Stalking Victimization,Labeling,and Reporting

Abstract

Using the National Crime Victimization Survey 2006 Stalking Victimization Supplement (NCVS-SVS) and guided by Greenberg and Ruback’s social influence model, this study examines the effects of individual (e.g., severity, sex, victim–offender relationship) and contextual (e.g., location) factors on stalking victimization risk, victim labeling and help seeking, and victim and third-party police contacts. Logistic regression results suggest individual and contextual characteristics matter. Consistent with prior research and the theoretical model, the positive effects of severity and sex (female) were significant across all dependent variables, whereas the interaction effect of victim–offender relationship and location held only for third-party police contacts.

Keywords

stalking labeling reporting to police

Introduction

Stalking is a serious social problem affecting an estimated 3.3 million people annually in the United States (Catalano, 2012). In addition to victim suffering, the economic cost of stalking for medical care, mental health services, and lost wages is estimated between US$235 and US$449 million for women in America (Max, Rice, Finkelstein, Bardwell, & Leadbetter, 2004). Although legal definitions vary from state to state, stalking generally comprises repeated unwanted contact, accompanied with actual or implied threat, or other behavior that causes victims to be fearful (Tjaden, 2009). Four national surveys have examined the prevalence and characteristics of stalking in the United States (Injury Control and Risk Survey-2 [ICARIS-2], Basile, Swahn, Chen, & Saltzman, 2006; National Crime Victimization Survey: Stalking Victimization Supplement data [NCVS-SVS], Baum, Catalano, Rand, & Rose, 2009; National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey [NISVS], Black et al., 2011; National Violence Against Women Survey [NVAWS], Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). These and other studies find most stalking is committed by known offenders and often occurs in the context of partner violence, especially following the dissolution of an intimate relationship (Baum et al., 2009; Coleman, 1997; Melton, 2007; Roberts, 2005; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, 2000). Stalking by current or former intimate partners can have serious outcomes, even death (Basile et al., 2006; Baum et al., 2009; McFarlane, Campbell, Wilt, Sachs, Ulrich, & Xu, 1999), thereby increasing the need for criminal justice involvement. Yet, victims need to label an event a crime and report it to the police before the criminal justice system can intervene. One study indicates that only 73% of respondents who meet legal criteria for stalking labeled themselves stalking victims, and only 53% of those reported to the police (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). The victim and societal costs of stalking are high, thus research is needed to determine what factors increase stalking victimization, labeling, and reporting to police to design appropriate criminal justice policies to combat this crime. Greenberg and Ruback (1992) propose a model of the decision-making process victims undergo that suggests there are normative standards (i.e., commonly held beliefs or practices; Cialdini & Trost, 1998; Kallgren, Reno, & Cialdini, 2000) regarding when it is appropriate to call police. Their theoretical model is reviewed next, followed by research on common factors found to influence the reporting of crime to police.

Theoretical Framework

Greenberg and Ruback (1992) proposed a multistage, semi-reasoned model of victims’ decision to seek help from the police. According to their model, following the discovery of a crime, victims’ decision making follows a three-stage process: (a) label the event a crime, (b) determine the seriousness of the crime, and (c) decide what action, if any, to take. At each stage of the decision-making process, victims are influenced by their own motivational set (consistent with their level of stress or vulnerability following the victimization) and by the advice received from others. Consulted others can influence victims in four ways: (a) by cuing victims to a particular script; (b) by providing informational advice, arguments, or modeling; (c) by providing normative standards of behavior in these circumstances; and (d) by providing socioemotional support or non-support (Ruback, Greenberg, & Westcott, 1984). Thus, victims’ decision to contact the police is not one static decision, but rather a series of decisions, derived in consultation with others. The authors acknowledge that victims may not go through each of these steps sequentially or at all; however, they highlight the influence of others and the use of normative standards in the labeling and reporting of crime.

Regarding normative standards, research suggests that four factors influence victims’ decision to contact the police: (a) crime severity, (b) victim’s sex, (c) victim’s age, and (d) victim–offender relationship (Skogan, 1984). Crime severity is consistently found to be the best predictor of police contact. That is, studies find the more severe the crime, as indicated by offenders’ weapon use, victim injury, or the extent of monetary loss, the more likely it will be labeled as such (Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003a; Greenberg & Ruback, 1992; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011). Research also consistently finds that women are more likely than men to report crime to the police (Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS], 2003, Table 3.36; Conaway & Lohr, 1994; Skogan, 1984). This difference may be due to societal sex role socialization that makes it more permissible for women than men to seek aid from others (Bussey & Bandura, 1999). Research also generally finds that older victims as compared with younger ones are more likely to report crimes to police (Bosick, Rennison, Gover, & Dodge, 2012; Conaway & Lohr, 1994; Ruback, 1994; Skogan, 1984). Perhaps older adults have previously had a positive experience with the police, thereby increasing their likelihood of future contact (Conaway & Lohr, 1994). With regard to the relationship between the victim and the offender, research examining the reporting of sexual and partner assaults finds the more intimate the victim–offender relationship, the lower the likelihood of reporting to police by victims (Chen & Ullman, 2010; Felson & Paré, 2005; Fisher, Daigle, Cullen, & Turner, 2003b; Gartner & Macmillan, 1995; Ménard, 2005; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011).

In addition to these individual-level factors, studies suggest normative standards may vary by context, including the location of the crime occurrence (Greenberg & Ruback, 1992; Ménard, 2005; Ruback & Ménard, 2001). Rural and urban areas differ in a number of ways, and these differences may affect crime reporting (Weisheit, Falcone, & Wells, 2006). Compared with urban areas, rural locations are characterized by greater acquaintance density (i.e., greater proportion of acquaintances within the community), greater physical isolation, and a social climate that promotes greater use of informal control and the concealment of personal problems (Weisheit et al., 2006). Studies examining the impact of location on reporting find it matters (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2009; Greenberg & Ruback, 1992; Ménard, 2005; Rennison, Dragiewicz, & DeKeseredy, 2013; Ruback & Ménard, 2001). For example, studies using rape crisis center data find that rural areas have higher rates of victimization, but lower rates of reporting than their urban counterparts, and that much of this effect can be explained by urban areas’ greater proportion of stranger assaults (Ruback & Ménard, 2001). Moreover, controlling for individual-level factors, multilevel analysis found that characteristics of county type (e.g., gender equality represented as the proportion of women in the legal profession, in political office, in the workforce, and availability of victim services as measured by county funding for emergency and other services) moderated the effects of county type on victims’ decisions to report to the police (Ménard, 2005). Combined, these results emphasize the importance of examining the direct and interactive effects location may have on reporting to the police.

