Informal and Formal Help-Seeking Decisions of Stalking Victims in the United States

Abstract

A large body of criminal justice research has investigated the decisions made by system actors, especially police, judges, and prosecutors. A growing area of research interest has focused on the decisions made by crime victims in response to criminal victimization. Many times, victims decide to seek help from informal sources such as friends or family in overcoming their criminal victimization, a decision that may influence the likelihood of reporting to more formal outlets, including the police. These decisions and the factors that influence a victim’s decision to seek help are not well understood, particularly for victims of stalking. The present study examines the situational and victim characteristics that affect informal help-seeking decisions among stalking victims while also exploring the impact of informal help-seeking on the decision to report the crime to law enforcement (formal help-seeking). Results suggest that dimensions of offense seriousness, fear of victimization, and victimization acknowledgment are among the factors affecting decision-making, and that these informal and formal victim decisions are unrelated despite having similar predictors.

Keywords

stalking victimization help-seeking victim decision-making

After a crime occurs, victims are faced with a number of decisions, including whether to confide in someone about what happened and whether to report their victimization experience to law enforcement. There also are several informal and formal help-seeking behaviors that victims engage in to seek out support or help from others. Informal help-seeking occurs when victims turn to family members, friends, neighbors, or others in their social networks for help after victimization has occurred (McCart, Smith, & Sawyer, 2010). Formal help-seeking, however, refers to agencies, including those in the criminal justice system or mental health service providers, who can help to provide support to crime victims. Research suggests that crime victims are much more likely to turn to their informal networks, such as a friend or family member, than formal sources of support (Coker, Derrick, Lumpkin, Aldrich, & Oldendick, 2000; Ullman, 2007). This disparity has significant implications, including determining valid rates of victimization, identifying and apprehending offenders, and ensuring that crime victims are made aware of and receive needed support and services.

Although there is a growing body of research devoted to understanding victim decision-making, there are also gaps in the knowledge base that have yet to be fully addressed. First, the majority of studies devoted to understanding these decisions have concentrated on the decision to contact the police. This is understandable given the implications of this decision for the criminal justice system. However, it is also important for researchers to focus attention on informal help-seeking because it is evidently a more common response to victimization and may, in turn, influence reporting decisions. Second, most studies of victim decision-making have focused on understanding the decisions of victims of sexual offenses. Again, while this is valuable considering how underreported sexual victimization is, it is also essential to explore factors influencing decision-making among victims of other crimes. Third, research has tended to focus on these decisions in isolation of each other, examining either formal or informal decision-making. There is a need, therefore, for research to bridge the gap between these two decisions and explore what influence they may have on each other.

The present study addresses these gaps in the extant literature by examining both the informal and formal help-seeking decisions of victims of stalking. Specifically, situational variables related to the victimization experience and characteristics of the victims themselves are examined as potential precursors to help-seeking. Particular emphasis is placed on informal help-seeking behaviors, given that they are less understood and that there has been a lack of prior research on the topic. However, the present study also examines the extent to which informal help-seeking affects victims’ decisions to then report their victimization to the police. If informal help-seeking influences one’s decision to report to the police, then it is vital to understand the factors that influence both of these decisions. To address these issues, the present study uses data from the stalking supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).

Informal and Formal Help-Seeking

Informal Help-Seeking Behaviors

Self-report surveys of victimization suggest that many crime victims do not report their victimization to law enforcement (Truman & Planty, 2012) or seek out support from other formal outlets like social service agencies (Davies, Block, & Campbell, 2007; Kaukinen, 2002). Although formal reporting has significant implications for the system, many victims instead engage in what scholars refer to as informal help-seeking behaviors—namely, seeking support from family and friends after victimization (Coker et al., 2000; Kaukinen, 2004; Prospero & Vohra-Gupta, 2008). Research has reported that it is much more common for crime victims to approach their informal support networks compared with formal sources of support (Barrett & St. Pierre, 2011; Coker et al., 2000; Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003; Kaukinen, 2004; Ullman, 2007). For instance, Fisher et al. (2003) reported that while only 2% of victims of sexual offenses reported their experience to law enforcement, nearly 70% confided in someone else, such as a friend.

Studying help-seeking decisions is an ongoing focus of victimologists, but certain consistent correlates of help-seeking have been identified across studies. For example, examining the characteristics of victims and their victimization experience, Lewis et al. (2005) found that younger victims and individuals with a history or prior victimizations or mental health issues were more likely to seek help from family members or friends. Barrett and St. Pierre (2011) reported that for victims of intimate partner violence, those who experienced a more serious victimization were more likely to utilize informal support networks. Older victims, minorities, and individuals of lower socio-economic status were less likely to rely on friends and family for support. Furthermore, the decision to seek out these sources of support can have significant implications for crime victims. For example, Ullman (1996) suggests that for victims of rape, those who sought support from family and friends, compared with those who contacted the police, reported better psychological outcomes after the victimization experience.

Whether or not a victim chooses to seek support from a friend or family member may have implications for their subsequent decisions. For example, research suggests that the support and advice victims receive from family and friends can influence whether they report the crime to the police (Buhi, Clayton, & Surrency, 2009; Greenberg & Ruback, 1992; Kaukinen, 2002). Therefore, it is necessary to understand what influences a victim’s decision to seek support from family and friends, and what effect these informal sources have on formal reporting.

Formal Help-Seeking Behaviors

When a crime occurs and a victim is harmed, the decision often lies with the victim as to whether they will contact the police. In that sense, victims of criminal acts have been described as the gatekeepers of the criminal justice process, as many crimes would go undetected if not for victim reporting (M. R. Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 1988). In light of the significance of this decision, scholars have paid particular attention to the factors that influence a victim’s decision to contact the police. In doing so, a number of predictors of reporting, including the factors that increase the likelihood a victim will contact the police, have been identified. It is possible that these factors also play a role in informal help-seeking decisions, but this remains an open empirical question.

