Abstract
The purpose of the current study was to utilize a prospective methodology to better understand the extent to which women report stalking behaviors perpetrated by their abusive ex-partners and how these stalking experiences affect women’s psychological adjustment. Participants included 56 college women who completed measures of partner abuse and psychological adjustment prior to and after terminating an abusive dating relationship. A little over half of the women (51.8%) reported some type of stalking victimization following the termination of the abusive relationship. After controlling for baseline levels of psychological distress and partner abuse variables, experiences of post-relationship stalking victimization predicted greater levels of posttraumatic stress symptomatology and interpersonal sensitivity, whereas post-relationship stalking victimization was unrelated to depression and personal empowerment.
Dating violence is a serious problem in our society that affects approximately 21% to 145% of adolescents and young adults (see Lewis & Fremouw, 2001, for review). Over the past few decades, researchers have focused their efforts on better understanding the causes and consequences of dating violence as well as the factors that facilitate leaving an abusive dating relationship (see Lewis & Fremouw, 2001; Rhatigan, Street, & Axsom, 2006, for reviews). However, there is a dearth of research that has focused on young women’s experiences of stalking victimization and resultant psychosocial distress following the termination of an abusive relationship. The purpose of the current study was to explore this gap in the literature using a sample of college women who completed surveys prior to and following the dissolution of the abusive dating relationship. College women are an important population to study given that individuals between the ages of 16 and 24 are at the greatest risk to experience intimate partner violence (U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001), and college students, in particular, are affected by stalking more than the general population (Ravensberg & Miller, 2003).
Stalking is defined as:
a course of conduct directed at a specific person involving repeated visual or physical proximity; nonconsensual communication; verbal, written, or implied threats; or a combination thereof that would cause fear in a reasonable person, with “repeated” meaning on two or more occasions. (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, p. 2)
A number of other terms—obsessional following, obsessive relational intrusion, unwanted pursuit behavior, harassment—have been used to describe the constellation of stalking behaviors as well as other intrusive behaviors that may not meet legal definitions for stalking (see Mechanic, 2004, for a review). Research documents that stalking and these related behaviors occur at alarmingly high rates, especially among college students. Indeed, approximately 25% to 30% of college students reported experiences consistent with stalking, and when more inclusive definitions are used, approximately 90% of college students reported experiencing at least one intrusive behavior (Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Palarea, Cohen, & Rohling, 2000; Logan, Leukefeld, & Walker, 2000; Ravensberg & Miller, 2003). Research also documents that ex-partners are often the perpetrators of unwanted pursuit and stalking behaviors and that ex-partners, compared with other pursuers, often engage in more violent pursuit and stalking behaviors (Meloy, Davis, & Lovette, 2001; Palarea, Zona, Lane, & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999). Despite research documenting the endemic rates of stalking and related victimization, there has been surprisingly little research on the psychosocial effects of these experiences, especially on young victims. In fact, there are only a few published studies (e.g., Spitzberg, Nicastro, & Cousins, 1998; Westrup, Fremouw, Thompson, & Lewis, 1999) with college students, all of which are cross-sectional, that have assessed stalking victimization and psychosocial distress. Spitzberg et al. (1998) found that stalking victimization was positively related to depression and fear in a sample of college men and women. Similarly, Westrup et al. (1999) found that college women who reported stalking victimization, compared with college women without histories of stalking victimization, reported greater posttraumatic stress, depression, interpersonal sensitivity, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms.
Whereas there has been little research on the effects of stalking on young adult victims, there have been a number of studies on this topic with older, noncollege samples. Results from these studies consistently show that stalking victimization is cross-sectionally related to a number of deleterious psychological outcomes even after controlling for other forms of intimate partner abuse (e.g., Basile, Arias, Desai, & Thompson, 2004; Mechanic, Weaver, & Resick, 2008). There have also been a handful of studies (e.g., Cattaneo, Cho, & Botuck, 2011; Logan, Shannon, Cole, & Walker, 2006) with noncollege samples that have longitudinally assessed the relationships among stalking victimization and psychological distress. In a community sample of women seeking protective orders, Logan et al. (2006) found that baseline stalking was uniquely predictive of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), generalized anxiety, and depression at a 1-year follow-up, and Cattaneo et al. (2011) found in a help-seeking sample of victimized women that distress generally decreased over a 7-month period as stalking behaviors also decreased.
