Police and Public Perceptions of Stalking

Abstract

One in every five women will experience stalking in their lifetime. Research suggests the lifetime prevalence rate ranges between 12% and 32% for among women and 4% and 17% among men. The majority of stalking victims have had some form of prior relationship with their stalker. The aim of the current study was to examine whether victim–offender relationship influences police officers’ perception of a stalking event. Police officers (n = 132) and lay participants (n = 225) read one of three stalking scenarios where the nature of relationship between the victim and the stalker was manipulated to reflect an ex-intimate, work acquaintance, or stranger relationship. Results revealed that, for both samples, prior victim–offender relationship affected the extent to which the scenario was perceived to involve stalking behavior, with the stranger stalker scenario endorsed as most strongly constituting a case of stalking. Officer experience of stalking cases mitigated some prevalent stereotypical beliefs concerning stalking (e.g., victim responsibility). The findings suggest that further training is necessary to combat common misconceptions surrounding stalking. The importance of understanding how both lay and police responses are influenced by the perceived victim–offender relationship is discussed in relation to the development of public awareness campaigns and police officer training.

Keywords

stalking perceptions of domestic violence domestic violence legal intervention

Introduction

Contrary to portrayal in the popular media, stalking is not a crime that solely affects celebrities and public figures (Pathé & Mullen, 2002). In fact, it is more usual that a victim of stalking has had some form of prior relationship with the offender (Björklund, Häkkänen-Nyholm, Sheridan, & Roberts, 2010; Boon & Sheridan, 2002; Budd & Mattinson, 2000; Harris, 2000; Meloy, 1998; Sheridan, Davies, & Boon, 2001). Most typically, victims of stalking are targeted by a current or former spouse/intimate partner (Baldry, 2002; Björklund et al., 2010; Melton, 2000, 2007; Mullen, Pathé, & Purcell, 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; Walby & Allen, 2001; Walker & Meloy, 1998).

Incidents of stalking involving prior sexual intimates can be associated with an increased likelihood of violence, particularly when there is a strong emotional attachment to the victim (Björklund et al., 2010; Farnham, James, & Cantrell, 2000; James & Farnham, 2003; Meloy, 2002; Meloy & Gothard, 1995; Mullen et al., 2000; Rosenfeld, 2004). Tjaden and Thoennes (1998) found 59% of female stalking victims were stalked by an intimate partner and 81% of those women were also physically assaulted. Similarly, Blaauw, Winkel, Arensman, Sheridan, and Freeve (2002) and Harmon, Rosner, and Owens (1998) found ex-intimates to be at the most risk from physical assault from their stalker. Ex-intimate stalking victims were also identified as the most likely group to be threatened by their stalker (Mullen et al., 2000; Pathé, 2002). However, Sheridan and Roberts (2011) found that although an ex-partner status predicted physical assault, prior intimacy alone failed to predict serious stalker violence. More important, they noted that an abusive prior relationship was a key predictor of physical assault. Similarly, McEwan, Mullen, Mackenzie, and Ogloff (2009) found that risk factors for stalking violence varied as a function of the stalker’s motivation and their relationship to the victim. Collectively, these recent findings suggest a complex and potentially dangerous relationship between prior intimacy and the risk of violence in cases of stalking.

In terms of persistence of stalking, Purcell, Pathé, and Mullen (2004) observed that approximately 50% of stalking cases involving strangers typically last only a few days and are not usually pursued beyond a 2-week period. However, in an evaluation of referred offenders, McEwan, Mullen, and Mackenzie (2008) found that the type of prior relationship between stalker and victim was strongly associated with the level of persistence displayed by the stalker, such that an offender with a prior acquaintance with the victim was most persistent whereas stalkers with a prior relationship with the victim were least persistent. Those who sought intimate involvement with their victims were highly persistent. Furthermore, ex-intimate stalkers were the most likely to continue to contact the victim following legal interventions and stranger stalkers were least likely to continue contact behavior (Mohandie, Meloy, Green-McGowan, & Williams, 2006)

Despite finding relating to risk of violence and persistence, ex-intimate stalkers may be less likely than stranger stalkers to be convicted for their stalking-related activities (Harris, 2000; Sheridan & Davies, 2001). This observation suggests that stalking by ex-intimate partners may be viewed differently than stalking perpetrated by a stranger. Such a conclusion raises an interesting question: Given the prevalence and potential seriousness of stalking by ex-intimate partners, to what extent does the nature of the relationship between the victim and the offender alter the perception of stalking behavior?

The social psychological literature reveals that a variety of social cues can influence the way in which interactions and behaviors are interpreted. For instance, in an early study on the perception of crime seriousness and victim blame attribution, Shotland and Straw (1976) conducted a study in which participants overheard a staged attack on a female by a male actor in a nearby room. Participants heard the female shout either “I don’t know you,” or “I don’t know why I ever married you.” Participants were significantly more likely to intervene when participants perceived that the victim and attacker were strangers (65%) rather than a married couple (19%). Shotland and Straw also noted that participants perceived the victim in the stranger condition to be in more danger from physical harm. Furthermore, female participants in the stranger condition were more likely to take self-protective precautions (such as locking the door of the room they were in) than those who heard reference to a domestic relationship. Summers and Feldman (1984) also found that female victims were perceived as more responsible, and attributed higher levels of blame, in such situations when the victim–offender relationship was intimate.

