Partner Stalking

and Implications for

Women's Employment

'Volume-ji-Niiniber 3
;
: Mmch20i)7 268-29
!& 200? Sage Publications
77/l}SS626050fi2953H()
http://j iv_s:igcpVih.cot

TK Logan
UniversityofKentucky
Lisa Shannon
UniversityofKentucky
Jennifer Cole
UniversityofKentucky
Jennifer Swanberg
UniversityofKentucky

in genera! research suggests partner violence has a negative impact on women's

employment. However, there has been limited examination of partner stalking
and consequences for employment,. The purpose of this study was Co examine
partner stalking and employment consequences among two samples of women..
One sample was women who had obtained a protective order against a. violent
partner and had worked in the prior year {/? = 482), about one half of these
women were stalked by their violent partner and one half were not. The second
study examined qualitative infommtion iixTsn women recently stalked ( n ~ 6 2 )
by a violent partner. Results from both studies suggest that women who were
stalked by a violent partner were significantly more susceptible to on-the-job
harassment and problems. Also, women reported (hat stalking by a partner interfered in their work through on-the-job harassment, work disruption, and job performance problems. Implications for policy and research are discussed.

Keywords: partner stalking; women ,V employment

he National Violence Against Women (NYAW) study found that about

8% of women had experienced stalking (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998).

Stalking^ n the current survey,w as defined as "a course of conduct directed

at a specific person that involves repeated visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written or implied threats, or a com-

Downloaded from jiv.safjpi<te.c<Mn ai Alma Mater Sldioriim - Universit di Bologna on May 15.2015

have experienced stalking (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2004: Spitzberg, 2002). Some of the
studies in the meta-analysis included women who had experienced partner violence
and who may be more likely to be stalked than general population samples because
stalking is associated with intimate partner violence (Coleman, 1997; Logan,
Leukefekl & Walker, 2000; MeFarlane, Campbell, & Watson, 2002: Tjaden &
Thoennes, 1998).

Partner stalking has been associated with a range of consequences for vic tims. For
example, stalking has been associated with intimate partner homi cide or attempted
homicide (MeFarlane et al, 2002; MeFarlane et al., 1999; Moracco, Runyan, & Butts,
998). Furthermore, stalking victimization has been associated with mental health
problems (Bjerregaard, 2000: Biaauw, Winkel, Aren sin an, Sheridan, & Freeve,
2002; Westup, Fremouw, Thompson, & Lewis, 1999), and exacerbating existent
mental health problems ihat may be present because of partner violence (Campbell,
2002; Golding, 1994; Logan, Walker, Cole, & Leukefekl, 2002; Resnick, Aeierno, &
Kilpatriek, 1997).

Employment problems have also been associated with partner violence, in general
(Swanberg & Logan, 2005; Swanberg, Logan. & Macke, 2005; Swanberg, Macke, &
Logan, 2006). Partner violence may increase absenteeism, reduce productivity, or
increase the likelihood of job loss (Leone, Johnson, Cohan, & Lloyd. 2004; Raphael,
1996; Riger, Raja, & Camacho, 2002; Shepard & Pence, 1988; Tblraan & Rosen,
2001). Partner violence may also be associated with inconsistent work histories,
underemployment, and reduced earnings (Brush, 2003; Tosan & Raphael, 2000).
Some evidence suggests that partner stalking may have additional negative implica tions for employment Stalking may increase risk of harassment and violence because
even though a woman may take steps to avoid the stalker, he3~ place of employment
may be the easiest or only point of access (Wright et al,, 1996). One study found thai
women with violent partners who also reported being stalked by that partner had
more difficulty keeping a job compared to women with violent partner who did not
stalk them (Kentucky Injury Prevention and Research Center. 2004). Furthermore,
another study found that employed stalking victims experienced twice as many
stalking tactics and were pursued 3 tintes longer than unemployed stalking victims
(Nicastro, Cousins, & Spitzberg, 2000).

Although women's employment is affected in multiple ways by violent partners

who do and do not stalk their victims (Swanberg & Logan, 2005; Swanberg et al.,
2005; Swanberg, Macke, & Logan, 2006), there has been a limited examination of
partner stalking and consequences for women's employment. The purpose of the
current studies was to examine partner stalking and employment consequences
among two samples of women. All

Downloaded from jiv.asgspibfifvi ai Aima Mater Sudiorum - Universif di Bologna on May 15,2015

the women in the first sample had obtained a protective order against a vio lent male
partner and had worked in the prior year (=482). About one half of these women
were stalked by the violent partner and one half were not. Study 1 examined how
stalking interfered with women's employment. The second study used qualitative
data collected from women who had been recently stalked (within 6 months, n - 62)
by a violent partner to examine how stalking affects women's employment and their
work-related performance and decision making related to work. By examining data
from these two studies it is possible to gain a better understanding of how stalking by
a violent partner affects women's employment.

Study 1
Method
Participants. Women were recruited from four courts (three rural and one urban) after
they had obtained a domestic violence order (DVO) against a male intimate partner
between February 2001 and November 2003 OV= 757). Women had to have been at
least 18 years old or age 17 and emancipated to meet eligibility criteria for the study.
Overall, 54% of the women reported ever being stalked by the partner against whom
the protective order was obtained (DVO partner). Because employment measures
were for the past year it was important to examine- those who reported stalking and
employment in the past year. Therefore, 71 women were excluded from the analysis
because they indicated they had previously experienced stalking by the DVO partner
but not within the past year. Furthermore, 204 women were excluded because they
had not worked in the past year. Thus, the final sample for this analysis was 482.
Two groups were formed: (a) women who were stalked by the DVO partner and who
were employed in the past year, n - 239 and (b) women who were never stalked by
the DVO partner but who were employed in die past year, n ~ 243.

Measures. Stalking was measured with a question that asked women if the DVO
partner had ever, "Repeatedly followed you, phoned you, and/or showed up at your
house/work/other place? In other words, did your partner ever stalk or obsessively
pursue you when you did not want him to and it frightened you?" This question was
adapted from the NVAW study (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998) and from a pilot study
conducted with women in the target population (Logan, Walker, Cole, Rati iff, &
Leukefeld, 2003).

