How to Stop a Stalker: Perceptions and Predictors of Deterring Unwanted Pursuits

Abstract

Research has identified several strategies victims adopt to deter unwanted conduct from stalkers. Whether such strategies are effective, however, is relatively unknown. Using stalking data from the 2016 National Crime Victimization Survey, the current study examines the effectiveness of safety strategies as a deterrent and whether effects are conditioned by how victims know their stalker. Victims who restricted digital access or involved the police were more likely to report the unwanted conduct had stopped, net of victim and situational contexts. These findings were consistent regardless of whether victims were pursued by intimate partner versus non-partner stalkers. The success of strategies was not universal and what works to deter stalkers was related to victim characteristics, duration, and having access to resources.

Keywords

stalking homicide prevention coping cybercrime policing

Stalking is a menacing crime where remaining safe and preventing escalation becomes an ongoing challenge for victims. Stalking criminalizes unwanted pursuit behaviors¹ (UPBs) when perpetrators cause victims to fear for the safety of themselves or others and/or suffer substantial emotional distress (Logan & Walker, 2017). Stalkers commonly employ a variety of pursuit tactics that serve one or more functions (Logan & Walker, 2017), including surveillance (e.g., following, showing up unexpectedly), invasion (e.g., relentless contact, harassing friends/family), intimidation (e.g., threats, property damage, violence), and sabotage (e.g., public humiliation/financial ruin). Consequently, stalking victims are more likely than the general public to experience mental (e.g., anxiety, depression, suicide ideation) and physical health complications (e.g., difficulty sleeping, high blood pressure), as well as limitations to their daily activities (e.g., difficulty concentrating, remembering) (Smith et al., 2022; Stevens et al., 2021). This is particularly true for victims pursued by current or former intimate partners, as research has shown that partner stalkers pose the greater risk for violence and lethality (Brady & Hayes, 2018; Spencer & Stith, 2020). Moreover, how victims manage UPBs is of great concern considering that some responses may not only be ineffective (Richards et al., 2022), but potentially deadly (Bendlin & Sheridan, 2019).

Since criminalized in the United States during the early 1990s, much has been learned about the correlates and consequences of stalking (Fisher et al., 2002; Fissel & Reyns, 2020; Nobles et al., 2018; Truman & Morgan, 2021), how stalking victims cope (Brewster, 2001; Cupach & Spitzberg, 2000; Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Fissel, 2021; Geistman et al., 2013; Podaná & Imríšková, 2016; Tokunaga & Aune, 2017; Villacampa & Pujols, 2019; Worsley et al., 2017), and why they seek help (Fissel, 2021; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010, 2014). Up to now, however, far too little attention has been paid to whether these strategies work to stop stalker’s actions, and if so, for whom and in what contexts?

Much of what is known about strategies to successfully deter stalkers is based on victims’ perceptions of effectiveness and limited to studies employing samples comprised solely of college students, women, and/or those pursued by intimate partners (Brewster, 2001; Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Geistman et al., 2013; Richards et al., 2022; Villacampa & Pujols, 2019). In addition to issues of generalizability, such approaches have failed to evaluate the effectiveness of safety strategies while accounting for the context in which UPBs occur. For example, research has confirmed that stalking victims’ decision to seek help is contextual and influenced by an array of situational considerations, such as how victims are pursued (e.g., online and/or in-person), the severity/duration of the UPBs, victims’ relational distance to stalkers, fear for the safety of themselves and others, and/or the accessibility and availability of resources (Augustyn et al., 2020; Fissel, 2021; Nobles et al., 2014; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010, 2014).

To date, however, few studies have investigated the effectiveness of safety strategies while accounting for the contextual factors influencing victims’ decision to seek help. Considering the risk for lethality posed by partner stalkers (Spencer & Stith, 2020), even less is known whether the effectiveness of certain safety strategies is consistent for victims pursued by partners versus acquaintances or strangers. The current study builds on prior limitations by identifying safety strategies with the best odds of getting stalkers to stop, net of victim and situational considerations for help-seeking. More specifically, I analyze data from a national sample of stalking victims to identify the most common strategies victims adopt to deter UPBs, what survivors attribute to getting stalkers to stop, and whether perceptions and probabilities of deterrence are conditioned by victims’ relationship to offenders.

How Victims Manage Stalkers

Research has uncovered several strategies victims are often forced to adopt to deter, manage, and prevent UPBs from escalating (Spitzberg, 2002). During the initial stages of the unwanted pursuits, victims attempt to deal with stalkers themselves by ignoring or minimizing the harassment, restricting access (e.g., blocking numbers/social media accounts), changing routines, and/or confronting perpetrators directly to tell them to stop (Brewster, 2001; Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Fissel, 2021; Geistman et al., 2013; Podaná & Imríšková, 2016; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2003; Tokunaga & Aune, 2017; Villacampa & Pujols, 2019; Worsley et al., 2017). When stalking victims do seek help from others, they are more likely to turn to informal sources of support like family and friends versus involving the police (Fissel, 2021; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2014; Truman & Morgan, 2021).² According to the stalking supplement to the 2006 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS; Baum et al., 2009), friends and family served as the most common sources of help and support (43%). Formal help-seeking practices like disclosing to employers, mental health professionals, and reporting to criminal-legal agencies were less common. This finding is consistent across crime types (Xie & Baumer, 2019), as survivors of sexual assault (Fisher & Sloan, 2003), intimate partner violence (Ansara & Hindin, 2010), and other violent victimizations (Kaukinen, 2004) are less likely to involve the criminal-legal system than disclosing to friends and family.

The Effectiveness of Strategies to Manage Stalkers

What stalking victims view as an “effective” strategy is subjective and likely to vary according to whether the tactic was adopted to end the unwanted conduct and/or help manage the negative impact of the harm (Cordier et al., 2021). Focusing on the former, the present study explores “effectiveness” in terms of deterrence and whether the strategies victims adopt are helpful in getting stalkers to leave them alone. Much of what we know about deterrence strategies for stalking, however, is either descriptive (Baum et al., 2009; Truman & Morgan, 2021), based on perceptions from specific populations of victims (Brewster, 2001; Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Geistman et al., 2013; Richards et al., 2022; Villacampa & Pujols, 2019), and/or stems from analyses that have not accounted for contextual factors associated with victims’ decision to seek help (Richards et al., 2022).

Descriptive findings from the 2006 stalking supplement revealed that over half of stalking victims believed the UPBs had stopped at the time of the interview (58%; Baum et al., 2009). When asked why, most victims claimed they took measures into their own hands (36%), such as confronting stalkers, moving, and changing phone numbers/email accounts. The second most prevalent reason involved interventions by others, such as friends/family, employers, and/or school personnel. Fewer victims believed that the UPBs had stopped as the result of formal interventions like securing protection orders or involving the police. Additional factors included stalkers stopping for other reasons, circumstances outside of victims’ control (stalker moved/was arrested/incarcerated), or for reasons victims did not know.