Findings concerning the role of victim–offender relationship in relation to perceived severity of stalking behavior are consistent with earlier research on victimhood and blame attribution. For instance, Hills and Taplin (1998) examined the impact of the presence or absence of a threat when the nature of victim–offender relationship was manipulated. Participants exposed to a stranger stalker scenario reported that they were more likely to feel frightened and call the police than participants in the ex-intimate stalker scenario, suggesting that the perceived seriousness of stalking was associated with the nature of the relationship between the victim and the offender.

Extending the exploration of perceptions of offender–victim relationship, Sheridan, Gillett, Blaauw, Davies, and Patel (2003) manipulated the nature of the previous relationship such that participants were exposed to a case of stalking behavior implicating an ex-intimate, work acquaintance, or stranger as the offender. Lay participants rated both the stranger and work acquaintance stalking scenarios as depicting more realistic cases of stalking than the scenario involving an ex-intimate. Similarly, studies exploring perceptions of stalking among college students found that ex-intimate cases of stalking were viewed with less concern than cases involving acquaintances or strangers (Phillips, Quirk, Rosenfeld, & O’Connor, 2004; Scott, Lloyd, & Gavin, 2010; Scott & Sheridan, 2011).

Despite the fact that incidents of stalking perpetrated by offenders who are well known to the victim are most common (Baldry, 2002; Melton, 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; Walby & Allen, 2001; Walker & Meloy, 1998), more likely to involve violence or physical threat—particularly if the prior relationship had been abusive (Björklund et al., 2010; Blaauw et al., 2002; Farnham et al., 2000; Harmon et al., 1998; Meloy & Gothard, 1995; Mullen et al., 2000), persist over a longer duration, and are less likely to result in a conviction (McEwan et al., 2008; Mohandie et al., 2006), there appears to be a general perception that such offences do not constitute “real” stalking behavior. This perception is unhelpful on several levels—not least that such an inaccurate perception hinders the prosecution of stalking behavior within the criminal justice system. Indeed, Copson and Marshall (2002) have argued that there are parallels between the perceptions surrounding stalking and the way in which rape was perceived and dealt with by the criminal justice system 20 years ago. For instance, one of the most common myths surrounding rape was the idea that rape is only rape when the offender is a stranger (Brownmiller, 1975; Burt, 1980; Toner, 1977).

Rape myth acceptance has been linked to a belief in a “just world” (Jones & Aronson, 1973; Lerner & Miller, 1978). The “just world” hypothesis refers to a preferred belief that the world is a fair place. By extension, when an event occurs that threatens this belief in a just world, perceivers have a tendency to understand or rationalize the event by reasoning that the victim must have done something to deserve it (Lerner & Miler, 1978). Thus, rape myths tend to blame the victim and attenuate or eliminate blame directed at the offender (Rubin & Peplau, 1975). This distorted perception of rape may underpin victim blaming and self-blaming behavior and may also be an important factor in respect of lower reporting rates (Carmody & Washington, 2001; Payne, Lonsway, & Fitzgerald, 1999). Historically, within the criminal justice system, victims of stranger rape also tended to be viewed as more “believable” than those raped by an acquaintance (Adler, 1987; Jordan, 2001; Lees, 1996). Indeed, the degree of rape myth acceptance has been found to mediate the relationship between gender and attribution of responsibility in scenarios of so-called “date rape” (Hammond, Berry, & Rodriguez, 2011)

Distorted perceptions of stalking behavior might also be explained by the “just world” hypothesis (Scott et al., 2010; Scott & Sheridan, 2011; Sheridan & Scott, 2010). Sheridan et al. suggest that ex-intimate stalkers may be viewed as somehow more “entitled” to stalk their victims (perhaps due to the victim’s negative behavior that must have occurred at some point in the relationship history). According to this perception, which draws on the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977), offenders who are unknown to the victim would not be perceived as having the “entitlement” to stalk as there was no prior history between the victim and offender to justify the stalking behavior. Given the apparent impact of what might best be described as distorted perceptions or stereotypes relating to “real” stalking behavior, the aim of the current study is to examine the perception of stalking when the offence is perpetrated by an individual with whom the victim has had a previous relationship, is an acquaintance, or a complete stranger. Clearly it is imperative that police officers as a primary point of contact for victims within the justice system are inured to the “myths” relating to stalking behavior. To date, only a handful of studies have focused directly on police officer perceptions of stalking behavior (e.g., De Fazio & Galeazzi, 2004; Kamphuis et al., 2005; Pearce & Easteal, 1999; Woodruff, 2010). Most studies involving police or practitioner samples have been policy driven or concerned with the effectiveness of legislation or procedure (e.g., Dussuyer, 2000; Miller, 2001; Storey & Hart, 2011). Although in some jurisdictions cases of stalking are likely to be handled by dedicated domestic violence units within police departments (for a U.S.-based account, see Miller, 2001), this is not the case elsewhere. For instance, in England and Wales, each of 43 police forces have adapted procedures, informed by best-practice guidelines and based on available resources, to serve the needs of the local community. Here, frontline officers, detectives, and officers specializing in domestic violence are likely to encounter stalking victims. The same broad-based approach is true of other jurisdictions, including Australia, New Zealand, and much of mainland Europe. Even where there exists a policy for police forces to pass stalking cases to their domestic violence units, in practice, many cases are not recognized as “domestic violence” and are not referred. This may be because the prior relationship between the stalker and victim is ambiguous or because no actual violence has (yet) occurred. The often diffuse, ill-defined nature of stalking (see, for example, Sheridan, Blaauw, & Davies, 2003) lends itself to such difficulties. Therefore, it is important to examine how officers—particularly those who are not located within specialist units—perceive stalking and the extent to which prior relationship mediates their assessment of the situation. Research to date suggests that officers may not be exempt from common misperceptions of stalking. For instance, Pearce and Easteal found that Australian police officers were less likely to use the available stalking legislation in cases of ex-partner stalking. Furthermore, Defazio and Galeazzi, in a comparison of Italian general practitioners (GPs) and police officers, found that GPs were more likely to identify a higher level of abnormality in the stalking situations than police officers.

