10.

1177/1524838002250766
TRAUMA,
Sheridan et VIOLENCE,
al. / STALKING:
& ABUSE
KNOWNS
/ April
AND2003UNKNOWNS ARTICLE

STALKING
Knowns and Unknowns

LORRAINE P. SHERIDAN
University of Leicester, United Kingdom

ERIC BLAAUW
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the Netherlands

GRAHAM M. DAVIES
University of Leicester, United Kingdom

The current work reviews literature on the nature of stalking. Despite its nebulous
nature and differing legal and clinical definitions of stalking, researchers and prac-
titioners are referring to the same phenomenon. Stalking is chronic, consisting of a
number of nuisance behaviors that appear consistent over countries and samples.
Different categorizations of stalkers and their victims exist, but ex-partner stalkers
are a distinctive category with respect to their prevalence, violence risk, and attri-
tion rate. Different samples and definitions and false victimization reports obscure
reliable lifetime prevalence estimates, but these appear to be around 12%-16%
among women and 4%-7% among men. Stalking has deleterious effects on victims
but some of the effects may be the result of stalking’s exacerbating of existing vul-
nerabilities. Future research should focus on subgroups of stalkers and their vic-
tims, on cross-cultural investigations, and on the co-occurrence of stalking with
other crimes.

Key words: stalking, stalkers, victims, prevalence, categories, violence

THE 1990S SAW SUDDEN MOVES by the de- tainly true that the nebulous nature of stalking
veloped world to legislate against stalking, such has been associated with difficulties in both
that legislators failed to take into account the na- pigeonholing and legislating against it, it may
ture of the crime and essentially outlawed an no longer be the case that stalking research is in
unknown quantity (Sheridan & Davies, 2001a). its infancy and that we are feeling our way in the
As such, many articles on stalking begin by stat- dark. Since stalking was first outlawed in 1990,
ing that stalking is a “new crime” and that we over 150 academic studies, articles, books, re-
know relatively little about it. Whereas it is cer- views, and reports on stalking have been pub-

AUTHORS’ NOTE: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr. Lorraine Sheridan, School of Psychology, Univer-
sity of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, England; telephone: +44 (0)116 223 1012; fax: +44 (0)116 252 2067; e-mail: lph1@
leicester.ac.uk.
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE, Vol. 4, No. 2, April 2003 148-162
DOI: 10.1177/1524838002250766
© 2003 Sage Publications

148
 Sheridan et al. / STALKING: KNOWNS AND UNKNOWNS 149

lished in the social sciences alone. Although this KEY POINTS OF THE
by no means represents a comprehensive litera- RESEARCH REVIEW
ture, these publications have at least amassed
• Sufficient research now exists to provide a basis
sufficient information to provide a basis for un- for understanding the nature of stalking.
derstanding the nature of stalking. The current • Although no satisfactory definition of stalking
work will provide an overview of the most im- exists, researchers and practitioners are referring
portant interdisciplinary research on stalking to to the same phenomenon and there exists a
date and aims to offer a review of what is known shared literature.
• Stalking is a chronic problem in which multiple
about stalking, while identifying what remains
stalking tactics are employed by the stalker, but
to be newly chartered or further investigated. certain types of conduct tend to occur uniformly.
Although stalking was only recently ac- • Lifetime prevalence rates of stalking appear to be
corded criminal status, it soon became clear that 12%-16% among women and 4%-7% among men,
it represented a significant social problem, but these rates are dependent on the population
of interest and the definition employed and are
rather than an exaggeration of a small number
also obscured by false victimization reports.
of celebrity cases fueled by significant media • Stalking victims have severe economical, psycho-
coverage. Stalking is typically a chronic, rather logical, and social problems, some of which may
than an acute, issue—both overall and in terms be the result of stalking compounding on existing
of individual cases. Overall, stalking behaviors vulnerability.
have been perpetrated for centuries, with • Anyone may become the victim of a stalker, but
people in highly visible jobs, vulnerable people,
Mullen, Pathé, and Purcell (2000) noting ele- and people who have a high likelihood of engag-
ments of what we may now consider to be unac- ing in contacts with single people appear to be at
ceptable stalking behavior in the work of Dante higher risk.
Alighieri (circa 1292), and Skoler’s (1998) high- • Many different stalker categorizations exist. Ex-
lighting the same in William Shakespeare’s partner stalkers represent a large subcategory of
Dark Lady sonnets (circa 1592). Louisa Mae stalkers. Because their tactics, mental health, and
risk of violence appear to differ from those of
Alcott’s 19th-century novel A Long and Fatal Love other stalker subtypes, further research is indi-
Chase bears strong resemblance to many con- cated on the evolution of stalking behaviors and
temporary accounts of stalking. Stalking was tailored intervention strategies for different
even outlawed in ancient times. Within Book 4 stalker categories.
of the Ancient Roman legal tome Institutes of • Relatively little is known about how to stop
stalkers, but strategies may be victim directed,
Justinianus (approximately 550 AD) one can
stalker directed, and stalking directed.
read the passage “Iniuria commititur . . . si quis
ma t rem f ami l i as aut praet extatum
praetextatumve adsectatus fuerit,” which
roughly means that it is prohibited to inflict in- definitions vary between countries and states.
jury or cause hindrance by following a married Some legislation comprehensively describes
woman, boy, or girl. With regard to the which behaviors are punishable, whereas other
chronicity of individual cases, victims are typi- legislation applies only broad terms. In the
cally targeted for periods of months, if not years, United States, most legislation depicts stalking
and subjected to a variety of intrusive, distress- as an intentional pattern of repeated or un-
ing, and sometimes life-threatening experi- wanted pursuit that a “reasonable person”
ences. This pervasive nature of stalking war- would consider threatening or fear inducing
rants significant multidisciplinary interest and (Miller, 2001). The South Australian Criminal
helps explain why it has attracted so much at- Law Consolidation Act 1935, s19AA, defines
tention since 1990. stalking as
following a person, loitering outside the person’s
ISSUES OF DEFINITION place of residence or another place frequented by the
person, entering or interfering with property in the
There has been much debate over what ele- possession of the person, giving offensive material
ments or processes comprise stalking. Legal to the person, keeping the person under surveil-
 150 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / April 2003