In sum, research on other types of crime victims generally supports the validity of normative standards espoused by Greenberg and Ruback’s (1992) victim decision-making model. However, whether stalking victims also adhere to this model remains an empirical question, which this study aims to address. In the next section, research on stalking victimization risk, as well as labeling and reporting behavior of this crime by victims and third parties, is reviewed.

Stalking Victimization

Individual attributes (e.g., sex, age, race) affect the risk of being stalked, with women more likely stalked than men, younger people more likely stalked than older people, and members of some minority groups (e.g., American Indian/Alaskan Native, Multiracial) more likely stalked than Caucasians or African Americans (Basile et al., 2006; Catalano, 2012; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Research also shows that victims are more likely stalked by a known perpetrator, in many cases a current or former intimate partner, rather than by a stranger (Black et al., 2011; Catalano, 2012; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). While no studies could be found that include an examination of the impact of location on stalking victimization, research on other types of interpersonal violence, such as sexual and physical assault, indicates that rural counties have higher rates of victimization than do urban counties (Ménard, 2005; Rennison, DeKeseredy, & Dragiewicz, 2013; Ruback & Ménard, 2001). If location affects the likelihood of other forms of interpersonal victimization, it is possible that a similar relationship may be found with stalking victimization. Because victimization risk varies by sex, age, race, and victim–offender relationship, it is important to incorporate these characteristics into research that examines the labeling and reporting of stalking.

Stalking Victimization Labeling

As noted above, research consistently finds severity is the best predictor of whether an event is labeled a crime (Greenberg & Ruback, 1992; Skogan, 1984), and research to date on stalking conforms to this trend (Bondurant, 2001; Scott, Rajakaruna, & Sheridan, 2014). For instance, a study using NCVS-SVS found that victims are more likely to label an event stalking when it occurs in conjunction with a physical attack or when it involves breaking and entering (Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011). Similarly, a study of stalking victimization among college women found that those who experience multiple incidents of stalking, as well as some other form of victimization, were more likely to label their experience stalking (Jordan, Wilcox, & Pritchard, 2007).

In addition to severity, victim demographics, including sex, race, and age, may affect stalking labeling. Research indicates sex and race affect stalking victims’ labeling decisions, with females more likely than males to label events stalking (Ngo, 2011; Tjaden, Thoennes, & Allison, 2000), and non-Whites more likely than Whites to label their experiences as such (Campbell & Moore, 2011; Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011; Ngo, 2011). Results concerning the effects of victim age are not as consistent. While some studies indicate younger victims are more likely to label their experience stalking than their older counterparts (Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011; Ngo, 2011), others find age has no impact on victims’ labeling of stalking (Campbell & Moore, 2011). However, these seemingly conflicting results may be explained by the fact that the latter study used data from a small college sample, with limited age variability.

Research regarding the impact of victim–offender relationship on victims’ labeling of stalking is limited and has also produced mixed results. Some studies find victim–offender relationship has no influence on victims’ labeling (Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011; Jordan et al., 2007), whereas other studies indicate victims are more likely to label behavior by known perpetrators as stalking (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000; Tjaden et al., 2000). Interestingly, these results run counter to research with victims of other types of interpersonal violence (i.e., rape, sexual assault), which finds victims are less likely to label actions by known perpetrators as crimes (Koss, 1985; Koss, Kinero, Seibel, & Cox, 1988).

Although no research examining the effect of location (rural vs. urban) on the labeling of stalking could be found, given studies of sexual and physical assault victims indicate that location affects the labeling of these crimes (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2009; Ménard, 2005; Rennison, Dragiewicz, & DeKeseredy, 2013; Ruback & Ménard, 2001), it is possible that location may also affect victims’ labeling of stalking.

Stalking Help Seeking and Reporting

Help seeking may be formal, such as contacting police, or informal, such as seeking assistance from family members or friends or contacting social service agencies (Kaukinen, 2002). Consistent with the theory and research on other types of crime, severity influences stalking victims’ decision to seek help and report to police. The more severe the stalking victimization, the more likely it is reported to police (Campbell & Moore, 2011; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010; Sabina, Cuevas, & Schally, 2012). However, findings regarding the normative effects of victim characteristics on stalking victims’ help seeking and reporting are inconsistent. With regard to sex, some studies find female and male stalking victims are equally likely to call the police (Baum et al., 2009), while others find that when compared with males, female stalking victims are more likely to call the police (Jasinski & Mustaine, 2001; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998, 2000) or seek help from a friend or family member (Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011). Although research finds older crime victims are more likely to report than their younger counterparts (Bosick et al., 2012; Conaway & Lohr, 1994), age is not a significant predictor of stalking reporting after controlling for other characteristics of this crime (e.g., severity; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010). Results regarding the effects of race are also mixed, with some studies indicating non-White stalking victims are more likely than their White counterparts to seek legal assistance (Jordan et al., 2007), while others find no effect of race in multivariate analysis (Jasinski & Mustaine, 2001; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010). However, methodological limitations (e.g., small sample with few minorities; Jordan et al., 2007) may have affected some of these results, which should be interpreted with caution.

Similarly, although research generally finds that victims are less likely to report crimes by known perpetrators (Chen & Ullman, 2010; Felson & Paré, 2005; Fisher et al., 2003b; Ruback, 1994; Wolitzky-Taylor et al., 2011), research on stalking reporting to date has reported inconsistent results. Some studies find victims are more likely to report stranger stalking to the police (Jordan et al., 2007; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010), while other studies find victims are more likely to report intimate stalking (Jasinski & Mustaine, 2001). This inconsistency might be due to differences in how this construct was measured. In one study, victim–offender relationship was dichotomized, distinguishing between intimate partners and all others (Jasinski & Mustaine, 2001), whereas the other two studies added a category for acquaintances (Jordan et al., 2007; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010). Alternatively, the lack of consistency may be due to a failure to control for other variables (e.g., location) that may condition the effects of victim–offender relationship on stalking victims’ help-seeking behavior.