One of the most significant predictors of victim reporting is the seriousness of the offense. Much of the research in this area has operationalized seriousness according to the extent of injury that a victim has sustained (Akers & Kaukinen, 2009; Bachman, 1998; Clay-Warner & McMahon-Howard, 2009; Felson, Messner, & Hoskin, 1999; Fisher et al., 2003; Skogan, 1976). For example, Bachman and Coker (1995) found that victims of domestic violence were more likely to report their victimization to the police when their injuries were significant. Other research has found that victims are more likely to report to the police when a weapon is used (e.g., Davies et al., 2007).

Victim acknowledgment, which involves the victim labeling his or her experience as victimization, is more likely to occur when a victim experiences significant injuries due to his or her victimization. This can also be an important precursor to victim reporting. For example, research has found that in cases of sexual assault, victims are less likely to label their experience as criminal if their victimization did not fit the stereotypical account of an assault (e.g., violent act, significant struggle; Clay-Warner & McMahon-Howard, 2009; Lizotte, 1985; Weiss, 2009; Williams, 1984). Furthermore, victimizations that fit a “typical” account of sexual assault are more likely to be reported to the police (Feldman-Summers & Norris, 1984; Golding, Siegel, Sorenson, Burman, & Stein, 1989).

Examining the relationship between victim acknowledgment and stalking is particularly important, as stalking requires a victim to express certain emotions (fear) before the behavior can legally qualify as a criminal act (Fox, Nobles, & Fisher, 2011; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2013; Tjaden, 2009). In a study examining acknowledgment among stalking victims, Jordan, Wilcox, and Pritchard (2007) found that less than half of individuals surveyed who met criteria for a stalking victimization labeled their experience as such. They also reported that when an incident met a more stereotypical account of stalking, victims were more likely to label the incident as stalking—a finding replicated in subsequent research (Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011).

The relationship between the victim and offender has also been shown to influence the likelihood of a victim reporting the crime to the police. However, exactly how the relationship influences reporting is still debated, and may depend on the type of victimization experienced. For example, while some studies have found that victims are more likely to contact the police when the offender is a stranger, particularly in cases where the victimization involved a sexual assault (Black, 1976; Felson & Paré, 2005; Fisher et al., 2003; Gartner & Macmillan, 1995; Gottfredson & Hindelang, 1979; Weiss, 2009), other research has found the opposite to be true (Bachman, 1998; Felson et al., 1999; Gottfredson & Hindelang, 1979). The majority of these studies suggest that victims are more inclined to excuse, and less likely to acknowledge, the behavior of an intimate partner as criminal, but more research is needed to explore the connection between victim–offender relationships and reporting.

Characteristics of the victim have also been shown to influence whether someone reports a crime to the police. For instance, research generally finds that women are more likely than men to report crimes to police (Kaukinen, 2002). Furthermore, race and ethnicity can influence a victim’s decision to call the police. Kaukinen (2004) found that White victims of violent crimes were more likely to seek out both informal and formal help compared with their Black counterparts, a finding supported by other research (Barnett, 2001; Barrett & St. Pierre, 2011). Lewis et al. (2005) found that younger victims, White victims, and individuals with a history of prior victimizations and mental health diagnoses were more likely to call the police compared with their counterparts. Research has also found that individuals in higher socio-economic strata are more likely to seek formal sources of support (Barrett & St. Pierre, 2011; Coker et al., 2000).

Stalking Victimization and Help-Seeking

While there is limited research on the topic of help-seeking behaviors of stalking victims, research has explored help-seeking behaviors for crimes that often co-occur with stalking, including domestic violence and sexual assault (Burgess et al., 1997; Coleman, 1997; Logan, Shannon, & Cole, 2007; Nobles, Fox, Piquero, & Piquero, 2009; Southworth, Finn, Dawson, Fraser, & Tucker, 2007). This literature helps provide context for the exploration of help-seeking behaviors of victims of stalking.

Coker et al. (2000) examined the likelihood of victims of intimate partner violence to seek help, including reporting their victimization to the police or seeking mental health services. These authors found that only a fraction of those who experienced intimate partner violence sought out help. Other research has found that for victims of intimate partner violence, the strongest predictors of seeking help were the level of fear the individuals felt due to their victimization (Barrett & St. Pierre, 2011) and the seriousness of the crime (Coker et al., 2000; Kaukinen, 2004). The more serious a victim perceives an assault to be, the more likely she is to call the police and activate formal help-seeking mechanisms, a finding that has been extended to research with stalking victims (Jordan et al., 2007; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010).

A small number of studies have begun to explore the help-seeking behaviors of stalking victims specifically. One study found that for victims of stalking, approximately half of victims did not seek out support. Furthermore, it was much more common for stalking victims to talk to family and friends rather than report to the police (Buhi et al., 2009). Research by Fox, Nobles, and Akers (2011) highlights the potential significance of the relationship between being stalked and seeking out support from friends. This research found that victims of stalking were more likely than non-victims to report knowing others who also had been stalked. Relatedly, victims of stalking also reported believing that friends would be less sympathetic to their victimization experience (Fox, Nobles, & Akers, 2011). These findings suggest that a stalking victim’s decision to reach out to informal support networks may be influenced by an anticipation of friends’ reactions. Furthermore, seeking help from friends and family, including the reaction a victim receives, may influence other decisions a stalking victim makes.

Collectively, these studies indicate that stalking victimization is underreported. Thus, victims of stalking may be considered a vulnerable population because they are unlikely to seek informal support or report to the police. Furthermore, if victims are more likely to seek help from family and friends compared with formal outlets like the police as research suggests, this type of informal help-seeking behavior merits particular attention. Overall, more research is needed to explore if and how victims of stalking seek help from others, including whether those experiences affect the likelihood of reporting to the police.

The present study explores the dynamics of victim decision-making, with a focus on identifying factors that shape informal help-seeking decisions. Because previous research suggests that crime victims are more likely to engage these sources for support as compared with formal sources, the current analysis pays particular attention to these informal decisions. Informal help-seeking is also examined as it relates to formal reporting behaviors. Therefore, the analyses were guided by three primary research questions:

Research Question 1: What factors influence informal help-seeking decisions of stalking victims?