The current study extends the literature by examining and comparing the perceptions of the role of prior relationship in stalking scenarios held by members of the general public and serving police officers. In light of previous research on the prevalence of rape myth and beliefs about what constitutes “real rape” in both lay and police samples (e.g., Du Mont, Miller, & Myhr, 2003; see also meta-analysis by Suarez & Gadalla, 2010) and given the parallels between such beliefs and beliefs about what might constitute “real stalking,” it might be predicted that both lay and police samples will demonstrate biases in evaluating cases of stalking. Such biases may be driven by the nature of the relationship between the victim and perpetrator. On the other hand, police officers might show less bias associated with prior relationship than typically observed in lay samples due to greater exposure to stalking cases than members of the general public. It may be that policing experience serves as a protective factor against bias from extraneous sources (such as biases relating to prior relationships). To evaluate this hypothesis more thoroughly, we also examined whether direct experience of handling stalking cases alters the perception of stalking cases within the police sample.

Method

Participants

A total 132 officers (54 females) from a U. K. regional force participated in the study. The majority of the sample comprised Police Constables (77%; entry-level rank, roughly equivalent to Officer in the United States). Within this sample, 80 (60.6%) officers had direct experience of dealing with a stalking case (reference to stalking was specifically used in the study to avoid the legal term “harassment,” which may include cases of neighbor disputes, etc.) while remaining officers had no direct experience of cases of this nature. The comparison group consisted of 225 members of the general public who were recruited through advertisements and opportunist sampling. The final sample included 149 females and 76 males with a mean age of 40 years (SD = 14.38, range = 19-70 years).

Materials

Three stalking scenarios were adapted from Sheridan et al. (2003). Each scenario presented a typical case of stalking in which a female victim is being stalked by a male offender. The three scenarios were identical except for a single sentence that made reference to the relationship of the stalker to the victim. The stalker was incidentally referred to as an ex-intimate, a work acquaintance or a stranger, for example, “Since Michael became an employee at Susan’s workplace . . .” (work acquaintance condition), “Since their divorce . . .” (ex-intimate condition), or “Since Michael first noticed Susan in the local supermarket . . .” (stranger condition).

Procedure

Participants were not explicitly informed as to the exact nature of the research at the outset and the first phase of the procedure was matched for both police and lay participants. Once individual consent had been obtained, participants were randomly allocated to one of the three experimental conditions: work acquaintance condition, ex-intimate condition, and stranger condition. After reading the scenario, participants rated six statements using a Likert-type scale (0 = Not at all to 10 = Extremely). These statements required participants to rate the extent to which they believed the scenario presented constituted a case of stalking, the severity, likely duration and likelihood of injury to the victim, the extent to which the victim was responsible for the stalking behavior, and the extent to which police intervention was necessary. For the policing sample, a final section of the questionnaire requested further information concerning the crime of stalking, particularly beliefs concerning the current prevalence of stalking as a crime and adequacy of current legislation. Officers were also asked whether they had been professionally involved in dealing with a stalking case. Response booklets were completed individually and without discussion in the presence of the researcher. All participants were fully debriefed on completion of the study.

Results

A 3 (victim–offender relationship: ex-intimate vs. work acquaintance vs. stranger) x 2 (group type: police officer vs. general public) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) revealed significant main effects for both victim–offender relationship, F(12, 692) = 3.61, p < .001, η² = .06, and participant group type, F(6, 346) = 7.32, p < .001, η² = 0.11; on the combined items the interaction was not significant, F(12, 692) = 1.24, ns. Subsequent univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) showed that both the victim–offender relationship and the group type were significantly associated with a number of the individual items (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance F Ratios for Victim–Offender Relationship and Participant Group Type ( $η_{p}^{2}$ in Parentheses)

	ANOVA
	MANOVA	Stalking	Severity	Injury	Responsibility	Intervention	Length
Variable	F(12, 692)	F(6, 346)	F(6, 346)	F(6, 346)	F(6, 346)	F(6, 346)	F(6, 346)
Relationship	3.61**	9.02** (0.05)	0.92 (0.005)	1.24 (0.007)	2.68 (0.02)	0.08 (0.004)	6.72** (0.04)
Group type	7.32**	0.20 (0.001)	2.21 (0.006)	4.98* (0.02)	0.26 (0.001)	14.74** (0.04)	.004 (0.01)
Relationship × Group Type	1.24	1.04 (0.006)	0.01 (0.001)	0.25 (0.001)	0.89 (0.005)	0.08 (0.001)	1.82 (0.01)

Note: ANOVA = analysis of variance; MANOVA = multivariate analysis of variance. F ratios are Wilks’ Lambda approximations of Fs.