While research on the reporting of crime more generally suggests location is an important factor to consider (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2009; Greenberg & Ruback, 1992; Ménard, 2005; Rennison, DeKeseredy, & Dragiewicz, 2013; Rennison, Dragiewicz, & DeKeseredy, 2013; Ruback & Ménard, 2001), no studies to date have examined the influence of location on stalking reporting. As previously noted, rural and urban areas differ in a number of ways with regard to crime occurrence and potential reporting (Weisheit et al., 2006); thus, it is important to consider the influence of location on stalking reporting.

Third-Party Police Contact

In addition to victims, crimes can be reported by third parties, such as family members, friends, or acquaintances. Indeed, almost half of all violent crimes are reported to police by third parties (BJS, 2003). Although Greenberg and Ruback’s (1992) social influence model is designed to explain victims’ decision to report, by definition normative standards should also influence third-party reporting. Research finds third-party reporting is influenced by victim and contextual factors (Chen & Ullman, 2010; Felson & Paré, 2005). Unfortunately, there is a paucity of research examining third-party reporting of stalking. However, literature pertaining to third-party reporting of other types of interpersonal violence (e.g., sexual and physical assault) indicates they are less likely to report crimes involving female as compared with male victims (Felson & Paré, 2005) and they are more likely to report crimes involving older as opposed to younger victims (Chen & Ullman, 2010). In addition, third parties are less likely to report violence involving people who know one another, especially couples (Felson & Paré, 2005).

In sum, individual and contextual factors have been found to affect the risk of victimization, the likelihood victims will label such events crimes, and the likelihood that they and third parties will contact police. However, the dearth of knowledge, methodological limitations, and inconsistent results of existing studies necessitate additional work in this area to gain a better understanding of stalking victims’ decision-making process. Specifically, research on stalking reporting is mixed when it comes to the effects of victim–offender relationship. It may be that normative standards have less impact on victims’ labeling and reporting of stalking or that stalking is not as stigmatized as other types of crime, such as sexual and intimate partner violence. Alternatively, it may be that normative standards of stalking vary by location, with failure to control for location obscuring the true effects of victim–offender relationship on stalking reporting.

Guided by Greenberg and Ruback’s (1992) social influence model and the research reviewed above, this study has the following five hypotheses:

Hypotheses 1: First, as the severity of stalking increases (as measured by the presence of other crimes), so too will the labeling, help seeking, and reporting of stalking by victims and third parties.

Hypotheses 2: Second, sex will affect the risk of being stalked, and the labeling and reporting of this crime. Specifically, as compared with males, females are more likely to be stalked, to label it stalking, to seek help, and to report it to police and a female, as compared with a male victim, will also increase the likelihood of third-party police contacts. Because of the lack of consistent findings, we do not have specific hypotheses regarding the effects of other victim characteristics (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, education, income), but we do control for them in the analyses.

Hypotheses 3: Third, we expect that victims will be less likely to label and report, and third parties will be less likely to contact the police when stalking is committed by an intimate as compared with a non-intimate offender.

Hypotheses 4: Fourth, we expect rural victims to be less likely than their urban counterparts to label events stalking, and we expect victims and third parties to be less likely to report to police compared with their urban counterparts.

Hypotheses 5: Finally, we expect location to condition the effect of victim–offender relationship on victim and third-party decisions to contact police. Specifically, compared with their urban counterparts, we expect rural victims and third parties to be especially unlikely to label an event stalking and call the police when the offender is an intimate rather than a stranger.

It should be noted that we are not completing an exact test of the theoretical model, but rather, we are using the theory to guide our research questions.

Method

The current study used the NCVS-SVS (BJS, 2007) to examine aspects about the individual, the crime, and the location (e.g., rural vs. urban) that may affect stalking victimization, labeling, and reporting to the police. The initial sample comprised 65,242 participants (males = 29,992; females = 35,205) who completed the stalking supplement. The analyses regarding victims’ labeling, help seeking, and reporting of stalking, as well as that of third-party police contact, are limited to the 3,997 victims identified using the NCVS-SVS definition of stalking (described below). However, missing data and listwise deletion used in the multivariate analyses reduced both sample sizes across the dependent variables.

Independent and Control Variables

We were primarily interested in the effects of victim–offender relationship and location, but we also controlled for a number of victim characteristics (e.g., age, sex). The NCVS-SVS included 21 offender relationship categories (e.g., spouse, patient, neighbor, and unable to identify). However, because we wanted to focus on the role of intimate relationships, we recoded the relationship between victims and their stalkers into intimate (1), which included current and former spouses and boyfriends or girlfriends, or other relationship (0), which include all other, as well as unidentified offenders. The NCVS-SVS records whether a respondent’s location’s land use is rural or urban in nature, and we included this variable as a measure of respondents’ residential location. Rural residency was coded 0 and urban residency was coded 1. Because research finds a robust effect for crime severity on victims’ decision making, we included a variable for the presence of crimes in addition to stalking that may have been experienced. The NCVS-SVS inquired about 13 different offenses, including illegal entry (home and car), damage to property, and several forms of assault against others (e.g., attack child, pet, friend, family member, or coworker), as well as the victim (e.g., choking, sexual assault, attack with a weapon or a car). Stalking was deemed to be severe and coded 1 if victims experienced any other crimes and was coded 0 otherwise. With regard to victim characteristics, we included sex, age, race/ethnicity, education, and household income as controls. Respondents’ sex was coded 0 for men and 1 for women. Age was coded as number of years old at the time the respondent completed the survey. The NCVS-SVS provides information on respondents’ race (e.g., White, Black, other race, or unknown race) and Hispanic origin (e.g., yes or no). These were recoded to indicate whether the person was of White (1) or “other” racial group (0), as well as whether they were Hispanic (1) or not (0). Respondents’ education was measured using the NCVS-SVS 27 categories from 0 indicating they had no education to 26 indicating they held doctorate degrees. NCVS-SVS includes 14 categories of household income, which varied from 1 indicating a household income of less than US$5,000 per year to 14 for household incomes greater than US$75,000, which we also included as a control.