Research Question 2: What factors influence informal help-seeking decisions among victims who did not contact the police?

Research Question 3: Does informal help-seeking affect formal reporting decisions?

Method

Data and Procedure

Data for this study were collected in 2006 as a special supplement to the U.S. National Crime Victimization Survey known as the Supplemental Victimization Survey (SVS). The NCVS is a biannual victimization survey designed to gauge the extent and nature of criminal victimization against residents of the United States aged 12 and older. The SVS, which has thus far only been conducted a single time, was designed to measure the scope, characteristics, and consequences of stalking victimization in the United States. Although sample sizes have changed over time, recent administrations of the NCVS have typically included samples of about 76,000 U.S. residents. Respondents to the 2006 NCVS were screened for eligibility to participate in the SVS, which was ultimately administered to 65,270 individuals aged 18 and older and had a response rate of 83%. From this pool of respondents, a subsample was selected that experienced stalking victimization.

Respondents were identified as victims of stalking if they met two criteria. First, respondents were asked whether they had felt frightened, concerned, or angry by someone contacting them or attempting to contact them repeatedly (e.g., phone calls, emails, other messages), following or spying on them, waiting for them (e.g., at school or work), showing up for no legitimate reason, leaving them unwanted items (e.g., flowers, gifts), or posting information or spreading rumors about them. Second, as stalking is a crime of repeated contact, respondents were asked whether they had ever had these experiences on more than one occasion. Those who answered affirmatively to both of these questions were classified as stalking victims and included in the sample. Of these victims, complete data were available on all of the variables of interest for 1,591 respondents.

Measures

Dependent Variables

Two dependent variables were examined in the present study: informal help-seeking and formal help-seeking. Informal help-seeking was measured with a single survey item reading, “Some people might ask others for help in order to protect themselves or to stop the behaviors from continuing. In the last twelve months, did you . . . .” Those who indicated that they had enlisted the help of friends or family were coded as having sought help from informal sources. As Table 1 indicates, 31% of stalking victims made the decision to ask friends or family for help.

Table 1:

Descriptive Statistics

Variable	Scale	Range	M (SD)
Dependent variables
Informal help-seeking	0 = no, 1 = yes	0-1	0.31
Formal reporting	0 = no, 1 = yes	0-1	0.29
Independent variables
Seriousness	Mean seriousness	0-1	0.11
Lost time at work	0 = no, 1 = yes	0-1	0.17
Financial cost	Logged cost	0-11.51	6.60 (1.05)
Acknowledgment	0 = no, 1 = yes	0-1	0.39
Fear	0 = no, 1 = yes	0-1	0.33
Cyberstalking	0 = no, 1 = yes	0-1	0.24
Stranger	0 = no, 1 = yes	0-1	0.32
Age	Age in years	18-90	43.03 (14.95)
Sex	0 = male, 1 = female	0-1	0.81
Race (Non-White)	0 = White, 1 = non-White	0-1	0.15
Married	0 = no, 1 = yes	0-1	0.44

Note. N = 1,591.

The second dependent variable of interest, formal help-seeking, reflects whether victims of stalking reported the crime to the police. This formal reporting decision was measured with a survey item that read, “In the last 12 months did you or someone else call or contact the police to report any of these unwanted contacts or behaviors?” Overall, 29% of stalking victims sought help from formal sources by contacting law enforcement (see Table 1).

Independent Variables

Previous research has identified several variables that are influential in shaping victims’ decision-making generally, and help-seeking decisions specifically. The independent variables included in the analyses are seriousness of the offense, whether the victim lost time at work, the financial cost of the incident to the victim, whether the victim experienced cyberstalking in addition to traditional (offline) stalking, whether the victim acknowledged his or her experience as stalking, whether the victim felt frightened in response to the offender’s actions, the victim–offender relationship, and victim demographic characteristics. Descriptive statistics for these variables are provided in Table 1.

First and foremost, the seriousness of the offense has emerged as the most consistent explanation for why victims decide to seek help in overcoming their victimization. While seriousness can be conceptualized in a variety of ways, a composite measure was created based on five survey items reflecting the offender’s aggressive behavior during the course of the stalking event. These survey items were recoded to measure whether the stalker did any of the following: damaged, attempted to damage, or destroyed the victim’s property; illegally entered or attempted to enter the victim’s home or car; attacked or attempted to attack the victim physically; threatened the victim; or attempted to intimidate the victim in some other manner. The combined seriousness variable represents the mean value across these five dimensions of seriousness of the stalking encounter. Reliability analysis indicated acceptable internal consistency for the seriousness measure, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.67.

Two variables measuring financial cost to the victim were also included in the analysis. First, whether the victim lost time at work was measured with a single survey item and coded dichotomously. Second, the amount of money that the stalking incident cost the victim (e.g., moving expenses) was taken under consideration. Because this variable was positively skewed, the logged cost to the victim is included in the analyses. These two variables may also reflect the seriousness of the crime, with losing time at work and a greater financial cost indicating a more serious experience for the victim.

A somewhat related variable, cyberstalking victimization, was also included in the analyses. Approximately one quarter of stalking victims were pursued online and/or electronically by their offender. Experiencing unwanted pursuit behaviors by stalkers both offline in “real life” and online in cyberspace may suggest to victims that their situation is more serious and prompt them to seek help, either informally or formally. Similarly, those who experience both types of pursuit may be more likely to acknowledge that they have been victimized and, therefore, more likely to seek out help. To account for these possibilities, a cyberstalking measure was created from two SVS items reflecting whether the victim was pursued online or electronically (e.g., in chat rooms, through email) or whether they were tracked or monitored electronically (e.g., using computer programs, GPS systems). Those who experienced either of these behaviors were considered to be victims of cyberstalking (see Nobles et al., in press).

