RISK FACTORS FOR ONLINE AND IN-PERSON STALKING, INTRUSIVE

HARASSMENT, AND VIOLENCE WITHIN A COMMUNITY SAMPLE

by

Elisha J. C. Chan

A DISSERTATION

Presented to the Faculty of

The Graduate College at the University of Nebraska

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Major: Psychology

Under the Supervision of Professor Mario J. Scalora

Lincoln, Nebraska

July 2024
 RISK FACTORS FOR ONLINE AND IN-PERSON STALKING, INTRUSIVE

HARASSMENT, AND VIOLENCE WITHIN A COMMUNITY SAMPLE

Elisha J. C. Chan, Ph.D.

University of Nebraska, 2024

Advisor: Mario J. Scalora

Stalking and intrusive harassment (SIH) and stalking violence are prevalent and

serious public health concerns associated with significant physical, psychological,

financial, and social consequences. The growing proliferation of technology and the

internet has only exacerbated the problem as SIH behaviors can be easily perpetrated via

electronic means. Given its prevalence and negative impact, it is imperative to investigate

the risk factors for online and in-person SIH and stalking violence to better predict and

mitigate its detrimental effects. The current study therefore aimed to 1) examine the

descriptive characteristics associated with online and in-person SIH and stalking

violence; and 2) identify shared and differential risk factors for online and in-person SIH,

as well as minor (e.g., slapping, pushing, throwing an object) and severe (e.g., kicking,

choking, burning, using a weapon, forcing into sexual activities) stalking violence, in a

community sample. Towards these aims, 561 participants completed an online survey

comprised of a battery of self-report measures that assessed various predisposing (i.e.,

demographic, historical, psychological, dispositional, cognitive, and affective) and

contextual factors (e.g., substance use, negative affect) and engagement in SIH and

stalking violence. A little less than half of the sample reported perpetrating SIH, with

most engaging in both online and in-person SIH (i.e., mixed SIH). Approximately one-

third of these harassers/stalkers endorsed engaging in some form of stalking violence.

Overall, various predisposing and contextual risk factors were associated with SIH and

stalking violence, with those exhibiting more extreme or elevated levels of the relevant

risk factors being more likely to engage in mixed SIH and potentially more serious

stalking violence (e.g., choking, using a weapon). Notably, the findings of this study

demonstrated the critical importance of considering both predisposing and contextual risk

factors together to enhance risk assessment and management efforts. Additionally, the

current study emphasized the importance of assessing for online SIH, especially when

perpetrated in conjunction with in-person SIH, as it was associated with a heightened risk

for potentially more serious stalking violence. This is crucial given the continued

proliferation and advancement of technology and electronic communication. The findings

from this study present significant implications for the development and implementation

of relevant law, policy, and evidence-based risk assessment and intervention strategies.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation would not have been possible without the unwavering guidance,

support, and advice of many individuals throughout my graduate career. Firstly, I would

like to extend my deepest gratitude and thanks to my advisor and dissertation chair, Dr.

Mario Scalora. Your mentorship, good humor, and seemingly endless wealth of

knowledge have been invaluable for my personal and professional development over the

past five years. Additionally, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to my

dissertation committee – Drs. Dennis McChargue, Kathryn Holland, and Gaylene

Armstrong – without whose valued feedback and input this dissertation would not have

been possible.

My sincere gratitude must also go to my friends and colleagues from the

University of Nebraska-Lincoln – Madeline Eyer, Patrick McGonigal, Alex Brockdorf,

and Dr. Kyle Siddoway – who made the arduous process of obtaining a doctoral degree

much more bearable. I will be forever grateful that I embarked on this once-in-a-lifetime

journey together with such humorous and bright individuals. Thank you for all the

support, laughs, and cherished memories. I must also acknowledge the contributions of

Dr. Rosa Viñas-Racionero to my professional accomplishments. Thank you for your

advice and peer mentorship when I was a naïve first year.

Finally, I would not be where I am today without the unconditional love, support,

and encouragement from my family and partner. To my parents, thank you for everything

you have given me and for being so understanding of why I moved halfway across the

world to achieve my dreams. To my dear sister, thank you so much for always putting a

smile on my face with your calming presence and delightful eccentricities. You are an
amazing human being, and you inspire me every day. To my partner, your support and

understanding from several states away have meant so much to me. I am so incredibly

grateful to have you in my life.

 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................................v
CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................1
I. Literature Review ...........................................................................................................1
1. Characteristics of Stalking and Intrusive Harassment Behaviors ................................4
2. Prevalence of Stalking and Intrusive Harassment ........................................................6
2.1. Gender differences in Stalking and Intrusive Harassment ....................................8
2.2. Stalker-Victim Relationship Differences in Stalking and Intrusive Harassment 10
3. Impact of Stalking and Intrusive Harassment ............................................................12
4. Risk Factors for Online and In-Person Stalking and Intrusive Harassment ...............13
4.1. Demographic Characteristics ...............................................................................15
4.2. Historical Risk Factors ........................................................................................16
4.3. Psychological Risk Factors ..................................................................................17
4.4. Dispositional Risk Factors ...................................................................................19
4.5. Cognitive Risk Factors ........................................................................................24
4.6. Affective Risk Factors .........................................................................................25
4.7. Contextual Risk Factors.......................................................................................27
5. Stalking Violence .......................................................................................................31
5.1. Prevalence of Stalking Violence..........................................................................32
6. Risk Factors for Stalking Violence ............................................................................36
6.1. Historical Risk Factors ........................................................................................39
6.2. Psychological Risk Factors ..................................................................................41
6.3. Dispositional Risk Factors ...................................................................................43
6.4. Affective Risk Factors .........................................................................................47
6.5. Contextual Risk Factors.......................................................................................48
II. Summary and Future Research Directions ..............................................................54
III. The Current Study ....................................................................................................56
1. Hypotheses .................................................................................................................57
1.1. Descriptive Characteristics of Online and In-person Stalking and Intrusive
Harassment .................................................................................................................57
1.2. Risk Factors for Online and In-Person Stalking and Intrusive Harassment ........59
1.3. Descriptive Characteristics of Stalking Violence ................................................63
 ii

1.4. Risk Factors for Stalking Violence ......................................................................64

CHAPTER II - METHOD ..............................................................................................68
1. Participants .................................................................................................................68
2. Procedure ....................................................................................................................69
3. Measures.....................................................................................................................70
3.1. Section One..........................................................................................................70
3.2. Section Two .........................................................................................................76
4. Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................81
5. Data Analysis Plan .....................................................................................................84
CHAPTER III – RESULTS ............................................................................................87
1. Sample Characteristics ...............................................................................................87
2. Descriptive Characteristics of Online and In-Person Stalking and Intrusive
Harassment .....................................................................................................................89
3. Risk Factors for Online and In-Person Stalking and Intrusive Harassment ...............97
4. Descriptive Characteristics of Stalking Violence.....................................................110
5. Risk Factors for Stalking Violence ..........................................................................117
CHAPTER IV – DISCUSSION ....................................................................................130
1. Descriptive Characteristics of Online and In-Person Stalking and Intrusive
Harassment ...................................................................................................................130
2. Risk Factors for Online and In-Person Stalking and Intrusive Harassment .............133
3. Descriptive Characteristics of Stalking Violence.....................................................138
4. Risk Factors for Stalking Violence ..........................................................................141
5. Implications for Risk Assessment and Management ...............................................147
6. Limitations and Future Research Directions ............................................................151
6.1. Future Research Directions................................................................................155
7. Conclusions ..............................................................................................................156
References .......................................................................................................................158
Appendix A: Prolific Recruitment Ad .........................................................................185
Appendix B: Informed Consent Form .........................................................................186
Appendix C: Survey.......................................................................................................189
Section One ..................................................................................................................189
Section Two..................................................................................................................199
Appendix D: Debriefing Form ......................................................................................209
 iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Hypothesized Bivariate Relationships of Risk Factors for Online and In-Person
Stalking and Intrusive Harassment ....................................................................................60
Table 1.2: Hypothesized Bivariate Relationships of Risk Factors Differentiating Pure
Online, Pure In-Person, and Mixed Harassers/Stalkers .....................................................60
Table 1.3: Hypothesized Risk Factors of Stalking and Intrusive Harassment in
Multivariate Analyses ........................................................................................................62
Table 1.4: Hypothesized Bivariate Relationships of Risk Factors for Stalking Violence .65
Table 2.1: Categorization of Minor and Severe Violent Behaviors...................................83
Table 3.1: Demographic Characteristics of Overall Sample and Harasser/Stalker
Subgroups ..........................................................................................................................88
Table 3.2: Type and Frequency of Specific In-Person and Online Stalking and Intrusive
Harassment Behaviors Perpetrated ....................................................................................91
Table 3.3: Comparisons of Demographic Characteristics by Harasser/Stalker Subgroup 92
Table 3.4: Descriptive Characteristics of In-Person and Online Stalking and Intrusive
Harassment .........................................................................................................................94
Table 3.5: Comparisons of In-Person and Online Stalking and Intrusive Harassment by
Gender ................................................................................................................................95
Table 3.6: Comparisons of In-Person and Online Stalking and Intrusive Harassment by
Relationship Type ..............................................................................................................97
Table 3.7: Summary of Risk Factors Assessed in Bivariate Analyses ..............................97
Table 3.8: Risk Factors for Online and In-Person Stalking and Intrusive Harassment ...105
Table 3.9: Risk Factors Differentiating Harasser/Stalker Subgroups ..............................106
Table 3.10: Predictors for Non-Harassers/Stalkers and Harassers/Stalkers ....................108
Table 3.11: Predictors for Mixed and Pure In-Person Harassers/Stalkers .......................110
Table 3.12: Type and Frequency of Minor and Severe Stalking Violence Perpetrated by
Harassers/Stalkers ............................................................................................................111
Table 3.13: Demographic Characteristics of the Stalking Violence Subgroups ..............112
Table 3.14: Descriptive Characteristics of Stalking Violence Perpetrated by
Harassers/Stalkers ............................................................................................................114
Table 3.15: Stalking Violence Perpetrated by Harasser/Stalker Subgroups ....................115
Table 3.16: Comparisons of Stalking Violence Perpetrated by Gender ..........................117
Table 3.17: Summary of Risk Factors Assessed in Bivariate Analyses ..........................118
Table 3.18: Risk Factors Differentiating Stalking Violence Subgroups..........................124
Table 3.19: Predictors for Not Violent and Moderately Violent Harassers/Stalkers (Model
1) ......................................................................................................................................126
Table 3.20: Predictors for Not Violent and Severely Violent Harassers/Stalkers (Model 2)
..........................................................................................................................................127
 iv

Table 3.21: Predictors for Moderately and Severely Violent Harassers/Stalkers (Model 3)
..........................................................................................................................................129
 v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: The Integrated Theoretical Model of Stalking Violence (ITMSV) .................38
 1

CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION

I. Literature Review

Since its criminalization in the US in the 1990s, stalking has garnered

considerable media and empirical attention as a prevalent and serious public health issue

(Cheyne & Guggisberg, 2018; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007, 2014). Although there is little

consensus in the legal and academic definitions of stalking, it is generally regarded as the

repeated and unwanted pursuit or harassment of an individual that instills fear, distress, or

some other comparable emotional response (Meloy, 1998; Melton, 2000; Spitzberg &

Cupach, 2007, 2014). Definitions vary in the extent to which fear or emotional distress

needs to be experienced to constitute stalking. Whereas some definitions require the

victim to experience some demonstrable level of fear, others do not (Dreßing et al., 2014;

Fox, Nobles & Fisher, 2011; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; Wilson et al., 2022). Stalking is

a unique crime in that it is characterized by a pattern of behaviors, as opposed to a single

act, that may not necessarily be criminal in nature (e.g., repeated phone calls) and is

typically, though not always, contingent upon the subjective experience of the victim

(Cheyne & Guggisberg, 2018; Logan & Walker, 2017). These elements make stalking

challenging for law enforcement, policy makers, and practitioners to define, prosecute,

assess, and manage.

Given the definitional inconsistencies, current knowledge of stalking is derived

from literature examining stalking and other conceptually related constructs (i.e.,

intrusive harassment, obsessional relational intrusion, unwanted pursuit) that engender

responses from frustration and annoyance to fear and distress (Chan et al., 2022; Dardis

& Gidycz, 2017, 2019; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007, 2014). The full spectrum of stalking,
 2

intrusive, and harassing behaviors is important to assess for two reasons: Firstly, even

seemingly innocuous behaviors can be perceived as frightening if such behaviors are

persistent enough (Cheyne & Guggisberg, 2018; McEwan, 2021; Tassy & Winstead,

2014). Secondly, these relatively benign behaviors may eventually escalate into more

serious and violent forms of behavior, such as physical or sexual assault (Dardis &

Gidycz, 2017; Miller, 2012; Sheridan & Grant, 2007). The following review will

therefore consider literature concerning the broader phenomenon of stalking and intrusive

harassment (SIH).

With the proliferation of technology and the internet, scholars have become

increasingly interested in how electronic communications (e.g., email, online

blogs/forums, social media, texting/instant messaging) are used to facilitate SIH in the

digital realm (Cavezza & McEwan, 2014; Cheyne & Guggisberg, 2018; Dreßing et al.,

2014; Fissel et al., 2021; Kim, 2023; Ménard & Pincus, 2012; Nobles et al., 2014; Reyns

& Fisher, 2018; Reyns et al., 2012; Sheridan & Grant, 2007; Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002;

Woodlock, 2017; Wilson et al., 2022, 2023). While online platforms afford almost

immediate access to information and make it easier to communicate with others, it also

presents novel avenues through which a victim can be stalked or harassed (Cavezza &

McEwan, 2014; Cheyne & Guggisberg, 2018; Reyns et al., 2012). Additionally, it may

attract those who would not otherwise engage in SIH behaviors to do so online (Cavezza

& McEwan, 2014; Meloy, 1998). The use of electronic media to repeatedly harass,

pursue, or threaten another is referred to as cyber or online SIH (Cheyne & Guggisberg,

2018; Nobles et al., 2014). There is considerable debate in the literature over whether

online SIH is simply a variant of more traditional forms of SIH (henceforth referred to as
 3

in-person SIH), or whether it represents a distinct form of criminal behavior (Cavezza &

McEwan, 2014; Ménard & Pincus, 2012; Nobles et al., 2014; Reyns, 2019; Reyns &

Fisher, 2018; Sheridan & Grant, 2007; Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002). It is possible that

stalkers may use the online domain as a stepping stone to move into the physical realm,

where their interactions may escalate into more severe or violent forms of behavior

(Nobles et al., 2014; Sheridan & Grant, 2007). Alternatively, stalking via online

platforms may just be another tool in a stalker’s arsenal to torment, harass, threaten,

control, or monitor their victim (Reyns & Fisher, 2018).

Regardless of its conceptual underpinnings, the growing ubiquity of electronic

media renders it paramount to understand how the perpetration of online SIH impacts risk

assessment and the development and implementation of relevant law, policy, and

intervention and violence prevention strategies (Cheyne & Guggisberg, 2018; McEwan,

2021). As much of the stalking risk assessment literature was conducted prior to the

propagation of the internet and social media, the role of electronic communications in the

etiology and escalation of SIH and violence perpetration remains unclear (McEwan,

2021). Preliminary evidence provides divergent findings, with some research suggesting

that online SIH is positively associated with subsequent violence (Brem, Stuart, et al.,

2021; Marganski & Melander, 2018), whilst others indicate its use is correlated with a

reduced risk of violence (Cavezza & McEwan, 2014; McEwan et al., 2017). The threat

assessment literature more broadly suggests that level of risk is exacerbated when

electronic communications are employed in conjunction with other forms of

communication (e.g., letters; Meloy, James, et al., 2011; Scalora, 2021). Understanding

the role of online SIH in the potential escalation of stalking violence, as well as the risk
 4

factors associated with online and in-person SIH and violence perpetration, have

significant implications for risk assessment and management efforts.

Examining the risk factors for online and in-person SIH perpetration and its

escalation to violence first requires an understanding of the nature and scope of the

phenomenon. Thus, the following review will first address the characteristics of SIH

behaviors, the prevalence of online and in-person SIH, and the impact of SIH on victims.

Next, a review of the most often identified risk factors for online and in-person SIH will

be presented. A discussion of stalking violence, including how it has been defined and

operationalized in the extant literature and how often it occurs, will then be provided.

Following this, the risk factors for stalking violence will be explored within the context

of an existing theoretical model. Finally, a summary and gaps in the research literature,

which serves as the basis for the present study, will be discussed.

1. Characteristics of Stalking and Intrusive Harassment Behaviors

SIH encompasses a continuum of intrusive behaviors ranging from ostensibly

benign behaviors (e.g., unwanted and persistent phone calls, messages, or emails; sending

unwanted gifts or letters; posting false or malicious information about the victim online)

to more overtly harmful acts (e.g., verbal, electronic, or physical threats; aggression or

violence; McEwan, 2021; Sheridan & Grant, 2007; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007, 2014). In

their meta-analysis of 175 studies, Spitzberg and Cupach (2007) provided a

comprehensive description of eight commonly utilized clusters of SIH behavioral

strategies: hyperintimacy, mediated contacts, interactional contacts, surveillance,

invasion, harassment and intimidation, coercion and threats, and physical aggression and

violence. A recent study examining victim data from the National Stalking Helpline
 5

identified categories of SIH behaviors that were consistent with Spitzberg and Cupach’s

behavioral clusters (Stefanska et al., 2021). Hyperintimacy tactics are described as

extreme expressions of typical courtship or intimacy-seeking behaviors, such as

showering the victim with hundreds of letters, gifts, emails, or phone calls. Mediated

contacts refer to communications with the victim occurring via electronic means (e.g.,

phone calls, emails, texts, social media). Interactional contacts are behaviors aimed at

increasing physical proximity to or direct in-person exchanges with the victim. These

include physical approaches, such as showing up at places unannounced or intruding into

the victim’s personal space or social or occupational network. Surveillance behaviors are

attempts to overtly or covertly monitor or obtain information about the victim. Such

strategies include following or watching the victim, electronically monitoring or tracking

the victim (e.g., via GPS), or involving others to assist in the stalking campaign (i.e.,

proxy stalking). Invasion behaviors are described as those that intrude upon the personal

and legal boundaries of the victim, such as theft of personal information, breaking and

entering into the victim’s home, and invading their computer.

Harassment and intimidation describe various socially aggressive behaviors

intended to annoy, distress, or induce fear and submission in the victim. It may involve

verbal or non-verbal harassment of the victim or other third parties close to the victim

(e.g., friends, family) or attempts to damage the victim’s reputation (e.g., posting rumors

online). Coercion and threat behaviors encompass explicit and implicit threats of harm to

the victim, their property, third parties, or to the perpetrator themselves (i.e., threats of

self-harm or suicide). Finally, physical aggression and violence refers to the attempted or

actual physical or sexual harm done to the victim, their property, third parties, or to the
 6

perpetrator themselves. Previous literature indicates that most SIH cases involve minor or

less intrusive behaviors, including unwanted communications (e.g., sending text

messages, phone calls) and surveillance strategies (e.g., following or monitoring the

victim; Chan et al., 2022; Dardis & Gidycz, 2017; De Smet et al., 2015; Dutton &

Winstead, 2006; McEwan et al., 2020; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; Stefanska et al., 2021).

In contrast, severe or highly intrusive behaviors, such as threats and violence, are less

frequently reported but are still present in a substantial number of cases (Chan et al.,

2022; Dardis & Gidycz, 2017; Dutton & Winstead, 2006; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007).

For example, large national surveys and meta-analyses indicate explicit threats have been

reported in 30-60% of stalking cases (Baum et al., 2009; Logan & Walker, 2017;

Mohandie et al., 2006), and physical and sexual violence have been found in 32% and

12% of cases, respectively (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007).

In addition to the nature and characteristics of SIH, it is important to understand

how often such behaviors occur. Examining the prevalence of SIH in the general

population is crucial for the development of relevant policy and law, as well as the

implementation of effective prevention and intervention strategies to mitigate risk.

2. Prevalence of Stalking and Intrusive Harassment

Discrepancies in the operational definition of SIH have made it difficult to

establish reliable prevalence estimates. For example, prior research has differed in the

required minimum duration of the course of conduct (e.g., none, at least two weeks, at

least four weeks), frequency or number of repeated SIH behaviors perpetrated or

experienced (e.g., two or more, five or more, 10 or more), and inclusion of fear criteria

(Fox, Nobles & Fisher, 2011; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). This was illustrated by
 7

Dreßing et al. (2014), who found that prevalence rates of 43.4% decreased to 6.3% when

more rigorous definitional criteria (i.e., experience of fear and the SIH episode persisting

for at least two weeks) were employed. Methodological differences in the assessment of

SIH behaviors (e.g., self-report using single vs. multiple item questionnaires, official

police records) and population under study (e.g., college students, general population,

clinical/forensic samples) further contribute to the variability of prevalence estimates.

Over the past two decades, several large nationally representative surveys have been

conducted within the US. Findings from these studies reveal that 12-month stalking

prevalence estimates range from 0.7% to 3.2% (Baum et al, 2009; Breiding et al., 2014;

Morgan & Truman, 2022; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998), and overall lifetime prevalence

estimates range from 4.5% to 10.9% (Basile et al., 2006; Black et al., 2011; Breiding et

al., 2014). In a meta-analysis of 175 smaller-scale studies, Spitzberg and Cupach (2007)

reported that lifetime prevalence estimates among the general population ranged between

5% and 28%. After averaging prevalence rates across the studies, they found that 25% of

the overall sample were victims of SIH (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007).

Prevalence estimates of online SIH in the general community are limited by the

fact that most of the literature is derived from studies utilizing college student samples

(Fissel et al., 2021; Wilson et al., 2022, 2023). As the behaviors of community

populations differ significantly from those of college students, it is unclear whether

existing estimates generalize to adults from the general population (Fissel et al., 2021;

Wilson et al., 2023). From the scant literature that is available, it is estimated that online

SIH occurs in 40.8% to 75% of community samples (Wilson et al., 2023). A burgeoning

body of evidence suggests that online and in-person SIH frequently co-occurs (Dardis &
 8

Gidycz, 2017, 2019; Sheridan & Grant 2007). Estimates from the 2006 Supplemental

Victimization Survey (SVS) indicated that over a quarter of those who endorsed being

victims of in-person SIH within the past 12 months of the survey being conducted also

experienced some form of online SIH (Baum et al., 2009). However, over a decade later,

findings using the same survey revealed that over 80% of victims experienced SIH via

electronic means (Morgan & Truman, 2022). This significant increase in online SIH

victimization is unsurprising given the rapidly evolving technological landscape and the

growing prevalence of electronic media (McEwan, 2021; Reyns, 2019). Indeed, national

epidemiological surveys indicate that internet and mobile phone usage has grown

dramatically within this time period, with internet use increasing from 71% in 2006 to

93% in 2021, and mobile phone ownership increasing from 66% in 2006 to 97% in 2021

(Pew Research Center, 2021a, 2021b).

2.1. Gender differences in Stalking and Intrusive Harassment

SIH is widely considered to be a gendered phenomenon. Although both men and

women engage in and are victims of SIH, women are more likely to be victimized and

men are more often identified as the perpetrators (Brooks et al., 2021; Cheyne &

Guggisberg, 2018; Lyndon et al., 2012; Spitzberg et al., 2010). Results from large

population studies conducted in Western countries (e.g., Australia, Germany, UK, USA)

have consistently demonstrated that women (8-16.7%) are two to three times more likely

than men (2-6.5%) to be victims of SIH (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2016; Basile et

al., 2006; Black et al., 2011; Breiding et al., 2014; Dressing et al., 2005; Morgan &

Truman, 2022; Office for National Statistics, 2019; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Although

the reported gender differences were not as marked, a similar pattern of gendered
 9

victimization was found in a large meta-analysis of 260 studies, with 18.1% of women

and 12.1% of men in the community experiencing SIH (Spitzberg et al., 2010). It is

notable that the observed gender differences in the literature appear to be largely

dependent on the population sampling method and the type of SIH behaviors being

assessed. Research utilizing university or community samples typically find more

comparable rates of SIH perpetration and victimization across gender, whereas gender

differences are more prominent within forensic samples (Fox, Nobles & Fisher, 2011;

Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; Spitzberg et al., 2010). Furthermore, empirical evidence

suggests that women are more likely to engage in covert SIH behaviors (e.g., online SIH),

whereas men are more prone to engaging in overt or in-person SIH behaviors (March et

al., 2020; Purcell et al., 2001; Smoker & March, 2017; Spitzberg et al., 2010; Strawhun et

al., 2013).

The gender differences in SIH victimization and perpetration are likely

influenced, at least in part, by traditional gender roles and heteronormative sociocultural

scripts endorsed in Western cultures (Becker et al., 2020; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2012;

McKeon et al., 2015). Traditional gender roles represent men as the active pursuer of

romantic relationships and women as the passive or submissive recipient of pursuit

(Becker et al., 2020; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2012). This, combined with media

representations romanticizing behaviors that could be classified as SIH (e.g., persistent

pursuit in the face of continued rejection) as socially acceptable and not harmful in

nature, may partially account for why men are more often identified as perpetrators and

women the victims of SIH (Becker et al., 2020; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2012).

Furthermore, the severity of SIH and violence perpetrated by women may be minimized
 10

by gender socialization scripts, which promote an image of women as less dangerous or

frightening than men (Lyndon et al., 2012). As such, SIH and violence perpetrated by

women may be perceived as less harmful and more acceptable than similar behaviors

perpetrated by men (Brooks et al., 2021). This is consistent with research suggesting that

SIH victims, regardless of gender, are over three times as likely to perceive male

perpetrators as more threatening or frightening than female perpetrators (Spitzberg et al.,

2010).

Gender socialization scripts may also result in different gendered reactions to

SIH. That is, the socialized suppression of expressed emotions in men and the contrasting

normative expression of emotions in women may result in women reporting or

experiencing higher levels of fear in response to SIH than men (Langhinrichsen-Rohling,

2012). This gender difference in the expression of fear is problematic as it reduces the

likelihood of men reporting SIH to police and impacts who is deemed to meet legal

criteria for stalking victimization. As a result, forensic samples, and other studies that

include fear criteria into the operationalization of SIH, may not accurately represent all

SIH experiences, particularly in non-prototypical cases where there is a female

perpetrator, male victim, or same-gender perpetrator and victim (De Smet et al., 2015;

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2012; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). This highlights the need to

examine SIH within community populations to avoid potential gender-biased

representations of SIH and to obtain a more complete understanding of the factors

involved in SIH perpetration.

2.2. Stalker-Victim Relationship Differences in Stalking and Intrusive Harassment

 11

SIH can occur in a variety of relational contexts (e.g., (ex)intimate partner,

professional, friend/acquaintance, stranger; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; White et al.,

2020). Contrary to popular misconceptions, SIH is more likely perpetrated by an

individual known to the victim, particularly an (ex)intimate partner, than a stranger

(Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; White et al., 2020). In fact, (ex)intimate partner SIH is the

most prevalent form of SIH, wherein such behaviors are perpetrated in an attempt to

manipulate, coerce, or control the victim, or to reconcile the relationship after a break-up

(Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). Using data from the 2019 SVS, Morgan and Truman (2022)

reported that over two thirds (67%) of stalking victims knew their perpetrator, of whom

38% were acquaintances and 25% were an (ex)intimate partner. In contrast,

approximately 18% of perpetrators were strangers to the victims (Morgan & Truman,

2022). Other studies have reported significantly higher rates of (ex)intimate partner

stalkers. In their meta-analysis, Spitzberg and Cupach (2007) found that 80% of

perpetrators were known, with 48% of victims in the general population being stalked by

an (ex)intimate partner. Similarly, in a recent study of 1,626 stalking victims who

contacted the National Stalking Helpline in the UK, 56% of stalkers were (ex)intimate

partners, 31% were acquaintances, and 14% were strangers (White et al., 2020).

In addition to being the most common form of SIH, (ex)intimate partners are also

more threatening, dangerous, and persistent in their behaviors than strangers. Research

suggests (ex)intimate partners are more likely than strangers or acquaintances to engage

in a greater diversity of SIH behaviors, including those that are more severe and intrusive

(i.e., aggression and violence), and to persist in their SIH behaviors for longer even

despite legal interventions (McEwan et al., 2009; Mohandie et al., 2006; Sheridan &
 12

Roberts, 2011; White et al., 2020). Additionally, (ex)intimate stalkers have been found to

use electronic media more often than strangers as an additional tool in their SIH

campaign (Woodlock, 2017). A recent study found that college students who engaged in

both online and in-person SIH were more likely to target an (ex)intimate partner than

those who only perpetrated in-person SIH (Chan et al., 2022). Similar findings were

reported in a large population study, where victims of online and in-person SIH were

three times as likely to be stalked by an (ex)intimate partner (35%) than those who only

experienced in-person SIH (11%) and approximately two times more likely than those

who only experienced online SIH (18%; Morgan & Truman, 2022).

It is evident that online and in-person SIH are prevalent and serious public health

phenomena that frequently co-occur. Although estimates vary widely, research

consistently demonstrates that at least 5% of the general community have been victims of

SIH at some point in their lives, with the vast majority being victimized both in-person

and in the digital realm (Morgan & Truman, 2022). Research generally suggests that

women are at greater risk of being victimized; however, the extent of the variance is

largely dependent on the sample used (e.g., college students vs. community vs. forensic)

and the type of SIH behavior assessed (e.g., online vs. in-person; Spitzberg & Cupach,

2007; Spitzberg et al., 2010). SIH is more likely to be perpetrated by an individual that is

known to the victim, with (ex)intimate partner SIH being the most common and

dangerous form of SIH (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). Given the significant number of

individuals who have experienced SIH, it is crucial to determine the impact of such

behaviors on these individuals.

3. Impact of Stalking and Intrusive Harassment

 13

A substantial amount of research indicates that SIH is associated with significant

psychological, social, and economic consequences (Cheyne & Guggisberg, 2018; Logan

& Walker, 2017; Sheridan & Grant, 2007; Short et al., 2015; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007).

SIH victims are often afflicted with feelings of shame, fear, anger, isolation, and

powerlessness, and are at increased risk of developing depression, anxiety, posttraumatic

stress, and substance use problems (Cheyne & Guggisberg, 2018; Sheridan & Grant,

2007; Short et al., 2015). Moreover, victims report loss of income through change or

termination of employment, as well as significant financial costs associated with

relocating, replacing damaged property, and seeking medical, legal, or mental health

services (Cheyne & Guggisberg, 2018; Logan & Walker, 2017; Sheridan & Grant, 2007).

Victims’ interpersonal relationships and social well-being are also negatively impacted,

as they tend to disengage from social activities and interactions due to fears or concern

for their safety (Baum et al., 2009; Cheyne & Guggisberg, 2018; Logan & Walker, 2017;

Sheridan & Grant, 2007).

Given the prevalence and negative consequences of SIH, it is imperative to

elucidate the factors associated with an increased risk for engaging in such behaviors to

better predict and mitigate its detrimental effects. Developing a greater understanding of

these factors is critical for early detection, prevention, and intervention, and for the

development and implementation of relevant policy and law.

4. Risk Factors for Online and In-Person Stalking and Intrusive Harassment

With the burgeoning interest in SIH over the past three decades, many theoretical

models have been formulated to explain why SIH behaviors occur and the contexts in

which it arises (Parkhill et al., 2022). While a comprehensive review of each existing
 14

theory of SIH is beyond the scope of the current paper, there are some hypothesized

elements or factors common across theories that can be integrated with empirical research

to form a cohesive framework that informs salient risk factors for online and in-person

SIH. Many theories have hypothesized that there are predisposing factors that increase

one’s vulnerability to engaging in SIH (Davis et al., 2012; Parkhill et al., 2022). Though

some variables have received more support than others, empirical research has identified

a range of predisposing factors relevant to the SIH context, including demographic

characteristics (e.g., gender, age), historical factors (e.g., childhood abuse or

maltreatment), psychological characteristics (e.g., mental health diagnoses and

symptoms), dispositional traits (e.g., attachment style, personality), and cognitive and

affective regulatory processes (e.g., attitudes, emotion regulation difficulties) (Davis et

al., 2012; McEwan et al., 2011; Parkhill et al., 2022; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007, 2014).

In addition to these predisposing factors, scholars have recognized the critical role

that contextual factors have in precipitating SIH (Davis et al., 2012; Parkhill et al., 2022).

Contextual factors pertain to environmental, personal, and social variables proximal to

the SIH situation (e.g., substance use, negative affect) that influence the course of

conduct (McEwan et al, 2011). Unlike predisposing factors, which are typically static and

unchanging over time, contextual factors are dynamic in nature as these variables may

vary across situations and evolve over time. To date, there remains a limited

understanding of how predisposing vulnerabilities and contextual factors may interact to

increase the risk of online and in-person SIH perpetration (McEwan et al., 2011; Parkhill

et al., 2022). It is crucial to examine how these variables may interact in order to obtain a

more comprehensive conceptualization of the processes contributing to SIH perpetration.

 15

A range of relevant predisposing (demographic, historical, psychological, dispositional,

cognitive, and affective) and contextual factors (e.g., substance use, negative affect)

associated with SIH will thus be reviewed.

4.1. Demographic Characteristics

4.1.1. Gender. As mentioned above, SIH is generally considered to be a gendered

phenomenon, such that men are more likely to be identified as perpetrators of SIH than

women (Brooks et al., 2021; Cheyne & Guggisberg, 2018; Lyndon et al., 2012; Spitzberg

et al., 2010). However, this is complicated by the type of SIH perpetrated and the

population under study (see Gender Differences in SIH section above). While research

has consistently demonstrated that men are more likely to engage in in-person SIH than

women (e.g., Branković et al., 2022; Dardis & Gidycz, 2017; Spitzberg et al., 2010),

whether this extends to the perpetration of online SIH is more unclear. Whereas some

research have reported greater online SIH perpetration amongst women (March et al.,

2020; Smoker & March, 2017; Strawhun et al., 2013), others suggest that men engage in

more forms of certain online SIH behaviors (e.g., surveillance using web cam or social

media, sending threatening emails; Dardis & Gidycz, 2017), whilst others still have found

no significant gender differences in online SIH perpetration (Branković et al., 2022;

Fissel et al., 2021; Kim, 2023).

4.1.2. Age. A growing body of literature has explored whether age may be a risk

factor for engaging in SIH, particularly in online SIH. Fissel et al. (2021) examined

online SIH perpetration in a community sample of 1,500 adults aged between 18 and 25

and found that older participants were significantly more likely to engage in online SIH

than their younger counterparts. Although it did not reach statistical significance, a
 16

similar trend was observed by Reyns and colleagues (2012) in their sample of college

students. Although valuable, these findings are limited by the fact that online SIH was

studied in samples with a very narrow age range (i.e., young adults aged between 18 and

25). Hence, it is unclear whether these differences extend beyond the studied age group.

Given the significantly higher use of electronic media (e.g., phones, social media)

amongst younger adults (aged 30 or younger; 84-96%) compared to older adults (aged 65

or older; 45-61%) (Pew Research Center, 2022), it is possible that younger adults may be

more likely to engage in online SIH. In an exploratory analysis of approximately 1,600

self-identified stalking victims in the community, Sheriden and colleagues (2014) found

that the only significant difference in the SIH campaign across three age groups (stalkers

aged 16 or younger, aged between 17 and 59, and aged 60 or older) was that stalkers aged

16 or younger were more likely to physically threaten the victim than stalkers aged 60 or

older. This null finding is consistent with a large meta-analysis of 57 studies that

similarly found no significant difference in online SIH perpetration by age (Kim, 2023).

Further research examining whether there are any differences in the type of SIH

perpetrated (i.e., online vs. in-person) by age has significant implications for risk

assessment and management (Sheridan et al., 2014).

4.2. Historical Risk Factors

4.2.1. History of Childhood Abuse and Maltreatment. A robust finding in the

literature is that adverse childhood experiences are associated with a range of problematic

behaviors, including criminal offending and violence (e.g., Widom et al., 2006). Research

has also demonstrated that a history of childhood abuse and maltreatment is a precursor

to the development of other relevant risk factors for SIH, including insecure attachment,
 17

substance use problems, and maladaptive personality traits (e.g., narcissism; Ménard &

Pincus, 2012; Widom et al., 2006). Logically, it could be posited that a history of

childhood abuse and maltreatment is linked to SIH perpetration as well; however, few

studies have directly examined this. Dye and Davis (2003) were the first to investigate

this relationship using a sample of 342 college students who had recently been involved

in a romantic relationship. They found that harsh parental discipline was indirectly

associated with SIH perpetration and was mediated by a range of variables, including

insecure attachment style and anger following the break-up (Dye & Davis, 2003).

Additional support was found by Ménard and Pincus (2012), who reported that a history

of childhood abuse and maltreatment, specifically sexual abuse, was positively related to

online and in-person SIH for both men and women. Notably, they found that child abuse

accounted for approximately 25% to 75% of the explained variance (Ménard & Pincus,

2012). As such, they recommended that future SIH perpetration studies should control for

the effect of childhood abuse and maltreatment in analyses given its significance.

4.3. Psychological Risk Factors

4.3.1. Mental Health Diagnoses and Symptoms. Early research on SIH

predominantly focused on the role of psychopathology, particularly psychotic (i.e.,

delusional disorders, schizophrenia) and personality disorders, on SIH perpetration

(McEwan & Strand, 2013; Nijdam-Jones et al., 2018). This emphasis on

psychopathology arose from the high prevalence of psychiatric illnesses that were

identified in stalkers, which led scholars to consider mental disorders as the primary

mechanism underlying SIH (Meloy, 1998; Nijdam-Jones et al., 2018). However, these

early research findings were predicated on samples of stalking offenders who had been
 18

referred to psychiatric or clinical settings, which likely overrepresented the presence and

severity of mental illness amongst stalkers (Nijdam-Jones et al., 2018). Indeed, recent

research with community and other non-forensic psychiatric samples indicate that

psychopathology, particularly psychosis, amongst stalking offenders may not be as

prevalent as previously thought (Nijdam-Jones et al., 2018). Among a large sample of

college students, Patton et al. (2010) found no relationship between psychopathology and

SIH perpetration. Specifically, the presence of a psychotic disorder, personality disorder,

or clinical depression and anxiety were not significantly associated with SIH perpetration

(Patton et al., 2010). Though this may suggest that factors other than psychopathology

may be more pertinent in contributing to SIH, it is possible that specific mental health

symptoms or dimensional personality traits, rather than the psychiatric disorder itself,

may be more relevant to SIH perpetration in non-forensic samples (Kim, 2023; McEwan

& Strand, 2013; Nijdam-Jones et al., 2018; Reilly & Hines, 2020). Additionally, focusing

on symptom-level factors as opposed to diagnostic labels is more useful for identifying

salient responsivity targets for risk management and intervention planning.

Research suggests that stalkers with psychosis, particularly erotomania (the

delusional belief that one is passionately loved by another individual), are two to three

times more likely to target acquaintances and strangers than (ex)intimate partners

(McEwan & Strand, 2013; Mohandie et al., 2006). In addition, psychotic stalkers are

reported to be more persistent in their SIH behaviors, especially when the victim is

incorporated into their delusions (McEwan & Strand, 2013). In contrast to psychosis,

personality disorders, particularly Cluster B personality disorders (i.e., antisocial,

narcissistic, borderline), are more prevalent in (ex)intimate partner stalkers than

 19

acquaintance or stranger stalkers (McEwan & Strand, 2013; Rosenfeld, 2003). Borderline

personality disorder (BPD) is of particular relevance to SIH given that the core features

of BPD (i.e., patterns of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships, impulsivity, fear

of abandonment, difficulties with emotion regulation) are theorized to be some of the

main drivers of unwanted and persistent pursuit (Reilly & Hines, 2020). That is, unstable

views of one’s interpersonal relationships and fears of abandonment may prompt an

individual with BPD to engage in SIH behaviors to maintain the relationship (Reilly &

Hines, 2020). Additionally, extreme distress and affective instability may be triggered by

the dissolution of the relationship, which, coupled with deficits in their ability to

appropriately regulate their emotions, may motivate the individual to increase their SIH

behaviors in an attempt to reconcile or reestablish the relationship (Reilly & Hines,

2020). This theoretical association between BPD and SIH is supported by research in

college student (e.g., Reilly & Hines, 2020) and community samples (e.g., De Smet et al.,

2015) finding higher levels of BPD traits in perpetrators of in-person SIH than in non-

perpetrators.

4.4. Dispositional Risk Factors

4.4.1. Attachment Style. Meloy (1998) was one of the first scholars to

conceptualize stalking as a behavioral manifestation of pathological attachment.

According to attachment theory, the level of caregiver responsiveness, or lack thereof,

and other childhood experiences (e.g., childhood abuse or maltreatment) are critical in the

development of secure or dysfunctional attachment styles in adulthood (Dutton &

Winstead, 2006; Patton et al., 2010; Tassy & Winstead, 2014). Empirical research on

adult attachment has identified two primary dimensions of dysfunctional or insecure

 20

attachment, anxious and avoidant, that develop from adverse childhood experiences and

low caregiver responsiveness. Insecure-anxious attachment is characterized by a

dependency on others for approval and reassurance, and anxiety about maintaining

interpersonal relationships (Dutton & Winstead, 2006; Patton et al., 2010; Tassy &

Winstead, 2014). Insecure-avoidant attachment, on the other hand, is defined by a

discomfort with, and a tendency to remain distant from, interpersonal relationships

(Tassy & Winstead, 2014). When relational bonds are threatened (e.g., in the event of

interpersonal conflict or termination of a relationship), individuals who are anxiously

attached are more likely to engage in inappropriate or destructive behaviors (e.g.,

exaggerated expressions of love, anger, or jealousy, coercive control, aggression) in

attempts to reestablish the bond, whereas those with insecure-avoidant attachment will be

less likely to make efforts to reconnect and may leave conflicts unresolved (Johnson &

Thompson, 2016; Patton et al., 2010; Tassy & Winstead, 2014).

In line with attachment theory, prior research has consistently demonstrated that

individuals with insecure-anxious, but not insecure-avoidant, attachment styles are more

likely to engage in online SIH (Ménard & Pincus, 2012; Strawhun et al., 2013) and in-

person SIH (Dardis & Gidycz, 2019; Dutton & Winstead, 2006; Dye & Davis, 2003;

Ménard & Pincus, 2012; Johnson & Thompson, 2016; Patton et al., 2010; Tassy &

Winstead, 2014). This corresponds with prior research linking insecure-anxious

attachment with a range of interpersonal difficulties, including personality disorders (e.g.,

narcissistic, borderline), high trait jealousy, possessiveness, emotion dysregulation, and

antisocial and criminal behavior (Ogilvie et al., 2014; Patton et al., 2010; Strawhun et al.,

2013; Tassy & Winstead, 2014; Velotti et al., 2022).

 21

4.4.2. Dark Tetrad Personality Traits. The Dark Tetrad comprises of the four

distinct but empirically overlapping subclinical personality traits of Machiavellianism,

narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism (Buckels et al., 2013; Chabrol et al., 2009). A

wealth of research has demonstrated a dispositional propensity for antisocial and amoral

behavior, such as aggression, amongst individuals with elevated Dark Tetrad traits (e.g.,

Buckels et al., 2013; Chabrol et al., 2009; see Muris et al., 2017 and Thomas & Egan,

2022 for reviews). It is perhaps surprising, then, that relatively few studies have directly

examined the role of the Dark Tetrad traits in online and in-person SIH perpetration. The

existing research that is available has been largely limited to intimate partner online SIH

perpetration, so the contribution of these personality traits to in-person SIH perpetration

and in broader relational contexts (e.g., acquaintances, strangers) remains largely

unknown.