Dependent Variables

Five dependent variables were used: (a) stalking—NCVS-SVS defined, (b) stalking—victim labeled, (c) victim sought help, (d) victim contacted police, and (e) third party contacted police. Consistent with the NCVS-SVS definition, stalking was deemed to have occurred if the victim experienced at least one harassing behavior (e.g., Following you or spying on you? Showing up at places where you were even though he or she had no business being there? Waiting outside or inside places for you such as your home, school, workplace, or recreation place?); was harassed more than one time on separate days; it occurred during the 12 months prior to the interview; and the victim feared for their own or a family member’s safety (Baum et al., 2009). The NCVS-SVS also included a screener question to ensure that harassment from bill collectors and the like would not be included and this screener was also used. Using these criteria, participants who were stalked were coded 1, and those whose experience did not meet criteria were coded 0. Whether participants themselves labeled their experience as stalking served as the second dependent variable, which was coded 1 if they indicated “yes” they had been stalked and 0 if not. The third dependent variable included was victims’ help-seeking behavior. Eleven questions asked participants about any assistance they sought from others to help deal with the stalking. Those solicited for assistance included friends and family, private investigators, lawyers, victim services, as well as other mental health professionals. Victims who indicated they requested assistance from one of these sources were coded 1, and those who did not seek assistance were coded 0. The fourth dependent variable concerned victims’ decision to contact the police. Victims who contacted the police were coded 1, and those who did not were coded 0. Finally, the fifth dependent variable examined third-party reports of stalking to police. The survey asked whether 11 individuals or groups, other than the victim, contacted the police, including family, friends, neighbors, medical, school, or security personnel, employers or coworkers, religious leaders, strangers or bystanders, “other” and “unknown” who reported. If anyone of these “other” individuals contacted the police, it was coded 1 and if they did not, it was coded 0.

Statistical Analyses

Because we were interested in the effects of rural versus urban context, we first completed t tests and chi-square tests of all variables across rural versus urban location. Next, five logistic regression models were computed to examine the effects of individual characteristics, victim–offender relationship, and location on (a) stalking victimization risk, (b) victim labeling, (c) victim help seeking, and (d) victim reporting to the police, as well as on (e) third-party police contacts. For the first regression predicting victim risk, the full sample was used (N = 65,242). However, for the remaining analysis, the sample was limited to those who were considered victims using the NCVS-SVS criterion (N = 3,997). With the exception of other crimes and victim–offender relationship,¹ which were not included in the first regression examining victim risk, predictor variables were entered in the following order: severity as represented by other crimes, victim sex, age, race, Hispanic origin, education, household income, victim–offender relationship, and location. Finally, to determine if rural versus urban location conditioned the effects of victim–offender relationship, an interaction term was computed and added to the model.

Results

Of the 65,242 individuals surveyed, 3,997 (6.12%) were victims of stalking according to the NCVS-SVS criteria. Of these, 705 (17.64%) labeled themselves stalking victims, 853 (21.34%) sought help, and 451 (11.28%) contacted police. Victims reported that third parties contacted police in 182 (0.05%) of these cases. Because we were interested in the effects of context, we first compared all variables’ means or percentages, as applicable, across rural versus urban location. As shown in Table 1, of the five dependent variables, only the percentage victims reporting that third parties contacted police differed significantly by location. A higher percentage of rural (50.9%) than of urban (37.4%) victims indicated third parties contacted police. Several of the individual characteristics differed significantly by location, including victims’ age, race, Hispanic origin, and education. Rural victims were older (44.1) than their urban (42.5) counterparts. A higher percentage of victims were White in rural as compared with urban locations. Victims were more likely to report Hispanic origin in urban as compared with rural locations. Finally, mean educational attainment was higher among urban as compared with rural victims. It is noteworthy that victim–offender relationship did not differ significantly by location.

Table 1.

Rural and Urban Comparisons (t tests and chi-square tests).

Variables	N	Rural (%/M)	Urban (%/M)	χ²/t tests
NCVS-SVS stalking				.67
No (0)	61,097	93.5	93.7
Yes (1)	3,997	6.5	6.3
Victim label				.00
No (0)	1,544	68.7	68.6
Yes (1)	705	31.3	31.4
Victim seek help				1.42
No (0)	3,144	77.3	77.1
Yes (1)	853	22.7	20.9
Victim contact police				1.92
No (0)	990	65.7	69.7
Yes (1)	451	34.3	30.3
Third party contact police				6.44*
No (0)	263	49.1	62.6
Yes (1)	182	50.9	37.4
Other crimes				2.71
No (0)	1,022	68.4	73.0
Yes (1)	400	31.6	27.0
Victim’s sex				1.37
Male (0)	1,283	30.5	32.6
Female (1)	2,714	69.5	67.4
Victim’s age				3.05**
Years	3,997	44.1	42.5
Victim’s race				48.86***
White (1)	3,520	94.5	86.1
Other (0)	477	5.5	13.9
Victim Hispanic				43.06***
No (0)	3,685	97.9	91.6
Yes (1)	273	2.1	8.4
Education				3.37***
Scale (0-26)	3,953	20.55	20.99
Household income				1.08
Scale (1-14)	3,406	10.54	10.70
Relationship				1.91
Intimate (1)	468	32.2	36.6
Other (0)	848	67.8	63.4

Note. NCVS-SVS = National Crime Victimization Survey 2006 Stalking Victimization Supplement.

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

Multivariate Analyses

The first logistic regression was completed on the entire sample to determine if individual or contextual (rural vs. urban location) factors predict stalking victimization risk. As shown in the first column of Table 2, victims’ sex, age, race, education, and household income were significantly associated with stalking victimization risk. Specifically, women, younger people, Whites, non-Hispanics, those with higher education, and those with lower household incomes were more likely to be victimized than their respective counterparts. However, it should be noted that this model only explains 2% of the Cox and Snell pseudo-variance in stalking victimization risk and provided 0% correct classification of the “yes” category (indicating the model was not able to correctly classify those victimized according to the NCVS-SVS criteria), suggesting these significant betas were an artifact of the large sample size (N = 50,440 after listwise deletion of missing data).

Table 2.

Odds of NCVS-SVS Defined Stalking Victimization, Victim Labeling, Victim Help Seeking, and Victim and Third-Party Police Contacts.