Another reliable correlate of victim decision-making is the acknowledgment of victimization. Previous research has reported that how victims see their experience, notably whether they acknowledge that they have been victimized, affects whether they report the incident to law enforcement. Although thus far untested, it is also possible that acknowledgment affects victim decision-making with respect to seeking help from informal sources as well. Accordingly, victimization acknowledgment was measured with a survey item asking respondents whether they considered their experience to be stalking. This question appeared at the end of the survey to minimize any bias that might be introduced by using the stalking label.

The victim’s response to the offender’s pursuit behaviors can affect how they decide to handle the incident. For instance, victims who are frightened by the offender may be more likely to tell someone about their experience, including law enforcement. We therefore included a composite measure of fear in our analyses as a potential influence on both informal and formal decision-making. Two questions from the SVS were used to create this measure. For these questions, respondents were asked, “How did the behavior of [this person/these persons] make you feel . . .” with two time periods explored. The first question referred to the time frame “when it first started” and the second question referenced “as the behavior progressed.” In both cases, respondents were given several answer choices, such as “depressed,” “anxious,” “frightened,” and other comparable negative emotional reactions. Those who indicated that they were frightened either when the stalking started or as it progressed were designated as having experienced fear in the course of the incident.

Victimization research has long recognized the importance of the victim–offender relationship in both explaining victimization and explaining victim responses to victimization. Prior research suggests that victimization in the context of closer relationships (between intimates) is less likely to result in formal help-seeking by victims, whereas more distant relationships (between strangers) are more likely to result in formal help-seeking. However, it is as yet unclear how such factors affect victims’ decision to approach informal sources, such as close friends, to ask for help in responding to their victimization. To account for the effects that the victim–offender relationship might have on informal and formal help-seeking decisions, a dichotomous measure was created to reflect the relationship between the victim and offender as that of either a nonstranger or a stranger.

Like the victim–offender relationship, prior research has identified victim demographic characteristics as having an effect on victim reporting and help-seeking decisions. Thus, age, sex, race, and marital status were also included as variables in the analyses.

Analytic Strategy

Binary logistic regression is the appropriate statistical technique to answer our research questions given the dichotomous nature of the dependent variables. In doing so, six binary logistic regression models were estimated. First, the independent variables were regressed on informal help-seeking among the full sample of stalking victims. This group of victims included those who reported their victimization to the police as well as those who did not contact law enforcement, allowing for an exploration of the effects of police reporting on informal help-seeking. Second, the analyses were rerun on a subsample of victims who decided not to report their victimization formally to the police. Hypothetically, deciding to contact the police could alter collateral decisions, such as whether to seek help from friends or family. Third, these same variables were regressed on informal help-seeking among those who did report their victimization to the police. Fourth, since the dynamics of victim decision-making may differ by gender, we estimated separate models for females and males to investigate this possibility. Finally, because help-seeking decisions might affect each other, we assessed the extent to which informal help-seeking influenced formal reporting behaviors. Relationships are considered statistically significant at the .05 level of significance.

Results

Informal Help-Seeking Decisions

Model 1 in Table 2 provides results related to informal help-seeking decisions among victims of stalking. Among this group of 1,591 victims, several statistically significant influences on informal help-seeking were identified. As anticipated, the seriousness of the offense positively affected the help-seeking decision, with more serious offenses increasing the likelihood that victims would ask others for help by nearly three times, Exp(B) = 2.84. Relatedly, those who lost time at work due to the stalker’s pursuit also had an increased likelihood of seeking help from friends or family. Having lost time at work increased the odds of victim decision-making about one and a half times, Exp(B) = 1.60. The situational variable reflecting whether the victim experienced cyberstalking in addition to physically proximal stalking also significantly and positively affected the likelihood of victim informal help-seeking, Exp(B) = 1.35.

Table 2:

Informal Help-Seeking Decisions

	Model 1: Informal Help-Seeking (Full Sample)			Model 2: Informal Help-Seeking (Non-Reporting Group)			Model 3: Informal Help-Seeking (Reporting Group)
Variables	Coefficient	(SE)	Exp(B)	Coefficient	(SE)	Exp(B)	Coefficient	(SE)	Exp(B)
Seriousness	1.04**	(0.30)	2.84	1.79**	(0.49)	6.00	0.69	(0.38)	2.01
Lost time at work	0.47*	(0.19)	1.60	0.98**	(0.28)	2.68	0.14	(0.25)	1.15
Cost	0.01	(0.05)	1.01	0.06	(0.08)	1.06	0.005	(0.07)	1.00
Formal reporting	0.09	(0.14)	1.09	—	—	—	—	—	—
Fear	0.80**	(0.13)	2.23	0.91**	(0.16)	2.50	0.54**	(0.21)	1.72
Acknowledgment	0.51**	(0.13)	1.66	0.68**	(0.16)	1.99	0.11	(0.21)	1.12
Cyberstalking	0.30*	(0.14)	1.35	0.26	(0.17)	1.30	0.49*	(0.25)	1.63
Stranger	−0.66**	(0.14)	0.51	−0.76**	(0.17)	0.46	−0.32	(0.26)	0.72
Age	−0.001	(0.004)	0.99	−0.001	(0.005)	0.99	−0.002	(0.007)	0.99
Gender	0.63**	(0.17)	1.88	0.68**	(0.22)	1.97	0.60*	(0.29)	1.83
Non-White	−0.53**	(0.17)	0.58	−0.51*	(0.22)	0.59	−0.53*	(0.27)	0.58
Married	−0.27*	(0.13)	0.76	−0.18	(0.16)	0.83	−0.43*	(0.22)	0.64
Constant	−1.84**	(0.43)	0.16	−2.45**	(0.63)	0.08	−1.09*	(0.64)	0.33
−2 Log-likelihood	1,720.86			1,108.14			587.21
Model χ²	250.37**			195.43**			38.73**
Nagelkerke R²	0.20			0.23			0.11
N	1,591			1,133			458

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

As Table 2 illustrates, victims’ assessments of their experience and their personal characteristics also affected informal help-seeking decisions. Those who were identified as being fearful at some point during the stalking encounter were over twice as likely to contact friends or family for help in overcoming their experience, Exp(B) = 2.23. In addition, individuals who acknowledged that they were victims of stalking were significantly more likely to ask others for help, Exp(B) = 1.66. The victim–offender relationship also emerged as an influential factor in explaining informal help-seeking, although the direction of the relationship was negative, indicating that those who were stalked by strangers were significantly less likely to ask for help, Exp(B) = 0.51.