Downloaded from jiv.sag&piibron) af Alma Mater Studioriim- UniversiiA di Bologna on May 15, 2015

Not Stalked (//= 243)Stalked (/t ~ 239)

Age

31.26 years

30.87 years

75.3

80.8

Race

White

Table 1
Demographics

Psychological, physical, and sexual victimization questions were adapted from the
Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS & CTS2; Straus, Hatnby, Boney- MeCoy, & Sugarman,
1996), Tolmari's Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory (PMWI; (Tolman,
1989, 1999), and from a study examining victimization reported on protective order
petitions (Han-ell, Smith, & Newmark, 1993). In addition, a few items were included
based on pilot work with the target study population (Logan et al., 2003). Women
were asked whether they had experienced each tactic in the last year of the rela tionship. Nine subscaj.es of psychological, physical, and sexual victimiza tion were
created consistent with literature on partner violence tactics (Follingstad & DeHart,
2000; Kasian & Painter, 1992; Marshall, 1992; Straus et aL 1996; Tolman, 1989,
1999) including: verbal abuse (e.g., insulted, swore, or shouted), degradation (e.g.,
made you feel crazy, treated as inferior), jealousy and control (e.g., jealous or
suspicious of friends, monitored time, denied access to money), symbolic violence
and threats (e.g., threatened pet, destroyed property, threatened to hurt children or
someone close), moderate physical (e.g., pushed, shoved, grabbed), severe physical
(e.g., kicked, bit, choked, attacked with a weapon), sexual insis tence, threatened or
forced sex, and injury from violence.

Effects of partner violence on work were measured using a modified version of t

he Work/School Abuse Scale (W/S AS; Rigei; Ahrens, & Biickenstaff, 2000) with
additional items created by investigators based on pilot work (Swanberg 8c Logan,
2005; Swanberg ^.Jviacke, in press). Items measured the effects of partner violence on
women's employment related to on-the-job harassment, work disruption, and job
performance problems. On-the-job harassment included tactics such as the
perpetrator making phone calls, showing up at the work site, and intimidating or
harassing coworkers while the participant was at: work. Work disruption included
tactics such as the perpetrator sabotaging his partner's ability to go to work, forcing
her to leave work, or causing her to be fired, or forcing her to quit work. Job-related
performance problems included women's reports of their inability to concen trate or
perform daily job duties because of the violence and stalking.

Procedure. Participants were recruited out of four court jurisdictions. A female staff
member approached women after they had received a DVO from the court, interested
participants were interviewed, on average 5 weeks after obtaining the protective
order. Participants completed a 3- to 4-hr face-to-face interview, interviews were
conducted in private rooms at public facilities in the community (e.g., libraries,
hospitals) and began after informed consent was given. Each participant was
provided with a verba!

Downloaded from iv.saijepiibjxra <1t Alma Mater Sludiorurn- University dl Bologna or= May 15,2015

African American

20.2

M.6

Other

4.5

4.6

Less than high school graduation

22.9

22.7

Generai Equivalency Diploma, high school graduation

31.3

36.1

Some college or more

45.8

41.2

Under US$14,999

51.0

45.6

$15.000 or mote

49.0

54.4

Number of children

1.85 children

3.79 children

Married to DVO partner

49.4

46.0

Education

incoine

Cohabiiaied with DVO partner

49.8

53.6

Time spent in the relationship with the DVO parmer

6.58 years

6.51 years

Currently broken up with partner (at time of interview)

84.5

95.1*

Other relationship with DVO partner

Victimization by DVO Partner in

the Last Year of the Relationship

Any psychological abuse

% Not Stalked

0=243)

% Stalked

Test Statistic

4f

Table 2
, Non work-Related Victimization by
Domestic Violence Order (DVO) Partner
xW

(// = 239.)

100

100

Verbal abuse

97.1

300

6.99*

Degradation

83.5

96.7

11.65*

educational protocol about safety and was given a referral resource pamphlet containing pertinent health, mental health, and safety planning
resources tailored for (lie community in which she lived. Participants were
compensated for their time.

Analysis. Chi-square-s and one-way ANOVAs were used to examine

between-group differences among women who did and did not report stalking in the past year. Because of the large number of comparisons, only findings that were statistically significant at p < .01 are noted.

Results
Demographics.

Demographic

information

is

presented

in

Table

Dc/rVntoaded from jiv.s33spub.cam al Aims Kif.ter SludiorL'ni - Universii di Bologna on May 15,2015

Jealousv md control

91.8

98.3

Symbolic violence and threats

94.7

97.9

92.2

95.0

Moderate physical

85,6

87.4

Severe physical

79.8

86.6

Injury

67,9

74.5

Threatened and/or forced sex

15.6

29,7

Any physical violence

10.95'*

13.63**

*/> < .0 i, **/?<jaai.

diploma or General Equivalency Diploma (GED), 34% had either a GED or had
graduated from high school and 44% had attended at least some college or more.
About one half (48%) of the women in both groups reported their annual income for
the past year was less than US$14,999, The women reported having approximately
two children on average.

The majority of the women (52%) reported cohabiting with the DVO partner,
followed by nearly one half (48%) being married to the DVO partner. The average
duration of the relationship with the DVO partner was approximately 6,5 years.
Significantly more of the women who were stalked reported being separated from the
DVO partner at the time of the interview compared to those not being stalked in the
past year (x2= 16.46, <.{)!).

Partner violence victimization. Nomvork-reiated victimization by the DVO partner

experienced in the last year of the relationship is presented in Table 2. All women
reported some type of psycho logical abuse. However, more women who were stalked
reported verbal abuse, degradation, and jealousy and control tactics compared with
those women who reported no stalking. There were no significant differences in
physical victimization between those with and without stalking in the past year.
Significantly more women who were stalked reported threatened or forced sex in the
last year of the relationship than women who did not report stalking.

Downloaded from jiv.s3gspiftv.0M a! Alma Mater Sluriiorum- UnlversilA dl Bologna on May 15t 2015

4f
% Not Stalked (// = 243}

% Stalked (// = 239)

On-the-job harassment.