Other studies have asked victims to rank strategies they believed to be the most helpful at getting stalkers to leave them alone. Collectively, victims identified informal sources of support as the most effective strategy for deterring UPBs (Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Geistman et al., 2013; Richards et al., 2022; Villacampa & Pujols, 2019). Although some victims claimed that avoiding (e.g., restricting digital access, moving) or confronting stalkers helped them the most (Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Richards et al., 2022), others described how these strategies made things worse or were only effective when victims had additional support from family and friends (Geistman et al., 2013). While many victims did not perceive the police to be responsible for getting stalkers to stop (Baum et al., 2009), there is some evidence to suggest that formal interventions can serve as a resource for recourse. In fact, Dutton and Winstead (2011) found that involving the police was identified as the first and second most effective strategy reported among female and male stalking victims, respectively. While satisfaction is not always guaranteed when reporting to the police (see Brewster, 2001; Taylor-Dunn et al., 2021), the generalizability of the current findings are limited to studies employing bivariate analyses of data collected from samples of college students.

In a recent longitudinal study of college women who had recently broke-up with a male partner, Richards et al. (2022) were among the first to explore the impact of coping mechanisms on stalking cessation using multivariable modeling. Respondents completed a 40-item coping measure that was factor analyzed into five categories: minimization/avoidance, enlisting the help of others, punishing offenders, changing routines/restricting access, and confronting perpetrators. Findings revealed that none of the safety strategies were associated with reducing the frequency of unwanted physical and/or digital pursuits over an 8-week period (Richards et al., 2022). Despite the longitudinal design, the sample was limited to young women at a single US university who had recently endured a heterosexual break-up. Moreover, no study to my knowledge has examined the effectiveness of strategies while accounting for contextual factors that could impact the success of deterrence.

Contextual Considerations for Deterrence

Identifying strategies associated with getting stalkers to stop requires an understanding of victims’ decision to start seeking help. Albeit limited, evidence suggests that help-seeking decisions are often influenced by contextual factors like pursuit type, seriousness, duration, and relational distance (Fissel, 2021; Nobles et al., 2014; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010, 2014). For example, the use and effectiveness of safety strategies is likely related to the seriousness of stalkers’ efforts. Studies examining both informal and formal help-seeking have shown that stalking victims are more likely to adopt self-protective behaviors, disclose to friends and family, and contact police after experiencing more serious forms of, and consequences from, UPBs (e.g., co-occurring crimes, threats, out-of-pocket costs; Nobles et al., 2014; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010, 2014).

Similarly, the effectiveness of safety strategies is likely related to the length of time victims have been stalked. National estimates suggest that most stalking victims are pursued for longer than 1 month to less than 1 year, with nearly one in five victims experiencing UPBs for 2 or more years (Truman & Morgan, 2021). Victims who are pursued for longer durations are more likely to recognize their experience as “stalking,” report greater psychological distress, experience personal and professional consequences (e.g., health, school, and work), and seek help from professionals (e.g., counselors/victim services) and the police (Fissel, 2021; Fissel & Reyns, 2020; Purcell et al., 2004). Thus, it is possible that victims who are pursued for longer periods of time exhaust their options to seek help and are thus, less likely to get stalkers to leave them alone. To date, however, few studies have confirmed whether this is true.

How stalking victims respond to UPBs also depends on how they know the perpetrator(s). Substantial evidence suggests that partner stalking experiences differ from situations involving strangers or known offenders (Logan & Walker, 2009, 2017). While UPBs often start during the relationship (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998), ex-intimate partners pose the greatest risk for homicide (Spencer & Stith, 2020). Comparatively, partner stalkers are relentless and pursue victims with greater intensity, frequency, and for longer periods of time (Mohandie et al., 2006; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Partner stalkers are more likely to be violent, make and follow through on threats, and are the most resistant to criminal-legal interventions (Rosenfeld, 2003). Consequently, studies have found greater levels of fear, distress, and health consequences among victims of partner versus non-partner stalking (Logan, 2010).

What has yet to be determined is whether certain safety strategies work better to end UPBs for victims pursued by intimate partners versus known or stranger stalkers. Considering the wider array and greater frequency of UPBs (Mohandie et al., 2006), the relational context providing exclusive insight into victims’ vulnerabilities (Logan & Walker, 2009), and the heightened risk for violence and lethality (Brady & Hayes, 2018; Spencer & Stith, 2020), partner stalking victims may face unique challenges in getting stalkers to stop while remaining safe and preventing escalation. For example, blocking phone numbers may not be a feasible option as the safety of themselves or others may be contingent on communicating with stalkers and/or complying with their demands (Logan & Walker, 2009). In other cases, partner stalking victims may need to maintain the relationship (e.g., co-parenting), feel safer “playing nice,” and/or continue negotiating with perpetrators to keep the peace (Worsley et al., 2017). Moreover, the dynamics of partner versus non-partner stalkers warrants a systematic investigation to determine whether the effectiveness of safety strategies are consistent for getting partner versus non-partner stalkers to leave victims alone.

Finally, it is possible that the effectiveness of safety strategies depends on individual characteristics of victims. Research has identified age, gender, and race as factors influencing emotional reactions to UPBs and the extent to which victims seek help (Gatewood Owens, 2017; Hancock & Daigle, 2021; Truman & Morgan, 2021). Several studies have found that stalking victims who are Black women, male, or older were less likely to report being fearful as the result of the UPBs (Fissel, 2021; Gatewood Owens, 2017; Podaná, & Imríšková, 2016; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2013). Nobles et al. (2014) showed that older stalking victims and male cyberstalking victims adopted fewer self-protective behaviors than victims who were younger or female. Consistent with victims of violent victimization (Kaukinen, 2004), Reyns and Englebrecht’s (2014) analysis of the 2006 NCVS revealed that non-White stalking victims were less likely to enlist the help of friends and family. Other studies have found that female stalking victims adopt a greater array of self-protective behaviors and were more likely than male and non-binary victims to disclose to friends and family or seek professional help from counselors (Fissel, 2021; Nobles et al., 2014; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2014).

The Current Study

Up until now, several studies have identified the most common strategies stalking victims adopt to remain safe and prevent escalation (Baum et al., 2009; Truman & Morgan, 2021), what influences victims’ decision to engage in help-seeking (Augustyn et al., 2020; Brewster, 2001; Fissel, 2021; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010, 2014), the strategies victims perceive to be effective at ending UPBs (Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Geistman et al., 2013; Richards et al., 2022; Villacampa & Pujols, 2019), and the probabilistic effects of strategies in preventing future victimization (Richards et al., 2022). Although seminal, such approaches are either descriptive (Baum et al., 2009; Truman & Morgan, 2021) or limited to perceptions of effectiveness among unique populations of victims (women and/or college students only) in specific situations (recent break-up with a male intimate partner). Additionally, the extant scholarship has not accounted for the contextual factors associated with help-seeking such as how victims are pursued, the seriousness and duration of the UPBs, victims’ relationship to the perpetrator, and victims’ awareness of, and access to, resources. To address these limitations, the current study employs a national sample of stalking victims to answer the following questions: (1) What are the most common strategies stalking victims adopt to manage/deter UPBs? (2) What strategies are associated with deterring stalkers, net of contextual factors? (3) To what extent are perceptions and the probabilistic effects of strategies consistent for getting partner versus non-partner stalkers to leave victims alone?