Victim demographic characteristics, including gender, race, and marital status, also affected victims’ decisions to ask for help. For example, females were nearly twice as likely as males to make the decision to seek help from informal sources, Exp(B) = 1.88. With respect to race and marital status, non-White victims, Exp(B) = 0.58, and married victims, Exp(B) = 0.76, were significantly less likely to informally seek help. Finally, while there appear to be several significant factors affecting victim decision-making, it is noteworthy that contrary to expectations, formal decisions to contact the police did not produce a statistically significant effect on informal decision-making.

It may be that contacting the police for help negates the need for individuals to ask informal sources for help. To further parse the effects of informal and formal decision-making and explore this hypothesis, Model 2 of Table 2 presents results explaining informal help-seeking decisions among a subsample of stalking victims who did not contact the police. For the most part, it appears that not contacting the police changed little with respect to correlates of informal help-seeking decisions. Seriousness of the offense, for example, remained the most robust indicator of informal help-seeking. However, among those who did not contact the police, seriousness attained added importance, increasing the likelihood of informal help-seeking by six times, Exp(B) = 6.00. As was observed in Model 1, losing time at work positively affected informal help-seeking decisions, Exp(B) = 2.68. Likewise, fear, Exp(B) = 2.50, and stalking acknowledgment, Exp(B) = 1.99, retained their significance, with both variables nearly doubling the victim’s odds of asking others for help. Furthermore, while the effects of gender, race, and the victim–offender relationship were virtually unchanged from the prior model, experiencing cyberstalking and marital status were no longer significant predictors of informal help-seeking among this group of victims.

Model 3 in Table 2 further deconstructs the informal help-seeking decision by considering these dynamics among a group of victims that did contact the police. There are few substantive differences in comparison with the previously discussed models, and perhaps most importantly, seriousness of the offense failed to attain statistical significance. Like the other models, fear, Exp(B) = 1.72, cyberstalking, Exp(B) = 1.63, gender, race, and marital status also influenced the decision.

In consideration of the influence of gender in Models 1, 2, and 3, we also conducted supplemental exploratory analyses to assess whether influences on informal help-seeking decisions may be gender-based. The results presented in Table 3 indicate that many of the previously identified correlates of decision-making were being driven by female stalking victims from the sample. Notably, seriousness, lost time at work, fear, acknowledgment, cyberstalking, the victim–offender relationship, race, and marital status exhibited effects similar to those observed in Model 1. In contrast, only fear was significantly related to male decision-making, with fearful male victims being four times more likely to ask others for help, Exp(B) = 4.00. Once again, in neither case did formal reporting influence informal help-seeking. The test of equality of regression coefficients suggests that few of the observed differences between males and females are statistically significant.

Table 3:

Informal Help-Seeking Decisions by Gender

	Model 4: Female Victims			Model 5: Male Victims			Test of Equality of Regression Coefficients
Variables	Coefficient	(SE)	Exp(B)	Coefficient	(SE)	Exp(B)	z Score
Seriousness	1.18**	(0.34)	3.26	0.36	(0.72)	1.43	1.03
Lost time at work	0.48*	(0.21)	1.62	0.40	(0.49)	1.50	0.15
Cost	0.01	(0.06)	1.01	0.08	(0.13)	1.08	−0.49
Formal reporting	0.05	(0.15)	1.05	0.25	(0.37)	1.28	−0.50
Fear	0.70**	(0.14)	2.02	1.38**	(0.34)	4.00	−1.85*
Acknowledgment	0.53**	(0.14)	1.70	0.49	(0.32)	1.64	0.11
Cyberstalking	0.40**	(0.15)	1.50	−0.11	(0.33)	0.89	1.41
Stranger	−0.73**	(0.15)	0.47	−0.35	(0.37)	0.69	−0.95
Age	−0.003	(0.004)	0.99	0.01	(0.01)	1.01	−1.21
Non-White	−0.51**	(0.19)	0.60	−0.79	(0.48)	0.45	0.54
Married	−0.29*	(0.13)	0.74	−0.03	(0.59)	0.96	−0.43
Constant	−1.06**	(0.45)	0.34	−2.83**	(1.01)	0.06	1.60*
−2 Log-likelihood	1,430.45			278.66
Model χ²	213.17**			36.92**
Nagelkerke R²	0.21			0.18
N	1,298			294

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

Formal Help-Seeking Decisions

In Model 6 of Table 4, formal help-seeking decisions (i.e., to report the crime to the police) of stalking victims were explored. As was observed in the previous models predicting informal help-seeking, several factors were significantly related to the reporting decision. Once again, the seriousness of the offense stands out as the most salient factor in victim decision-making. In this case, seriousness increased the odds that victims would contact the police over 20 times, Exp(B) = 21.00. Having lost time at work also appeared to increase victim reporting—victims whose work was affected were nearly three times more likely to contact the police, Exp(B) = 2.92. As was the case with informal help-seeking decisions, victims who were fearful, Exp(B) = 1.76, and those who acknowledged that they were stalked, Exp(B) = 1.80, were at an increased probability of formally reporting their experience to law enforcement. Last, being cyberstalked negatively affected victim reporting behaviors. Those who were pursued both online and offline were about half as likely to report the encounter to the police, Exp(B) = 0.55. The results also suggest that informal and formal decisions have little effect on each other. While the coefficient for informal help-seeking is positive in Model 6, it failed to attain statistical significance. This finding is discussed in depth in the “Discussion” section.