56

87.9

Average # of on-the-job harassment tactics

2.64 tactics

4.20 tactics

42.8

73.2

Harass you on the phone at work

Test Statistic y; or /"

60.2.!**

1, 344

49.34**

45.75**

Table 3
On-the-job Harassment and Work Disruption Tactics

Employment problems. Overall, significantly more women who were stalked reported,
problems at work (94.6%) than women who did not report stalking, 76,1%, % 2U) =
32.58. Specifically, more women who were stalked in the past year reported on-thejob harassment, work disruption tactics, and job performance problems (see Tables 3
and 4). And, of those women who reported more on-the-job harassment, work
disruption, and job performance problems, women who were stalked reported
significantly more tactics within each of the categories compared to women who did
not report stalking (see Tables 3 and 4).

Within the on-the-job harassment category, more women who reported stalking
indicated ihey experienced each of the listed on-the-job harassment tactics. It is
interesting to note that while significantly more women who were stalked in the past
year reported stalking tactics at work, 10% of the women who did not report being
stalked in the past year reported stalking tactics from their partner while working.
Thus, there were a few women whose partners may have only stalked them or
continually watched them while they were working but not necessarily when they
were not working, leaving them to feel that these behaviors were not completely
consistent with those associated with stalking. On the other hand, it is possible that
some women who reported being stalked did not believe their partner stalked or
watched them while they were at work.

More women who were stalked reported experiencing each of the work disruption
tactics except lor partners nor showing up to care for the children to prevent the
woman from going to work, or staying at work. For the other specific tactics within
job performance problems, more women who reported stalking indicated they were
unable to concentrate at work, had to go home from work because of illness, were
unable to perform their job to the best of their ability, and were unable to go to work
because they were upset.

Discussion
Although a significant proportion of both groups, women who did (95%) and
women who did not (75%) report stalking, reported on-the-job harassment, work
disruption, and job performance problems, it is important to note that significantly
more women with a violent, stalking partner experienced these problems at work.
Furthermore, of those women who reported experiencing on-the-job harassment,
work disruption, and job performance problems, those who were stalked reported
significantly more tactics within each category than those who were not stalked.
Clearly, partner violence affects women's employment; however, being stalked by the

Downloacfeti from iiv.&'agspub.com a! Alma Maler Siudiort/m - University dl Bologna on May 15, 20 (S

Harass you in person at work

27,6

51.0

27.86*

Bother your coworkers

1.3,2

34.3

1.

29.82**

Lie lo yoor coworkers about you

17.7

44.5

40.52**

Threaten you to make you leave work

18.5

46.0

41.79**

Threatened you at work

16,7

50.8

62.30**

Threatened your coworkers at work

1.3

10.6

18.76**

Repeatedly followed and/or watched you while you were working

10.4

60.4

130.26**

Work disruption

69.1

85.8

19.06**

Average # of work disruption tactics

2.90 tactics

4,67 tactics

1, 371

46.80**

Undermine your efforts to go to work; or look for work

30.5

54.8

29.25**

Physically prevent you from looking for a job

9.1

25.1

21.99**

Threaten you to prevent you from going to work

16,9

43.1

39.21**

Physically restrain you from going to work

9.1

31.0

36.26**

"Refuse to take you to work

16.9

33.1

16.87**

Sabotage the car

16.5

33.5

18.65**

Steal the car keys or transportation money

32.5

50.2

Not show up to care for the children.

25.1

27.2

Physically force you to leave work

2.5

Lie about your children's, health or safety to get you to leave work

10.3

Cause you to lose a job

Cause you to quit a job

I
15.57**

15 A
1

24.02**

21.8

11.81*

15.2

27.6

11.01*

16.0

38.5

30,67**

V<.01.V<.001.

Table

Job performance problems Average # of

job performance problems You were
usable to concentrate at work
because of the abuse going on at
home You went home from work
sick because you were upset about
the abuse You called in to work
because yon were too upset to go in
You were unable to perform your job
to the best of your ability You were
unabte to go to work because you
were so upset about the abuse
happening at. home

Not

75.7

Job

Test Statistic

% Stalked

87,4
I, 391

37.4

54,0

52.7

63.6

53.9

71.5

45.3

59,4

11.0110.94*

13.26**

16.02*
* 9.67*

V<.oi. **/K.OOI.

violent partner may pose even more consequences to employment for women. To
gain a more in-depth understanding of stalking partners" inter ference with women's
employment and its effect on women's decision making and performance related to
work, the next study explores this question qualitatively.

Study 2
Method
Participants. Participants volunteered to take part in a study on partner stalking
victimization (/V~ 62). Eligibility criteria for study participation included: being
female, at least age 18 years, and recently experiencing stalking by a current or
former violent partner (within the preceding 6 months). In addition, the sample was
stratified by sexual assault, with one half of the women reporting threatened and/or
forced sex, and one half of the women reporting no threatened and/or forced, sex by
the violent, stalking partner. All women were included in the analysis despite

Downloaded fromjiv.srigspiibxam at Alma Mater Siudiorum- Universit/V di Bologna on May 15, 2015

status in the past year because questions were framed around work interference that
included problems in obtaining and maintaining employment.

Measures. Psychological, physical, and sexual victimization were measured with the
same items and subscales described in Study 1.

Information on employment harassment was obtained through several open-ended

questions. Specifically, women were asked, "How has the stalking affected your
efforts to find employment or with your employment at all?" and "Do you believe
your work or ability to work was or has been affected in any way by the stalking? 1'
These questions provided information about how die stalking interfered with work or
women's ability to work, and the particular tactics utilized by the women's partners.

Procedure. Interview procedures and protocol were developed in conjunction with an

advisory group of women who had experienced stalking by a violent partner from the
rural and urban areas included in Study 2 (Logan, Cole, Shannon, & Walker, 2006).
Newspaper ads, flyers, and brochures invited women who were age 18 year and older
to call a toll-free number if they were interested in obtaining more information about
the study or were interested in participating. The materials asked, "Have you or
someone you know experienced serious conflict or feelings of being con trolled in an
intimate relationship with a man?" interested participants were screened over the
phone for recent (pas|^() months) stalking behaviors and partner violence
experiences. Face-to-face interviews were completed from December 2003 through
June 2004 and began after informed consent was given. Women were paid for their
participation.