Data and Methods

The present study analyzes stalking data collected as part of a supplement to the 2016 National Crime Victimization Survey (Truman & Morgan, 2021). The NCVS employs a stratified, multi-stage cluster design to establish a probability sample of US residents ages 12 or older. After completing the traditional NCVS, respondents ages 16 or older were presented with a screening questionnaire asking about their experiences in the past year with 12 behavioral measures of stalking. Victims meeting the criteria for stalking were subsequently presented with the full SVS. Overall, the SVS was administered to approximately 96,247 individuals with a response rate of 76% (see Truman & Morgan, 2021 for additional details on the SVS methodology).

Identifying Stalking Victims

Criteria for identifying victims of stalking were established according to legal and empirical definitions of stalking (Nobles et al., 2014). First, respondents were presented with a screener questionnaire asking them to provide a yes or no response to experiencing any of the 12 stalking-related behaviors in the previous year.³ The first six items measured traditional stalking tactics such as whether anyone had followed/watched respondents, snuck into their property without consent, waited/showed up unexpectedly, left/sent unwanted items/gifts, and/or harassed friends or family for information about respondents’ whereabouts. The latter six items measured whether anyone had made unwanted phone contact, sent excessive e-mails or direct messages via social media, monitored them via listening devices, cameras, computers/cell phone monitoring software, tracked their whereabouts with a GPS app/device, posted or threatened to post inappropriate/private/personal information on the Internet, and/or monitored their activities via social media. Respondents were identified as past-year stalking victims if they (1) experienced an unwanted course of conduct (i.e., two or more unwanted contacts/behaviors and/or a single unwanted behavior more than once) in the past year that (2) a reasonable person would consider to be fearful (i.e., threats/physical violence/property destruction); or (3) caused victims substantial emotional distress and/or to fear for the safety of themselves or others. Out of the 96,300 individuals who were administered the SVS, 1,470 (1.5%) disclosed experiences in the previous 12 months that would meet the legal criteria for stalking in the United States.

Dependent Variables

The primary dependent variable was a dichotomous measure of whether the unwanted contacts or behaviors have stopped (0 = no/not sure; 1 = yes). The second outcome of interest, perceptions of why perpetrators stopped the UPBs, was addressed using the subsample of stalking victims who reported the UPBs had stopped at the time of the interview (n = 901). Accounting for 62% of the sample, victims reporting they were no longer being stalked were subsequently asked to identify all reasons they believed the UPBs had stopped. Respondents were presented with a list of dichotomized items (0 = no; 1 = reason victims believed UPBs had stopped) related to self-protective behaviors (e.g., talked to offender, victim moved), informal/formal help seeking (e.g., friends/police), and circumstances beyond victims’ control (e.g., offender arrested/incarcerated, got help; see Table 2).

Safety Strategies

All stalking victims were asked whether they have used any of the following strategies in the previous 12 months because of the UPBs (0 = no; 1 = yes). Options included informal strategies like blocking phone numbers, e-mail/social media accounts, changing personal information, changing day-to-day routines, adopting weapons/taking self-defense courses/enhancing security, and/or enlisting the help of others like family/friends. Three measures captured formal strategies such as seeking community services outside the police (e.g., victim advocacy), applying for a protective orders and/or contacting the police about the unwanted contact or behaviors. In addition to examining specific strategies, all eight items were summed into an additive index to estimate the extent of strategies adopted by stalking victims in the past 12 months (M = 2.6, SD = 1.7).

Situational Considerations

For pursuit type, victims were categorized as whether they had been stalked through traditional tactics only (coded 1), solely through technology (coded 2), or a combination of both (coded 3). Seriousness was captured as an additive index of eight items, including whether stalkers had, in the past 12 months, illegally entered victims’ property, damaged victims’ property, made threats and/or attacked victims, victims’ pet, and/or someone close to them. Victims’ relationship to the offender included current/former intimate partners (coded 1) and non-partner stalkers (e.g., acquaintances, strangers, and those who victims were unable to identify; coded 0). Duration was a dichotomous measure of how long victims had experienced the UPBs (0 = less than 1 month to less than 1 year; 1 = 1 year or longer).

Victim Characteristics

Research has shown that the risk of stalking is greater among people with intersecting social identities like gender and race (Hancock & Daigle, 2021). Considering economic disparities and the historically negative treatment of marginalized communities by the police and legal systems (Kurlychek & Johnson, 2019), intersectionality may also influence the nature, extent, and effectiveness of how victims respond to the UPBs. Thus, an intersectional approach was used by creating four dyads: Non-Hispanic White women (0 = no; 1 = yes); Non-Hispanic White men (0 = no; 1 = yes); traditionally marginalized women (0 = no; 1 = yes); and traditionally marginalized men (0 = no; 1 = yes). Marginalized groups were comprised of respondents who reported a racial/ethnic identity that was not White (e.g., mixed race, Hispanic, Black, Native American/Alaskan Native, and/or Asian/Pacific Islander). In addition to age (continuous in years), access/availability of resources were assessed through proxy measures capturing victims’ household income (1 = ≤ $24,999; 2 = $25,000–$49,999; 3 = $50,000–$74,999; 4 = $75,000+), employment (0 = no; 1 = yes), and student status (0 = not attending school; 1 = attending school).

Analytic Strategy

Descriptive statistics were first estimated to identify the nature and extent of strategies victims used or believed to have stopped the UPBs from continuing. From there, bivariate analyses were conducted to determine whether differences in situational considerations emerged among victims of partner versus non-partner stalkers. Given the dichotomous nature of the primary dependent variable, three binary logistic regression models were estimated to examine the probability of the safety strategies associated with stopping the unwanted contact/behaviors, net of individual and situational characteristics. Model 1 provides baseline estimates of the effectiveness of each strategy. Model 2 determines whether the effects of the strategies on ending the UPBs are mediated by situational considerations. Said another way, the mediation model accounts for situational considerations to help explain why safety strategies may or may not be effective in deterring stalkers.

While mediation explains why or how safety strategies are related to ending UPBs, moderation determines “when” and “for whom” the strategies are most likely to work (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Considering the role of relational distance in the risk of relentlessness (Mohandie et al., 2006) it is possible that certain strategies may be less effective at deterring partner versus non-partner stalkers (Logan, 2010; Richards et al., 2022). To be sure, interactions between relational distance and each of the eight safety strategies were created and subsequently added in model 3. To assess model fit, a series of model diagnostics showed that collinearity did not appear to be a problem in any of the models.⁴ Bivariate correlations did not exceed 0.8, tolerance factors were all above 0.2, while variance inflation factors did not exceed 10 (Field, 2013).

How Stalking Victims Survived

Table 1 reports the unweighted descriptive statistics for stalking victims who completed the stalking supplement. Over half of stalking victims were White women (51%), with a median age of 41 (M = 42.7, SD = 16.5), and household incomes below $50,000 (59%). Most victims were employed (60%) and not attending school (88%). As seen in Table 2, nearly one in three victims were stalked by an intimate partner (28%) and were predominantly pursued through both traditional and cyberstalking tactics (48%) for more than 1 month but less than 1 year (62%). To manage the UPBs, victims adopted an average of three safety strategies in the past year (M = 2.6, SD = 1.7), with most reporting that they enlisted the help of others (72%), restricted digital access by blocking phone numbers and/or social media accounts (57%), and/or involved the police (29%). Other common strategies included changing day-to-day routines (28%), seeking help from community resources/victim services (24%), adopting weapons/enhancing security measures (23%), changing personal information/getting new devices (22%), with only 1 in 10 reporting that they applied for a protection order (9%).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (N = 1,470).