Variables	Stalking (NCVS-SVS) N = 50,440	Victim labeling N = 1,073	Victim help seeking N = 1,104	Victim contact police N = 1,103	Third party contact police N = 354
Variables	Expβ (SE)	Expβ (SE)	Expβ (SE)	Expβ (SE)	Expβ (SE)
Other crimes		2.78*** (0.15)	2.98*** (0.16)	3.60*** (0.15)	1.85** (0.24)
Sex (female)	1.76*** (0.04)	1.76*** (0.15)	2.46*** (0.14)	1.48* (0.16)	1.13 (0.28)
Age	0.98** (0.01)	0.99** (0.01)	1.00 (0.01)	1.00 (0.01)	1.00 (0.01)
Race (White)	1.58*** (0.06)	0.69* (0.18)	1.32 (0.18)	0.73 (0.19)	1.69 (0.32)
Hispanic (yes)	0.63*** (0.07)	0.96 (0.23)	0.74 (0.23)	0.70 (0.25)	0.78 (0.43)
Education	1.07*** (0.01)	0.98 (0.02)	1.02 (0.02)	0.96* (0.02)	0.95 (0.03)
Household income	0.95*** (0.01)	1.00 (0.02)	1.02 (0.02)	0.98 (0.02)	1.10** (0.03)
Location (urban)	1.01 (0.04)	1.23 (0.19)	1.06 (0.18)	0.76 (0.19)	0.34*** (0.33)
Relationship (intimate)		2.25*** (0.29)	2.75** (0.32)	1.28 (0.29)	.35* (0.45)
Intimate × location		0.58 (0.32)	0.56 (0.36)	0.67 (0.33)	3.37** (0.53)
Constant	0.03*** (0.14)	1.13 (0.49)	0.22** (0.48)	0.88 (0.49)	1.04 (0.83)
Cox and Snell pseudo R²	.02	.10	.10	.10	.10
Correct classification—Yes (%)	0.00	44.00	86.80	36.00	41.10

Note. NCVS-SVS = National Crime Victimization Survey 2006 Stalking Victimization Supplement.

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

In the second column of Table 2, the logistic regression examined victims’ labeling of their experience as stalking. Other crimes, sex, age, race, and victim–offender relationship were significantly related to victim labeling. That is, the severity of the stalking, as coded by presence of other crimes, increased the likelihood that victims would label their experience stalking. Women were more likely to label their experience stalking than were men. Younger victims were more likely to label their experience stalking than their older counterparts. As compared with Whites, respondents of color were more likely to label their experience stalking. Finally, victims were 2.25 times more likely to label experience by intimate offenders as stalking than offenders with other relationships. The model explains 10% of the variance and correctly classifies 44% of the self-labeled victims.

The third model (Column 3) examined victims’ help-seeking behavior. Victims’ decision to seek help from others was significantly related to three variables: the presence of other crimes, sex, and victim–offender relationship. Specifically, those who experienced other crimes were significantly more likely to seek help than were those who did not experience additional crimes. Women were more likely to seek help than were men. Finally, those who were stalked by intimates were more likely to seek help than were those stalked by non-intimate offenders. These variables explain 10% of the variance in stalking and produce correct classification of help seekers 86% of the time.

Victim decision to contact the police was analyzed in the next model (Column 4). Three variables were significantly associated with reporting to police: other crimes, sex, and education. Specifically, those who were subject to other crimes, women, and those with less education were more likely to report to police than were those who did not experience additional crimes, men, and those with more education. It is noteworthy that the presence of another crime not only increases the odds of reporting by 3.60, but it also has the most impact on the model according to the Wald statistics (Wald = 77.67; next closest is sex with Wald = 6.19). The model explained 10% of the variance and resulted in the correct classification of reporters 36% of the time.

Presented in the fifth column is the final logistic regression model examining the odds victims indicated that third parties contacted police. Other crimes, household income, and the victim–offender relationship by location interaction were significantly related to third-party police contacts. That is, third-party police contacts were more likely when other crimes were reported as compared with when they were not. Also, the odds of third parties contacting police increased with higher as compared with lower household income. In addition to these main effects and as shown in Figure 1, location conditioned the effects of victim–offender relationship on third-party police contacts. Rural third-parties were more likely to contact the police for stalking committed by non-intimates than by intimate perpetrators, or than urban residents were to contact the police for either type of offender relationship.

Figure 1.

Victim–offender relationship (intimate vs. other) and rural versus urban location interaction on third-party police contacts.

The model correctly classifies 41% of third-party police contacts and explained 10% of the variance based on the Cox and Snell pseudo R².

Discussion

Guided by Greenberg and Ruback’s (1992) social influence model, this study examined individual and contextual factors associated with stalking victimization, labeling, help seeking, and reporting to police. Although some results (e.g., severity, sex) across the dependent variables are in agreement with prior research and the theoretical model, others (e.g., victim–offender relationship and location) provide only partial support to the notion of “normative standards” espoused by Greenberg and Ruback (1992). The severity of the stalking as measured by the presence of other crimes and the sex of the victim (women) consistently influenced decision making, while factors such as victim–offender relationship and location of residency and their interaction mattered, but their association was not always in the expected direction. Our results, their theoretical and policy implications, and the study’s limitations are discussed next.

Consistent with our first hypothesis, and prior research on stalking and crime more generally, severity as measured by the presence of other crimes predicts the labeling, help seeking, and the reporting of stalking by both victims and third parties (Bondurant, 2001; Chen & Ullman, 2010; Fisher et al., 2003a; Greenberg & Ruback, 1992). These findings suggest that people are more likely to label stalking a crime and seek help from others, including the police, when an incident is clearly defined as such. In addition, the increased threat that arises from the severity of the stalking likely gives victims and third parties more confidence the police will respond. When stalking involves illegal entry, damage to property, or assault, it may be perceived as more dangerous, a greater moral wrong, and a greater violation of normative standards of behavior. These results are also consistent with most stalking laws that require “fear” or in essence, a higher degree of severity for the behavior to be considered illegal (e.g., some states require the victim or a reasonable person feel fear and some states require a threat be made or implied; National Center for Victims of Crime, 2007).