Anafysis, The study methodology can be characterized as a mixed-meth- ods

approach with the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data
(Creswell, 2003). Interviews were audiotape*! with permission from each participant.
The qualitative portions of the interview were transcribed for analysis into
metathemes and subthemes that were developed using content analysis. NVivo
software was used to manage the theme-coding process. The first and second authors
independently coded all of the qualitative data. Discrepancies were discussed for
100% agreement. Pseudonyms were used in the indi vidual quotes to protect the
identity of the participants.

Results
Demographics, Women in Study 2 were age 37 years, on average. The majority of
participants were White (77%) or African American (16,1 %).

Downloaded from jiv.&3gs[>ub.coi at Alma Mater Slurforum - UnlversilA di Botogns or, May 15, 2015

Table 6
Work Interference (all data
in percentages)
Table
5
Noil work-Related Victimization in the Last Year
of the Relationship (all data in percentages)
Experienced any psychological abuse from stalking partner

100

Verbal abuse

98,4

Degradation .

100

v<,01.
*V<.00L
Jealousy
and control

j.(K)

Symbolic violence and threats

V<-0i-*V<-00i.

95,2

,Y= 62

moderate physical violence, and 82% reported severe physical violence in the last
year of the relationship with the stalking partner.
Approximately 16% reported
having less than a high school diploma, 23% reported
74.2
having a GED or a high school diploma, 43.5% had some college, and 17.8% had a
college
degree
or higher
levels ofofeducation.
More
than three
fourths
of the
Employment
problems.
The majority
the women
(74.2%)
reported
that(77%)
the stalking
participants
reported awith
totaltheir
yearly
income for(see
the Table
previous
year as
less than
partner
had interfered
employment
6). Each
section
below$
14,999. The women reported having, on average, two children. A little tinder one
to obtain employment
outlines some of the women's experiences with on-the- job harassment, work
half (45%) reported being or having been married to the stalking partner, an equal
disruption,
performance
problems.
proportionand
hadjob
lived
or were living
with the stalking partner, and the remaining 10%
had dated the stalking partner. The average length of women's relationship with the
stalking partner was 8 years. Three fourths (76%) of the sample reported they were
Of those with work interference (// - 46), types of work-harassment:
separated
their Among
stalking the
partner
at thewho
timereported
of the interview,
and of those
On-the-job from
harassment
women
work interference
bywho
the
were separated,
average
length
separation
waswomen
almost 1(52.2%)
year. indicated their
stalking
partners, the
a little
more
than of
one
half of the
partner harassed them at
work. For example, Whitney described bow even though her
On-the-job harassment
52.2
work in the emergency room required her full attention her partner would still call
Three
fourths
and
harass
her: of the women reported being employed within the previous year. Of
those who reported employment, women had an average of two jobs within the past
year. Approximately one
Work disruption
58.7 half (50%) were unemployed at the time of the interview,
and
the
remaining
proportion
being
employed
either
full-time
He called every five minutes. Everyreported
three to five
minutes
"I gotta talk
to her."
"I gotta (29%)
talk to or
part-time
her." And(21%).
I'm not picking up [the phone] because Tm busy, and they're trying to answer the
Reported that stalking tactics interfered with employment or efforts

Job performance problems

phones, and it was creating friction between trie and the staff, with physicians standing right
there. I wanted to crawl47.8
under the table, I was so embarrassed, but he just keeps calling me
back, at an emergency room where you can't have the phone off the hook. And that shot my
Parmer
violence
victimization.
Nonwork-related
victimization
thetrying
last toyear
of the
stress level sky high. I'm over
there trying to sew somebody
up, youin
know,
deal with
relationship
the stalking partner is presented in Table 5. One-hundred, percent
business and with
he's calling

of women reported experiencing psychological abuse within the last year of the
relationship. Likewise, all of the women reported degradation and jealousy and
control in the last year of the relationship. Approximately 90% of the women had
Renee's stalker not only harassed her on the job but also found other ways to sabotage
experienced some type of physical violence in the last year of the relationship. A
her
work:
little
more than 90% reported

Downloadedfrom
'tornjiv.sagepubjconi
;i-,<.sag<jptifo con
at Aims
Mstar
Skidiorum
- University
dl Botogna
or,10.
May
15,2015
Downloaded
at Alma
M filer
Siutforvm
- UniversM
dl Botogns
on May
2015

destroy the art that I had already made [for ray job], and he stole some of my
artwork before that: I had already made, and I had to replace k> and it jus),
wasn't worth it. One time he stole like $2000 worth of [art] stuff. And they
didn't make me pay for It, but i was afraid it would happen again, and I
couldn't afford to pay for it if it did happen.
Diana's stalker used a variety of on-the-job harassment tactics:
One warehouse 1 worked at, he kept showing up at the warehouse. 1 wasn't
the only woman, that worked there but I was the only payroll clerk, and most
of the women worked on the assembly line. And then there were a lot of truck
drivers and people, mostly males worked there, and he kept showing up at
that job, The warehouse manager would say stuff like "Diana he's coming
around here, he's looking at the guys mean. Tell him to stay away." You know
he was trying to intimidate the employees, And I had told him, but he ignored
me and that made him come around that much more. And he [stalker] caused
me to Jose that job. [Then] like when I worked af the newspaper, and I told
him I was only allowed three personal calls per day i had a cell phone. I said,
"if you have an emergency call the cell phone." He would repeatedly call the
office on purpose. He'd do stuff like that all the time to annoy me at work.
Diana continued, to describe how her partner sabotaged her at another job
through her coworkers:
This business is pretLy cut-throat and there-were a lot [coworkers] that were
jealous of me, I know that sounds crazy but there were. A lot of [male
coworkers wiio].,. resent a woman that does it better than they do. So it didn't help to have him giving them fuel to use against me. So that just gave
them something else to use against me, you know the fact that I had this nut
stalking me all the time and ail the slanderous things that he said about me
[to my coworkers]. He accused me of sleeping with everybody [spread
rumors about me to my coworkers] so that didn't help [my job situation |.
Like Diana, Tiffany's partner also harassed her through her coworkers:
He wasn't coming on my job but he was talking to people that 1 worked with.
He incriminated me with my coworkers where I was ashamed. He was telling
them more about me than they needed to know on the job. So he told
coworkers stuffabowjot//Yeah some of it was true and some of it wasn't.
Valerie's partner went straight to her supervisor whenever she had to stay
late and he would harass her coworkers, "He would call my supervisor. I

Oiwulosded from jiv.sasjepisfc .com at Alma Mater Sluciiorum - UniversiiA dl Bologna on May 15, 20IS

don't even know what all he said to them but cussed them and stuff like that. He came
on the job, on the property and just harassed people."