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

Prior victim–offender relationship influenced participant assessments of the extent to which the scenario constituted stalking and estimates of how long the behavior was likely to continue (see Table 1). Post hoc comparisons revealed differences between ratings across the victim–offender relationship groups. Participants exposed to the stranger scenario (M = 9.34) perceived this scenario as depicting stalking to a significantly greater extent than participants who read either the work acquaintance (M = 8.71) or ex-intimate (M = 8.63) scenario. Similarly, participants in the stranger condition (M = 8.72) believed the stalking behavior would last significantly longer than those in the work acquaintance (M = 7.49) or ex-intimate (M = 7.90) condition.

Participant group type was associated with the rated likelihood of injury to the victim and the extent to which police intervention was necessary to resolve the situation (see Table 1). Specifically, police participants were more likely to conclude that the scenario would result in injury to the victim (Police, M = 6.60; Public, M = 6.04). Police were also more likely to take the view that formal intervention was required to end the stalking behavior (Police, M = 8.43; Public, M = 7.56).

Role of Police Experience

All officers were asked whether they had direct experience of working on cases of stalking. There was no association between officer gender and experience of stalking cases (χ² < 1) with 62% of male officers and 57% of female officers in the sample reporting working experience of stalking cases. To examine whether actual experience of working on stalking cases served to change officer perceptions of stalking behavior and the role of victim–offender relationship, we conducted a secondary analyses on the police sample only. Here a 3 (victim–offender relationship: ex-intimate vs. work acquaintance vs. stranger) x 2 (direct experience with stalking cases: yes vs. no) MANOVA revealed significant main effects for both victim–offender relationship, F(12, 242) = 2.52, p < .010, η² = .11, and officer experience type, F(6, 121) = 5.19, p < .001, η² = 0.21; on the combined scale items the interaction was not significant, F(12, 242) = 1.07, ns. As before, follow-up analyses indicated that both the victim–offender relationship and officer experience were significantly associated with some scale items (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance F Ratios for Victim–Offender Relationship and Police Experience ( $η_{p}^{2}$ in Parentheses).

	ANOVA
	MANOVA	Stalking	Severity	Injury	Responsibility	Intervention	Length
Variable	F(12, 242)	F(6, 121)	F(6, 121)	F(6, 121)	F(6, 121)	F(6, 121)	F(6, 121)
Relationship	2.52**	7.20*** (0.10)	0.58 (0.009)	1.17 (0.02)	2.43 (0.04)	0.14 (0.002)	0.51 (0.008)
Experience	5.19***	0.80 (0.001)	1.41 (0.01)	0.09 (0.001)	22.54*** (0.15)	1.54 (0.01)	4.44* (0.03)
Relationship × Experience	1.07	2.85 (0.04)	0.17 (0.003)	0.07 (0.001)	1.52 (0.02)	0.18 (0.003)	0.25 (0.004)

Note: ANOVA = analysis of variance; MANOVA = multivariate analysis of variance. F ratios are Wilks’ Lambda approximations of Fs.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Interestingly, prior victim–offender relationship influenced assessments of the extent to which the scenario was perceived to constitute stalking within the police sample (see Table 1). As in the omnibus analysis, officers believed the stranger scenario (M = 9.59) constituted stalking to a greater extent than participants who read either the work acquaintance (M = 8.66) or ex-intimate (M = 8.57) scenario. Experience of working directly with stalking cases also influenced evaluations of the scenarios. Specifically, officers who had experience with stalking cases (M = 1.32) were significantly less likely to attribute responsibility for the stalking behavior to the victim than those who did not have such experience (M = 2.82). Similarly, officers with experience estimated that such cases would take significantly longer to resolve (M = 8.64) than officers who had not worked on stalking cases (M = 8.01).

Officers’ Perception of Stalking

In the final open report section participants were invited to note any further observations concerning stalking. Officers’ responses were fully transcribed and, taking a grounded theory approach, allocated to two main themes: prevalence of stalking and case difficulty.

These themes (and associated subthemes) did not appear to be systematically associated with demographic factors such as gender or experience (χ² < 1 for stalking prevalence and perceptions relating to legislation and case difficulty). Given the exploratory nature of the data, we have synopsized both broad themes with illustrative comments.

Prevalence of stalking

Fifty-four percent of officers believed that the number of stalking reports had risen in the past 5 years and identified 3 main factors for this increase: (a) media influence, (b) advances in technology, and (c) a proactive criminal justice system. With regard to media influence, the focus on high-profile cases in the media was identified by a number of officers as a reason for a perceived rise in stalking cases; for example, “Cases involving celebrities in the media—make people often think they are being stalked when they are not” (Participant 200). A media focus on cases that end in tragedy was also used to explain why reports of stalking had increased; for example, “More publicized by media than there ever was—particularly cases where death has occurred—makes people more worried about normal behavior which they then report to police” (Participant 167); “Media quick to jump when a stalking cases ends in tragedy—people get scared and come to police quicker—often when the case may not actually amount to stalking” (Participant 226).