Table 4:

Formal Help-Seeking Decisions

	Model 6: Formal Reporting to Law Enforcement
Variables	Coefficient	(SE)	Exp(B)
Seriousness	3.04**	(0.33)	21.00
Lost time at work	1.07**	(0.19)	2.92
Cost	0.03	(0.05)	1.03
Informal help-seeking	0.08	(0.14)	1.08
Fear	0.56**	(0.13)	1.76
Acknowledgment	0.58**	(0.13)	1.80
Cyberstalking	−0.58**	(0.16)	0.55
Stranger	−0.16	(0.14)	0.84
Age	−0.001	(0.004)	0.99
Gender	0.19	(0.18)	1.21
Non-White	0.005	(0.17)	1.00
Married	−0.05	(0.14)	0.94
Constant	−2.20**	(0.45)	0.11
−2 Log-likelihood	1,576.22
Model χ²	333.72**
Nagelkerke R²	0.27
N	1,591

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

Discussion

The primary purpose of the present study was to identify factors that influenced stalking victims’ decisions to seek out help from informal sources in response to their victimization. While victimization research has investigated decision-making related to formal reporting behaviors among victims of specific crimes (e.g., sexual assault, stalking), informal help-seeking has been studied much less by comparison. Beyond this, it was hypothesized that there may be a relationship between these two decisions—the informal and the formal help-seeking decisions of stalking victims. Informal help-seeking behaviors may be influential in the decision to call the police and report the crime. For example, the individual a victim confides in may encourage him or her to contact law enforcement, or conversely, a victim may be satisfied with the help he or she receives from friends and feel that it is unnecessary to involve the police. Similarly, it is possible that for some, contacting the police negates the need to ask friends or family for help. The present study therefore also estimated whether formal reporting affected informal help-seeking, and whether informal help-seeking affected formal reporting.

With respect to factors that affected help-seeking decisions, the results are similar to what has been reported in prior research concerning victim decision-making. Seriousness of the stalking encounter was consistently related to both informal help-seeking and formal reporting behaviors across statistical models. Indeed, seriousness increased the probability of formal reporting by over 20 times. Losing time at work, experiencing feelings of fear, and acknowledging the victimization experience as stalking all positively influenced these decisions. The effects of cyberstalking varied across victim decisions and across models, exhibiting positive effects on informal help-seeking, but negative effects on formal reporting. Furthermore, results related to the victim–offender relationship indicate that victims are reluctant to ask friends or family for help when the offender is a stranger. The gender and race of the victim were also related to decision-making, with females and Whites being more likely to seek out help from friends or family and to formally report their stalking victimization to law enforcement.

Two notable theories of criminal justice actor decision-making are informative in interpreting these results. First, M. R. Gottfredson and Gottfredson (1988) argued that three factors drive decision-making across stages of the criminal justice system, including among crime victims: the seriousness of the offense, the victim–offender relationship, and the offender’s prior criminal record. Our results related to informal and formal decision-making are supportive of the importance of seriousness. As previously noted, this was the most robust variable across models. However, the effects of the victim–offender relationship ran contrary to what M. R. Gottfredson and Gottfredson’s theory would predict, with those who were stalked by strangers being less likely, not more likely, to ask for help. Furthermore, the offender’s prior criminal record was not included in our analyses. Overall then, the current results offer partial support for M. R. Gottfredson and Gottfredson’s theory.

Second, the focal concerns perspective also suggests that three considerations are useful for understanding decision-making: community protection, offender blameworthiness, and practical constraints and consequences of the decision (Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998). Steffensmeier et al. (1998) used the focal concerns perspective as an explanation for sentencing decisions, but subsequent research has expanded its scope to include other criminal justice decisions, such as parole determinations (e.g., Huebner & Bynum, 2006). These concepts have not yet been subjected to an empirical test to explain victim decision-making, but given the results of the current study, future research may consider doing so. These three concepts find reasonably close counterparts or proxy measures in the present study.

Offender blameworthiness is reflected in the concept of seriousness, with more serious incidents indicating a more blameworthy offender. Stalking acknowledgment may also be a factor related to offender blameworthiness, because those who recognize that they have experienced a criminal victimization can attribute it to the offender’s pursuit behaviors. Furthermore, the need for community protection, while not included in the present analyses, may be one of the factors victims consider in the decision to contact law enforcement. Fear could arguably be related to the concept of community protection as well. In the current study, fear was a strong, positive, and significant factor across all six models.

Practical constraints also may affect victim decision-making. For example, victims may avoid telling others about their experience because they do not want the offender to be punished, which is consistent with reasons victims give in victim surveys for not contacting the police (e.g., it is a private matter; Langton, Berzofsky, Krebs, & Smiley-McDonald, 2012). Conversely, a victim may be more inclined to contact the police when the offender is a stranger, a finding congruent with previous research on the relationship between stalking and formal reporting (Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010). Furthermore, a stalking victim may view the behavior of someone known to him or her as less blameworthy, and therefore less serious, making the call to police unwarranted. Yet, because we know that individuals are more likely to be stalked by someone known to them (Douglas & Dutton, 2001; Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2002; Jordan et al., 2007; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998), underreporting to the police becomes a significant issue. Victims may be less likely to report incidents involving cyberstalking, believing that there is less that can be done to help them. This hypothesis potentially explains the negative effect cyberstalking had on formal reporting behaviors in Model 6. Taken as a whole, although these theoretical ideas could not be fully explored in the current study, they do highlight areas in which future research can concentrate and offer a theoretical foundation for understanding victim decisions.

Another central focus of the present study was to analyze the effects of informal help-seeking and formal reporting decisions on each other. On this point, the results indicate that these two decisions are statistically independent, at least for victims of stalking. Although the coefficients are positive in their respective models, they failed to attain statistical significance in each case. There are many possible reasons for these findings. First, perhaps these two decision points truly are independent, and informal and formal help-seeking behaviors do not affect each other. Second, our results may be specific to victims of stalking, whereas the behaviors produce different effects when considering victims of other offenses. Third, gender and race emerged as statistically significant predictors of informal help-seeking. This may suggest that gendered or race-based effects are at work. For example, it is plausible that female and male victims make these decisions differently in the same way that males and females have unique pathways to victim acknowledgment (e.g., Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011). Our supplemental analysis supports this hypothesis, but further research is needed to continue to explore these relationships.

