Predicting Overt and Cyber Stalking Perpetration by Male and Female College Students

Abstract

In this study, self-report student surveys on early childhood maltreatment, attachment styles, alcohol expectancies, and narcissistic personality traits are examined to determine their influence on stalking behavior. Two subtypes of stalking were measured using Spitzberg and Cupach’s (2008) Obsessive Relational Intrusion: cyber stalking (one scale) and overt stalking (comprised of all remaining scales). As t tests indicated that men and women differed significantly on several variables, OLS regression models were run separately for men (N = 807) and women (N = 934). Results indicated that childhood sexual maltreatment predicted both forms of stalking for men and women. For men, narcissistic vulnerability and its interaction with sexual abuse predicted stalking behavior (overt stalking R² = 16% and cyber stalking R² = 11%). For women, insecure attachment (for both types of stalking) and alcohol expectancies (for cyber stalking) predicted stalking behavior (overt stalking R² = 4% and cyber stalking R² = 9%). We discuss the methodological and policy implications of these findings.

Keywords

Stalking attachment narcissism abuse: gender

Stalking is a crime under all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and federal laws, that involves the repeated pursuit and harassment of another causing fear or bodily harm (e.g., Pennsylvania Crimes Code, 2003).¹ It is a serious social problem that affects an estimated 8.1% of women and 2.2% of men in the United States (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Even higher rates of stalking, 13.1%, were found in a large national-level study of female college students (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2002). In addition to victim suffering, the economic cost of stalking for medical care, mental health services, and lost wages is estimated between US$235 to US$449 million for women in America (Max, Rice, Finkelstein, Bardwell, & Leadbetter, 2004). Although research generally finds that men are more likely to stalk than are women (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998), differences vary by sample composition, with normal samples showing less gender disparity than clinical or forensic samples (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2001). Thus, more research into whether or not the same factors predict men’s and women’s stalking is needed (Purcell, Pathé, & Mullen, 2001, 2010). In light of emergent social media technologies, researchers have begun to study cyber stalking (Sheridan & Grant, 2007; Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002). However, there is little research examining whether the same factors that predict those who stalk using more covert means (e.g., via internet), also predict those who stalk using more overt means (e.g., in person). Given college students’ predilection for the internet (Anderson, 2001), knowing whether different factors predict covert versus overt stalking seems especially warranted among this population.

The current study examines individual differences in college students that predict stalking to determine whether the same factors predict men’s and women’s overt and cyber stalking. Research predicting stalking, and where appropriate other types of interpersonal violence, is reviewed below, followed by a discussion of the theoretical frameworks (i.e., cycle of violence, attachment, and pathological narcissism) used to explain these types of interpersonal behaviors.

Predictors of Stalking

Although a number of stalker typologies exist, they have been constructed and tested primarily with clinical or forensic samples (Meloy, 1998; Mullen, Pathé, Purcell, & Stuart, 1999; Tonin, 2004; Wilson, Ermshar, & Welsh, 2006). Given the high rate of self-identified stalking victimization among college coeds (13.1%) and that the vast majority of these victims did not report to the police (only about 17% of victims contacted the police according to Fisher et al., 2002, p. 28), it is productive to examine predictive models of self-reported stalking. Although there are fewer studies on nonclinical stalkers, research on stalkers more generally finds that they are more likely to be men (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2003), who experienced harsh parenting or traumatic childhoods (Dye & Davis, 2003), are insecurely attached (Dutton & Winstead, 2006; Dye & Davis, 2003; Tonin, 2004) and have personality problems (Mullen et al., 1999; Spitzberg & Veksler, 2007). Few studies have investigated whether alcohol problems predict stalking, however, prior research finds that drug and alcohol problems are more common in violent stalkers (Roberts 2005; Rosenfeld, 2004). In addition, research finds that alcohol expectancies are significant predictors of sexual harassment and coercion among college students (Ménard, Nagayama Hall, Phung, Ghebrial, & Martin, 2003).

Gender

Research consistently finds that women are more often victims and men more often perpetrators of stalking (Basile, Swahn, Chen, & Saltzman, 2006; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). However, college samples produce more equitable rates of perpetration across gender (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2001) and research on interpersonal violence more generally finds that women are as violent as men, but may express that violence differently than men (Archer 2000, 2002). Like their male counterparts, female offenders commonly experienced childhood traumas. To date, few studies have examined women stalkers or gender differences in stalking (Logan, Leukefeld, & Walker, 2000; Mullen et al., 1999; Purcell et al., 2001, 2010). Purcell and colleagues (2001) examined demographic, psychiatric, motivational, and contextual factors for 40 female and 150 male stalkers referred to a forensic clinic. Although there were a number of similarities, some important gender differences were noted. Specifically, female stalkers were primarily motivated to attain intimacy with their victims, whereas male stalkers ascribed to a number of different motivations. Also, female stalkers were more likely to victimize someone of the same gender with whom they were not romantically involved than were their male counterparts. Similar results were also obtained in a more recent study of 299 juvenile stalkers by the same authors (Purcell et al., 2010). Although there were no gender differences in the duration, stalking methods used, or threats and physical violence, female juvenile stalkers were more likely to stalk same-sex victims out of retaliation using more covert means (e.g., telephone or third party), than were male juvenile stalkers. These results are compelling because they suggest that men and women may stalk for different reasons.

Childhood trauma

Research consistently finds that childhood trauma increases the likelihood of interpersonal problems, including violent acting out (Widom & Maxfield, 2001; Widom, Schuck, & White, 2006). Child abuse has been linked to insecure attachment (Riggs, 2010), personality problems (Johnson, Cohen, Brown, Smailes, & Bernstein, 2009), and substance use and abuse (Reinert & Edwards, 2009; Widom et al., 2006). These child abuse sequelae are also associated with violent behavior, suggesting that child abuse likely has both direct and indirect effects on such behavior. Recent path models have largely been supportive, finding important gender differences with regard to the mediating effects of abuse on later violence (Widom et al., 2006). Specifically, although child abuse had direct and indirect effects on men’s violence, its effects were mediated by alcohol among women. However, few studies have examined the effects of negative childhood experiences on stalking specifically. In their examination of stalking among 342 college students, Dye and Davis (2003) found that harsh parental discipline was an important antecedent in their path model. Other important antecedents in this study were anxious attachment, need for control, break up initiation, and break up anger. These results suggest that stalkers may have attachment problems and feel narcissistically wounded following a relationship dissolution they did not initiate (see also Bushman, Bonacci, van Dijk, & Baumeister, 2003).