Although it is presumable that stalking would result in similar psychological outcomes among college and noncollege samples, Ravensberg and Miller (2003) suggested that there could be different developmental considerations for young victims of stalking given that they are actively trying to balance independence with interdependence and intimacy. Specifically, Ravensberg and Miller suggest that the fear and anxiety associated with stalking victimization could lead to reduced feelings of personal empowerment and thus greater reliance on family and friends, which in turn could disrupt a young person’s sense of transition to autonomous adulthood. Furthermore, Ravensberg and Miller suggest that heightened interpersonal sensitivity resulting from stalking victimization could inhibit a young adult’s ability to achieve intimacy due to a learned reluctance to trust others during such a critical time of developmental transition.
Thus, additional research is needed to better understand the psychosocial impact of stalking victimization on young women, especially research that utilizes a prospective methodology. This type of methodology would allow for the measurement of women’s levels of psychological distress and partner abuse prior to the termination of the relationship and onset of post-relationship stalking victimization. This is important given that all studies to date with college samples (and most studies with noncollege samples) have been cross-sectional, and thus we do not know the extent to which psychosocial distress is related to the post-relationship stalking behaviors per se. By measuring and controlling for preexisting levels of psychological distress and partner abuse, we can make more conclusive findings regarding the specific impact of post-relationship stalking victimization on young women’s psychosocial adjustment, which could be important for tailoring interventions.
The purpose of the current study was to utilize a prospective methodology to better understand (a) the extent to which women report stalking behaviors perpetrated by their abusive ex-partners and (b) how experiences of post-relationship stalking affect women’s psychosocial adjustment. In our operationalization of psychosocial adjustment, we included measures of posttraumatic stress symptomatology, depressive symptomatology, interpersonal sensitivity, and personal empowerment, which were selected based on results from previously reviewed studies, as well as the previously discussed developmental model proposed by Ravensberg and Miller (2003). We hypothesized that post-relationship stalking victimization would predict greater levels of posttraumatic stress, depression, and interpersonal sensitivity and lower levels of personal empowerment, even after controlling for preexisting levels of these variables and the frequency of partner abuse prior to relationship termination. Of note, we use the terms stalking behaviors and stalking victimization throughout the article, although we did not necessarily measure behaviors that would constitute legal definitions of stalking.
Method
Participants
Participants included 56 college women all of whom had terminated a physically, sexually, and/or psychologically abusive, heterosexual dating relationship within the past 4 months. These women were drawn from a larger study (N = 506) that assessed the prospective predictors of abused women’s stay/leave decisions (Edwards, Gidycz, & Murphy, in press). Of the 506 participants, 272 women (54%) met criteria (i.e., currently in an abusive relationship; operationalized below), but only 184 of these 272 women returned to the follow-up; 18 women did not complete the future participation form at the initial assessment (and therefore could not be contacted), and 70 women completed the future participation form and either declined to participate for various reasons (e.g., transferred schools, too busy) or were never reached. There were no significant differences between women who met criteria and returned (n = 184) and women who met criteria and did not return (n = 88) on any of the study variables. Of the 184 women who returned, 113 women reported that they were still with the partners they were dating at the initial assessment, and 71 women reported that they were no longer with the partners they were dating at the initial assessment. Of the women (n = 71) who reported that they were no longer with their dating partners, 52.1% (n = 37) reported that they ended the relationship, 21.1% (n = 15) reported that their partner ended the relationship, and 26.8% (n = 19) of women reported that it was a mutual decision to end the relationship. Consistent with previous research (Edwards et al., 2011; Katz, Kuffel, & Brown, 2006), the 15 women who reported that their partners ended the relationship were excluded from the group of “leavers” because they did not actually terminate the relationship. Thus, the sample of leavers, on which this article focuses, includes 56 women.
Participants (n = 56) used for the current analyses were mostly young (M age = 18.53; SD = 0.02, range = 18-22) and identified as Caucasian (88.1%), followed by African American (3.4%), Asian or Pacific Islander (3.4%), and Multiracial (5.1%). Twenty-six percent of participants reported that their combined, annual family/parents’ incomes were less than US$50,000, 46% reported that they were between US$50,000 and US$100,000, and 28% reported that they were more than US$100,000.