On-the-job harassment was often linked to work disruption. For example, Eleanor
talked about how her stalker would harass her at work, "He would follow me. He
would come diere and just cause trouble for me. Call me. Fie was embarrassing.
think he meant to do that so I would quit or get fired "

Work disruption, Among the women who reported work interference by the stalking
partners, more than one half (58.7%) experienced work disruption or a diminished
ability to obtain or maintain employment for a variety of reasons. As noted in some
of the quotes from the previous theme, almost all of the women who reported on-thejob harassment by their stalker also reported having to quit or being fired as a
consequence of the problems with the stalker. Renee and Valerie articulated this
notion:
He comes to my jobs and starts [making] trouble. The bosses dotrt even want me.
They fired nie because they didn't want io have to deal with him.
Well it's affected me when I was working because he came around and stuff. When
I was at the last job I had and I was working, they got to where they didn't want
me to work them because it was just like one person working there by themselves.
And they didn't want me to work unless there was somebody else them that day
working, because they were afraid he would come there and do something.

Heather and Darlene talked about how their stalking partner did not necessarily make
them quit but used more subtle tactics to disrupt their work:
He'll manipulate the time or gas money to [make it hard to] get there. You know
he'll find some way like that to prevent me from being able to succeed. And then
it's humiliating to me because I can't fulfill a obligation or a commitment I've
made because this person won't let me or doesn't want nie to. So then that turns
my own self-esteem down.

Billie and Molly, on the other hand, described how they had to quit jobs because of
their partners:
I've had to quit jobs over him and his ways. [He was always] calling or just flat
out making me quit because lie's jealous of someone that worked there, or he
didn't like the hours I was putting in or he didn't like that shift or some thing like

Dcwnlostd from ;iv,s3gspt!.coffs a! Alma Msler SMorum - UnlvsrsiSA di Botogiia on May 15, M1S

He wouldn't lei me have a job because you know I might meet somebody, I might
do something. 1 might better myself. I wasn't ever allowed to have a job except
for one time when he was off with his back hurt and because of financial
problems we were having he allowed me to work but as soon as he was? able to
go back to work 1 had to quit.

Like Molly, Darlene's partner did not want her to work:

He doesn't want me to work. He says he can take care of me blah, blah, blah but
he says that the only reason I would want to go get a job is that 1 would be
looking for another man and he makes me feel guilty about our son being put in
day care and that's wrong and our son needs me to be with him and doesn't need
to be going to day care.

Some women talked about work disruption in terms of how the stalking and/or
stalking partner" kept them from looking for work. Teresa and Abby explained:
I don't think I've aggressively gone out to look for work like I would if I wasn't
under this stress. Sometimes it really gets old, you know, if I'm trying to go look
for work and he pops up. Hardly out the door and (he is fol lowing me] down the
street.
It scares me that if I get a job he'll be coming around a lot and what will hap pen. i
can't keep getting jobs and quitting because he'll find out where I am and come
there, it will ruin my reputation. I'm scared to get a job and him coming there. I'm
afraid I'll have to quit. Don't want to start a pattern. He knows the type of jobs I
can get and he would just have to call and ask if I worked there and then he would
find me.

Amber and Amy, who were separated from their stalking partner at the time of their
interviews, indicated they could not work because they were afraid it would
jeopardize their safety:
1 don't want to get out anywhere and try to find a job or anything right now,
because lie could get to me,
I just wish I could stay in the house all the time. That would be about it. But 1
know that's not possible. In my mother's house with the doors locked is the only
lime I feel safe. Sometimes I do stay, just stay inside for as long as I can unless I
have to go be somewhere. So you wouldn't feel safe ai an office or a job place? No.

Downloaded from pv.ssgepiib.consi ai Alma Mater Stirioruro - LiniversiiA di Bolojns oii tesy 15, 2015

Irene indicated that she might be able to work but only if it were a work place in
which she was hidden from the public;
I don't want to be flipping burgers somewhere and him come in and blow the place
up. But he's crazy enough to do it, though. I don't want to be working in no fast
food joint. 1 wouldn't mind working in a store where I'm doing stock or something
but definitely NOT in a gas station.

Stephanie indicated that although her partner did not interfere with her current job,
she believed that she could not be promoted because of the stalking harassment:
It has not affected ray efforts to find employment, but his actions have hin dered
my ability to move up the ladder. I mean, my feelings about his behav ior have
kept me from pursuing opportunities I normally would have.

Carol's ease, her partner's harassment of her on the job not only dis rupted that
particular job, but she believed it affected her future work opportunities:
In

I had to leave ray last job because of [his harassment]. And they were giad to get
[rid of me), and 1 don't think 1 could ever be rehired back in the clinic no matter
what position 1 wanted because 1 think they think I'm a danger as long as I'm
married to him. I'm a threat to them. So licensed nie really to lose my last job. I'm
surprised they didn't fire me, and 1 think.(hey didn't because of my age. And they
could never say anything bad about me. They couldn't even say anything about my
work, what all 1 contributed or anything they needed, they couldn't say anything.
And 1 already tried for another position and was very, vety qualified, and when I
called back to cheek on my application, it had disappeared, I knew then that [I
would never be able to work in this kind of job again].

