Victims’ Responses to Stalking

Abstract

Fear for the stalking victim’s own safety or the safety of people close to them is of primary research interest due to the fact that fear is often required as a necessary condition for repetitive intrusive behavior to be defined as stalking. This study examines factors that increase levels of fear in stalking victims and analyzes their coping strategies, making use of data from a victimization survey among citizens of the Czech Republic (N = 2,503). Overall, 147 stalking victims were identified in the sample. Results show that female victims, those stalked by male offenders, and victims pursued over a long period of time, are most fearful. Higher levels of fear are elicited by strangers as opposed to partners or acquaintances. Among stalking practices, only direct aggression is significantly associated with fear, whereas monitoring the victim (comprising typical stalking behavior such as following the victim) increases the perception of the seriousness of stalking, but does not influence the victim’s fear. In addition, three behavioral coping strategies have been identified: proactive behavior (47% of victims), avoidance (30%), and passivity (23%). The examination of the association between these coping strategies and victims’ fear reveals that female victims, whose behavior is proactive, express higher levels of fear than male victims and than those choosing avoidance or passivity strategies. Overall, the study confirms gender differences in both the level of fear and coping strategies, and lends further support to appeals for eliminating the fear requirement from the stalking definition.

Keywords

stalking fear victims gender coping

The first antistalking law was passed in California in 1990, and since then, many other countries have followed with their own legislation (Fox, Nobles, & Fisher, 2011; Van der Aa & Römkens, 2013). The legal definition of stalking is not uniform among these countries, but most of them agree that the definition of stalking should include the intrusiveness of behavior, its repetitiveness, and fear experienced by the victim as a consequence of conduct (Fox et al., 2011; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Whereas some legislation includes fear as a prerequisite for behavior being labeled stalking (e.g., most states in the United States), others have different requirements, for instance, merely the potential to cause fear is sufficient in the Czech Republic (Horakova, 2012). Similarly, there is no consensus on the definition of stalking in criminological research, and the inclusion or exclusion of fear can have a considerable impact on prevalence rates (see, for example, Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998).

Criminologists started to focus their attention on stalking during the 1990s, and since then, research on stalking has grown considerably (e.g., Cupach & Spitzberg, 2004; Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Fox et al., 2011; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2012; Miller, 2012; Slashinski, Coker, & Davis, 2003; Spitzberg, 2002; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; Wigman, 2009). Victims’ fear was already examined in the first studies on stalking (Mechanic, Weaver, & Resick, 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998); however, it was not of primary interest. Although more attention has been paid to this topic in recent years (e.g., Bjerregaard, 2000; Dietz & Martin, 2007; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2012; Sheridan & Lyndon, 2010; Wilcox, Jordan, & Pritchard, 2007), there are still many issues that have not been sufficiently explored.

A number of studies have examined the association between the victim’s gender and their fear of the offender, and found that female victims are considerably more likely to experience fear than males (Bjerregaard, 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2012; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2012; Sheridan & Lyndon, 2010; Slashinski et al., 2003). On the contrary, although the relationship between the victim and the stalker seems to be an important predictor of fear (Dietz & Martin, 2007; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2012), the results of previous research are contradictory. As Wilcox et al. (2007) stated in their research among college students, the respondents were more likely to report fear when stalked by strangers. On the contrary, other authors (Dietz & Martin, 2007; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2012) found that victims stalked by a nonstranger were more likely to experience fear.

Stalking comprises many different types of intrusive behavior that do not have equal potential to elicit fear. Until now, only a few studies considered this fact and controlled for stalking practices when analyzing the victim’s fear. Dietz and Martin (2007) used data from the National Violence Against Women Survey and categorized female victims into three types according to the stalker’s practices: physical monitoring (following, spying), communication monitoring (e.g., unsolicited phone calls), and other monitoring. Their analysis showed that both physical and communication monitoring increased the odds of being fearful compared with other stalking practices. In addition, when these practices were controlled for, some of the victims’ characteristics remained significantly associated with fear (race, education, age). A study by Reyns and Englebrecht (2012) used data from a supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey and distinguished four categories of stalking practices in their analysis of the victims’ fear: physical pursuit, cyberpursuit, cybermonitoring, and seriousness, which comprised threatening or aggressive behavior. Fear was analyzed both at the onset of stalking and as it progressed. Results showed that in both stalking phases, the odds of being fearful increased with seriousness and for victims who were female, stalked by strangers, and acknowledged being stalked. On the contrary, married victims were significantly less fearful than those not married only at the onset of stalking, whereas cybermonitoring increased fear only as the stalking progressed. The victim’s race did not have any significant effect. Finally, a study by Bjerregaard (2000) found that threats made by a stalker raised fear in both sexes, though the effect was greater for female victims. In addition, face-to-face contact with the stalker or attempted contact enhanced the level of fear in females.