Measures
Post-relationship stalking and partner abuse
The Harassment subscale of the Composite Abuse Scale (CAS; Hegarty, Sheehan, & Schonfeld, 1999) was used at the second survey session to assess for stalking victimization following women’s termination of an abusive dating relationship. The Harassment subscale includes four items, each of which were slightly modified to assess stalking victimization since the relationship ended (i.e., “My Time 1 partner has followed me since our relationship ended”; “My Time 1 partner has hung around outside my house when he was not supposed to be there since our relationship ended”; “My Time 1 partner harassed me over the telephone since our relationship ended”; “My Time 1 partner has harassed me at work since our relationship ended”). We also modified the response options (ranging from “never since we broke up” to “more than 20 times since we broke up”), so that they would be consistent with the response options on the Conflict Tactics Scale–Revised (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), which was used to screen for Physical (12 items; for example, “pushed or shoved me”), Sexual (five items; for example, “made me have sex without a condom”), and Psychological (four items; for example, “called me fat or ugly”) partner abuse in conjunction with the harassment subscale of the CAS at the initial study session. Of note, we only used the severe items of the psychological abuse subscale of the CTS2, as identified by Straus et al. (1996), given that the moderate psychological abuse items (e.g., “yelled at me”) are extremely common in dating relationships and may reflect normative arguing rather than psychological abuse (Edwards et al., 2011; Shorey, Cornelius, & Bell, 2011).
The post-relationship stalking victimization variable was coded both continuously (representing the total number of times women experienced stalking victimization since terminating their relationship) and dichotomously (0 = no post-relationship stalking victimization; 1 = any post-relationship stalking victimization). To control for the frequency of partner abuse reported at the first study session, a total score was computed using the CTS2 and the CAS, which represented the number of times women reported being victimized by their partner prior to relationship termination.
Posttraumatic stress symptoms
The Impact of Events Scale–Revised (IES-R; Weiss & Marmar, 1997) was used to assess symptoms of PTSD associated with partner abuse at both survey sessions. The IES-R includes three subscales: Intrusion (e.g., “Other things kept making me think about it”), Avoidance (“I tried not to think about it”), and Hyperarousal (“I was jumpy and easily startled”) that are consistent with the diagnostic criteria of PTSD. For each of the 22 items, participants rated how often they experienced each symptom during the previous 7 days on a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). A composite score was calculated, and higher scores are indicative of greater PTSD symptomatology. A cutoff score of 33 has been suggested as indicative of a probable diagnosis of PTSD, with a score of 19 being suggestive of elevated posttraumatic stress symptomatology (Creamer, Bell, & Failla, 2003). The IES-R has good reliability and validity (Briere, 1997; Sundin & Horowitz, 2002; Weiss & Marmar, 1997). Cronbach’s reliability alphas for the current sample were .95 and .94 for the first and second study sessions, respectively.
Depressive symptoms
The Depression subscale of the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1993) was used to assess depressive symptoms (e.g., “feeling blue”) at both the first and second survey sessions. For each of the six depression items, participants rated how often they experienced each symptom in the previous 7 days on a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). Items were summed and averaged, and higher scores are indicative of greater depressive symptom distress. Average scores on this subscale range from 0.82 to 0.88 in samples of nonclinical adolescents and college students (Cochran & Hale, 1985; Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983). The measure possesses strong psychometric properties (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983). Cronbach’s reliability alphas for the current sample were .77 and .85 for the first and second study sessions, respectively.
Interpersonal sensitivity
The Interpersonal Sensitivity subscale of the BSI (Derogatis, 1993) was used to assess interpersonal sensitivity (e.g., “feeling inferior to others”) at both the first and second survey sessions. For each of the four interpersonal sensitivity items, participants rated how often they experienced each symptom in the previous 7 days on a 5-point scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely). Items were summed and averaged, and higher scores are indicative of greater interpersonal sensitivity. The average score on this subscale was 0.99 in samples of nonclinical adolescents and college students (Cochran & Hale, 1985; Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983). Cronbach’s reliability alphas for the current sample were .75 and .78 for the first and second study sessions, respectively.