Conclusion

The results of the present study add to the victim decision-making literature, especially as it relates to informal help-seeking decisions, but should nevertheless be viewed in light of the study’s limitations. First, as with many studies of victim decision-making, the research design for the current study was cross-sectional. As such, it is not possible to establish causality. Although this may not have had an effect on study results, it is also possible that time order is an important dimension to consider in understanding the effects that informal and formal help-seeking have on each other. Second, although the NCVS SVS provides national level data on stalking victimization in the United States, the supplement was also restricted to those aged 18 and older. Thus, the processes that affect victim decision-making, help-seeking, and formal reporting among those under the age of 18 remain unexplored.

Despite these limitations, this present study offers valuable insights into victim decision-making, highlighting the factors that influence a victim’s decision to seek support from informal networks as well as formal support services, including reporting to the police. Understanding a victim’s decision to share his or her victimization experience is important, as this decision may also influence whether someone seeks out and receives services that may be available to him or her. For example, research has found that the use of specific services, such as mental health counseling, is significantly under-utilized by crime victims (Norris, Kaniasty, & Scheer, 1990; Prospero & Vohra-Gupta, 2008; Ullman, 2007). Furthermore, research has found that health care services are only used by a fraction of crime victims who need them (Kaukinen, 2004; Mahoney, 1999). Part of the issue may be that victims are unaware of services available to them or that they rely on informal networks, including friends and family, to help shoulder the burden of victimization (Sims, Yost, & Abbott, 2005).

An additional challenge facing victims and practitioners centers around the often ambiguous definition of the crime of stalking, including the variation across states that exists when defining this type of crime (Tjaden, 2009; Tjaden, Thoennes, & Allison, 2000). Because stalking is considered an ill-defined concept, victims may be less likely to seek out services if they do not believe that they qualify as crime victims—a concern for those who work with victim populations. Public service campaigns can be utilized to educate community members about this type of crime to increase awareness and encourage reporting. Furthermore, because research has found that stalking often co-occurs with other types of interpersonal violence, including domestic violence and sexual assault (Burgess et al., 1997; Coleman, 1997; Logan et al., 2007; Nobles et al., 2009; Southworth et al., 2007), first responders (including law enforcement and social workers) should be made aware of these relationships to ensure that victims of this crime receive the support and services they need.

Other factors, specific to the crime victim, may also influence whether a victim seeks out services, including race and socio-economic status, highlighting vulnerable populations with regard to this crime. Research has found that women of color, and those in lower socio-economic strata, are less likely to utilize services when compared with Caucasian women and those in higher economic strata (Barrett & St. Pierre, 2011). This suggests that those most vulnerable to stalking may also be the least likely to receive services that they are in need of, and may be less likely to seek out formal sources of support. Again, creating mechanisms for educating the public about these crimes is imperative. These types of campaigns may help encourage victims to inform someone of a victimization experience, which is an important first step to receiving services. Future research is needed to explore this potential connection.

Finally, research by Ullman (1996) suggests that the decision for a victim to disclose the victimization experience, and the impact of this decision, are dependent on how the recipient might respond to this disclosure. In her research, Ullman found that crime victims were more likely to report positive experiences when disclosing to a friend compared with law enforcement or a physician. Furthermore, those who delayed disclosure were less likely to seek out services and support after an assault, a decision that has important implications for crime victims.

This research, along with the present study, highlights the significance of better understanding the factors that influence a victim’s decision to seek support, as well as the response a victim receives from that support person or agency. Those on the receiving end of this information need to be attuned to the needs of crime victims and the impact their response can have on a victim’s well-being. All these issues can affect a victim’s ability to cope and recover from his or her victimization experience, which is often the best a victim can hope for after a crime has occurred.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend their thanks to Billy Henson, three anonymous reviewers, and the editor for feedback provided on earlier drafts of this manuscript.

The data utilized in this study were made available by the International Consortium for Political and Social Research.

Bradford W. Reyns is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Weber State University. His research interests span the field of victimology, with recent work focusing on theoretical explanations of victimization, victim decision-making, and the intersection of technology and victimization. His research has been published in Crime and Delinquency, Justice Quarterly, and Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.

Christine M. Englebrecht is an assistant professor in the Criminal Justice Program at Bowling Green State University. Her primary research interests include victim acknowledgment and reporting to the police, the interaction of offenders, victims, and practitioners in the criminal justice system, and the impact of homicide on surviving family members. Her work has recently appeared in Crime and Delinquency, Criminal Justice Review, and Violence and Victims.

References

Akers

Kaukinen

(2009). The police reporting behavior of intimate partner violence victims. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 159-171.

Bachman

(1998). The factors related to rape reporting behavior and arrest: New evidence from the national crime victimization survey. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 25, 8-29.

Bachman

Coker

A. L.

(1995). Police involvement in domestic violence: The interactive effects of victim injury, offender’s history of violence, and race. Violence and Victims, 10, 91-106.

Barnett

O. W.

(2001). Why battered women do not leave, Part 2: External inhibiting factors—Social support and internal inhibiting factors. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2, 3-35.

Barrett

B. J.

St. Pierre

(2011). Variations in women’s help-seeking in response to intimate partner violence: Findings from a Canadian population-based survey. Violence Against Women, 17, 47-70.

Black

(1976). The behavior of law. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Buhi

Clayton

Surrency

H. H.

(2009). Stalking victimization among college women and subsequent help-seeking behavior. Journal of American College Health, 57, 419-425.

Burgess

A. W.

Baker

Greening

Hartman

C. R.

Burgess

A. G.

Douglas

J. E.

Halloran

(1997). Stalking behaviors within domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 389-403.