Job performance probfems. Among the women who reported work interference by the
stalking partners, about one half (47.8%) repotted that they experienced job
performance problems that were related to their inability to concentrate and perform
their daily tasks. Andrea and Lynn talked about bow difficult it can be to work while
dealing with partner violence and stalking:
With the employment it affects me because I'm depressed for days which makes it
hard for others to get along with me at work because they don't know that I'm
devastated inside or why I'm acting the way I am. I try to hide it but sometimes
you know you can't pretend that you're happy and that noth ing's happening and
I'm jealous of their lives. [I just think] why me?

Do.vn(oaoed fiotnjtv.sagfipufc.com .1! Alma Mater Studtorum - UniversitA di Bolagna on May 15 2015

Whenever my mind is thinking about my relationship and the anxiety that I

sometimes have it affects my ability to concentrate. For instance this morning I
was doing a report that dealt with some numbers, and 1 had hi go back over it and
check it more than once because I like to be sure.

Gloria talked about how even though she never worried that her partner would make
a scene in public, she was still affected:
If I was working he would never come in or disrupt my work environment at all
and he's never done anything like that before, [But] the things he's done to me
have affected my performance at work. Just the emotional effects of the stalking
have affected my work performance and a lot of different things.

Denise articulated how arid why the violence and harassment affected her work
performance:
1 have to work with numbers and you have to really concentrate, and there's
sometimes when I just can't really focus. And I stay really, I guess tired, men tally
I mean. Mentally this is demanding with as many hours as I've been working aid
everything. But that's the thing abotit the mental part is that you can replay [the
violence] over and over. How do you make it go away? You can't! It's like you've
got a recording in there. The part that bothers me was because for over 3 years I
haven't told anybody, not a soul what happened. I didn't speak about it because
he'd say, "Don't tell other people what our problems are," Welf [be] kind of
(hreaterffiU use that way and then I felt like I was on the verge of a nervous
breakdown; I just felt like if I didn't get it out I was just going to explode.

Erika talked about how not only the situation affected her work but in other
productive areas of her life as well:
There's been days that Fve come to work and of course I work with children and
Fve come with bruises on me and fve come in upset from the night befores
aggravation or fight or whatever and I couldn't deal with them as well as 1 could
and 1 couldn't come up with any good lesson plans on crafts, I couldn't, and I'm
usually the ideal person on crafts and it's like all my creative juices would just
like be blocked out... I kind of slacked off. 1 lost interest in things I love.

Several women talked about how they were just simply afraid and that fear hindered
their work performance. Becky, who had been separated from her stalking partner for
1 Vi years provided a good description of this dynamic:

Do.vr.lo.3ced irons jiv.saggpublow at Alms Maler Skidfcrum - UniversiEA di Bologna on May 15, 201S

It affected my work, it affected my school work. I'm always looking over my

shoulder, i don't know how else to say it, [I'm] just paranoid because f never know,
you never know when he's going to walk through the door. Especially when he
keeps saying, "Well you're going to be married to me by next December." And he 's
getting this house ready, you never know. He may come here and just snap me up
someday and put me in the car. That's often what I think Is going to happen. And
Tve told my mom if I'm ever missing to make sure to find him or if I ever have a
car wreck or anything, make sure it's investigated, that 's how far I've gone with it.
That's how scared I am.

General Discussion
Two studies explored the question of how stalking by a violent partner affects
women's employment. The first study suggests that many women in violent
relationships experience on-the-job harassment, work disruption, and job
performance problems associated, with the stalking and violence. However, women
being stalked by a violent partner are significantly more susceptible to on-the-job
harassment, work disruption tactics, and job performance problems when compared
with women who experience violence but no stalking. Specifically, although three
fourths of the women who did not report stalking experienced work interference by
their violent partner, 95% of the women who were stalked by their violent partner
reported work interference. It is also important to note thai women who report being
stalked by a violent partner also reported more psychological abuse and threatened
and/or forced sex by that partner that may also affect job performance.

The second study provided a more in-depth examination of women's explanations

of how and why their work was affected by partner violence and stalking. Three main
themes that describe employment-related problems were examined: on-the-job
harassment, work disruption, and job performance problems. Within each of these
dimensions some subthemes emerged. Specifically, within the on-the-job harassment
category, women discussed persistent work harassment through constant phone calls
or the partner showing up on the job site. This finding is consistent with previous
studies (Ridley et ah, 2005; Swanberg et aL, 2005). However, women's experiences
described in Study 2 provide a more in-depth examination of violent part ners' on-thejob harassment tactics. On-the-job harassment was a source of intrusion into women's
work, that sometimes caused, stress, distraction, and conflict or tension with
coworkers and employers. Also, sometimes stalkers actually stole or destroyed workrelated property that threatened women's employment. In addition, Study 2 found that
stalkers used coworkers in two

Downloaoed from iiv.asgspi/b com -it Airoa Mf<>r Sluatonin; Universit di Bologna on May 15,2015

main ways to harass their partners. One way was through intimidating coworkers,
many of whom were male. Another route of harassment was for the stalker to spread
rumors about her to her coworkers.

The work disruption theme also revealed some interesting subthemes and
connections with other themes. Often on-the-job harassment resulted in work
disruption, such as being fired or leaving a job. This finding is also consistent with
previous research on partner violence (Ridley et al., 2005; Riger et al, 2002; Romero,
Chavkin, Wise, & Smith, 2003; Sable, Libbits, Huneke, & Anger, 1999). However,
Study 2 highlighted several other work disruption pathways. For example, violent
partners, who were often very jealous sometimes forced women to quit a job or
prevented them from obtaining a job. Stalkers used, other tactics as well, such as
manipulating the external environment to cause their partners to have problems
getting to work. Furthermore, several women who were separated from the stalking
partner at the time of the interview indicated that they were unable to obtain a job
because they worried it would jeopardize their safety. Finally, a few women indicated
that the stalking disrupted their ability to advance in their career or to find any job in
their specialty field.