Consistent with our second hypothesis and prior research on stalking and interpersonal crime (e.g., sexual and physical violence), women were more likely than men to be victimized, to label it stalking, to seek help, and to contact police when stalked (Basile et al., 2006; Baum et al., 2009; Felson & Paré, 2005; Jasinski & Mustaine, 2001; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). These findings may suggest normative standards exist and that it is socially acceptable for women to seek formal and informal assistance following stalking victimization. Alternatively, it may be that men do not seek help for stalking victimization, because they are not as fearful as women. This alternative explanation requires further investigation, especially given the policy implications (e.g., many state laws require victims to experience fear). However, contrary to prior research examining third-party reporting of domestic and sexual assault, victims’ sex did not affect police contact made by others (Felson & Paré, 2005). Results may not conform to those obtained for other types of interpersonal crime because of the more covert nature of stalking; third parties may be less likely to witness it, or victims, than they are other crimes. However, this remains an empirical question in need of further investigation.

The remaining victim characteristics did not have consistent effects across the dependent variables examined. Younger age was associated with greater odds of being victimized according to NCVS-SVS and of labeling the experience stalking by the victim. However, age did not have a significant influence on victims’ or others’ help-seeking and reporting behavior. These results are consistent with stalking labeling among women (Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010) and stalking reporting (Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011), but not with the labeling and reporting of other types of crimes (Bosick et al., 2012; Chen & Ullman, 2010; Felson & Paré, 2005; Skogan, 1984), which finds older victims are more likely to report crime to police. Victims’ race influenced victimization risk and victims’ labeling but did not affect third-party decisions to contact police. Compared with members of other racial and ethnic groups, Whites were more likely to be stalked but were less likely to label their experience as such. This result is inconsistent with research with college students and women that finds minorities are more likely than Whites to label their experience stalking (Campbell & Moore, 2011; Englebrecht & Reyns, 2011). Education was associated with a reduced likelihood of victims contacting the police, and household income was associated with an increased likelihood that third parties contact the police, but neither factor influenced the other parts of the decision-making process. Although few studies on stalking reporting contain information on education and income (e.g., Jordan et al., 2007; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010), stalking and other interpersonal violence studies that do find these factors do not influence victims’ decision to contact the police (Felson & Paré, 2005; Jasinski & Mustaine, 2001), but they do influence third-party police contacts (Felson & Paré, 2005). The failure to obtain consistent results across the different dependent variables suggests the need for more research to disentangle the effects, if any, of victim characteristics including age, race/ethnicity, education, and household income on stalking victimization risk, labeling, and help-seeking behavior.

Results for victim–offender relationship provided mixed support for our third hypothesis. That is, although victim–offender relationship mattered, the effects were not always in the anticipated direction. An intimate relationship between the victim and the offender increased victims’ labeling of stalking and decision to seek help, but had no significant effect on victims’ reporting to police. However, an intimate victim–offender relationship reduced the likelihood of third-party police contacts. With regard to help-seeking behavior, that victims are more likely to seek informal assistance when intimate perpetrators are involved is in line with research on other types of interpersonal crimes, which finds victims are more likely to use informal sources of support for known versus stranger perpetrated assaults (Kaukinen, 2002; Ménard, 2005; Ullman, Filipas, Townsend, & Starzynski, 2006).

Our fourth hypothesis regarding location was not supported. Location of residency only affected third-party decisions to contact the police, and rural third parties were more, not less likely to contact the police than their urban counterparts. It was anticipated that rural locations would have lower rates of reporting based on research on other forms of interpersonal violence (Ruback & Ménard, 2001). Our fifth hypothesis concerning the interactive effects of victim–offender relationship on location was also not fully supported. The effects of victim–offender relationship were conditioned by location of residency for third-party police contacts only. Although rural residents were less likely to contact police for intimate stalking than their urban counterparts, this difference was not the primary feature of the interaction effect of location. There was an increased likelihood of rural third-party police contacts for other, non-intimate relationships, and a decrease in rural third-party police contact for intimate offender relationships. In contrast, urban third-party police contacts were unlikely for either intimate or other offender relationships. DeKeseredy and Schwartz (2009) found that rural men were more likely to help their neighbors with the prevention of public crimes but were less likely to intervene in intimate crimes. It may be that stalking by non-intimate offenders is seen more as a public crime than as a personal crime by rural residents. It may be that characteristics of rural areas like greater acquaintance density (close-knit communities) make third parties better able to differentiate stalking by an intimate versus other offender relationship types, thereby increasing police contacts in the latter situation. For instance, a rural resident may be more likely to notice a “strange” car or person (stalker) in the neighborhood, than their urban counterparts, who may not recognize most of the people or cars in their neighborhood. The conditioning effects of location suggest a possible explanation for some of the inconsistencies in the current stalking research that future studies should explore.

Greenberg and Ruback’s (1992) social influence model appears to be a productive lens through which to examine stalking labeling and reporting. The consistent results for severity and sex (women) across the dependent variables suggest “normative standards” may exist. Consistent with cultural norms and mores, severity increased the labeling and reporting of stalking. Similarly, the influence of victims’ sex was seen across four of the five dependent variables. Both these findings suggest there may be cultural norms that indicate it is acceptable to label and report more serious crimes, especially those committed against women, to the police. However, the fact that so few victims self-identify suggests these standards may not be universal, and that they do not coincide with the legal definitions of this crime. In addition, findings suggest the “normative standards” for labeling and reporting stalking may not be the same as for other types of interpersonal crimes. This point is further bolstered by the differing influence of victim–offender relationship on victims’ labeling and help seeking and third-party decision to contact the police. Specifically, the fact that victims were more likely to label and seek help for stalking by intimate offenders, whereas third parties were less likely to call the police for this group, suggests there may not be consistent “norms” when it comes to the influence of victim–offender relationship on stalking. More research is needed to determine the normative standards for labeling and reporting stalking. Ideally, a prospective study of stalking victims’ actual decision-making process, including any advisor influence, should be completed.