Officers also reported that advances in technology in the form of mobile phones and the internet had increased the number of stalking reports in the past 5 years and made it easier for offenders to engage in stalking behavior; for example, “The increased use of email/internet and mobile phones has made it easier for people to contact people who don’t wish to be contacted” (Participant 11); “not surprising when so many people contact random strangers on the internet— far too easy to get hold of people’s personal information then it was in the past” (Participant 191).

Finally, officers felt that people were more likely to report their concerns given more positive action being taken by the police in stalking cases; for example, “Increased publicity of successful prosecutions has given victims the confidence to report it to police” (Participant 3); “People more aware that police will get involved in these types of cases—more willing to report to police then” (Participant 186).

Difficulties in progressing stalking cases

Officers identified a number of difficulties when dealing with cases of stalking and identified the following three main issues: (a) insufficient evidence, (b) victim retraction, and (c) the likelihood of the case being dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service.

Officers reported lack of evidence relating to reports of stalking as particularly problematic; for example, “Often not enough evidence due to the nature of the crime itself—often one word against the other” (Participant 162); “Really difficult crime to deal with as it can go on for such a long time before we can get evidence that we can use” (Participant 188); “Victims often get rid of evidence or do not collect it—i.e., keep letters/text messages. Makes it very hard to take any further” (Participant 194). Officers also identified victim retraction as a problem when dealing with stalking cases (e.g., “If someone retracts through fear we can’t do much about it which can be very frustrating” (Participant 164); “Type of crime where if victim retracts we have huge problems trying to pursue it any further especially if we think victim needs protecting” (Participant 189).

Officers also indicated frustration when stalking cases are discontinued by the CPS; for example, “Often the harassment is not witnessed or left over a period of time when it should be reported/recorded much sooner. CPS works on percentages and won’t run a case unless it is almost a certainty of a conviction” (Participant 8); “If police do not gain enough evidence and victim refuses to cooperate, CPS drops the case—regardless of how many times victim has made complaints. More support for victim needed” (Participant 30).

Finally, officers identified difficulties in progressing stalking cases due to the broad nature of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.¹ In particular, they noted that the Act can prove problematic when dealing with actual stalking cases as it reduces the seriousness of stalking behavior and, as a consequence, the priority attached to it by the police; for example, “Harassment is used for many different incidents. I believe it has belittled the more serious stalking cases” (Participant 4); “Problem is it gets seen as less important due to all the petty things the Act also covers and we get called out to, so true stalkings are sometimes not managed right” (Participant 213); “By the time you deal with all the other stuff (neighbor disputes, etc.) you become disillusioned when a stalking case comes along, meaning you treat it as just another harassment case” (Participant 228); “Believe good legislation exists but it’s effect/power should not be ‘watered’ down by applying ‘harassment’ legislation to circumstances not truly fitting the ‘stalker’ type scenario” (Participant 46).

Discussion

The current study demonstrated that the victim–offender relationship significantly impacted on how stalking scenarios were evaluated. The existence of a prior victim–offender relationship (i.e., an ex-intimate partner or work acquaintance) changed the extent to which the target scenario, which remained constant across all conditions, was perceived to constitute a case of stalking. Furthermore, the effect of victim–offender relationship on the evaluation of behavior as stalking was the same for both police officers and lay participants. Irrespective of the nature of the prior relationship, however, officer participants were more likely than members of the public to take the view that the behavior may result in injury to the victim and that police or legal intervention would be required to bring an end to the unwanted behavior by the offender.

The current findings extend our current understanding of how the crime of stalking is understood in society in that they demonstrate that police officers’ perceptions of stalking scenarios broadly map onto perceptions held by the general public (Björklund et al., 2010; Hills & Taplin, 1998; Phillips et al., 2004; Scott et al., 2010; Scott & Sheridan, 2011; Shotland & Straw, 1976). Given police training and involvement at the sharp end of recording and investigating such cases, it might have been predicted that officers would have been less susceptible to biased perceptions of this nature. However, officers rated the stranger scenario as constituting stalking behavior to a greater extent than both other scenarios where the only element that differed was the nature of the prior relationship the victim shared with the offender. Further analyses of the police sample data indicated that the effect of prior victim–offender relationship persisted even among officers who had direct experience with stalking-related cases. Unfortunately, these perceptions run counter to the observations of real-world offending behavior in which stalking cases are most likely to involve ex-intimates/partners rather than strangers (Boon & Sheridan, 2002; Budd & Mattinson, 2000; Harris, 2000; Mullen et al., 2000).

How might this discrepancy be accounted for? In cases of stalking police officers appear to view stalking where the victim has had some form of previous relationship with the offender as less consistent with their perception of stalking than cases involving strangers. In accordance with the fundamental attribution error (Ross, 1977) individuals may focus on dispositional explanations for why the stalking behavior has occurred. Aspects of the behavior may be accounted for, or written off, in terms of a shared prior history not available in the case of a stalking by a complete stranger. In a similar vein, according to the “just world hypothesis” (Lerner & Miller, 1978) individuals produce dispositional explanations when an event threaten their belief in a just world. Stalking cases involving ex-intimates may be viewed as particularly threatening to the idea of a just world—irrespective of either a lay or professional understanding of the crime.