Results of these studies indicate that whether the same stalking practices elicit fear or not might be dependent on the victim’s characteristics (Bjerregaard, 2000; Dietz & Martin, 2007; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2012). Dietz and Martin (2007) convincingly argue against the inclusion of fear in the stalking definition, stressing that stalking can have serious negative consequences not only for fearful victims but for fearless ones as well. Moreover, such “unacknowledged” victims are less protected by the criminal justice system, and ultimately the definition creates social inequalities, as a sense of fear is socially dependent.

Alongside the emotional response to stalking, behavioral reactions of victims have been of frequent research interest as well. Many different typologies of coping strategies have been suggested in previous research (e.g., Cupach & Spitzberg, 2000; Nicastro, Cousins, & Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg, Nicastro, & Cousins, 1998), of which five tactics proposed by Cupach and Spitzberg (2004) are possibly the most popular (e.g., Amar & Alexy, 2010; Miller, 2012). These tactics are “moving with” tactics, which present discursive efforts and any interaction with the stalker in either a positive (chatting, persuading) or negative (threats, arguing) way, and “moving away” tactics, which refer to avoiding the offender and changing everyday routines, representing the largest category. Another category includes “moving inward” activities, when the victim tries to deny, distract, or redefine the stalker’s behavior, which also includes ignoring the problem. “Moving outward” activities consist mainly of consultations or support-seeking from a third party, to deter or avoid the offender. On the contrary, “moving against” strategies represent active defense against stalking, with the intention to cause harm to the offender, including physical assault or legal action.

Previous research has not yielded consistent results in terms of gender differences in victims’ coping responses to stalking. Whereas Cupach and Spitzberg (2000) found practically no differences in coping strategies applied by male and female victims, other studies revealed that female victims, for instance, seek legal or social support more often than male victims (Bjerregaard, 2000; Dutton & Winstead, 2011). Langhinrichsen-Rohling (2012) also points out that since male victims are less fearful, they might receive less helpful reactions from both formal and informal help-providers.

Research on a link between the victim’s fear of the stalker and coping response is scarce, except for reporting to the police. It has been shown that victims experiencing increased levels of fear from stalking are more likely to report to the police (Jordan, Wilcox, & Pritchard, 2007; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010). Furthermore, a study by Spitzberg et al. (1998) revealed that the level of fear and extent of coping are positively correlated, and that there is an especially strong association between fear and informal coping (e.g., advice and support from family, friends, or authorities).

The present study aims to contribute to current research on stalking victims’ fear, making use of data from a recent Czech victimization survey. First, we examine factors related to victims’ fear, namely, victim and stalker gender, their relationship, stalking duration, and stalking practices. Second, a similar analysis is conducted, though instead of examining fear an indicator describing the perception of seriousness of the stalking situation is used, and findings of both analyses are contrasted. Third, victims’ coping strategies are examined and their association with fear is analyzed separately for male and female victims.

Method

Data

Data used in this study come from a survey realized in 2012/2013 in the Czech Republic, which focuses on victimization by intimate partner violence (IPV) and stalking. The study was partially a national follow-up to the previous research project, International Violence Against Women Survey (IVAWS), in which the Czech Republic was involved in 2003. The questionnaire was designed in a way that enables a comparison of key indicators with IVAWS. However, the scope of the study was expanded to include stalking victimization and men were interviewed as well.

Data collection was conducted in two stages and was carried out separately for men during December 2012 and January 2013, and for women, conducted in June and July 2013. The different timing of both surveys was due to the project’s funding plan. However, we do not expect that the 6-month difference in data collection will have caused any bias, given the fact that no significant events relevant for this research topic took place in the Czech Republic during this time (e.g., no legislation changes or major media coverage of stalking). The questionnaires used in both surveys were identical, with the exception of a few questions included in the IPV section, which are irrelevant to the topic of this study.

The survey among men was conducted using quota sampling and a computer-assisted self-interviewing method (CASI). Self-interviewing was selected as the preferred method due to the high sensitivity of the research topic (Tourangeau & Yan, 2007), and because a previous Czech survey among men targeted at IPV, which used face-to-face interviewing, yielded high item nonresponse for questions concerning IPV (Buriánek, Kovařík, Zimmelová, & Švestková, 2006). The CASI method seems to have successfully overcome this problem in the recent study. Overall, 1,001 men were interviewed.