Our results also have important policy implications. First, it is noteworthy that only 17.64% of those categorized as victims by the NCVS-SVS label their experience stalking, and fewer still (11.28%) contacted the police. Both these results and Figure 1 make clear the trend is for victims and for third parties not to contact the police. These findings suggest more education is needed regarding legal definitions of stalking and the resources available to those who become victimized. Second, the fact that “other crimes” consistently predicted labeling and reporting also suggests the need for a broad educational campaign on stalking. Although in this study we included “other crimes” as a measure of “severity” in keeping with the theory and prior research, included events were crimes in and of themselves and went well beyond the legal element of “fear” required by most states’ stalking laws. Our results suggest people’s definition of stalking is sufficiently tenuous that they rely on the presence of other crimes when deciding to invoke the criminal justice system. Research suggests victims are not alone in their need for information on stalking, as many criminal justice professionals also have difficulty providing accurate, legal definitions of this crime (Miller, 2001). Indeed, one study examining police practice in Colorado Springs found that in only 1 of the 285 domestic violence cases, where evidence of stalking existed, there was a charge of stalking levied against the offender (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Studies have obtained similarly low rates of police identification in other jurisdictions as well, suggesting this is not an isolated problem (e.g., New Mexico, Caperona, 2007; Rhode Island, Klein, Salomon, Huntingdon, Dubois, & Lang, 2009). This problem can be overcome, however, as research shows that officers with specialized training are better informed about stalking than their non-trained colleagues or laypeople (Scott, Nixon, & Sheridan, 2013). Third, the fact that female victims are more likely than male victims to label their experience stalking and contact the police suggests the need for greater education and outreach toward male victims. Although all four national surveys report that women are more likely stalked than men (Basile et al., 2006; Black et al., 2011; Catalano, 2012; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998), there are still many male victims (5,863,000 men stalked in their lifetime according to NISVS; Black et al., 2011), and they too require support from family, friends, social services, and the criminal justice system. Finally, the influence of victim–offender relationship and location of residency on the labeling and reporting of stalking should be addressed in both educational and outreach programs. Although the relationship between the victim and the offender and the location of a crime should not influence victim or third-party decision making they do, which demonstrates the need for more information, and likely services, to increase equitable treatment for stalking victims across all relationship and location types.

Even though this study used a large, nationally representative sample, and multivariate statistics, and examined several different parts of the decision-making process, there are a number of limitations that must be noted. First, although the study was guided by theory and prior research, the data are cross-sectional and hence do not allow for causal inferences to be made. The nature of the data also limited us to the examination of different parts of the decision-making process, rather than the actual process itself. Prospective research on victims’ labeling, help seeking, and reporting behavior is needed. Second, our models only explained a small proportion of the variance (10%) in victims’ labeling, help seeking, and victim and third-party police contacts, suggesting factors other than those included here may be involved. Future research should endeavor to collect qualitative information on whether the victims obtained advice about the crime (i.e., regarding what to do), the nature of the advice, and whether it was followed. Furthermore, as third parties report almost half of all violent crimes to police (BJS, 2003), researchers should examine what influences their actions. Third, the sample excludes those below 18 years of age, the homeless, or those living in institutions, including military bases and prisons. Research suggests that some of these individuals (e.g., younger people, Finkelhor, 2008; Finkelhor, Turner, Ormrod, & Hamby, 2009; the homeless, Lee & Schreck, 2005; and inmates, Wolff, Blitz, Shi, Siegel, & Bachman, 2007) are at greater risk of crime victimization and so should be included in future studies on stalking. Fourth, although we include a variable for rural versus urban area of residency, it is possible that the stalking did not take place at victims’ residences. Fifth, and also with regard to victims’ residency, we were not able to get information on characteristics of the location, such as level of gender equality and service availability, found to influence the labeling and reporting of other types of interpersonal crimes (e.g., sexual assault; Ménard, 2005). Future research should include information on the characteristics of the location and complete multilevel analysis (i.e., individuals nested within county) to better understand the influence of both individual and contextual-level factors on the labeling and reporting of stalking.

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

Notes

Author Biographies

Kim S. Ménard is an assistant professor of criminal justice and women’s studies at Penn State Altoona. Her research focuses on interpersonal violence, including victim reporting and involvement in the criminal justice system, as well as gender differences in the victimization and perpetration of these crimes.

Amanda K. Cox is an assistant professor of criminal justice at Penn State Altoona. She teaches a variety of courses, including Corrections in America, Ethics in Criminal Justice, Alternatives to Incarceration, and the Death Penalty in America. Her research interests are in the areas of criminology and criminal justice, with emphasis on death penalty issues. Her most recent work was published in the Journal of Criminal Justice Education in December 2013.

References

Basile

K. C.

Swahn

M. H.

Chen

Saltzman

L. E.

(2006). Stalking in the United States: Recent national prevalence estimates. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31, 172-175. doi:10.1016./j.amepre.2006.03.028

Baum

Catalano

Rand

Rose

(2009). Stalking victimization in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

. (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Bondurant

(2001). University women’s acknowledgement of rape: Individual, situational, and social factors. Violence Against Women, 7, 294-314. doi:10.1177/1077801201007003004

Bosick

S. J.

Rennison

C. M.

Gover

A. R.

Dodge

(2012). Reporting violence to the police: Predictors through the life course. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 441-451. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.05.001

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). (2003). Reporting crime to the police, 1992-2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). (2007). National Crime Victimization Survey: Stalking victimization supplement [Computer File–ICPSR version]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Bussey

Bandura

(1999). Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106, 676-713. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.676

Campbell

Moore

(2011). Self-perceptions of stalking victimization and impacts on victim reporting. Police Practice & Research, 12, 506-517. doi:10.1080/15614263.2011.607668

10.

Caperona

(2007). Domestic violence in New Mexico, 2006 highlights. Albuquerque: State of New Mexico, Department of Health, Office of Injury Prevention.

11.

Catalano

(2012). Stalking victims in the United States–Revised. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

12.

Chen

Ullman

S. E.

(2010). Women’s reporting of sexual and physical assaults to police in the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women, 16, 262-279. doi:10.1177/1077801209360861

13.

Cialdini

R. B.

Trost

M. R.

(1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In Gilbert

D. T.

Fiske

S. T.

(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 151-192). New York: McGraw-Hill.

14.

Coleman

F. L.

(1997). Stalking behavior and the cycle of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 420-432. doi:10.1177/088626097012003007

15.

Conaway

M. R.

Lohr

S. L.

(1994). A longitudinal analysis of factors associated with reporting violent crimes to the police. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 10, 23-39.

16.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Schwartz

M. D.

(2009). Dangerous exits: Escaping abusive relationships in rural America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

17.

Englebrecht

C. M.

Reyns

B. W.

(2011). Gender differences in acknowledgement of stalking victimization: Results from the NCVS stalking supplement. Violence and Victims, 26, 560-579. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.26.5.560

18.

Felson

Paré

(2005). The reporting of domestic violence and sexual assault by nonstrangers to the police. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 597-610. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00156.x

19.

Finkelhor

(2008). Childhood victimization: Violence, crime, and abuse in the lives of young people. New York: Oxford University Press.