The problems with job performance theme also incorporated several subthemes.
Some women talked about the emotional aspects of partner vio lence and stalking
such as anxiety and fern' that interfered with their job performance. This emotional
response to the violence and stalking often led to distraction and concentration
problems that hindered job performance. In addition, the emotional drain of coping
with a violent stalking partner can diminish creativity and energy on the job thai may
lead to job performance problems. Earlier studies suggest that partner violence
adversely affects women's job performance (Brush, 2000,2002; Raphael, 1996;
Ridley et al., 2005; Swanberg & Logan, 2005), However, Study 2 highlights how the
emotional response to partner violence and stalking is associated with stalkers'
unpredictable behaviors and the consequences associated with women's fear
reactions.

It is clear dual partner violence presents physical, and mental health con sequences
that affect women's employment (Swanberg et al., 2005). It is also evident that
violent partners often use women's work to harass them for a variety of reasons
(Ridley et ak, 2005; Swanberg et ah, 2005). This type of harassment can occur while
the relationship is intact and after it has dissolved, After relationships have ended,
stalkers may harass women at work because this is a relatively easy point of access to
the women (Wright et al, 1996). In some cases, such as when stalking partners
prevented women from, obtaining a job or forced diem to quit a job, it seems that the
stalkers were

Downloaded !rom |iv.^gapul>ixn ai Alma Mater Slodiorum - UniversliA di Bologna on May 15, 201S

attempting to exert greater control and to diminish their partner's sense of

independence or connections to others, it is unclear why violent partners harass
women at work, and these motivations warrant further research.

Being stalked adds another dimension to women's stress and negative emotions as
well as to the more direct implications for their employment, such as those caused by
on-the-job harassment and work disruption. The question now is what can be done?
Several suggestions can be made based on the findings from the euirent study and
from prior studies (Ridley et al., 2005; Swanberg et aL 2005). First and foremost,
safety planning at work may be especially important to protect the- stalking victim,
other employees, and workplace customers from harassment and violence. However,
before safety planning at work can be effecti vely put into place at worksites that do
not already employ this strategy, more education of the dynamics of inter personal
violence and its effects on the place of employment are needed. As it currently stands,
a commonly used strategy for dealing with violence and stalking that intrudes onto
lite workplace is to apply social pressure and/or disciplinary action on the victim. For
example, in Study 2 women's descriptions of the effects of die stalking on their work
revealed how in many cases die responses of their employers or coworkers essentially
punished the stalking victim for her partner and/or former partner's behavior rather
than developing remedies that address the stalking partner. One can understand why
employers would rely on this approach because the alternative of creating strategies
for dealing with interpersonal violence and stalking requires more resource
investment and time. Yet the costs of not developing strategies are the loss of
productive hours, loss of trained employees, and the potential for workplace violence
(Swanberg et al., 2005).

Second, protective order stipulations should routinely address work- related

harassment especially if there is any evidence of prior stalking. Stipulations that
specifically address work-related harassment could encourage women to seek law
enforcement protection when the stalker harassed them at work. Moreover, protective
orders with specific work-related stipulations could give greater legitimacy to
women's plight and engender greater support from their workplaces. Unfortunately
there is little information in the research literature about how often this is done or
even whether women realize this is an option on their protective order.

Third, more states might consider adopting employment protection legislation for
victims of partner violence. Findings from both studies suggest that women have lost
jobs as a direct result of partner violence stalking tactics. Employment protection
legislation such as statutes adopted by the state of Maine that stipulate that employers
must provide reasonable and

Dfwnloaded torn iiY.MSi'pi;hoo;n at Alms Msftif Sludionjfn - UoivcfsitA dl Botogres on Way 15,2015

necessary leave from work if an employee is a victim of domestic violence,

sexual assault, or stalking (Ridley et ak, 2005) may reduce job loss associated with partner stalking.

Limitations of these studies warrant discussion, First, both study samples

were purposive samples; therefore the findings have limited generalizabilitv. Second, the issue of measuring stalking, particularly by a partner, is a
continuing problem. The fact that 10% of the women in Study 1 reported
that their partners had not stalked them but had engaged in stalking behaviors while the women were on the job reinforces the complexity of measuring partner stalking, suggesting a need for more research examining
stalking and employment (Logan et ak, 2006). Third, the second study
included only a small number of participants and primarily relied on qualitative- data for understanding the effects of stalking at work and should be
replicated with a larger sample. Nonetheless, Study 2 is unique in that it
examines (he intersection of stalking and employment, an area where little
previous work has specifically focused.

Even wi thin the limitations, the current studies suggest that stalking increases
risk for on-the-job harassment, work-disruption, job performance problems,
and a range of associated consequences. The intersection of ptirlner violence,
partner stalking, and employment is a significant problem for women because
employment is a viable way for women to gain independence from an abusive
situation. More research is needed to develop interventions to help women and
employers cope with partner violence and ; stalking.

References
BjerregaarcL B. (2000). An empirical study of stalking victimization. Violence and Victims,
/.>"(4j. 389-406,

Blaauw, E Wbikej, P., Arensman. E., Sheridan, L,. & Frccve. A, (2002). The toil of stalking:
The relationship between features of stalking and psychopathoiogy of victims. Journal of
Interpersonal
Violence,
//(I),5
0-63,
Brush, L, (2000), Battering, traumatic stress, and welfare-to-work transition. Violence Against

Hbmen,
(10),1
Brush, L. (2002). Work-related abuse: A replication, new items arid persistent questions.

039-1065.

Dcwiloac&d from ;iv s5igspi;b r.._vr: ai Alma Mater SlucSorym - UniversitA di Bologna on May 15, 2015

Cupach, Spitzberg. B. (2004).

The dark side of relationship pursuit: From attraction to

obsession and stalking. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaam.

Follingstad, D & DeHart. D. (2000). Defining psychological abuse ofhusbands toward wives:
Contents, behaviors, and typologies. Journal of Interpersonal Vio/erice, /.[9),8 91-920.

Golding, J. {1994). Sexual assault history and physical health in randomly selected Los Angeles
women. Health Psychology,! .jT2), I 30-138.
HarreH, A., Smith, B, t & Newmark, L. (1993). Courtprocessing ami the effects ofrestraining orders for domestic
violence victims, Washington. DC: Urban Institute,

Kasian. M., & Painter, S. (1992), Frequency and severity of psychological, abuse in a dating
population, Journal of Interpersonal Violence,; ."13), 350-364.