The second survey among women included 1,502 respondents who were randomly selected. Unlike the male survey, face-to-face interviews were conducted with women led by trained female interviewers. This method was applied already in the IVAWS study with positive feedback from both respondents and interviewers (Buriánek & Pikálková, 2013). A larger sample of female respondents was collected due to better comparability with the IVAWS study. Consequently, weighting correcting the overrepresentation of females was applied when reporting prevalence estimates and univariate statistics.

Differences in data collection methods between surveys for men and women—which were based on experience with previous IPV research in the Czech Republic (Buriánek et al., 2006; Buriánek & Pikálková, 2013)—might have resulted in different levels of willingness to report stalking victimization by male and female respondents. Nevertheless, even an application of the same method of data collection is likely to result in a different extent of underreporting of own victimization between males and females (see Chan, 2011).

A screening question for stalking victimization was phrased as follows:

Since you were 16 or older, has anyone (from strangers to partners) repeatedly harassed you, contacted you and limited your usual way of life in a way which was uncomfortable for you and may have even caused you fear for your own safety or the safety of people close to you?

Such a question already excludes minor stalking incidents, which are either isolated incidents, or do not cause discomfort in the victim’s life. Overall, 147 victims of stalking were identified in the survey and are further analyzed in this study.

Measures

The victim’s fear was evaluated with two questions: “Did you fear for your safety?” and “Did you fear for the safety of people close to you?” Both items were measured on a 5-point scale ranging from not at all (1) to a lot (5). The outcome measure was calculated as the mean of these two items. The perception of the seriousness of stalking was estimated similarly as a mean of 4 items: “How serious was this situation for you?”; “How serious was this situation as perceived by members of your family?”; “Did you feel helpless in this situation?”; and “Did you perceive the situation as annoying?” which were measured using the same 5-point scale. Reliability of the seriousness scale was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha with good results (.77).¹

Stalking usually comprises many types of behavior. Our study included 25 stalking practices, ranging from unwanted phone calls or visits and sending gifts, to spying, threats, or physical assaults. The occurrence of these practices was measured on a 4-point scale with the options: never (1), sometimes (2), often (3), and always (4). An exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring method with oblimin rotation) was conducted, and a solution with four factors seemed to be optimal, based on a scree plot and interpretability of the factors. Four new variables were constructed as means of items with the highest factor loadings. The first variable comprises seven forms of harmful behavior targeted directly at the victim (direct aggression), for example, physical assault, including threats, property destruction, verbal abuse, and spreading harmful information or coercion through children. The second measure could be called indirect aggression, since it consists of four types of harmful or threatening behavior that are not aimed directly against the victim. Specifically, this includes threats/assaults against the victim’s partner, against his or her pet, self-harm, and breaking into the victim’s home/car. This scale was dichotomized (0 = not present, 1 = present) due to its highly skewed distribution. The third variable contains practices highly typical of stalking—unwanted contact and messages, spying, observing, and so on (eight items)—indicating an effort to contact and/or monitor the victim. We call this pattern of behavior monitoring. The last constructed measure comprises six items, all of which do not include direct contact with the victim and are not necessarily harmful (noncontact harassment)—for example, reading the victim’s emails, posting information about the victim on the Internet, or seeing the victim’s friends without his or her approval. The reliability of all scales is satisfactory (Cronbach’s α ranges from .72 to .83).

Considering the response to stalking behavior, respondents had the possibility to choose from 16 items. Some of them described very similar behavior and were thus merged into 12 coping responses.² The victims of stalking were asked, “Did you take any steps or change anything in your life as a result of this pursuit?” with the options, for example, avoiding the offender, ignoring the offender, standing up to the offender face to face, and seeking out professional help. The answer was binary for each response to stalking, measuring if victims used the strategy (1 = yes) or did not (0 = no).

Four control variables describing basic characteristics of the stalking situation have been used in the analysis. The first of them is victim gender (1 = male, 0 = female). Offender gender is not necessarily known to the victim, but this was the case only for two stalkers in the data set, and therefore the variable is coded as 1 if the stalker was male or unknown and 0 if it was female. The relationship between the victim and the offender, at the time of the incident, was divided into three categories: “partners,” including both current and previous intimate partners or dating partners, “acquaintances,” that is, other people who the victim knew, and “strangers.” Finally, the duration of stalking was measured on a 7-point ordinal scale, with a range from 1 (less than 2 weeks) to 7 (more than 3 years).