Machiavellianism, characterized by a tendency to manipulate, exploit, or deceive

others, has been hypothesized to be uniquely associated with online SIH as such covert

behaviors may be preferable for controlling or monitoring their victim (Smoker & March,

2017). However, prior research has produced mixed findings, with some studies finding

an association between Machiavellianism and increased online SIH among intimate

partners (Kircaburun et al., 2018; Smoker & March, 2017), while others have not (March

et al., 2020; Pineda et al., 2021). In the only known study to have examined the

relationship between Dark Tetrad traits and online and in-person SIH in a community

sample of non-intimate partners, Machiavellianism was correlated with greater

engagement in online SIH (Branković et al., 2022). These discrepant findings suggest

that Machiavellianism may not be as relevant to online or in-person SIH as some of the
 22

other Dark Tetrad traits (e.g., narcissism), which have shown a more consistent

relationship.

Narcissism describes a personality dimension associated with grandiosity, a need

for admiration, and a sense of entitlement (Jones & Paulhus, 2010). Individuals with high

trait narcissism are hypersensitive to real or perceived threats to their self-esteem or

image (“narcissistic injury”), and oftentimes respond with anger or aggression to punish

or devalue the other person and to protect themselves from future narcissistic injury

(Jones & Paulhus, 2010). Consistent with this, research has demonstrated that narcissism,

particularly vulnerable narcissism (associated with insecurity and ego defensiveness),

predicts increased perpetration of online and in-person SIH (Branković et al., 2022;

Kircaburun et al., 2018; March et al., 2020; Ménard & Pincus, 2012; Norris et al., 2011;

Pineda et al., 2021; Smoker & March, 2017).

Psychopathy is characterized by callousness, impulsivity, and a lack of emotion

and remorse (Jones & Paulhus, 2010). Given that SIH is largely driven by pathological

affective attachment, it has been hypothesized that psychopathy, a “disorder” of

emotional detachment, is unlikely to be strongly related to SIH (Meloy, 1998; Storey et

al., 2009). This hypothesis is only partially supported by the extant literature. Although

research indicates that high levels of psychopathy is seldom observed in samples of

convicted stalking offenders, the presence of such psychopathic traits is associated with a

greater frequency, severity, and diversity of SIH behaviors (Reavis et al., 2008; Storey et

al., 2009). Other studies of community populations have found a greater risk of online

and in-person SIH amongst those with elevated levels of subclinical psychopathy

(Branković et al., 2022; March et al., 2020; Pineda et al., 2021; Smoker & March, 2017).
 23

Notably, March and colleagues (2020) reported that increased online SIH perpetration

was uniquely associated with the impulsivity and poor self-control components of

psychopathy, as opposed to the affective deficits, especially in male intimate partners.

This parallels other research relating low self-control and increased online SIH

perpetration (e.g., Marcum et al., 2017; Reyns, 2019; see “Emotion Regulation

Difficulties” section below).

Sadism describes the pleasure or enjoyment derived from inflicting physical or

psychological harm on another or from witnessing another person’s suffering or pain

(Buckels et al., 2013; Chabron et al., 2009; Thomas & Egan, 2022). Sadism was first

linked to SIH perpetration by Sheridan and Boon (2002), who identified a subset of

sadistically motivated stalkers in their sample who engaged in SIH behaviors with the

intent to control, frighten, or demoralize the victim (e.g., leaving evidence that the

perpetrator invaded the victim’s privacy). Additionally, they were described as gaining

pleasure from the sense of powerlessness they inflicted in the victim from their

intimidation and tormenting tactics (Sheridan & Boon, 2002). While a growing body of

research has identified a positive relationship between high trait sadism and online SIH in

intimate partner (March et al., 2020; Pineda et al., 2021; Smoker & March, 2017) and

non-intimate partner contexts (Kircaburun et al., 2018), only one known study has found

that this positive correlation extends to in-person SIH as well (Branković et al., 2022).

Preliminary evidence suggests that the predictive utility of the Dark Tetrad traits

on SIH perpetration may vary by gender. In their community sample of adults, higher

trait narcissism and sadism were significantly associated with increased (ex)intimate

partner online SIH in women, whereas psychopathy was the only Dark Tetrad trait that
 24

was linked to online SIH in men (March et al., 2020). These results suggest that there

may be gender-specific motives for engaging in SIH, at least in the context of

(ex)intimate partner online SIH. Specifically, these findings indicate that women may be

more vengeful in their intentions, engaging in SIH towards their intimate partner in

response to perceived narcissistic injury (e.g., rejection, insult, criticism). Conversely,

men may be more likely to perpetrate SIH due to poor impulse control (March et al.,

2020). These gender differences in the predictive utility of the Dark Tetrad traits suggest

a need for further inquiry.

4.5. Cognitive Risk Factors

4.5.1. Stalking-Related Attitudes. Like other related forms of violence and

aggression (e.g., rape), SIH is influenced by myths or stereotypes that justify and

normalize such behaviors (Becker et al., 2020; McKeon et al., 2015; Sinclair, 2012).

These misconceptions include beliefs that victims are to blame because they “provoked”

the perpetrator to behave in such a manner; stalking is romantic and flattering for the

victim; stalking is benign; and stalking only occurs between strangers (McKeon et al.,

2015; Sinclair, 2012). As previously mentioned, strangers are erroneously perceived as

more threatening and dangerous than known stalkers, despite substantial evidence that

ex-intimate partners are more persistent and physically violent than strangers (Bendlin &

Sheridan, 2021; Brooks et al., 2021; Churcher & Nesca, 2013; James & Farnham, 2003;

Logan, 2022; Meloy & Boyd, 2003; Rosenfeld, 2004; Strand & McEwan, 2012; Thomas

et al., 2008; Thompson et al., 2020). Previous research indicates that these stalking-

related attitudes are learned and perpetuated by peer influences (Fox, Nobles & Akers,

2011), and inaccurate media representations of stalking (Lippman, 2018). For example,
 25

the stereotype that strangers are more dangerous is fueled by pop culture depictions of

stranger stalking as involving overtly aggressive behaviors, whereas known stalkers are

portrayed as engaging in acts that are traditionally viewed as more “romantic” (e.g.,

leaving flowers, gifts or notes declaring love; persistent phone calls; Becker et al., 2020;

McKeon et al., 2015). This thereby reinforces sociocultural scripts and beliefs that foster

tolerance and acceptability of a culture for such behaviors, especially in the context of

relational pursuit (Dunlap et al., 2015).

Although valuable, much of the current literature has examined stalking myths as

it relates to perceptions and the identification of stalking. For example, research suggests

that greater endorsement of stalking-related attitudes is associated with an increased

tolerance to experience SIH, such that stalking is less likely to be perceived as a

deleterious or criminal phenomenon (e.g., Becker et al., 2020; Dunlap et al., 2015;

McKeon et al., 2015). Despite its importance, significantly less attention has been

afforded to the impact of stalking supportive attitudes on actual SIH behavior.

Preliminary evidence suggests that greater acceptance of stalking-related attitudes

increases the likelihood of engaging in online and in-person SIH (Chan et al., 2022).

These results mirror the broader literature reporting similar outcomes in other related

domains of violence and aggression (e.g., rape; Sinclair, 2012); however additional

research is required to replicate these findings.

4.6. Affective Risk Factors

4.6.1. Emotion Regulation Difficulties. Emotion regulation difficulties refers to

a lack of emotional awareness and understanding, poor self-control and the use of

maladaptive coping strategies in response to negative emotions (Gratz & Roemer, 2004).
 26

In their self-regulation theory of SIH, Davis and colleagues (2012) proposed that the

inability to appropriately regulate one’s behaviors (i.e., poor impulse control) and

emotions was central to understanding SIH perpetration (Davis et al., 2012). That is, if an

individual is unable to appropriately process and regulate their aversive emotions and

choose an adaptive coping strategy, then impulsive and maladaptive responses will be

more likely to occur (Brem, Stuart, et al., 2021; Davis et al., 2012). SIH has been

hypothesized to be one such maladaptive response to negative affect, such as anger,

jealousy, or fears of abandonment (Davis et al., 2012; Strauss et al., 2018). Indeed, much

of the behavioral repertoire of stalkers and intrusive harassers (e.g., monitoring or

following the victim, sending them threatening messages) may occur as a consequence of

experiencing these emotions. Davis et al.’s (2012) self-regulation theory has been

supported by preliminary research identifying a predictive relationship between emotion

regulation difficulties and online and in-person SIH perpetration (Chan et al., 2022;

Dardis & Gidycz, 2019; Strauss et al., 2018). These studies suggest that broad emotion

regulation deficits, especially a lack of emotional awareness, the inability to tolerate or

accept negative emotions, and difficulties understanding one’s emotions (or a lack of

emotional clarity), are significantly associated with online and in-person SIH amongst

college students (Chan et al., 2022; Dardis & Gidycz, 2019; Strauss et al., 2018).

Other studies have implicated low self-control as a precursor for online SIH in

college students (Marcum et al., 2017; Reyns, 2019; van Baak & Hayes, 2018) and the

general adult population (Fissel et al., 2021). Low self-control (often used

interchangeably with impulse control) is a component of emotion dysregulation

characterized by a focus on the short-term benefits of one’s actions and a tendency to

 27

engage in self-serving impulsive or risky behaviors. The predictive role of low self-

control in SIH is theoretically grounded in the general theory of crime, which posits that

individuals with low self-control are more inclined to engage in easy criminal or deviant

opportunities for their immediate gratification, without consideration of the long-term

consequences of their actions (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). This may be especially

pertinent to online SIH given that electronic media affords instantaneous access to a

victim’s personal information, and the immediate sending of harassing or threatening

messages without much forethought or effort (Reyns, 2019). Though it is possible that

low self-control may not be correlated with offline SIH due to the premeditation and

planning that is typically required of such behaviors, research suggests that low self-

control may be associated with both online and in-person SIH perpetration among college

students (Dardis & Gidycz, 2019). Further exploration into the role of emotion

dysregulation on online and in-person SIH perpetration, particularly among community

samples, is therefore warranted.

4.7. Contextual Risk Factors

4.7.1. Substance Use Problems. Previous research indicates that problematic

substance use may be associated with a greater likelihood of perpetrating in-person SIH

(Brem, Stuart, et al., 2021; Melton, 2007; Nijdam-Jones et al., 2018). Some studies have

reported that nearly half of sampled stalking offenders endorsed problematic substance

use as a significant contributing factor to their engagement in SIH (Mohandie et al., 2006;

Nijdam-Jones et al., 2018). Additionally, in a study examining the relationship between

stalking and domestic violence, Melton (2007) found that abusers who had substance use

problems had a higher likelihood of engaging in more severe stalking behaviors than their
 28

counterparts who did not have substance use problems. In contrast to the research on in-

person SIH, the relationship between problematic substance use and online SIH is more

equivocal. Whereas some research has found a positive correlation with certain types of

online SIH behaviors (i.e., online privacy invasion tactics; Crane et al., 2018) or with

female college students only (Brem, Romero, et al., 2021), others have found no

significant relationship between online SIH perpetration and substance use problems

(Brem, Stuart, et al., 2019).

The inconsistent findings suggest that the relationship between online SIH and

problematic substance use may be nuanced and influenced by several mediating

variables. In fact, it is possible that problematic substance use alone may not in and of

itself contribute to SIH perpetration; rather, it may act as a disinhibiting or exacerbating

factor when combined with other risk factors or aggressogenic traits (e.g., anger, impulse

control difficulties, personality disorder traits; Brem, Romero, et al., 2021; Brem, Stuart,

et al., 2021; Logan & Walker, 2017). This aligns with prominent theoretical models of

intimate partner violence (e.g., I3 theory; Finkel & Eckhardt, 2013), which suggest that

acute substance use overrides cognitive processes involved in inhibiting impulses to

aggress, thereby increasing the likelihood that SIH will occur, especially in response to

negative affect. This is supported by empirical findings that problematic substance use

was only associated with increased in-person intimate partner aggression for those with

greater emotion regulation difficulties, but not for those who had did not have emotion

regulation difficulties (Brem, Stuart, et al., 2021). Furthermore, Rosenfeld (2003) found

that convicted stalking offenders who had a personality disorder diagnosis and a history

of substance use problems were more likely to stalk than those offenders who only had
 29

one of these risk factors alone. Continued examination of the relationship between

problematic substance use, online and in-person SIH, as well as other potential

interacting variables is required to disentangle the mixed findings of the extant literature.

4.7.2. Negative Affect. Negative emotional arousal and distress following the

dissolution of a romantic relationship has been identified as a critical precipitating factor

of (ex)intimate partner online and in-person SIH in college student (Brem, Roberts, et al.,

2021; Dutton & Winstead, 2006; Dye & Davis, 2003; Tassy & Winstead, 2014) and

community samples (De Smet et al., 2012; Johnson & Thompson, 2016). Feelings of

anger and jealousy in particular are important mediating variables in the relationship

between insecure-anxious attachment and ex-intimate partner SIH perpetration (Dutton &

Winstead, 2006; Dye & Davis, 2003; Johnson & Thompson, 2016). Though there is a

dearth of research examining the role of negative affect in non-intimate partner SIH

contexts, preliminary evidence suggests that anger and jealousy are important

contributing factors of online SIH in female college students only (Strawhun et al., 2013).

The positive relationship between negative affect and SIH perpetration makes intuitive

sense as there is unlikely to be sufficient motivation for an individual to engage in SIH

unless they are negatively emotionally aroused by a precipitating event (Brem, Roberts,

et al., 2021; Patton et al., 2010). In other words, strong negative affective experiences

may be the impetus driving individuals to engage in SIH, perhaps as a maladaptive way

to cope with or resolve the distressing emotions.

4.7.3. Rumination. Rumination refers to a process of repetitive and persistent

thoughts around a common theme that typically maintains and amplifies negative

emotional states (Anestis et al., 2009; Sukhodolsky et al., 2001). Ruminative and
 30

obsessive thinking about the victim and the situation is a core component of multiple

theories of SIH (e.g., attachment theory, relational goal pursuit theory; Meloy, 1998;

Spitzberg & Cupach, 2014). Some scholars theorize that rumination and negative affect

are the central mutually reinforcing influences that motivate persistent relational pursuit

(Spitzberg & Cupach, 2014). Specifically, rumination serves to maintain the perpetrator’s

focus on a relational goal that has yet to be attained (e.g., obtaining or re-establishing a

relationship with the victim). Continued failure to accomplish the relational goal (e.g.,

rejection from the victim) can exacerbate negatively focused rumination and emotional

distress, which can result in a greater likelihood of engaging in maladaptive behaviors

(e.g., SIH) in attempts to achieve the relational goal and reduce their distress (Spitzberg

& Cupach, 2014). There is strong empirical evidence linking ruminative thinking with

SIH perpetration and persistence amongst ex-intimate partners in both community

(Brownhalls et al., 2021; De Smet et al., 2015; Johnson & Thompson, 2016) and college

student samples (Cupach et al., 2011; McEwan et al., 2020; Spitzberg et al., 2014).

However, some research suggests that rumination may have a differential impact on SIH

perpetration across gender. McEwan and colleagues (2020) found that general trait

rumination was linked to SIH behaviors in male college students, but not female college

students. In contrast, De Smet et al. (2015) reported that ruminative thinking was a

stronger predictor of SIH perpetration among female ex-partners than their male

counterparts.

Anger rumination is a specific form of rumination defined as the tendency to

unintentionally dwell on one’s anger moods and experiences and think about the causes

and consequences of such anger (Anestis et al., 2009; Sukhodolsky et al., 2001).
 31

Empirical research has found that anger rumination is predictive of physical and verbal

aggression and hostility, particularly in response to insults or provocation (e.g., Anestis et

al., 2009; Denson et al., 2011); however, no known study has examined the role of anger

rumination in online and in-person SIH perpetration. Given that anger is a particularly

salient precipitating factor of SIH (e.g., Dutton & Winstead, 2006; Johnson & Thompson,

2016), it is plausible that ruminative processes, such as anger rumination, that intensify

and prolong feelings of anger would increase the likelihood of SIH perpetration.

Additionally, given the theorized exacerbating influence of negative affect and

rumination on SIH (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2014), and the fact that both trait and state

rumination are both associated with greater aggression (Denson et al., 2011), it is

important to examine the interaction between state and trait rumination, negative affect,

and SIH.

As is evident by this review of the literature, a multitude of risk factors for online

and in-person SIH have been explored. In addition to SIH more generally, it is important

to examine the risk factors associated with the escalation of SIH to violent behaviors in

order to more effectively identify and manage those individuals at greater risk of

perpetrating stalking violence. First, a review of the definition and operationalization of

stalking violence and its prevalence is necessary to properly understand the risk factors

associated with this phenomenon.

5. Stalking Violence

SIH is dynamic in nature, whereby the progression of behaviors is influenced by

the harasser’s goals and motivations (e.g., revenge, reconciliation), the victim’s reactions

(e.g., filing a protection order), and other contextual factors (e.g., life stressors; Logan &
 32

Walker, 2017; Thompson et al., 2020). Oftentimes, SIH campaigns escalate in nature,

frequency, and severity the longer it persists (McEwan et al., 2012; Thompson et al.,

2020). This can culminate in various forms of violence, from less severe acts, such as

threats of harm or minor physical assaults (e.g., punching, kicking), to more severe and

potentially lethal acts (e.g., rape, homicide; James & Farnham, 2003; Logan, 2022;

McFarlane et al., 1999; Thompson et al., 2013). Aside from the obvious physical injuries

it can cause, research suggests that even minor forms of stalking violence can exacerbate

fear and other psychological sequelae in the victim (Logan, 2022; Thomas et al., 2008).

As such, it is imperative to enhance knowledge of the factors associated with escalating

patterns of SIH to facilitate early identification of high-risk perpetrators and the

implementation of effective intervention and management strategies. To do so, it is

important to first understand how often stalking violence occurs.

5.1. Prevalence of Stalking Violence

As with prevalence estimates of SIH, ascertaining reliable rates of violence

amongst SIH perpetrators is difficult given the heterogeneity in operational definitions of

stalking violence and population sampling methods (e.g., official records vs. self-report,

gender, stalker-victim relationship type; Bendlin & Sheridan, 2021; Logan, 2022;

Rosenfeld, 2004). Although most definitions of stalking violence in prior research refer to

the physical or sexual actions perpetrated against another (i.e., interpersonal violence)

during the course of the SIH campaign, there are differences in whether definitional

criteria include less severe or minor behaviors, actual or attempted physical or sexual

contact, or harm to others associated with the victim (Logan, 2022). Other definitions

have expanded beyond interpersonal violence to also include destruction of property

 33

(e.g., Meloy, Mohandie & Green, 2011) or verbal threats of physical and sexual harm

(e.g., Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2002). More rarely, the definition has been vague, or even

absent, such that in some cases stalking violence has been used synonymously with

“physical assault,” “physical attacks,” or “physical or sexual violence,” without clear

descriptions of the specific behaviors encompassed by such terms (see Rosenfeld, 2004).

Notwithstanding the inconsistent definitions, research suggests that attempted or

actual stalking violence occurs in 30% to 50% of cases (e.g., Dressing et al., 2005; James

& Farnham, 2003; McEwan et al., 2009; Mohandie et al., 2006; Rosenfeld & Harmon,

2002; Thompson et al., 2012, 2013), with meta-analyses indicating that 32% to 39% of

cases involve physical violence and 12% involve sexual violence (Churcher & Nesca,

2013; Rosenfeld, 2004; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007, 2014). However, higher rates of

stalking violence have been identified in cases wherein the victim and perpetrator were

previously romantically involved, with estimates suggesting that (ex)intimate partners are

two to three times more likely to perpetrate violence than acquaintances or strangers

(Bendlin & Sheridan, 2021; Brooks et al., 2021; Churcher & Nesca, 2013; James &

Farnham, 2003; Logan, 2022; Meloy & Boyd, 2003; Rosenfeld, 2004; Strand &

McEwan, 2012; Thomas et al., 2008; Thompson et al., 2020). In addition to perpetrating

higher rates of violence, (ex)intimate partners have also been found to engage in more

severe forms of violence, including attempted or actual homicide (James & Farnham,

2003).

Some researchers have begun examining stalking violence according to severity

(e.g., James & Farnham, 2003; Sheridan & Roberts, 2011; Thompson et al., 2012, 2013).

Specifically, researchers have increasingly differentiated between less (henceforth

 34

referred to as minor) and more serious (henceforth referred to as severe) forms of stalking

violence. However, as with violence more generally, there is some ambiguity in the

stalking violence literature about the specific behaviors that constitute minor and severe

violence. For example, whilst some research operationalized severe stalking violence as

serious assault or murder (James & Farnham, 2003), others considered severe stalking

violence as any behaviors that caused injuries requiring medical treatment or

hospitalization (Sheridan & Roberts, 2011), or inflicted significant or potentially life-

threatening bodily injury (Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2002). In attempts to address the

definitional and operational ambiguities of prior literature, some researchers (e.g.,

Bendlin & Sheridan, 2021; Thompson et al., 2012, 2013, 2020) have measured and

operationalized minor and severe violence using standardized assessment tools, such as

the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996).

Despite the definitional ambiguity, research suggests that most stalking violence

involves minor or less severe behaviors, with serious or lethal acts of violence occurring

in a minority of cases (Bendlin & Sheridan, 2021; James & Farnham, 2003; McEwan et

al., 2007, 2009; Thompson et al., 2020). In his meta-analysis of 13 studies, Rosenfeld

(2004) reported that violence resulting in serious physical harm occurred in 6% of SIH

cases. However, the prevalence of minor and severe forms of stalking violence largely

differs depending on the population under study. For example, violence resulting in

serious bodily injury or death are highly uncommon in non-forensic samples (i.e.,

community, student) given the rarity of such violence (McEwan et al., 2007). Conversely,

SIH involving minor acts of violence may be seldom reported or come to the attention of

police, meaning that the prevalence of minor forms of stalking violence may be
 35

underestimated in forensic samples (Rosenfeld, 2004; Thompson et al., 2012). Even the

extent to which SIH is associated with serious violence is ambiguous as cases of SIH that

end in physical or sexual violence are typically classified or recorded as the more serious

offense (i.e., assault, murder, rape, sexual assault), which may obscure actual rates of

SIH-related severe violence (McEwan et al., 2007; Miller, 2012; Thompson et al., 2012).

Despite this, the research that is available suggests that most cases of intimate partner

femicide are preceded by stalking (McFarlane et al., 1999; Spencer & Stith, 2020). In

fact, over three quarters of attempted or actual femicide victims had been stalked in one

study (McFarlane et al., 1999), and a recent meta-analysis indicated that there is a three-

fold increased risk of homicide in female victims if a male partner previously stalked the

victim (Spencer & Stith, 2020).

5.1.1. Gender Differences in Stalking Violence. Contrary to traditional beliefs

and the violence literature more broadly, the majority of prior research indicates that

female stalkers may perpetrate just as much, if not more, stalking violence than their male

counterparts (Brooks et al., 2021; McEwan et al., 2017; Meloy & Boyd, 2003; Purcell et

al., 2001; Rosenfeld, 2004; Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2002; Sheridan & Roberts, 2011;

Strand & McEwan, 2012; Thomas et al., 2008; Thompson et al., 2012, 2013), though

there are a few exceptions (e.g., Meloy, Mohandie & Green, 2011). While there may be

comparable rates of overall violence across gender, the type and intensity of violent

behaviors they engage in may differ. For example, male stalkers have been found to

engage in more sexual violence than female stalkers (Meloy, Mohandie & Green, 2011).

Female (ex)intimate partner stalkers, on the other hand, reportedly engage in more

moderate forms of violence (e.g., minor physical assault, sexual coercion) than male
 36

(ex)intimate partner stalkers (Thompson et al., 2012, 2013). Whether there are

differences in the perpetration of severe forms of violence across gender is more unclear

as studies using college or mixed student/community samples find no gender differences

in rates of severe violence (Thompson et al., 2012, 2013), whereas a study using a

clinical forensic sample found that male stalkers engaged in more severe violence than

female stalkers (James & Farnham, 2003). These inconsistent findings could be attributed

to differences in the population under study and in how severe violence was

operationalized (Thompson et al., 2012). Regardless, current research illustrates that

stalking violence is not uncommon and may be perpetrated at comparable rates in male

and female stalkers.

Given the prevalence of stalking violence, it is crucial to investigate what factors

may increase the risk of stalking violence, and to determine whether this varies by gender

(Logan, 2022). This is important for developing a greater understanding of common

behavioral patterns, shared and differential precursors for violence, and for informing the

development of evidence-based risk assessment tools and prevention and intervention

programs.

6. Risk Factors for Stalking Violence

The literature on stalking violence has been impeded by small sample sizes,

variability in study methodology and the operationalization of stalking violence, and

atheoretical explorations of risk factors in predominantly clinical/forensic samples, which

may not generalize to non-forensic samples (Churcher & Nesca, 2013; McEwan et al.,

2007; Rosenfeld, 2004; Thompson et al., 2013). This has produced mixed, and at times

contradictory, findings that have ultimately resulted in a limited understanding of the

 37

factors associated with an increased risk of stalking violence. Furthermore, most of this

research was conducted prior to 2013, before the pervasive use of electronic media, and

few studies have been completed since (McEwan, 2021). Thus, the role of online SIH in

the trajectory of SIH and stalking violence perpetration remains largely unknown. The

current literature is further limited by the fact that stalking violence has mostly been

explored as a homogeneous construct. With some exceptions (e.g., Bendlin & Sheridan,

2021; Sheridan & Roberts, 2011; Thompson et al., 2012, 2013), stalking violence has

been examined in prior research as a unidimensional construct consisting of behaviors

that range from relatively minor (e.g., pushing, slapping) to more severe (e.g., choking,

use of a weapon) in nature. This is problematic as research has demonstrated that minor

and severe forms of violence are associated with different risk factors and are perpetrated

for different purposes (e.g., to intimidate, control, or to intentionally harm; James &

Farnham, 2003; Bendlin & Sheridan, 2021; Sheridan & Roberts, 2011; Thompson et al.,

2013, 2020). This suggests that there may be important differential risk factors that are

overlooked in the current literature; additional research into this area is therefore

warranted.

To address the largely atheoretical investigation of risk factors that has been

prevalent in the literature thus far, the following review will be guided by the Integrated

Theoretical Model of Stalking Violence (ITMSV; Thompson et al., 2013, 2020). The

ITMSV integrates multiple established theories from the broader violence literature to

explain how various predisposing and contextual risk factors may interact to

differentially influence perpetration of minor and severe forms of stalking violence

(Thompson et al., 2013, 2020; see Figure 1.1). Notably, Thompson and colleagues (2013,
 38

Figure 1.1 The Integrated Theoretical Model of Stalking Violence (ITMSV), retrieved
from Thompson et al. (2013, 2020).

2020) operationally defined minor and severe stalking violence according to the “minor”

and “severe” behavioral classifications of the “Physical Assault” and “Sexual Coercion”

subscales of the CTS2 (Straus et al., 1996). In line with the ITMSV and prior research

(e.g., Bendlin & Sheridan, 2011; Thompson et al., 2012, 2013, 2020), the current study

adopted this same approach to operationally define minor and severe violence (see the

“Definition of Terms” section below for a description of the specific behaviors defined as

minor and severe). Of note, some behaviors classified as “severe” by the CTS2 (e.g.,

kicking, hitting with an object that could hurt) may not necessarily be categorized as such

in prior research that defined severe stalking violence as those inflicting serious or

potentially lethal bodily injury (e.g., aggravated assault, homicide).

According to the ITMSV, humans have a biological propensity for violence,

especially in circumstances that often contextualize SIH (e.g., romantic rejection,

 39

interpersonal conflict, anger, frustration). People learn to inhibit their violent urges and

refrain from aggressing by using alternative prosocial behavioral strategies or responses.

However, an individual’s ability to do this effectively is influenced by various

predisposing factors, including historical factors that reinforce the use of violent or

abusive behaviors (e.g., criminal and violence history) and psychological and affective

vulnerabilities that diminish self-regulatory capacities (e.g., maladaptive personality

traits, insecure attachment, emotion regulation difficulties). These predisposing factors

interact with dynamic contextual or behavioral factors (e.g., substance use, negative

affect, opportunities, violent intentions) to determine the circumstances under which

minor or severe violence actually occurs. Using a theoretical framework like the ITMSV

enables a more comprehensive understanding of the etiology and escalation of stalking

violence to be established. Each of the predisposing (historical, psychological and

dispositional, affective) and contextual (e.g., substance use, negative affect) factors will

now be considered in turn.

6.1. Historical Risk Factors

6.1.1. Criminal and Violence History. It has been well-established in the

violence risk assessment literature that past criminal behavior, particularly past violent

behavior, is predictive of future violent behavior (McEwan et al., 2007). Despite its

robust association with future criminal offending and general violence more broadly, it is

unclear whether the predictive utility of prior criminal history extends to stalking

violence (Churcher & Nesca, 2013; Logan & Walker, 2017). Some scholars have

identified a positive relationship between criminal history

 40

and stalking violence (Thompson et al., 2020), while others have found that a prior

criminal history was associated with a reduced likelihood of severe violence in particular

(James & Farnham, 2003). Others still have found no significant relationship between

stalking violence and a prior criminal history (McEwan et al., 2017; Morrison, 2008).

Meta-analyses have also produced divergent findings; across six studies, Rosenfeld

(2004) reported that criminal history was unrelated to stalking violence in general. In

contrast, a more recent meta-analysis found that the presence of a criminal record is

associated with a higher risk for stalking violence (Churcher & Nesca, 2013). Given the

discrepant findings, the utility of a prior criminal history in predicting future stalking

violence remains unclear. It is possible that a criminal history may be more indicative of

a habitual antisocial lifestyle more generally (e.g., illicit substance use, non-violent

criminal offending), rather than a violent one, particularly during the course of the SIH

campaign, more specifically. Additional research with a particular focus on whether a

history of prior violent convictions increases the risk of stalking violence is therefore

necessary.

Research into the predictive utility of a violence history for stalking violence has

been similarly mixed. Although some previous research indicates that a history of

violence is associated with increased stalking violence (Churcher & Nesca, 2013;

McEwan et al., 2009; Sheridan & Roberts, 2011), others have reported that there is no

relationship (Rosenfeld, 2004; Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2002). In the context of severe

violence specifically, James and Farnham (2003) found no evidence of a relationship

between a prior history of violence and stalking violence. In accordance with the ITMSV,

Thompson and colleagues (2013) posited that the inconsistent findings in previous
 41

research may be due, at least in part, to the examination of a stalker’s history of violence

as a composite variable, rather than as separate variables based on level of severity (i.e.,

history of minor violence and history of severe violence). Specifically, they hypothesized

a continuity of violence such that the severity of stalking violence perpetrated may be

linked to the severity of violence that has been committed in the past. Indeed, when

differentiating history of violence by severity, Thompson and colleagues (2013) found

support for their hypothesis. Specifically, they found that an increased risk of perpetrating

minor stalking violence was related to a history of minor violence only, whereas severe

forms of stalking violence was positively associated with a history of minor and severe

violence (Thompson et al., 2013).

6.2. Psychological Risk Factors

6.2.1. Mental Health Diagnoses and Symptoms. The extant literature has

predominantly focused on the role of psychotic and personality disorders in the

perpetration of stalking violence (Rosenfeld, 2004; Churcher & Nesca, 2013). Whereas

the general violence risk assessment literature indicates that the presence of psychosis

significantly increases the odds of perpetrating violence (Douglas et al., 2009), the

opposite appears to be true in the context of SIH. That is, prior research, including two

meta-analyses, have generally found that stalkers with psychosis are less likely to be

violent than stalkers without psychosis (Churcher & Nesca, 2013; McEwan et al., 2007,

2009; Mohandie et al., 2006; Rosenfeld, 2004; Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2002), though some

studies have not found any relationship between psychosis and stalking violence

(McEwan et al., 2017; Morrison, 2008). Rosenfeld (2004) postulated that the reduced risk

may be due to the likelihood of psychotic stalkers presenting with erotomanic delusions,
 42

suggesting that the stalker may be engaging in SIH behaviors with amorous, rather than

violent, intent. Alternatively, it has also been suggested that their disorganized or bizarre

behaviors engenders greater concern in victims, resulting in a higher likelihood of police

involvement and therefore fewer opportunities for violence to occur (Miller, 2012).

However, some scholars caution that, despite its apparent association with a decreased

risk of stalking violence, the presence of psychosis may exacerbate future risk in the

context of other acute risk factors (e.g., prior violence history, substance use), particularly

among acquaintance, stranger, and public figure stalkers (Logan & Walker, 2017; Meloy,

James, et al., 2011; Miller, 2012).

In contrast to the relationship between psychosis and stalking violence, meta-

analytical research suggests that the presence of personality disorders is generally

associated with an elevated risk of stalking violence (Churcher & Nesca, 2013;

Rosenfeld, 2004), though similar findings have typically not been found in individual

studies (James & Farnham, 2003; Morrison, 2008; Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2002).

Discrepancies in the literature may be partially due to the grouping of personality

disorders into a single overarching variable, which may conceal variable associations

between stalking violence and specific personality disorders (Rosenfeld, 2004). That is, it

is possible that some personality disorders (i.e., Cluster B personality disorders) may be

more relevant to SIH and stalking violence perpetration than others (Collison & Lynam,

2021; McEwan & Strand, 2013; Miller, 2012; Rosenfeld, 2003). Thus, clustering all

personality disorder types into a composite variable is likely to confound results. Further

research investigating the association between specific personality disorders and stalking

violence is therefore necessary.

 43

Given the strong theoretical and empirical evidence indicating a relationship

between BPD and SIH perpetration in general, it is important to examine whether this

extends to stalking violence as well. BPD is characterized by various factors that increase

the risk of violence (e.g., impulsivity, emotion regulation difficulties, affective

instability), so it is likely that elevated levels of BPD is associated with a greater

likelihood of perpetrating stalking violence (Howard, 2015). Indeed, BPD has been

empirically linked to greater perpetration of aggression and other forms of violence (e.g.,

intimate partner violence) in the broader literature (Collison & Lynam, 2021; Yu et al.,

2012). However, research investigating whether this relationship extends to stalking

violence is scarce. There is preliminary evidence to suggest that BPD is related to an

increased risk of severe, but not minor, stalking violence (Thompson et al., 2013).

Continued exploration of BPD traits and stalking violence is therefore merited.

6.3. Dispositional Risk Factors

6.3.1. Attachment Style. Prior literature indicates a robust relationship between

insecure attachment and violent offending and other forms of violence (e.g., intimate

partner violence), with meta-analyses finding medium to large effect sizes (Ogilvie et al.,

2014; Velotti et al., 2022). In particular, research suggests that anxious attachment styles

are more strongly associated with violence than avoidant attachment styles (Velotti et al.,

2022). Despite the amount of research investigating the link between insecure attachment

and other forms of violence, including SIH perpetration, studies directly examining how

insecure attachment contributes to stalking violence is limited. As previously mentioned,

individuals who are anxiously attached may react with anger and aggression to perceived

relationship threats, such as rejection or abandonment (Johnson & Thompson, 2016;

 44

Tassy & Winstead, 2014; Velotti et al., 2022). It is therefore possible that an anxiously

attached individual may escalate their SIH behaviors to violence in response to prolonged

or repeated failures to reestablish the relational bond (Morrison, 2008). Though

theoretically sound, preliminary evidence suggests that insecure attachment alone may

have limited utility in predicting stalking violence (Thompson et al., 2013). Specifically,

Thompson and colleagues (2013) found no significant relationship between insecure

attachment and stalking violence perpetration; however, their null findings may have

been due to ceiling effects, as 85% of their sample of stalkers endorsed an insecure

attachment style. These results indicate that insecure attachment may be more useful in

differentiating those who engage in SIH more broadly, rather than stalking violence more

specifically. Thus, it is possible that other characteristics associated with insecure

attachment (e.g., narcissistic or borderline personality traits, impulsivity) may be more

salient predictors of stalking violence.

6.3.2. Dark Tetrad Personality Traits. Notwithstanding the extensive amount of

research linking the Dark Tetrad traits with a range of antisocial and violent behaviors

(e.g., intimate partner violence, criminal offending, aggression; Chabrol et al., 2009;

Jones & Paulhus, 2010; Muris et al., 2017; Thomas & Egan, 2022), there is a surprising

dearth of research directly exploring the relationship between the Dark Tetrad traits and

stalking violence. As has been illustrated in this review, the relevant risk factors (e.g.,

psychosis, criminal history) that have been identified in the violence risk assessment

literature more broadly may not necessarily generalize to stalking violence specifically.

As such, it is important to determine the extent to which the Dark Tetrad traits impact the
 45

risk of stalking violence, especially given the theoretical associations of these traits with

stalking violence (e.g., Meloy, 1998; Morrison, 2008; Storey et al., 2009).

Prior research indicates that individuals with elevated levels of narcissistic traits

are more likely to aggress when their self-image has been threatened (Jones & Paulhus,

2010). Thus, it is plausible that stalkers with high trait narcissism may escalate to

violence in response to an ego-threatening event, such as rejection, shame, or following

the dissolution of a romantic relationship. They may do so as part of a vengeful,

narcissistic sense of entitlement intended to reduce one’s feelings of powerlessness whilst

simultaneously attempting to control or punish the victim (Morrison, 2008). Two studies

have empirically examined the association between narcissistic traits and stalking

violence. In a mixed sample of college students and adults from the community,

Thompson and colleagues (2013) found that high trait narcissism was correlated with

increased severe stalking violence at the bivariate level, but it was not identified as a

significant predictor of stalking violence in multivariate analyses. Similarly, narcissistic

traits were not found to discriminate between violent and non-violent stalkers in a study

of 120 male intimate partner abusers who had been referred for treatment (Norris et al.,

2011).

Although psychopathy is a well-established risk factor of recidivism and general

violence (e.g., Howard, 2015), its relationship with stalking violence is less distinct given

the lack of available research. Preliminary research indicates that the presence of

psychopathic traits in stalkers may be particularly important for distinguishing the

motivations underlying their behavior, and for identifying those at greater risk of

escalating to physical violence and harm (Storey et al., 2009). Though relatively
 46

uncommon, Storey and colleagues (2009) found that male stalkers exhibiting higher

levels of psychopathy were associated with more predatory and violent forms of SIH.

This may be largely due to the primary motivations underlying their behaviors, which

appear more related to interpersonal dominance or control over their victim or a

predatory desire for gratification, as opposed to establishing an emotional attachment to

the victim (Storey et al., 2009). A more recent study found similar links between high

trait psychopathy and greater risk ratings of future stalking violence amongst a sample of

convicted offenders (Kropp et al., 2011). Thus, while high levels of psychopathy may

seldom manifest in stalkers, its presence may be important for identifying those with a

higher propensity for violence. This suggests the importance of continuing to explore the

role of psychopathy in the escalation of SIH and violence perpetration, particularly in

non-forensic samples.

Significantly less empirical attention has been afforded to the role of

Machiavellianism and sadism in stalking violence perpetration. A recent meta-analysis

revealed a moderate positive relationship between subclinical sadism and physical,

verbal, and sexual aggression (Thomas & Egan, 2022). Only one known study has

explored how sadistic traits influences violence perpetrated in the context of SIH

specifically. In a small sample of male intimate partner abusers, Norris and colleagues

(2011) found that higher sadistic traits differentiated stalkers who engaged in threatening

and violent behaviors from those who did not. Machiavellianism, on the other hand, has a

less distinct relationship with aggression and violence. Whereas some studies suggest

there is little association between Machiavellianism and aggression (Jones & Paulhus,

2010), others suggest the opposite (Muris et al., 2017; Pailing et al., 2014). No study has
 47

examined how Machiavellianism may relate to stalking violence specifically. Given that

it is characterized by deceit and manipulation, it is plausible that high trait

Machiavellianism is associated with the perpetration of stalking violence in efforts to

exert control over the victim, though this needs to be explored.

6.4. Affective Risk Factors

6.4.1. Emotion Regulation Difficulties. The ITMSV supports a positive

relationship between emotion regulation difficulties and stalking violence. According to

the ITMSV, deficits in one’s ability to effectively regulate one’s behavior and emotions

increases one’s vulnerability to responding to emotionally upsetting or distressing events

with violence (Thompson et al., 2013, 2020). Individuals with emotion regulation

difficulties may be unable to respond appropriately to distress-eliciting events (e.g.,

interpersonal conflict or rejection) and may consequently use violence in attempts to

alleviate or avoid their negative affect. This corresponds with other theoretical and

empirical evidence in the broader violence literature establishing emotion dysregulation

as a core precipitating mechanism of different types of violence (e.g., intimate partner

violence, physical and psychological aggression; Brem, Stuart, et al., 2021; Gardner et

al., 2014; Gratz & Roemer, 2004; Watkins et al., 2015) and criminal behavior more

broadly (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Despite the strong theoretical explanation,

empirical research exploring the relationship between emotion regulation difficulties and

stalking violence is scarce. Morrison (2008) found preliminary evidence to suggest that

increased stalking violence and persistence was associated with greater difficulty

controlling one’s emotions, at least in a sample of convicted ex-intimate partner stalkers.

 48

6.5. Contextual Risk Factors

6.5.1. Substance Use Problems. Prior research has demonstrated a robust

positive association between problematic alcohol and drug use and different forms of

violence (e.g., general, intimate partner violence, homicide; see Duke et al., 2018 for a

review). In contrast, the literature examining the role of substance use problems in

stalking violence is more mixed. Problematic substance use has been found to be

associated with an elevated risk of stalking violence in some individual and meta-analytic

studies (e.g., Churcher & Nesca, 2013; McEwan et al., 2009; Nijdam-Jones et al., 2018;

Rosenfeld, 2004; Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2002), but not in others (Morrison, 2008). When

distinguishing violence by severity, some research suggests that problematic alcohol and

drug use may be linked to severe stalking violence, but not minor stalking violence

(Sheridan & Roberts, 2011; Thompson et al., 2013), whereas others have found no

relationship between substance use problems and severe stalking violence (Bendlin &

Sheridan, 2021; James & Farnham, 2003). Further complicating the issue, Roberts (2005)

found that problematic drug use, but not alcohol use, was uniquely associated with an

increased risk of staking violence perpetration, though their study was only comprised of

female college students who were victims of SIH. Consistent with the idea that

problematic substance use acts as an exacerbating factor, previous research has shown

that problematic substance use may significantly increase the risk of stalking violence

when compounded with other relevant risk factors, such as mental illness and emotion

regulation difficulties (Brem, Stuart, et al., 2021; Churcher & Nesca, 2013; Sheridan &

Roberts, 2011; Watkins et al., 2015).