	%	n	M	SD	Ranges
Dependent variable
Unwanted pursuit behaviors have stopped	61.9	901	—	—	0–1
Victim characteristics
Age (in years)	—	—	42.7	16.5	16–90
Employed	60.0	882	—	—	0–1
Attending school	12.5	184	—	—	0–1
Intersectionality					1–4
Non-Hispanic White women	51.4	755	—	—	—
Non-Hispanic White men	20.1	296	—	—	—
Traditionally marginalized women (TMW)	20.2	297	—	—	—
Traditionally marginalized men (TMM)^a	8.3	122	—	—	—
Household income					1–4
≤$24,999^a	31.4	461	—	—	—
$25,000–$49,999	27.3	401	—	—	—
$50,000–$74,999	15.4	227	—	—	—
$75,000+	25.9	381	—	—	—

Note. Traditionally marginalized groups are comprised of victims who are Non-White Hispanic, Black, Asian, American Indian/Alaskan native, mixed race/ethnicity, and/or Native Hawaiian/Pacific islander.

Reference category.

Table 2.

Bivariate Statistics Showing Differences in Situational Considerations Comparing Partner Versus Non-Partner Stalkers.

	All stalking victims		Victims of non-partner stalkers		Victims of partner stalkers		Group differences test
	% (n)^a	M (SD)	% (n)	M (SD)	% (n)	M (SD)	Group differences test
Relational distance
Non-intimate partner	72.2 (1,503)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Intimate partner	27.8 (405)	—	—	—	—	—	—
Pursuit type							χ²(2) = 92.02*
Both tactics	47.7 (701)	—	39.8 (419)	—	67.2 (272)	—	—
Cyberstalking tactics only	34.4 (506)	—	38.7 (408)	—	23.7 (96)	—	—
Traditional tactics only	17.9 (263)	—	21.5 (226)	—	9.1 (37)	—	—
Duration							χ²(1) = 9.03*
<1 month to <1 year	61.6 (902)	—	64.2 (675)	—	55.4 (224)	—	—
One year or longer	38.4 (562)	—	35.8 (377)	—	44.6 (180)	—	—
Seriousness		0.9 (1.0)	—	0.7 (0.9)	—	1.2 (1.2)	t(1, 456) = −8.7*
Number of strategies adopted		2.6 (1.7)	—	2.4 (1.6)	—	3.3 (1.7)	t(1, 449) = −9.8*
Strategies adopted in past 12 months
Enlisted help from others	72.3 (1,051)	—	67.9 (712)	—	84.0 (336)	—	χ²(1) = 36.5*
Restricted digital access	56.5 (823)	—	49.7 (521)	—	74.0 (296)	—	χ²(1) = 68.7*
Contacted the police	29.3 (425)	—	27.2 (285)	—	35.3 (139)	—	χ²(1) = 8.6*
Changed daily routines	28.1 (409)	—	25.4 (266)	—	35.0 (140)	—	χ²(1) = 12.8*
Sought victim services	23.8 (344)	—	19.4 (203)	—	35.3 (139)	—	χ²(1) = 38.7*
Weapons/enhanced security	22.5 (327)	—	21.4 (224)	—	25.3 (101)	—	χ²(1) = 2.3
Changed information/devices	22.3 (325)	—	20.0 (210)	—	28.5 (114)	—	χ²(1) = 11.5*
Sought protective order	9.1 (132)	—	5.9 (62)	—	17.3 (69)	—	χ²(1) = 43.8*

Estimates represent the “yes” or “1” category among the full sample of stalking victims.

p < .001.

Consistent with the literature (Logan, 2010), experiences reported by victims stalked by intimate partners (IP) were drastically different than those pursued by non-partner stalkers (NP). First, victims of partner stalkers were significantly more likely to be pursued both in person and online (67%_IP vs. 40%_NP). Estimates revealed that victims of non-partner perpetrators were twice as likely to be stalked in-person only (9%_IP vs. 22%_NP) or solely through technology (24%_IP vs. 39%_NP). Second, partner stalking victims experienced more serious forms of UPBs (e.g., property destruction, threats, assaults) and for longer durations. Finally, and in addition to adopting a greater number of safety strategies, partner stalking victims were significantly more likely to enlist the help of others restrict digital access, contact the police, change daily routines, seek professional help, change personal information/devices, and/or apply for protection orders.

Perceptions of Strategy Effectiveness Among Partner Versus Non-Partner Stalking Victims

Turing to Table 3, most stalking victims were no longer experiencing the UPBs the time of the interview (62%). When asked why, nearly half of victims reported how the UPBs had stopped after dealing with the situation themselves (44%). For instance, one in five victims (19%) believed the UPBs stopped after changing/blocking phone numbers/social media accounts and/or getting new devices. A third of victims believed stalkers stopped due to reasons outside of their control (32%), such as the offender dying/other reasons (19%) or the perpetrator was arrested/incarcerated (4%). Besides not knowing why stalkers had stopped (21%), fewer victims believed stalkers had stopped as the result of engaging in informal/formal help-seeking strategies (26%). Indeed, only 13% of victims believed the UPBs had stopped after enlisting the help of others (13%) with less than 10% identifying criminal-legal solutions such as involving the police (7%) or applying for protection orders (6%).

Table 3.

Reasons Stalking Victims Believed Unwanted Contacts/Behaviors Stopped (n = 901).

	All stalking victims	Victims of non-partner stalkers	Victims of partner stalkers	Group differences test
	% (n)^a	% (n)^a	% (n)^a	Group differences test
Unwanted pursuit behaviors have stopped	61.9 (901)	64.3 (257)	61.2 (642)	χ²(1) = 1.0
Unsure why	20.7 (186)	24.3 (156)	11.7 (30)	χ²(1) = 17.2**
Factors beyond victims’ control (32%; n = 287)
Stalker died/other reason	18.8 (169)	21.1 (135)	12.8 (33)	χ²(1) = 7.6**
Stalker was arrested/incarcerated	4.2 (38)	3.6 (23)	5.4 (14)	χ² (1) = 1.2
Stalker moved	4.0 (36)	3.6 (23)	5.1 (13)	χ²(1) = 0.7
Stalker started new relationship	3.2 (29)	1.9 (12)	6.6 (17)	χ²(1) = 11.7**
Stalker got help/counseling	1.7 (15)	0.6 (4)	4.3 (11)	χ²(1) = 12.8**
Self-protective behaviors (44%; n = 393)
Blocked contact, changed information, new devices	19.4 (175)	18.1 (116)	23.0 (59)	χ²(1) = 2.5
Talked to stalker	13.0 (117)	11.4 (73)	17.1 (44)	χ²(1) = 4.8*
Victim moved	9.1 (82)	7.5 (48)	13.2 (34)	χ²(1) = 6.6**
Victim started new relationship/married	2.1 (19)	1.6 (10)	3.5 (9)	χ²(1) = 2.5
Informal/formal help-seeking (26%; n = 236)
Friends/family/employer/school/other intervened	12.7 (114)	13.7 (88)	10.1 (26)	χ²(1) = 1.9
Police intervened	7.1 (64)	7.8 (50)	5.4 (14)	χ²(1) = 1.2
Victim got a protection/restraining order	6.4 (58)	3.7 (24)	13.2 (34)	χ²(1) = 25.8**
	N = 901	n = 641	n = 257

Estimates represent the “yes” or “1” category among the subsample of stalking victims who reported that the unwanted pursuit behaviors experienced in the year prior had stopped at the time of the interview.

p < .05. **p < .01.