Clay-Warner

McMahon-Howard

(2009). Rape reporting: “Classic rape” and the behavior of law. Violence and Victims, 24, 723-743.

10.

Coker

A. L.

Derrick

Lumpkin

J. L.

Aldrich

T. E.

Oldendick

(2000). Help-seeking for intimate partner violence and forced sex in South Carolina. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 19, 316-320.

11.

Coleman

F. L.

(1997). Stalking behavior and the cycle of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 420-432.

12.

Davies

Block

C. R.

Campbell

(2007). Seeking help from the police: Battered women’s decisions and experiences. Criminal Justice Studies, 20, 15-41.

13.

Douglas

K. S.

Dutton

D. G.

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

14.

Englebrecht

C. M.

Reyns

B. W.

(2011). Gender differences in acknowledgment of stalking victimization: Results from the NCVS stalking supplement. Violence and Victims, 26, 560-579.

15.

Feldman-Summers

Norris

(1984). Differences between rape victims who report and those who do not report to a public agency. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 562-573.

16.

Felson

R. B.

Messner

S. F.

Hoskin

(1999). The victim-offender relationship and calling the police in assaults. Criminology, 37, 931-948.

17.

Felson

R. B.

Paré

P. P.

(2005). The reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by nonstrangers to the police. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 597-610.

18.

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, 257-308.

19.

Fisher

B. S.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2003). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 6-38.

20.

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, 39-47.

21.

Fox

K. A.

Nobles

M. R.

Fisher

B. S.

(2011). Method behind the madness: An examination of stalking measurements. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 74-84.

22.

Gartner

Macmillan

(1995). The effect of victim-offender relationship on reporting crimes of violence against women. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 393-429.

23.

Golding

J. M.

Siegel

J. M.

Sorenson

S. B.

Burman

M. A.

Stein

J. A.

(1989). Social support sources following sexual assault. Journal of Community Psychology, 17, 92-107.

24.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Gottfredson

D. M.

(1988). Decision making in criminal justice: Toward the rational exercise of discretion (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

25.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Hindelang

M. J.

(1979). A study of the behavior of law. American Sociological Review, 44, 3-18.

26.

Greenberg

M. S.

Ruback

R. B.

(1992). After the crime: Victim decision making. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

27.

Huebner

B. M.

Bynum

T. S.

(2006). An analysis of parole decision making using a sample of sex offenders: A focal concerns perspective. Criminology, 44, 961-991.

28.

Jordan

C. E.

Wilcox

Pritchard

A. J.

(2007). Stalking acknowledgement and reporting among college women experiencing intrusive behaviors: Implications for the emergence of a “classic stalking case.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 556-569.

29.

Kaukinen

(2002). The help-seeking decisions of violent crime victims: An examination of the direct and conditional effects of gender and the victim-offender relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 432-456.

30.

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, 967-990.

31.

Langton

Berzofsky

Krebs

Smiley-McDonald

(2012). Victimizations not reported to the police, 2006-2010 (NCJ 238536). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

32.

Lewis

S. F.

Resnick

H. S.

Ruggiero

K. J.

Smith

D. W.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Best

C. L.

Saunders

B. E.

(2005). Assault, psychiatric diagnoses, and sociodemographic variables in relation to help-seeking behavior in a national sample of women. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 18, 97-105.

33.

Lizotte

(1985). The uniqueness of rape: Reporting assaultive violence to the police. Crime & Delinquency, 31, 169-190.

34.

Logan

T. K.

Shannon

Cole

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

35.

Mahoney

(1999). High rape chronicity and low rates of help-seeking among wife rape survivors in a nonclinical sample: Implications for research and practice. Violence Against Women, 5, 993-1016.

36.

McCart

M. R.

Smith

D. W.

Sawyer

G. K.

(2010). Help-seeking among victims of crime: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 23, 198-206.

37.

Nobles

M. R.

Fox

K. A.

Piquero

A. R.

(2009). Career dimensions of stalking victimization and perpetration. Justice Quarterly, 26, 476-503.

38.

Nobles

M. R.

Reyns

B. W.

Fox

K. A.

Fisher

B. S.

(in press). Protection against pursuit: A conceptual and empirical comparison of cyberstalking and stalking victimization among a national sample. Justice Quarterly.

39.

Norris

F. H.

Kaniasty

K. Z.

Scheer

D. A.

(1990). Use of mental health services among victims of crime: Frequency, correlates, and subsequent recovery. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 538-547.

40.

Prospero

Vohra-Gupta

(2008). The use of mental health services among victims of partner violence on college campuses. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 16, 376-390.

41.

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, 998-1005.

42.

Reyns

B. W.

Englebrecht

C. M.

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

43.

Sims

Yost

Abbott

(2005). Use and nonuse of victim services programs: Implications from a statewide survey of crime victims. Criminology & Public Policy, 4, 361-383.

44.

Skogan

W. G.

(1976). Citizen reporting of crime: Some national panel data. Criminology, 13, 535-549.

45.

Southworth

Finn

Dawson

Fraser

Tucker

(2007). Intimate partner violence, technology, and stalking. Violence Against Women, 13, 842-856.

46.

Steffensmeier

Ulmer

Kramer

(1998). The interaction of race, gender and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black and male. Criminology, 36, 763-797.

47.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NCJ 1669592). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

48.

Tjaden

Thoennes

Allison

C. J.

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

49.

Tjaden

P. G.

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

50.

Truman

J. L.

Planty

(2012). Criminal victimization, 2011 (NCJ 239437). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

51.

Ullman

S. E.

(1996). Correlates and consequences of adult sexual assault disclosure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 554-571.

52.

Ullman

S. E.

(2007). Mental health services seeking in sexual assault victims. Women & Therapy, 30, 61-84.

53.

Weiss

K. G.

(2009). “Boys will be boys” and other gender accounts: An exploration of victims’ excuses and justifications for unwanted sexual contact and coercion. Violence Against Women, 15, 810-834.

54.

Williams

L. S.

(1984). The classic rape: When do victims report? Social Problems, 31, 459-467.