Statistical Analysis

First, a univariate description is presented for key variables using both unweighted data and weighted data, reducing the overrepresentation of women in the sample. The latter allows us to estimate distributions or mean values of these measures in the Czech population as well. Second, their bivariate associations with fear and seriousness are presented (t test, F test, Pearson’s r). Third, ordinary least square (OLS) regression models are estimated. Separate models are presented for fear and seriousness as dependent variables (Model 1 and Model 2), which include variables describing the configuration of the stalking situation (victim’s and offender’s gender and their relationship), and the duration of stalking, and four forms of stalking practices (direct aggression, indirect aggression, monitoring, and noncontact harassment). In the next step, models with interactions between victim gender and stalking practices are tested. Finally, the coping behavior of victims is analyzed. At first, a two-step cluster analysis (a procedure implemented in SPSS software) is applied to construct a typology of coping strategies. Then, the association between fear and the choice of a coping strategy is analyzed separately for male and female victims (t test, F test).

Findings

Descriptive and Bivariate Results

The Czech survey of 2,503 respondents identified 147 victims of stalking, showing a 5.8% life-time prevalence of stalking victimization, specifically 7.3% among women and 4.3% among men. Among stalking victims, only 2 were not Czech citizens. Almost half of them had a high school diploma (46%), 38% achieved lower than full secondary education, and 16% reported tertiary education. With respect to both nationality and educational attainment, stalking victims were not significantly different from nonvictimized respondents. The mean age of victims was 40.4 years, which is 2 years lower than the mean age of nonvictims (42.5). However, half of the victims reported that their stalking case had happened 6 or more years ago, and therefore the mean age in the time of victimization was lower.³

Univariate statistics of variables entering into regression models and their bivariate association with fear and the seriousness of stalking are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Similar to other studies, the data show that women become victims of stalking more often, whereas stalkers are usually men (cf. Spitzberg, 2002). These categories—that is, female victims and male stalkers—are also associated with higher levels of fear and a higher perception of seriousness as experienced by victims. The majority of stalking incidents (54%) occurs between partners, while stalking by strangers is not very common (16%). However, the perceived fear and seriousness of stalking do not significantly differ according to the relationship between the victim and the offender.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the Stalking Situation (Victim’s and Offender’s Gender and Their Relationship) and Their Bivariate Association to Fear and Seriousness.

			Fear			Seriousness
	n	%^a	M	SD	t/F	M	SD	t/F
Victim
Female	106	72.1 (64.5)	2.9	1.1	2.50*	3.9	0.8	4.37***
Male	41	27.9 (35.5)	2.4	1.1		3.3	0.9
Offender
Female	24	16.3 (19.8)	1.8	0.7	6.46***	3.1	0.9	4.45***
Male/unknown	123	83.7 (80.2)	2.9	1.1		3.9	0.8
Relationship
Partner	83	56.5 (54.4)	2.7	1.2	0.55	3.9	0.8	2.09
Acquaintance	42	28.6 (29.4)	2.7	1.0		3.6	0.9
Stranger	22	15.0 (16.2)	3.0	1.1		3.7	0.8
Total	147	100.0	2.8	1.1		3.8	0.9

Results of weighted data correcting the overrepresentation of women are indicated in parenthesis.

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

Table 2.

Stalking Practices and Stalking Duration and Their Association to Fear and Seriousness.

			Fear	Seriousness
	M ^a	SD	Pearson r	Pearson r
Fear	2.8 (2.7)	1.1	—	.61***
Seriousness	3.8 (3.7)	0.9	.61***	—
Direct aggression	1.8 (1.8)	0.6	.44***	.35***
Indirect aggression	0.28 (.29)	0.45	.14	.10
Monitoring	2.2 (2.2)	0.6	.15	.40***
Noncontact harassment	1.3 (1.3)	0.5	.04	.03
Duration of stalking	4.3 (4.3)	1.7	.27***	.41***

Note. n = 147 (unweighted data).

Results of weighted data correcting the overrepresentation of women are indicated in parentheses.

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

Table 2 shows that the victim’s fear and the evaluation of the seriousness of stalking are clearly related (r = .61). Out of the four types of stalking practices, only direct aggression significantly increases the victim’s fear (r = .44). On the contrary, the perception of the seriousness of stalking is significantly associated not only with direct aggression (r = .35), but with monitoring as well (r = .40). In addition, the duration of stalking correlates with the victim’s fear (r = .27) and even more so with the seriousness of stalking (r = .41).