Attachment

With regard to attachment, Meloy (1998) hypothesized that stalking is an extreme disorder of attachment and tests of his contention have generally been supported. For example, Tonin (2004) examined the attachment styles of 21 detained stalkers, 24 detainees without a history of stalking, and 33 individuals from the community and found that those with a history of stalking were more likely to be insecurely attached than members of the other two groups. Furthermore, when splitting the stalkers into two groups: serial stalkers (those with multiple victims) and fixated stalkers (those with only one victim), she found that fixated stalkers had significantly higher scores on Preoccupied attachment than did serial stalkers. Similar results were also obtained in a study of 122 stalkers referred to a forensic clinic, whose attachment scores were compared with the general public (MacKenzie, Mullen, Ogloff, McEwan, & James, 2008). Stalkers were significantly more likely to have insecure attachment styles than their nonstalking counterparts. Among insecure attachment styles, stalkers were most likely to endorse Fearful and Preoccupied attachment.

Alcohol

Few studies have examined whether alcohol-related problems increase the likelihood of stalking perpetration. However, alcohol use is associated with intimate partner violence (Buzawa & Buzawa, 2003), its recidivism (Ménard, Anderson, & Godbolt, 2009), and the likelihood to commit violence among those identified as stalkers (Melton, 2007; Mullen et al., 1999; Rosenfeld & Harmon, 2002). Relatedly, alcohol expectancies were notable predictors of men’s and women’s self-reported perpetration of sexual harassment and women’s self-reported perpetration of sexual coercion in a large sample of college students (Ménard et al., 2003). Research consistently finds that alcohol expectancies correlate with alcohol use (Labrie, Grant, & Hummer, 2011; Leigh, 1989; Goldman, 1994). Given the link between alcohol and intimate violence more generally, as well as the link between stalking and intimate partner violence specifically (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998), further investigation into the effects of alcohol expectancies and use on stalking perpetration seems warranted.

Personality disorders

In addition to childhood trauma, insecure attachment, and alcohol, researchers also find an association between personality disorders and stalking (Meloy, 1998; Mullen, Pathé, & Purcell, 2001; Spitzberg & Veksler, 2007). Specifically, DSM Axis II Cluster B personality disorders (antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic) are frequently reported among forensic and clinical samples of stalkers. Mullen and colleagues (2001) suggest that between 30% and 50% of participants in clinical samples have personality disorders and Meloy (1998) refers to stalkers as “narcissists” (p. 18). However, there is little research on the personality characteristics of nonclinical stalkers. Spitzberg and Veksler (2007) used the Peer Rating of Personality Disorder (Thomas, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns, 2003) to distinguish between those former partners who became stalkers and those who did not. Results indicate that histrionic and borderline personality disorders were best able to distinguish the two groups. However, research finds low self-other agreement for pathological personality characteristics, especially narcissism (Klonsky, Oltmanns, & Turkheimer, 2002). Given the prominent role narcissism plays in the clinical stalking literature and its general association with sexual aggression, (Bouffard, 2010; Bushman et al., 2003; Ryan, Weikel, & Sprechini, 2008; Widman & McNulty, 2009) additional research on narcissism and stalking also appears warranted.

The current study extended previous research by examining gender differences in these predictors using a multivariate framework in a college student sample where self-reported perpetration rates are more equivalent for men and women. Much of research reviewed employed males only, who were involved in traditional stalking, from clinical or forensic samples. Stalking research is less comprehensive not only with regard to women, but also with regard to forms of stalking. More research is needed to determine whether overt and cyber stalking are different manifestations of the same behavior, or are different behaviors in and of themselves. Research addressing this question is reviewed below.

Cyber and Overt Stalking

Although some authors contend that covert forms of stalking, like cyber stalking, are just new means for offenders to pursue their victims (Sheridan & Grant, 2007; Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002), others call for more research to make that determination (Meloy, 1998). Meloy (1998) notes that the internet provides four unusual circumstances for stalkers: (a) a lack of social constraint and anxiety; (b) a lack of sensory information from the target; (c) an increase in the potential for deception; and (d) an element of surprise when reality does not conform to their fantasy involvement with the target. These circumstances may embolden some individuals to stalk who otherwise would not, and they may allow for greater “narcissistic wounds” because of deception or surprise when their “relationship status” with the target is not what they imagined.

There is a paucity of research on cyber versus overt stalking and much of it has been conducted with stalking victims, rather than offenders. Results with victims have been mixed. Spitzberg and Hoobler (2002) found small to moderate overlap in the bivariate correlations between overt and cyber obsessional relationship intrusions (r’s ranged from.09 to.46) experienced by victims in their study, but they did not examine differences by type of stalking. Research using four subgroups of stalking victims based on offender’s behavior (e.g., purely online, cross-over, proximal with online, and purely offline) found no between-group differences (Sheridan & Grant, 2007). However, a study by Alexy, Burgess, Baker, and Smoyak (2005) found some differences between those who were subject to on-line versus overt means of stalking. Specifically, victims reported that on-line stalkers were significantly more likely to threaten to hurt themselves than were overt stalkers. The authors speculate that cyber stalking may permit the perpetrators to be more “histrionic” in their behavior. That is, cyber stalkers may behave in a more dramatic fashion, because they are not in physical proximity of their victims, and so do not need to act on their “threats.” Although this contention makes intuitive sense, it requires further empirical testing. It may be that other factors, like gender, confounded the effects of cyber versus overt types of stalking, as 87% of Sheridan and Grant’s participants were female, compared with only 45% of participants in the Alexy et al study. Furthermore, although Alexy and colleagues indicate that more women were victims of stalking, more men were actually victims of cyber stalking. The current study also extends prior research by concurrently examining gender differences in early childhood trauma, attachment, alcohol expectancies, and narcissism as predictors of overt and cyber stalking perpetration.