While partner stalking victims were no more or less likely than victims of non-partner stalkers to report that the unwanted pursuits had ended (64%_IP vs. 61%_NP, p = .31), findings revealed significant differences in victims’ perceptions of why perpetrators stopped. First, fewer partner stalking victims were unsure why the UPBs had stopped. Partner stalking victims were more likely to believe that stalkers had stopped after confronting perpetrators, moving, and/or obtaining a protection order. While non-partner stalkers were more likely to believe the UPBs had stopped due to other reasons beyond victims’ control, partner stalking victims were more likely to report being left alone when perpetrators started a new relationship, and/or got help/counseling.

Table 4 presents the results from the logistic regression models estimating the effects of safety strategies on stopping unwanted pursuits. After accounting for victim characteristics (model 1), five out of the eight safety strategies were significantly related to ending unwanted pursuits. While restricting digital access was only marginally related to ending unwanted pursuits (OR = 1.23, p = .09), contacting the police was the only strategy with a significant positive relationship. Indeed, involving the police produced a 32% increase in the odds of getting stalkers to leave them alone. Conversely, the remaining significant relationships were negatively related to the outcome, suggesting that such strategies were less likely to deter UPBs. In other words, victims who altered their routines, changed personal information and devices, adopted weapons/enhanced security, and/or sought victim services were more likely to report that the UPBs were ongoing. Applying for protection orders and enlisting the help of others were not significantly related to ending unwanted pursuit behaviors.

Table 4.

Logistic Regression Results: Strategies Associated With Ending Unwanted Pursuits.

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	b	SE	OR	b	SE	OR	b	SE	OR
Strategies in past 12 months
Restricting digital access	0.21	0.12	1.23^†	0.26	0.14	1.30^†	0.36	0.16	1.44^†
Changed information/devices	−0.29	0.14	0.75*	−0.15	0.15	0.86	−0.34	0.18	0.72
Changed daily routine/moved	−0.37	0.13	0.69*	−0.34	0.14	0.71*	−0.37	0.17	0.69*
Weapons/enhanced security	−0.31	0.14	0.74*	−0.22	0.15	0.80	−0.27	0.18	0.77
Enlisted help from others	−0.24	0.14	0.79	−0.20	0.15	0.82	−0.16	0.17	0.85
Sought victim services	−0.30	0.14	0.74*	−0.14	0.15	0.87	0.06	0.19	1.06
Applied for a protection order	−0.19	0.22	0.83	−0.12	0.24	0.89	−0.38	0.33	0.68
Contacted the police	0.28	0.13	1.32*	0.31	0.15	1.37*	0.40	0.17	1.49*
Victim characteristics
Victim age (in years)	−0.02	0.00	0.98*	−0.01	0.00	0.99*	−0.01	0.00	0.99*
White women^a	0.81	0.21	2.25*	0.74	0.23	2.09*	0.75	0.23	2.11*
White men^a	0.70	0.23	2.01*	0.57	0.25	1.78*	0.57	0.25	1.76*
Marginalized women^a	0.55	0.23	1.74*	0.67	0.25	1.96*	0.69	0.25	1.99*
Income $25k–$49,999^b	0.23	0.15	1.26	0.19	0.16	1.21	0.20	0.17	1.22
Income $50k–$74,999^b	0.16	0.18	1.17	0.06	0.20	1.06	0.04	0.20	1.04
Income $75,000+^b	−0.02	0.15	0.98	−0.09	0.17	0.92	−0.07	0.17	0.93
Situational considerations
Cyberstalking only^c				0.08	0.15	1.09	0.06	0.15	1.06
Traditional tactics only^c				0.15	0.19	1.16	0.14	0.19	1.15
Seriousness				0.00	0.07	1.00	−0.01	0.07	0.99
Duration: stalked for 1 year+				−1.46	0.12	0.23*	−1.47	0.13	0.23*
Victim is employed				0.25	0.13	1.29^†	0.25	0.14	1.28^†
Victim is attending school				0.68	0.21	1.98*	0.67	0.21	1.96*
Intimate partner stalker				0.19	0.18	1.20	0.64	0.40	1.90
Relational distance as a moderator
Partner × restricted access							−0.30	0.32	0.74
Partner × changed information/devices							0.60	0.32	1.83
Partner × changed routine/moved							0.13	0.31	1.14
Partner × enhanced security							0.13	0.33	1.14
Partner × enlisted other trusted sources							−0.37	0.39	0.69
Partner × sought victim services							−0.54	0.32	0.58
Partner × applied for protection order							0.59	0.47	1.81
Partner × contacted police							−0.28	0.32	0.75
Model χ²	36.69*			252.84*			262.80*
Nagelkerke R²	0.034			0.223			0.231
N	1,436			1,413			1,413

Reference category: ^aTraditionally marginalized men; ^b≤$24,999; ^cBoth traditional and cyberstalking tactics.

†

p < .10. *p < .05.

Model 2 incorporates important situational factors to determine if and how they affect relationships between safety strategies and deterrence in the initial baseline model. After accounting for situational considerations, only two out of the eight safety strategies remained significant. Consistent with the baseline model, restricting digital access remained marginally significant (OR = 1.30, p = .06) while contacting the police was the only strategy associated with getting stalkers to stop, net of individual and situational contexts. Victims who altered daily routines or moved, however, were less likely to report that the UPBs had stopped. Three strategies significant in model 1 were also mediated by situational considerations. According to supplemental mediation analyses not presented here, duration served as the sole situational characteristics responsible for mediating the effects of safety strategies on deterring UPBs from stalkers. Results indicated that victims who changed their personal information, enhanced security, and sought victim services, were more likely to be pursued for longer durations. In turn, victims who were pursued for longer durations were less likely to report that the UPBs had stopped. Moreover, after accounting for duration, such strategies were no longer related to the outcome. In other words, longer durations explain why strategies such as changing personal information/devices, enhancing security, and/or seeking victim services were no longer related to deterring stalkers who are relentless in their efforts to surveil, invade, intimidate, and sabotage.

The findings also suggest that ending UPBs is contextual and related to factors beyond adopting safety strategies. Consistent with the baseline model, victim characteristics played a role in deterring stalkers, particularly intersectionality. Results revealed that the odds of unwanted pursuits ending were less in the favor of victims who were older and/or traditionally marginalized males. Victims who were White women, women of color, or White males, were nearly twice as likely to report that the unwanted pursuit behaviors had stopped compared to traditionally marginalized males who were Non-White Hispanic, Black, Asian, American Indian/Alaskan native, and/or Native Hawaiian/Pacific islander.