 49

6.5.2. Negative Affect. In the violence literature more broadly, it is well-

established that negative affect is an important risk factor of violence (Finkel & Eckhardt,

2013; Logan & Walker, 2017). Indeed, several theoretical models have positioned

negative affect, particularly anger, as a core construct precipitating violence (e.g., Anger

Avoidance Model; see Gardner et al., 2014). Research on stalking violence has similarly

demonstrated that strong negative affect, particularly hatred, jealousy, and anger, are

salient precursors for stalking violence (Bendlin & Sheridan, 2021; Logan & Walker,

2017; Morrison, 2008; Roberts, 2005). When differentiating stalking violence by

severity, Thompson et al. (2013) found that anger was positively associated with both

minor and severe forms of violence, whereas jealousy was not correlated with either form

of violence. Given its significance to both general and stalking violence, it is crucial to

continue exploring how negative affect may interact with other contextual and

predisposing variables to influence the risk of stalking violence.

6.5.3. Nature of SIH Behaviors. A growing body of literature has investigated

how certain types of SIH behaviors, such as threats and approach behavior, may be

salient behavioral indicators or warning signs of stalking violence (Logan & Walker,

2017). Research has consistently identified a link between the presence of threats and an

increased risk of stalking violence (e.g., Churcher & Nesca, 2013; James & Farnham,

2003; Logan, 2022; McEwan et al., 2007, 2009, 2012, 2017; Morrison, 2008; Rosenfeld,

2004; Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2002; Sheridan & Roberts, 2011; Strand & McEwan, 2012;

Thomas et al., 2008), though some discrepancies arise when stalking violence is

differentiated by severity. Sheridan and Roberts (2011) reported that threats were

associated with an increased risk of both minor and severe violence, whereas Thompson
 50

and colleagues (2013) found that threats were significantly predictive of severe stalking

violence only. Regardless, many scholars have disputed the predictive utility of threats as

a risk factor of stalking violence given that it is a commonly used behavioral strategy

occurring in approximately 30% to 60% of cases (Baum et al., 2009; Logan & Walker,

2017; McEwan et al., 2007; Morrison, 2008). This often results in high false positive

rates, whereby there are many instances where threats are made, but not acted upon

(Morrison, 2008; Rosenfeld, 2004; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; Thompson et al., 2020).

Thus, the presence of threats alone appears insufficient for predicting stalking violence;

rather, it is likely that threats in conjunction with an array of other risk factors is more

useful to consider for risk assessment and management purposes. Indeed, prior research

indicates that threats are associated with an increased risk of stalking violence, especially

in the context of problematic substance use, mental health problems, and a prior history

of violence (Logan, 2022; Logan & Walker, 2017; Thompson et al., 2013, 2020).

Beyond the presence of other risk factors, there is evidence to suggest that the

utility of threats as a behavioral indicator of stalking violence may also depend on the

gender of the perpetrator and the relationship between the perpetrator and the victim.

Prior literature indicates that threats of violence are more likely to be carried out by

(ex)intimate partners than acquaintances or strangers (Logan & Walker, 2017; McEwan

et al., 2009; Mohandie et al., 2006; Thomas et al., 2008). For example, in their sample of

432 stalking victims recruited from the community, Thomas and colleagues (2008) found

that approximately 70% of intimate partner stalking cases resulted in an assault after a

threat was issued, compared to only about one-third of non-intimate partner stalking

cases. Additionally, while there were no differences in the prevalence of threats or

 51

violence across gender, Purcell and colleagues (2001) reported that female stalkers (30%)

were less likely than male stalkers (49%) to perpetrate violence following an explicit

threat. Additional research is therefore required to determine when threatening behavior

is likely to proceed to stalking violence, and by whom.

Approach behaviors refer to intrusions that increase the perpetrator’s physical

proximity to the victim, such as loitering, following, or accosting the victim, and entering

the victim’s house or workplace without consent (McEwan et al., 2009, 2012). While

approach behaviors have been consistently examined in the context of public figure

stalking and attacks (e.g., Meloy, James, et al., 2011), it has only recently begun to

receive empirical attention in the broader SIH literature. In general, available research has

revealed that approach behaviors increase the risk of engaging in both minor and severe

forms of stalking violence (McEwan et al., 2012, 2017; Sheridan & Roberts, 2011;

Thomas et al., 2008; Thompson et al., 2020). This is not surprising as physical proximity

is required in order for violence to ensue. Aside from the obvious risk it imposes,

approach behaviors may also present more opportunities for negative encounters to occur

between the perpetrator and the victim, which could further fuel negative emotions and

consequently result in an escalation to violence (Thompson et al., 2020). In other words,

approach behavior may not only be indicative of a general pattern of escalating violence,

but it may also engender more opportunities wherein an instigating or triggering event

may occur, thereby increasing the likelihood of subsequent violence.

Although not as extensively studied as threats and approach behaviors,

preliminary research has identified other types of SIH behaviors that may be useful

indicators of a pattern of escalation. Destruction of the victim’s property has been

 52

associated with an increased risk of stalking violence in convicted intimate partner

stalkers (McEwan et al., 2017) and adults from the general community (Sheridan &

Roberts, 2011). Furthermore, Sheridan and Roberts (2011) found that proxy stalking (i.e.,

involving others in the SIH campaign) and harassment or violence towards third parties

(e.g., close associates of the victim) were predictive of severe stalking violence towards

the victim.

6.5.4. Online SIH. Despite the growing proliferation of electronic media, few

studies have examined how online SIH may contribute to the escalation of behaviors to

violence. Although the authors did not examine the predictive relationship between

online SIH and stalking violence, Sheridan and Grant (2007) found that those who

initially engaged in online SIH before progressing to in-person SIH were the most

physically dangerous group of perpetrators relative to those who only engaged in online

SIH, only engaged in in-person SIH, or those who initially began perpetrating in-person

before progressing to the digital realm. The authors argued that this subset of perpetrators

may have been initially attracted to using electronic media to harass or pursue the victim

given its relative ease and accessibility, but required escalation in their behaviors to

continue gaining gratification from their actions (Sheridan & Grant, 2007). That is, while

it may be easier to harass or stalk a victim via electronic media, it may not be as

satisfying or reinforcing as face-to-face interactions given that the impact of their

behaviors cannot be as readily observed. It is also possible that using electronic media

provides opportunities for the perpetrator to rehearse or practice engaging in SIH

behaviors, which may facilitate the perpetration of these behaviors in-person (Watkins et

al., 2022). Thus, online SIH may act as a gateway behavior that increases the risk of
 53

subsequent violence, especially in contexts wherein the perpetrator is motivated by a

sense of revenge or by a desire to intentionally harm the victim.

Although there is some support for this predictive relationship between online

SIH and subsequent stalking violence, there is also evidence for the contrary. Two studies

of convicted stalking offenders reported that the use of online SIH was associated with a

reduced likelihood of engaging in stalking violence (Cavezza & McEwan, 2014;

McEwan et al., 2017). In contrast, online SIH has been found to increase the likelihood of

psychological, physical, and sexual violence amongst dating college students (Marganski

& Melander, 2018; Watkins et al., 2022) and men arrested for domestic violence (Brem

et al., 2019). These findings are corroborated by a recent longitudinal study of dating

college students, which found that greater engagement in online SIH predicted

subsequent physical violence within the relationship three months later (Brem, Stuart, et

al., 2021). Of note, the positive association between online SIH and stalking violence

may be stronger for men and in contexts wherein the perpetrator is using alcohol (Brem

et al., 2019; Watkins et al., 2022). Given the equivocal findings and the pervasive use of

technology in the contemporary social world, further exploration of the influential role of

online SIH on stalking violence perpetration, particularly in non-intimate partner

contexts, is warranted.

6.5.5. Revenge Motive. There are various goals or motivations that have been

commonly identified to drive SIH behavior, including desires for intimacy,

reconciliation, power or control, or revenge (see Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007, 2014 for

reviews). Previous research suggests that, irrespective of the perpetrator’s relationship to

the victim, those motivated by revenge, reconciliation, or a predatory desire to assault the
 54

victim (e.g., for sexual gratification) pose a greater risk of stalking violence when

compared to those with other motives (e.g., intimacy-seeking; McEwan et al., 2009,

2017; Morrison, 2008; Rosenfeld, 2004; Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2002; Thomas et al.,

2008; Thompson et al., 2013). Importantly, in their review of 43 cases of convicted

stalkers, Thompson and colleagues (2020) found that the underlying motivation of SIH

behavior was associated with the type of violence perpetrated. Namely, they reported that

the vast majority of those motivated by revenge perpetrated non-sexual violence (e.g.,

physical assaults), whereas those with more amorous motives were significantly more

likely to engage in sexual violence.

II. Summary and Future Research Directions

SIH is a prevalent and serious public health concern associated with significant

physical, psychological, financial, and social consequences. The growing proliferation of

technology and the internet has only exacerbated the problem as SIH behaviors can be

easily perpetrated via electronic means. Of great concern, approximately 30% to 40% of

SIH cases escalate to violence. Given its prevalence and negative impact, it is imperative

to investigate the etiology and escalation of online and in-person SIH and stalking

violence to better predict and mitigate its detrimental effects. Although research has been

conducted to explore relevant risk factors for SIH and stalking violence, much of the

existing findings have been hampered by inconsistent results, methodological limitations,

and lack of generalizability to general adult populations. These limitations and the

evolving technological landscape emphasize a need to better understand the prevalence,

nature, and risk factors associated with online and in-person SIH perpetration and

stalking violence. This is critical to advance theoretical frameworks and inform the
 55

development of relevant policy and law, and evidence-based risk assessment and

intervention strategies.

As has been demonstrated in this review, there are numerous areas of research

that require continued exploration. Firstly, despite the frequent co-occurrence of online

and in-person SIH, few studies have directly compared whether the precursors for in-

person SIH also predict online SIH, and vice versa. Ascertaining shared and differential

correlates of online and in-person forms of SIH will enhance understanding of each type

of behavior and the relationship between them, as well as provide guidance for the best

management strategies to implement to mitigate the risk of each form of behavior.

Secondly, important differences in the risk factors for stalking violence compared to the

broader violence literature have emerged (e.g., psychosis, gender, criminal history). This

suggests that the generalizability of risk factors for general violence to stalking violence

cannot be assumed, and there are unique processes associated with stalking violence that

warrant further inquiry. Additionally, risk factors for stalking violence have seldom been

examined along a continuum of severity despite evidence indicating the utility of such

research. Consequently, additional research examining shared and differential risk factors

for minor and severe forms of stalking violence is required.

In addition, the existing literature on SIH and stalking violence has primarily been

studied in college student and clinical/forensic samples, respectively. While valuable, the

generalizability of these findings to community populations remains largely unclear. As

previously mentioned, using community samples is more representative of the entire

spectrum of SIH experiences. Thus, examining SIH and stalking violence in the general

adult population is essential for obtaining a more comprehensive understanding of the

 56

scope, nature, extent, and severity of SIH and stalking violence. Furthermore, there is a

dearth of research examining the risk factors for SIH and stalking violence in non-

intimate partner contexts (e.g., family, acquaintances, strangers). This is problematic as

some research indicates there are important differences in risk factors and outcomes by

relationship type (McEwan et al., 2009, 2017). As such, further research extending the

literature into broader relational contexts is necessary. Finally, much of the stalking risk

assessment literature has focused on identifying static risk factors and scholars have

recognized the need for more research examining acutely variable or dynamic risk factors

for SIH and stalking violence (McEwan et al., 2011). Examining the interactions between

predisposing, static variables and dynamic contextual factors is important for ascertaining

when, how, and why an individual may engage in SIH or stalking violence, and will

inform ongoing risk assessment and management practices.

III. The Current Study

The preceding literature review highlights a need for additional research

examining the risk factors for online and in-person SIH and stalking violence in broader

contexts. While prior research has identified pertinent factors that increase the risk of SIH

and stalking violence, much of the existing findings have limited or inconsistent support

and have seldom been generalized to community or non-intimate partner contexts.

Developing a greater understanding of the etiology and escalation of online and in-person

SIH and stalking violence in these contexts has significant implications. Namely, it can

improve risk assessment procedures and inform the development of evidence-based

prevention and intervention programs to better mitigate risk. The current study therefore

sought to address these noted gaps and expand upon the existing literature by: 1)
 57

examining the descriptive characteristics associated with online and in-person SIH and

stalking violence; and 2) identifying shared and differential historical, psychological,

dispositional, cognitive, affective, and contextual precursors for online and in-person

SIH, as well as minor and severe stalking violence.

To address these research questions, participants were classified by the SIH

behaviors they endorsed perpetrating. Specifically, participants were defined as

individuals who engaged in any SIH behaviors (i.e., harassers/stalkers) or individuals

who did not engage in any SIH behaviors (i.e., non-harassers/stalkers). Among the

subgroup of individuals who engaged in any SIH behaviors, participants were further

categorized into individuals who only engaged in in-person SIH (i.e., pure in-person

harassers/stalkers), individuals who only engaged in online SIH (i.e., pure online

harassers/stalkers), or individuals who engaged in both online and in-person SIH (i.e.,

“mixed” harassers/stalkers; see “Definition of Terms” section for a detailed description of

how this was operationalized). As the current study aimed to explore the characteristics

and risk factors for the full continuum of online and in-person SIH behaviors, each

subgroup included individuals who may only have engaged in more minor SIH behaviors

(i.e., harassment), as well as those who may have engaged in more severe SIH behaviors

that could legally constitute stalking.

1. Hypotheses

1.1. Descriptive Characteristics of Online and In-person Stalking and Intrusive

Harassment

First, the current study examined the characteristics associated with online and in-

person SIH perpetration amongst a community sample of adults. Specifically, the

 58

prevalence, nature, and frequency of SIH behaviors engaged in, rates of co-occurrence,

and whether there were any differences between online and in-person SIH perpetration

across gender and relationship type were assessed. The following hypotheses were drawn

based on the reviewed literature:

Hypothesis 1: Less than half of the overall sample would report engaging in any

form of SIH. In other words, the prevalence rate of SIH perpetration would be under

50%.

Hypothesis 2: The vast majority of harassers/stalkers (over 75%) would report

engaging in both online and in-person SIH. Less than 10% of harassers/stalkers would

report only engaging in online SIH.

Hypothesis 3: Less intrusive behavioral strategies (i.e., hyperintimacy, mediated

contacts, surveillance) would be more commonly reported than more intrusive behaviors

(i.e., threats, aggression) across all harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 4: A greater proportion of men would engage in SIH than women

overall; however, there are likely differences in the type and severity of SIH behaviors

engaged in across gender. Specifically, women would engage in more online SIH

behaviors than men, and men would engage in more in-person SIH behaviors than

women.

Hypothesis 5a: The majority of harassers/stalkers would target a known victim as

opposed to a stranger. Of these, most would identify an (ex)intimate partner as the victim.

Hypothesis 5b: Harassers/stalkers targeting an (ex)intimate partner would be more

likely to engage in both online and in-person SIH than those targeting an acquaintance or

stranger.
 59

Hypothesis 5c: Harassers/stalkers targeting an (ex)intimate partner would engage

in a greater diversity of online and in-person SIH behaviors than those targeting an

acquaintance or stranger.

1.2. Risk Factors for Online and In-Person Stalking and Intrusive Harassment

This study also examined the relationship between various historical,

psychological, dispositional, cognitive, affective, and contextual factors and online and

in-person SIH perpetration. Additionally, whether the pertinent risk factors were

differentially associated with online and in-person SIH was determined. Given the dearth

of pertinent research investigating shared and differential risk factors, hypotheses

predominantly focused on the differences between harassers/stalkers and non-

harassers/stalkers. Specific hypotheses on how each risk factor may be differentially

associated with online, in-person, or mixed forms of SIH were not formulated, except

when there was sufficient literature available to support the generation of such

hypotheses. Hypotheses about each risk factor were as follows (see Table 1.1 and Table

1.2 for a summary):

Hypothesis 6: Harassers/stalkers would be more likely to report a history of

childhood abuse and maltreatment (physical, psychological/emotional, or sexual abuse,

neglect) than non-harassers/stalkers. Sexual abuse victimization would have a stronger

relationship with SIH perpetration than the other forms of abuse or maltreatment.

Hypothesis 7: Harassers/stalkers would not have elevated rates of psychosis

compared to non-harassers/stalkers. Harassers/stalkers would exhibit higher levels of

Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) traits than non-harassers/stalkers. Mixed

harassers/stalkers would have more elevated levels of BPD traits than pure online or pure
 60

Table 1.1
Hypothesized Bivariate Relationships of Risk Factors for Online and In-Person Stalking
and Intrusive Harassment
Risk Factor Risk Factor & Hypothesized Relation to Harassers/Stalkers
Domain
A. Historical Childhood abuse and maltreatment (Hypothesis 6) ↑
Borderline Personality Disorder traits (Hypothesis 7) ↑
B. Psychological
Anxious attachment (Hypothesis 8) ↑
& Dispositional
Dark Tetrad traits (Hypothesis 9) ↑
Stalking-related attitudes (Hypothesis 10) ↑
C. Cognitive
Trait anger rumination (Hypothesis 14) ↑
D. Affective Emotion regulation difficulties (Hypothesis 11) ↑
Substance use problems (Hypothesis 12) ↑
E. Contextual Negative affect (Hypothesis 13) ↑
State rumination (Hypothesis 14) ↑
Note. ↑ indicates a positive correlation or larger proportion of the listed risk factor
among harassers/stalkers relative to non-harassers/stalkers.

Table 1.2
Hypothesized Bivariate Relationships of Risk Factors Differentiating Pure Online, Pure
In-Person, and Mixed Harassers/Stalkers
Group Risk Factor & Hypothesized Relationship
Comparison
Borderline Personality Disorder traits (Hypothesis 7) ↑
Anxious attachment (Hypothesis 8) ↑
Stalking-related attitudes (Hypothesis 10) ↑
Mixed vs. Pure
Emotion regulation difficulties (Hypothesis 11) ↑
online/in-person
Substance use problems (vs. pure online only; Hypothesis 12) ↑
Negative affect (Hypothesis 13) ↑
State and trait anger rumination (Hypothesis 14) ↑
Pure online vs. Impulse control difficulties (Hypothesis 11) ↑
Pure in-person Substance use problems (Hypothesis 12) ↓
Note. ↑ indicates a positive correlation or larger proportion of the listed risk factor
among the bolded group relative to the non-bolded groups. ↓ indicates a negative
correlation or smaller proportion of the listed risk factor among the bolded group relative
to the non-bolded groups.

in-person harassers/stalkers.
 61

Hypothesis 8: Harassers/stalkers would be associated with greater anxious

attachment compared to non-harassers/stalkers. Mixed harassers/stalkers would endorse

greater anxious attachment than pure online or pure in-person harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 9: Harassers/stalkers would report higher levels of all the Dark Tetrad

traits (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, sadism) than non-

harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 10: Harassers/stalkers would endorse more stalking-related attitudes

(e.g., “stalking is romantic”) than non-harassers. Mixed harassers/stalkers would report

more stalking-related attitudes than pure online harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 11: Harassers/stalkers would report having more emotion regulation

difficulties than non-harassers/stalkers. Mixed harassers/stalkers would have a greater

lack of emotional awareness than pure online and pure in-person harassers/stalkers. Pure

online harassers/stalkers would exhibit more difficulties with impulse control than pure

in-person harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 12: Harassers/stalkers would endorse more problematic use of drugs

and alcohol at the time of the event than non-harassers/stalkers. Pure in-person and mixed

harassers/stalkers would report using more drugs and alcohol than pure online

harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 13: Harassers/stalkers would experience higher levels of negative

affect (e.g., anger, jealousy, depression) and distress at the time of the event than non-

harassers/stalkers. Mixed harassers/stalkers would report higher levels of negative affect

at the time of the event than pure in-person and pure online harassers/stalkers.
 62

Hypothesis 14: Harassers/stalkers would report higher levels of trait anger

rumination than non-harassers/stalkers. Additionally, harassers/stalkers would engage in

more ruminative thinking at the time of the event than non-harassers/stalkers. Mixed

harassers/stalkers would report higher levels of trait anger and state rumination than pure

in-person and pure online harassers/stalkers.

In addition to examining bivariate relationships, multivariate analyses were

estimated to identify the most salient factors predicting SIH perpetration. Analyses were

first conducted using the full sample to determine whether harassers/stalkers could be

successfully distinguished from non-harassers/stalkers. The analyses were then replicated

among the subsample of harassers/stalkers to explore the extent to which the risk factors

discriminated the domain(s) in which SIH behaviors were perpetrated. Based on the

preceding literature review, the following hypotheses were formulated (see Table 1.3):

Table 1.3
Hypothesized Risk Factors of Stalking and Intrusive Harassment in Multivariate Analyses
Group Risk Factor & Hypothesized Relationship
Comparison
Borderline Personality Disorder traits ↑
Anxious attachment ↑
H/S vs. Non-H/S Stalking-related attitudes ↑
(Hypothesis 15) Emotion regulation difficulties ↑
Substance use problems ↑
Negative affect ↑
Borderline Personality Disorder traits ↑
Mixed vs. Pure Anxious attachment ↑
online/in-person Emotion regulation difficulties ↑
Substance use problems ↑
(Hypothesis 16)
Negative affect ↑
State and trait anger rumination ↑
Note. ↑ indicates a positive correlation or larger proportion of the listed risk factor
among the bolded group relative to the non-bolded groups. H/S = Harassers/Stalkers
 63

Hypothesis 15: The model involving the full sample would significantly predict

SIH perpetration. Overall, a combination of predisposing (historical, psychological,

cognitive, affective) and contextual risk factors would significantly predict SIH

perpetration. Greater levels of BPD traits, anxious attachment, and emotion regulation

difficulties, higher endorsement of stalking-related attitudes, more problematic substance

use, and greater emotional distress were predicted to contribute significantly to the

predictive model.

Hypothesis 16: The models involving the subsample of harassers/stalkers would

significantly distinguish mixed harassers/stalkers from pure online and in-person

harassers/stalkers. Mixed harassers/stalkers would be associated with a greater number of

risk factors and at more elevated levels than pure in-person and pure online

harassers/stalkers. Specifically, mixed harassers/stalkers would exhibit more elevated

levels of BPD traits, anxious attachment, and emotion regulation difficulties than pure

online or pure in-person harassers/stalkers. Additionally, mixed harassers/stalkers would

be associated with more problematic substance use, greater negative affect and higher

levels of trait anger and state rumination at the time of the event.

1.3. Descriptive Characteristics of Stalking Violence

In addition to SIH perpetration, this study aimed to investigate the characteristics

and risk factors associated with stalking violence. Consistent with the ITMSV, stalking

violence was differentiated by level of severity into minor and severe forms of violence

according to the CTS2 (Straus et al., 1996; see “Definition of Terms” section below for a

detailed description of the behaviors defined in each category). The specific hypotheses

about the characteristics of stalking violence included:

 64

Hypothesis 17: Between 30% and 40% of harassers/stalkers would report

engaging in any form of stalking violence. Of these violent harassers/stalkers, the

majority would engage in minor violence only and less than half would engage in severe

violence. Severe violence would seldom occur in isolation, with over 90% of those

committing severe violence also engaging in minor violence.

Hypothesis 18: While prior literature indicates women and men perpetrate

stalking violence at comparable rates, there are expected gender differences in the type

and severity of stalking violence perpetrated. Specifically, women would engage in more

minor forms of violence than men and men would commit more sexual violence than

women.

Hypothesis 19: Harassers/stalkers targeting (ex)intimate partners would be more

likely to be violent than those targeting non-intimate partners (e.g., acquaintances,

strangers).

1.4. Risk Factors for Stalking Violence

Despite the preliminary evidence available, there is a paucity of research

examining whether existing risk factors are differentially associated with minor and

severe forms of stalking violence. As such, this study explored whether an array of

predisposing (i.e., historical, psychological, dispositional, affective) and contextual

factors were significantly related to minor and severe stalking violence. To address this

set of research questions, harassers/stalkers were categorized as not violent (i.e., no

violence committed), moderately violent (i.e., only minor violence committed), or

severely violent (i.e., if any severe violence committed, either in isolation or in

combination with minor violence; see “Definition of Terms” section below for how this
 65

was operationalized). The following predictions were made based on the reviewed

literature (see Table 1.4):

Table 1.4
Hypothesized Bivariate Relationships of Risk Factors for Stalking Violence
Risk Factor Risk Factor & Hypothesized Relation to Moderately and
Domain Severely Violent Harassers/Stalkers
A. Historical History of minor violence (Hypothesis 20) ↑
History of Severe Violence (Severely violent only; ↑
Hypothesis 20)
Psychosis (Hypothesis 21) ↓
B. Psychological Borderline Personality Disorder traits (Hypothesis 22) ↑
& Dispositional Anxious attachment (Hypothesis 23) ↑
Dark Tetrad traits (Hypothesis 24) ↑
C. Affective Emotion regulation difficulties (Hypothesis 25) ↑
Substance use problems (Severely violent only; Hypothesis
↑
26)
D. Contextual Negative affect (Hypothesis 27) ↑
Threats/Approach/Property Destruction (Hypothesis 28) ↑
Online SIH (Hypothesis 29) ↑
Revenge/Reconciliation motive (Hypothesis 30) ↑
Note. ↑ indicates a positive correlation or larger proportion of the listed risk factor
among moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers relative to not violent
harassers/stalkers. ↓ indicates a negative correlation or smaller proportion of the listed
risk factor among moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers relative to not
violent harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 20: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would have a

greater history of minor violence than not violent harassers/stalkers. Severely violent

harassers/stalkers would endorse a more extensive history of severe violence than

moderately violent and not violent harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 21: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would be less

likely to report having a psychotic disorder than not violent harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 22: Severely violent harassers/stalkers would exhibit more BPD traits

than moderately violent and not violent harassers/stalkers.

 66

Hypothesis 23: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would report

greater anxious attachment than not violent harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 24: Severely violent harassers/stalkers would have higher levels of

narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism than not violent harassers/stalkers. Moderately

violent harassers/stalkers would endorse greater psychopathic and sadistic traits than not

violent harassers/stalkers.

Definitive hypotheses regarding Machiavellianism could not be formulated given

the lack of available research; however, it was hypothesized that severely and moderately

violent harassers/stalkers would exhibit higher trait Machiavellianism than not violent

harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 25: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would report

greater emotion regulation difficulties than not violent harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 26: Although previous research findings are mixed, it was expected

that severely violent harassers/stalkers would report more alcohol and drug use during the

pursuit than not violent harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 27: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would

experience more negative affect than not violent harassers/stalkers during their pursuit.

Hypothesis 28a: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would report

engaging in more threats than not violent harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 28b: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would

endorse more approach behaviors (e.g., following the victim, entering the victim’s house

without consent) than not violent harassers/stalkers.

 67

Hypothesis 28c: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would be

more likely to damage or destroy the victim’s property than not violent harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 29: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would report

engaging in more online SIH than not violent harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 30: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would endorse

more vengeful and reconciliatory motives than not violent harassers/stalkers.

Multivariate analyses were also estimated to explore which factors contributed

significantly to the prediction of minor and severe stalking violence. Based on the

preceding literature review, the following hypotheses were formulated:

Hypothesis 31: The model would significantly predict minor and severe stalking

violence. Overall, a combination of predisposing (historical, psychological, dispositional,

and affective) and contextual risk factors would significantly predict minor and severe

stalking violence. Severely violent harassers/stalkers would be associated with a greater

number of risk factors and at more elevated levels than moderately violent and not violent

harassers/stalkers. Moderately violent harassers/stalkers would be associated with more

risk factors than not violent harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 32: Given the lack of available research, definitive hypotheses

regarding the specific factors that would remain significant in the models could not be

made. However, it is expected that the presence of threats, problematic substance use,

negative affect (particularly anger), approach behavior, and a history of minor and severe

violence would significantly predict severe stalking violence. Additionally, it was

hypothesized that the presence of threats and a history of minor violence would predict

minor stalking violence.

 68

CHAPTER II - METHOD

1. Participants

Participants were recruited from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) in June

2023 and Prolific in June and September of 2023. MTurk and Prolific are both online

crowdsourcing platforms in which individuals can choose to complete research surveys

for monetary compensation. Crowdsourcing platforms are widely used in the social

sciences literature as it offers a pool of participants that are more diverse and

representative of the current U.S. population than other samples, such as undergraduate

students or local community members (Buhrmester et al., 2011, 2018; Casler et al., 2013;

Peer et al., 2022). Data was originally collected from MTurk; however, concerns about

the quality of responses based on preliminary screening of the data, as well as

consideration of empirical research (e.g., Chmielewski & Kucker, 2020; Douglas et al.,

2023; Peer et al., 2022), resulted in a decision to collect data from Prolific instead.

Research indicates that Prolific yields higher quality data than MTurk, other commonly

used online crowdsourcing platforms (e.g., Qualtrics), and undergraduate samples as well

(Douglas et al., 2023; Peer et al., 2022). Specifically, Prolific participants were found to

be more attentive, provided more accurate, honest, and meaningful answers, and followed

instructions more completely than participants recruited through other means (e.g.,

MTurk, Qualtrics, SONA; Douglas et al., 2023; Peer et al., 2022).

A total of 139 participants (20.1%) were recruited from MTurk and 551

participants (79.9%) were recruited from Prolific (N = 690). Only individuals who lived

in the United States and who were at least 21 years old were eligible to participate in this

study. In attempts to ensure high-quality data collection, recruitment was restricted to

 69

participants who had completed at least 100 tasks and were approved for payment 95% or

more of the time (i.e., approval rating ≥ 95%; Peer et al., 2014). To further improve data

quality, four instructed-response type attention checks (e.g., “For this question, please

select Mostly Disagree”) were embedded throughout the survey. Research indicates that

attention checks are effective in improving data quality without biasing subsequent

responding (Berinsky et al., 2014; Kung et al., 2017). Following recruitment, the data

was inspected for quality. Eight participants were excluded from final analyses due to

inattentive responding (i.e., failure to correctly respond to at least 3 of the 4 attention

checks), 33 participants were excluded as they were assessed as having spent inadequate

time completing the survey (i.e., taking less than half the median completion time of 29.5

minutes), and 88 participants were excluded as they provided nonsensical and irrelevant

responses to open-ended questions or provided improbable or contradictory responses

(e.g., engaging in SIH behaviors at an age after their specified current age). The final

sample therefore consisted of 561 adults (n = 302 men, 53.8%) with a mean age of 40.2

years (SD = 12.4, Range = 21-85).

Prior to conducting the present study, a power analysis using G*Power 3.1.9.7

was computed to determine the sample size necessary to test the above hypotheses. The

analysis revealed that an estimated minimum sample size of 492 would be required to

detect a modest effect (f = .15, power = .80, α = .05). With a final sample size of 561, the

current study was deemed likely to have adequate power to test the hypothesized effects.

2. Procedure

Participants who elected to participate in the study (see Appendix A for the

Prolific recruitment ad) were provided a URL link to the survey on Qualtrics, an online
 70

survey building platform. After providing informed consent (Appendix B), participants

completed an approximately 40-minute-long survey comprised of a battery of self-report

measures (Appendix C), which will be described in greater detail in the subsequent

section. The survey was divided into two sections; the administration order of these two

sections was counterbalanced to control for order effects, testing fatigue, and inattention.

Section one consisted of a series of questionnaires assessing demographic characteristics

and background history (e.g., childhood abuse and maltreatment), mental health and

substance use history, social desirability, maladaptive personality characteristics (e.g.,

attachment styles, psychopathy, sadism), stalking-related attitudes, and emotion

management (e.g., aggression proneness, emotion dysregulation, anger rumination) (see

“Section One” of “Measures” section below). The measures in section one were

presented in randomized order. Section two contained questions about the participant’s

engagement in online and in-person SIH and violent behaviors, the context in which these

behaviors occurred, and their history of prior violence (see “Section Two” of “Measures”

section below). The questions in section two were not randomized so as to establish a

logical progression of behaviors. Participants were compensated $5.00 on MTurk or

Prolific upon successful completion of the online survey. All study procedures and

protocols were approved by the University Institutional Review Board.

3. Measures

3.1. Section One

3.1.1. Demographics and Background History Questionnaire. A self-report

demographics form was created for this study that asked participants about their age,

gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, relationship status,

 71

employment status, and level of education. Historical factors that have demonstrated

empirical associations with SIH and violence perpetration, such as history of childhood

abuse and neglect, criminal and violence history, mental health and substance use history,

and parental characteristics (e.g., substance use and criminal history), were also assessed

(Bendlin & Sheridan, 2021; Churcher & Nesca, 2013; Rosenfeld, 2004; Thompson et al.,

2013). Participant substance use history was assessed using the Alcohol Use Disorders

Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C; Bush et al, 1998) and the Drug Use

Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (DUDIT-C; Sinadinovic et al., 2014), which

are described below.

3.1.1.1. Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C).

The AUDIT-C (Bush et al., 1998) is a 3-item abbreviated version of the AUDIT

(Saunders et al., 1993) that measures quantity and frequency of alcohol consumption and

heavy alcohol use. The items are scored on a 5-point Likert Scale from 0 to 4 and

summed to compute a total score. Higher scores are indicative of greater alcohol use.

Prior research suggests that the AUDIT-C has adequate specificity, sensitivity, and

internal consistency (Cronbach’s αs ranging from .69 to .91) and is an effective brief

measure of problematic alcohol use (Bush et al., 1998; Reinert & Allen, 2007). The

AUDIT-C was found to have acceptable internal consistency in the present study

(Cronbach’s α = .76).

3.1.1.2. Drug Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (DUDIT-C). The

DUDIT-C (Sinadinovic et al., 2014) is a 4-item adaptation of the DUDIT (Berman et al.,

2005) that measures quantity and frequency of illicit drug use consumption. Each item is

scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 0 to 4. A total score was calculated, with higher
 72

scores reflecting greater illicit drug use. The DUDIT-C has evidenced adequate internal

consistency and validity across a range of populations (Hildebrand, 2015; Willem et al.,

2011). The DUDIT-C was found to have good internal consistency in the present study

(Cronbach’s α = .88).

3.1.2. Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale-Form C (MCSDS-C). The

MCSDS-C (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960; Reynolds, 1982) is a 13-item True-False self-

report questionnaire that measures socially desirable responding. It is comprised of items

that describe acceptable but improbable behaviors (e.g., “No matter who I’m talking to,

I’m always a good listener”), and unacceptable but probable behaviors (e.g., “I

sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way”). The total score was calculated and

included in final analyses to control for response bias. A higher total score indicates

greater socially desirable responding. Research demonstrates that the MCSDS-C has

acceptable to good psychometric properties (Cronbach’s αs ranging from .62 to .76) and

is highly correlated with the original 33-item version (r values ranging from .91 to .965;

Fischer & Fick, 1993; Loo & Thorpe, 2000; Reynolds, 1982). The MCSDS-C was found

to have good internal consistency in the present study (Cronbach’s α = .83).

3.1.3. Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-Version 4 Borderline Personality

Disorder Subscale (PDQ-4+). Borderline personality disorder traits were measured by

the Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) subscale of the PDQ-4+ (Hyler, 1994). The

PDQ-4+ was designed to assess 12 different personality disorders based on Diagnostic

and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV) diagnostic criteria. The BPD

subscale consists of nine items (e.g., “I am a very moody person”) that participants rated

as true (scored 1) or false (scored 0). Items were summed to provide a total dimensional
 73

measure of borderline personality disorder characteristics. Higher scores indicate greater

endorsement of borderline personality disorder traits. The PDQ-4+ has evidenced

acceptable reliability (Cronbach’s αs ranging from .70 to .76) and good concurrent

validity in both clinical and non-clinical samples (e.g., Hyler, 1994; Johnson &

Thompson, 2016; Thompson et al., 2013). The PDQ-4+ was found to have acceptable

internal consistency in this study (Cronbach’s α = .76).

3.1.4. Experiences in Close Relationships-12 (ECR-12). The ECR-12

(Lafontaine et al., 2016) is 12-item self-report questionnaire derived from the original 36-

item ECR (Brennan et al., 1998) that measures adult attachment styles. It is comprised of

two subscales that assess anxious (Anxiety; “I worry about being abandoned”;

Cronbach’s α = .92) and avoidant (Avoidance; “I don’t feel comfortable opening up to

others”; Cronbach’s α = .88) attachment styles. In line with prior research, the items were

adapted to reflect participants’ perceptions and emotional experiences in their close

relationships in general, rather than in relation to a specific close relationship (e.g.,

romantic partner; Chen, 2011; Richards & Schat, 2011; “I worry a fair amount about

losing others”). Participants rated the extent to which they agreed with each item on a 7-

point scale (1 = Disagree strongly; 7 = Agree strongly). Total (Cronbach’s α = .83) and

subscale scores were calculated and used in further analyses, where higher scores reflect

more anxious or avoidant (dysfunctional) attachment styles. The ECR-12 has been found

to have high internal consistency and construct validity (Cronbach’s αs ranging from .74

to .87; Lafontaine et al., 2016).

3.1.5. Short Dark Tetrad (SD4). The SD4 (Paulhus et al., 2021) is a 28-item

self-report measure of the Dark Tetrad personality traits of Machiavellianism (“Flattery is

 74

a good way to get people on your side”; Cronbach’s α = .82), Narcissism (“I have

exceptional qualities”; Cronbach’s α = .86), Psychopathy (“People who mess with me

always regret it”; Cronbach’s α = .83) and Sadism (“Some people deserve to suffer”;

Cronbach’s α = .84). Respondents rated the extent to which they agreed with each item

on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree; 5 = Strongly agree). Individual subscale

scores were calculated and used in further analyses, with higher scores indicating more

elevated levels of the respective personality trait. Research has demonstrated the measure

to have adequate reliability (Cronbach’s αs ranging from .75 to .85) and construct validity

across student and community populations (Neumann et al., 2021; Paulhus et al., 2021).

3.1.6. Stalking-Related Attitudes Questionnaire (SRAQ). The SRAQ (McKeon

et al., 2015) is a 34-item self-report measure that assesses endorsement of stalking-related

attitudes and beliefs. The measure consists of three subscales pertaining to the

minimization of stalking (“Stalking isn’t serious”; e.g., “It’s not really stalking if you

know the person and they know you”; Cronbach’s α = .93), flattery (“Stalking is

romantic”; e.g., “If a woman gives any encouragement, the man has a right to continue

his pursuit”; Cronbach’s α = .82) and victim blaming (“Victims are to blame”; e.g.,

“Certain types of women are more likely to be stalked”; Cronbach’s α = .75).

Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with each statement using

a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Absolutely untrue; 7 = Absolutely true). Total (Cronbach’s α =

.95) and subscale scores were calculated and used in further analyses, where higher

scores are indicative of greater acceptance of stalking-related attitudes. Prior research

suggests the SRAQ has good to excellent internal consistency, with coefficients for the
 75

subscales ranging from .70 (Victims are to blame) to .90 (Stalking isn’t serious) and

ranging from .90 to .92 for the total score (Chan et al., 2022; McKeon et al., 2015).

3.1.7. Anger Rumination Scale (ARS). The ARS (Sukhodolsky et al., 2001) is a

19-item self-report instrument that measures the tendency to ruminate on past anger

episodes. It is comprised of four subscales: Angry Afterthoughts (“I re-enact the anger

episode in my mind after it has happened”; Cronbach’s α = .92), Angry Memories (“I

keep thinking about events that have angered me for a long time”; Cronbach’s α = .92),

Thoughts of Revenge (“I have long living fantasies of revenge after the conflict is over”;

Cronbach’s α = .80), and Understanding of Causes (“I think about the reasons people

treat me badly”; Cronbach’s α = .82). Participants were asked to rate each item about

themselves on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Almost never; 4 = Almost always). Total

(Cronbach’s α = .96) and subscale scores were computed and used in further analyses,

with higher scores reflecting greater anger rumination. Research suggests that the ARS

has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s αs ranging from .72 to .93) and test-retest

reliability, and it is highly correlated with related measures of anger expression, anger

experience, and aggression (e.g., Anestis et al., 2009; Sukhodolsky et al., 2001).

3.1.8. Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS). The DERS (Gratz &

Roemer, 2004) is a 36-item self-report instrument that measures six different domains of

emotion regulation difficulties: non-acceptance of emotional responses (e.g., “When I’m

upset, I feel like I am weak”; Cronbach’s α = .93), difficulties engaging in goal-directed

behavior (e.g., “When I’m upset, I have difficulty concentrating”; Cronbach’s α = .88),

impulse control difficulties (e.g., “When I’m upset, I feel out of control”; Cronbach’s α =

.85), lack of emotional awareness (e.g., “I am attentive to my feelings”; Cronbach’s α =

 76

.82), limited access to emotion regulation strategies (e.g., “When I’m upset, my emotions

feel overwhelming”; Cronbach’s α = .84), and lack of emotional clarity (e.g., “I am

confused about how I feel”; Cronbach’s α = .83). Respondents rated the applicability of

each statement to themselves using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Almost never; 5 = Almost

always). Total (Cronbach’s α = .95) and individual subscale scores were calculated and

included in subsequent analyses. Higher scores are indicative of greater difficulties in

emotion regulation. The DERS has evidenced high internal consistency (Cronbach’s αs

ranging from .79 to .93) and adequate construct and predictive validity across diverse

samples (e.g., Gratz & Roemer, 2004; Ritschel et al., 2015; Strauss et al., 2018).

3.2. Section Two

Section two assessed the nature, context, and etiology of in-person and online SIH

and violence perpetration. Participants were asked to think about a time or situation in

which they persistently pursued a person even when they knew the contact was

unwanted. They then responded to the following measures in reference to this particular

person and situation.

3.2.1. Obsessive-Relational Intrusion-Pursuit Short Form (ORI-PSF). The

ORI-PSF (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2004) is a 28-item self-report instrument that measures

the nature and extent of in-person SIH behaviors perpetrated (e.g., sending unwanted

gifts or offensive photographs, following or threatening with physical harm). This

measure asked respondents to indicate the frequency with which they committed each

type of behavior on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = Never; 4 = Over five times). Although

factor analyses have yielded several factor structures, a two-factor solution consisting of

pursuit (e.g., monitoring the victim; Cronbach’s α = .83) and aggression (e.g., stealing or
 77

damaging valued possessions; Cronbach’s α = .92) subscales has been the most

commonly identified (Dutton & Winstead, 2006; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1999). The total

(Cronbach’s α = .93) and subscale scores were calculated and used in analyses, where

higher scores reflect greater perpetration of in-person SIH. The ORI-PSF has been found

to have adequate internal consistency (Cronbach’s αs ranging from .83 to .96; Chan et al.,

2022; Cupach & Spitzberg, 2004; Dutton & Winstead, 2006).

3.2.2. Cyber-Obsessional Pursuit (COP). The COP scale (Spitzberg & Hoobler,

2002) is a 24-item self-report measure assessing the extent of engagement in online SIH

behaviors. This scale measures online SIH behaviors related to three distinct components:

hyperintimacy (e.g., sending exaggerated messages, texts or emails of affection;

Cronbach’s α = .80), real-life transference (e.g., meeting the victim first online and then

following them; Cronbach’s α = .92), and threat (e.g., sending threatening electronic

messages or images; Cronbach’s α = .89). Participants were asked to indicate the

frequency with which they committed each form of behavior on a 5-point Likert scale (0

= Never; 4 = Over five times). Total (Cronbach’s α = .93) and subscale scores were

calculated and used in further analyses, with higher scores indicating greater perpetration

of online SIH. Research suggests this measure has moderate to excellent internal

reliability (Cronbach’s αs ranging from .74 to .97; Chan et al., 2022; Spitzberg &

Hoobler, 2002).