Multivariate Analysis of Fear and Seriousness

Regression models of fear and seriousness are presented in Table 3. Similar to the results of the bivariate analysis, direct aggression increases the victim’s fear and its impact is relatively strong (β = .44); the other forms of stalking practices have no effect (see Model 1). Out of the control variables, the duration of stalking is significantly associated with fear when statistically controlling for other variables, and a higher level of fear is found among victims who were stalked by strangers compared with partners. Both the victim’s and offender’s gender remain statistically significant as well, albeit only at the 5% significance level.

Table 3.

OLS Regression Models of Fear (Model 1, Model 3) and Seriousness (Model 2).

	Model 1 (Fear)			Model 2 (Seriousness)			Model 3 (Fear)
	B	β	p	B	β	p	B	β	p
Constant	.33		.466	1.60		<.001	−.22		.664
Victim gender (male)^a	−.51	−.21	.030	−.46	−.24	.005	.89	.35	.186
Offender gender (male/unknown)^a	.62	.20	.024	.40	.18	.034	.75	.25	.007
Relationship
(Acquaintance)^a	.15	.06	.439	−.18	−.09	.199	.20	.08	.305
(Stranger)^a	.85	.27	.001	.40	.17	.025	.93	.29	<.001
Duration of stalking	.16	.24	.001	.19	.38	<.001	.18	.27	<.001
Direct aggression	.84	.44	<.001	.29	.20	.012	.98	.52	<.001
Indirect aggression (yes)^a	.07	.03	.711	.03	.02	.803	.03	.01	.854
Monitoring	−.04	−.02	.767	.41	.30	<.001	−.03	−.02	.820
Noncontact harassment	−.15	−.07	.395	−.22	−.13	.075	−.11	−.05	.532
Direct aggression × Victim gender (male)^a							−.75	−.31	.027
Adjusted R²		.348			.453			.368
N		137			137			137

Note. OLS = ordinary least square.

Dummy-coded variables have the category coded “1” indicated in parentheses.

An analogous analysis for seriousness (Model 2) arrives at similar results, with one notable exception: The effect of direct aggression is weaker (β = .20) and significant only at the 5% significance level; monitoring, however, has a direct effect in this case, which is of an even greater magnitude (β = .30). In addition, the duration of stalking has a somewhat stronger association to seriousness than to fear. Consequently, Model 2 for seriousness explains the larger proportion of variance in the dependent variable (adj. R² = .45) than Model 1 for fear (adj. R² = .35).

Additional models including interactions were performed for both dependent variables. The only significant interaction effect between stalking practices and victim gender was found for direct aggression in the model for fear (Model 3 in Table 3). The association between direct aggression and fear is relatively strong for women (β = .52), whereas it is weaker for men (β = .21). However, if direct aggression is not present in the stalker’s behavior, the level of fear is not significantly different between men and women. Nevertheless, since the p value of the interaction effect is close to .05, this result should be considered with caution, given the number of performed statistical tests.

Coping Strategies

Victims’ responses to stalking were analyzed, making use of a two-step cluster analysis, which suggested three types of general coping strategies that victims chose to deter the offender from stalking behavior. The largest cluster (47% of victims) includes victims who used some kind of proactive behavior toward the offender, meaning they were active in attempting to solve their situation, or changed their behavior to a great extent. Examples of such behavior are meeting the offender face to face, reporting stalking to the police, seeking professional or informal help, and a change of address. This strategy contains a mixture of coping tactics going across all categories of Cupach and Spitzberg’s (2004) typology. The second cluster (30% of victims) is represented by victims who used avoidance of physical contact to deter the offender; for example, they avoided him or her on purpose, and changed their usual activities or way home/way to work, which is in accordance with Cupach and Spitzberg’s (2004) moving away tactics. The third cluster consists of victims who chose passivity as a response to stalking; they either changed nothing about their behavior, or they just ignored the offender. This coping strategy can be classified as a moving inward tactic and was used by approximately one quarter of the victims (23%).

The results presented in Table 4 suggest that male victims choose a passive approach to stalking more often than females (32% compared with 20%), whereas a proactive strategy is more frequent among females (49% vs. 41% among males); however, the differences are not statistically significant. An analysis of the association between coping strategy and level of fear shows that female victims who applied a proactive strategy expressed greater fear than both other categories of female victims (those using avoidance and passivity strategies), and male victims who chose to act proactively. On the contrary, there are no significant gender differences in the level of fear among victims opting for avoidance or passivity.