Despite situational characteristics accounting for most of the variance in the dependent variable (22%), relational distance, pursuit type, and the seriousness of the stalkers’ behaviors were not significantly related to getting perpetrators to stop. Duration was the only significant situational consideration and showed that victims who were pursued for longer periods of time were less likely to report that the UPBs had stopped. Proxy measures for having awareness and access to resources had the second strongest effect on ending unwanted pursuits. Indeed, victims who were attending school were twice as likely as those not in school to report the unwanted behaviors had stopped. Although only marginally significant (p = .06), employment produced a 29% increase in the odds of ending UPBs.

Stopping partner versus non-partner stalkers

Model 3 in Table 4 estimates the moderating effects of relational distance on the effectiveness of strategies to end UPBs. Overall, direct effects remained with the results revealing no moderating effects of relational distance for any of the eight strategies adopted in the past year. In other words, the effectiveness of safety strategies was consistent regardless of whether victims were stalked by intimate partners versus non-partners.

Discussion

As stalkers continue to find new ways to wreak havoc in physical and/or online spaces, how victims can remain safe while preventing escalation is of grave concern. Despite evidence describing how victims manage stalkers and the factors surrounding decisions to seek help, whether such strategies are effective in getting stalkers to stop has yet to be confirmed. This study builds on previous work using a national sample of US residents with experiences in the past year that satisfies the criminal-legal criteria for stalking in the United States. More specifically, I identified the most common strategies victims adopted to remain safe, what survivors attributed to stalkers leaving them alone, and the help-seeking decisions with the best chances of deterrence.

In the past year, victims adopted an average of three different strategies to remain safe. Consistent with the extant scholarship (Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Geistman et al., 2013; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2014; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2003), most victims dealt with stalkers themselves by blocking social media accounts/phone numbers and seeking help from informal sources of support (e.g., friends, family members, employers, and property managers). Despite less than 10% applying for protection orders, formal strategies like contacting the police were slightly more common than other forms of informal help-seeking. Nearly one in three victims reported their experience to the police compared to the 22% to 24% of victims who accessed victim services or adopted self-protective behaviors (e.g., altering routines, changing information/devices, enhancing security).

Restricting digital access and contacting the police were the only two safety strategies associated with ending unwanted pursuits. This was true both independent of, and accounting for, situational considerations and relational distance. Victims who blocked social media accounts/phone numbers or involved the police were more likely to report that the UPBs had stopped. Not only was restricting digital access among the most common strategies adopted in the past year, but also what many survivors attributed to getting stalkers to leave them alone. Albeit only marginally significant in the multivariable models, restricting digital access merits potential as an effective strategy due to improvements in safety and privacy features in everyday technologies. In response to growing concerns for technological exploitation and harm in the past decade (Madden, 2012), technology companies like Apple and social media sites have enabled security and privacy features that make it easier for consumers to restrict access to unwanted contact (Sushama et al., 2021). Smartphones now come custom with features to block numbers while privacy settings on social media sites allow users to “unfriend/unfollow,” “mute,” “block,” and report abusive accounts (Madden, 2012). Moreover, by disrupting efforts to surveil and communicate, this form of technological target hardening can create barriers and burdens that may dissuade stalkers to continue their obsessive pursuits of romance and/or retaliation (Fissel, 2022).

Contrary to previous findings on victims’ perceptions of effectiveness (Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Geistman et al., 2013), however, contacting the police had the strongest relationship with ending unwanted pursuits out of all eight safety strategies. This was interesting considering that a third of victims contacted the police in the past year (29%), yet only 7% attributed police interventions as the reason why stalkers stopped. Nevertheless, involving the police produced nearly a produced a 40% increase in the odds of unwanted pursuits ending.

While satisfaction is not always guaranteed when reporting to the police (see Brewster, 2001; Taylor-Dunn et al., 2021), the findings corroborate prior evidence showing that assessments of safety improved for stalking victims when officers warned the perpetrator and took a report (Ngo, 2020). Warning perpetrators, however, is key as police inaction in stalking complaints can facilitate escalation (Ngo, 2020). According to the conditional deterrence perspective (Sherman et al., 1992), the threat of legal intervention (e.g., arrest) from an officer may serve as a more powerful deterrent than actual punishments due to perpetrators recognizing the potential consequences and societal reactions stemming from an arrest. Yet, deterrence is conditional, and threats of formal interventions may not concern perpetrators who have nothing to lose (Toby, 1957), especially if officers fail to effectively intervene. While it is possible that the effectiveness of involving the police for stalking may be conditional, findings from baseline and mediation models revealed that contacting the police was related to ending unwanted pursuits even after accounting for context and relational distance. Thus, for most stalking complaints, officers can potentially ameliorate the situation through documentation and putting perpetrators on notice. Nevertheless, additional research is needed to further corroborate this finding and to unpack why involving the police works for some victims and punishes others.

When analyzing help-seeking decisions, accounting for context is critical as perceptions of effectiveness did not always align with the probability of deterrence. Consistent with previous findings (Baum et al., 2009), stalking victims who were no longer experiencing UPBs considered self-protective (e.g., avoidance/confrontation) and informal help-seeking strategies (e.g., enlisting others) to be helpful in getting stalkers to leave them alone. In addition to factors outside victims’ control or not knowing why, most attributed their survival to restricting digital access/changing information/devices, talking to offenders, relocating, and/or moving on to a new relationship. Only 13% believed enlisting the help of others was helpful with less than 10% identifying criminal-legal interventions as an effective deterrent.

In the multivariable models, perceptions aligned for restricting digital access but diverged on the perceived versus probabilistic effective of enlisting help from family and friends versus contacting the police. Counter to prior findings (Geistman et al., 2013), enlisting help from others was not related to ending unwanted pursuits while victims who changed their personal information, altered routines/appearances, enhanced security, and/or accessed victim services were less likely to report the UPBs had stopped. Except for altering routines and restricting digital access, all informal help-seeking strategies were fully mediated after accounting for the context in which victims were stalked. This demonstrates that coping is contextual and what works for some victims may not work for others. While explanations surrounding the ineffectiveness of strategies are underexamined, the results underscore the importance of accounting for context in help-seeking decisions. The negative associations among informal strategies suggest that these tactics may be beneficial in the short-term or at least for peace of mind but are ultimately not related to getting perpetrators to stop.

The results also revealed contextual factors where safety strategies may not be effective at deterring stalkers. For instance, after accounting for situational characteristics, safety strategies like changing personal information or enhancing security were no longer related to ending unwanted pursuits. Subsequent mediation analyses identified duration as the culprit, as these informal deterrence strategies were no match for stalkers who pursued victims for 1 year or longer. These results are consistent with prior studies showing that longer durations are associated with greater risk of threats, violence, and/or psychological distress among stalking victims (Purcell et al., 2004; Thompson & Dennison, 2008; Sheridan & Roberts, 2011). Safety strategies may also be less effective when victims are unemployed or not attending school. Employers and schools serve as guardians who can help corroborate victims’ accounts (e.g., surveillance, witnesses) while using their authority to criminally trespass anyone who threatens the safety of their employees and consumers. Under the Campus SaVE Act (2013), institutes of higher education are not only mandated to implement prevention programming around stalking but are required to inform victims of their rights and resources available to them. Thus, college students may have better chances at getting perpetrators to leave them alone due to awareness campaigns about stalking and having access to relevant campus resources (e.g., counselors, Title IX processes).