3.2.3. Contextual information. Participants answered a series of questions

related to the circumstances surrounding the described SIH situation, including their

relationship to the victim, the victim’s gender, the age at which they started engaging

these behaviors, the duration of their campaign, the progression of their behaviors (e.g.,
 78

online to in-person, in-person to online), the motivation underlying their behaviors, and

any life stressors or triggering events that prompted their engagement in such behaviors.

Other contextual information, such as the participant’s affect, ruminative patterns, and

substance use during the pursuit were also assessed with the following measures.

3.2.3.1. Modified Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced (Brief

COPE). The Brief COPE (Carver, 1997) is a 28-item self-report measure that assesses 14

different types of coping responses (e.g., denial, substance use, acceptance). For the

purposes of the present study, only the 2-item Substance Use scale (e.g., “I used alcohol

or other drugs to make myself feel better”) was administered. Participants were asked to

rate how often they engaged in each item during their pursuit of the victim using a 4-

point Likert Scale (1 = I didn’t do this at all; 4 = I did this a lot). A total score was

calculated and used in analyses, with higher scores reflecting greater substance use.

Research indicates the alpha coefficient for this subscale is .90 (Carver, 1997). The

Substance Use scale of the Brief COPE was found to have excellent internal consistency

in this study (Cronbach’s α = .98).

3.2.3.2. Negative Affect. A modified version of Sprecher et al.’s (1998) measure

of distress was used to assess the participant’s affect during their pursuit of the victim.

Respondents rated the extent to which they experienced 10 negative emotions (e.g.,

angry, depressed) and five positive emotions (e.g., happy, proud) during their pursuit of

the victim on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Very slightly or not at all; 5 = Extremely). The

positive emotions were reverse scored and summed with their ratings of the negative

emotions to yield an overall “Negative Affect” score (Cronbach’s α = .86), with higher

scores indicating greater distress and negative emotionality. Prior research demonstrates
 79

that this measure has adequate internal consistency, with coefficients ranging from .78 to

.84 (Dutton & Winstead, 2006; Sprecher et al., 1998).

3.2.3.3. Modified Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire – Rumination

Scale (CERQ-R). The CERQ (Garnefski et al., 2002) is a 36-item self-report

questionnaire that assesses the respondent’s use of nine distinct cognitive emotion

regulation strategies (e.g., rumination, positive reappraisal) following exposure to

negative life events. Only the 4-item Rumination scale (e.g., “I often thought about how I

felt about what I had experienced”) was administered for the purposes of this study.

Participants indicated the extent to which they experienced each item during their pursuit

of the victim using a 5-point Likert Scale (1 = Almost never; 5 = Almost always). A total

score was summed and used in analyses, with higher scores representing more frequent

rumination. The CERQ Rumination scale has evidenced good internal consistency

(Cronbach’s α ranging from .78 to .83) and construct validity in a diverse range of

samples, and has demonstrated small-to-moderate positive correlations with other related

measures of depression and anxiety (Garnefski & Kraaij, 2007; Garnefski et al., 2002).

The CERQ Rumination scale was found to have excellent internal consistency in this

study (Cronbach’s α = .94).

3.2.4. Modified Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2). The CTS2 (Straus et al.,

1996) is a 78-item self-report instrument that assesses engagement in psychologically,

physically, and sexually aggressive behaviors towards an intimate partner and the

severity of injury caused. Although originally designed to measure violence perpetrated

in the context of a romantic relationship, the authors indicate that the instructions and

items can be rephrased to measure violence in other relational contexts. Participants’

 80

engagement in physically aggressive and sexually coercive or abusive behaviors was

assessed using the 12-item Physical Assault (e.g., “I choked or strangled the person”;

Cronbach’s α = .94) and 7-item Sexual Coercion (e.g., “I used threats to make the person

have oral or anal sex”; Cronbach’s α = .88) subscales, respectively. Additional relevant

violent behaviors that have been reported in prior research (e.g., “I bit the person,” “I

drove a car at the person”) were also assessed (Bendlin & Sheridan, 2021; Thompson et

al., 2013). Participants indicated how frequently they attempted to, or actually engaged

in, any of the items towards the victim or someone the victim cared about after they

began their pursuit on a 7-point Likert scale (0 = Never; 6 = More than 20 times). The

midpoint for each item response (e.g., a “4” for the response “3-5 times”) was summed to

yield total (Cronbach’s α = .97) and individual subscale scores, where higher scores

represent greater perpetration of violent behaviors. The Physical Assault and Sexual

Coercion scales have evidenced good construct validity and adequate to excellent

reliability, with internal consistency estimates ranging from .74 to .95 (Dardis & Gidycz,

2019; Straus et al., 1996).

3.2.5. Historical Information. Participants answered questions about their

criminal history, history of violence towards non-intimate and intimate partners, and SIH

victimization prior to their pursuit of the victim. Victimization was assessed using the

Stalking Assessment Index (McEwan et al., 2020).

3.2.5.1. Stalking Assessment Index-Victimization (SAI-V). The SAI-V (McEwan

et al., 2020) is a 16-item self-report measure that assesses the nature and extent of in-

person and online SIH victimization experiences (e.g., “They broke into my home”).

Participants were asked to indicate the frequency with which they experienced each type
 81

of behavior prior to their pursuit of the victim on a 7-point Likert scale (0 = Never; 6 =

More than 20 times). The midpoint for each item response (e.g., a “8” for the response

“6-10 times”) was summed to calculate a total score, where higher scores are indicative

of greater in-person and online SIH victimization. Past research reported that the SAI-V

demonstrated good construct validity and adequate test-retest reliability over a one-month

period (McEwan et al., 2020). The SAI-V was found to have good internal consistency in

the current study (Cronbach’s α = .88).

4. Definition of Terms

To assess for differential risk factors associated with in-person and online SIH,

participants were classified as non-harassers/stalkers, pure in-person harassers/stalkers,

pure online harassers/stalkers, or “mixed” harassers/stalkers who stalk or harass in both

the online and in-person domains. Consistent with empirical research (e.g., McEwan et

al., 2020; Thompson & Dennison, 2008; Thompson et al., 2013), pure in-person

harassers/stalkers were defined as those only engaging in repeated (on at least five

occasions) in-person pursuit or harassment, as indicated by responses on the ORI-PSF.

Pure online harassers/stalkers were defined as those only using online platforms to

repeatedly (on at least five occasions) pursue or harass another, as indicated by responses

on the COP. Those who endorsed repeatedly (on at least five occasions) perpetrating such

acts on both the ORI-PSF and COP were defined as “mixed” harassers/stalkers in both

the in-person and online realms. To this end, total scores on the ORI-PSF and COP were

calculated and dichotomized to denote the presence or absence of SIH behaviors in each

domain. Based on these dichotomized values, participants were thus defined as: (1) non-

harassers/stalkers (absence of repeated SIH behaviors on both the ORI-PSF and COP);
 82

(2) pure in-person harassers/stalkers (presence of repeated SIH behaviors only on the

ORI-PSF); (3) pure online harassers/stalkers (presence of repeated SIH behaviors only on

the COP); or (4) “mixed” harassers/stalkers (presence of repeated SIH behaviors on both

the ORI-PSF and COP).

Stalking violence was operationally defined per the instructions provided to

participants in the CTS2. Specifically, stalking violence referred to the attempted or

actual engagement in a range of physically and sexually violent acts to the target of

pursuit or a close associate of the target after the SIH campaign began. The specific

violent behaviors assessed were primarily derived from the “Physical Assault” and

“Sexual Coercion” subscales of the CTS2, though additional violent acts identified in

prior research to be relevant to the SIH context (e.g., vehicular violence, biting, etc.) were

also measured (Bendlin & Sheridan, 2021; Thompson et al., 2013; see Table 2.1).

Consistent with the ITMSV (Thompson et al., 2013, 2020), violent behaviors were

differentiated by level of severity into “minor violence” and “severe violence,” which

were classified according to the “minor” and “severe” behaviors as outlined in the CTS2,

respectively. Consistent with prior research (Bendlin & Sheridan, 2021; Thompson et al.,

2013), the additional violent behaviors that are not measured in the CTS2 were classified

as “severe violence” based on the severity of injuries that would likely be inflicted on the

victim. Table 2.1 provides a summary of the minor and severe violent behaviors that were

assessed in this study.

To assess for differential risk factors associated with minor and severe forms of

stalking violence, participants who reported engaging in any SIH (i.e., any of the

harassers/stalkers defined previously, as indicated by responses on the ORI-PSF and

 83

Table 2.1
Categorization of Minor and Severe Violent Behaviors
Severity Behavior CTS2 subscale
Category
Threw something at them
Twisted their arm or hair
Slapped them PA
Pushed or shoved them
Minor
Grabbed them
Insisted on sex, oral sex, or anal sex when they
did not want to (did not use physical force) SC
Made them have sex without a condom
Used a knife, gun, or other weapon on them
Punched or hit them with something that could
hurt
Choked or strangled them
PA
Slammed them against a wall
Beat them up
Burned or scalded them on purpose
Kicked them
Severe Used force (like hitting, holding down, or using
a weapon) to make someone have sex, oral sex,
or anal sex SC
Used threats to make them have sex, oral sex, or
anal sex
Drove a car at them
Hit their vehicle while they were inside
N/A
Dragged them on the floor
Bit them
Note. Italicized items denote the additional behaviors that are not part of the Revised
Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2), but are instead informed by prior research. PA = Physical
Assault; SC = Sexual Coercion.

COP) were further categorized as: (1) “not violent,” if none of the violent behaviors as

defined in Table 2.1 were endorsed; (2) “moderately violent,” if any of the “minor”

violent behaviors and none of the “severe” violent behaviors as defined in Table 2.1 were
 84

endorsed; and (3) “severely violent,” if any of the “severe” violent behaviors as defined

in Table 2.1 were endorsed.

5. Data Analysis Plan

The prevalence, nature, and frequency of SIH and violent behaviors were

examined using frequency and descriptive statistics. To explore whether there were any

differences in perpetration across gender and relationship type, a series of between-group

analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) and Pearson’s Chi Square Tests were conducted. For

all risk factors, bivariate analyses (i.e., between-group ANCOVAs, Chi Square tests)

were performed to determine whether a significant relationship exists between the risk

factor and SIH. These analyses were first conducted using the full sample of

harassers/stalkers and non- harassers/stalkers to explore which risk factors are associated

with SIH more broadly. The analyses were then performed among the subsample of

harassers/stalkers to elucidate the factors specifically related to online, in-person, or

mixed forms of SIH. Bivariate analyses with stalking violence as the outcome variable

were explored in a similar manner; however, the analyses were only performed amongst

the subsample of harassers/stalkers. Social desirability scores (as measured by the

MCSDS-C) were included as covariates in the between-group ANCOVAs. Pairwise

comparison analyses using the Bonferroni procedure to control for the Type 1 error rate

at the .01 level were conducted where appropriate to explore significant differences in

between-group ANCOVAs.

In addition to examining bivariate relationships, a series of binary logistic

regressions were estimated to identify the most salient predictors of SIH. Only the risk

factors demonstrating a significant relationship with SIH at the bivariate level were
 85

included in the models. As mentioned previously, analyses were first conducted using the

full sample to determine whether harassers/stalkers can be successfully distinguished

from non-harassers/stalkers. The analyses were then replicated among the subsample of

harassers/stalkers to explore the extent to which the risk factors discriminate the

domain(s) in which SIH behaviors are perpetrated. Logistic regression models were also

estimated with stalking violence as the outcome variable to explore which factors

contribute significantly to the perpetration of minor and severe stalking violence.

Sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age at time of pursuit, gender, race/ethnicity,

relationship to victim) and social desirability scores (as measured by the MCSDS-C)

were included in all regression models as control variables. While it is acknowledged that

gender is a non-binary construct, it was included as a dichotomous variable (female/male)

in current analyses as there was insufficient power to conduct meaningful analyses of

other gender identities (e.g., non-binary, genderfluid). Race/ethnicity (White/non-White)

was included in the models as a dichotomous variable due to the low variability within

the sample. The shortcomings of aggregating diverse ethnic groups (e.g., African

American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic/Latinx) into a single category are

acknowledged as individuals from different cultural backgrounds are not homogenous.

Relationship to victim (intimate partner/non-intimate partner) was also included in the

models as a dichotomous variable due to distinctions that are typically made between

intimate and non-intimate partner SIH in prior literature (e.g., Churcher & Nesca, 2013;

Logan, 2022; Thompson et al., 2020). Tests of multicollinearity following the

recommendations of Menard (1995) and Myers (1990) were conducted and no problems

were indicated (all tolerance coefficients > 0.1, all VIF values < 10). Given the use of
 86

multiple comparisons, an alpha criterion of .01 was used to determine statistical

significance for all analyses.

 87

CHAPTER III – RESULTS

Participants from MTurk and Prolific were cross checked for systematic

differences in sample descriptives and then merged into one composite data set. A series

of one-way ANOVA and Pearson’s chi-square analyses did not reveal any significant

differences in demographic characteristics between the MTurk and Prolific participants

(all p’s > .052).

1. Sample Characteristics

Table 3.1 provides a summary of the demographic characteristics of the overall

sample as well as subsamples based on type of SIH behavior engaged in (i.e., non-

harassers/stalkers, pure in-person harassers/stalkers, pure online harassers/stalkers, and

“mixed” harassers/stalkers). Most of the participants identified as men (n = 302, 53.8%)

and were an average age of 40.2 years (SD = 12.4, Range = 21-85). The majority of

participants (n = 394, 70.2%) identified as non-Hispanic White, with the minority

identifying as African American/Black (n = 72, 12.8%), Latinx/Hispanic (n = 40, 7.1%),

Asian/Pacific Islander (n = 27, 4.8%), bi- or multi-racial (n = 21, 3.7%), Native

American/Indigenous (n = 6, 1.1%), or Middle Eastern (n = 1, 0.4%). Eighty percent (n =

449) of participants identified as heterosexual, with the remainder identifying as Bisexual

(n = 61, 10.9%), Gay/Lesbian (n = 22, 3.9%), asexual (n = 12, 2.1%), pansexual (n = 10,

1.8%), queer (n = 6, 1.1%), or another specified sexual orientation (n = 1, 0.2%). More

than half of participants were in a committed relationship (n = 327, 58.4%), employed in

some capacity (n = 444, 79.1%), and had successfully completed some form of post-

secondary education (e.g., vocational training, bachelor’s degree, or higher; n = 372,

66.3%).
Table 3.1
Demographic Characteristics (M and SD or n and %) of Overall Sample and Harasser/Stalker Subgroups
Harasser/Stalker Subgroups
Pure In-
Overall Sample Non-H/S All H/S Person Pure Online Mixed
Variable (N = 561) (n = 295) (n = 266) (n = 122) (n = 17) (n = 127)
Age 40.2 (12.4) 40.5 (13) 39.79 (11.71) 41 (13) 34.6 (8.4) 39.3 (10.5)
Gender
Cis/Trans man 302 (53.8) 154 (52.2) 148 (55.6) 58 (47.5) 9 (52.9) 81 (63.8)
Cis/Trans woman 242 (43.1) 130 (44) 112 (42.1) 60 (49.2) 8 (47.1) 44 (34.7)
Non-Binary/Genderfluid/Other 17 (3.1) 11 (3.7) 6 (2.3) 4 (3.3) 0 2 (1.6)
Race/Ethnicity
White, Non-Hispanic 394 (70.2) 206 (69.8) 188 (70.7) 91 (74.6) 14 (82.4) 83 (65.4)
Black/African American 72 (12.8) 33 (11.2) 39 (14.7) 18 (14.8) 2 (11.8) 19 (15)
Latinx/Hispanic 40 (7.1) 25 (8.5) 15 (5.6) 6 (4.9) 1 (5.9) 8 (6.3)
Asian/Pacific Islander 27 (4.8) 16 (5.4) 11 (4.1) 2 (1.6) 0 9 (7.1)
Other 28 (5)1 15 (5.1) 13 (4.9) 5 (4.1) 0 8 (6.3)
Sexual Orientation
Heterosexual/Straight 449 (80) 234 (79.3) 215 (80.8) 99 (81.1) 14 (82.4) 102 (80.3)
Bisexual 61 (10.9) 34 (11.5) 27 (10.2) 11 (9) 1 (5.9) 15 (11.8)
Gay/Lesbian 22 (3.9) 13 (4.5) 9 (3.4) 3 (2.4) 1 (5.9) 5 (4)
Other 29 (5.2)2 14 (4.8) 15 (5.7) 9 (7.4) 1 (5.9) 5 (4)
Socioeconomic Status
High 9 (1.6) 2 (0.7) 7 (2.6) 2 (1.6) 1 (5.9) 4 (3.1)
Medium-High 65 (11.6) 27 (9.2) 38 (14.3) 17 (13.9) 2 (11.8) 19 (15)
Medium 244 (43.5) 127 (43.1) 117 (44) 53 (43.4) 6 (35.3) 58 (45.7)
Medium-Low 158 (28.2) 92 (31.2) 66 (24.8) 30 (24.6) 5 (29.4) 31 (24.4
Low 85 (15.2) 47 (15.9) 38 (14.3) 20 (16.4) 3 (17.6) 15 (11.8)
Relationship Status
Married/In a relationship 327 (58.4) 160 (54.2) 167 (62.7) 72 (59) 11 (64.7) 84 (66.2)
Single 176 (31.4) 106 (35.9) 70 (26.3) 37 (30.3) 5 (29.4) 28 (22)
88
 Other 58 (10.3)3 29 (9.9) 29 (10.9) 13 (10.6) 1 (5.9) 15 (11.8)
Employment Status
Employed Full/Part time 444 (79.1) 220 (74.6) 220 (74.6) 99 (81.2) 14 (82.4) 111 (87.4)
Unemployed 66 (11.7) 40 (13.6) 26 (9.7) 13 (10.6) 3 (17.7) 10 (7.9)
Retired 27 (4.8) 19 (6.4) 8 (3) 6 (4.9) 0 2 (1.6)
Student 6 (1.1) 4 (1.4) 2 (0.8) 1 (0.8) 0 1 (0.8)
Other 18 (3.2)4 12 (4.1) 6 (2.3) 3 (2.4) 0 3 (2.4)
Education Level
Some High School 6 (1.1) 4 (1.4) 2 (0.8) 0 1 (5.9) 1 (0.8)
High School/GED 183 (32.6) 99 (33.5) 84 (31.5) 43 (35.3) 5 (29.4) 36 (28.3)
College/Trade/Vocational 300 (53.5) 161 (54.6) 139 (52.3) 56 (45.8) 10 (58.9) 73 (57.5)
Masters/Professional/Doctorate 72 (12.8) 31 (10.5) 41 (15.4) 23 (18.9) 1 (5.9) 17 (13.4)
Note. H/S = Harasser/Stalker; GED = General Educational Development.
1
Other race/ethnicity includes bi- or multi-racial (n = 21, 3.7%), Native American/Indigenous (n = 6, 1.1%), or Middle Eastern (n
= 1, 0.2%); 2 Other sexual orientation includes asexual (n = 12, 2.1%), pansexual (n = 10, 1.8%), queer (n = 6, 1.1%), or other
specified sexual orientation (n = 1, 0.2%); 3 Other relationship status includes divorced/separated (n = 37, 6.6%), casually dating (n
= 13, 2.3%), or widowed (n = 8, 1.4%); 4 Other employment status includes disabled (n = 13, 2.3%) or other specified employment
status (n = 5, 0.9%).
89
 90

2. Descriptive Characteristics of Online and In-Person Stalking and Intrusive

Harassment

Firstly, this study examined the characteristics associated with online and in-

person SIH perpetration. Specifically, the prevalence, nature (e.g., online or in-person),

and frequency of SIH behaviors engaged in, rates of co-occurrence, and whether there

were any differences between online and in-person SIH perpetration across gender and

relationship type were assessed. Table 3.2 provides an overview of the type and

frequency of in-person and online SIH behaviors perpetrated.

Of the overall sample, 295 (52.6%) did not endorse repeatedly engaging in SIH

(i.e., non-harassers/stalkers), while 266 (47.4%) reported repeatedly perpetrating some

form of SIH (i.e., harassers/stalkers). Of this latter sample, 127 (47.7%) engaged in both

in-person and online SIH (i.e., mixed harassers/stalkers), 122 (45.9%) engaged in in-

person SIH only (i.e., pure in-person harassers/stalkers), and 17 (6.4%) engaged in online

SIH only (i.e., pure online harassers/stalkers). The demographic characteristics of each

harasser/stalker subgroup are summarized in Table 3.1. One-way ANOVA and Pearson’s

chi-square analyses did not find any significant differences in the demographic

characteristics of non-harassers/stalkers and harassers/stalkers (all p’s > .055), nor among

the three subgroups of harassers/stalkers (all p’s > .087). A summary of these statistical

analyses is provided in Table 3.3.

Hypothesis 1: Less than half of the overall sample will report engaging in any form of

SIH. In other words, the prevalence rate of SIH perpetration will be under 50%.

This hypothesis was supported. As noted above, approximately 47% of the

sample (n =266) reported repeatedly engaging in some form of SIH. That is, the
Table 3.2
Type and Frequency of Specific In-Person and Online Stalking and Intrusive Harassment Behaviors Perpetrated (N = 561)
In-Person SIH Behavior n % Online SIH Behavior n %
Leaving unwanted gifts 146 25.9 Tokens of affection 209 37.1
Leaving unwanted messages of affection 274 48.8 Exaggerated messages of affection 197 35.0
Making exaggerated expressions of affection 204 36.3 Disclosive messages 100 17.7
Following them 140 24.8 Needy/Demanding messages 181 32.1
Watching them 175 31.1 Pornographic/obscene images or messages 55 9.6
Intruding into their interactions 134 23.7 Threatening messages 36 6.2
Invading their personal space 130 23.0 Sexually harassing messages 40 7.0
Involving in unwanted activities 72 12.7 Threatening pictures 31 5.2
Invading their personal property 65 11.6 Exposing private information about them 49 8.4
Intruding upon their friends/family 125 22.0 Pretending to be someone else 76 13.4
Monitoring them 185 32.9 Sabotaging personal/social reputation 43 7.5
Approaching/surprising them in public 121 21.4 Sabotaging professional reputation 27 4.6
Obtaining private information 95 16.8 Attempting to disable their computer 24 3.9
Invading their property 50 8.7 Obtaining private information 56 9.8
Leaving threatening messages 52 9.1 Obtaining information about others 40 7.0
Physically restraining them 34 5.9 Bugging car/home/office 26 4.3
Regulatory harassment 34 5.9 Altering electronic identity 29 5.0
Stealing/damaging possessions 34 5.9 Taking over electronic identity 30 5.2
Threatening self-harm 48 8.4 Directing others to them 25 4.3
Threatening close others 26 4.5 Meeting online and then following 40 6.8
Face-to-face threats 45 7.7 Meeting online and then intruding 34 5.9
Leaving/sending threatening objects 27 4.6 Meeting online and then threatening 23 3.9
Showing up in threatening ways 34 5.9 Meeting online and then harming 23 3.9
Sexual coercion 37 6.4 Meeting online and then stalking 31 5.4
Physical threats 26 4.5
Physical harm 28 4.8
Kidnapping/constraining 20 3.4
Physical endangering 18 3.0
Note. SIH = Stalking and Intrusive Harassment.
91
 92

Table 3.3
Comparisons of Demographic Characteristics by Harasser/Stalker Subgroup
Non-Harassers/Stalkers vs. Three Harasser/Stalker
Harassers/Stalkers Subgroups
Variable Test Statistic df p Test Statistic df p
Age 1,
F = 0.46 .500 F = 2.47 2, 263 .087
559
Gender χ2 = 1.43 2 .488 χ2 = 7.41 4 .116
Race/Ethnicity χ = 4.69
2
6 .584 χ = 8.94
2
12 .708
Sexual
χ2 = 2.99 7 .886 χ2 = 11.25 14 .666
Orientation
Socioeconomic
χ2 = 8.81 4 .066 χ2 = 2.99 8 .935
Status
Relationship
χ2 = 9.76 6 .135 χ2 = 13.68 12 .321
Status
Employment
χ2 = 13.81 7 .055 χ2 = 16.12 14 .306
Status
Education Level χ2 = 10.98 7 .139 χ2 = 16.07 14 .309

prevalence rate of SIH perpetration in this sample was approximately 47%.

Hypothesis 2: The vast majority of harassers/stalkers (over 75%) will report engaging

in both online and in-person SIH. Less than 10% of harassers/stalkers will report only

engaging in online SIH.

This hypothesis was only partially supported. Contrary to expectations, just less

than half of harassers/stalkers reported repeatedly engaging in both online and in-person

SIH (n = 127, 47.7%), which was significantly below the hypothesized proportion of

75%, χ2(1, N = 266) = 105.39, p < .001. However, as expected, 6.4% of the

harassers/stalkers (n = 17) reported only engaging in online SIH.

Hypothesis 3: Less intrusive behavioral strategies (i.e., hyperintimacy, mediated

contacts, surveillance) will be more commonly reported than more intrusive behaviors

(i.e., threats, aggression) across all harassers/stalkers.

 93

This hypothesis was supported. Amongst harassers/stalkers, repeated in-person

SIH (n = 249, 93.6%) was more prevalent than repeated online SIH (n = 144, 54.1%) (see

Table 3.4 for means). Additionally, the perpetration of less intrusive in-person SIH (i.e.,

ORI-PSF pursuit behaviors, e.g., leaving unwanted gifts or notes, watching or monitoring

the victim) (n = 196, 73.7%) was more frequently endorsed than more intrusive in-person

SIH (i.e., ORI-PSF aggression behaviors, e.g., verbal or physical threats, physical

violence) (n = 24, 9%). Similarly, the perpetration of relatively less intrusive online SIH

(COP hyperintimacy behaviors, e.g., sending unwanted and harassing emails, messages)

(n = 123, 46.2%) were more commonly reported than more intrusive online SIH (COP

threat behaviors, e.g., sending threatening messages, emails, photos) (n = 33, 12.4%).

Table 3.4 provides a summary of the mean scores for the overall subsample of

harassers/stalkers and the three subgroups of harassers/stalkers.

A series of one-way ANCOVAs compared mixed harassers/stalkers with their

pure in-person and pure online counterparts in terms of their in-person and online SIH

behavior (see Table 3.4 for means). Results indicated that mixed harassers/stalkers

engaged in more frequent and serious in-person SIH behaviors than pure in-person

harassers/stalkers. Mixed harassers/stalkers reported engaging in significantly more in-

person pursuit behaviors, F(1, 246) = 45.93, p <.001, η2 = .16, in-person aggression

behaviors, F(1, 246) = 28.87, p <.001, η2 = .11, and overall in-person SIH behaviors, F(1,

246) = 52.88, p <.001, η2 = .18, than pure in-person harassers/stalkers. There were no

significant differences in the perpetration of online SIH behaviors between mixed and

pure online harassers/stalkers (all p’s > .07). However, these analyses were likely

impacted by potential power concerns from the small sample of pure online
Table 3.4
Descriptive Characteristics of In-Person and Online Stalking and Intrusive Harassment
All Pure In-
Harassers/stalkers Person Pure Online Mixed Test
Variable (n = 266) (n = 122) (n = 17) (n = 127) Statistic df p
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
ORI-PSF Pursuit 8.44 (5.44) 6.71 (3.57) 2.12 (1.32) 10.94 (5.93) F = 45.93a 1, 246 < .001
ORI-PSF Aggression 1.53 (3.81) 0.34 (1.44) 0.18 (0.39) 2.87 (5.01) F = 28.87a 1, 246 < .001
ORI-PSF Total 14.99 (14.03) 9.79 (6.34) 2.76 (1.15) 21.63 (16.86) F = 52.88a 1, 246 < .001
COP Hyperintimacy 4.98 (4.48) 1.51 (1.52) 6.41 (2.94) 8.13 (4.12) F = 2.78b 1, 141 .098
COP Threat 1.62 (3.56) 0.09 (0.29) 1.35 (3.67) 3.12 (4.51) F = 2.39b 1, 141 .125
COP Total 8.60 (11.21) 1.64 (1.52) 9.35 (10.40) 15.18 (12.56) F = 3.33b 1, 141 .070
Age at time of pursuit 26.44 (28.03) 25.86 (36.17) 22.47 (7.83) 27.54 (19.62) F = 0.31c 1, 262 .734
n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)
Gender of Victim χ2 = 1.27 2 .529
Male 125 (47.2) 62 (50.8) 7 (41.2) 56 (44.4)
Female 140 (52.8) 60 (49.2) 10 (58.8) 70 (55.6)
Relationship to Victim χ2 = 12.25 12 .426
Current Intimate Partner 33 (12.4) 10 (8.2) 3 (17.6) 20 (15.7)
Former Intimate Partner 105 (39.5) 47 (38.5) 7 (41.2) 51 (40.2)
Family member/relative 2 (0.8) 1 (0.8) 0 1 (0.8)
Friend 77 (28.9) 32 (26.2) 5 (29.4) 40 (31.5)
Acquaintance 44 (16.5) 28 (22.9) 2 (11.8) 14 (11)
Stranger 5 (1.9) 4 (3.3) 0 1 (0.8)
Note. ORI-PSF = Obsessive-Relational Intrusion Pursuit Short Form; COP = Cyber-Obsessional Pursuit.
a
One-way ANCOVA compared pure in-person and mixed harassers/stalkers only; b One-way ANCOVA compared pure online and mixed
harassers/stalkers only. c One-way ANCOVA compared all three harasser/stalker subgroups. Shaded cells indicate significant differences
between specified groups.
94
 95

harassers/stalkers (n = 17).

Hypothesis 4: A greater proportion of men will engage in SIH than women overall;

however, there are likely differences in the type and severity of SIH behaviors engaged

in across gender. Specifically, women will engage in more online SIH behaviors than

men, and men will engage in more in-person SIH behaviors than women.

This hypothesis was not supported. There was no significant difference in the

proportion of men (n = 148, 49%) who engaged in any form of SIH compared to women

(n = 112, 46.3%), χ2(1, N = 544) = 0.4, p = .527. Similarly, there were no significant

differences in the proportion of men engaging in in-person SIH behaviors (n = 139, 46%)

compared to women (n = 104, 43%), χ2(1, N = 544) = 0.51, p = .477, nor in the

proportion of men (n = 90, 29.8%) and women (n = 52, 21.5%) who endorsed engaging

in online SIH behaviors, χ2(1, N = 544) = 4.81, p = .028. In addition, there were no

significant differences in the frequency or severity of in-person or online SIH behaviors

perpetrated by men or women (all p’s > .022; see Table 3.5 for means).

Table 3.5
Comparisons of In-Person and Online Stalking and Intrusive Harassment (M and SD) by
Gender
Men Women
Variable F p
(n = 302) (n = 242)
ORI-PSF Pursuit 4.69 (5.39) 4.38 (5.35) 0.52 .470
ORI-PSF
0.76 (2.72) 0.76 (2.83) 0 .999
Aggression
ORI-PSF Total 8.11 (11.71) 7.53 (12.31) 0.36 .548
COP Hyperintimacy 3.07 (3.99) 2.35 (3.57) 5.26 .022
COP Threat 0.89 (2.72) 0.67 (2.44) 1.05 .307
COP Total 5.10 (9.15) 3.81 (8.13) 3.07 .080
Note. ORI-PSF = Obsessive-Relational Intrusion Pursuit Short Form; COP = Cyber-
Obsessional Pursuit.
 96

Hypothesis 5a: The majority of harassers/stalkers will target a known victim as

opposed to a stranger. Of these, most will identify an (ex)intimate partner as the victim.

This hypothesis was supported. Almost all harassers/stalkers targeted a known

victim (n = 261, 98.1%), with just over half (n = 138, 51.9%) targeting a current (n = 33,

12.4%) or former (n = 105, 39.5%) intimate partner. The remaining known victims were

friends (n = 77, 28.9%), acquaintances (including professional relationships; n = 44,

16.5%), or family members/relatives (n = 2, 0.8%). Five (1.9%) harassers/stalkers

reported engaging in SIH behaviors towards a stranger. Pure in-person, pure online, and

mixed harasser/stalker subgroups did not significantly differ in their relationship to the

victim, χ2(12, N = 266) = 12.25, p = .426 (see Table 3.4).

Hypothesis 5b: Harassers/stalkers targeting an (ex)intimate partner will be more likely

to engage in both online and in-person SIH than those targeting an acquaintance or

stranger.

This hypothesis was not supported. Whilst a higher proportion of

harassers/stalkers targeting an (ex)intimate partner engaged in both online and in-person

SIH (n = 71, 55.9%) compared to those targeting a non-intimate partner (n = 56, 44.1%),

this difference was not statistically significant, χ2(1, N = 127) = 1.77, p = .183.

Hypothesis 5c: Harassers/stalkers targeting an (ex)intimate partner will engage in a

greater diversity of online and in-person SIH behaviors than those targeting an

acquaintance or stranger.

This hypothesis was not supported. Contrary to predictions, there were no

significant differences in the type or severity of online and in-person SIH behaviors
 97

perpetrated between harassers/stalkers targeting an (ex)intimate partner compared to

those targeting a non-intimate partner (all p’s > .025; see Table 3.6 for means).

Table 3.6
Comparisons of In-Person and Online Stalking and Intrusive Harassment (M and SD) by
Relationship Type
(Ex)intimate Non-intimate partner
Variable partner victim victim F p
(n = 138) (n = 128)
ORI-PSF Pursuit 9.16 (5.43) 7.66 (5.36) 5.08 .025
ORI-PSF
1.69 (3.90) 1.37 (3.71) 0.46 .496
Aggression
ORI-PSF Total 15.88 (14.6) 14.03 (13.37) 1.15 .284
COP Hyperintimacy 5.45 (4.28) 4.48 (4.65) 3.21 .074
COP Threat 1.72 (3.87) 1.5 (3.2) 0.26 .611
COP Total 9.14 (11.36) 8.02 (11.06) 0.66 .418
Note. ORI-PSF = Obsessive-Relational Intrusion Pursuit Short Form; COP = Cyber-
Obsessional Pursuit.

3. Risk Factors for Online and In-Person Stalking and Intrusive Harassment

Next, this study examined the relationships between various historical,

psychological, dispositional, cognitive, affective, and contextual factors and online and

in-person SIH perpetration (see Table 3.7 for a summary of the risk factors assessed).

Further, whether the pertinent risk factors were differentially associated with online and

in-person SIH was explored. Of the variables significantly related to SIH at the bivariate

level, multivariate analyses were then conducted to identify the most salient risk factors

associated with SIH perpetration (Hypotheses 15 and 16). For the following analyses,

comparisons with the pure online harassers/stalkers (n = 17) were omitted due to

potential power concerns associated with the small sample size.

Hypothesis 6: Harassers/stalkers would be more likely to report a history of childhood

abuse and maltreatment (physical, psychological/emotional, or sexual abuse, neglect)

than non-harassers/stalkers. Sexual abuse victimization would have a stronger

 98

Table 3.7
Summary of Risk Factors Assessed in Bivariate Analyses
Risk Factor Risk Factor & Corresponding Hypothesis
Domain
A. Historical Childhood abuse and maltreatment (Hypothesis 6)
Borderline Personality Disorder traits (Hypothesis 7)
B. Psychological &
Anxious attachment (Hypothesis 8)
Dispositional
Dark Tetrad traits (Hypothesis 9)
Stalking-related attitudes (Hypothesis 10)
C. Cognitive
Trait anger rumination (Hypothesis 14)
D. Affective Emotion regulation difficulties (Hypothesis 11)
Substance use problems (Hypothesis 12)
E. Contextual Negative affect (Hypothesis 13)
State rumination (Hypothesis 14)

relationship with SIH perpetration than the other forms of abuse or maltreatment.

This hypothesis was partially supported. There was no significant difference in

the proportion of harassers/stalkers (n = 140, 52.6%) reporting a history of childhood

abuse and maltreatment compared to non-harassers/stalkers (n = 138, 46.8%), χ2(1, N =

561) = 1.92, p = .166. However, as hypothesized, harassers/stalkers (n = 16, 6%) were

more likely to report a history of sexual abuse victimization than non-harassers/stalkers

(n = 5, 1.7%), χ2(1, N = 561) = 7.25, Fisher’s Exact p = .008, φ = .11. There were no

other significant differences in the proportion of harassers/stalkers and non-

harassers/stalkers reporting other forms of childhood abuse or maltreatment (all p’s >

.033). Similarly, there were no significant differences in the proportion of pure in-person

and mixed harassers/stalkers who experienced childhood abuse or maltreatment, χ2(1, N =

249) = 4.33, p = .037, nor were there any significant differences in the type of abuse

experienced (all p’s > .074).

 99

Hypothesis 7: Harassers/stalkers would not have elevated rates of psychosis compared

to non-harassers/stalkers. Harassers/stalkers would exhibit higher levels of Borderline

Personality Disorder (BPD) traits than non-harassers/stalkers. Mixed

harassers/stalkers would have more elevated levels of BPD traits than pure online or

pure in-person harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was partially supported. Due to the small number of participants

who endorsed having a psychotic disorder (i.e., Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder; n = 6,

1.1%), the analysis to assess whether harassers/stalkers had elevated rates of psychosis

compared to non-harassers/stalkers was not conducted. Regarding BPD traits,

harassers/stalkers (M = 2.65, SD = 2.26) reported significantly higher levels of BPD traits

than non-harassers/stalkers (M = 1.59, SD = 1.92), F(1, 558) = 30.86, p <.001, η2 = .05.

As hypothesized, mixed harassers/stalkers (M = 3.09, SD = 2.43) endorsed significantly

higher levels of BPD traits than pure in-person harassers/stalkers (M = 2.25, SD = 2.06),

F(1, 246) = 9.16, p = .003, η2 = .04.

Hypothesis 8: Harassers/stalkers would be associated with greater anxious attachment

compared to non-harassers/stalkers. Mixed harassers/stalkers would endorse greater

anxious attachment than pure online or pure in-person harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was partially supported. Harassers/Stalkers (M = 22.24, SD =

10.25) endorsed significantly greater anxious attachment than non-harassers/stalkers (M =

18.51, SD = 9.62), F(1, 558) = 16.5, p <.001, η2 = .03. Contrary to predictions, mixed

harassers/stalkers (M = 23.33, SD = 9.81) did not significantly differ from pure in-person

harassers/stalkers (M = 21.10, SD = 10.65) in the level of anxious attachment reported,

F(1, 246) = 2.99, p = .085.

 100

Hypothesis 9: Harassers/stalkers would report higher levels of all the Dark Tetrad

traits (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy, sadism) than non-

harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was supported. Harassers/stalkers endorsed significantly higher

levels of Machiavellianism, F(1, 558) = 23.53, p <.001, η2 = .04, narcissism, F(1, 558) =

19.99, p <.001, η2 = .04, psychopathy, F(1, 558) = 31.13, p <.001, η2 = .05, and sadism,

F(1, 558) = 17.9, p <.001, η2 = .03, than non-harassers/stalkers (see Table 3.8 after

Hypothesis 14 for means).

Additionally, mixed harassers/stalkers reported significantly greater levels of

narcissism, F(1, 246) = 12.42, p <.001, η2 = .05, psychopathy, F(1, 246) = 22.95, p <.001,

η2 = .09, and sadism, F(1, 246) = 10.49, p = .001, η2 = .04, than pure in-person

harassers/stalkers; however, there was no significant difference between mixed and pure

in-person harassers/stalkers in the level of Machiavellianism reported, F(1, 246) = 2.81, p

= .095 (see Table 3.9 after Hypothesis 14 for means).

Hypothesis 10: Harassers/stalkers would endorse more stalking-related attitudes (e.g.,

“stalking is romantic”) than non-harassers. Mixed harassers/stalkers would report

more stalking-related attitudes than pure online harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was supported. Harasser/stalkers (M = 96.29, SD = 37.34)

endorsed significantly more stalking-related attitudes than non-harassers/stalkers (M =

75.22, SD = 28.71), F(1, 558) = 62.38, p <.001, η2 = .10. More specifically,

harassers/stalkers reported significantly greater attitudes reflective of minimization (i.e.,

“Stalking isn’t serious”), F(1, 558) = 54.93, p <.001, η2 = .09, flattery (i.e., “Stalking is

romantic”), F(1, 558) = 47.59, p <.001, η2 = .08, and victim blaming (i.e., “Victims are to
 101

blame”), F(1, 558) = 39.08, p <.001, η2 = .07 (see Table 3.8 after Hypothesis 14 for

means).

As expected, mixed harassers/stalkers (M = 107.22, SD = 41.39) were

significantly more supportive of stalking-related attitudes than pure in-person

harassers/stalkers (M = 86.53, SD = 30.05), F(1, 246) = 12.5, p <.001, η2 = .08. In

addition, mixed harassers/stalkers endorsed significantly more attitudes suggestive of

minimization, F(1, 246) = 29.65, p <.001, η2 = .11, flattery, F(1, 246) = 8.04, p = .005, η2

= .03, and victim blaming, F(1, 246) = 8.25, p = .004, η2 = .03, than their pure in-person

counterparts (see Table 3.9 after Hypothesis 14 for means).

Hypothesis 11: Harassers/stalkers would report having more emotion

regulation difficulties than non-harassers/stalkers. Mixed harassers/stalkers would

have a greater lack of emotional awareness than pure online and pure in-person

harassers/stalkers. Pure online harassers/stalkers would exhibit more difficulties with

impulse control than pure in-person harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was partially supported. Harassers/stalkers (M = 83.15, SD =

24.3) reported having significantly more emotion regulation difficulties than non-

harassers/stalkers (M = 74.36, SD = 24.8), F(1, 558) = 13.16, p <.001, η2 = .02. Analyses

of subscale scores revealed that harassers/stalkers endorsed significantly more difficulties

with acceptance of emotional responses, F(1, 558) = 12.83, p <.001, η2 = .02, impulse

control, F(1, 558) = 24.1, p <.001, η2 = .04, and access to emotion regulation strategies,

F(1, 558) = 14.16, p <.001, η2 = .03 (see Table 3.8 after Hypothesis 14 for means). All

other subscale score comparisons were not significant (all p’s > .075).
 102

Mixed harassers/stalkers (M = 88.2, SD = 24.18) endorsed significantly greater

emotion regulation difficulties than pure in-person harassers/stalkers (M = 79.34, SD =

24.33), F(1, 246) = 9.38, p = .002, η2 = .04. More specifically, mixed harassers/stalkers

reported significantly more difficulties with impulse control, F(1, 246) = 32.32, p <.001,

η2 = .11, and access to emotion regulation strategies, F(1, 246) = 6.99, p = .009, η2 = .03

(see Table 3.9 after Hypothesis 14 for means). Mixed and pure in-person

harassers/stalkers did not significantly differ in any other domain (all p’s > .043). The

analysis to examine whether pure online harassers/stalkers would exhibit more

difficulties with impulse control than their pure in-person counterparts was not conducted

due to potential power concerns associated with the small sample of pure online

harassers/stalkers.