Table 4.

Coping Strategies and Their Association to Fear by Gender.

	% (n)		Fear
	Male	Female	Male	Female	Cohen’s d	t (Between Gender)
Proactive behavior	41 (17)	49 (51)	2.50	3.30	.63	2.54**
Avoidance	27 (11)	31 (33)	2.36	2.45	.08	0.28
Passivity	32 (13)	20 (21)	2.23	2.62	.31	0.89
η²			.01	.12
F (within gender)			0.20	7.00**

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

Discussion

Results of our analysis have confirmed that the victim’s fear is related to characteristics of the stalking situation, specifically to the victim’s and offender’s gender, their relationship, stalking duration, and stalking practices. The most fearful were female victims, victims who were stalked by male (or unknown) offenders, and those stalked over a long period of time. Furthermore, stalking by strangers elicited more fear in victims than stalking by partners or acquaintances. Whereas the female gender of a victim was frequently associated with increased fear in previous research (e.g., Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2012; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2012; Sheridan & Lyndon, 2010), results concerning the victim–offender relationship are mixed (Dietz & Martin, 2007; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2012; Wilcox et al., 2007).

Our findings on the victim–offender relationship are in contradiction with the results of two studies, which used a multivariate approach controlling for similar stalking related variables as we did, but found victims stalked by nonstrangers more fearful (Dietz & Martin, 2007; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2012). Although our results might be specific to the sample, there are several differences between these studies and ours, which might have contributed to this outcome. First, unlike the two studies, we did not analyze fear as a dichotomous factor, but treated it as a continuous variable, which, in our opinion, better expresses the nature of the phenomenon.⁴ Second, both mentioned studies used different screening procedures for the identification of stalking victims which seem to be more likely to include a greater number of minor stalking incidents than our approach.⁵ Third, the category “strangers” consisted only of 16% of offenders in our data, whereas it was more prevalent in both studies and the definition of a stranger varied; Dietz and Martin (2007) had 26% of complete strangers (offender’s gender unknown to the victim) in their sample, whereas Reyns and Englebrecht (2012) identified 34% of strangers, though it is not clear how exactly they defined this category. It is, therefore, plausible that our research did not include minor stalking incidents, which are more typical of stranger offenders, and usually do not elicit much fear. However, more severe stalking by a stranger might be perceived as more frightening than stalking by known persons, since the victim lacks information about the offender and cannot effectively assess the risk of serious harm. However, further research will be needed to test this hypothesis and to fully understand differences in the victim’s fear levels in various stalking configurations.

Out of all the stalking practices, only direct aggression increased the victim’s fear. Since this category included various threatening and harmful behavior of the stalker, targeted directly at the victim, the impact on fear is not surprising, and is in accordance with previous research (Reyns & Englebrecht, 2012). However, the analysis of interaction effects revealed that the increment in fear is gender-dependent, with a substantially stronger impact of direct aggression on fear in the case of females (cf. Bjerregaard, 2000). Moreover, if the stalker’s behavior did not include direct aggression, the level of fear among male and female victims was similar. Consequently, it seems that higher levels of fear elicited by stalking in female victims might be explained by females’ higher sensitivity to stalkers’ threats and aggressive behavior, which is likely a result of gender socialization (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2012).

The analysis of seriousness indicator lends further support to criticism of the inclusion of fear in the stalking definition (e.g., Dietz & Martin, 2007; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2012). The requirement for the definition that stalking elicits fear in victims should exclude trivial incidents of harassment; nevertheless, our results suggest that in the end, too much may end up being excluded. The victim’s sense of fear rose only with increasing direct aggression, whereas monitoring the victim, which included spying, observing, following, calling/texting or unwanted visits—that is, behavior highly typical of stalking—had no additional influence on the victim’s fear. However, our results show that monitoring had a substantial impact on the victim’s perception of the seriousness of stalking. Therefore, if we reduce stalking to practices eliciting fear, we ignore this “essence” of stalking, which can have a devastating impact on the victim’s everyday life and well-being, even if it does not necessarily induce fear.

Finally, the victims’ responses to stalking were analyzed and three types of coping strategies were distinguished. Almost half of the victims were active in help-seeking or tried to stop the offender, 30% chose an avoidance strategy, and almost one quarter did not react to stalking or simply ignored the stalker. Gender differences in coping were not statistically significant due to a small sample size; nevertheless, it seems that women were somewhat more active in help-seeking, whereas men remained passive more often than women (cf. Dutton & Winstead, 2011). Choosing an active coping strategy was associated with fear only among women, which suggests that there might be considerable gender differences even in the decision-making process regarding the appropriate response to stalking.