Personal empowerment
The Personal Progress Scale–Revised (PPS-R; Johnson, Worell, & Chandler, 2005) was used to assess women’s feelings of personal empowerment at both study sessions. The PPS-R is grounded in feminist principles of women’s empowerment (Worell & Remer, 2003) and is negatively related to women’s experiences of intimate partner violence (Johnson et al., 2005). Example items include, “I am aware of my own strengths as a woman” and “I am feeling in control of my life.” Response options for the 28 items range from almost never (1) to almost always (7). Items were summed and averaged, and higher scores are indicative of greater feelings of personal empowerment. Johnson et al. (2005) reported that the average scores on the PPS-R were 4.45 to 5.33 among a mixed college and community sample of women reporting partner abuse histories. The PPS-R has good psychometric properties (Johnson et al., 2005). Cronbach’s reliability alphas for the current sample were .77 and .81 for the first and second study sessions, respectively.
Procedure
For the initial assessment, participants were recruited from the research participant pool in the department of psychology at a medium-size Midwestern university. Inclusion criteria required that participants be female, above the age of 18, and currently in a dating relationship; there was no mention of abuse or conflict in the solicitation message. After completing informed consent, paper-and-pencil surveys were administered in a group format by a female graduate student or an advanced female undergraduate research assistant. Women were compensated with course credit for their participation and provided with debriefing and referral information.
Women who endorsed experiences of current partner abuse (i.e., answering affirmatively to any of the physical, sexual, and/or severe psychological victimization items on the CTS2 or harassment items on the CAS) and provided their contact information for potential follow-up were contacted 4 months after their initial participation by telephone and/or email and asked to participate in a follow-up survey. The format for participants’ completion of the follow-up paper-and-pencil surveys was similar to the format of the initial survey session, except that women were compensated with US$20 rather than course credit.
Results
Descriptive statistics for all psychological distress variables and the frequency of partner abuse prior to relationship termination are displayed in Table 1. With the exception of the PPS-R (Johnson et al., 2005), all other measures were positively skewed, and log transformations were performed on these measures to normalize their distributions prior to inferential analyses (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007).
Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variables.
Note. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2.
To What Extent Do Women Report Stalking Victimization Perpetrated by Their Ex-Partners?
More than half (n = 29, 51.8%) of the women reported that they had experienced some type of stalking victimization perpetrated by their ex-partners since they terminated the relationship. Specifically, 25.0% (n = 14) of women reported being followed by the ex-partner, 12.5% (n = 7) reported that the ex-partner hung around the woman’s house when he was not supposed to be there, 46.4% (n = 26) reported being harassed over the phone by the ex-partner, and 5.4% (n = 3) reported being harassed at work by the ex-partner.
Additional descriptive analyses were conducted with women (n = 29) who reported some type of stalking victimization to determine the frequency with which these behaviors occurred since breaking up with one’s partner. On average, women reported experiencing 6.66 (SD = 6.60, range = 1-25) stalking behaviors since terminating their relationships. Of note, only two women reported that the behaviors happened on one occasion; the other 27 women reported multiple stalking experiences. Being harassed over the telephone (M = 4.31, SD = 5.12, range = 0-25) and followed (M = 1.34, SD = 6.60, range = 0-55) were the most commonly experienced stalking behaviors, whereas being harassed at work (M = 0.34, SD = 1.49, range = 0-8) and having the ex-partner hang around outside the house/yard (M = 0.66, SD = 1.67, range = 0-8) were less common.
How Do Experiences of Post-Relationship Stalking Victimization Affect Women’s Psychosocial Recovery?
Four hierarchical linear regressions (see Tables 2-5) were conducted to determine whether experiences of stalking victimization following relationship termination affected women’s recovery in four domains: posttraumatic stress symptoms, depressive symptoms, interpersonal sensitivity, and personal empowerment. In the first step of the regressions, we controlled for women’s baseline psychosocial adjustment and the frequency of partner abuse prior to relationship termination (referred to as “baseline partner abuse”) to control for distress not associated with the onset of stalking victimization. In the second step, the post-relationship stalking victimization variable (dichotomously coded; 0 = none, 1 = any) was entered. Results suggested that after controlling for preexisting levels of PTSD and baseline partner abuse, experiencing stalking victimization following the termination of an abusive relationship predicted increased levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms, ΔF(1, 53) = 6.11, p = .017, ΔR2 = .098. Results also suggested that after controlling for preexisting levels of interpersonal sensitivity and baseline partner abuse, experiencing stalking victimization following the termination of an abusive relationship predicted increased levels of interpersonal sensitivity, ΔF(1, 53) = 4.24, p = .044, ΔR2 = .054. However, after controlling for preexisting levels of depression and baseline partner abuse, experiencing post-relationship stalking victimization was unrelated to depression, ΔF(1, 53) = 1.66, p = .204, ΔR2 = .020. Similarly, after controlling for preexisting levels of personal empowerment and baseline partner abuse, experiencing post-relationship stalking victimization was unrelated to personal empowerment, ΔF(1, 53) = 2.35, p = .131, ΔR2 = .018. Of note, the frequency of baseline partner abuse was significantly predictive of lower levels of post-relationship personal empowerment and marginally predictive of higher levels of post-relationship depression.