20.

Finkelhor

Turner

Ormrod

Hamby

S. L.

(2009). Violence, abuse, and crime exposure in a national sample of children and youth. Pediatrics, 124, 1411-1423. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-0467

21.

Fisher

B. S.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2003a). Acknowledging sexual victimization as rape: Results from a national-level study. Justice Quarterly, 20, 535-574. doi:10.1080/07418820300095611

22.

Fisher

B. S.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2003b). Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 6-38. doi:10.1177/0093854802239161

23.

Gartner

MacMillan

(1995). The effect of victim-offender relationship on reporting crimes of violence against women. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 393-424.

24.

Greenberg

M. S.

Ruback

R. B.

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

25.

Jasinski

J. L.

Mustaine

E. E.

(2001). Police response to physical assault and stalking victimization: A comparison of influential factors. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 23-41. doi:10.1007/BF02886855

26.

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

27.

Kallgren

C. A.

Reno

R. R.

Cialdini

R. B.

(2000). A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1002-1012. doi:10.1177/01461672002610009

28.

Kaukinen

(2002). The help-seeking decisions of violent crime victims: An examination of the direct and conditional effects of gender and the victim-offender relationship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 432-456. doi:10.1177/0886260502017004006

29.

Klein

Salomon

Huntington

Dubois

Lang

(2009). A statewide study of stalking and its criminal justice response. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice.

30.

Koss

M. P.

(1985). The hidden rape victim. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 48, 193-212.

31.

Koss

M. P.

Kinero

T. E.

Seibel

C. A.

Cox

S. L.

(1988). Stranger and acquaintance rape: Are there differences in the victim’s experience? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 1-24.

32.

Lee

B. A.

Schreck

C. J.

(2005). Danger on the streets: Marginality and victimization among homeless people. American Behavioral Scientist, 48, 1055-1081. doi:10.1177/0002764204274200

33.

Max

Rice

D. P.

Finkelstein

Bardwell

R. A.

Leadbetter

(2004). The economic toll of intimate partner violence against women in the United States. Violence and Victims, 19, 259-272. doi:10.1891/vivi.19.3.259.65767

34.

McFarlane

J. M.

Campbell

J. C.

Wilt

Sachs

C. J.

Ulrich

(1999). Stalking and intimate partner femicide. Homicide Studies, 3, 300-316. doi:10.1177/1088767999003004003

35.

Melton

H. C.

(2007). Stalking in the context of intimate partner abuse: In the victims’ words. Feminist Criminology, 2, 347-363. doi:10.1177/1557085107306517

36.

Ménard

K. S.

(2005). Reporting sexual assault: A social ecology perspective. New York: LFB Publishing.

37.

Miller

(2001). Stalking laws and implementation practices: A national review for policymakers and practitioners. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

38.

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

39.

Ngo

(2011). Toward a comprehensive model on stalking acknowledgement: A test of four models. Crime & Delinquency, 10, 1-25. doi:10.1177/0011128711428731

40.

Rennison

C. M.

DeKeseredy

W. S.

Dragiewicz

(2013). Intimate relationship status variations in violence against women: Urban, suburban, and rural differences. Violence Against Women, 19, 1312-1330. doi:10.1177/1077801213514487

41.

Rennison

C. M.

Dragiewicz

DeKeseredy

W. S.

(2013). Context matters: Violence against women and reporting to police in rural, suburban, and urban areas. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 141-159. doi:10.1007/s12103-012-9164-4

42.

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

43.

Roberts

K. A.

(2005). Women’s experience of violence during stalking by former romantic partners: Factors predictive of stalking violence. Violence Against Women, 11, 89-114. doi:10.1177/1077801204271096

44.

Ruback

R. B.

(1994). Advice to crime victims: Effects of crime, victim, and advisor factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21, 423-442.

45.

Ruback

R. B.

Greenberg

M. S.

Westcott

D. R.

(1984). Social influence and crime-victim decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 40, 51-76.

46.

Ruback

R. B.

Ménard

K. S.

(2001). Rural-urban differences in sexual victimization and reporting: Analyses using UCR and crisis center data. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 131-155. doi:10.1177/0093854801028002001

47.

Sabina

Cuevas

C. A.

Schally

J. L.

(2012). Help-seeking in a national sample of victimized Latino women: The influence of victimization types. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 40-61. doi:10.1177/0886260511416460

48.

Scott

A. J.

Nixon

Sheridan

(2013). The influence of prior relationship on perceptions of stalking: A comparison of laypersons, nonspecialist police officers, and specialist police officers. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 1434-1448. doi:10.1177/0093854813494183

49.

Scott

A. J.

Rajakaruna

Sheridan

(2014). Framing and perceptions of stalking: The influence of conduct severity and the perpetrator–target relationship. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20, 242-260. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2013.770856

50.

Skogan

W. G.

(1984). Reporting crimes to the police: The status of world research. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 21, 113-137.

51.

Tjaden

P. G.

(2009). Stalking policies and research in the United States: A twenty year retrospective. European Journal of Crime Policy and Research, 15, 261-278. doi:10.1007/s10610-009-9100-4

52.

Tjaden

P. G.

Thoennes

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

53.

Tjaden

P. G.

Thoennes

(2000). The role of stalking in domestic violence crime reports generated by the Colorado Springs Police Department. Violence and Victims, 15, 427-441.

54.

Tjaden

P. G.

Thoennes

Allison

C. J.

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

55.

Ullman

S. E.

Filipas

H. H.

Townsend

S. M.

Starzynski

L. L.

(2006). The role of victim-offender relationship in women’s sexual assault experiences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 798-819. doi:10.1177/0886260506288590

56.

Weisheit

R. A.

Falcone

D. N.

Wells

L. E.

(2006). Crime and policing in rural and small-town America (2nd ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.

57.

Wolff

Blitz

C. L.

Shi

Siegel

Bachman

(2007). Physical violence inside prisons: Rates of victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 588-599. doi:10.1177/0093854806296830

58.

Wolitzky-Taylor

K. B.

Resnick

H. S.

McCauley

J. L.

Amstadter

A. B.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Ruggiero

K. J.

(2011). Is reporting of rape on the rise? A comparison of women with reported versus unreported rape experiences in the National Women’s Study-Replication. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 807-832.