Overall, the findings of this study show that the victim’s gender is a significant factor, influencing both the emotional and behavioral response to stalking. The fact that male victims are less fearful and less likely to be intimidated by a stalker is, paradoxically, a disadvantage in the case of stalking. Since the legal definition of stalking usually requires the victim’s fear as a necessary condition, male victims are less likely than females to be labeled as victims of stalking, even if the behavior of the stalker is identical. Consequently, men are less likely to seek and obtain external help (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 2012; Wigman, 2009). Low levels of fear, toughness, and independence make up the traditional male gender role, and are still generally expected traits in males. Therefore, even if the definition of stalking is broader and requires only the potential to cause fear, it might be still disadvantageous for men.

In summary, this study brings forth a deeper understanding about the different ways victims experience stalking, their various coping strategies, and shows the importance of gender concerning responses to stalking. In addition, the results have brought further evidence that the inclusion of fear in the definition of stalking is inappropriate and should be reconsidered. Not only has this study, in accordance with previous research (Dietz & Martin, 2007; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2012), shown that such a fear-based definition creates social inequalities, as a sense of fear is socially dependent, our findings also indicate that only certain stalking practices increase the victim’s fear. The variety of behavior related to monitoring the victim is associated with an increased perception of seriousness, but does not increase levels of fear. Consequently, such victims of highly intrusive behavior are denied the status of stalking victims and related assistance from the criminal justice system. We are convinced that if the stalking definition does not require victim’s fear, but rather qualifies the conditions of repetitiveness and intrusiveness more precisely, it can effectively eliminate minor harassment cases without disregarding a number of victims of severe stalking. Furthermore, practitioners working with stalking victims should be aware that victim’s fear is not a reliable indicator of stalking severity, and should consider rather the objective facets of the stalking situation when assessing risk of harm and providing assistance to the victim.

However, the results of this study have several limitations. First, the data come from a standard cross-sectional retrospective victimization survey, which gives rise to certain deficiencies. Such a design does not make it possible to study stalking as a dynamic process, and to examine the development of fear as the stalker’s behavior evolves. In addition, some of the stalking incidents happened a longtime ago, and respondents might not recall the situation clearly or may have biased memories. Second, the survey was conducted in two sweeps for males and females separately, with differences in data collection methods. This fact might have resulted in different patterns of answering sensitive questions between men and women. Third, another limitation of this study is the modest sample size. Although the original sample was large, the prevalence of stalking in the population is relatively low, and therefore only 147 victims of stalking could be analyzed. Such a sample size is sufficient for detecting strong effects, though effects of a smaller magnitude might remain undetected. In addition, even significant results with p values greater than .001 should be considered with caution, given the number of performed statistical tests. Furthermore, the limited sample size did not make it possible to analyze some aspects in depth, for instance, a typology of stalking based on combinations of victim and stalker gender and their relationship would deserve more attention in the analysis of victims’ fear. On the contrary, an advantage of our sample is that it was drawn from the adult population of the whole country, unlike convenience samples or samples restricted to one gender only, which are often used in stalking research.

Finally, the need for further research should be stressed. There are still unresolved issues regarding possibly different responses—both emotional and behavioral—to different types of stalking, in terms of the victim–offender relationship and their gender. It is even questionable whether stalking should be analyzed as a single phenomenon, because it comprises a broad variety of situations, with offenders having entirely different motivation for their behavior. Further research should pay more attention to the heterogeneity of the stalking phenomenon and reflect this in its analytical framework, for instance, by including interaction effects. Eventually, male victims will deserve specific attention. Particularly, a qualitative approach is needed to better understand their stalking experience and response to it, which seems to be different from female victims.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (Grant 404/12/2452).

Notes

Author Biographies

Zuzana Podaná is an assistant professor at the Department of Sociology, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic. Her research interests include stalking, intimate partner violence, and gender differences in offending and victimization. She took part in the International Violence Against Women Survey (2003) and is currently involved in a follow-up study.

Romana Imríšková is a PhD student at the Department of Sociology at Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic, where she also gained her master’s degree. She is interested in research topics such as stalking, social inequality, and imprisonment. Romana is currently a member of a team conducting research on stalking and intimate partner violence.

References

Amar

A. F.

Alexy

E. M.

(2010). Coping with stalking. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 31, 8-14. doi:10.3109/01612840903225602

Bjerregaard

(2000). An empirical study of stalking victimization. Violence and Victims, 15, 389-406.