Overall, victim–offender relationship did not impact on perceptions of severity, risk, responsibility of the victim, and perceived duration. This finding runs counter to perceptions obtained from the general public in earlier research on victim–offender relationship (Hills & Taplin, 2003; Shotland & Straw, 1976; Summers & Feldman, 1984) suggesting, perhaps, greater sensitivity to and recognition of the effects of stalking behaviors on victims. Perhaps more important, our results also reveal that police officers who had direct experience of working on stalking cases were significantly less likely to attribute blame for the offenders behavior to the victim than officers without experience. At the very least, this observation indicates that exposure to stalking cases can work to attenuate some of the stereotypical biases associated with the crime of stalking. Nonetheless, the current data suggest that officers may still be influenced by the prototypical view that “real” stalkers are most likely to be strangers (Dennison & Thomson, 2002).

Officers’ qualitative responses regarding stalking reveal some noteworthy issues and operational perspectives. Interestingly, advances in technology were regarded playing an important role in the increase in stalking reports. Previous research suggests that advances in technology have led to increased situations where stalking is possible (Burgess & Baker, 2002; Southworth, Finn, Dawson, Fraser, & Tucker, 2007). However, a number of officers also felt that this type of harassment was more in line with telecommunication offences rather than stalking. Thus, there appears to be disagreement (or at least confusion) among officers as to whether digital, online or “cyber” stalking represents a separate crime or another form of stalking behavior entirely. Clearly, further work is necessary to clarify the definition of stalking and how, when, and why stalking behaviors might be perpetrated via emerging technologies. Furthermore, given the exploratory nature of the qualitative data reported here, future research should explore perceptions about prevalence (particularly in relation to emergent technologies) taking a more quantitative approach to identify the key concerns of practitioners.

Officers were also concerned by the broad nature of the offences covered by the legislation under which cases of stalking are prosecuted. Specifically, a number of officers noted that incidents of stalking might be diluted and, as a consequence, be allocated fewer resources or priority. Officers are not alone in this criticism of the legislation—others have identified potential for misuse and undermining the seriousness of stalking cases (Finch, 2001; Harris, 2000). However, it might be argued that the remit of the Act is broad for good reason. Stalking behavior can be diverse and idiosyncratic—if the Act is not broad and flexible in nature, there is a danger that offenders will modify their behavior so that it falls outside the remit of existing laws (Finch, 2001). Furthermore, general reviews of the act have been generally positive (e.g., Finch, 1997, 2001). In Scotland, recent legislation has been implemented that employs the term “stalking,” despite definitional difficulties associated with this term. If this legislation proves effective and avoids both the dilution outlined above and any other serious pitfalls, then there is likely to be pressure placed on English and Welsh legislatures to strengthen the wording of the Protection from Harassment Act.

As with any simulation of police (and other) decision making, there are a number of limitations associated with the current study. Although the methodology has been adapted from recent research in the field, written scenarios are limited when one considers the frequently complex and potentially sensitive nature of stalking incidents. Thus, responses to scenarios may be rather abstract in nature and may not reflect how an individual might respond in the course of their operational activities (Barter & Renold, 1999). It is also worth bearing in mind that participating officers in the current study were drawn from one regional area in the United Kingdom. Different police forces are likely to have different training policies and procedures in regards to dealing with stalking that may, in turn, influence how stalking is perceived and dealt with. However, the current findings replicate many of the results observed in large samples of lay adults (e.g., Björklund et al., 2010; Hills & Taplin, 1998; Phillips et al., 2004; Scott et al., 2010; Scott & Sheridan, 2011; Shotland & Straw, 1976). Future research should explore differences in response between officers operating in a more general capacity and those aligned with specialist units, such as domestic violence units. The current results provide some evidence that officers with greater experience of the stalking-related crimes are less likely to blame the victim for the perpetrator’s behavior. It might be predicted that officers with wider experience of interpersonal violence contexts (e.g., domestic violence, rape, and sexual assault, etc.) are less susceptible to biases associated with prior relationship.

In summary, these results add weight to previous findings demonstrating stereotypical beliefs relating to stalking behavior. The current findings are novel and important in that they indicate that police professionals who may be required to deal with complaints of stalking also share some of the same stereotypes regarding stalking as lay citizens. Fortunately, although these preexisting stereotypes affected evaluation of the crime, they did not appear to affect officer response to the assessment of the victim and their role. Understanding how and when people are influenced by the perceived victim–offender relationship may aid professionals when developing public awareness campaigns and educational programs for police officers (as well as the public) aimed at addressing misconceptions about stalking. Indeed, officer perceptions of what behavior constitutes stalking may directly influence the general public by virtue of the response taken by officers when responding to complaints of stalking (Finch, 2001). To conclude, the current results suggest that further training is necessary to combat common and prevalent misconceptions surrounding 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

Michelle Weller obtained a bachelors (Hons) degree in psychology with criminology and a masters degree in forensic psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University of Portsmouth. She has worked within the criminal justice field for 8 years and is a member of the International Association of Crime Analysts (IACA). Her research interests lie in applied forensic and investigative psychology, particularly concerning cases of stalking, sexual offending, and homicide.