Regression Analysis for Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms (T2) as a Function of Post-Relationship Termination Stalking Victimization.
Note. The F and R2 values in the table are for each step; change statistics are displayed in the text. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Regression Analysis for Depressive Symptoms (T2) as a Function of Post-Relationship Termination Stalking Victimization.
Note. The F and R2 values in the table are for each step; change statistics are displayed in the text. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2.
Marginally significant at p = .06.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Regression Analysis for Interpersonal Sensitivity (T2) as a Function of Post-Relationship Termination Stalking Victimization.
Note. The F and R2 values in the table are for each step; change statistics are displayed in the text. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Regression Analysis for Personal Empowerment (T2) as a Function of Post-Relationship Termination Stalking Victimization.
Note. The F and R2 values in the table are for each step; change statistics are displayed in the text. T1 = Time 1; T2 = Time 2.
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to utilize a prospective methodology to better understand the extent to which women report stalking victimization perpetrated by their abusive ex-partners and how these stalking experiences affect women’s psychological adjustment. Alarmingly, results showed that more than half the women (51.8%) reported that they had experienced some type of stalking victimization following the dissolution of the abusive dating relationship. Whereas previous research with college students has documented rates of stalking and unwanted pursuit behaviors ranging from 25% to 90% (Dutton & Winstead, 2011; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Logan et al., 2000; Ravensberg & Miller, 2003), the current study is the first study to assess stalking victimization in the immediate aftermath of terminating an abusive dating relationship. Furthermore, results showed that post-relationship stalking victimization was chronic, occurring on average 6.66 times in a 4-month period. These findings are consistent with the growing body of literature documenting the chronic nature of stalking victimization, especially among women who separate from abusive partners (Davis & Frieze, 2000; Logan, Shannon, & Cole, 2007; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007).
In addition to documenting the endemic and chronic nature of stalking victimization following the termination of an abusive dating relationship, the current study documented the effects of these stalking experiences on women’s psychological adjustment. Indeed, results showed that post-relationship stalking victimization predicted increased posttraumatic stress symptomatology and interpersonal sensitivity. Although these results are consistent with previous research (Spitzberg et al., 1998; Westrup et al., 1999), the sizes of the relationships detected in the current study are smaller than those documented in previous research. This is likely due to the fact that previous research did not control for psychological distress and partner abuse that existed prior to the dissolution of the abusive relationship and the onset of stalking victimization. Nevertheless, even in the presence of baseline variables, post-relationship stalking victimization still significantly contributed to increases in posttraumatic stress symptoms and interpersonal sensitivity. These prospective findings underscore the deleterious psychological effects of stalking victimization on women, above and beyond initial levels of distress associated with the original partner abuse and other variables (e.g., childhood abuse) that we did not measure. It is important to keep in mind, however, that on average the entire sample reported elevated levels of PTSD symptoms at the second study session but that women who reported post-relationship stalking victimization had higher levels of PTSD symptoms than women who did not report post-relationship stalking victimization.
Whereas previous research has documented that one of the most common outcomes associated with stalking victimization is anxiety-related symptomatology, such as PTSD symptoms (see Ravensberg & Miller, 2003, for a discussion), less research has focused on interpersonal sensitivity and stalking victimization. Women in this study were all in previously committed relationships with the perpetrators where there was arguably at least some level of trust. Thus, it is understandable that post-relationship stalking victimization would predict increases in interpersonal sensitivity, such as one’s feelings being easily hurt, feeling that people are unfriendly, and feeling inferior to and self-conscious with others (Derogatis, 1993). Although not empirically tested, Ravensberg and Miller (2003) suggested that the heightened interpersonal sensitivity resulting from stalking victimization could inhibit a young adult’s ability to achieve intimacy in future relationships.