Moreover, victims who were older or males from traditionally marginalized communities were significantly less likely to report the UPBs had stopped. Drawing from the help-seeking literature, stalking may be ongoing as research has shown that stalking victims who are older, male, and representative of marginalized communities report less fear from the UPBs, adopt fewer protective behaviors, and are less likely to seek help (Fissel, 2021; Gatewood Owens, 2017; Nobles et al., 2014; Reyns and Englebrecht, 2014). In addition to examining stalking experiences outside of student samples, the findings demonstrate a need for future studies to identify and evaluate intersectional approaches to advocacy and safety planning with underserved populations (e.g., men, particularly from traditionally marginalized communities).

Finally, despite differences in the severity of the stalkers’ efforts and perceptions of why perpetrators stopped, relational distance did not moderate the effect of safety strategies as a deterrent. Consistent with prior findings (Logan, 2010), partner stalking victims were more likely than non-partner victims to be pursued both in person and online, experienced greater degrees of threats and violence, and longer durations of stalking. As a result, partner stalking victims adopted a greater number and array of safety strategies. Among survivors, partner stalking victims were less unsure why perpetrators stopped and were more likely than non-partner stalkers to attribute their survival to confronting stalkers, relocating, and obtaining protection orders. Due to the potential of parenthood and/or having intimate knowledge of victims’ lifestyles, I hypothesized that safety strategies could be less effective for partner stalking victims. However, direct effects remained significant in the final model and none of the interactions between relational distance and safety strategies were significant. In other words, the effectiveness of safety strategies was consistent regardless of whether victims were stalked by intimate partners versus non-partners.

Because this finding is not fully understood, future research would benefit from interviews and focus groups with victims to better understand how they navigate safety and escalation from stalkers. One cost-effective way to assess the effectiveness of safety strategies for repeat victimization is to have survivors complete life history calendars (Hayes, 2018). Life history calendars (LHCs) involve retrospective analyses whereby victims document significant dates (e.g., birthdays, weddings, court dates) in relation to periods of escalation and intensity (Hayes, 2018). From there, survivors can share what they did to cope, the strategies used to prevent escalation, and the degree to which each tactic helped attenuate the UPBs. Research has shown that LHC aid in establishing the temporal order of help-seeking behaviors and improving memory recall by allowing survivors to elaborate on their decision-making (Hayes, 2018; Roberts & Horney, 2010). What remains to be known is whether LHC can serve as a fruitful alternative to longitudinal designs by providing a more thorough understanding of how stalking victims navigate UPBs.

Although the findings are promising, the following limitations should be considered. First, stalkers are unpredictable, and perpetrators may stop for periods of time before engaging in UPBs again (Logan & Walker, 2017). Thus, the cross-sectional nature of the data limits the ability to establish when and why victims adopted safety strategies. While victims were asked to report on strategies adopted within the past 12 months, the temporal order of adoption in relation to the motivating incident and expected outcomes are worthy of further exploration. Intersectionality was limited by the lack of measures in the NCVS for sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition to physical and sexual violence, LGBTQ+ folks experience higher rates of stalking (Walters et al., 2013) and national victimization surveys should capture empirically sound measures that would provide context to preventing homicides. Additionally, stalking often co-occurs with other offenses (Logan et al., 2007; Truman & Morgan, 2021) and the current did not account for prior victimization experiences. To be sure, future research should explore how polyvictimization over the life course shapes how victims cope, seek help, and prevent future victimizations.

While the data were limited to victim experiences, future studies should evaluate the effectiveness of deterrence strategies within the context of the perpetrator motivations (e.g., revenge or romance), criminal histories, as well as perpetrators perceptions of target hardening strategies that ultimately convinces them to leave victims alone. Moving forward, it is also important to emphasize that perpetrators are solely responsible for their actions and harms caused from stalking. Victims are not responsible for getting offenders to stop and should never be blamed for responding, or not responding, to unwanted contact. That being said, the onus is on perpetrators to not behave in ways that cause victims to suffer the distress and fear that ultimately influences their need to adopt such strategies to remain safe.

Conclusion

Stalking is a serious crime that places undue burdens on victims to prevent escalation. In the present study, the findings confirmed the reality that stalkers are a detriment to victims’ personal and professional quality of life. In the past year, victims were forced to adopt an average of three different strategies to remain safe. Most informal safety strategies were negatively related to ending unwanted pursuits (e.g., changing personal information, routines, self-defense tactics, seeking victim services), while restricting electronic access and contacting the police were the only strategies associated with getting perpetrators to stop. The findings suggest that coping is contextual and what works to deter stalkers is related to victim and situational considerations, particularly intersectionalities, the duration of pursuits, and having awareness and access to resources. Additional research is needed to corroborate the results, particularly with methodologies employing life history calendars to unpack the contexts in which strategies are most likely to provoke escalation.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This study is dedicated to all survivors and current victims of stalking whose lives were unfairly impacted by entitled perpetrators and their inability to take no for an answer. I would also like to thank Jennifer Landhuis for her harsh, yet insightful feedback about my writing.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Patrick Q. Brady

Notes

Author Biography

Patrick Q. Brady is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Northern Colorado. His research interests focus on reducing burnout among criminal justice professionals and improving justice system responses to intimate partner stalking. He is the recipient of the 2018 Academy of Criminal Justice Science’s “New Scholar Award” for the Victimology division. His recently published work on these topics has appeared in the Journal of Criminal Justice, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and Police Quarterly. You can follow him (legally) on Twitter @Patrickology_.

References

Ansara

D. L.

Hindin

M. J.

(2010). Formal and informal help-seeking associated with women’s and men’s experiences of intimate partner violence in Canada. Social Science & Medicine, 70(7), 1011–1018.

Augustyn

M. B

Rennison

C. M.

Pinchevsky

G. M

Magnuson

A. B.

(2020). Intimate partner stalking among college students: Examining situational contexts related to police notification. Journal of Family Violence, 35(7), 679–691.

Baron

R. M

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Baum

Catalano

Rand

Rose

(2009). Stalking victimization in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office.

Bendlin

Sheridan

(2019). Nonfatal strangulation in a sample of domestically violent stalkers: The importance of recognizing coercively controlling behaviors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(11), 1528–1541.

Boxall

Rosevear

Payne

(2015). Domestic violence typologies: What value to practice?. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, (494), 1–9.

Brady

P. Q.

Hayes

B. E.

(2018). The intersection of stalking and the severity of intimate partner abuse. Violence and Victims, 33(2), 218–238.

Brewster

M. P.

(2001). Legal help-seeking experiences of former intimate stalking victims. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12(2), 91–112.

Campus SaVE Act of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization of 2013, 42 U.S.C. §§ 13701 (2013).

10.

Cordier

Chung

Wilkes-Gillan

Speyer

(2021). The effectiveness of protection orders in reducing recidivism in domestic violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 22(4), 804–828.

11.

Cupach

W. R.

Spitzberg

B. H.

(2000). Obsessive relational intrusion: Incidence, perceived severity, and coping. Violence and Victims, 15(4), 357–372.

12.

Dutton

L. B.

Winstead

B. A.

(2011). Types, frequency, and effectiveness of responses to unwanted pursuit and stalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(6), 1129–1156.

13.

Field

(2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. SAGE.

14.