Hypothesis 12: Harassers/stalkers would endorse more problematic use of drugs and

alcohol at the time of the event than non-harassers/stalkers. Pure in-person and mixed

harassers/stalkers would report using more drugs and alcohol than pure online

harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was partially supported. Harassers/stalkers (M = 3.73, SD = 2.12)

reported significantly more problematic substance use at the time of the event than non-

harassers/stalkers (M = 2.58, SD = 1.35), F(1, 558) = 54.09, p <.001, η2 = .09. As noted

above, comparisons with the pure online harassers/stalkers subgroup were not conducted

due to potential power concerns. Accordingly, the latter half of this hypothesis could not

be assessed. However, comparisons between pure in-person and mixed harassers/stalkers

revealed that mixed harassers/stalkers (M = 4.24, SD = 2.19) endorsed more problematic

 103

substance use at the time of the event than pure in-person harassers/stalkers (M = 3.16,

SD = 1.87), F(1, 246) = 17.35, p <.001, η2 = .07.

Hypothesis 13: Harassers/stalkers would experience higher levels of negative affect

(e.g., anger, jealousy, depression) and distress at the time of the event than non-

harassers/stalkers. Mixed harassers/stalkers would report higher levels of negative

affect at the time of the event than pure in-person and pure online harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was partially supported. Harassers/stalkers (M = 42.94, SD =

11.58) reported experiencing significantly higher levels of negative affect and distress at

the time of the event than non-harassers/stalkers (M = 37.52, SD = 8.16), F(1, 558) =

35.22, p <.001, η2 = .06. Unexpectedly however, there was no significant difference in the

level of negative affect at the time of the event amongst mixed (M = 44.13, SD = 12.28)

and pure in-person (M = 40.93, SD = 10.32) harassers/stalkers, F(1, 246) = 5.16, p = .024.

Hypothesis 14: Harassers/stalkers would report higher levels of trait anger rumination

than non-harassers/stalkers. Additionally, harassers/stalkers would engage in more

ruminative thinking at the time of the event than non-harassers/stalkers. Mixed

harassers/stalkers would report higher levels of trait anger and state rumination than

pure in-person and pure online harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was partially supported. Harassers/stalkers (M = 41.12, SD =

14.12) reported significantly higher levels of trait anger rumination than non-

harassers/stalkers (M = 35.89, SD = 13.1), F(1, 558) = 15.26, p <.001, η2 = .03.

Additionally, harassers/stalkers (M = 11.79, SD = 4.29) endorsed engaging in

significantly more ruminative thinking at the time of the event than non-harassers/stalkers

(M = 7.91, SD = 4.6), F(1, 558) = 99.8, p <.001, η2 = .15.

 104

Although mixed and pure in-person harassers/stalkers did not significantly differ

in the level of trait anger rumination endorsed, F(1, 246) = 3.04, p = .082, mixed

harassers/stalkers reported engaging in significantly more ruminative thinking at the time

of the event than pure in-person harassers/stalkers, F(1, 246) = 18.81, p <.001, η2 = .07

(see Table 3.9 for means).

Table 3.8 summarizes the means and bivariate analyses of the predisposing (i.e.,

historical, psychological, dispositional, cognitive, affective) and contextual risk factors

assessed for non-harassers/stalkers and harassers/stalkers. Table 3.9 provides a summary

of these same risk factors specifically associated with the subsample of pure online, pure

in-person, and mixed harassers/stalkers.

Table 3.8
Risk Factors for Online and In-Person Stalking and Intrusive Harassment Perpetration (M and SD or n and %)
Non-Harassers/stalkers Harassers/Stalkers
Risk Factors (n = 295) (n = 266) Test Statistic df p
Historical
Childhood abuse and maltreatment 138 (46.8) 140 (52.6) χ2 = 1.92 1 .166
Psychological & Dispositional
Borderline Personality Disorder traits 1.59 (1.92) 2.65 (2.26) F = 30.86 1, 558 <.001
Anxious Attachment 18.51 (9.62) 22.24 (10.25) F = 16.5 1, 558 <.001
Machiavellianism 20.47 (5.28) 22.83 (5.34) F = 23.53 1, 558 <.001
Narcissism 17.13 (5.7) 19.23 (6.25) F = 19.99 1, 558 <.001
Psychopathy 11.68 (4.42) 14.21 (5.8) F = 31.13 1, 558 <.001
Sadism 14.88 (6.05) 17.36 (6.41) F = 17.9 1, 558 <.001
Cognitive
Stalking-related attitudes 75.22 (28.71) 96.29 (37.34) F = 62.38 1, 558 <.001
Stalking is not serious 37.72 (15.82) 48.67 (21.72) F = 54.93 1, 558 <.001
Stalking is romantic 18.24 (7.68) 22.88 (8.53) F = 47.59 1, 558 <.001
Victims are to blame 12.31 (5.44) 15.53 (6.56) F = 39.08 1, 558 <.001
Trait anger rumination 35.89 (13.1) 41.12 (14.12) F = 15.26 1, 558 <.001
Affective
Emotion regulation difficulties 74.36 (24.8) 83.15 (24.3) F = 13.16 1, 558 <.001
Non-acceptance of emotions 11.82 (5.82) 13.92 (6.19) F = 12.83 1, 558 <.001
Goal-directed behavior 12.63 (5.23) 13.73 (5.12) F = 3.18 1, 558 .075
Impulse control difficulties 10.24 (4.55) 12.35 (4.82) F = 24.10 1, 558 <.001
Lack of emotional awareness 14.27 (5.23) 14.45 (4.68) F = 0.02 1, 558 .888
Emotion regulation strategies 16.05 (7.49) 18.77 (7.31) F = 14.16 1, 558 <.001
Lack of emotional clarity 9.34 (3.65) 9.93 (3.9) F = 1.74 1, 558 .188
Contextual
Substance use problems 2.58 (1.35) 3.73 (2.12) F = 54.09 1, 558 <.001
Negative affect 37.52 (8.16) 42.94 (11.58) F = 35.22 1, 558 <.001
State rumination 7.91 (4.6) 11.79 (4.29) F = 99.8 1, 558 <.001
Note. Shaded cells indicate significant differences between non-harassers/stalkers and harassers/stalkers.
105
Table 3.9
Risk Factors Differentiating Harasser/Stalker Subgroups (M and SD or n and %)
Pure Online Pure In-Person Mixed Test
Risk Factors (n = 17) (n = 122) (n = 127) Statistic df p
Historical
Childhood abuse and maltreatment 11 (64.7) 55 (45.1) 74 (58.3) χ2 = 4.33 1 .037
Psychological & Dispositional
Borderline Personality Disorder traits 2.24 (1.82) 2.25 (2.06) 3.09 (2.43) F = 9.16 1, 246 .003
Anxious Attachment 22.29 (10.23) 21.10 (10.65) 23.33 (9.81) F = 2.99 1, 246 .085
Machiavellianism 22.88 (6.99) 22.26 (5.35) 23.38 (5.08) F = 2.81 1, 246 .095
Narcissism 19.18 (6.62) 17.86 (5.9) 20.55 (6.29) F = 12.42 1, 246 <.001
Psychopathy 14.94 (6.77) 12.45 (4.6) 15.8 (6.23) F = 22.95 1, 246 <.001
Sadism 18.35 (7.56) 16.01 (6.2) 18.52 (6.25) F = 10.49 1, 246 .001
Cognitive
Stalking-related attitudes 84.59 (30.93) 86.53 (30.05) 107.22 (41.39) F = 21.5 1, 246 <.001
Stalking is not serious 41.41 (17.49) 42.14 (17.15) 55.92 (23.87) F = 29.65 1, 246 <.001
Stalking is romantic 22.65 (9.21) 21.38 (7.65) 24.35 (9.04) F = 8.04 1, 246 .005
Victims are to blame 12.24 (5.9) 14.55 (5.82) 16.9 (7.03) F = 8.25 1, 246 .004
Trait anger rumination 36.29 (17.1) 40.02 (13.7) 42.81 (13.97) F = 3.04 1, 246 .082
Affective
Emotion regulation difficulties 72.82 (16.65) 79.34 (24.33) 88.2 (24.18) F = 9.38 1, 246 .002
Non-acceptance of emotions 11.41 (4.8) 13.3 (6.36) 14.85 (6.07) F = 4.13 1, 246 .043
Goal-directed behavior 11.35 (4.12) 13.78 (5.35) 14.01 (4.98) F = 0.08 1, 246 .774
Impulse control difficulties 10.35 (3.28) 10.81 (3.95) 14.09 (5.17) F = 32.32 1, 246 <.001
Lack of emotional awareness 13.18 (6.33) 14.19 (4.8) 14.87 (4.29) F = 1.37 1, 246 .243
Emotion regulation strategies 17.76 (7.33) 17.66 (7.51) 19.98 (6.98) F = 6.99 1, 246 .009
Lack of emotional clarity 8.76 (3.75) 9.61 (3.86) 10.39 (3.92) F = 2.53 1, 246 .113
Contextual
Substance use problems 3.88 (2.29) 3.16 (1.87) 4.24 (2.19) F = 17.35 1, 246 <.001
Negative affect 48.41 (12.46) 40.93 (10.32) 44.13 (12.28) F = 5.16 1, 246 .024
State rumination 12.94 (5.19) 10.57 (4.22) 12.81 (3.94) F = 18.81 1, 246 <.001
Note. Given potential power concerns associated with the small sample size of pure online harassers/stalkers, the above analyses only compared
pure in-person and mixed harassers/stalkers. Shaded cells indicate significant differences between mixed and pure in-person harassers/stalkers.
106
 107

Hypothesis 15: The model involving the full sample would significantly predict SIH

perpetration. Overall, a combination of predisposing (historical, psychological,

cognitive, affective) and contextual risk factors would significantly predict SIH

perpetration. Greater levels of BPD traits, anxious attachment, and emotion regulation

difficulties, higher endorsement of stalking-related attitudes, more problematic

substance use, and greater emotional distress were predicted to contribute significantly

to the predictive model.

To assess this hypothesis, a binary logistic regression was estimated to analyze

the relationship between predisposing and contextual risk factors and SIH perpetration.

Of the hypothesized variables, sexual abuse victimization, BPD traits, anxious

attachment, the Dark Tetrad traits (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy,

sadism), stalking-related attitudes, trait anger rumination, emotion regulation difficulties,

and all the contextual risk factors (i.e., problematic substance use, negative affect, state

rumination) demonstrated a significant bivariate relationship to SIH perpetration (as

described above). These variables were therefore included in the final model, as well as

the control variables specified in the Data Analysis Plan section above (i.e.,

sociodemographic variables, socially desirable responding).

This hypothesis was partially supported. The overall model was significant, χ2(17)

= 148.44, Nagelkerke R2 = .33, p <.001 (see Table 3.10). Analyses revealed that

harassers/stalkers were significantly more likely to endorse greater stalking-related

attitudes (Exp(B) = 1.02, p < .001) and engage in more problematic substance use

(Exp(B) = 1.19, p = .007) and ruminative thinking (Exp(B) = 1.13, p < .001) at the time

of the event than non-harassers/stalkers. No other predictor in the model reached

 108

Table 3.10
Binary Logistic Regression Model Predictors for Non-Harassers/Stalkers and
Harassers/Stalkers (n =519)
95% CI for Odds Ratio
Predictor B SE p Lower OR Upper
Constant -4.62 .85 <.001 - 0.01 -
Historical
Sexual abuse victimization 0.83 .71 .241 0.57 2.29 9.12
Psychological &
Dispositional
BPD traits 0.11 .07 .112 0.98 1.11 1.27
Anxious attachment -0.01 .01 .419 0.96 0.99 1.02
Machiavellianism 0.05 .02 .055 1.0 1.05 1.10
Narcissism -0.01 .02 .788 0.95 0.99 1.04
Psychopathy 0.01 .03 .642 0.96 1.01 1.07
Sadism 0.00 .02 .958 0.96 1.00 1.05
Cognitive
Stalking-related attitudes 0.02 .00 <.001 1.01 1.02 1.03
Trait anger rumination -0.00 .01 .947 0.98 1.00 1.02
Affective
Emotion regulation
-0.00 .01 .621 0.99 1.00 1.01
difficulties
Contextual
Substance use problems 0.18 .07 .007 1.05 1.19 1.36
Negative affect 0.02 .01 .186 0.99 1.02 1.05
State rumination 0.12 .03 <.001 1.07 1.13 1.19
Control Variables
Age at time of pursuit -0.00 .00 .243 1.00 1.00 1.00
a
Gender -0.24 .24 .313 0.49 0.79 1.26
Race/ethnicityb -0.41 .23 .082 0.42 0.67 1.05
Socially desirable
-0.01 .04 .862 0.93 1.00 1.06
responding
Note. SE = Standard Error; OR = Odds Ratio; BPD = Borderline Personality Disorder
a
Female = 0, Male = 1; b White = 0, Non-white = 1. Shaded cells indicate predictors with
significant regression weights.
χ2(17) = 148.44, Nagelkerke R2 = .33, p <.001

significance (all p’s > .055).

Hypothesis 16: The models involving the subsample of harassers/stalkers would

significantly distinguish mixed harassers/stalkers from pure online and in-person

harassers/stalkers. Mixed harassers/stalkers would be associated with a greater

 109

number of risk factors and at more elevated levels than pure in-person and pure online

harassers/stalkers. Specifically, mixed harassers/stalkers would exhibit more elevated

levels of BPD traits, anxious attachment, and emotion regulation difficulties than pure

online or pure in-person harassers/stalkers. Additionally, mixed harassers/stalkers

would be associated with more problematic substance use, greater negative affect and

higher levels of trait anger and state rumination at the time of the event.

As noted previously, comparisons with pure online harassers/stalkers were not

conducted. Thus, a binary logistic regression was estimated to examine whether mixed

harassers/stalkers could be distinguished from pure in-person harassers/stalkers. Of the

hypothesized variables, BPD traits, narcissism, psychopathy, sadism, stalking-related

attitudes, emotion regulation difficulties, and problematic substance use and ruminative

thinking at the time of the event were significant at the bivariate level (as described

above). These variables were therefore included in the final model, as well as the control

variables specified in the Data Analysis Plan section above (i.e., sociodemographic

variables, socially desirable responding).

This hypothesis was partially supported. The overall model was significant, χ2(13)

= 58.16, Nagelkerke R2 = .28, p <.001 (see Table 3.11). Results indicated that mixed

harassers/stalkers endorsed significantly more stalking-related attitudes than pure in-

person harassers/stalkers (Exp(B) = 1.01, p = .010). In addition, mixed harassers/stalkers

were significantly more likely to engage in more problematic substance use (Exp(B) =

1.24, p = .006) and ruminative thinking (Exp(B) = 1.12, p = .004) at the time of the event

than pure in-person harassers/stalkers. There were no other significant predictors in the

model (all p’s > .181).

 110

Table 3.11
Binary Logistic Regression Model Predictors for Mixed and Pure In-Person
Harassers/Stalkers (n =243)
95% CI for Odds Ratio
Predictor B SE p Lower OR Upper
Constant -4.75 1.08 <.001 - 0.01 -
Psychological &
Dispositional
BPD traits 0.07 .09 .434 0.91 1.07 1.26
Narcissism 0.01 .03 .760 0.95 1.01 1.07
Psychopathy 0.05 .04 .181 0.98 1.05 1.13
Sadism -0.01 .03 .879 0.94 1.00 1.06
Cognitive
Stalking-related attitudes 0.01 .01 .010 1.00 1.01 1.02
Affective
Emotion regulation
0.00 .01 .830 0.99 1.00 1.02
difficulties
Contextual
Substance use problems 0.22 .08 .006 1.06 1.24 1.45
State rumination 0.11 .04 .004 1.04 1.12 1.21
Control Variables
Age at time of pursuit -0.00 .01 .732 0.99 1.00 1.01
a
Gender 0.43 .34 .211 0.79 1.53 2.99
Race/ethnicityb 0.40 .34 .238 0.77 1.50 2.93
c
Relationship to victim -0.04 .32 .896 0.51 0.96 1.79
Socially desirable
0.01 .05 .856 0.91 1.01 1.12
responding
Note. SE = Standard Error; OR = Odds Ratio; BPD = Borderline Personality Disorder
a
Female = 0, Male = 1; b White = 0, Non-white = 1; c (Ex)intimate partner = 0, Non-
intimate partner = 1. Shaded cells indicate predictors with significant regression weights.
χ2(13) = 58.16, Nagelkerke R2 = .28, p <.001

4. Descriptive Characteristics of Stalking Violence

This study also examined the prevalence of minor and severe stalking violence, as

measured by the CTS2 (Straus et al., 1996; see Table 3.12 for the frequency of stalking

violence behaviors perpetrated by harassers/stalkers). Whether there were any differences

in the type (e.g., physical, sexual) and severity of stalking violence perpetrated across

gender and relationship type was also determined. Of the subsample of harassers/stalkers,

170 (63.9%) did not engage in any stalking violence (i.e., not violent harassers/stalkers),
 111

Table 3.12
Type and Frequency of Minor and Severe Stalking Violence Perpetrated by
Harassers/Stalkers (n = 266)
Minor Stalking Violence n % Severe Stalking Violence n %
Threw something 33 12.4 Used a knife, gun, or other 12 4.5
weapon
Twisted arm or hair 24 9.0 Punched or hit with something 22 8.3
that could hurt
Slapped 31 11.7 Choked or strangled 16 6.0
Pushed or shoved 48 18.0 Slammed against a wall 18 6.8
Grabbed 49 18.4 Beat up 16 6.0
Insisted on sex 26 9.8 Burned or scalded on purpose 12 4.5
Insisted on oral or anal sex 14 5.3 Kicked 16 6.0
Made them have sex without 19 7.1 Used force to make them have 12 4.5
condom sex
Used force to make them have 21 7.9
oral or anal sex
Used threats to make them 10 3.8
have sex
Used threats to make them 12 4.5
have oral or anal sex
Drove a car at them 14 5.3
Hit their vehicle while they 15 5.6
were inside
Dragged on floor 13 4.9
Bit 14 5.3

51 (19.2%) engaged in minor and/or severe stalking violence (i.e.., severely violent

harassers/stalkers), and 45 (16.9%) engaged in minor stalking violence only (i.e.,

moderately violent harassers/stalkers). The demographic characteristics of each subgroup

are summarized in Table 3.13. One-way ANOVA and Pearson’s chi-square analyses did

not find any significant differences in the demographic characteristics of the three

stalking violence subgroups (all p’s > .019). Table 3.14 provides a summary of the

descriptive statistics perpetrated by each stalking violence subgroup, including mean

scores for the type and severity of violence, age at time of pursuit, relationship between

the harassers/stalkers and the victim, and the gender of the victim. Severely violent
 Table 3.13
Demographic Characteristics (M and SD or n and %) of the Stalking Violence Subgroups
Moderately Severely
Not Violent Violent Violent
Variable (n = 170) (n = 45) (n = 51) Test Statistic df p
Age 40.74 (12.16) 38.24 (10.22) 38 (11.27) F = 1.68 2, 262 .189
Gender χ2 = 3.12 4 .538
Cis/Trans man 94 (55.3) 23 (51.1) 31 (60.8)
Cis/Trans woman 72 (42.4) 22 (48.9) 18 (35.3)
Non-Binary/Genderfluid/Other 4 (2.4) 0 2 (3.9)
Race/Ethnicity χ2 = 24.29 12 .019
White, Non-Hispanic 126 (74.1) 32 (71.1) 30 (58.8)
Black/African American 22 (12.9) 7 (15.6) 10 (19.6)
Latinx/Hispanic 7 (4.1) 5 (11.1) 3 (5.9)
Asian/Pacific Islander 4 (2.4) 0 7 (13.7)
Other 11 (6.5) 1 (2.2) 1 (2)
Sexual Orientation χ2 = 8.58 14 .857
Heterosexual/Straight 138 (81.2) 35 (77.8) 42 (82.4)
Bisexual 13 (7.6) 7 (15.6) 7 (13.7)
Gay/Lesbian 7 (4.2) 2 (4.4) 0
Other 12 (7.2) 1 (2.2) 2 (4)
Socioeconomic Status χ2 = 11.16 8 .193
High 4 (2.4) 1 (2.2) 2 (3.9)
Medium-High 24 (14.1) 4 (8.9) 10 (19.6)
Medium 69 (40.6) 23 (51.1) 25 (49)
Medium-Low 41 (24.1) 13 (28.9) 12 (23.5)
Low 32 (18.8) 4 (8.9) 2 (3.9)
Relationship Status χ2 = 24.14 12 .019
Married/In a relationship 98 (57.1) 32 (71.2) 38 (74.5)
Single 51 (30) 10 (22.2) 9 (17.6)
Other 22 (13) 3 (6.6) 4 (7.9)
112
Employment Status χ2 = 21.88 14 .081
Employed Full/Part time 141 (82.9) 36 (80) 47 (92.2)
Unemployed 18 (10.5) 5 (11.1) 3 (5.9)
Retired 7 (4.1) 0 1 (2)
Student 0 2 (4.4) 0
Other 4 (2.4) 2 (4.4) 0
Education Level χ2 = 14.87 14 .387
Some High School 1 (0.6) 0 1 (2)
High School/GED 58 (34.2) 14 (31.2) 12 (23.5)
College/Trade/Vocational 85 (50) 24 (53.3) 30 (58.8)
Masters/Professional/Doctorate 26 (15.3) 7 (15.6) 8 (15.7)
Note. GED = General Educational Development.
113
Table 3.14
Descriptive Characteristics of Stalking Violence Perpetrated by Harassers/Stalkers
Moderately Severely
Not Violent Violent Violent
Variable (n = 170) (n = 45) (n = 51) Test Statistic df p
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Physical violence - 2.44 (4.17) 28.06 (45.99) F = 13.19 1, 93 <.001
Sexual violence - 1.71 (4.74) 14.18 (29.52) F = 7.29 1, 93 .008
Minor violence - 4.16 (5.93) 20.98 (33.34) F = 10.46 1, 93 .002
Severe violence - - 27.58 (55.61) - - -
Age at time of pursuit 26.41 (31.14) 24.11 (5.38) 28.61 (29.18) F = 0.24 2, 262 .789
n (%) n (%) n (%)
Gender of Victim χ2 = 6.69 2 .035
Male 71 (41.8) 23 (51.1) 31 (62)
Female 99 (58.2) 22 (48.9) 19 (38)
Relationship to Victim χ2 = 20.15 12 .064
Current Intimate Partner 17 (10) 7 (15.6) 9 (17.6)
Former Intimate Partner 65 (38.2) 25 (55.6) 15 (29.4)
Family member/relative 1 (0.6) 1 (2.2) 0 (0)
Friend 52 (30.6) 6 (13.3) 19 (37.3)
Acquaintance 32 (18.8) 5 (11.1) 7 (13.8)
Stranger 3 (1.8) 1 (2.2) 1 (2)
Note. Shaded cells indicate significant differences between moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers.
114
 115

harassers/stalkers engaged in significantly more physical, F(1, 93) = 13.19, p <.001, η2 =

.12, sexual, F(1, 93) = 7.29, p = .008, η2 = .07, and minor, F(1, 93) = 10.46, p = .002, η2 =

.10, forms of violence than moderately violent harassers/stalkers. There were no

significant differences between stalking violence subgroups in terms of their age at the

time of pursuit, the relationship to the victim, nor in the gender of the victim (all p’s >

.035).

A Pearson’s chi-square analysis revealed a significant association between

harasser/stalker type (i.e., mixed, pure in-person, and pure online) and stalking violence

perpetration, χ2(2, N = 266) = 20.45, p < .001, Cramer’s V = .28 (see Table 3.15). Follow-

up chi-square analyses indicated that a higher proportion of mixed harassers/stalkers

engaged in any stalking violence than those who only engaged in pure in-person, χ2(1, N

= 249) = 15.50, p < .001, φ = .25, or pure online, χ2(1, N = 144) = 8.67, Fisher’s exact p =

.004, φ = .25, SIH.

Table 3.15
Stalking Violence Perpetrated by Harasser/Stalker Subgroups (n and %)
Harasser/ Minor Violence Severe
Not Violent Any Violence
Stalker (n = 45) Violence
(n = 170) (n = 96)
Type (n = 51)
Pure In- 17 (13.9) 14 (11.5)
91 (74.6) 31 (25.4)
Person
Pure Online 15 (88.2) 2 (11.8) 2 (11.8) 0 (0)
Mixed 64 (50.4) 63 (49.6) 26 (20.5) 37 (29.1)

Hypothesis 17: Between 30% and 40% of harassers/stalkers would report engaging in

any form of stalking violence. Of these violent harassers/stalkers, the majority would

engage in minor violence only and less than half would engage in severe violence.

Severe violence would seldom occur in isolation, with over 90% of those committing

severe violence also engaging in minor violence.

 116

This hypothesis was partially supported. Of harassers/stalkers, 96 (36.1%)

reported engaging in some form of stalking violence. In contrast to predictions, the

majority of violent harassers/stalkers engaged in severe violence (n = 51, 53.1%) with

less than half engaging in minor violence only (n = 45, 46.9%). Consistent with

hypotheses, 46 (90.2%) of the severely violent harassers/stalkers engaged in both minor

and severe stalking violence; severe violence seldom occurred in isolation.

Hypothesis 18: While prior literature indicates women and men perpetrate stalking

violence at comparable rates, there are expected gender differences in the type and

severity of stalking violence perpetrated. Specifically, women would engage in more

minor forms of violence than men and men would commit more sexual violence than

women.

This hypothesis was partially supported. Consistent with prior literature, men (n =

54, 36.5%) and women (n = 40, 35.7%) engaged in stalking violence at comparable rates,

χ2(1, N = 260) = 0.02, p = .898. However, contrary to expectations, there were no

significant gender differences in the type and severity of stalking violence perpetrated.

Specifically, there were no significant gender differences in the perpetration of minor

stalking violence, F(1, 257) = 1.36, p = .244, or sexual violence, F(1, 257) = 2.5, p =

.115. Table 3.16 provides a summary of the mean scores for the different types and

severity of stalking violence perpetrated by gender.

Hypothesis 19: Harassers/stalkers targeting (ex)intimate partners would be more likely

to be violent than those targeting non-intimate partners (e.g., acquaintances,

strangers).

This hypothesis was not supported. Although a greater proportion of

 117

Table 3.16
Comparisons of Stalking Violence (M and SD) Perpetrated by Gender
Men Women
Variable F p
(n = 148) (n = 112)
Physical violence 7.63 (27.39) 3.63 (15.46) 1.83 .177
Sexual violence 4.32 (17.23) 1.44 (8.65) 2.50 .115
Minor violence 5.92 (19.48) 3.36 (12.76) 1.36 .244
Severe violence 7.63 (31.71) 2.46 (18.10) 2.28 .133
Note. ORI-PSF = Obsessive-Relational Intrusion Pursuit Short Form; COP = Cyber-
Obsessional Pursuit.

harassers/stalkers targeting (ex)intimate partners (n = 56, 40.6%) engaged in stalking

violence compared to those targeting non-intimate partners (n = 40, 31.3%), this

difference was not statistically significant, χ2(1, N = 266) = 2.51, p = .113.

5. Risk Factors for Stalking Violence

The present study explored whether an array of predisposing (i.e., historical,

psychological, dispositional, affective) and contextual factors were significantly related

to minor and severe stalking violence (see Table 3.17 for a summary of the risk factors

assessed). Multivariate analyses were also conducted with the variables significant at the

bivariate level to determine which factors contributed significantly to the prediction of

minor and severe stalking violence (Hypotheses 31 and 32).

Hypothesis 20: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would have a greater

history of minor violence than not violent harassers/stalkers. Severely violent

harassers/stalkers would endorse a more extensive history of severe violence than

moderately violent and not violent harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was supported. Significant differences in the historical

perpetration of minor violence were found between groups, F(2, 262) = 35.01, p <.001,

η2 = .21 (see Table 3.18 after Hypothesis 30 for means). Pairwise comparisons revealed
 118

Table 3.17
Summary of Risk Factors Assessed in Bivariate Analyses
Risk Factor Risk Factor & Corresponding Hypothesis
Domain
A. Historical History of minor violence (Hypothesis 20)
History of Severe Violence (Severely violent only;
Hypothesis 20)
Psychosis (Hypothesis 21)
B. Psychological & Borderline Personality Disorder traits (Hypothesis 22)
Dispositional Anxious attachment (Hypothesis 23)
Dark Tetrad traits (Hypothesis 24)
C. Affective Emotion regulation difficulties (Hypothesis 25)
Substance use problems (Severely violent only;
Hypothesis 26)
D. Contextual Negative affect (Hypothesis 27)
Threats/Approach/Property Destruction (Hypothesis 28)
Online SIH (Hypothesis 29)
Revenge/Reconciliation motive (Hypothesis 30)

that moderately, t(213) = 3.11, p =.006, d = 0.60, and severely, t(219) = 8.28, p <.001, d

= 1.32, violent harassers/stalkers had a significantly greater history of minor violence

than not violent harassers/stalkers. Additionally, severely violent harassers/stalkers had a

more extensive history of minor violence relative to moderately violent

harassers/stalkers, t(94) = 3.91, p <.001, d = 0.62.

A significant difference was also found between groups in the historical

perpetration of severe violence, F(2, 262) = 32.23, p <.001, η2 = .20 (see Table 3.18 after

Hypothesis 30 for means). Pairwise comparisons indicated that severely violent

harassers/stalkers had a significantly greater history of severe violence than moderately

violent harassers/stalkers, t(94) = 5.85, p <.001, d = 0.89, and not violent

harassers/stalkers, t(219) = 7.91, p <.001, d = 1.23. There was no significant difference in

 119

history of severe violence between not violent and moderately violent harassers/stalkers,

t(213) = 0.41, p = 1.00.

Hypothesis 21: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would be less likely

to report having a psychotic disorder than not violent harassers/stalkers.

Due to the small number of participants who endorsed having a psychotic disorder

(i.e., Schizophrenia Spectrum Disorder; n = 6, 1.1%), the analysis to assess this

hypothesis was not conducted.

Hypothesis 22: Severely violent harassers/stalkers would exhibit more BPD traits than

moderately violent and not violent harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was partially supported. Significant differences in BPD traits

were found between groups, F(2, 262) = 7.68, p <.001, η2 = .06 (see Table 3.18 after

Hypothesis 30 for means). Pairwise comparisons showed that severely violent

harassers/stalkers reported significantly higher levels of BPD traits than not violent

harassers/stalkers, t(219) = 3.43, p = .002, d = 0.47. No other group differences were

significant (all p’s > .028).

Hypothesis 23: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would report greater

anxious attachment than not violent harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was not supported. No significant difference in anxious

attachment was found between groups, F(2, 262) = 2.54, p = .081 (see Table 3.18 after

Hypothesis 30 for means).

Hypothesis 24: Severely violent harassers/stalkers would have higher levels of

narcissism, psychopathy, and sadism than not violent harassers/stalkers. Moderately

violent harassers/stalkers would endorse greater psychopathic and sadistic traits than
 120

not violent harassers/stalkers. Definitive hypotheses regarding Machiavellianism could

not be formulated given the lack of available research; however, it was hypothesized

that severely and moderately violent harassers/stalkers would exhibit higher trait

Machiavellianism than not violent harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was partially supported. Significant differences in levels of

narcissism, F(2, 262) = 6.98, p = .001, η2 = .05, and psychopathy, F(2, 262) = 23.38, p

<.001, η2 = .15, were found between groups (see Table 3.18 after Hypothesis 30 for

means). Pairwise comparisons revealed that severely violent harassers/stalkers had

significantly higher levels of narcissism, t(219) = 3.59, p = .001, d = 0.58, and

psychopathy, t(219) = 6.69, p <.001, d = 1.03 than not violent harassers/stalkers. In

addition, severely violent harassers/stalkers endorsed greater psychopathic traits than

their moderately violent counterparts, t(94) = 5.15, p <.001, d = 1.00. There were no

significant differences between groups in trait Machiavellianism, F(2, 262) = 1.27, p =

.282, or sadism, F(2, 262) = 2.15, p = .119.

Hypothesis 25: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would report greater

emotion regulation difficulties than not violent harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was partially supported. A significant difference in emotion

regulation difficulties was found between groups, F(2, 262) = 10.46, p <.001, η2 = .07

(see Table 3.18 after Hypothesis 30 for means). Pairwise comparisons found that severely

violent harassers/stalkers endorsed significantly greater emotion regulation difficulties

than not violent harassers/stalkers, t(219) = 4.47, p <.001, d = 0.58. Subscale score

analyses indicated that there were significant differences between groups specifically in

non-acceptance of emotional responses, F(2, 262) = 5.40, p = .005, η2 = .04, impulse

 121

control difficulties, F(2, 262) = 20.20, p < .001, η2 = .13, limited access to emotion

regulation strategies, F(2, 262) = 6.41, p = .002, η2 = .05, and lack of emotional clarity,

F(2, 262) = 8.72, p < .001, η2 = .06. For all subscales, severely violent harassers/stalkers

were significantly more likely to report greater difficulties than their not violent

harasser/stalker counterparts (all p’s < .004). Additionally, severely violent

harassers/stalkers had significantly higher impulse control difficulties than moderately

violent harassers/stalkers, t(94) = 3.06, p = .007, d = 0.60. No other group differences in

subscale scores were significant (all p’s > .021).

Hypothesis 26: Although previous research findings are mixed, it was expected that

severely violent harassers/stalkers would report more alcohol and drug use during the

pursuit than not violent harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was not supported. There was no significant difference in alcohol

or drug use during the pursuit between any of the groups, F(2, 262) = 2.59, p = .077.

Hypothesis 27: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would experience

more negative affect than not violent harassers/stalkers during their pursuit.

This hypothesis was not supported. No significant difference in negative affect

was found between groups, F(2, 262) = 2.86, p = .059.

Hypothesis 28a: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would report

engaging in more threats than not violent harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was partially supported. There was a significant difference

between groups in the amount of threats used during the pursuit, F(2, 262) = 37.70, p <

.001, η2 = .21 (see Table 3.18 after Hypothesis 30 for means). Pairwise comparisons

indicated that severely violent harassers/stalkers used significantly more threats during
 122

the pursuit than moderately violent, t(94) = 5.48, p <.001, d = 0.84, and not violent

harassers/stalkers, t(219) = 8.30, p < .001, d = 1.29.

Hypothesis 28b: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would endorse

more approach behaviors (e.g., following the victim, entering the victim’s house

without consent) than not violent harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was partially supported. There was a significant difference in the

amount of approach behaviors engaged in between groups, F(2, 262) = 39.98, p < .001,

η2 = .23 (see Table 3.18 after Hypothesis 30 for means). Pairwise comparisons showed

that severely violent harassers/stalkers were significantly more likely to approach the

victim than moderately violent, t(94) = 5.07, p <.001, d = 0.86, and not violent

harassers/stalkers, t(219) = 8.94, p < .001, d = 1.44. There was no significant difference

in approach behaviors between moderately violent and not violent harassers/stalkers,

t(213) = 2.32, p = .062.

Hypothesis 28c: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would be more

likely to damage or destroy the victim’s property than not violent harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was partially supported. There was a significant difference in the

destruction of property between groups, F(2, 262) = 27.40, p < .001, η2 = .17(see Table

3.18 after Hypothesis 30 for means). Pairwise comparisons revealed that severely violent

harassers/stalkers were significantly more likely to damage or destroy the victim’s

property than moderately violent, t(94) = 5.05, p <.001, d = 0.75, and not violent

harassers/stalkers, t(219) = 7.33, p < .001, d = 1.16. There was no significant difference

in property destruction between moderately violent and not violent harassers/stalkers,

t(213) = 0.84, p = 1.00.

 123

Hypothesis 29: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would report

engaging in more online SIH than not violent harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was partially supported. There was a significant difference

between groups in online SIH perpetration, F(2, 262) = 28.85, p < .001, η2 = .18 (see

Table 3.18 after Hypothesis 30 for means). Specifically, pairwise comparisons revealed

that severely violent harassers/stalkers engaged in significantly more online SIH than

moderately violent, t(94) = 5.01, p < .001, d = 0.78, and not violent, t(219) = 7.57, p <

.001, d = 1.18, harassers/stalkers. There was no significant difference in online SIH

between moderately violent and not violent harassers/stalkers, t(213) = 1.10, p = .814.

Hypothesis 30: Moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers would endorse more

vengeful and reconciliatory motives than not violent harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was not supported. There were no significant differences between

groups in the proportion of harassers/stalkers endorsing vengeful, χ2(2, N = 266) = 3.16, p

= .206, or reconciliatory, χ2(2, N = 266) = 0.75, p = .687, motives.

Table 3.18 summarizes the means and bivariate analyses of the historical,

psychological, dispositional, affective, and contextual risk factors assessed for not

violent, moderately violent, and severely violent harassers/stalkers.

Table 3.18
Risk Factors Differentiating Stalking Violence Subgroups (M and SD or n and %)
Moderately
Not Violent Violent Severely Violent Test
Risk Factors (n = 170) (n = 45) (n = 51) Statistic df p
Historical
History of minor violence 0.59 (1.16)ab 1.33 (1.48)ac 2.45 (2.02)bc F = 35.01 2, 262 <.001
History of severe violence 0.68 (2.01)a 0.87 (2.20)b 4.16 (4.60)ab F = 32.23 2, 262 <.001
Psychological & Dispositional
Borderline Personality Disorder traits 2.29 (2.17)a 3.22 (2.29) 3.33 (2.32)a F = 7.68 2, 262 <.001
Anxious Attachment 21.32 (10.66) 24.62 (10.54) 23.20 (8.16) F = 2.54 2, 262 .081
Machiavellianism 22.49 (5.57) 23.76 (4.37) 23.18 (5.34) F = 1.27 2, 262 .282
Narcissism 18.24 (6.27)a 20.02 (5.59) 21.84 (5.99)a F = 6.98 2, 262 .001
Psychopathy 13.11 (5.25)a 13.20 (4.71)b 18.76 (6.24)ab F = 23.38 2, 262 <.001
Sadism 16.85 (6.58) 17.84 (6.03) 18.61 (6.07) F = 2.15 2, 262 .119
Affective
Emotion regulation difficulties 79.25 (25.22)a 86.36 (21.02) 93.35 (20.60)a F = 10.46 2, 262 <.001
a
Non-acceptance of emotions 13.19 (6.31) 14.47 (5.86) 15.84 (5.72)a F = 5.40 2, 262 .005
Goal-directed behavior 13.49 (5.55) 14.89 (4.25) 13.51 (4.20) F = 1.54 2, 262 .217
Impulse control difficulties 11.24 (4.63)a 12.93 (4.43)b 15.55 (4.31)ab F = 20.20 2, 262 <.001
Lack of emotional awareness 14.22 (4.94) 13.62 (3.69) 15.96 (4.32) F = 3.92 2, 262 .021
Emotion regulation strategies 17.83 (7.52)a 19.62 (6.98) 21.16 (6.33)a F = 6.41 2, 262 .002
Lack of emotional clarity 9.28 (3.90)a 10.82 (3.12) 11.33 (4.05)a F = 8.72 2, 262 <.001
Contextual
Substance use problems 3.53 (2.10) 3.89 (2.26) 4.24 (2.00) F = 2.59 2, 262 .077
Negative affect 42.14 (11.22) 46.58 (10.68) 42.39 (13.08) F = 2.86 2, 262 .059
Threats 0.81 (3.21)a 1.69 (3.42)b 6.47 (7.07)ab F = 34.701 2, 262 <.001
Approach behaviors 2.95 (4.06)a 4.80 (4.88)b 9.75 (6.47)ab F = 39.98 2, 262 <.001
a b
Property destruction 0.07 (0.43) 0.16 (0.56) 0.78 (1.01)ab F = 27.401 2, 262 <.001
Online SIH 5.91 (7.80)a 7.80 (8.69)b 18.25 (16.54)ab F = 28.85 2, 262 <.001
Revenge motive 20 (11.8) 9 (20) 10 (19.6) χ2 = 3.16 2 .206
Reconciliation motive 64 (37.6) 20 (44.4) 19 (37.3) χ2 = 0.75 2 .687
Note. SIH = Stalking and intrusive harassment.
Shaded cells indicate significant differences between groups. Within each row, means with different superscripts (a, b, c) are significantly different
124

from one another at the SPSS corrected Bonferroni p-level.

 125

Hypothesis 31: The model would significantly predict minor and severe stalking

violence. Overall, a combination of predisposing (historical, psychological,

dispositional, and affective) and contextual risk factors would significantly predict

minor and severe stalking violence. Severely violent harassers/stalkers would be

associated with a greater number of risk factors and at more elevated levels than

moderately violent and not violent harassers/stalkers. Moderately violent

harassers/stalkers would be associated with more risk factors than not violent

harassers/stalkers.

This hypothesis was partially supported. As there were differences in the

significance of risk factors between groups at the bivariate level (as described above),

separate binary logistic regression models were conducted to examine the relationship

between these risk factors and the perpetration of minor and severe stalking violence.

Specifically, three binary logistic regression models were estimated to determine whether

not violent and moderately violent harassers/stalkers (Model 1), not violent and severely

violent harassers/stalkers (Model 2), and moderately and severely violent

harassers/stalkers (Model 3) could be distinguished from one another.

Of the hypothesized variables, only history of minor violence was found to

significantly differentiate not violent and moderately violent harassers/stalkers at the

bivariate level. Thus, this variable was entered with the aforementioned control variables

(i.e., age, gender, race/ethnicity, relationship to victim, socially desirable responding) in

Model 1. Overall, the model comparing not violent and moderately violent

harassers/stalkers was significant, χ2(6) = 20.74, Nagelkerke R2 = .15, p = .002 (see Table

3.19). Analyses revealed that moderately violent harassers/stalkers were significantly

 126

Table 3.19
Binary Logistic Regression Model Predictors for Not Violent and Moderately Violent
Harassers/Stalkers (Model 1; n =211)
95% CI for Odds Ratio
Predictor B SE p Lower OR Upper
Constant -0.59 .70 .403 - 0.56 -
Historical
History of minor violence 0.42 .13 .001 1.18 1.52 1.95
Control Variables
Age at time of pursuit -0.03 .02 .288 0.93 0.98 1.02
Gendera -0.29 .36 .430 0.37 0.75 1.53
b
Race/ethnicity 0.14 .42 .737 0.50 1.15 2.64
Relationship to victimc -1.13 .40 .005 0.15 0.32 0.71
Socially desirable
0.02 .05 .778 0.91 1.02 1.13
responding
Note. SE = Standard Error; OR = Odds Ratio
a
Female = 0, Male = 1; b White = 0, Non-white = 1; c (Ex)intimate partner = 0, Non-
intimate partner = 1. Shaded cells indicate predictors with significant regression weights.
χ2(6) = 20.74, Nagelkerke R2 = .15, p = .002

more likely to endorse a more extensive history of minor violence than not violent

harassers/stalkers (Exp(B) = 1.52, p = .001). Further, moderately violent

harassers/stalkers were significantly more likely to engage in minor violence against an

(ex)intimate partner than a non-intimate partner compared to not violent

harassers/stalkers (Exp(B) = 0.32, p = .005).