Buriánek

Kovařík

Zimmelová

Švestková

(2006). Domácí násilí–násilí na mužích a seniorech [Domestic violence–violence against men and elderly]. Prague, Czech Republic: Triton.

Buriánek

Pikálková

(2013). Intimate violence: A Czech contribution on International Violence Against Women Survey. Prague, Czech Republic: Karolinum.

Chan

K. L.

(2011). Gender differences in self-reports of intimate partner violence: A review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 167-175. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.02.008

Cupach

W. R.

Spitzberg

B. H.

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

Cupach

W. R.

Spitzberg

B. H.

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

Dietz

N. A.

Martin

P. Y.

(2007). Women who are stalked: Questioning the fear standard. Violence Against Women, 13, 750-776. doi:10.1177/1077801207302698

Dutton

L. B.

Winstead

B. A.

(2011). Types, frequency, and effectiveness of responses to unwanted pursuit and stalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1129-1156. doi:10.1177/0886260510368153

10.

Fox

K. A.

Nobles

M. R.

Fisher

B. S.

(2011). Method behind the madness: An examination of stalking measurements. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 74-84. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2010.12.004

11.

Horakova

(2012). Stalking—The new phenomenon of the Czech criminal law. In Pavelkova

Strouhal

Pasekova

(Eds.), Advances in economics, risk management, political & law science (pp. 171-177). Tomas Bata University in Zlin. Retrieved from http://www.wseas.us/e-library/conferences/2012/Zlin/EPRI/EPRI-27.pdf

12.

Jordan

C. E.

Wilcox

Pritchard

A. J.

(2007). Stalking acknowledgement and reporting among college women experiencing intrusive behaviors: Implications for the emergence of a “classic stalking case.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 556-569. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.07.008

13.

Langhinrichsen-Rohling

(2012). Gender and stalking: Current intersections and future directions. Sex Roles, 66, 418-426. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-0093-3

14.

Mechanic

M. B.

Weaver

T. L.

Resick

P. A.

(2000). Intimate partner violence and stalking behavior: Exploration of patterns and correlates in a sample of acutely battered women. Violence and Victims, 15, 55-72.

15.

Miller

(2012). Stalking: Patterns, motives, and intervention strategies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 495-506. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2012.07.001

16.

Nicastro

A. M.

Cousins

A. V.

Spitzberg

B. H.

(2000). The tactical face of stalking. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 69-82. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(99)00038-0

17.

Reyns

B. W.

Englebrecht

C. M.

(2010). The stalking victim’s decision to contact the police: A test of Gottfredson and Gottfredson’s theory of criminal justice decision making. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 998-1005. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.07.001

18.

Reyns

B. W.

Englebrecht

C. M.

(2012). The fear factor: Exploring predictors of fear among stalking victims throughout the stalking encounter. Crime & Delinquency, 59, 788-808. doi:10.1177/0011128712461123

19.

Sheridan

Lyndon

A. E.

(2010). The influence of prior relationship, gender, and fear on the consequences of stalking victimization. Sex Roles, 66, 340-350. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9889-9

20.

Slashinski

M. J.

Coker

A. L.

Davis

K. E.

(2003). Physical aggression, forced sex, and stalking victimization by a dating partner: An analysis of the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence and Victims, 18, 595-617. doi:10.1891/vivi.2003.18.6.595

21.

Spitzberg

B. H.

(2002). The tactical topography of stalking victimization and management. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 3, 261-288. doi:10.1177/1524838002237330

22.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Nicastro

A. M.

Cousins

A. V.

(1998). Exploring the interactional phenomenon of stalking and obsessive relational intrusion. Communication Reports, 11(1), 33-47. doi:10.1080/08934219809367683

23.

Tjaden

Thoennes

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

24.

Tourangeau

Yan

(2007). Sensitive questions in surveys. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 859-883. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859

25.

Van der Aa

Römkens

(2013). The state of the art in stalking legislation: Reflections on European developments. European Criminal Law Review, 3, 232-256. doi:10.5235/219174413808445883

26.

Wigman

S. A.

(2009). Male victims of former-intimate stalking: A selected review. International Journal of Men’s Health, 8, 101-115. doi:10.3149/jmh.0802.101

27.

Wilcox

Jordan

C. E.

Pritchard

A. J.

(2007). A multidimensional examination of campus safety: Victimization, perceptions of danger, worry about crime, and precautionary behavior among college women in the post-clery era. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 219-254. doi:10.1177/0097700405283664