Theoretical Framework

Developmental theories provide a unifying framework with which predictors of men’s and women’s overt and covert stalking can be investigated. Consistent with the results of the prior research outlined above, this study uses three developmental theories to explain stalking: (a) cycle of violence, which is based on learning theory; (b) attachment theory; and (c) pathological narcissism. Widom’s (1989) cycle of violence model uses social learning theory (Bandura, 1977) to explain the cyclical nature of offending behavior. Based on this model, children learn violent or abusive ways of interacting with the world from their parents and then recapitulate these same behaviors in their interactions with others, often leading to their own criminality. Parental caregiving also plays a vital role in the development of “internal working models” according to the attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969). That is, caregiver responsiveness, or lack thereof, to the infant’s needs will result in the infant developing secure or insecure attachment styles, respectively (Bowlby, 1969). The nature of the parenting problems affects the style of insecure attachment manifest in adulthood and can include preoccupied attachment, discomfort with closeness, relationships seen as secondary, and excessive need for approval (Feeney, Noller, & Hanrahan, 1994). Unlike those with secure attachment systems, those with insecure attachment are afraid of abandonment and may use dramatic emotional displays, enhanced proximity, or pursuit behavior to maintain a relationship. Relatedly, these same developmental factors (trauma, poor parental care) are also associated with the development of narcissistic personality traits (Horton, Bleau, & Drwecki, 2006; Kernberg, 1998; Kohut, 1977; Otway & Vingoles, 2006). Pathological narcissism “involves impairment in the ability to manage and satisfy needs for validation and admiration, such that self-enhancement becomes an overriding goal in nearly all situations and may be sought in maladaptive ways and in inappropriate contexts” (Pincus, in press). These individuals have an inflated view of self, cannot understand why others do not share their view, and may feel justified in exploiting or stalking others to gain their admiration. Pathological narcissism (Cain, Pincus, & Ansell, 2008) is likely to be related to stalking as it has been previously associated with sexual aggression (Bushman et al., 2003), impulsivity (Vazire & Funder, 2006), and insecure attachment and disturbed interpersonal relations (Dickinson & Pincus, 2003).

With regard to stalking more specifically, all three theoretical frameworks provide an explanation for stalkers’ behavior. That is, individuals with traumatic childhoods may be more likely to stalk others because they learned to relate to others abusively and intrusively. These individuals may also suffer from a number of abuse sequelae (e.g., attachment, substance abuse, and personality problems) that put them at increased risk for stalking. For example, individuals with insecure attachment styles may be more likely to stalk others in an effort to cope with a variety of relational anxieties and conflicts (e.g., desperately seeking approval, dismissing intimacy as unimportant). Pathologically narcissistic individuals may be more likely to stalk others due their need to seek out self-enhancement from social relationships and their compromised capacity for self- and emotion-regulation (Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010; Pincus & Roche, 2011). Combining these theoretical frameworks provides a cogent nomological network of potential predictors to explain why some individuals are more likely to stalk than are others. This study had three main research questions:

Research Question 1: Do childhood abuse, insecure attachment, alcohol expectancies, and narcissism predict stalking behavior?

Research Question 2: Do the same factors predict men’s and women’s stalking?

Research Question 3: Do the same factors predict overt and cyber stalking?

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants included 934 women (54%) and 807 men (46%) undergraduate students with a mean age of 19.30 years (SD = 1.60). Eighty-four percentage of participants were white, 4% were African American, 6.7% were Asian, 4.2%, were Latino/a, and the remaining 1.1% were of mixed or other racial composition. This sample overrepresents women and whites relative to the student body at this institution and the U.S. university population more generally. Participants came from a variety of Liberal Arts classes and were offered extracredit for their participation. All participants had alternative options for extracredit (i.e., other studies they could participate in) and self-selected to participate in the current study. The survey received approval from IRB and participants completed it online.

Measures

For the purposes of this investigation, stalking perpetration was the dependent variable and was assessed using Obsessive Relational Intrusion (ORI; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2008). The ORI is a 42-item measure of relationship intrusion. For each item, participants indicated how many times (1 = never, 2 = once, 3 = 2-3 times, 4 = 4-5 times, 5= 6-10 times, 6 = 11-25 times, 7 ≥ 25 times) in their lifetime they have persistently pursued someone using each type of intrusion. Although the ORI can be broken down into eight subscales, we used two scores in this study. The first subscale, comprised the 5 items of Spitzberg and Cupach’s Mediation subscale, represented forms of stalking that were committed electronically (e.g., leaving aggressive electronic messages; α =.71), whereas the other subscale, labeled overt stalking, represents all remaining items in the ORI (α = .94).

Childhood trauma was assessed with the Child Abuse and Trauma (CAT) scale (Sanders & Becker-Lausen, 1995). For each of the 38 items, respondents indicated how frequently (0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = very often, 4 = always) they experienced trauma in childhood. The Child Abuse Trauma scale has three subscales: child sexual abuse (α = .87), child physical abuse (α = .44), and child neglect (α = .89).

The Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Feeney et al., 1994) assessed participants’ levels of five adult attachment styles: Confidence, Preoccupation with Relationships, Discomfort with Closeness, Relationship as Secondary, and Need for Approval. The ASQ is a 40-item instrument that asks participants to indicate how much they agree with a series of statements about themselves, using a 6-point scale (ranging 1 = totally disagree to 6 = totally agree). Coefficient alpha for the subscales in this sample were .81, .78, .88, .80, and .77, respectively.

We measured alcohol expectancies using the 34-item Alcohol Expectancy Questionnaire (Leigh & Stacy, 1993). Participants’ expectations of the effects produced by alcohol were measured using questions such as “When I drink alcohol I feel happy” and “When I drink alcohol I get into fights.” Each item was rated using a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1 = no chance to 6 = certain to happen. Items were summed to create this scale (α = .94).

Participants’ narcissistic traits were measured using the 52-item Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI; Pincus, Ansell, Pimentel, Cain, Wright, & Levy, 2009). Participants were asked to indicate how much they agreed with each item (e.g., “I often fantasize about being admired and respected”) using a 6-point scale (ranging from 0 = not at all like me to 5 = very much like me). We used the two higher-order scales of the PNI, which assess narcissistic grandiosity (α = .87) and narcissistic vulnerability (α = .96), respectively (Wright, Lukowitsky, Pincus, & Conroy, 2010). The former reflects the use of a number of maladaptive self-enhancement strategies and the latter reflects poor self- and emotion-regulation in response to self-enhancement failures and ego threats (Pincus, in press).

Statistical Analyses

We wanted to investigate whether men and women differed in their stalking behavior, so we first compared male and female participants’ mean scores on all dependent and predictor variables. As men’s and women’s scores were significantly different on a number of variables, we conducted the remaining analyses separately for men and women. First, we examined zero-order correlations between the two stalking scores and the predictors and compared them across gender using Fisher’s r to z transformations. We then computed hierarchical regression analyses separately for men and women to determine if different models predict stalking perpetration. The order of model entry was the same for men and women. We first entered childhood abuse variables followed by attachment variables, alcohol expectancy, and finally the pathological narcissism scores. We chose this order of model entry as we hypothesized that the effects of adult attachment, personality, and alcohol expectancy would mediate the effects of childhood abuse on the stalking measures. Finally, we completed mediation tests (Clogg, Petkova, & Haritou, 1995) following the addition of each variable block to the regression equation to determine whether significant mediation took place (Aiken & West, 1991).