For not violent and severely violent harassers/stalkers, a combination of

predisposing (i.e., history of minor and severe violence, BPD traits, narcissism,

psychopathy, emotion regulation difficulties) and contextual (i.e., threats, approach

behaviors, property destruction, online SIH) variables were found to be significant at the

bivariate level. As such, these variables were included into Model 2 along with the

previously mentioned covariates. Although the overall model was significant, χ2(15) =

95.86, Nagelkerke R2 = .55, p <.001, only two of the predictors were significantly and

uniquely associated with severe stalking violence (see Table 3.20). Specifically, results
 127

Table 3.20
Binary Logistic Regression Model Predictors for Not Violent and Severely Violent
Harassers/Stalkers (Model 2; n =215)
95% CI for Odds Ratio
Predictor B SE p Lower OR Upper
Constant -6.62 1.54 <.001 - 0.00 -
Historical
History of minor violence 0.55 .21 .007 1.16 1.74 2.60
History of severe violence 0.06 .11 .561 0.87 1.06 1.30
Psychological &
Dispositional
BPD traits -0.15 .14 .277 0.66 0.86 1.13
Narcissism -0.04 .05 .379 0.87 0.96 1.05
Psychopathy 0.10 .05 .046 1.00 1.11 1.22
Affective
Emotion regulation
0.03 .01 .024 1.00 1.03 1.06
difficulties
Contextual
Threats -0.03 .11 .761 0.78 0.97 1.20
Approach behaviors 0.18 .06 .005 1.06 1.20 1.36
Property destruction 0.26 .62 .675 0.38 1.30 4.41
Online SIH -0.02 .03 .557 0.92 0.98 1.05
Control Variables
Age at time of pursuit -0.09 .91 .832 0.98 1.00 1.02
a
Gender -0.27 .52 .577 0.27 0.75 2.06
Race/ethnicityb 0.53 .54 .321 0.59 1.71 4.90
c
Relationship to victim -0.11 .48 .820 0.35 0.90 2.29
Socially desirable
0.13 .08 .108 0.97 1.14 1.35
responding
Note. SE = Standard Error; OR = Odds Ratio; BPD = Borderline Personality Disorder;
SIH = Stalking and Intrusive Harassment
a
Female = 0, Male = 1; b White = 0, Non-white = 1; c (Ex)intimate partner = 0, Non-
intimate partner = 1. Shaded cells indicate predictors with significant regression weights.
χ2(15) = 95.86, Nagelkerke R2 = .55, p <.001

indicated that severely violent harassers/stalkers endorsed a significantly greater history

of minor violence prior to the pursuit (Exp(B) = 1.74, p = .007), and were significantly

more likely to approach the victim (Exp(B) = 1.20, p = .005) than not violent

harassers/stalkers. No other predictor in the model was significant (all p’s > .024).

To explore which risk factors would differentiate between moderately and severely

violent harassers/stalkers, only those significant at the bivariate level were included in
 128

Model 3. These included predisposing (i.e., history of minor and severe violence,

psychopathy, impulse control difficulties) and contextual (i.e., threats, approach

behaviors, property destruction, online SIH) variables. Overall, the model comparing

moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers was significant, χ2(13) = 46.24,

Nagelkerke R2 = .52, p <.001 (see Table 3.21). While the overall model was significant,

none of the predictors contributed significantly to the model after accounting for all other

factors (all p’s > .020). It is possible that the small sample size (n = 94) impacted the

power of this analysis as multicollinearity issues were not identified (as noted in the Data

Analysis Plan section above).

Hypothesis 32: Given the lack of available research, definitive hypotheses regarding

the specific factors that would remain significant in the models could not be made.

However, it is expected that the presence of threats, problematic substance use,

negative affect (particularly anger), approach behavior, and a history of minor and

severe violence would significantly predict severe stalking violence. Additionally, it was

hypothesized that the presence of threats and a history of minor violence would predict

minor stalking violence.

This hypothesis was partially supported. As described above, a greater history of minor

violence was significantly associated with minor and stalking violence. Additionally,

harassers/stalkers were significantly more likely to engage in minor stalking violence

towards an (ex)intimate partner than a non-intimate partner. Severe stalking violence was

significantly predicted by a greater history of minor violence and more engagement in

approach behaviors. None of the risk factors that were significant at the bivariate level

significantly differentiated between minor and severe stalking violence.

 129

Table 3.21
Binary Logistic Regression Model Predictors for Moderately and Severely Violent
Harassers/Stalkers (Model 3; n = 94)
95% CI for Odds Ratio
Predictor B SE p Lower OR Upper
Constant -5.18 1.88 .006 - 0.01 -
Historical
History of minor violence -0.26 .23 .265 0.49 0.77 1.22
History of severe violence 0.33 .14 .020 1.05 1.39 1.84
Psychological &
Dispositional
Psychopathy 0.13 .06 .036 1.01 1.14 1.30
Affective
Impulse control difficulties 0.08 .07 .231 0.95 1.08 1.24
Contextual
Threats 0.00 .11 .987 0.81 1.00 1.24
Approach behaviors 0.07 .07 .278 0.94 1.08 1.23
Property destruction 0.77 .57 .176 0.71 2.16 6.63
Online SIH -0.02 .05 .744 0.90 0.99 1.08
Control Variables
Age at time of pursuit 0.02 .04 .712 0.94 1.02 1.10
Gendera -0.67 .66 .313 0.14 0.51 1.88
b
Race/ethnicity 0.56 .66 .393 0.58 1.76 6.41
Relationship to victimc 0.84 .60 .163 0.71 2.32 7.54
Socially desirable
0.13 .10 .209 0.93 1.13 1.38
responding
Note. SE = Standard Error; OR = Odds Ratio; SIH = Stalking and Intrusive Harassment
a
Female = 0, Male = 1; b White = 0, Non-white = 1; c (Ex)intimate partner = 0, Non-
intimate partner = 1.
χ2(13) = 46.24, Nagelkerke R2 = .52, p <.001
 130

CHAPTER IV – DISCUSSION

The purpose of the current study was to explore the risk factors for online and in-

person SIH and stalking violence in a community sample. This was done, at least in part,

to address concerns regarding the limited and discrepant findings of prior literature and

the paucity of research examining the generalizability of such risk factors to the general

adult population. Thus, the findings of the present study, discussed below, contribute to

and extend the extant literature to broader and seldom explored contexts. This has

important implications for the development and advancement of assessment, intervention,

and management strategies to better predict and mitigate risk.

1. Descriptive Characteristics of Online and In-Person Stalking and Intrusive

Harassment

Given the dearth of research, the first aim of this study was to examine the

characteristics associated with online and in-person SIH in the general adult population.

Consistent with hypotheses and prior research (e.g., Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007), the

present findings indicated that less than half of the sample (47.4%) engaged in SIH.

Regarding specific behaviors, harassers/stalkers more frequently engaged in minor or less

intrusive behaviors (e.g., sending unwanted gifts or messages, monitoring the victim)

than more serious or highly intrusive behaviors (e.g., verbal or physical threats). This is

in accordance with prior research and meta-analyses finding similar patterns of SIH

perpetration (Dardis & Gidycz, 2017; McEwan et al., 2020; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007;

Stefanska et al., 2021).

Approximately half of the harassers/stalkers in the current study engaged in both

online and in-person SIH, which was significantly below hypothesized rates (over 75%)
 131

identified by prior literature (e.g., Morgan & Truman, 2022; Sheridan & Grant, 2007).

This inconsistency is likely due to methodological differences in the focus on SIH

victimization/perpetration, the operationalization of SIH, and the population examined

(e.g., college and/or intimate partner stalker-victim relationships only). Additionally,

another explanatory factor is that the present study did not assess SIH perpetration within

a defined timeframe (e.g., within 12 months of data collection). Instead, participants were

asked to recall the most significant period of pursuit across their adult life. As such, it is

possible that participants reported on a SIH episode that occurred several years ago, when

electronic media was not as prevalent as it is currently. This aligns with the fact that the

average age of participants at the time of study completion was approximately 40 years,

whereas the mean age at the time of pursuit was approximately 26 years.

As predicted, the vast minority of harassers/stalkers (6.4%) endorsed engaging in

online SIH only, with the remainder (45.9%) indicating they engaged in in-person SIH

only. Whilst this may seem counterintuitive given the ubiquity and immediacy of

electronic media, it corresponds with previous findings that in-person SIH is more

prevalent than online SIH (e.g., Chan et al., 2022; Dardis & Gidycz, 2017, 2019). This

suggests that online SIH may often be used as an additional tool by a harasser/stalker to

extend their torment, pursuit, and monitoring of the victim into the online realm, or as a

precursor to in-person SIH (Nobles et al., 2014; Reyns & Fisher, 2018; Sheridan & Grant,

2007).

Unexpectedly, men (49%) were found to engage in SIH at comparable rates to

women (46%). Additionally, there were no differences in the type, frequency, or severity

of SIH behaviors perpetrated by men and women. While this contrasts with gender
 132

differences that are often observed in forensic samples and large population studies of

SIH victimization, these results correspond with research examining SIH perpetration in

community samples (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; Spitzberg et al., 2010) and in studies

that assess the full spectrum of SIH behaviors (Dutton & Winstead, 2006; Tassy &

Winstead, 2014). These results therefore emphasize the importance of avoiding gendered

assumptions about SIH in order to obtain a more complete understanding of SIH

perpetration and to better assess and manage risk.

Consistent with hypotheses, almost all harassers/stalkers in the current study

(98.1%) reported targeting a known victim. Just over half targeted an (ex)intimate

partner, which aligns with prior literature suggesting that (ex)intimate partner SIH is the

most common form of SIH (Morgan & Truman, 2022; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007).

However, contrary to expectations, harassers/stalkers targeting (ex)intimate partners did

not engage in a significantly more diverse or intrusive SIH campaign than those targeting

non-intimate partners (e.g., acquaintances, strangers). Prior research has consistently

demonstrated that harassers/stalkers targeting (ex)intimate partners are more violent, such

that they are more likely to threaten and follow through on those threats relative to those

targeting non-intimate partners (Mohandie et al., 2006; White et al., 2020). However,

research has also shown that harassers/stalkers seeking revenge for a perceived wrong are

significantly associated with greater persistence in stalking, regardless of the stalker-

victim relationship (Johnson & Thompson, 2016; Logan & Walker, 2017). Thus, it is

possible that the harassers/stalkers targeting non-intimate partners in this sample were

just as persistent and intrusive in their SIH behaviors as those targeting (ex)intimate

partners because they had vengeful motives (e.g., wanting to annoy or harm the victim in
 133

retaliation for a disagreement or fight). Further research directly comparing (ex)intimate

partner and non-intimate partner SIH by motivational type is therefore warranted to

clarify this finding.

In addition to examining the characteristics of online and in-person SIH, this

study explored the influential role of various predisposing (i.e., historical, psychological,

dispositional, cognitive, affective) and contextual factors on online and in-person SIH

perpetration. Elucidating the factors associated with an increased risk for engaging in

such behaviors is imperative for early detection, prevention, and intervention, and for the

development and implementation of relevant policy and law. To this end, the current

study ascertained the risk factors that are significantly associated with overall SIH

perpetration (i.e., non-harassers/stalkers vs. harassers/stalkers), as well as those that

discriminated the domain(s) in which SIH is perpetrated (i.e., pure in-person vs. mixed).

Due to the small sample size of pure online harassers/stalkers, comparative analyses

investigating shared and differential risk factors were limited only to pure in-person and

mixed harassers/stalkers.

2. Risk Factors for Online and In-Person Stalking and Intrusive Harassment

As expected, various psychological, dispositional, cognitive, affective, and

contextual risk factors were significantly associated with overall SIH perpetration at the

bivariate level. Specifically, results indicated that participants who engaged in any form

of SIH were significantly more likely to exhibit higher levels of BPD traits, anxious

attachment, and Dark Tetrad traits (i.e., Machiavellianism, narcissism, psychopathy,

sadism) than those who did not report engaging in SIH. Harassers/stalkers were also

significantly more likely to endorse more stalking-related attitudes and have greater
 134

emotion regulation difficulties and trait anger rumination than non-harassers/stalkers.

Additionally, harassers/stalkers were significantly more likely to report greater substance

use, ruminative thinking, and emotional distress during the pursuit than those who did not

engage in SIH. These findings align with a wealth of prior research identifying similar

positive relationships between these risk factors and SIH perpetration (e.g., Branković et

al., 2022; Chan et al., 2022; Dardis & Gidycz, 2019; De Smet et al., 2015; Johnson &

Thompson, 2016; Kircaburun et al., 2018; Ménard & Pincus, 2012; Smoker & March,

2017).

While a history of childhood abuse and maltreatment was not significantly

associated with SIH perpetration, those who engaged in SIH were significantly more

likely to have a history of sexual abuse victimization specifically. This is consistent with

Ménard and Pincus (2012), who found that sexual abuse victimization remained a unique

predictor of SIH perpetration over other forms of abuse in multivariate models for both

men and women. Notably, it is well-established that childhood abuse and maltreatment is

often a precursor to the development of various psychological factors that are often

correlated with SIH, including those that were found to have a significant relationship in

the current study (e.g., anxious attachment, BPD traits, problematic substance use;

Ménard & Pincus, 2012; Widom et al., 2006). Thus, these psychological and behavioral

outcomes of childhood abuse and maltreatment may be more salient risk factors for SIH

perpetration, and therefore more important for the assessment and management of SIH,

than a history of childhood abuse and maltreatment per se. Indeed, Dye and Davis (2003)

found that harsh parental discipline was indirectly associated with SIH perpetration

through the mediating variables of insecure attachment and negative affect. Thus,
 135

targeting these psychological and behavioral outcomes of childhood abuse and

maltreatment, which are dynamic in nature and therefore more amenable to intervention,

may prove more useful for risk management efforts.

Of the aforementioned risk factors, multivariate analyses revealed that overall

SIH perpetration was best predicted by greater endorsement of stalking-related attitudes

and engagement in more ruminative thinking and problematic substance use at the time

of the pursuit. The finding that greater acceptance of stalking-related attitudes is uniquely

predictive of SIH perpetration is consistent with prior research (Chan et al., 2022) and

parallels the literature on rape myth acceptance and rape perpetration (e.g., Sinclair,

2012). It is likely that having more stalking supportive beliefs enables an individual to

justify and minimize the nature of their SIH behaviors, thus permitting the perpetration

and persistence of this behavior. This is corroborated by previous research illustrating the

normalization of SIH behaviors through sociocultural structures (e.g., peer influences,

inaccurate media portrayals), which engenders a tolerance and acceptance for such

behaviors, particularly in the context of relational pursuit (e.g., persistent pursuit

following the dissolution of a relationship, monitoring behaviors to attain intimacy or

affection; Becker et al., 2020; Dunlap et al., 2015; Fox, Nobles & Akers, 2011; Lippman,

2018).

The finding that problematic substance use was significantly predictive of SIH

perpetration is consistent with prior research (e.g., Brem, Stuart, et al., 2021; Melton,

2007). Drawing from the I3 theory of intimate partner violence, problematic substance

use may act as a strong disinhibiting factor that overrides cognitive and self-regulatory

processes and increases the likelihood of SIH perpetration (Finkel & Eckhardt, 2013).
 136

This disinhibiting effect may be further exacerbated in the context of ruminative thinking

and cognitive biases, such as stalking-related attitudes. While it was beyond the scope of

the current study to examine interaction effects between variables, this would be an

important avenue for future research. The predictive relationship between ruminative

thinking and SIH perpetration lends further support to current theoretical models of SIH

(e.g., attachment theory, relational goal pursuit theory; Meloy, 1998; Spitzberg &

Cupach, 2014) and suggests that it has a critical role in sustaining SIH. These results

therefore illustrate the importance of considering both predisposing and contextual

factors together to better identify individuals at greater risk of SIH perpetration, and the

situations in which SIH is likely to occur.

Regarding the factors differentiating mixed and pure in-person SIH, mixed

harassers/stalkers were associated with a multitude of predisposing and contextual risk

factors at more elevated or extreme levels than pure in-person harassers/stalkers. As

hypothesized, mixed harassers/stalkers endorsed significantly higher levels of BPD traits,

narcissism, psychopathy, sadism, stalking-related attitudes, and emotion regulation

difficulties than their pure in-person counterparts. Additionally, mixed harassers/stalkers

were significantly more likely to engage in greater problematic substance use and

ruminative thinking at the time of the event. However, contrary to predictions, mixed

harassers/stalkers did not significantly differ from pure in-person harassers/stalkers in

terms of levels of anxious attachment, trait anger rumination, or negative affect. It is

possible that anxious attachment styles and anger rumination may only be useful in

identifying those who are more likely to engage in SIH more broadly, rather than

distinguishing the specific types of SIH that are likely to be perpetrated (Thompson et al.,
 137

2013). Similar arguments could also be made for why a significant difference in negative

affect during the pursuit was not found between pure in-person and mixed

harassers/stalkers.

Like the multivariate analyses with the entire sample, mixed harassers/stalkers

were differentiated from their pure in-person counterparts by a combination of

predisposing and contextual risk factors. Specifically, mixed SIH perpetration was

predicted by significantly greater stalking-related attitudes, as well as more problematic

substance use and ruminative thinking during the pursuit. As mentioned previously,

harassers/stalkers who are more supportive of stalking-related attitudes may perceive

their actions as acceptable and may therefore be more persistent and intrusive in their

actions across both online and in-person domains (Becker et al., 2020; Dunlap et al.,

2015; McKeon et al., 2015). This may be particularly true in the context of relational

pursuit (i.e., with the intention of initiating or re-establishing a personal connection or

relationship) or in the presence of disinhibiting and destabilizing factors, such as acute

substance use and ruminative thinking (Logan & Walker, 2017; Spitzberg & Cupach,

2014). While beyond the scope of the current study, future research should directly

examine these interaction effects using more sophisticated statistical techniques, such as

structural equation modeling or path analysis. Doing so would allow for a more nuanced

understanding of the etiology of SIH and the contexts in which it is likely to occur.

Regardless, the present results indicate that those who endorsed more elevated or extreme

levels of the above predisposing and contextual factors were significantly more likely to

engage in SIH in both the online and in-person domains.

 138

As is evident from the current findings and the extant literature, online and in-

person SIH is a prevalent phenomenon that is associated with numerous predisposing and

contextual risk factors. Given that previous research suggests a large proportion of SIH

campaigns escalate to violence (e.g., McEwan et al., 2012; Thompson et al., 2020), it is

imperative to obtain a better understanding of the prevalence, nature, and risk factors of

stalking violence to inform risk assessment and management efforts. Towards this aim,

the present study explored the characteristics of stalking violence in a community sample

to better contextualize the problem amongst the general adult population.

3. Descriptive Characteristics of Stalking Violence

Approximately one third of the current sample of harassers/stalkers reported

engaging in some form of stalking violence. This is consistent with prevalence rates

reported in prior research, which indicate that between 30% and 40% of SIH cases

escalate to violence (Churcher & Nesca, 2013; Rosenfeld, 2004; Spitzberg & Cupach,

2007, 2014; Thompson et al., 2012, 2013). In the current sample, just over half of the

violent harassers/stalkers engaged in severe violence (e.g., kicking, using a weapon,

forcing into sexual activities), which most often occurred in tandem with minor forms of

violence (e.g., throwing something, slapping, pushing); rarely did severe violence occur

in isolation. While these results generally align with previous research suggesting that

severe stalking violence often occurs in conjunction with minor stalking violence (e.g.,

Bendlin & Sheridan, 2021; McEwan et al., 2007, 2009; Thompson et al., 2013, 2020), it

contrasts with literature indicating that minor violence is more prevalent than severe

violence (e.g., James & Farnham, 2003; Thompson et al., 2013, 2020). This inconsistency

is likely due to differences in the population sampling method (e.g., college students,
 139

(ex)intimate partner context only) and in the operationalization of severe violence. Severe

violence in the current study was defined according to the “severe” behaviors outlined in

the CTS2, whereas severe violence in prior research has typically been defined by

behaviors that inflicted serious bodily injury (e.g., serious assault, homicide) on the

victim (though see Thompson et al., 2013 for an exception). For example, while kicking

the victim was classified as severe violence in the present study, it may have been

categorized as minor violence in previous research. Thus, the severe violence reported in

prior studies may reflect behaviors that are more serious or extreme in nature.

As hypothesized, there were no gender differences in the perpetration of stalking

violence in the current study. In other words, men and women engaged in stalking

violence at comparable rates, which corresponds with much of the extant literature (e.g.,

Brooks et al., 2021; McEwan et al., 2017; Sheridan & Roberts, 2011; Strand & McEwan,

2012; Thompson et al., 2012, 2013). However, in contrast with hypotheses and previous

research (e.g., Meloy, Mohandie & Green, 2011; Thompson et al., 2012, 2013), there

were no significant differences in the type and severity of stalking violence perpetrated.

These discrepant findings are likely due to differences in the population under study, as

previous research examined stalking violence in forensic (Meloy, Mohandie & Green,

2011), college (Thompson et al., 2012), or (ex)intimate partner (Thompson et al., 2013)

samples. These samples only reflect a subset of the general adult population and are

therefore unlikely to be representative of the entire scope of SIH and stalking violence

experiences. Overall, the current findings using a community sample of adults suggest

that stalking violence is not uncommon, that severe violence (e.g., kicking, choking,

burning, using a weapon, forcing into sexual activities) may be committed at higher rates
 140

than previously thought, and that women and men may engage in violent behaviors

during the SIH episode at comparable rates.

Surprisingly, harassers/stalkers who targeted an (ex)intimate partner were not

significantly more likely to engage in stalking violence compared to those who targeted a

non-intimate partner. Although this contrasts with a wealth of research indicating that

(ex)intimate partners are more dangerous than acquaintances or strangers (e.g., Churcher

& Nesca, 2013; James & Farnham, 2003; Rosenfeld, 2004; Strand & McEwan, 2012;

Thomas et al., 2008), some research suggests that (ex)intimate partner status does not

account for all instances of elevated violence risk. For example, in their community

sample of 1565 self-identified victims of stalking, Sheridan and Roberts (2011) found

that (ex)intimate partner status was only significantly predictive of minor stalking

violence, not severe stalking violence. While a similar trend was observed in the current

sample, the differences were not statistically significant. It is possible that (ex)intimate

partners may be more likely to engage in minor forms of violence to further a relational

goal (e.g., grabbing their partner to prevent them from leaving), as opposed to engaging

in serious violence to inflict bodily harm upon the target. However, this is merely

speculative and additional research examining minor and severe violence across

relational contexts in community samples must be conducted to clarify these potential

differences.

A notable finding of the current study was that mixed harassers/stalkers were

significantly more likely to engage in stalking violence than those who only perpetrated

SIH in a single domain (i.e., purely online or purely in-person harassers/stalkers). This

appears consistent with the broader threat assessment and public figure stalking literature,
 141

which suggests that there is a heightened level of violence risk when multiple methods of

communication (e.g., electronic and non-electronic means) are employed to contact the

target (e.g., Meloy, James, et al., 2011; Scalora, 2021; Schoeneman et al., 2011). This is

because engaging in multiple methods of communication reflects a greater intensity of

effort, which has consistently been found to be a critical predictor of problematic

approach and escalation to violence (Meloy, James, et al., 2011; Scalora et al., 2003,

2020). In addition, increased intensity of effort is also indicated by greater perseverance

(i.e., increased frequency of contacts) and persistence (i.e., increased duration of contact

over time) towards the target. Taken together, it is not surprising that mixed

harassers/stalkers were more likely to engage in stalking violence given that they engaged

in multiple methods of communication and demonstrated greater perseverance in their

pursuit.

4. Risk Factors for Stalking Violence

Consistent with hypotheses and the ITMSV (Thompson et al., 2013, 2020),

various predisposing (i.e., historical, dispositional, affective) and contextual risk factors

were significantly associated with severe stalking violence at the bivariate level.

Compared to harassers/stalkers who did not engage in any violence, severely violent

harassers/stalkers were significantly more likely to have a history of minor and severe

violence and exhibit greater levels of BPD traits, narcissism, psychopathy, emotion

regulation difficulties. Additionally, severely violent harassers/stalkers were significantly

more likely to engage in more threats, approach behaviors, property destruction, and

online SIH than not violent harassers/stalkers. As expected, fewer risk factors were

significantly associated with minor stalking violence than severe stalking violence.
 142

Specifically, only one predisposing risk factor (i.e., history of minor violence) was

identified as a significant correlate of minor violence relative to no violence. While this is

consistent with prior literature (McEwan et al., 2009; Sheridan & Roberts, 2011;

Thompson et al., 2013) and is indicative of a continuity of violence, further research is

required to investigate what other theoretically derived factors may be related to minor

stalking violence (e.g., antisocial attitudes, hostile attribution bias, moral disengagement;

Birch et al., 2018; Fissel et al., 2021; Fox, Nobles, & Akers, 2011).

Surprisingly, various hypothesized predisposing and contextual risk factors were

not significantly associated with minor or severe stalking violence. These included

anxious attachment, Machiavellianism, sadism, problematic substance use and negative

affect during the pursuit, and motive. Anxious attachment has previously been found to

have limited utility in predicting stalking violence (Thompson et al., 2013), suggesting

that it may be more useful in differentiating those who are more likely to engage in SIH

more broadly than stalking violence specifically. Consistent with the findings of the

present study, Thompson and colleagues (2013) posited that it was specific characteristics

associated with anxious attachment (e.g., narcissism, BPD traits) that may be more

pertinent to stalking violence than anxious attachment itself.

The current finding that Machiavellianism was not related to stalking violence

corresponds with prior research indicating that Machiavellianism is more closely

associated with relational aggression rather than physical or overt aggression (Jones &

Paulhus, 2010; Jones & Neria, 2015). Although sadism has been found to be significantly

correlated with general violence (Thomas & Egan, 2022), the present results suggest it

may not be linked to stalking violence specifically. This aligns with the fact that other
 143

risk factors associated with general violence (e.g., criminal history, psychosis, insecure

attachment) do not necessarily generalize to stalking violence. Stalking violence may be

driven by various goals or motivations, such as for relational purposes (e.g., grabbing a

partner to stop them from leaving) or for power and control (e.g., hitting a partner to

instill fear; Sptizberg & Cupach, 2007, 2014). As sadism involves engagement in

aggressive or violent behaviors for personal pleasure or gratification, it may be more

relevant to stalking violence committed for power and control reasons than in furtherance

of a relational goal. This supposition is supported by past research indicating that

individuals with high trait sadism are more motivated by control and dominance over

others, and may be more likely to engage in threatening or intimidating behaviors rather

than overt aggression or violence (Paulhus, 2014; Smoker & March, 2017). Alternatively,

there is research to suggest that sadism may be a more pertinent risk factor for stalking

violence for women than for men (March et al., 2020). Indeed, post-hoc exploratory

analyses indicated that high trait sadism was significantly associated with severe stalking

violence for female harassers/stalkers, but not for male harassers/stalkers. While March et

al. (2020) theorized this may be due to gender-specific motives, further research

examining the relationship between sadism and stalking violence across gender and

motivational types would be useful to clarify these findings and to ascertain possible

underlying causal mechanisms.

As discussed previously, the literature on the influential role of substance use on

stalking violence is mixed. However, the present results are consistent with prior research

finding that problematic substance use is not associated with stalking violence (e.g.,

Bendlin & Sheridan, 2021; Morrison, 2008). It is possible that problematic substance use
 144

may act as an exacerbating or disinhibiting factor, such that it may only increase the risk

of stalking violence when moderated by other risk factors. For example, Brem, Stuart,

and colleagues (2021) found that problematic substance use only significantly predicted

physical violence among dating college students who had average or high, but not low,

levels of emotion regulation difficulties. Future research should therefore examine how

predisposing and contextual risk factors may interact to best predict minor and severe

stalking violence.

The null finding of negative affect may have been an artifact of how it was

operationalized in the current study. Specifically, anger has consistently been identified

as a salient precursor for minor and severe stalking violence, whereas the research on

jealousy has been more equivocal (e.g., Bendlin & Sheridan, 2021; Morrison, 2008;

Thompson et al., 2013; Roberts, 2005). As negative affect was measured as a composite

variable comprised of both anger and jealousy (as well as other negative and positive

emotions), any variable associations between staking violence and these specific negative

emotions would have been negated. Indeed, post-hoc analyses indicated that assessing

anger and jealousy as separate variables revealed differential associations with stalking

violence. Specifically, anger was found to be a significant risk factor for severe stalking

violence, whilst jealousy was not. Another potentially contributing factor is that

participants were asked to rate their affect during the entire pursuit, as opposed to

immediately preceding their violent behavior. Thus, the measure used in the current study

may not have adequately captured their emotional state prior to their engagement in

stalking violence specifically. Given its significance to both SIH and general violence,
 145

the impact of negative affect and distress on stalking violence should continue to be

explored in future studies.

While the extant literature suggests that those motivated by revenge or

reconciliation are at greater risk of staking violence when compared to those with other

motives (e.g., McEwan et al., 2009, 2017), the current study did not find such a

relationship. It is possible that motive may not be as germane to stalking violence as other

contextual or predisposing factors in community samples, as much of the previous

research has been primarily conducted with forensic samples, though there are some

exceptions (e.g., Logan, 2022; Thompson et al., 2013). Further research replicating this

study is required to clarify these discrepant findings.

At the multivariate level, severely violent harassers/stalkers were significantly

more likely to have a greater history of minor violence and engage in more approach

behaviors towards the victim relative to not violent harassers/stalkers. Moderately violent

harassers/stalkers were distinguished from not violent harassers/stalkers by a greater

history of minor violence and having an (ex)intimate partner victim. These findings are

consistent with the ITMSV and prior literature indicating that stalking violence is best

predicted by a combination of predisposing and contextual risk factors (McEwan et al.,

2011; Thompson et al., 2013). Of note, few of the predisposing and contextual risk

factors associated with stalking violence at the bivariate level remained significant at the

multivariate level. This may have occurred because of the interrelationship between the

various psychological, dispositional, and affective factors included in analyses, which

may have limited the unique variance accounted for by each of these variables. Thus,

examining the mediating and moderating effects between the variables included in the
 146

model may reveal unique associations and a more nuanced understanding of the context

in which stalking violence may arise. This was beyond the scope of the current study, but

it would be an important avenue of future research.

What is notable is that a history of minor violence remained a significant and

unique predictor for both minor and severe violence. This corresponds with prior research

finding that a history of violence was the strongest risk factor for stalking violence

(McEwan et al., 2009; Sheridan & Roberts, 2011). Having a history of violence may

reflect underlying difficulties with anger management or emotion regulation, which may

thereby increase the occurrence of affective or reactive violence (McEwan et al., 2009).

In such situations, violence may have developed into a maladaptive coping strategy or

conflict resolution technique that was reinforced and learned over time, such that it

became more readily accessible than alternative coping strategies (Thompson et al.,

2013). Thus, harassers/stalkers with a history of minor violence may be more likely to

engage in violent behaviors in response to a triggering event (e.g., following an

interpersonal conflict). The positive relationship between approach behaviors and severe

stalking violence aligns with past research indicating that approach behaviors increase

stalking violence risk (McEwan et al., 2012, 2017; Sheridan & Roberts, 2011; Thomas et

al., 2008). This is not surprising as violence cannot occur without physical proximity to

the victim. In addition, the more a harasser/stalker approaches a victim, the greater the

likelihood that negative encounters may occur between the perpetrator and the victim.

This could exacerbate the intensity of negative emotions (e.g., anger) and consequently

result in severe violence (Thompson et al., 2020).

 147

The finding that moderately violent harassers/stalkers were significantly more

likely to target an (ex)intimate partner corresponds with research suggesting that

(ex)intimate partners are more dangerous than acquaintances or strangers (Churcher &

Nesca, 2013; James & Farnham, 2003; Rosenfeld, 2004; Strand & McEwan, 2012;

Thomas et al., 2008). Additionally, it lends further credence to the supposition noted

previously that (ex)intimate partners may be more likely to engage in minor forms of

violence, rather than severe violence, to further a relational goal (e.g., grabbing their

partner to prevent them from leaving). However, it is possible that this finding may be the

result of a suppressor effect, as relationship type was not significantly associated with

SIH at the bivariate level. Thus, this finding should be interpreted with caution.

Finally, while moderately and severely violent harassers/stalkers were

differentiated by multiple risk factors at the bivariate level (i.e., history of minor and

severe violence, psychopathy, impulsivity, threats, approach behaviors, property

destruction, online SIH), none remained significant at the multivariate level. This may

have been due to low power given the small sample sizes, the limited unique variance

accounted for by each of the variables, and/or the presence of suppressor effects. Further

research replicating this study with larger sample sizes should therefore be conducted to

clarify the present findings.

5. Implications for Risk Assessment and Management

Overall, the findings from this study present significant implications for the

assessment and management of SIH and stalking violence. Firstly, SIH and stalking

violence are prevalent within the general adult population, with women and men equally

as likely to engage in both SIH and stalking violence. It is therefore critical that risk
 148

assessments are not clouded by gender-biased assumptions as this may lead to inaccurate

estimations of risk, inadequate implementation of management and intervention

strategies, and potentially dire consequences and outcomes. All experiences of SIH

should be taken equally as seriously, perhaps especially in non-prototypical cases where

there is a female perpetrator, male victim, or same-gender perpetrator and victim. The

current findings therefore highlight the importance of anti-stalking education programs

aimed at challenging gendered perceptions of SIH and stalking violence in order to

ensure accurate and timely risk assessment, management, and legal recourse (Brooks et

al., 2021; Smoker & March, 2017).

Secondly, in line with a growing body of research, the present results emphasize

the necessity of considering both predisposing and contextual factors together in

assessments of risk (McEwan et al., 2011; Thompson et al., 2013). This is crucial to

better identify individuals at greater risk of engaging in SIH and stalking violence and the

situations in which such behaviors are likely to occur. This, in turn, could result in the

development and implementation of more effective prevention and management

strategies. This is consistent with the threat assessment literature more broadly, which

emphasizes the importance of considering pre-incident or warning behaviors (e.g.,

increased perseveration, anger, frequency of contact, approach behaviors; or intensity of

effort) when prioritizing cases and assessing imminent violence risk (Meloy, James, et

al., 2011). When warning behavioral patterns are present, it is indicative of an escalating

risk of violence. As violence risk is a dynamic and evolving process that varies

depending on contextual (e.g., behavioral, clinical, situational) factors, an individual’s

 149

risk of stalking violence should be regularly reassessed (Meloy, James, et al., 2011;

Thompson et al., 2013).

Even though many of the studied predisposing factors were not significant at the

multivariate level, consideration of factors with significant bivariate relationships may

still provide valuable insight for risk assessment and management efforts. This is because

there may be important mediating and moderating effects between these variables that

were not analyzed in the present study. The present findings indicate that SIH is more

likely to be perpetrated by individuals with more BPD and Dark Tetrad traits, anxious

attachment, emotion regulation difficulties, and negative affect during the pursuit. In

particular, greater stalking-related attitudes, problematic substance use, and ruminative

thinking were the most salient predictors of increased risk of SIH perpetration.

Harassers/stalkers with greater BPD traits, narcissism, psychopathy, emotion regulation

difficulties, and who engaged in more threats, property destruction, and online SIH were

more likely to perpetrate stalking violence. Notably, stalking violence is most likely to

occur when harassers/stalkers have a history of minor violence and engage in approach

behaviors that provide further opportunities for escalation, destabilization, and violence.

Thus, these predisposing and contextual risk factors should be included in existing

stalking risk assessment tools to improve the accuracy of SIH and stalking violence

evaluations.

In addition to risk assessment efforts, the current findings provide guidance for

the development and improvement of evidence-based management and intervention

strategies. As stalking-related attitudes was found to be a salient predictor of increased

SIH risk, it is paramount that stalking prevention education campaigns be developed to

 150

dispel these attitudes and misconceptions, as well as traditional gender stereotypes more

broadly, that serve to normalize and perpetuate a culture for such behaviors. Additionally,

these programs should educate individuals on the full spectrum of behaviors that may

constitute online and in-person SIH, as well as its impact on victims. Treatment programs

challenging stalking-related attitudes may be integrated into current, multi-modal

intervention programs that target other relevant risk factors for SIH and stalking violence

(e.g., BPD traits, anxious attachment, emotion regulation difficulties, problematic

substance use, ruminative thinking). Modalities such as Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy

(CBT) and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT) may be beneficial in addressing these

functional concerns (Rosenfeld et al., 2019). Additionally, social skills training,

substance use, anger management, and acceptance-based therapies may be helpful for

reducing ruminative thinking and improving problem-solving abilities to increase use of

adaptive and prosocial coping strategies to manage negative emotions and interpersonal

conflicts. Of considerable importance, intervention approaches should adhere to the

principles of the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model to manage risk of reoffending

most effectively (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). To this end, the intensity of treatment

provided should match the level of risk an individual poses (Risk principle). Additionally,

treatment should be tailored to address the relevant criminogenic needs or risk factors

that have been identified in the individual (Needs principle), whilst taking into account

the individual’s characteristics and situation (Responsivity principle; Andrews & Bonta,

2010).

Lastly, the current findings demonstrate the importance of discriminating the

domain(s) in which SIH is perpetrated, as well as disaggregating the severity of stalking

 151

violence into minor and severe forms of violence. The more extreme or elevated the risk

factor, the more likely the harasser/stalker is to engage in SIH in both the online and in-

person domains and to engage in more serious stalking violence. Additionally,

individuals who engaged in mixed SIH in the present study not only engaged in more

frequent and severe forms of SIH, but they were also significantly more likely to engage

in stalking violence compared to those who only perpetrated SIH in a single domain.

Consistent with the broader threat assessment and public figure stalking literature

(Meloy, James, et al., 2011; Scalora, 2021), this may suggest a greater intensity of effort,

and therefore a greater risk of stalking violence. Thus, enquiring about whether a

harasser/stalker is engaging in SIH behaviors in both online and in-person domains, and

the trajectory of when they moved into the in-person domain, may be a critical

determinant of increased violence risk (Scalora et al., 2003; Sheridan & Grant, 2007).

Integrating interventions targeting online SIH (e.g., use of online privacy or security

measures), as well as problematic approach (e.g., use of boundary-setting measures, such

as protection orders), into management strategies would therefore be crucial for

mitigating stalking violence risk.

6. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Notwithstanding its important contributions, the present study is not without its

limitations. Firstly, the present study utilized a sample of adults recruited via Prolific and

Amazon MTurk. While significantly more diverse in various aspects than other

commonly used samples (e.g., undergraduate students), the current sample was

predominantly comprised of white, highly educated participants of higher socioeconomic

status. Additionally, as online crowdsourcing platforms were used, this limited the
 152

participant pool to those who had computer and internet access. As such, the current

sample may not be entirely representative of the general US adult population.

Although the methodology of the current study presented many advantages to

enhance the understanding of SIH and stalking violence perpetration within a community

sample, it relied upon self-report, retrospective data, which is subject to cognitive biases

and may thus be unreliable. Additionally, SIH and stalking violence are behaviors that

are typically considered to be socially undesirable and are therefore more likely to be

underreported. However, the effects of response bias were minimized through the

inclusion of social desirability as a covariate in the analyses and by the anonymous nature

of the survey. Moreover, participants were asked to report on the most significant episode

of SIH they engaged in during their adult life, without any time restrictions. Whilst

important to examine SIH perpetration across time, this approach prevented cases from

being compared across a single time period. Many participants recalled a SIH episode

from several years ago, prior to the proliferation of technology and electronic media,

which may have impacted the prevalence and use of online SIH in the current sample.

Despite this, it is noteworthy that online SIH was still found to be positively associated

with stalking violence. Future research should consider examining SIH and stalking

violence within a specific timeframe (e.g., within the past 12 months of data collection)

to better examine more contemporary patterns of SIH behavior and its escalation to

violence.

In addition, the current data was cross-sectional, which not only precludes causal

inferences or any definitive predictor variables from being drawn, but it also prevents the

temporal order or trajectory of online and in-person SIH and stalking violence from being
 153

determined. Further research assessing both forms of SIH perpetration, stalking violence,

and hypothesized predictors at multiple time points should be conducted in order to

elucidate the etiology and trajectory of SIH perpetration and its escalation to violence. It

would also be important to establish whether there are differentiating factors or

motivations underlying different patterns of crossover behavior (e.g., online to in-person,

in-person to online) to determine when a harasser/stalker may be at greater risk of

engaging in violent behaviors, and to identify the most important times for behavioral

intervention and management.

While the overall sample size was relatively large, the low base rate of pure

online harassers/stalkers precluded the inclusion of this group in comparative analyses.

As such, some hypotheses could not be assessed due to potential power concerns

associated with the low sample size. Analyses assessing hypotheses related to psychosis

and its relation to SIH and stalking violence could not be conducted for similar reasons.

Further, it is possible that other comparative analyses were impacted by small sample

sizes and may have been underpowered (e.g., moderately and severely violent

harassers/stalkers). Funding limitations and time constraints restricted the ability to

collect a larger sample for the current study; scholars should therefore consider

replicating this study with a larger sample to clarify the current findings and to determine

the shared and differential risk factors for online, in-person, and mixed SIH perpetration.

In the current study, gender was assessed as a dichotomous variable, with those

identifying as cisgender or transgender women categorized as “female” and those

identifying as cisgender or transgender men categorized as “male.” However, it must be

acknowledged that the SIH and stalking violence experiences of transgender individuals
 154

are likely to differ from cisgender individuals. Indeed, although the literature is limited,

research suggests there are differences in the specific behaviors, correlates, and outcomes

associated with SIH perpetration amongst sexual and gender minorities (SGM; e.g.,

transgender, non-binary, genderfluid) compared to heterosexual, cisgender individuals

(Edwards et al., 2022). Thus, to address this issue, the analyses described above were re-

examined with the gender variable recoded as “cisgender female/cisgender male” and

“cisgender male/gender minority status (i.e., cisgender female, transgender, non-binary,

genderfluid)”; however, there were no differences between the results obtained with these

different permutations and those that are presented in the Results section above. Given

the significant implications, it is crucial that future research continue to study SIH and

stalking violence with SGM individuals to determine what shared and differential factors

may impact levels of risk.

Lastly, while this study explored a broad range of risk factors associated with

SIH and stalking violence, no information about cultural or protective factors was

obtained. The violence risk assessment literature has highlighted the importance of a

more balanced approach incorporating both risk and protective factors in the assessment

of risk (de Vries Robbé & Willis, 2017; McEwan et al., 2011). This is because protective

factors (e.g., coping strategies, work or leisure activities, social support) may

counterbalance or mitigate identified risk factors, thereby reducing overall level of risk.

Thus, integration of cultural, risk, and protective factors in future studies would allow for

a more holistic and culturally sensitive understanding of risk for SIH and its escalation to

stalking violence. Consideration of protective factors would also provide valuable

 155

insights into the development of more effective intervention and management plans (de

Vries Robbé & Willis, 2017; Kim, 2023).

6.1. Future Research Directions

While the examination of risk factors for SIH and stalking violence is crucial for

risk assessment and management efforts, there is a dearth of research investigating the

effectiveness of treatment approaches for harassers/stalkers (Rosenfeld et al., 2019). A

randomized controlled trial examining the utility of DBT amongst stalking offenders

found that DBT was just as efficacious as a cognitive-behavioral anger management

therapy in improving treatment outcomes (e.g., impulsivity, anger, aggression, empathy)

and reducing recidivism (Rosenfeld et al., 2019). Although preliminary, their results

indicated that it was rigorous treatment focused on addressing the underlying risk factors

of SIH and stalking violence generally that proved most effective, rather than a specific

treatment modality or approach. To better inform intervention and management

strategies, it is crucial that further research continues to explore what therapeutic

interventions or approaches may be most effective in treating SIH and stalking violence

and mitigating risk.