Lorraine Hope is a reader in applied cognitive psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University of Portsmouth. She obtained a masters degree at the University of Bristol and a PhD at the University of Aberdeen. She is a member of the International Centre for Research in Forensic Psychology (Portsmouth) and the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group. Her research interests lie in human cognition in applied contexts, including witness memory, stress, social influence, and decision making. Her research has been funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, Australian Research Council, Nuffield Foundation, and the British Academy. She has published articles and book chapters on both eyewitness memory and decision making in legal contexts and regularly speaks at international conferences aimed at both academics and police practitioners.

Lorraine Sheridan is a chartered forensic psychologist specializing in stalking and harassment and preoccupation with public figures. After gaining her PhD on the subject in 2001, she became a lecturer (later a senior lecturer) in forensic psychology at the University of Leicester. She is now based at the Sellenger Centre at Edith Cowan University (Western Australia). She has published four books and more than 50 peer-reviewed academic papers relating to stalking and harassment. This research has taken an applied, interventionist angle, and she frequently trains professionals involved in investigating stalking crimes. She is a police-accredited offender profiler and compiles psychological reports related to offenders, highlighting the risks posed by known or unknown suspects. She regularly gives case management advice to the police, security personnel, celebrities, and others on stalking, harassment, violence, risk assessment, malicious communications, and similar topics.

References

Adler

(1987). Rape on trial. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Baldry

A. C.

(2002). From domestic violence to stalking: The infinite cycle of violence. In Boon

Sheridan

(Eds.), Stalking and psychosexual obsession: Psychological perspectives for prevention, policing and treatment (pp.83-104). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Barter

Renold

(1999). The use of vignettes in qualitative research. Social Research Update, 25. Retrieved from http://www.soc.surrey.ac.uk/sru/SRU25 .html

Björklund

Häkkänen-Nyholm

Sheridan

Roberts

(2010). The prevalence of stalking among Finnish university students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 684.

Blaauw

Winkel

F. W.

Arensman

Sheridan

Freeve

(2002). The toll of stalking: the relationship between features of stalking and psychopathology of victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 50-63.

Boon

Sheridan

(2002). Stalker typologies. In Boon

Sheridan

(Eds.), Stalking and psychosexual obsession: Psychological perspectives for prevention, policing and treatment (pp. 63-82). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Brownmiller

(1975). Against our will: Men, women and rape. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Budd

Mattinson

(2000). The extent and nature of stalking: Findings from the 1998 British Crime Survey (Home Office Research Study No.210). London: Home Office.

Burgess

A. W.

Baker

(2002). Cyberstalking. In Boon

Sheridan

(Eds.), Stalking and psychosexual obsession: Psychological perspectives for prevention, policing and treatment (pp. 201-219). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

10.

Burt

M. R.

(1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.

11.

Carmody

D. C.

Washington

L. M.

(2001). Rape myth acceptance among college women: The impact of race and prior victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 424-436.

12.

Copson

Marshall

(2002). Police care and support for victims of stalking. In Boon

Sheridan

(Eds.), Stalking and psychosexual obsession: Psychological perspectives for prevention, policing and treatment (pp. 49-62). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

13.

De Fazio

Galeazzi

G. M.

(2004). Women victims of stalking and helping professions: Recognition and intervention in the Italian context (NCJRS 208024). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

14.

Dennison

S. M.

Thomson

D. M.

(2002). Identifying stalking: The relevance of intent in commonsense reasoning. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 543-561.

15.

Dussuyer

(2000, December). Is stalking legislation effective in protecting victims? Paper presented to the Criminal Justice Responses Conference, Australian Institute of Criminology, Sydney, Australia.

16.

Farnham

F. R.

James

D. V.

Cantrell

(2000). Association between violence, psychosis and relationship to victim in stalkers. The Lancet, 355, 199.

17.

Finch

(2001). The criminalisation of stalking: Constructing the problem and evaluating the solution. London: Cavendish.

18.

Hammond

E. M.

Berry

M. A.

Rodriguez

D. N.

(2011). The influence of rape myth acceptance, sexual attitudes and belief in a just world on attributions of responsibility in a date rape scenario. Legal and criminological psychology, 16, 242-252.

19.

Harmon

R. B.

Rosner

Owens

(1998). Sex and violence in a forensic population of obsessional harassers. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 4, 236-249.

20.

Harris

(2000). An evaluation of the use and effectiveness of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (Home Office Research Study No. 203). London: Home Office.

21.

Hills

A. M.

Taplin

J. L.

(1998). Anticipated responses to stalking: Effect of threat and target-stalker relationship. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 5, 139-146.

22.

James

D. V.

Farnham

(2003) Stalking and serious violence. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 312, 432-439.

23.

Jones

Aronson

(1973). Attribution of fault to a rape victim as a function of respectability of the victim. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26, 415-419.

24.

Jordan

(2001). Worlds apart? Women, rape and the police reporting process. British Journal of Criminology, 41, 679-706.

25.

Kamphuis

J. H.

Galeazzi

G. M.

De Fazio

Emmelkamp

P. M. G.

Farnham

Groenen

. . . Vervaeke

(2005). Stalking—perceptions and attitudes amongst helping professions. An EU cross-national comparison. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 12, 215-225.