Fisher

B. S.

Sloan

J. J.

III (2003). Unraveling the fear of victimization among college women: Is the “shadow of sexual assault hypothesis” supported?. Justice Quarterly, 20(3), 633–659.

15.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a national study of college women. Criminology & Public Policy, 1(2), 257–308.

16.

Fissel

E. R.

(2021). The reporting and help-seeking behaviors of cyberstalking victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11–12), 5075–5100.

17.

Fissel

E. R.

(2022). Victims’ perceptions of cyberstalking: An examination of perceived offender motivation. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 47(2), 161–175.

18.

Fissel

E. R

Reyns

B. W.

(2020). The aftermath of cyberstalking: School, work, social, and health costs of victimization. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(1), 70–87.

19.

Gatewood Owens

. (2017). A gender-biased definition: Unintended impacts of the fear requirement in stalking victimization. Crime & Delinquency, 63(11), 1339–1362.

20.

Geistman

Smith

Lambert

E. G.

Cluse-Tolar

(2013). What to do about stalking: A preliminary study of how stalking victims responded to stalking and their perceptions of the effectiveness of these actions. Criminal Justice Studies, 26(1), 43–66.

21.

Hancock

K. P.

Daigle

L. E.

(2021). Double jeopardy? Exploring the intersectionality of sexual/gender group membership, racial/ethnic group membership, and victimization risk. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 19(2), 140–162.

22.

Hayes

B. E.

(2018). Benefits and challenges of using life history calendars to research intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 33(3), 227–238.

23.

Kaukinen

(2004). The help-seeking strategies of female violent-crime victims: The direct and conditional effects of race and the victim-offender relationship. Journal of interpersonal violence, 19(9), 967–990.

24.

Kurlychek

M. C.

Johnson

B. D.

(2019). Cumulative disadvantage in the American criminal justice system. Annual Review of Criminology, 2(1), 291–319.

25.

Logan

T. K.

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

26.

Logan

T. K.

Walker

(2009). Partner stalking: Psychological dominance or “business as usual? Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 10(3), 247–270.

27.

Logan

T. K.

Walker

(2017). Stalking: A multidimensional framework for assessment and safety planning. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 18(2), 200–222.

28.

Logan

T. K.

Shannon

Cole

(2007). Stalking victimization in the context of intimate partner violence. Violence and Victims, 22(6), 669–683.

29.

Madden

(2012). Privacy management on social media sites. Pew Internet Report, 24, 1–20.

30.

McNamara

C. L.

Marsil

D. F.

(2012). The prevalence of stalking among college students: The disparity between researcher-and self-identified victimization. Journal of American College Health, 60(2), 168–174.

31.

Mohandie

Meloy

J. R.

McGowan

M. G.

Williams

(2006). The RECON typology of stalking: Reliability and validity based upon a large sample of North American stalkers. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(1), 147–155.

32.

Ngo

F. T.

(2020). Stalking victimization: Examining the impact of police action and inaction on victim-reported outcome. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 35(2), 146–156.

33.

Nobles

M. R.

Cramer

R. J.

Zottola

S. A.

Desmarais

S. L.

Gemberling

T. M.

Holley

S. R.

Wright

(2018). Prevalence rates, reporting, and psychosocial correlates of stalking victimization: Results from a three-sample cross-sectional study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 53(11), 1253–1263.

34.

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.

35.

Podaná

Imríšková

(2016). Victims’ responses to stalking: An examination of fear levels & coping strategies. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(5), 792–809.

36.

Purcell

Pathe

Mullen

(2004). When do repeated intrusions become stalking? Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 15(4), 571–583.

37.

Reyns

B. W.

Englebrecht

C. M.

(2010). The stalking victim’s decision to contact the police: A test of Gottfredson and Gottfredson’s theory of criminal justice decision making. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 998–1005.

38.

Reyns

B. W.

Englebrecht

C. M.

(2013). The fear factor: Exploring predictors of fear among stalking victims throughout the stalking encounter. Crime & Delinquency, 59(5),788–808.

39.

Reyns

B. W.

Englebrecht

C. M.

(2014). Informal and formal help-seeking decisions of stalking victims in the United States. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(10), 1178–1194.

40.

Richards

da Silva

E. S.

Dardis

C. M.

(2022). Do women’s coping responses to unwanted pursuit behaviors reduce future victimization? A prospective exploration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(15-16), NP13373–NP13397. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211005153

41.

Roberts

Horney

(2010). The life event calendar method in criminological research. In Piquero

Weisburd

(Eds.), Handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 289–312). Springer.

42.

Rosenfeld

(2003). Recidivism in stalking and obsessional harassment. Law and Human Behavior, 27(3), 251–265.

43.

Sheridan

Roberts

(2011). Key questions to consider in stalking cases. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(2), 255–270.

44.

Sherman

L. W.

Smith

D. A.

Schmidt

J. D.

Rogan

D. P.

(1992). Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. American Sociological Review, 57(5), 680–690

45.

Smith

S. G.

Basile

K. C.

Kresnow

M.-J.

(2022). The National intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2016/2017 report on stalking. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

46.

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.

47.

Spitzberg

B. H.

(2002). The tactical topography of stalking victimization and management. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 3(4), 261–288.

48.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Cupach

W. R.

(2003). What mad pursuit? Obsessive relational intrusion and stalking related phenomena. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8(4), 345–375.

49.

Stevens

Nurse

J. R. C.

Arief

(2021). Cyber stalking, cyber harassment, and adult mental health: A systematic review. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 24(6), 367–376.

50.

Sushama

Kumar

M. S.

Neelima

(2021). Privacy and security issues in the future: A social media. Materials Today: Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.11.105

51.

Taylor-Dunn

Bowen

Gilchrist

E. A.

(2021). Reporting harassment and stalking to the police: A qualitative study of victims’ experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11–12), NP5965–NP5992.

52.

Thompson

C. M.

Dennison

S. M.

(2008). Defining relational stalking in research: Understanding sample composition in relation to repetition and duration of harassment. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 15(3), 482–499.

53.

Tjaden

P. G.

Thoennes

(1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the national violence against women survey. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.

54.

Tjaden

Thoennes

Allison

C. J.

(2000). Comparing stalking victimization from legal and victim perspectives. Violence and Victims, 15(1), 7–22.

55.

Toby

(1957). Social disorganization and stake in conformity: Complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 48, 1–12.

56.

Tokunaga

R. S.

Aune

K. S.

(2017). Cyber-defense: A taxonomy of tactics for managing cyberstalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(10), 1451–1475.

57.

Truman

J. L.

Morgan

R. E.

(2021). Stalking victimization, 2016. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Government Printing Office.

58.

Villacampa

Pujols

(2019). Effects of and coping strategies for stalking victimisation in Spain: Consequences for its criminalisation. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 56, 27–38.

59.

Walters

M. L.

Chen

Breiding

M. J.

(2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation. Atlatna, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

60.

Worsley

J. D.

Wheatcroft

J. M.

Short

Corcoran

(2017). Victims’ voices: Understanding the emotional impact of cyberstalking and individuals’ coping responses. SAGE Open, 7(2), 2158244017710292.

61.

Xie

Baumer

E. P.

(2019). Crime victims’ decisions to call the police: Past research and new directions. Annual Review of Criminology, 2(1), 217–240.