An additional area of future research includes more specific examination of SIH

and stalking violence across gender, relational (e.g., (ex)intimate partner vs. non-intimate

partner), and dyadic (e.g., same- and opposite-sex dyads) contexts. Whereas some

research suggests there are similar risk factors for female and male harassers/stalkers

(e.g., Meloy, James, et al., 2011; Strand & McEwan, 2012; Thompson et al., 2012),

others have identified gender differences in the influential role of the Dark Tetrad traits

(March et al., 2020; Ménard & Pincus, 2012; Smoker & March, 2017), rumination (De
 156

Smet et al., 2015; McEwan et al., 2020), online SIH (Watkins et al., 2022), and negative

affect (Logan, 2022; Strawhun et al., 2013) on SIH and stalking violence. Similarly,

distinctions are often made in the literature by stalker-victim relationship type.

Specifically, harassers/stalkers targeting an (ex)intimate partner may be more likely to

engage in stalking violence in the context of specific risk factors (e.g., threats, psychosis)

when compared to those targeting non-intimate partners (McEwan et al., 2009). Finally,

most of the extant literature has examined SIH in the context of opposite-sex dyads (e.g.,

male perpetrator, female victim). A limited body of research has examined SIH in same-

sex dyads, and none have investigated whether there are common or differential risk

factors associated with SIH and stalking violence in same- and opposite-sex dyads. Meta-

analytical research indicates there may be differences in the frequency of SIH behaviors

across dyad types, such that same-sex dyads engaged in higher rates of SIH than

opposite-sex dyads; however, it is noted that few of the included studies provided

information on LGBTQ+ identity (Spitzberg et al., 2010). Thus, further research

investigating the risk factors for SIH and stalking violence in same- and opposite-sex

dyads, whilst considering the intersection of LGBTQ+ identity, is required.

7. Conclusions

Overall, the present study enhanced understanding of SIH and stalking violence

by extending the literature into broader and seldom explored contexts. Whilst prior

research has mostly examined risk factors for SIH and stalking violence in college and

forensic samples, this is one of the few studies to have examined SIH and stalking

violence perpetration in a community sample. Conducting the study in this manner

revealed key differences in the nature and extent of risk factors associated with pure in-
 157

person and mixed SIH perpetration, as well as minor and severe stalking violence.

Notably, the present findings demonstrated the critical importance of considering both

predisposing (e.g., historical, dispositional, cognitive, affective) and contextual risk

factors together to enhance risk assessment efforts and to identify salient targets for

intervention. These findings therefore emphasize the need for continued research

examining predisposing and contextual risk factors for SIH and stalking violence to better

predict and mitigate future risk. Further, the present study contributes to the growing

body of literature highlighting the value of examining online SIH perpetration for risk

assessment and management purposes. Although preliminary, the current findings

indicate that engagement in online SIH, especially when perpetrated in conjunction with

in-person SIH, may be an additional step on the pathway to stalking violence. Given the

ongoing proliferation and advancement of technology and electronic communication, it is

imperative that this area of research continue to be studied to inform the development and

implementation of relevant law, policy, and intervention and violence prevention

programs.
 158

References

Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice.

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018362.

Anestis, M. D., Anestis, J. C., Selby, E. A., & Joiner, T. E. (2009). Anger rumination

across forms of aggression. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(2), 192-

196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.09.026

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2016). Personal Safety Survey, Australia.

https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-safety-

australia/2016

Basile, K. C., Swahn, M. H., Chen, J., & Saltzman, L. E. (2006). Stalking in the United

States: Recent national prevalence estimates. American Journal of Preventative

Medicine, 31(2), 172 – 175.

Baum, K., Catalano, S., Rand, M., & Rose, K. (2009, January). Stalking victimization in

the United States (NCJ 224527). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Programs,

U.S. Department of Justice.

Becker, A., Ford, J. V., & Valshtein, T. J. (2020). Confusing stalking for romance:

Examining the labeling and acceptability of men’s (cyber) stalking of women. Sex

Roles, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01205-2

Bendlin, M., & Sheridan, L. (2021). Risk factors for severe violence in intimate partner

stalking situations: An analysis of police records. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 36(17-18), 7895-7916. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519847776

 159

Berinsky, A. J., Margolis, M. F., & Sances, M. W. (2014). Separating the shirkers from

the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self‐administered surveys.

American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 739-753.

https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12081

Berman, A. H., Bergman, H., Palmstierna, T., & Schlyter, F. (2005). Evaluation of the

Drug Use Disorders Identification Test (DUDIT) in criminal justice and

detoxification settings and in a Swedish population sample. European addiction

research, 11(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1159/000081413

Birch, P., Ireland, J. L., & Ninaus, N. (2018). Treating stalking behaviour: A framework

for understanding process components . In J. L. Ireland, P. Birch, & C. A. Ireland

(Eds.), The Routledge international handbook of human aggression: Current issues

and perspectives (pp. 194-204). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315618777-

16

Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M. L., Merrick, M. T.,

& Stevens, M. R. (2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey:

2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and

Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Branković, I., Dinić, B.M. & Jonason, P.K. (2022). How traditional stalking and

cyberstalking correlate with the Dark Tetrad traits? Current Psychology, 1-5.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03681-z

Brem, M. J., Florimbio, A. R., Grigorian, H., Wolford-Clevenger, C., Elmquist, J.,

Shorey, R. C., Rothman, E. F., Temple, J. R., & Stuart, G. L. (2019). Cyber abuse

among men arrested for domestic violence: Cyber monitoring moderates the
 160

relationship between alcohol problems and intimate partner violence. Psychology of

Violence, 9(4), 410–418. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000130

Brem, M. J., Romero, G., Garner, A. R., Grigorian, H., & Stuart, G. L. (2021). Alcohol

problems, jealousy, and cyber dating abuse perpetration among men and women:

Toward a conceptual model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19-20),

NP10205–NP10228. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519873333

Brem, M. J., Stuart, G. L., Cornelius, T. L., & Shorey, R. C. (2021). A longitudinal

examination of alcohol problems and cyber, psychological, and physical dating

abuse: The moderating role of emotion dysregulation. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 36(19–20), NP10499–NP10519.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519876029

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. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance

Summaries (Washington, DC: 2002), 63(8), 1-18.

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

attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),

Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford

Press.

Brooks, N., Petherick, W., Kannan, A., Stapleton, P., & Davidson, S. (2021).

Understanding female-perpetrated stalking. Journal of Threat Assessment and

Management, 8(3), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000162

 161

Brownhalls, J., Duffy, A., Eriksson, L., & Barlow, F. K. (2021). Reintroducing

rationalization: A study of relational goal pursuit theory of intimate partner

obsessive relational intrusion. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13–14),

NP6928–NP6950. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518822339

Buckels, E. E., Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). Behavioral confirmation of

everyday sadism. Psychological Science, 24(11), 2201–2209.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613490749

Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A

new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 6, 3–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

Buhrmester, M. D., Talaifar, S., & Gosling, S. D. (2018). An evaluation of Amazon’s

Mechanical Turk, its rapid rise, and its effective use. Perspectives on

Psychological Science, 13, 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617706516

Bush, K., Kivlahan, D. R., McDonell, M. B., Fihn, S. D., & Bradley, K. A. (1998). The

AUDIT alcohol consumption questions (AUDIT-C): An effective brief screening

test for problem drinking. Ambulatory Care Quality Improvement Project

(ACQUIP). Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Archives of Internal

Medicine, 158(16), 1789–1795. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.158.16.1789

Carver C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but your protocol's too long: Consider

the brief COPE. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4(1), 92–100.

https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327558ijbm0401_6

Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of

participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-
 162

face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156–2160.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009

Cavezza, C., & McEwan, T. E. (2014). Cyberstalking versus off-line stalking in a

forensic sample. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(10), 955–970.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2014.893334

Chabrol, H., Van Leeuwen, N., Rodgers, R., & Séjourné, N. (2009). Contributions of

psychopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian, and sadistic personality traits to

juvenile delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(7), 734–739.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.06.020

Chan, E., Viñas-Racionero, M. R., & Scalora, M. J. (2022). Bridging the gap: The

predictive roles of emotion dysregulation and stalking-related attitudes on offline

and online stalking and intrusive harassment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,

37(21-22), NP19331-NP19357. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211043590

Chen, A. (2019). From attachment to addiction: The mediating role of need satisfaction

on social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 98, 80-92.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.034

Cheyne, N., & Guggisberg, M. (2018). Stalking: An age old problem with new

expressions in the digital age. In M. Guggisberg, & J. Henricksen (Eds.) Violence

against women in the 21st century: Challenges and future directions (pp.161-

190), Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Chmielewski, M., & Kucker, S. C. (2020). An MTurk crisis? Shifts in data quality and

the impact on study results. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(4),

464–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619875149
 163

Churcher, F. P., & Nesca, M. (2013). Risk factors for violence in stalking perpetration: A

meta-analysis. FWU Journal of Social Sciences, 7(2), 100-112.

Collison, K. L., & Lynam, D. R. (2021). Personality disorders as predictors of intimate

partner violence: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 88, 102047.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2021.102047

Crane, C. A., Umehira, N., Berbary, C., & Easton, C. J. (2018). Problematic alcohol use

as a risk factor for cyber aggression within romantic relationships. The American

Journal on Addictions, 27(5), 400–406. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajad.12736

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. A. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent

of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349-354.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358

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

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

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805916

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

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

goal pursuit theory. Communication Reports, 24, 99-115.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08934215.2011.613737

Dardis, C. M., & Gidycz, C. A. (2017). The frequency and perceived impact of engaging

in in-person and cyber unwanted pursuit after relationship break-up among college

men and women. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 76(1-2), 56–72.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0667-1

Dardis, C. M., & Gidycz, C. A. (2019). Reconciliation or retaliation? An integrative

 164

model of postrelationship in-person and cyber unwanted pursuit perpetration among

undergraduate men and women. Psychology of Violence, 9(3), 328–339.

https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000102

Denson, T. F., Pedersen, W. C., Friese, M., Hahm, A., & Roberts, L. (2011).

Understanding impulsive aggression: Angry rumination and reduced self-control

capacity are mechanisms underlying the provocation-aggression relationship.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 850–862.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211401420

De Smet, O., Loeys, T., & Buysse, A. (2012). Post-breakup unwanted pursuit: A refined

analysis of the role of romantic relationship characteristics. Journal of Family

Violence, 27(5), 437–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-012-9437-1

De Smet, O., Uzieblo, K., Loeys, T., Buysse, A., & Onraedt, T. (2015). Unwanted pursuit

behavior after breakup: Occurrence, risk factors, and gender differences. Journal

of Family Violence, 30(6), 753–767. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-015-9687-9

de Vries Robbé, M., & Willis, G. M. (2017). Assessment of protective factors in clinical

practice. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 32, 55–63.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.12.006

Douglas, B. D., Ewell, P. J., & Brauer, M. (2023). Data quality in online human-subjects

research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and

SONA. PloS one, 18(3), e0279720. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0279720

Douglas, K. S., Guy, L. S., & Hart, S. D. (2009). Psychosis as a risk factor for violence to

others: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 135(5), 679–706.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016311
 165

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

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

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

https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0231

Dressing, H., Kuehner, C., & Gass, P. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and impact of stalking

in a European population: Epidemiological data from a middle-sized German city.

The British Journal of Psychiatry: The Journal of Mental Science, 187, 168–172.

https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.187.2.168

Duke, A. A., Smith, K. M. Z., Oberleitner, L. M. S., Westphal, A., & McKee, S. A.

(2018). Alcohol, drugs, and violence: A meta-meta-analysis. Psychology of

Violence, 8(2), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000106

Dunlap, E. E., Lynch, K. R., Jewell, J. A., Wasarhaley, N. E., & Golding, J. M. (2015).

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

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.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407506065984

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

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

https://doi.org/10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.163
 166

Edwards, K. M., Camp, E. E., Lim, S., Logan, T. K., Shorey, R. C., & Babchuk, W.

(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

Finkel, E. J., & Eckhardt, C. I. (2013). Intimate partner violence. In J. A. Simpson & L.

Campbell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of close relationships (pp. 452-474). New

York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Fischer, D. G., & Fick, C. (1993). Measuring social desirability: Short forms of the

Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Educational and Psychological

measurement, 53(2), 417-424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164493053002011

Fissel, E. R., Fisher, B. S., & Nedelec, J. L. (2021). Cyberstalking perpetration among

young adults: An assessment of the effects of low self-control and moral

disengagement. Crime & Delinquency, 67(12), 1935–1961.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128721989079

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.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.10.002

Fox, K. A., Nobles, M. R., & Fisher, B. S. (2011). Method behind the madness: An

examination of stalking measurements. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(1),

74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2010.12.004

Gardner, F. L., Moore, Z. E., & Dettore, M. (2014). The relationship between anger,

childhood maltreatment, and emotion regulation difficulties in intimate partner and

non-intimate partner violent offenders. Behavior Modification, 38(6), 779–800.

 167

https://doi.org/10.1177/0145445514539346

Garnefski, N., & Kraaij, V. (2007). The Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire:

Psychometric features and prospective relationships with depression and anxiety in

adults. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 141–149.

https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.23.3.141

Garnefski, N., Kraaij, V., & Spinhoven, P. (2002). Manual for the use of the Cognitive

Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Leiderdorp, The Netherlands: DATEC.

Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA:

Stanford University Press.

Gratz, K. L., & Roemer, L. (2004). Multidimensional assessment of emotion regulation

and dysregulation: Development, factor structure, and initial validation of the

Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and

Behavioral Assessment, 26(1), 41-54.

https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOBA.0000007455.08539.94

Hildebrand, M. (2015). The psychometric properties of the Drug Use Disorders

Identification Test (DUDIT): A review of recent research. Journal of Substance

Abuse Treatment, 53, 52-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2015.01.008

Howard, R. (2015). Personality disorders and violence: What is the link? Borderline

Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 2(1), 1-11.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-015-0033-x

Hyler, S. E. (1994). PDQ-4 Personality Questionnaire (Unpublished scale). New York:

New York State Psychiatric Institute.

James, D. V., & Farnham, F. R. (2003). Stalking and serious violence. Journal of the
 168

American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31, 432-439.

Johnson, E. F., & Thompson, C. M. (2016). Factors associated with stalking persistence.

Psychology, Crime & Law, 22(9), 879–902.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2016.1197225

Jones, D. N., & Neria, A. L. (2015). The Dark Triad and dispositional aggression.

Personality and Individual Differences, 86, 360–364.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.06.021

Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2010). Different provocations trigger aggression in

narcissists and psychopaths. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 12–

18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550609347591

Kim, B. (2023). A multilevel meta-analysis of cyberstalking: Domains (and subdomains)

of contributing factors. Journal of Criminal Justice, 87, 102084.

Kircaburun, K., Jonason, P. K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2018). The Dark Tetrad traits and

problematic social media use: The mediating role of cyberbullying and

cyberstalking. Personality and Individual Differences, 135, 264–269.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.07.034

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

validation of the Guidelines for Stalking Assessment and Management. Behavioral

Sciences & the Law, 29(2), 302–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.978

Kung, F. Y. H., Kwok, N., & Brown, D. J. (2018). Are attention check questions a threat

to scale validity? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 67(2), 264–283.

https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12108

Lafontaine, M.-F., Brassard, A., Lussier, Y., Valois, P., Shaver, P. R., & Johnson, S. M.
 169

(2016). Selecting the best items for a short-form of the Experiences in Close

Relationships questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(2),

140–154. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000243

Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2012). Gender and stalking: Current intersections and future

directions. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 66(5-6), 418–426.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0093-3

Lippman, J. R. (2018). I did it because I never stopped loving you: The effects of media

portrayals of persistent pursuit on beliefs about stalking. Communication Research,

45(3), 394-421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215570653

Logan, T. (2022). Examining stalking assault by victim gender, stalker gender, and

victim-stalker relationship. Journal of Family Violence, 37, 87-97.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00221-w

Logan, T. K., & Walker, R. (2017). Stalking: A multidimensional framework for

assessment and safety planning. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(2), 200–222.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015603210

Loo, R., & Thorpe, K. (2000). Confirmatory factor analyses of the full and short versions

of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. The Journal of social psychology,

140(5), 628-635. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540009600503

Lyndon, A. E., Sinclair, H. C., MacArthur, J., Fay, B., Ratajack, E., & Collier, K. E.

(2012). An introduction to issues of gender in stalking research. Sex Roles: A

Journal of Research, 66(5-6), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0106-2

Marganski, A., & Melander, L. (2018). Intimate partner violence victimization in the

cyber and real world: Examining the extent of cyber aggression experiences and its
 170

association with in-person dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(7),

1071-1095. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515614283

McEwan, T. E. (2021). Stalking threat and risk assessment. In J. R. Meloy & J.

Hoffmann (Eds.), International handbook of threat assessment (pp. 210–234).

Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med-

psych/9780190940164.003.0011

McEwan, T. E., Daffern, M., MacKenzie, R. D., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2017). Risk factors

for stalking violence, persistence, and recurrence. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry &

Psychology, 28(1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2016.1247188

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

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

409. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2012.679008

McEwan, T. E., Mullen, P. E., MacKenzie, R. D., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2009). Violence in

stalking situations. Psychological Medicine, 39(9), 1469–1478.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291708004996

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

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

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2006.03.005

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

assessment. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(2), 180–201.

https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.973

McEwan, T. E., Simmons, M., Clothier, T., & Senkans, S. (2020). Measuring stalking:

The development and evaluation of the stalking assessment indices (SAI).

 171

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1787904

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

strangers and acquaintances. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry,

47(6), 546–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004867413479408

McKeon, B., McEwan, T. E., & Luebbers, S. (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

McFarlane, J. M., Campbell, J. C., Wilt, S., Sachs, C. J., Ulrich, Y., & Xu, X. (1999).

Stalking and intimate partner femicide. Homicide Studies: An Interdisciplinary &

International Journal, 3(4), 300–316.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088767999003004003

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

Diego, CA: Academic press.

Meloy, J. R., & Boyd, C. (2003). Female stalkers and their victims. Journal of the

American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31(2), 211–219.

Meloy, J. R., James, D. V., Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M. T., Farnham, F. R., Preston, L. F., &

Darnley, B. J. (2011). Factors associated with escalation and problematic approaches

toward public figures. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56 Suppl 1, S128–S135.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01574.x

Meloy, J. R., Mohandie, K., & Green, M. (2011). The female stalker. Behavioral

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

 172

Melton, H. C. (2000). Stalking: A review of the literature and direction for the future.

Criminal Justice Review, 25(2), 246–262.

https://doi.org/10.1177/073401680002500206

Melton H. C. (2007). Predicting the occurrence of stalking in relationships characterized

by domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(1), 3–25.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506294994

Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis. Sage university paper series on

quantitative applications in the social sciences, 07-106. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511432144

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

Violent Behavior, 17(6), 495–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.07.001

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.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2005.00030.x

Morgan, R. E. & Truman, J. L. (2022). Stalking victimization, 2019. US Department of

Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from:

https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/stalking-victimization-2019

Morrison K. A. (2008). Differentiating between physically violent and nonviolent

stalkers: An examination of Canadian cases. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(3),

742–751. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00722.x
 173

Muris, P., Merckelbach, H., Otgaar, H., & Meijer, E. (2017). The malevolent side of

human nature: A meta-analysis and critical review of the literature on the Dark Triad

(narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy). Perspectives on Psychological

Science, 12(2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616666070

Myers, R. (1990). Classical and modern regression with applications (2nd ed.). Boston,

MA: Duxbury.

Neumann, C. S., Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2021). Examining the Short Dark Tetrad

(SD4) across models, correlates, and gender. Assessment, Advance online

publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120986624

Nijdam-Jones, A., Rosenfeld, B., Gerbrandij, J., Quick, E., & Galietta, M. (2018).

Psychopathology of stalking offenders: Examining the clinical, demographic, and

stalking characteristics of a community-based sample. Criminal Justice and

Behavior, 45(5), 712–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818760643

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.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.723030

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

relationship between intimate partner violence and stalking. Violence and Victims,

26, 103-115. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.26.1.103

Office for National Statistics. (2019). Crime in England and Wales: Year ending

September 2019. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/

crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingseptember2019.
 174

Ogilvie, C. A., Newman, E., Todd, L., & Peck, D. (2014). Attachment & violent

offending: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 322–339.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.007

Pailing, A., Boon, J., & Egan, V. (2014). Personality, the Dark Triad and violence.

Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 81–86.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.11.018

Parkhill, A. J., Nixon, M., & McEwan, T. E. (2022). A critical analysis of stalking theory

and implications for research and practice. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 40(5),

562–583. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2598

Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Toward a taxonomy of dark personalities. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 23(6), 421e426.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547737.

Paulhus, D. L., Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Jones, D. N. (2021). Screening for dark

personalities. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 37(3), 208-222.

https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000602

Peer, E., Rothschild, D., Gordon, A., Evernden, Z., & Damer, E. (2022). Data quality of

platforms and panels for online behavioral research. Behavior Research Methods,

54(4), 1643–1662. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01694-3

Peer, E., Vosgerau, J., & Acquisti, A. (2014). Reputation as a sufficient condition for data

quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 46(4), 1023–

1031. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y

Pew Research Center (2021a). Internet/broadband fact sheet.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/
 175

Pew Research Center (2021b). Mobile fact sheet.

https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/

Pew Research Center (2022). Share of those 65 and older who are tech users has grown

in the past decade. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/01/13/share-of-

those-65-and-older-who-are-tech-users-has-grown-in-the-past-decade/

Pineda, D., Galán, M., Martínez-Martínez, A., Campagne, D. M., & Piqueras, J. A.

(2021). Same personality, new ways to abuse: How dark tetrad personalities are

connected with cyber intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521991307

Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (2001). A study of women who stalk. The

American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(12), 2056–2060.

https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.12.2056

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

of adult stalkers. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(5), 1214–1217.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2008.00839.x

Reilly, M. E., & Hines, D. A. (2020). Distress tolerance as a mediator of the association

between borderline personality symptoms and obsessive relational intrusion: An

exploratory analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(19-20), 3833–3848.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517712274

Reinert, D. F., & Allen, J. P. (2007). The alcohol use disorders identification test: An

update of research findings. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research,

31(2), 185-199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2006.00295.x

 176

Reynolds, W. M. (1982). Development of reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe‐

Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(1), 119-

125. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(198201)38:1<119::AID-

JCLP2270380118>3.0.CO;2-I

Reyns, B. W. (2019). Online pursuit in the twilight zone: Cyberstalking perpetration by

college students. Victims and Offenders, 14(2), 183–198.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2018.1557092

Reyns, B. W., & Fisher, B. S. (2018). The relationship between offline and online

stalking victimization: A gender-specific analysis. Violence and Victims, 33(4),

769–786. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-17-00121

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2010.538364

Richards, D. A., & Schat, A. C. (2011). Attachment at (not to) work: Applying

attachment theory to explain individual behavior in organizations. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 96(1), 169-182. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020372

Ritschel, L. A., Tone, E. B., Schoemann, A. M., & Lim, N. E. (2015). Psychometric

properties of the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale across demographic

groups. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 944-954.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000099

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

romantic partner: Factors predictive of stalking violence. Violence Against Women,

11, 89-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801204271096

 177

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

Human Behavior, 27(3), 251–265. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023479706822

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

review and preliminary meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 9-36.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854803259241

Rosenfeld, B., Galietta, M., Foellmi, M., Coupland, S., Turner, Z., Stern, S., Wijetunga,

C., Gerbrandij, J., & Ivanoff, A. (2019). Dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) for

the treatment of stalking offenders: A randomized controlled study. Law and

Human Behavior, 43(4), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000336

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

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

https://doi.org/10.1177/009385402237998

Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., De la Fuente, J. R., & Grant, M. (1993).

Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO

collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol

consumption‐II. Addiction, 88(6), 791-804. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-

0443.1993.tb02093.x

Scalora, M. J. (2021). Electronic threats and harassment: A dominant role in threat

assessment. In J. R. Meloy & J. Hoffmann (Eds.), The International Handbook of

Threat Assessment (pp. 268-282). Oxford University Press.

Scalora, M. J., Baumgartner, J. V., Hatch Maillette, M. A., Covell, C. N., Palarea, R. E.,

Krebs, J. A., Washington, D.O., Zimmerman, W., & Callaway, D. (2003). Risk
 178

factors for approach behavior toward the US Congress. Journal of Threat

Assessment, 2(2), 35-55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J177v02n02_03

Scalora, M. J., Hawthorne, D., Pellicane, T., & Schoeneman, K. (2020). A glimpse of

threat assessment and management activity performed by the United States

Marshals Service. Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 7(1-2), 85–97.

https://doi.org/10.1037/tam0000149

Schoeneman, K. A., Scalora, M. J., Darrow, C. D., McLawsen, J. E., Chang, G. H., &

Zimmerman, W. J. (2011). Written content indicators of problematic approach

behavior toward political officials. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(2), 284-

301. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.977

Sheridan, L., & Boon, J. (2002). Stalker typologies: Implications for law enforcement. In

J. Boon, & L. Sheridan (Eds.) Stalking and psychosexual obsession:

Psychological perspectives for prevention, policing and treatment. Chichester

(pp. 63-82), West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Sheridan, L. P., & Grant, T. (2007). Is cyberstalking different? Psychology, Crime &

Law, 13(6), 627-640. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160701340528

Sheridan, L., & Roberts, K. (2011). Key questions to consider in stalking cases.

Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(2), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.966

Sheridan, L., Scott, A. J., & North, A. C. (2014). Stalking and age. Journal of Threat

Assessment and Management, 1(4), 262-273.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/tam0000023
 179

Short, E., Guppy, A., Hart, J. A., & Barnes, J. (2015). The impact of cyberstalking.

Studies in Media and Communication, 3(2), 23–37.

https://doi.org/10.11114/smc.v3i2.970

Sinadinovic, K., Wennberg, P., & Berman, A. H. (2014). Short-term changes in substance

use among problematic alcohol and drug users from a general population sample.

The International Journal of Alcohol and Drug Research, 3(4), 277-287.

https://doi.org/10.7895/ijadr.v3i4.186

Sinclair, H. C. (2012). Stalking myth-attributions: Examining the role of individual and

contextual variables on attributions in unwanted pursuit scenarios. Sex Roles: A

Journal of Research, 66(5-6), 378-391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9853-8

Smoker, M., & March, E. (2017). Predicting perpetration of intimate partner

cyberstalking: Gender and the Dark Tetrad. Computers in Human Behavior, 72,

390–396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.012

Spencer, C. M., & Stith, S. M. (2020). Risk factors for male perpetration and female

victimization of intimate partner homicide: A meta-analysis. Trauma Violence

Abuse, 21(3), 527 – 540. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018781101.

Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1999, May). Jealousy, suspicion, possessiveness and

obsession as predictors of obsessive relational intrusion. Paper presented at the

International Communication Association Convention, San Francisco, CA

Spitzberg, B. H. & Cupach, W. R., (2014). The dark side of relationship pursuit: From

attraction to obsession and stalking (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203805916

Spitzberg, B. H., Cupach, W. R., & Ciceraro, L. D. L. (2010). Sex differences in stalking
 180

and obsessive relational intrusion: Two meta-analyses. Partner Abuse, 1(3), 259–

285. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.259

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, 29-36.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scoms.2014.03.007

Spitzberg, B. H., & Hoobler, G. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of

interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society, 4(1), 71-92.

https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226271

Sprecher, S., Felmlee, D., Metts, S., Fehr, B., & Vanni, D. (1998). Factors associated

with distress following the break-up of a close relationship. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 15, 791–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598156005

Stefanska, E. B., Longpré, N., & Harriman, R. S. (2021). The wheel of change moves on:

Assessing the severity of stalking behavior. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211015216

Storey, J. E., Hart, S. D., Meloy, J. R., & Reavis, J. A. (2009). Psychopathy and stalking.

Law and Human Behavior, 33(3), 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-

9149-5

Strand, S., & McEwan, T. E. (2012). Violence among female stalkers. Psychological

Medicine, 42(3), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711001498

Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The revised

Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data.

Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316.

 181

https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001

Strauss, C. V., Cornelius, T. L., & Shorey, R. C. (2018). Stalking perpetration in dating

relationships: The role of anger management and emotion regulation. Partner Abuse,

9(3), 249-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1946- 6560.9.3.249.

Strawhun, J. Adams, N., & Huss, M. T. (2013). The assessment of cyberstalking: An

expanded examination including social networking, attachment, jealousy, and anger

in relation to violence and abuse. Violence and Victims, 28(4), 715-730.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.11-00145

Sukhodolsky, D. G., Golub, A., & Cromwell, E. N. (2001). Development and validation

of the anger rumination scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 31(5), 689-

700. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00171-9

Tassy, F., & Winstead, B. (2014). Relationship and individual characteristics as

predictors of unwanted pursuit. Journal of Family Violence, 29(2), 187–195.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-013-9573-2

Thomas, L., & Egan, V. (2022). A systematic review and meta-analysis examining the

relationship between everyday sadism and aggression: Can subclinical sadistic traits

predict aggressive behaviour within the general population? Aggression and Violent

Behavior, 101750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2022.101750

Thomas, S. D. M., Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (2008). Harm associated with

stalking victimization. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 42(9),

800–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/00048670802277230

Thompson, C. M., & Dennison, S. M. (2008) Defining relational stalking in research:

Understanding sample composition in relation to repetition and duration of

 182

harassment. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 15(3), 482-499.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13218710802389432

Thompson, C. M., Dennison, S. M., & Stewart, A. (2012). Are female stalkers more

violent than male stalkers? Understanding gender differences in stalking violence

using contemporary sociocultural beliefs. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 66(5-6),

351–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9911-2

Thompson, C. M., Dennison, S. M., & Stewart, A. L. (2013). Are different risk factors

associated with moderate and severe stalking violence? Examining factors from the

integrated theoretical model of stalking violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior,

40(8), 850-880. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813489955

Thompson, C. M., Stewart, A. L., & Dennison, S. M. (2020). Using dynamic contextual

factors to better understand the etiology and escalation of stalking violence.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(1), 99–122.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819878234

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National

Violence Against Women Survey, NCJ 169592. Washington, DC: National Institute

of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

van Baak, C., & Hayes, B. E. (2018). Correlates of cyberstalking victimization and

perpetration among college students. Violence and Victims, 33(6), 1036–1054.

https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.33.6.1036

Velotti, P., Rogier, G., Beomonte Zobel, S., Chirumbolo, A., & Zavattini, G. C. (2022).

The relation of anxiety and avoidance dimensions of attachment to intimate partner

violence: A meta-analysis about perpetrators. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(1),

 183

196–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020933864

Watkins, L. E., Benedicto, R. C., Brockdorf, A., & DiLillo, D. (2022). Physical and

sexual intimate partner aggression among college students: Examining the roles of

cyber intimate partner aggression and alcohol use. Journal of Interpersonal

Violence, 37(1–2), 387–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520912593

Watkins, L. E., DiLillo, D., & Maldonado, R. C. (2015). The interactive effects of

emotion regulation and alcohol intoxication on lab-based intimate partner

aggression. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29(3), 653–663.

https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000074

White, E., Longpré, N., & Stefanska, E. B. (2022). Stalking behaviors presented by ex-

intimate stalkers: A victim's perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(7-8),

NP5074–NP5093. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520934429

Widom, C. S., Schuck, A. M., & White, H. R. (2006). An examination of pathways from

childhood victimization to violence: The role of early aggression and problematic

alcohol use. Violence and Victims, 21(6), 675-690. https://doi.org/10.1891/vv-

v21i6a001

Willem, L., Bijttebier, P., Claes, L., & Raes, F. (2011). Rumination subtypes in relation

to problematic substance use in adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences,

50(5), 695-699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.020

Wilson, C., Sheridan, L., & Garratt-Reed, D. (2022). What is cyberstalking? A review of

measurements. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(11-12), NP9763–NP9783.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520985489

Wilson, C., Sheridan, L., & Garratt-Reed, D. (2023). Examining cyberstalking

 184

perpetration and victimization: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse,

24(3), 2019-2033. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221082937

Woodlock, D. (2017). The abuse of technology in domestic violence and stalking.

Violence Against Women, 23(5), 584–602.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216646277

Yu, R., Geddes, J. R., & Fazel, S. (2012). Personality disorders, violence, and antisocial

behavior: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Journal of Personality

Disorders, 26(5), 775–792. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2012.26.5.775

 185

Appendix A: Prolific Recruitment Ad

Title: Intrusive Behaviors Survey

We are conducting an academic survey to gain a better understanding of the predictive

factors associated with intrusive and harassing behaviors.

You will be asked to complete an online survey that will take approximately 30-40
minutes. Some of the questions will ask about your demographic characteristics,
personal history, and experiences with intrusive, violent, or sexual behaviors. Please
recognize that this data is anonymous. While the risks are minimal, you could feel mild
emotional discomfort due to the nature of questions that will be asked.

You will be paid $5 upon satisfactorily completing the project. Your participation in
this study can help with the detection and prevention of potentially harassing and
aggressive behaviors, with the aim of enhancing public safety.
 186

Appendix B: Informed Consent Form

Title: Examining people’s experiences with intrusive behaviors

Key Points:

• You must be 21 years or older and live in the United States.

• Participation will involve filling out surveys.
• Surveys may ask you about sensitive subjects that could cause mild discomfort.
• Participation will take 30-40 minutes.
• You will be compensated $5.00 upon satisfactory completion.
• All data will remain anonymous and will be used for research purposes only.
• There are no additional benefits to you aside from your contribution to
psychological research and compensation.
• You have the right to ask questions at the contact information listed below.
• You have the right to withdraw at any time and the right to not answer any
questions you wish.

Purpose: This research project aims to gain a better understanding of the predictive
factors associated with intrusive and harassing behaviors. You are being invited to
participate because: 1) you are a member of Prolific; 2) you are 21 years of age or older;
3) you live in the United States; and 3) you have volunteered to participate. This study is
being conducted by researchers in the Department of Psychology at the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln under the direction of Dr. Mario Scalora, Professor of Psychology and
Director of the University of Nebraska Public Policy Center.

Procedures: You will be asked to complete an online survey that will take approximately
30-40 minutes. The procedures will be conducted through the Internet. Some issues in
this survey that will be addressed include questions about your demographic
characteristics (e.g., racial or ethnic origin), personal history (e.g., mental health and
substance use history), emotions (e.g., what you do when angered or upset), thoughts
(e.g., attitudes), and experience with intrusive behaviors (e.g., unwanted
communications). Some of the items ask about violent or sexual behaviors people may
experience that may be considered unpleasant and problematic in nature. In most cases,
the amount of distress this creates is limited.

Benefits: The completion of this study can help with the detection and prevention of
potentially harassing and aggressive behaviors, with the aim of enhancing public safety.

Risks and/or Discomforts: While the risks are minimal, you could feel mild emotional
discomfort as some of the questions that will be asked could be of a personal or sensitive
nature. This includes questions that ask about a range of behaviors you may have
experienced and/or engaged in, including (but not limited to) intrusive behaviors and
physical and sexual assault. Please recognize that this data is anonymous. In cases where
this is relevant, your participation will not affect any current or pending legal situations,
 187

nor will it affect your relationship with the researchers or the University of Nebraska-
Lincoln. In the unlikely event that you feel significant discomfort after participating in
this study, you may wish to contact a national helpline (listed below) or treatment
provider in your community. You can find a list of treatment providers by state at:
https://www.apa.org/topics/crisis-hotlines.

Crisis Text Line Text 741-741 (available 24/7)

988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Call or Text 988 (available 24/7)

Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration (SAMHSA) 1-800-662-HELP (4357) (available 24/7)
National Helpline

Confidentiality: The survey is completed anonymously. It does not collect any

identifying information, such as names or contact information. Survey responses will be
contained in Qualtrics, an online survey platform, under a password protected account.
Therefore, only the investigators will have access to the data. The information obtained in
this study may be published in scientific journals or presented at scientific meetings, but
it will only be reported as aggregate data and individual responses will not be reported.

Compensation: You will receive $5.00 upon satisfactory completion of the survey.
Please note that this study contains several checks to make sure that participants are
answering questions honestly and completely. In accordance with the policies set by
Prolific, we may reject your work if you do not follow the relevant instructions correctly.
Following satisfactory completion of the survey, you will need to return to Prolific to
verify study completion. A URL link will be provided at the end of the survey that will
automatically redirect you to Prolific.

Opportunity to Ask Questions: You may ask any questions concerning this research
and have those questions answered before agreeing to participate in or during the study.
You may find the contact information of the investigators below. Please contact the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln’s Institutional Review Board at (402) 472-6965 to voice
concerns about the research or if you have any questions about your rights as a research
participant. This research and its procedures have been approved by the University of
Nebraska-Lincoln’s Institutional Review Board.

IRB Approval Number: 20220521801EX

Freedom to Withdraw: Participation in this study is voluntary. You can refuse to

participate or withdraw at any time without harming your relationship with the
researchers or the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Your decision will not result any
penalties or loss of benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may also refuse to
respond to any questions posed to you.

Qualtrics privacy policy information: https://www.qualtrics.com/privacy-statement/

 188

Consent, Right to Receive a Copy: You are voluntarily making a decision whether or
not to participate in this research study. Your selection to participate certifies that you
have decided to participate having read and understood the information presented. You
may print a copy of the consent document.

Name and Phone number of investigator(s):

Elisha Chan, M.A., Principal Investigator, Email: echan4@huskers.unl.edu Office: (402)
472-5602

Mario Scalora, Ph.D., Secondary Investigator, Email: mscalora1@unl.edu Office: (402)

472-5602

You are voluntarily making a decision whether or not to participate in this research
study. Your selection to participate certifies that you have decided to participate
having read and understood the information presented. You may print a copy of the
consent document.

• I agree to participate in this survey

• I decline to participate in this survey
 189

Appendix C: Survey

Section One

Demographics

1. What is your age? __________

2. What is your current gender identity?
a. Woman/Female
b. Man/Male
c. Trans woman/MTF
d. Trans man/FTM
e. Genderqueer/Gender fluid/Gender Non-conforming/Non-binary
f. If you prefer a different term, please specify: ________________________
3. How would you describe your race/ethnicity?
a. Latina/o/x or Hispanic or heritage from a Latin American country
b. African American/Black
c. Native American/American Indian/Indigenous
d. Middle Eastern/Arab/Turkish/Iranian
e. Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander
f. White/European American
g. Biracial/multiracial
i. Please specify, if desired: _____________
h. Please specify, if not captured above: __________________
4. How would you describe your sexual orientation?
a. Heterosexual/Straight
b. Lesbian
c. Gay
d. Bisexual
e. Pansexual
f. Queer
g. Asexual
h. If you prefer a different term, please specify: ________________________
5. How would you describe your socioeconomic status?
a. High
b. Medium-high
c. Medium
d. Medium-low
e. Low
6. What is your relationship status?
a. Single – not currently in a relationship
b. Casually dating
c. In a relationship
d. Engaged
e. Married
f. Divorced/separated
g. Widowed
7. What is your current work status?
a. Employed full time
b. Employed part time
c. Unemployed looking for work
d. Unemployed not looking for work
e. Retired
f. Student
g. Disabled
h. Other (please specify) ____________
8. What is the highest level of education you have completed?
 190

a. Some high school

b. High school graduate/GED
c. Some college
d. Trade/vocational/technical certificate
e. Associate’s degree
f. Bachelor’s degree
g. Some graduate or professional school
h. Master’s, Professional, or Doctorate Degree

Childhood abuse/maltreatment history

9. To your knowledge, have your parents/primary caregivers ever been arrested or convicted of a crime?
a. Yes
b. No
10. Prior to the age of 18, did your parents/primary caregivers ever do any of the following:
(largely adapted from Childhood Trauma Questionnaire Short Form (CTQ-SF; Bernstein et al., 2003) and
Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE) Questionnaire (Felitti et al., 1998))
1. Use verbal and non-verbal behaviors that were purposefully intended to hurt, humiliate, degrade, Y N
ridicule, or control you or make you feel unimportant, unwanted, or worthless? (EA)
2. Subject you to unwanted sexual contact (e.g., touch you sexually, forced you to do sexual things)? (SA) Y N
3. Physically hurt you in a way that left visible signs of injury on your body either temporarily (e.g., bruises) Y N
or permanently, caused pain that persisted beyond the “punishment”, or required medical attention (e.g.,
seeing a doctor)? This may include being slapped, burned (e.g. with boiling water, cigarettes, etc.) kicked,
punched, hit with an object (e.g., belt, bat, etc.), choked, pushed, or shoved. (PA)
4. Not give you enough food, regular baths, clean clothes, or medical attention when you needed it, or Y N
shut you in a room for an extended period of time? (PN)
5. Were too drunk or high to take care of you? (PN) Y N
6. Ignore you when you needed them, or seemed not to love or support you. (EN) Y N
7. Scream, yell, push, shove, punch, kick, hit with or without a hard object, choke, burn, or throw objects Y N
at each other or someone else (e.g., sibling)? (WV)
EA = Emotional abuse. PA = Physical abuse; SA = Sexual abuse; PN = Physical neglect; EN = Emotional neglect; WV =
Witnessing Violence

Mental health and substance use history

11. Have you ever been diagnosed with a mental illness (e.g., depression, ADHD, PTSD, substance use
disorder)?
a. Yes (if selected); Please indicate which diagnoses (check all that apply):
i. Schizophrenia or some other schizophrenia spectrum disorder (e.g., schizoaffective
disorder, delusional disorder)
ii. Major depressive disorder or some other depressive disorder (e.g., persistent depressive
disorder)
iii. Bipolar disorder or some other bipolar spectrum disorder (e.g., cyclothymic disorder)
iv. Anxiety-related disorder (e.g., generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder,
panic disorder, phobia disorder, agoraphobia)
v. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or some other trauma or stressor-related disorder
vi. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
vii. Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD)
viii. Borderline personality disorder
ix. Antisocial personality disorder
x. Other personality disorder (please specify, if known):
_______________________________
xi. Alcohol or Substance Use Disorder (e.g., cannabis, stimulant, opioid, etc.)
xii. Unsure/Unknown
xiii. Other (please specify, if known): __________________________________
b. No
12. Have you ever received counseling or treatment for a mental health problem or disorder?
a. Yes
 191

b. No
13. Have you ever been hospitalized at a psychiatric hospital, hospital, or other crisis setting for mental
health reasons?
a. Yes (if selected); Please specify the main reason for hospitalization (check all that apply):
i. Danger to myself (e.g., suicide attempt, suicidal thoughts, threats of suicide)
ii. Danger to others (e.g., threatened or actual violence towards another person)
iii. Legal proceedings (e.g., competence to stand trial, criminal responsibility/insanity)
b. No

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (AUDIT-C; Bush et al., 1998)

INSTRUCTIONS: Please select the answer that is correct for you. Consider a “drink” to be a can or bottle of beer, a glass of
wine, a wine cooler, or one cocktail or a shot of hard liquor (e.g., scotch, gin, vodka).
Never Monthly 2-4 times a 2-3 4 or more
(0) or less month times a times a
1. How often do you have a drink containing alcohol?
(1) (2) week week
(3) (4)
0, 1 3 or 4 5 or 6 7 to 9 10 or more
2. How many drinks containing alcohol do you have on a
or 2 (1) (2) (3) (4)
typical day when you are drinking?
(0)
Never Less Monthly Weekly Daily or
3. How often do you have six or more drinks on one (0) than (2) (3) almost daily
occasion? monthly (4)
(1)

Drug Use Disorders Identification Test-Consumption (DUDIT-C; Berman et al., 2005; Sinadinovic
et al., 2014)
INSTRUCTIONS: These questions refer to your use of drugs. When the word “drug” is used, it includes:
• Any non-medical use of drugs and use of prescribed and over-the-counter drugs (e.g., sedatives/sleeping
pills, painkillers) in excess of their directions.
• Cannabis (e.g., marijuana, hash, K2)
• Amphetamines (e.g., methamphetamine),
• Solvents/inhalants (e.g., glue, gas/gasolina, solution),
• Tranquilizers (e.g., Valium, Xanax),
• Barbituates
• Cocaine/crack
• Stimulants (e.g., speed)
• Hallucinogens (e.g., ecstasy, LSD/acid, mushrooms, PCP/ángel dust)
• Narcotics (e.g., heroin, Percocet, opiates).
Remember that the questions do not include alcohol or tobacco. Please answer as honestly as posible by indicating
which answer is right for you.
Never Once a month 2-4 times 2-3 times 4 times a
(0) or less often a month a week week or
1. How often do you use drugs other than alcohol?
(1) (2) (3) more often
(4)
Never Once a month 2-4 times 2-3 times 4 times a
2. Do you use more than one type of drug on the (0) or less often a month a week week or
same occasion? (1) (2) (3) more often
(4)
3. How many times do you take drugs on a typical 0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7 or more
day when you use drugs? (0) (1) (2) (3) (4)
Never Less often Every Every Daily or
(0) than once a month week almost
4. How often are you influenced heavily by drugs?
month (2) (3) every day
(1) (4)
 192

Marlowe-Crown Social Desirability Scale – Short Form C (derived from Reynolds, 1982)
INSTRUCTIONS: Read each ítem and decide whether it is true (T) or false (F) for you.
3. It is sometimes hard for me to go on with my work if I am not encouraged. (F) T F
6. I sometimes feel resentful when I don’t get my way. (F) T F
10. On a few occasions, I have given up something because I thought too little of my ability. (F) T F
12. There have been times when I felt like rebelling against people in authority even though I knew they T F
were right. (F)
13. No matter who I’m talking to, I’m always a good listener. (T) T F
15. There have been occasions when I have taken advantage of someone. (F) T F
16. I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake. (T) T F
19. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. (F) T F
21. I am always courteous, even to people who are disagreeable. (T) T F
26. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own. (T) T F
28. There have been times when I was quite jealous of the good fortune of others. (F) T F
30. I am sometimes irritated by people who ask favors of me. (F) T F
33. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings. (T) T F
Letter in brackets following statement indicates which answer represents socially desirable responding.

Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-Version 4 - Borderline scale (PDQ-4+; Hyler, 1994, see

Thompson 2010 thesis for scale)

INSTRUCTIONS: The purpose of the following questions is for you to describe the kind of person you are. When
answering the questions, think about how you have tended to feel, think and act over the past several years.

Please answer either True or False to each item where:

T (True) means the statement is generally true for you.

F (False) means the statement is generally false for you.

Even if you are not entirely sure about the answer, indicate true or false for every question. There are no correct
answers.

1. I have tried to hurt or kill myself. T F

2. I am a very moody person. T F
3. I often wonder who I really am. T F
4. I feel that my life is dull and meaningless. T F
5. I either love someone or hate them, nothing in between. T F
6. I have difficulty controlling my anger or temper. T F
7. When stressed, things happen. Like I get paranoid or just “black out”. T F
8. I’ll go to extremes to prevent those who I love from ever leaving me. T F
9. I have done things on impulse (such as those below) that could have gotten me into trouble. T F
If you answered true to the last question, please check all that apply to you:
a. Spending more money than I have
b. Having sex with people I hardly know
c. Drinking too much
d. Taking drugs
e. Eating binges
f. Reckless driving

Experiences in Close Relationships-12 (ECR-12; Lafontaine et al., 2015)

 193

INSTRUCTIONS: The following statements concern how you feel in your close relationships in general. We are
interested in how you generally experience close relationships. Respond to each statement by indicating how much
you agree or disagree with it.

Note: * = Reverse-scored; Av = Avoidance; Anx = Anxiety

Disagree Neutral/ Agree

strongly Mixed strongly
2. I worry about being abandoned. (Anx) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
6. I worry that others won’t care about me as 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
much as I care about them. (Anx)
8. I worry a fair amount about losing others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Anx)
9. I don’t feel comfortable opening up to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
others. (Av)
14. I worry about being alone. (Anx) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
*15. I feel comfortable sharing my private 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
thoughts and feelings with others. (Av)
18. I need a lot of reassurance that I am loved 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
by others. (Anx)
24. If I can’t get others to show interest in me, I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
get upset or angry. (Anx)
*25. I tell others just about everything. (Av) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
*27. I usually discuss my problems and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
concerns with others. (Av)
*29. I feel comfortable depending on others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
(Av)
*31. I don’t mind asking others for comfort, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
advice, or help. (Av)
Short Dark Tetrad (SD4; Paulhus et al., 2021)

INSTRUCTIONS: Please rate your agreement with each statement using the following scale.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
disagree agree
Identity 1: “Crafty” (Machiavellianism)
1. It’s not wise to let people know your secrets. 1 2 3 4 5
2. Whatever it takes, you must get the important people on
1 2 3 4 5
your side.
3. Avoid direct conflict with others because they may be useful
1 2 3 4 5
in the future.
4. Keep a low profile if you want to get your way. 1 2 3 4 5
5. Manipulating the situation takes planning. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Flattery is a good way to get people on your side. 1 2 3 4 5
7. I love it when a tricky plan succeeds 1 2 3 4 5
Identity 2: “Special” (Narcissism)
8. People see me as a natural leader. 1 2 3 4 5
9. I have a unique talent for persuading people. 1 2 3 4 5
10. Group activities tend to be dull without me. 1 2 3 4 5
11. I know that I am special because people keep telling me so. 1 2 3 4 5
12. I have exceptional qualities. 1 2 3 4 5
13. I’m likely to become a future star in some area. 1 2 3 4 5
14. I like to show off every now and then. 1 2 3 4 5
Identity 3: “Wild” (Psychopathy)
 194

15. People often say I’m out of control. 1 2 3 4 5

16. I tend to fight against authorities and their rules. 1 2 3 4 5
17. I’ve been in more fights than most people of my age and
1 2 3 4 5
gender.
18. I tend to dive in, then ask questions later. 1 2 3 4 5
19. I’ve been in trouble with the law. 1 2 3 4 5
20. I sometimes get into dangerous situations. 1 2 3 4 5
21. People who mess with me always regret it. 1 2 3 4 5
Identity 4: “Mean” (Sadism)
22. Watching a fist-fight excites me. 1 2 3 4 5
23. I really enjoy violent films and video games. 1 2 3 4 5
24. It’s funny when idiots fall flat on their face. 1 2 3 4 5
25. I enjoy watching violent sports. 1 2 3 4 5
26. Some people deserve to suffer. 1 2 3 4 5
27. Just for kicks, I’ve said mean things on social media. 1 2 3 4 5
28. I know how to hurt someone with words alone.
Stalking-Related Attitudes Questionnaire (SRAQ; McKeon et al., 2015)

INSTRUCTIONS: This questionnaire consists of numbered statements. Rate each item on the following scale.

Absolutely Neutral Absolutely

untrue true
1. A man should be allowed to pursue a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
woman to a certain extent, if it is part of
romance. (F2)
*2. If a woman says no, even once, a man 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
should leave her alone. (F2)
3. If a man and woman have been in a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
romantic relationship, the man has more
right to pursue her than if they have never
met. (F2)
4. It’s normal for a woman to say no to a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
date at first because she doesn’t want to
seem too eager.
5. It’s not stalking if you are trying to get 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
your wife back. (F1)
6. A woman who dates a lot should be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
more likely to be stalked. (F3)
7. Saying no to a stalker will just provoke 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
him. (F3)
8. A certain amount of repeated phoning 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
and following is okay, even if a woman has
said no. (F1)
9. The concept of stalking is just a fad. (F1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10. Women find it flattering to be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
persistently pursued. (F2)
11. It’s not really stalking if you know the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
person and they know you. (F1)
12. Staying in contact with someone 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
shouldn’t really be seen as a crime, if you
are actually in love. (F1)
13. If a woman just ignored the man, he 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
would eventually go away. (F1)
*14. Stalking is a type of violence. (F1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 195

*15. “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

again”, ideas like this make stalking
acceptable. (F1)
16. Stalkers are a nuisance but they are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not criminals. (F1)
17. If you were really in love with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
somebody, you wouldn’t take no for an
answer. (F1)
18. What one person may see as stalking, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
another may see as romantic. (F2)
19. Women often say one thing but mean 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
another. (F2)
20. Stalking is just an extreme form of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
courtship. (F1)
21. If there is no actual violence, it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
shouldn’t be a crime. (F1)
22. Some women actually want to be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
stalked; they see it as a compliment.
23. Victims of stalking are often women 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
wanting revenge on their ex-boyfriends.
(F3)
24. Repeatedly following someone, making 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
phone calls and leaving gifts doesn’t
actually hurt anyone. (F1)
25. Certain types of women are more likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
to be stalked. (F3)
26. Stalking should be dealt with in civil, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not criminal law. (F1)
27. A woman may be more likely to be 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
stalked if she cannot clearly say no. (F3)
28. If a woman gives any encouragement, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
the man has a right to continue his pursuit.
(F2)
29. Those who are upset by stalking are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
likely more sensitive than others.
30. Even if they were annoyed, most 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
women would be at least a little flattered
by stalking. (F1)
31. If someone continues to say nice things 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
and give nice gifts, then stalking is far
more acceptable. (F1)
32. Stranger stalking is the only real 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
stalking. (F1)
*33. Any person could be stalked. (F1) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
34. Stalkers only continue because they 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
get some sort of encouragement. (F1)
* is reverse scored. F1 = Stalking isn’t serious; F2 = Stalking is romantic; F3 = Victims are to blame

Anger Rumination Scale (Sukhodolsky et al., 2001)

INSTRUCTIONS: Rate your response to each ítem below. You should think about each ítem in terms of how much the
statement corresponds to your beliefs about yourself.

Almost Rarely Sometimes Almost

never always
1. I ruminate about my past anger experiences. (AM) 1 2 3 4
2. I ponder about the injustices that have been done to me. (AM) 1 2 3 4
3. I keep thinking about events that angered me for a long time. 1 2 3 4
(AM)
 196

4. I have long living fantasies of revenge after the conflict is over. 1 2 3 4

(TR)
5. I think about certain events from a long time ago and they still 1 2 3 4
make me angry. (AM)
6. I have difficulty forgiving people who have hurt me. (TR) 1 2 3 4
7. After an argument is over, I keep fighting with this person in my 1 2 3 4
imagination. (AA)
8. Memories of being aggravated pop up into my mind before I fall 1 2 3 4
asleep. (AA)
9. Whenever I experience anger, I keep thinking about it for a while. 1 2 3 4
(AA)
10. I have had times when I could not stop being preoccupied with a 1 2 3 4
particular conflict. (UC)
11. I analyze events that make me angry. (UC) 1 2 3 4
12. I think about the reasons people treat me badly. (UC) 1 2 3 4
13. I have day dreams and fantasies of violent nature. (TR) 1 2 3 4
14. I feel angry about certain things in my life. (AM) 1 2 3 4
15. When someone makes me angry, I can’t stop thinking about how 1 2 3 4
to get back at this person. (TR)
16. When someone provokes me, I keep wondering why this should 1 2 3 4
have happened to me. (UC)
17. Memories of even minor annoyances bother me for a while. (AA) 1 2 3 4
18. When something makes me angry, I turn this matter over and 1 2 3 4
over again in my mind. (AA)
19. I re-enact the anger episode in my mind after it has happened. 1 2 3 4
(AA)

AA = Angry Afterthoughts; TR = Thoughts of Revenge; AM = Angry memories; UC = Understanding of causes

Difficulties with Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS; Gratz & Roemer, 2004)
INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate how often the following statements apply to you by marking the appropriate choice.

Almost Sometimes About half the Most of the Almost

never time time always
*1. I am clear about my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5
*2. I pay attention to how I feel. 1 2 3 4 5
3. I experience my emotions as 1 2 3 4 5
overwhelming and out of control.
4. I have no idea how I am 1 2 3 4 5
feeling.
5. I have difficulty making sense 1 2 3 4 5
out of my feelings.
*6. I am attentive to my feelings. 1 2 3 4 5
*7. I know exactly how I am 1 2 3 4 5
feeling.
*8. I care about what I am 1 2 3 4 5
feeling.
9. I am confused about how I 1 2 3 4 5
feel.
*10. When I’m upset, I 1 2 3 4 5
acknowledge my emotions.
 197

11. When I’m upset, I become 1 2 3 4 5

angry with myself for feeling that
way.
12. When I’m upset, I become 1 2 3 4 5
embarrassed for feeling that
way.
13. When I’m upset, I have 1 2 3 4 5
difficulty getting work done.
14. When I’m upset, I become 1 2 3 4 5
out of control.
15. When I’m upset, I believe 1 2 3 4 5
that I will remain that way for a
long time.
16. When I’m upset, I believe 1 2 3 4 5
that I’ll end up feeling very
depressed.
*17. When I’m upset, I believe 1 2 3 4 5
that my feelings are valid and
important.
18. When I’m upset, I have 1 2 3 4 5
difficulty focusing on other
things.
19. When I’m upset, I feel out of 1 2 3 4 5
control.
*20. When I’m upset, I can still 1 2 3 4 5
get things done.
21. When I’m upset, I feel 1 2 3 4 5
ashamed with myself for feeling
that way
*22. When I’m upset, I know that 1 2 3 4 5
I can find a way to eventually feel
better.
23. When I’m upset, I feel like I 1 2 3 4 5
am weak.
*24. When I’m upset, I feel like I 1 2 3 4 5
can remain in control of my
behaviors.
25. When I’m upset, I feel guilty 1 2 3 4 5
for feeling that way.
26. When I’m upset, I have 1 2 3 4 5
difficulty concentrating.
27. When I’m upset, I have 1 2 3 4 5
difficulty controlling my
behaviors.
28. When I’m upset, I believe 1 2 3 4 5
that there is nothing I can do to
make myself feel better.
29. When I’m upset, I become 1 2 3 4 5
irritated with myself for feeling
that way.
30. When I’m upset, I start to feel 1 2 3 4 5
very bad about myself.
 198

31. When I’m upset, I believe 1 2 3 4 5

that wallowing in it is all I can do.
32. When I’m upset, I lose control 1 2 3 4 5
over my behaviors.
33. When I’m upset, I have 1 2 3 4 5
difficulty thinking about anything
else.
*34. When I’m upset, I take time 1 2 3 4 5
to figure out what I’m really
feeling.
35. When I’m upset, it takes me a 1 2 3 4 5
long time to feel better.
36. When I’m upset, my emotions 1 2 3 4 5
feel overwhelming
* is reverse-scored
Non-acceptance of emotional responses (NONACCEPT): Items 11, 12, 21, 23, 25, 29
Difficulties engaging in goal-directed (GOALS): Items 13, 18, 20, 26, 33
Impulse control difficulties (IMPULSE): Items 3, 14, 19, 24, 27, 32
Lack of emotional awareness (AWARE): Items 2, 6, 8, 10, 17, 34
Limited Access to Emotion Regulation Strategies (STRATEGIES): Items 15, 16, 22, 28, 30, 31, 35, 36
Lack of emotional clarity (CLARITY): Items 1, 4, 5, 7, 9

Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire-Short Form (Bryant & Smith, 2001)

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate how uncharacteristic or characteristic each of the following statements is in describing
you using the following scale.

Extremely Somewhat Neither Somewhat Extremely

uncharacteristic uncharacteristic uncharacteristic characteristic characteristic
of me of me or of me of me
characteristic
of me
11. I often find myself 1 2 3 4 5
disagreeing with people. (V)
23. At times I feel I have 1 2 3 4 5
gotten a raw deal out of life.
(H)
8. I have threatened people I 1 2 3 4 5
know. (P)
25. I wonder why sometimes 1 2 3 4 5
I feel bitter about things. (H)
21. I have trouble controlling 1 2 3 4 5
my temper. (A)
14. My friends say that I’m 1 2 3 4 5
somewhat argumentative.
(V)
15. I flare up quickly but get 1 2 3 4 5
over it quickly. (A)
2. Given enough 1 2 3 4 5
provocation, I may hit
another person. (P)
 199

13. I can’t help getting into 1 2 3 4 5

arguments when people
disagree with me. (V)
24. Other people always 1 2 3 4 5
seem to get the breaks. (H)
6. There are people who 1 2 3 4 5
pushed me so far that we
came to blows. (P)
20. Sometimes I fly off the 1 2 3 4 5
handle for no good reason.
(A)
Note: V = verbal aggression; P = Physical aggression; A = Anger; H = Hostility

Section Two

Preamble: People often pursue others without realizing that the other person does not want to be pursued. Pursuers
may do so for many reasons, such as to seek friendship, romantic intimacy or recognition, or perhaps because the
pursuer was hurt and angry. It may involve behaviors such as invading privacy, intruding into someone’s personal life,
making threats, or refusing to let go. When one pursues despite the fact that the other person does not want it, then
they are being “persistent.” We are interested in finding out to what extent have you ever engaged in persistent
pursuit of a person who expressly did not want you to.

If you have behaved in this way towards more than one person in your adult life (i.e., age 18 or over), please take a
moment and think about the situation that sticks most in your mind, and the particular person involved. Recall the
events and progression of that particular time, and refer to this person/situation in responding to the following
questions. Remember that your answers are anonymous. Please answer as truthfully as possible. (Phrasing adapted
from McKeon et al., 2020; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2014)

Obsessive Relational Intrusion Short Form, Modified Perpetration (ORI-SF; Cupach & Spitzer
2004)

INSTRUCTIONS: During the time you were pursuing the person, how often, if at all, did you engage in the following
behaviors even when the other person expressly did not want you to?

Never Only 2-3 4-5 Over 5

once times times times
1. LEAVING UNWANTED GIFTS (e.g., flowers, stuffed animals, 0 1 2 3 4
photographs, jewelry, etc.)
2. LEAVING UNWANTED MESSAGES OF AFFECTION (e.g., 0 1 2 3 4
romantically-oriented notes, cards, letters, messages with friends,
etc.)
3. MAKING EXAGGERATED EXPRESSIONS OF AFFECTION (e.g., saying 0 1 2 3 4
“I love you” after limited interaction, doing large and unsolicited
favors for them, etc.)
4. FOLLOWING THE PERSON AROUND (e.g., following them to or 0 1 2 3 4
from, school, home, gym, daily activities, etc.)
5. WATCHING THE PERSON (e.g., driving by home or work, watching 0 1 2 3 4
them from a distance, gazing at them in public places, etc.)
6. INTRUDING UNINVITED INTO THE PERSON’S INTERACTIONS (e.g., 0 1 2 3 4
“hovers” around their conversations, offers unsolicited advice,
initiates conversations when they are clearly busy, etc.)
 200

7. INVADING THE PERSON’S PERSONAL SPACE (e.g., getting too close 0 1 2 3 4

to them in conversation, touching them, etc.)
8. INVOLVING THE PERSON IN ACTIVITIES IN UNWANTED WAYS (e.g., 0 1 2 3 4
enrolling them in programs, putting them on mailing lists, using
their name as a reference, etc.)
9. INVADING THE PERSON’S PERSONAL PROPERTY (e.g. handling their 0 1 2 3 4
possessions, breaking and entering into their home, showing up at
their door or car, etc.)
10. INTRUDING UPON THE PERSON’S FRIENDS, FAMILY OR 0 1 2 3 4
COWORKERS (e.g., trying to befriend their friends, family or
coworkers; seeking to be invited to social events, seeking
employment at their work, etc.)
11. MONITORING THE PERSON AND/OR THEIR BEHAVIOR (e.g., calling 0 1 2 3 4
at all hours to check on their whereabouts, checking up on them
through mutual friends, etc.)
12. APPROACHING OR SURPRISING THE PERSON IN PUBLIC PLACES 0 1 2 3 4
(e.g., showing up at places such as stores, work, gym; lying in wait
around corners, etc.)
13. COVERTLY OBTAINING PRIVATE INFORMATION (e.g., listen to their 0 1 2 3 4
messages, taking photos of them without their knowledge,
stealing their mail, etc.)
14. INVADING THE PERSON’S PROPERTY (e.g., breaking and entering 0 1 2 3 4
their home, car, desk, backpack or briefcase, etc.)
15. LEAVING UNWANTED THREATENING MESSAGES (e.g., hang-up 0 1 2 3 4
calls; notes, cards, letters, messages with their friends, implying
harm or potential harm, etc.)
16. PHYSICALLY RESTRAINING THE PERSON (e.g., grabbing their arm, 0 1 2 3 4
blocking their progress, holding their car door while you’re in the
car, etc.)
17. ENGAGING IN REGULATORY HARASSMENT (e.g., filing official 0 1 2 3 4
complaints, spreading false rumors to officials—boss, instructor,
etc., obtaining a restraining order on them, etc.)
18. STEALING OR DAMAGING VALUED POSSESSIONS (e.g., vandalizing 0 1 2 3 4
property; stealing things, damaged or hurt things that only they
had access to, such as prior gifts, or pets, etc.)
19. THREATENING TO HURT YOURSELF (e.g., vague threats that 0 1 2 3 4
something bad will happen to yourself, threatening to commit
suicide, etc.)
20. THREATENING OTHERS THE PERSON CARES ABOUT (e.g., 0 1 2 3 4
threatening harm to or making vague warnings about romantic
partners, friends, family, pets, etc.)
21. VERBALLY THREATENING THE PERSON PERSONALLY (e.g., threats 0 1 2 3 4
or vague warnings that something bad will happen to them,
threatening personally to hurt them, etc.)
22. LEAVING OR SENDING THE PERSON THREATENING OBJECTS (e.g., 0 1 2 3 4
marked up photographs, photographs taken of them without their
knowledge, pornography, weapons, etc.)
23. SHOWING UP AT PLACES IN THREATENING WAYS (e.g., showing up 0 1 2 3 4
at class, office or work, from behind a corner, staring from across a
street, being inside their home, etc.)
24. SEXUALLY COERCING THE PERSON (e.g., forcefully 0 1 2 3 4
 201

attempted/succeeded in kissing, feeling, or disrobing them,

exposed yourself, forced sexual behavior, etc.)
25. PHYSICALLY THREATENING THE PERSON (e.g., throwing something 0 1 2 3 4
at them, acting as if you will hit them, running fingers across neck
implying throat slitting, etc.)
26. PHYSICALLY HURTING THE PERSON (e.g., pushing or shoving them, 0 1 2 3 4
slapping them, hitting them with a fist, hitting them with an
object, etc.)
27. KIDNAPPING OR PHYSICALLY CONSTRAINING THE PERSON (e.g., by 0 1 2 3 4
force or threat of force, trapped them in a car or room; bound
them; took them places against their will; etc.)
28. PHYSICALLY ENDANGERING THE PERSON’S LIFE. (e.g., trying to run 0 1 2 3 4
them off the road, displaying a weapon in front of them, using a
weapon to subdue them, etc.)

Cyber Obsessional Pursuit Form (COP; Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002)

INSTRUCTIONS: People sometimes pursue others through electronic means, such as the computer, social media (e.g.,
TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Snapchat, etc.), online chat rooms and forums, voice mail, text messages, or email.
During the time you were pursuing the person, how often, if at all, did you engage in the following behaviors through
electronic means (e.g., computer, email, social media, etc.) even when the other person expressly did not want you
to?

Never Only 2-3 4-5 Over 5

once time times times
1. SENDING TOKENS OF AFFECTION (e.g., poetry, songs, electronic 0 1 2 3 4
greeting cards, praise, etc)
2. SENDING EXAGGERATED MESSAGES OF AFFECTION (e.g., 0 1 2 3 4
expressions of affections implying a more intimate relationship than
you actually have, etc.)
3. SENDING EXCESSIVELY DISCLOSIVE MESSAGES (e.g., inappropriately 0 1 2 3 4
giving private information about your life, body, family, hobbies,
sexual experiences, etc.)
4. SENDING EXCESSIBELY ‘NEEDY’ OR DEMANDING MESSAGES (e.g., 0 1 2 3 4
pressuring to see them, demanding forgiveness, assertively
requesting you go out on a date, arguing with them to give you
‘another chance,’ etc.)
5. SENDING PORNOGRAPHIC/OBSCENE IMAGES OR MESSAGES (e.g., 0 1 2 3 4
photographs or cartoons of nude people, people or animals
engaging in sexual acts, etc.)
6. SENDING THREATENING WRITTEN MESSAGES (e.g., suggesting 0 1 2 3 4
harming them, their property, family, friends, etc.)
7. SENDING SEXUALLY HARASSING MESSAGES (e.g., describing 0 1 2 3 4
hypothetical sexual acts between you, making sexually demeaning
remarks, etc.)
8. SENDING THREATENING PICTURES OR IMAGES (e.g., images of 0 1 2 3 4
actual or implied mutilation, blood, dismemberment, property
destruction, weapons, etc.)
9. EXPOSING PRIVATE INFORMATION ABOUT THE PERSON TO OTHERS 0 1 2 3 4
(e.g., sending email out to others regarding their secrets,
 202

embarrassing information, unlisted numbers, etc.)

10. PRETENDING TO BE SOMEONE YOU WEREN’T (e.g., falsely 0 1 2 3 4
representing yourself as a different person or gender, claiming a
false identity, status or position, pretending to be the person, etc.)
11. ‘SABOTAGING’ THE PERSON’S PRIVATE OR SOCIAL REPUTATION 0 1 2 3 4
(e.g., spreading rumors about them, their relationships or activities
to friends, family, partner, etc.)
12. ‘SABOTAGING’ THE PERSON’S WORK/SCHOOL REPUTATION (e.g., 0 1 2 3 4
spreading rumors about them, their relationships or activities in
organizational networks, electronic bulletin boards or forums, etc.)
13. ATTEMPTING TO DISABLE THE PERSON’S COMPUTER (e.g., 0 1 2 3 4
downloading a virus, sending too many messages for their system
to handle, etc.)
14. OBTAINING PRIVATE INFORMATION WITHOUT PERMISSION (e.g., 0 1 2 3 4
covertly entering their computer files, voicemail, or the files of their
co-workers, friends, or family members, etc.)
15. USING THE PERSON’S COMPUTER TO GET INFORMATION ON 0 1 2 3 4
OTHERS (e.g., stealing information about their friends, family, co-
workers, etc.)
16. ‘BUGGING’ THE PERSON’S CAR, HOME, OR OFFICE (e.g., planting a 0 1 2 3 4
hidden listening, tracking or recording device, etc.)
17. ALTERING THE PERSON’S ELECTRONIC IDENTITY OR PERSONA (e.g., 0 1 2 3 4
breaking into their system and changing their signature, personal
information, or how they portray themselves electronically, etc.)
18. TAKING OVER THE PERSON’S ELECTRONIC IDENTITY OR PERSONA 0 1 2 3 4
(e.g., representing yourself to others as the person on social media
or in chatrooms, bulletin boards, pornography or singles sites, etc.)
19. DIRECTING OTHERS TO THE PERSON IN THREATENING WAYS (e.g., 0 1 2 3 4
pretending to be the person on chat lines and requesting risky sex
acts, kidnapping fantasies, etc.)
20. MEETING THE PERSON FIRST ONLINE AND THEN FOLLOWING THEM 0 1 2 3 4
(e.g., following them while driving, around campus or work, to or
from the gym or social activities, etc.)
21. MEETING THE PERSON FIRST ONLINE AND THEN INTRUDING IN 0 1 2 3 4
THEIR LIFE (e.g., showing up unexpectedly at work, front door, in
parking lot, intruding in their conversations, etc.)
22. MEETING THE PERSON FIRST ONLINE AND THEN THREATENING 0 1 2 3 4
THEM (e.g., threatening to engage in sexual coercion, rape, physical
restraint, or to harm yourself, their possessions, pets, family, or
friends)
23. MEETING THE PERSON FIRST ONLINE AND THEN HARMING THEM 0 1 2 3 4
(e.g., corresponding with them through an online dating service and
then following, harassing, or otherwise stalking them)
24. FIRST MEETING THE PERSON ONLINE AND THEN STALKING THEM 0 1 2 3 4
(e.g., corresponding through an online dating service or
acquaintances and then following, harassing, or otherwise stalking
them)

1. Are there any other ways that you tried to contact, pursue, or influence the person that we have not
asked about?
 203

________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________
2. What type of relationship did you have, if any, prior to the time that the pursuit became unwanted?
a. Current intimate partner
b. Ex-intimate partner
c. Immediate family member (e.g., parent, sibling)
d. Non-immediate relative (e.g., cousin, grandparent)
e. Friend
f. Acquaintance (i.e., you have known the person for more than 24 hours, but you do not consider
them your friend)
g. Workmate/classmate/boss/other business- or professional relationship
h. Stranger (i.e., you have known the person for less than 24 hours)
i. Other (please specify): _________________
3. What was the gender of the person you were pursuing?
a. Male
b. Female
c. Non-binary
d. Other (please specify): _____________
4. Approximately how old were you when you started pursuing this person (in years)? _________
5. Approximately how long did you pursue them for after you knew or suspected it was unwanted (please
indicate days/weeks/months/years): __________________
6. (PROGRESSION OF BEHAVIORS) Please describe how the unwanted pursuit occurred:
a. You pursued them completely online, in cyberspace, or through some other form of electronic
media (e.g., social media, email, phone, etc.).
b. You pursued them completely in-person or face-to-face (e.g., following them, showing up in
places, invading their physical space, etc.).
c. You began pursuing them online, in cyberspace, or through some other form of electronic media
before pursuing them in-person or face-to-face.
i. Approximately how long were you pursuing them online or through electronic means
before you began pursuing them in-person or face-to-face (please indicate days, weeks,
months, years)? __________
d. You began pursuing them in-person or face-to-face before pursuing them online, in cyberspace, or
through some other form of electronic media.
i. Approximately how long were you pursuing them in-person or face-to-face before you
began pursuing them online or through electronic means (please indicate days, weeks,
months, years)? __________
e. Other (please describe):
____________________________________________________________________________

Preamble: The next set of questions ask you to think about what was going on in your life during the time you
pursued the person, and why you acted in this way.

7. (CONTEXT/MOTIVE) Why did you pursue this person even though they did not want you to (mark all that
apply)?
a. You wanted to start a romantic relationship with them
b. You wanted to resume a relationship with them
c. You wanted to get back at them/you were upset after your romantic relationship ended, or
because they rejected you
d. You wanted revenge because of something they did to you (e.g., they wronged or betrayed you in
some way)
e. You wanted to punish/harm/frighten/humiliate them
f. You wanted to show them you liked/wanted/loved them and/or you found them attractive
g. You wanted to have sex with them
h. You wanted to control them or gain power over them
i. You were in a dispute/conflict/argument with them
j. You wanted to communicate with them for a specific reason and/or they were ignoring you (e.g.,
to get access to children)
 204

k. Other (please specify):

________________________________________________________________________

Modified Brief COPE – Substance use scale (Carver, 1997)

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate how often you engaged in the following behaviors during the time you were
pursuing the person.
I didn’t I rarely I often I did this
do this did this did this a lot
at all
1. I used alcohol or other drugs to make myself feel better. 1 2 3 4
2. I used alcohol or other drugs to help me get through it. 1 2 3 4
8. How were you feeling when you were behaving this way? (Phrasing and items adapted from Dutton &
Winstead, 2006; Johnson & Thompson, 2016):

Very slightly A little Moderately Quite a Extremely

or not at all bit
Angry 1 2 3 4 5
Frustrated 1 2 3 4 5
Content 1 2 3 4 5
Resentment 1 2 3 4 5
Anxious 1 2 3 4 5
Happy 1 2 3 4 5
Suicidal 1 2 3 4 5
Love 1 2 3 4 5
Depressed 1 2 3 4 5
Jealous 1 2 3 4 5
Proud 1 2 3 4 5
Hatred 1 2 3 4 5
Hurt 1 2 3 4 5
Excited 1 2 3 4 5
Rage 1 2 3 4 5

Modified Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire – Rumination scale (CERQ; Garnefski et al.,
2002)

INSTRUCTIONS: Everyone deals with their problems in their own way. Please read the sentences below and
indicate how often you had the following thoughts during the time you were pursuing the person.

Almost Sometimes Regularly Often Almost

never always
1. I often thought about how I felt about what I had 1 2 3 4 5
experienced.
2. I was preoccupied with what I thought and felt about what I 1 2 3 4 5
had experienced.
3. I wanted to understand why I felt the way I did about what I 1 2 3 4 5
had experienced.
4. I dwelt upon the feelings the situation had evoked in me. 1 2 3 4 5
 205

Modified Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus et al., 1996)

Sometimes situations get out of control and things do not go as planned. When this happens, it is common for people
to do things that they would not normally do. This may be for a number of reasons, for example, because they are
stressed, upset, or provoked. This is a list of things that might happen in these situations.
INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate how many times you attempted to, or actually did do, each of these things AFTER you
began your pursuit towards the same person you pursued, or to someone they cared about (e.g., their romantic
partner, family, friends, pets, etc.).

Never Once Twice 3-5 6-10 11- More

times times 20 than
times 20
times
1. Threw something at the person that could hurt. (PA/M) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
1a. Threw something at someone the person cared about 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
that could hurt.
2. Twisted the person’s arm or hair. (PA/M) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
2a. Twisted the arm or hair of someone the person cared 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
about.
3. Made the person have sex without a condom. (SC/M) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
3a. Made someone the person cared about have sex 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
without a condom.
4. Pushed or shoved the person. (PA/M) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
4a. Pushed or shoved someone the person cared about. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
5. Used force (like hitting, holding down, or using a 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
weapon) to make the person have oral sex or anal sex.
(SC/S)
5a. Used force (like hitting, holding down, or using a 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
weapon) to make someone they cared about have oral sex
or anal sex.
6. Used a knife, gun, or other weapon on the person. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
(PA/S)
6a. Used a knife, gun, or other weapon on someone the 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
person cared about.
7. Punched or hit the person with something that could 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
hurt. (PA/S)
7a. Punched or hit someone the person cared about with 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
something that could hurt.
8. Choked or strangled the person. (PA/S) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
8a. Choked or strangled someone the person cared about, 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
9. Slammed the person against a wall. (PA/S) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
9a. Slammed someone they cared about against a wall. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
10. Beat up the person. (PA/S) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
10a. Beat up someone the person cared about. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
11. Grabbed the person. (PA/M) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
11a. Grabbed someone the person cared about. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
12. Used force (like hitting, holding down, or using a 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
weapon) to make the person have sex. (SC/S)
12a. Used force (like hitting, holding down, or using a 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
weapon) to make someone the person cared about have
sex.
13. Insisted on sex when the person did not want to (did 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
not use physical force). (SC/M)
13a. Insisted on sex when someone the person cared 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
about did not want to (did not use physical force).
14. Slapped the person. (PA/M) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
14a. Slapped someone the person cared about. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
 206

15. Used threats to make the person have oral or anal sex. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
(SC/S)
15a. Used threats to make someone the person cared 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
about have oral or anal sex.
16. Burned or scaled the person on purpose. (PA/S) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
16a. Burned or scaled someone the person cared about on 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
purpose.
17. Insisted the person have oral or anal sex (did not use 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
physical force). (SC/M)
17a. Insisted someone the person cared about have oral 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
or anal sex (did not use physical force).
18. Kicked the person. (PA/S) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
18a. Kicked someone the person cared about. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
19. Used threats to make the person have sex. (SC/S) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
19a. Used threats to make someone the person cared 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
about have sex.
20. Drove a car at the person. (PA/S) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
20a. Drove a car at someone the person cared about. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
21. Hit the person’s vehicle while they were inside. (PA/S) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
21a. Hit the vehicle of someone the person cared about 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
while they were inside.
22. Dragged the person on the floor. (PA/S) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
22a. Dragged someone the person cared about on the 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
floor.
23. Bit the person. (PA/S) 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
23a. Bit someone the person cared about. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
PA/M = Physical Assault, Minor; PA/S = Physical assault, Severe; SC/M = Sexual Coercion, Minor, SC/S = Severe
Coercion, Severe

Note. Items 20-23 are not part of original CTS2, but informed by similar previous research (Bendlin & Sheridan, 2019;
Thomspon et al., 2013).

9. Are there any other ways that you attempted to, or actually did, do something that could be considered
physically or sexually violent towards the person or someone they cared about that we have not asked
about?
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________

10. (PROGRESSION TO VIOLENCE) For the violent behaviors you noted, what pushed you to engage in these
behaviors?
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________
11. Are you still pursuing this person?
a. Yes
b. No (if selected); Please briefly describe how your pursuit ended:
__________________________________________
12. How many other people have you persistently pursued even when they did not want you to? _______

Preamble: The next set of questions ask you what was going on in your life BEFORE you started pursuing this person.
13. (TRIGGERING EVENT) Sometimes people act in certain ways after experiencing a stressful event. Please
indicate whether any of the following things happened in the six months BEFORE you began pursuing this
person (mark all that apply):
a. You were rejected by this person/you broke up
b. This person started a new relationship, went on a date, or got married to someone else
c. You had relationship problems (e.g., had a conflict with a friend, family member)
d. You had legal problems (e.g., arrested, had to go to court, child custody battle, protection order)
 207

e. You had employment/financial problems (e.g., lost a job, in debt)

f. A close friend, relative, or loved one died
g. You were seriously injured/became seriously ill
h. You had problems related to your alcohol/drug use (e.g., you were stoned/high when you began
your pursuit)
i. You had psychiatric or emotional problems (e.g., hospitalized for psychiatric reasons, seeking
mental health services, feeling depressed, hopeless, or suicidal)
j. Other life stressor (please describe):
_________________________________________________________________
14. (CRIMINAL HISTORY) Have you ever been in trouble with the police before you began pursuing the
person?
a. Yes (Continue to Q15a)
b. No (Continue to Q16)
15a. How old were you (in years) when you first got in trouble with the police? ______

15b. How many times have you been charged with an offense? _____

15c. What type of offenses have you been charged with (mark all that apply)?

a. Violence-related (e.g., assault, domestic violence, sexual assault, manslaughter, terroristic threats)
b. Non-violence-related (e.g., criminal mischief, trespassing, disturbing the peace)
c. Drug-related (e.g., possession of an illicit substance, minor in possession)
d. Traffic-related
e. Other (please specify): __________________________________________
15. (HISTORY OF VIOLENCE) Please indicate whether you had engaged in any of the following behaviors to a
romantic or non-romantic partner before you began pursuing the person (Check all that apply):

Towards anyone Towards a

(not a romantic romantic/dating
partner) partner
1. Thrown something that could hurt them (MV)
☐ ☐
2. Twisted their arm or hair (MV)
☐ ☐
3, Pushed, shoved or grabbed them (MV)
☐ ☐
4, Slapped them (MV)
☐ ☐
5. Used a knife, gun, or other weapon on them (SV)
☐ ☐
6. Punched, kicked or hit with something that could hurt them (SV)
☐ ☐
7. Choked or strangled them (SV)
☐ ☐
8. Slammed them against a wall (SV)
☐ ☐
9. Beat them up (SV)
☐ ☐
10. Burned or scalded them (SV)
☐ ☐
11. Involved in a fight that resulted in them requiring
☐ ☐
hospitalization/medical treatment (SV)
12. Used threats or force (like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon) to
☐ ☐
make them have sex, oral sex, or anal sex (SA)
13. Forced any sexual contact on them, including kissing. (SA)
☐ ☐
MV = Moderate violence; SV = Severe violence; SA = Sexual assault
 208

Stalking Assessment Index – Victimization (SAI-V; McEwan et al., 2020)

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate how many times you have experienced the following behaviors from a person when
you expressly did not want them to.
Never Once Twice 3-5 6-10 11- More
times times 20 than
times 20
times
1. They accessed my computer, phone, or online 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
account(s) without permission.
2. They broke into my home. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
3. They communicated with me via social networking 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
websites.
4. They damaged or vandalized property belonging to me 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
or someone close to me.
5. They gave information about me to other people. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
6. They gave me gifts or other items I didn’t ask for. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
7. They made a threat to harm me or someone close to 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
me.
8. They made phone calls or sent text messages to me. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
9. They posted information about me on the internet. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
10. They sent emails to me. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
11. They sent letters, cards or other written material to 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
me.
12. They drove by, showed up uninvited, or waited for me 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
at places they thought I would be.
13. They spoke or wrote to others about me in ways that 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
harmed my reputation.
14. They tried to get information about me from other 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
people (e.g., my family, friends, etc.)
15. They watched me from a distance or followed me. 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
16. They were physically violent towards me or someone 0 1 2 4 8 15 20
close to me.
16. Was the person who engaged in these noted behaviors towards you the same person who you indicated
persistently pursuing?
a. Yes
b. No
 209

Appendix D: Debriefing Form

Debriefing Form

Thank you for your participation in the study, Examining people’s experiences with
intrusive behaviors, conducted by researchers in the Department of Psychology at the
University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) under the direction of Dr. Mario Scalora,
Professor of Psychology and Director of the University of Nebraska Public Policy Center.

This study aims to examine a range of risk factors associated with intrusive and
potentially violent behaviors (e.g., historical, behavioral, emotional, psychological). In
addition, this study aims to explore the role of electronic media in the patterns of
intrusive and potentially violent behaviors. Identifying potential risk factors of this
behavior can enhance understanding of factors that predict the presence and escalation of
stalking, intrusive harassment, and stalking violence. This can subsequently inform the
development of risk assessment and violence prevention strategies.

Some of the behaviors that were surveyed were not necessarily intrusive or illegal, such
as sending tokens of affection when the other person is willing to receive them. However,
intrusive behaviors could include unwanted verbal, electronic, or written
communications, unwanted face-to-face contact, physical following, invasion,
harassment, threats, and even violence (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). Prior literature has
identified a number of factors that are associated with intrusive behaviors, such as prior
violence, substance abuse, and jealousy (Bendlin & Sheridan, 2019; Churcher & Nesca,
2013).

If you have any questions or concerns about this study, please contact the researcher,
Elisha Chan, echan4@huskers.unl.edu, or the research advisor, Dr. Mario Scalora,
mscalora1@unl.edu. If by participating in this experiment you have experienced anything
for which you may have concerns or want support, please contact any one of the
following services below. Alternatively, you can find a list of treatment providers by state
at: https://www.apa.org/topics/crisis-hotlines.

Crisis Text Line Text 741-741 (available 24/7)

988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Call or Text 988 (available 24/7)

Substance Abuse and Mental Health

Services Administration (SAMHSA) 1-800-662-HELP (4357) (available 24/7)
National Helpline
 ProQuest Number: 31486513

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality and completeness of this reproduction is dependent on the quality
and completeness of the copy made available to ProQuest.

Distributed by ProQuest LLC ( 2024 ).

Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author unless otherwise noted.

This work may be used in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons license
or other rights statement, as indicated in the copyright statement or in the metadata
associated with this work. Unless otherwise specified in the copyright statement
or the metadata, all rights are reserved by the copyright holder.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17,

United States Code and other applicable copyright laws.

Microform Edition where available © ProQuest LLC. No reproduction or digitization

of the Microform Edition is authorized without permission of ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346 USA