26.

Lees

(1996). Carnal knowledge. London: Penguin.

27.

Lerner

M. J.

Miller

D. T.

(1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030-1051.

28.

McEwan

T. E.

Mullen

P. E.

Mackenzie

(2008). A study of the predictors of persistence in stalking situations. Law and Human Behaviour. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/f104651q0913k8nr/

29.

McEwan

T. E.

Mullen

P. E.

MacKenzie

Ogloff

J. R. P.

(2009). Violence in stalking situations. Psychological Medicine, 39, 1469-1478.

30.

Meloy

J. R.

(1998). The psychology of stalking. In Meloy

J. R.

(Ed.), The psychology of stalking: Clinical and forensic perspectives (pp. 1-23). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

31.

Meloy

J. R.

(2002). Stalking and violence. In Boon

Sheridan

(Eds.), Stalking and psychosexual obsession: Psychological perspectives for prevention, policing and treatment (pp. 105-124). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

32.

Meloy

J. R.

Gothard

(1995). Demographic and clinical comparisons of obsessional followers and offenders with mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 258-263.

33.

Melton

(2000). Stalking: A review of the literature and direction for the future. Criminal Justice Review, 25, 246-262.

34.

Melton

H. C.

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

35.

Miller

(2001). Stalking laws and their implementation: What stalking investigators and prosecutors do—A problem solving perspective. Alexandria, VA: Institute of Law and Justice.

36.

Mohandie

Meloy

J. R.

Green-McGowan

Williams

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

37.

Mullen

P. E.

Pathé

Purcell

(2000). Stalkers and their victims. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

38.

Pathé

(2002). Surviving stalking. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

39.

Pathé

Mullen

(2002). The victim of stalking. In Boon

Sheridan

(Eds.), Stalking and psychosexual obsession: Psychological perspectives for prevention, policing and treatment (pp. 1-22). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

40.

Payne

D. L.

Lonsway

K. A.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

(1999). Rape myth acceptance: Exploration of its structure and its measurement using the Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 27-68.

41.

Pearce

Easteal

(1999). The “domestic” in stalking. Alternative Law Journal, 24, 165-170.

42.

Phillips

Quirk

Rosenfeld

O’Connor

(2004). Is it stalking? Perceptions of stalking among college under-graduates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 73-96.

43.

Purcell

Pathé

Mullen

P. E.

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

44.

Rosenfeld

(2004). Violence risk factors in stalking and obsessional harassment: A review and preliminary meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31(1), 9-36.

45.

Ross

(1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 174-221). New York, NY: Academic Press.

46.

Rubin

Peplau

L. A.

(1975). Who believes in a just world? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 65-90.

47.

Scott

A. J.

Lloyd

Gavin

(2010). The influence of prior relationship on perceptions of stalking in the United Kingdom and Australia. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 1185-1194.

48.

Scott

A. J.

Sheridan

(2011). Reasonable perceptions of stalking: The influence of conduct severity and the perpetrator-target relationship. Psychology, Crime & Law, 17, 331-343.

49.

Sheridan

Blaauw

Davies

G. M.

(2003). Stalking: Knowns and unknowns. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse: A Review Journal, 4, 148-162.

50.

Sheridan

Davies

G. M.

(2001). Violence and the prior victim-stalker relationship. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 11, 102-116.

51.

Sheridan

Davies

G. M.

Boon

J. C. W.

(2001). The course and nature of stalking: A victim perspective. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 215-234.

52.

Sheridan

Gillett

Blaauw

Davies

G. M.

Patel

(2003). “There’s no smoke without fire”: Are male ex-partners perceived as more “entitled” to stalk than stranger or acquaintance stalkers? British Journal of Psychology, 94, 87-98.

53.

Sheridan

Roberts

(2011). Key questions to consider in stalking cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29, 255-270.

54.

Sheridan

Scott

A. J.

(2010). Perceptions of harm: Verbal versus physical abuse in stalking scenarios. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 400-416.

55.

Shotland

R. L.

Straw

M. K.

(1976). Bystander response to an assault: When a man attacks a woman. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 990-999.

56.

Southworth

Finn

Dawson

Fraser

Tucker

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

57.

Storey

J. E.

Hart

S. D.

(2011). How do police respond to stalking? An examination of the risk management strategies and tactics used in a specialized anti-stalking law enforcement unit. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology. Online version. doi:10.1007/s11896-010-9081-8

58.

Suarez

Gadalla

T. M.

(2010). Stop blaming the victim: A meta-analysis on rape myths. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(11), 2010-2035.

59.

Summers

Feldman

N. S.

(1984). Blaming the victim versus blaming the perpetrator: An attributional analysis of spouse abuse. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 2, 339-347.

60.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.

61.

Toner

(1977). The facts of rape. London: Hutchinson.

62.

Walby

Allen

(2001). Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey (Home Office Research Study 276). London: Home Office.

63.

Walker

L. E.

Meloy

J. R.

(1998). Stalking and domestic violence. In Meloy

J. R.

(Ed.), The psychology of stalking: Clinical and forensic perspectives (pp. 139-161). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

64.

Woodruff

(2010). An analysis of the police response to intimate partner stalking (Paper 783). Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations (ETDs).