Results

Gender Comparisons

Table 1 provides mean comparisons of the men’s and women’s scores on all included variables. Significantly different scores on several measures were obtained for male and female participants. Men had significantly higher mean scores than did women on overt and cyber stalking. Men also had significantly higher scores than women on the CAT Physical Abuse subscale, ASQ Relationship as Secondary subscale, and PNI narcissistic grandiosity subscale. Women had significantly higher scores than did men on the ASQ Need for Approval subscale.

Table 1.

Mean Comparison of Male and Female Scores

	Men			Women
Variables	Mean	SD	N	Mean	SD	N	t test
ORI—overt stalking	53.25	22.49	804	50.66	19.75	928	2.53*
ORI—cyber stalking	8.93	4.77	784	8.21	3.94	908	3.32***
CAT—sexual abuse	0.57	2.24	806	0.50	1.83	929	0.70
CAT—physical abuse	8.84	2.12	806	8.43	2.31	929	3.89***
CAT—neglect	8.56	7.59	806	9.21	8.83	929	1.66
Preoccupied attachment	26.59	6.43	801	26.98	5.90	928	1.29
Confident attachment	34.29	5.69	801	34.80	5.89	928	1.82
Discomfort with closeness	33.01	7.68	801	33.61	8.67	928	1.53
Relationship as secondary	18.43	5.35	801	16.00	4.85	928	9.85***
Need for approval	21.98	5.53	801	22.79	5.46	928	3.03**
Alcohol expectancy	123.96	22.48	730	122.83	23.00	845	0.98
PNI—narcissistic grandiosity	2.85	0.68	796	2.69	0.69	921	3.88***
PNI—narcissistic vulnerability	2.06	0.686	796	2.08	0.82	921	0.36

p ≤ .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

As seen in Table 2, the correlations between overt stalking and CAT sexual abuse and neglect were significantly greater for men than for women. The correlation between overt stalking and PNI narcissistic vulnerability was also significantly greater for men than for women, as was the correlation between cyber stalking and CAT neglect. Finally, the correlation between cyber stalking and alcohol expectancy was significantly greater for women than for men.

Table 2.

Zero-Order Correlations of Predictor Variables With Overt Stalking and Cyber Stalking

	Overt stalking		Cyber stalking
	Men	Women	Men	Women
CAT—sexual abuse	.23***	.11***	.25***	.18***
CAT—physical abuse	.08*	.02	.11**	.11***
CAT—neglect	.16***	.06	.20***	.08*
Preoccupied attachment	.12***	.10**	.18***	.15***
Confident attachment	−.02	−.03	−.08*	−.07*
Discomfort with closeness	.08*	−.01	.11**	.07*
Relationship as secondary	.11***	.07*	.13***	.15***
Need for approval	.08*	.05	.12***	.04
Alcohol expectancy	.07*	.09**	.03	.13***
PNI—narcissistic grandiosity	.15***	.07*	.09*	.10**
PNI—narcissistic vulnerability	.21***	.08*	.20***	.14***

Note: Underlined correlation pairs are significantly different in magnitude (p < .05). N ranges from 730 to 929.

p ≤ .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Multivariate Analyses

We conducted a series of hierarchical OLS regressions, separately for men and women, to predict overt stalking and cyber stalking.

Males

We present the regression of the predictor variables onto overt stalking in Table 3. Except for alcohol expectancies (Step 3), all steps significantly added to the predictive power of the model, explaining 16% of the variance in men’s overt stalking. Significant positive predictors of overt stalking for men were CAT sexual abuse, ASQ confident attachment, and PNI narcissistic vulnerability. Counter to our hypothesis, the effects of attachment and personality did not mediate the effects of child abuse on overt stalking. However, narcissistic vulnerability significantly mediated the relationship of preoccupied attachment (t = 5.28, p < .001); and, the child sexual abuse by narcissistic vulnerability interaction term significantly mediated the relationship of confident attachment with overt stalking (t = 6.36, p < .001). This interaction term significantly contributed to the predictive power of the model, adding 5% to the explained variance and indicating that compared with their low scoring counterparts, men with high scores on both CAT sexual abuse and PNI narcissistic vulnerability are especially likely to stalk others overtly.

Table 3.

Regressions Predicting Men’s Stalking Behavior (N = 807)