Furthermore, Ravensberg and Miller suggested that the fear and anxiety associated with stalking victimization could lead to reduced feelings of personal empowerment. In the current study, however, post-relationship stalking victimization was unrelated to post-relationship personal empowerment. Nevertheless, the frequency of baseline partner abuse was significantly predictive of lower levels of post-relationship personal empowerment, which underscores the detrimental effects that partner abuse has on women’s sense of agency, even after terminating the abusive relationship. Indeed, on average, women in our sample reported only moderate levels of personal empowerment, similar to the average score documented in a mixed college and community sample of women with partner abuse histories (Johnson et al., 2005).
Like post-relationship personal empowerment, post-relationship depression was also unrelated to post-relationship stalking victimization. Although some previous research (e.g., Mechanic, 2004; Westrup et al., 1999) has documented significant associations between stalking victimization and depression, most of this previous research is cross-sectional and fails to account for depression and partner abuse prior to dissolution of the relationship and the onset of post-relationship stalking victimization. In other words, it could be that the differences in depression detected in previous studies are not related to the stalking victimization per se but perhaps to other forms of partner abuse (e.g., physical abuse, sexual abuse), the meaning women ascribe to the abuse (e.g., self-blame), or factors unrelated to abuse altogether. An alternative explanation is that stalking victimization does exert a salient and direct impact on depression and that we did not detect this due to our small sample size. It is also notable that, in general, women in our sample reported relatively low levels of depression and scores consistent with nonclinical samples of adolescent and young adults (Cochran & Hale, 1985; Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983).
Overall, findings suggest that post-relationship stalking victimization is related to posttraumatic stress and interpersonal sensitivity, and unrelated to feelings of depression and personal empowerment, which are influenced to a greater degree by partner abuse occurring prior to the dissolution of the relationship. Although these findings contribute to our understanding of the role of partner abuse, including post-relationship stalking victimization, on psychological adjustment, there are several limitations that should be noted. First, the sample size was homogeneous and small; future research could benefit from the use of larger and more diverse samples. Second, the associations between post-relationship stalking and post-relationship psychological distress were cross-sectional, and it is possible that psychological distress could have influenced women’s perceptions of their partners’ behaviors, especially on stalking items (e.g., “harassed me over the telephone”) that were not behaviorally specific. Thus, future research could benefit from using more behaviorally worded and compressive measures of stalking experiences. Third, the follow-up was relatively brief (i.e., 4 months), and we are thus unable to comment on the course of stalking victimization and how this coincides with women’s long-term psychological adjustment. However, previous research suggests that although stalking lasts on average 2 years (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007), decreases in stalking over time are related to associated reductions in psychological distress and increases in perceived safety (Cattaneo et al., 2011). Fourth, although we use the term stalking throughout the article, we did not necessarily measure behaviors that would meet legal definitions of stalking given that we did not assess women’s levels of fear associated with the behaviors (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). However, the elevated levels of posttraumatic stress symptoms among women in our sample who reported stalking victimization suggest that a number of these women would have likely endorsed fear associated with these experiences. Fifth, an additional limitation is that we did not assess women’s responses to stalking victimization (e.g., legal action, geographical relocation, avoiding the perpetrator) and the role that these responses have on women’s psychosocial recovery. Although some research has started to address the types and effectiveness of women’s responses to stalking (e.g., Dutton & Winstead, 2011), there is a greater need to understand more fully the factors that facilitate women’s psychosocial recovery and enhance their sense of agency. This type of information could be useful in developing effective intervention and advocacy efforts for women who experience post-relationship stalking victimization. However, the most critical goal is to better understand men’s use of violence against women so that effective multilevel initiatives can prevent stalking and other forms of gendered violence from occurring in the first place.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank all of the women who participated in this study. We would also like to thank Megan Murphy for her assistance with data collection and management.
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: Funding for this project was provided by the American Psychological Association Dissertation Research Award, American Psychological Foundation Graduate Research Award, and American Psychological Association Scott Mesh Honorary Scholarship for Research in Psychology.