Kentucky Injury Prevention and Research Center. (2004). Mmate partner violence surveillance in Kentucky:
2002Su/reyfndings,final report Lexington, ,KY; Author, Retrieved March, 9, 2006, from
\v\vw.kipre.uky.edu/projeets/ipv/2002%20Sin iey^20Final%20Report.p{ll'

Leone, J.. John,sun, M., Cohan, C & .Lloyd, S, (2004). Consequences of mule partner violence on
low-income minority women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 472-490.

Logan, T.. Cole, j. s Shannon, L, & Walker, R. (2006). Partner stalking: How women respond, cope, and survive.
New York: Springer.

Logan, T., Leukefeld, C & Walker, B. (2000), Stalking as a variant of intimate violence: Implications
from a young ad ok sample. Violence and Victims, 7.5(1 ),9 I-H 1.

Logan, X, Walker, Coie. JL & Leukefeld, C. (2002), Victimization and substance use among women:
Contributing factors, interventions, and implications. Review of General Psychology, 5(4},3 25-397,

Logan, T Walker, R Coie, J., RatJiff, S & Leukefeld, C. (2003). Qualitative differences among rural
and urban intimate violence victimization experiences & consequences: A pilot study. Journal'of
'Family Violence,.,I <5(2),8 3-92.

Marshall, L. (1992). Development of the severity of violence against women scales. Journal of Family

Downloacted fromjiv.sage-pub.com al AimaMsrer Sludiofum- UnlversJ di Botogns on ftsy 10,2015

Romero, D Chavkin, W., Wise, P., & Smith, L. (2003). Low-income mothers'experience with

poor health, hardship, work and violence. Violence Against Women, H i 0), 1 231-1244.
Sable, M,, Libbus, 'K., Huneke, D., & Anger, K. (1999). Domestic violence among AFDC

recipients: Implications for wclfare-to-work programs. A If ilia, /42), 199-216.

Shepard, M & Pence, E. (1988). The elfeet of battering on the employment status of women.
Affiiia, 42 5-61.

Spiizberg, B. (2002). The tactical topography of stalking victimization and management.

Trauma,
faience,
&
Abuse,
44),2
61-288.
Straus, M., Hamhy, S., Boney-McCoy, S & Suganmiu D. (1996). The. Revised Conflict
Tactics Scales (CTS2); Development and preliminary psychometric data, Journal of
Family
Issues,
I
of)!
83-316,
Swanberg, J., & Logan. T. (2005). Domestic violence and employment: A qualitative study of

rural
and
urban
women.
Journalof OccupationHealth Psychology
/(i
),
3-17.
Swanberg, J Logan, T., & Macke, C. (2005). Partner violence, employment and the workplace: Consequences and future directions. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, (X4),2 86 312.
Swanberg, J,, & Maekc, C. (in press). The intersection between intimate partner violence and

the workplace: Consequences, disclosure: rates and employer supports. Affiiia,

Swanberg, J Maeke, C, & Logan, T, (2006). Intimate partner violence, women and work: A
descriptive look at work interference tactics, coping with violence on the job, and informal
workplace
support.
Violence
ami
Maims,
J/(5) t 5
61-578,
Tjaden. P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings/mm the National Violence
Against Women Survey (NCJ# 169592). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice,
Centers
for
Disease
Control
aiul
Prevention.
Tolman, R. (1989). The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women

by
their
male
partners.
Violence
and
Victims(3),
I
Tolman, R. (1999), The validation of the psychological maltreatment of women inventory.

59-177.

Violence
and
Wctims,
M,
1),2
5-35.
Tolman, R., & Rosen, D, (2001). Domestic via! esses in the lives of women receiving welfare:
Mental health, substance dependence, and economic well-being, Violent v' Againr/ Women,
/(2). 141 -158.

Downloaded from iiv.sagapiib.coin at Aims Msler SiufJiorum - University rfi Bologna on May 15, 20 !5

Intenvnthns, and Implications (^'-tib. R.Walker, C. Jordan, &. Leukefekk 2006) and on Partner Stalking: How
Women Respond, Cope, and Suei'A'e (with J. Cole, L. Shannon, & R. Walker, 2006).

Lisa Shannon,! s a PhD candidate in social work department at the University of; Kentucky. She is a
study coordinator at the Center on Drag and Alcohol Research for a statewide evaluation of a program
serving children with severe emotional and behavioral disturbance. She has previously worked on a
grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) studying alcohol,
violence, mental health, and health status among rural and urban women with protective orders, as well
a statewide outcome evaluation of the Drug Court program. I ter inter ests are in the areas of substance
abuse, victimization, and criminal offenders.

Jennifer Cole is a PhD candidate it? the social work department of fee University of Kentucky. She is
the research coordinator for a National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) study,
which examines alcohol, violence, mental health, health status, and service utilization among rural and
urban women with protective orders against male partners. She is also currently working on the
Kentucky Treatment Outcome Study FoIlow-Up. She has worked as project coordinator on a National
Institute on Drag Abuse (NIDA) study which examined the nature, extent, and eo-oeeur- raicc of HI V
risk behavior, violence, and crack use. Her primary interests are in the areas of HIV risk, intimate
partner violence, sexual violence, and menial health issues of women.

Jennifer Swanberg. PhD, is associate professor in the College of Social Work at the University of
Kentucky, with joint appointment:; in the College of Public Health and the College of Medicine, She is
also executive director of the Institute for Workplace Innovation at the University of Kentucky. She has
extensive expertise in the area of organizational studies and the effects of job conditions on working
families. She has conducted research on workplace culture, workplace flexibility in service and
manufacturing industries, the adoption of innovative workplace practices and the effects of intimate
partner violence on women's employment and workplaces. She is currently directing two studies
focusing on developing business success by creating responsive workplace'cultures, arid flexible work
arrangements for older workers funding by the Ford Foundation mii the Alfred B. Sloan Foundation,

DavnloEcted from jiv.sa39piib.com ai A!ma Msler Sludtorum - University di Boli.igres on Way 15,2015