	Overt stalking			Cyber stalking
	b	SE b	β	b	SE b	β
Step 1
Constant	50.73	3.64		7.66	.78
CAT—sex abuse	1.90	0.41	.20***	0.41	.09	.19***
CAT—physical abuse	−0.05	0.42	−.00	0.07	.09	.03
CAT—neglect	0.24	0.13	.08	0.06	.03	.09*
	R² = .06, ΔF = 15.51***			R² = .07, ΔF = 17.62***
Step 2
Constant	20.94	10.66		2.78	2.26
CAT—sex abuse	2.05	0.43	.21***	0.45	0.09	.21***
CAT—physical abuse	−0.09	0.42	−.01	0.07	0.09	.03
CAT—neglect	0.16	0.14	.05	0.02	0.03	.03
Preoccupied	0.37	0.17	.11*	0.14	0.04	.19***
Confidence	0.42	.18	.11*	0.04	0.04	.05
Discomfort with closeness	0.17	0.15	.06	0.01	0.03	.02
Relationship as secondary	0.08	0.19	.02	0.01	0.04	.01
Need for approval	−.02	0.21	−.01	−0.03	0.04	−.03
	R² = .08, ΔF = 2.41*			R² = .09, ΔF = 4.11***
Step 3
Constant	17.15	10.95		2.83	2.32
CAT—sex abuse	2.12	0.43	.22***	0.45	0.09	.21***
CAT—physical abuse	−0.10	0.42	−.10	0.07	0.09	.03
CAT—neglect	0.15	0.14	.05	0.02	0.03	.03
Preoccupied	0.34	0.17	.10*	0.14	0.04	.19***
Confidence	0.39	0.19	.10*	0.04	0.04	.05
Discomfort with closeness	0.16	0.15	.05	0.01	0.03	.02
Relationship as secondary	0.05	0.19	.01	0.01	0.04	.01
Need for approval	−0.05	.21	−.01	−0.03	0.04	−.03
Alcohol expectancies	0.06	0.04	.06	−0.00	0.01	−.00
	R² = .08, ΔF = 2.24			R² = .10, ΔF = 0.01
Step 4
Constant	23.92	10.86		3.67	2.33
CAT—sex abuse	2.27	0.43	.23***	0.46	0.09	.22***
CAT—physical abuse	−0.10	0.42	−.01	0.06	0.09	.03
CAT—neglect	0.09	0.14	.03	0.02	0.03	.03
Preoccupied	−0.01	0.18	−.00	0.10	0.04	.13**
Confidence	0.39	0.19	.10*	0.05	0.04	.06
Discomfort with closeness	0.07	0.15	.02	0.00	0.03	.00
Relationship as secondary	−0.16	.19	−.04	−0.02	0.04	−.02
Need for approval	−0.32	0.21	−.08	−0.06	0.05	−.07
Alcohol expectancies	0.02	0.04	.02	−0.01	0.01	−.02
Narcissistic grandiosity	2.34	1.47	.07	0.14	0.32	.02
Narcissistic vulnerability	6.77	1.76	.24***	0.89	0.38	.15*
	R² = .11, ΔF = 13.73***			R² = .11, ΔF = 3.98*
Step 5
Constant	26.69	10.61		3.92	2.33
CAT—sex abuse	1.03	0.46	.11*	0.34	0.10	.16***
CAT—physical abuse	−0.14	0.41	−.01	0.06	0.09	.03
CAT—neglect	0.11	0.14	.04	0.02	0.03	.03
Preoccupied	0.06	0.18	.02	0.11	0.04	.14**
Confidence	0.29	0.19	.07	0.04	0.04	.05
Discomfort with closeness	0.06	0.14	.02	0.00	0.03	.00
Relationship as secondary	−0.10	0.19	−.02	−0.01	0.04	−.01
Need for approval	−0.26	0.21	−.06	−0.05	0.05	−.06
Alcohol expectancies	0.02	.04	.02	−0.00	0.01	−.02
Narcissistic grandiosity	1.88	1.44	.06	0.10	0.32	.01
Narcissistic vulnerability	5.62	1.72	.20***	0.78	0.38	.13*
Sex abuse × Vulnerability	3.85	0.64	.24***	0.36	0.14	.11**
	R² = .16 ΔF = 36.75***			R² = .11 ΔF = 6.48*

p ≤ .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 3 also presents the regression of predictor variables onto cyber stalking. Again, except for alcohol expectancies (Step 3), all steps contributed significantly to the predictive power of the model and accounted for 11% of the variance in cyber stalking. Males with higher scores on CAT sexual abuse and CAT neglect, ASQ preoccupied attachment, and PNI narcissistic vulnerability were more likely to endorse cyber stalking. The effects of CAT neglect on cyber stalking were statistically mediated by the addition of the attachment variables (t = 2.63, p < .01), however, no mediation effects were found for the CAT sexual abuse. Although there was a drop in the coefficient for preoccupied attachment when the personality variables were added to the model, the drop was not significant (t = 1.45, ns). Again, the CAT sexual abuse by PNI narcissistic vulnerability interaction term was significant, increasing the accounted variance by almost 1%, and indicating that compared with their low scoring counterparts, men with high scores on both of these important constructs are most likely to stalk others electronically. However, in contrast to overt stalking, preoccupied attachment also predicts cyber stalking among men.

Females

As seen in Table 4, only the first two steps containing the child abuse and the attachment variables significantly contributed to the prediction of overt stalking by females, with the final model explaining 4% of the variance. Again, counter to our hypothesis, we found no mediation effects. In the final model, females with higher scores on CAT sexual abuse, ASQ preoccupied attachment, and ASQ relationship as secondary, and lower scores on ASQ discomfort with closeness were more likely to stalk others overtly.

Table 4.

Regressions Predicting Women’s Stalking Behavior (N = 934)

	Overt stalking			Cyber stalking
	b	SE b	β	b	SE b	β
Step 1
Constant	51.70	2.67		6.79	0.51
CAT—sex abuse	1.29	0.42	.11***	0.36	0.08	.16***
CAT—physical abuse	−0.21	0.33	−.02	0.15	0.06	.09*
CAT—neglect	0.01	0.09	.00	−0.01	0.02	−.02
	R² = .01, ΔF = 3.56*			R² =.04 ΔF = 10.65***
Step 2
Constant	42.40	10.01		3.97	1.91
CAT—sex abuse	1.21	0.42	.11***	0.31	0.08	.15***
CAT—physical abuse	−0.24	0.33	−.03	0.13	0.06	.08*
CAT—neglect	0.00	0.10	.00	−0.03	0.02	−.06
Preoccupied	0.42	0.15	.12**	0.14	0.03	.21***
Confidence	0.06	0.17	.02	0.00	0.03	.01
Discomfort with closeness	−0.38	0.12	−.16***	−0.03	0.02	−.07
Relationship as secondary	0.40	0.17	.10*	0.10	0.03	.13**
Need for approval	0.12	0.18	.03	−0.05	0.03	−.07
	R² = .04, ΔF = 4.24***			R² =.08, ΔF = 6.65***
Step 3
Constant	38.15	10.24		2.83	1.96
CAT—sex abuse	1.18	0.42	.11**	0.31	0.08	.14***
CAT—physical abuse	−0.24	0.33	−.03	0.13	0.06	.08*
CAT—neglect	0.00	0.10	.00	−0.03	0.02	−.06
Preoccupied	0.37	0.16	.11*	0.12	0.03	.19***
Confidence	0.04	0.17	.01	−0.00	0.03	−.00
Discomfort withcloseness	−0.39	0.12	−.17***	−0.03	0.02	−.08
Relationship as secondary	0.40	0.17	.10*	0.10	0.03	.13**
Need for approval	0.09	0.18	.02	−0.06	0.03	−.08
Alcohol expectancies	0.06	0.03	.07	0.02	0.01	.09*
	R² = .04, ΔF = 3.59			R² = .08, ΔF = 6.20*
Step 4
Constant	39.00	10.34		3.01	1.98
CAT—sex abuse	1.21	0.42	.11**	0.31	0.08	.14***
CAT—physical abuse	−0.24	0.33	−.03	0.13	0.06	.08*
CAT—neglect	0.00	0.10	.00	−0.03	0.02	−.07
Preoccupied	0.33	0.17	.10*	0.12	0.03	.18***
Confidence	0.03	0.18	.01	−0.01	0.03	−.02
Discomfort with closeness	−0.39	0.12	−.17***	−0.03	0.02	−.08
Relationship as secondary	0.38	0.18	.09*	0.10	0.03	.12**
Need for approval	0.07	0.18	.02	−0.06	0.03	−.09
Alcohol expectancies	0.05	0.03	.06	0.01	0.01	.08*
Narcissistic grandiosity	0.45	1.43	.02	0.28	0.27	.05
Narcissistic vulnerability	0.44	1.61	.02	−0.05	0.31	−.01
	R² = .04, ΔF = 0.22			R² = .09, ΔF = 0.71

