in the digital age: Towards the creation of a comprehensive cyberstalking statute. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, 28(1), 116-137. doi:10.15779/Z38H708030 Smoker, M., & March, E. (2017). Predicting perpetration of intimate partner cyberstalking: Gender and the Dark Tetrad. Computers in Human Behavior, 72(Supplement C), 390-396. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.012 Spence-Diehl, E. (1999). Stalking: A handbook for victims. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications.

Stalking

27

Spitz, M.-A. L. (2003). Stalking: Terrorism at our doors - How social workers can help victims fight back. Social Work, 48(4), 504-512. doi:10.1093/sw/48.4.504 Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(1), 64-86. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.05.001 Spitzberg, B. H., Cupach, W. R., Hannawa, A. F., & Crowley, J. P. (2014). A preliminary test of a relational goal pursuit theory of obsessive relational intrusion and stalking. Studies in Communication Sciences, 14(1), 29-36. doi:10.1016/j.scoms.2014.03.007 Strawhun, J. M. A., Adams, N. B. A., & Huss, M. T. (2013). The assessment of cyberstalking: An expanded examination including social networking, attachment, jealousy, and anger in relation to violence and abuse. Violence and Victims, 28(4), 715-730. Tjaden, P. (2009). Stalking policies and research in the United States: A twenty year retrospective. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 15(3), 261-278. doi:10.1007/s10610-009-9100-4 Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington: National Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tonin, E. (2004). The attachment styles of stalkers. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 15(4), 584-590. doi:10.1080/14789940410001729644 Walker, L. E. A. (2017). The battered woman syndrome (4th ed.). New York, NY:: Springer Publishing Company. Weller, M., Hope, L., & Sheridan, L. (2013). Police and public perceptions of stalking: The role of prior victim-offender relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(2), 320-339. doi:10.1177/0886260512454718 Winkleman, A., & Winstead, B. A. (2011). Student pursuers: An investigation of pursuit and stalking in the student-faculty relationship. Violence and Victims, 26(5), 543-559.

28

Cheyne & Guggisberg

Wolak, J., Finkelhor, D., Walsh, W., & Treitman, L. (2017). Sextortion of minors: Characteristics and dynamics. Journal of Adolescent Health(Advance online publication). doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.08.014 Woodlock, D. (2017). The abuse of technology in domestic violence and stalking. Violence Against Women, 23(5), 584-602. Wright, J. A., Burgess, A. G., Burgess, A. W., Laszlo, A. T., McCrary, G. O., & Douglas, J. E. (1996). A typology of interpersonal stalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(4), 487-502. Zona, M. A., Sharma, K. K., & Lane, J. (1993). A comparative study of erotomanic and obsessional subjects in a forensic sample. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38(4), 894-903.