p ≤ .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Cyber stalking was the dependent variable in the final series of regressions presented in Table 4. Except for the final step containing the pathological narcissism variables, all steps contributed significantly to the explanatory power accounting for 9% of the variance in cyber stalking. Again, contrary to our hypothesis, we found no mediation effects. In the final model of CAT sexual abuse, CAT physical abuse, ASQ Preoccupied attachment, ASQ relationships as secondary, and alcohol expectancies were all positive significant predictors of cyber stalking by women. Thus across both models, child abuse and attachment variables appear to play an important role, whereas alcohol expectancies were uniquely predictive of women’s perpetration of cyber stalking, but not overt stalking.

Discussion

The results suggest that both participants’ sex and type of stalking are important to consider when investigating these behaviors among college students. Furthermore, they demonstrate the importance of looking at both mediating and moderating effects of predictor variables on the construct of interest. These findings, along with their methodological and policy implications, are discussed below.

In accordance with the theoretical frameworks and prior literature, traumatic childhood experiences predict both types of stalking, regardless of participants’ sex. However, most gender similarities end there. Among male college students, sexual abuse, narcissistic vulnerability, and their interaction significantly predict overt and covert stalking behaviors. Consistent with forensic observations (Meloy, 1998), male students with abuse histories who become dysregulated in response to narcissistic injury are more likely to engage in stalking. Childhood abuse did not have the predicted indirect effects on stalking, but there was some mediation among the predictors. In general, the effects of attachment on stalking were mediated by pathological narcissism among the men. Only the effects of preoccupied attachment on cyber stalking remained significant after adding pathological narcissistic traits. Although the fact that confident attachment originally predicted overt stalking may seem counterintuitive, overt stalking does require that the perpetrator “put themselves out there.” Moreover, these results are consistent with research by Lyon (1997), who found that 65% of stalkers were described as “outgoing.” In sum, our results suggest that men who scored high on child sexual abuse and narcissistic vulnerability were especially likely to stalk others and that these effects mediated the relationship between attachment variables and stalking. In addition, they demonstrate that type of stalking matters, as only cyber stalking (where perpetrators do not have to engage in direct contact with the victim) was predicted by male participants’ preoccupied (insecure) attachment.

Among female students, the effects of attachment were not mediated by personality variables. Indeed, pathological narcissism did not significantly predict stalking behaviors by women. Instead, sexual abuse, preoccupied attachment, relationship as secondary, and discomfort with closeness (except for cyber stalking) significantly predicted stalking. Furthermore, alcohol expectancies predicted cyber stalking, but not overt stalking. This pattern of results suggests that women are more likely to stalk when they have experienced a childhood sexual trauma and are insecurely attached. Furthermore, they demonstrate that childhood physical abuse and alcohol expectancies are uniquely predictive of cyber, but not overt stalking behavior among female college students. It is noteworthy that the model did not account for as much variance in stalking among women (4% overt to 9% cyber) as among men (16% overt to 11% cyber), yet the model performed better at predicting cyber stalking among women, but overt stalking among men. This difference in model prediction may be because of the types of stalking most frequently used by each gender. Research on stalkers by Purcell and colleagues (2001, 2010) found that female stalkers were significantly more likely to telephone their victims than their male counterparts. As the model predictors of stalking are derived primarily from research using male forensic and clinical samples of “traditional” stalkers, they may not adequately capture women’s more covert forms of stalking. Results from this study suggest that women may have different pathways to these behaviors and that additional research on the predictors of women’s stalking, including child abuse, attachment and alcohol expectancies, is needed.

Results also suggest that type of stalking matters. For both men and women, there were differences in the predictive models of cyber versus overt forms of stalking. Among men, preoccupied attachment significantly predicted cyber stalking, but not overt stalking. Among women, physical abuse and alcohol expectancies predicted cyber, but not overt stalking. Reminiscent of female stalkers’ intimacy seeking motive (Purcell et al., 2001), a lack of discomfort with closeness predicted overt, but not cyber stalking. These results suggest that individual differences affect what type of stalking a person is likely to engage in. Although these results are compelling, they should be replicated comparing distinct types of stalking, as participants in the current study could report committing both types of stalking.

The effects of child abuse and gender in models predicting stalking have important methodological and policy implications. Methodologically, they demonstrate that research on stalking perpetration should control for the effects of early childhood trauma and should include women. Failure to control for early childhood trauma and gender could result in model misspecification. For instance, in the current study, 25% to 75% of the explained variance in stalking perpetration was predicted by child abuse. Our results also suggest that in addition to examining the effects of gender, it is also productive to examine the moderating and mediating roles of other predictor variables to clarify their effects on stalking. Although results did not support an indirect effect of child abuse on stalking, other meaningful mediation effects were identified.

The effects of child abuse and gender differences in stalking perpetration risk also have important preventive, therapeutic, and criminal justice implications. As a primary prevention, results suggest that services should be provided to child abuse survivors so they do not suffer long-term consequences, including increased risk for stalking. Results also suggest that stalking prevention education programs need to be targeted at both male and female students, because both may stalk. Furthermore, gender differences in stalking models suggest that treatment may need to be “gendered.” For instance, based on the results of the current study stalker treatment should focus on childhood trauma for all stalkers, but be concerned with narcissistic vulnerability and its associated dysregulation among male stalkers and insecure attachment and alcohol expectancies among female stalkers. Finally, for those stalkers apprehended by the criminal justice system, it suggests that stalking risk assessments instruments (e.g., guidelines for stalking assessment and management, Kropp, Hart, & Lyon, 2008; stalking risk profile, Mackenzie et al., 2009) may need to factor in static risk factors, like gender, in addition to dynamic risk factors, like pathological narcissism and substance abuse, into their actuarial equations. Research has found that broad risk assessment instruments (e.g., Level of Service Inventory–Revised, Andrew, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990) do not perform well on stalkers (Kropp, Hart, & Lyon, 2002) or on women offenders more generally (Reisig, Holtfreter, & Morash, 2006). Thus, our findings of gender differences in stalking models echo the call for the development and validation of evidenced-based stalking risk assessment tools (McEwan, Pathé, & Ogloff, 2011).

Limitations

Although this study has a number of strengths, including the use of multivariate statistics to examine the mediating and moderating effects of predictor variables on stalking by both men and women, there are also methodological limitations that should be noted. First, the data come from participants’ self-reports, some of which were retrospective (e.g., child trauma measures) in nature, and so may subject to bias. Second, reliability of the child physical abuse subscale was quite low, which may have negatively affected its predictive power. Third, although the sample is large it overrepresents whites and women, and all participants came from one university, thereby limiting the generalizability of our results. Fourth, the data are cross sectional, thus causal inferences cannot be made. Fifth, consistent with prior research (Ménard et al., 2003), this study assessed alcohol expectancy not alcohol use or abuse. Although these constructs are correlated, our results cannot be generalized to actual use. Sixth, although many predictors of stalking were investigated in this study, other correlates of crime, such as impulsivity and risk taking, were not included. Finally, this study used the ORI (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2008) to measure stalking behavior. Although the ORI was empirically developed by identifying tactics used by stalkers described in the literature, including three meta-analyses with a total of 175 studies (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2004; Sptizberg & Cupach, 2003, 2007), it does not inquire about whether the actions would cause the victim or a reasonable person to experience fear, and so does not meet most legal definitions of stalking. In spite of this limitation, Fox, Nobles, and Fisher (2010) recently recommended the development and use of stalking scales as they offer methodological consistency and “will advance the field beyond assessing attitudes and perceptions of stalking” (p. 82). The current study’s results and its limitations also point to the need for longitudinal research that examines the effects of gender, early childhood trauma, attachment, alcohol expectancies, and pathological narcissism on overt and cyber stalking.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

Bios

Kim S. Ménard, PhD, is an assistant professor of Criminal Justice at Penn State–Altoona. Her research is concerned with gender differences in sexual and interpersonal violence, and victim’s help seeking behavior.

Aaron L. Pincus, PhD, is a professor of psychology and a licensed psychotherapist. His research focuses on personality assessment and personality disorders.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Alexy

E. M.

Burgess

A. W.

Baker

Smoyak

S. A.

(2005). Perceptions of cyber stalking among college students. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 5, 279-289.

Anderson

K. J.

(2001). Internet use among college students: An exploratory study. Journal of American College Health, 50, 21-26.

Archer

(2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680.

Archer

(2002). Sex differences in physically aggressive acts between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violence, 7, 313-351.

Bandura

(1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Basile

K. C.

Swahn

M. H.

Chen

Saltzman

L. E.

(2006). Stalking in the United States: Recent national prevalence estimates. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31, 172-175.

Bowlby

(1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Basic Books.

Bouffard

L. A.

(2010). Exploring the utility of entitlement in understanding sexual aggression. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 870-879.

10.

Bushman

B. J.

Bonacci

A. M.

van Dijk

Baumeister

R. F.

(2003). Narcissism, sexual refusal, and aggression: Testing a narcissistic reactance model of sexual coercion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1027-1040.

11.

Buzawa

E. S.

Buzawa

C. G.

(2003). Domestic violence: The criminal justice response. (3rd Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

12.

Cain

N. M.

Pincus

A. L.

Ansell

E. B.

(2008). Narcissism at the crossroads: Phenotypic description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychological Review, 28, 638-656.

13.

Clogg

C. C.

Petkova

Haritou

(1995). Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100, 1261-1293.

14.

Cupach

W. R.

Spitzberg

B. H.

(2004). The dark side of relationship pursuit: From attraction to obsession and stalking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

15.

Dickinson

K. A.

Pincus

A. L.

(2003). Interpersonal analysis of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 188-207.

16.

Dutton

L. B.

Winstead

B. A.

(2006). Predicting unwanted pursuit: Attachment, relationship satisfaction, relationship alternatives, and break-up distress. Journal of Social and Personality Relationships, 23, 565-586.

17.

Dye

M. L.

Davis

K. E.

(2003). Stalking and psychological abuse: Common factors and relationship-specific characteristics. Violence and Victims, 18, 163-180.

18.

Feeney

J. A.

Noller

Hanrahan

(1994). Assessing adult attachment. In Sperling

M. B.

Berman

W. H.

(Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives (pp. 128-152). New York, NY: Guilford.

19.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

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

20.

Goldman

M. S.

(1994). The alcohol expectancy concept: Applications to assessment, prevention, and treatment of alcohol abuse. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 3, 131-144.

21.

Horton

R. S.

Bleau

Drwecki

(2006). Parenting narcissus: What are the links between parenting and narcissism? Journal of Personality, 74, 345-376.

22.

Johnson

J. G.

Cohen

Brown

Smailes

E. M.

Bernstein

D. P.

(2009). Childhood maltreatment increases risk for personality disorders during early adulthood. Archive of General Psychiatry, 56, 600-606.

23.

Kernberg

O. F.

(1998). Pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical background and diagnostic classification. In Ronningstam

E. F.

(Ed.), Disorders of narcissism: Diagnostic, clinical, and empirical implications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

24.

Klonsky

E. D.

Oltmanns

T. F.

Turkheimer

(2002). Informant-reports of personality disorder: Relation to self-reports and future research directions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 300-311.

25.

Kohut

(1977). The restoration of the self. New York, NY: International University Press.

26.

Kropp

R. P.

Hart

S. D.

Lyon

D. R.

(2002). Risk assessment of stalkers: Some problems and possible solutions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 590-616.

27.

Kropp

R. P.

Hart

S. D.

Lyon

D. R.

(2008). Guidelines for stalking assessment and management (SAM). Vancouver, BC: ProActive Resolutions.

28.

Labrie

J. W.

Grant

Hummer

J. F.

(2011). This would be better drunk: Alcohol expectancies become more positive while drinking in the college social environment. Addictive Behaviors, 36, 890-893.

29.

Leigh

B. C.

(1989). In search of the seven dwarves: Issues of measurement and meaning in alcohol expectancy research. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 361-373.

30.

Leigh

B. C.

Stacy

A. W.

(1993). Alcohol outcome expectancies: Scale construction and predictive utility in higher order confirmatory models. Psychological Assessment, 5, 216-229.

31.

Leiter

R. A.

(2008). National survey of state laws (6th ed.). Detroit, MI: Thomson Gale.

32.

Logan

T. K.

Leukefeld

Walker

(2000). Stalking as a variant of intimate violence: Implications from a young adult sample. Violence and Victims, 15, 91-111.

33.

Lyon

D. R.

(1997). The characteristics of stalkers in British Columbia: A statistical comparison of persons charged with criminal harassment and persons charged with other criminal code offences (Unpublished master’s thesis). Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada.

34.

MacKenzie

R. D.

McEwan

T. E.

Pathé

M. T.

James

D.V.

Ogloff

J. R. P.

Mullen

P. E.

(2009). The stalking risk profile: Guidelines for the assessment and management of stalkers. Melbourne: StalkInc. & Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science.

35.

MacKenzie

R. D.

Mullen

P. E.

Ogloff

J. R. P.

McEwan

T. E.

James

D. V.

(2008). Parental bonding and adult attachment styles in different types of stalkers. Journal of Forensic Science, 53, 1443-1449.

36.

Max

Rice

D. P.

Finkelstein

Bradwell

R. A.

Leadbetter

(2004). The economic toll of intimate partner violence against women in the United States. Violence and Victims, 19, 259-272.

37.

McEwan

T. E.

Pathé

Ogloff

J. R. P.

(2011). Advances in stalking risk assessment. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 180-201.

38.

Meloy

J. R.

(1998). The psychology of stalking: Clinical and forensic perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

39.

Melton

H. C.

(2007). Predicting the occurrence of stalking in relationships characterized by domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 3-25.

40.

Ménard

K. S.

Anderson

A. L.

Godbolt

S. M.

(2009). Gender differences in intimate partner recidivism: A 5-year follow-up. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 61-76.

41.

Ménard

K. S.

Nagayama Hall

G. C.

Phung

A. H.

Ghebrial

M. F. E.

Martin

(2003). Gender differences in sexual harassment and coercion in college students: Developmental, individual, and situational determinants. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18, 1222-1239.

42.

Mullen

P. E.

Pathé

Purcell

(2001). The management of stalkers. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 7, 335-342.

43.

Mullen

P. E.

Pathé

Purcell

Stuart

G. W.

(1999). Study of stalkers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 1244-1249.

44.

National Center for Victims of Crime. (2007). The Model Stalking Code revisited: Responding to the new realities of stalking. Washington, DC: Author.

45.

Otway

L. J.

Vingoles

V. L.

(2006). Narcissism and childhood recollections: A quantitative test of psychoanalitic predictions. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 32, 104-116.

46.

Pennsylvania Crimes Code, Stalking 18 Pa. C.S. § 2709.1 (2003).

47.

Pincus

A. L.

(in press). The Pathological Narcissism Inventory. In Ogrudniczuk

(Ed.), Treating pathological narcissism. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

48.

Pincus

A. L.

Ansell

E. B.

Pimentel

C. A.

Cain

N. M.

Wright

A. G. C.

Levy

K. N.

(2009). Initial construction and validation of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21, 365-379.

49.

Pincus

A. L.

Lukowitsky

M. R.

(2010). Pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 421-445.

50.

Pincus

A. L.

Roche

M. J.

(2011). Narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic vulnerability. In Campbell

W. K.

Miller

J. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder, (pp. 31–40). New York, NY: John Wiley.

51.

Purcell

Pathé

Mullen

P. E.

(2001). A study of women who stalk. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 2056-2060.

52.

Purcell

Pathé

Mullen

P. E.

(2010). Gender differences in stalking behavior among juveniles. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Penology, 21, 555-568.

53.

Reinert

D. F.

Edwards

C. E.

(2009). Childhood physical and verbal mistreatment, psychological symptoms, and substance use: Sex differences and the moderating role of attachment. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 589-596.

54.

Reisig

M. D.

Holtfreter

Morash

(2006). Assessing recidivism risk across female pathways to crime. Justice Quarterly, 23, 384-405.

55.

Riggs

S. A.

(2010). Childhood emotional abuse and the attachment system across the life cycle: What theory and research tell us. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, and Trauma, 19, 5-51.

56.

Roberts

K. A.

(2005). Women’s experience of violence during stalking by former romantic partners: Factors predictive of stalking violence. Violence Against Women, 11, 89-114.

57.

Rosenfeld

(2004). Violence risk factors in stalking and obsessional harassment: A review and preliminary meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 9-36.

58.

Rosenfeld

Harmon

(2002). Factors associated with violence in stalking and obsessional harassment cases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 671-691.

59.

Ryan

K. M.

Weikel

Sprechini

(2008). Gender differences in narcissism and courtship violence in dating couples. Sex Roles, 58, 802-813.

60.

Sanders

Becker-Lausen

(1995). The measurement of psychological maltreatment: Early data on the child abuse and trauma scale. Child Abuse & Neglect, 19, 315-323.

61.

Sheridan

L. P.

Grant

(2007). Is cyberstalking different? Psychology, Crime, and Law, 13, 627-640.

62.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Cupach

W. R.

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

63.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Cupach

W. R.

(2007). The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 64-86.

64.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Cupach

W. R.

(2008). Obsessive Relational Intrusion (offender). Unpublished manuscript.

65.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Hoobler

(2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society, 4, 71-92.

66.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Veksler

A. E.

(2007). The personality of pursuit: Personality attributions of unwanted pursuers and stalkers. Violence and Victims, 22, 275-289.

67.

Thomas

Turkheimer

Oltmanns

T. F.

(2003). Factorial structure of pathological personality as evaluated by peers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 81-91.

68.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office.

69.

Tonin

(2004). The attachment styles of stalkers. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 15, 584-590.

70.

Vazire

Funder

D. C.

(2006). Impulsivity and self-defeating behavior of narcissists. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 154-165.

71.

Widman

McNulty

J. K.

(2009). Sexual narcissism and the perpetration of sexual aggression. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 826-939.

72.

Widom

C. S.

(1989). Child abuse, neglect, and violent criminal behavior. Criminology, 27, 251-271.

73.

Widom

C. S.

Maxfield

M. G.

(2001). An update on the cycle of violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office.

74.

Widom

C. S.

Schuck

A. M.

White

H. R.

(2006). An examination of pathways from childhood victimization to violence: The role of early aggression and problematic alcohol use. Violence and Victims, 21, 675-690.

75.

Wilson

J. S.

Ermshar

A. L.

Welsh

R. K.

(2006). Stalking as paranoid attachment: A typological and dynamic model. Attachment & Human Development, 8, 139-157.

76.

Wright

A. G. C.

Lukowitsky

M. R.

Pincus

A. L.

Conroy

D. E.

(2010). The higher-order factor structure and gender invariance of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Assessment, 17, 467-483.