lance, or acting in a way that could reasonably be ex- vene before behavior escalates to violence (Met-
pected to arouse the person’s apprehension or fear. ropolitan Police Service, 1997). Conversely, the
In England and Wales, the Protection from Ha- liberty of people to pursue everyday activities
rassment Act 1997 makes no attempt to define or sincerely seek to initiate a relationship may be
stalking but rules that a person must not pursue compromised (e.g., Daly, 1996). Differing defini-
a course of conduct that amounts to the harass- tions of criminal stalking clearly also lead to dif-
ment of another person. fering perceptions of what it constitutes. For any
As Blaauw, Sheridan, and Winkel (2002) dis- individual who seeks to quantify stalking, his or
cuss, antistalking laws differ not only with re- her endeavors are further compounded by the
gard to what behaviors comprise stalking but fact that researchers and clinicians do not share
also with regard to the minimum number of oc- a common definition. Not all investigators even
casions required before a person’s conduct is employ the word stalking. For example, Meloy
considered to constitute stalking (not specified, (1996) and others (e.g., McCann, 1998) use the
2, 3, or more than 3 occasions) and the issue of term obsessional following, Rosenfeld (2000) re-
stalker intent (e.g., no intent required versus the fers to obsessional harassment, and Cupach,
intent to place the target in reasonable fear for Spitzberg, and colleagues (e.g., Cupach &
his or her safety or the safety of his or her imme- Spitzberg, 1998) investigate obsessive relational
diate family). Blaauw et al. (2002) argue that it is intrusion. There are several reasons why no one
advisable to exclude specific behaviors, a mini- definition of, or even term for, stalking exists.
mum number of occasions or behaviors, and One reason involves the motivations of the de-
consequences for the vic- finer. Those who seek to legally define stalking
Stalking is an tim from antistalking have evidential and judicially based aims,
extraordinary crime, laws. Instead, it is sug- whereby researchers are often interested in how
given that it may gested that legislators ad- stalking is perceived by its victims (Mullen
often consist of no here to the requirement et al., 2000; Spitzberg, 2002). The main problem,
more than the that is stated in the Eng- however, concerns the nebulous nature of stalk-
targeted repetition of land and Wales Protec- ing. Stalking is an extraordinary crime, given
an ostensibly ordinary tion from Harassment that it may often consist of no more than the tar-
or routine behavior. Act 1997 and label a case geted repetition of an ostensibly ordinary or
as stalking where “a rea- routine behavior (Sheridan & Davies, 2001a). It
sonable person in possession of the same infor- does not apply to a distinct single action or ac-
mation would think the course of conduct tions: rather, it embraces a multitude of activi-
amounted to stalking of the other.” Finch ties. Stalkers can harass victims using unequiv-
(2001a) notes, however, that in England and ocally illegal actions, such as breaking and
Wales, relatively few stalkers are handed custo- entering or committing acts of violence, but
dial sentences. She argues that an inherent pri- many stalkers do not overtly threaten, instead
oritization of physical over psychological harm using behavior that is ostensibly routine and
toward the victim leads to a minimization of the harmless. Examples of this might include stand-
damage that stalking causes and allows stalkers ing near somebody in a public place, or fre-
to walk free. Further research is necessary to as- quently walking past his or her house.
certain what proportion of the general popula- Although it is accepted that there exists no
tion views seriously the psychological harm satisfactory definition of stalking (e.g., Badcock,
that may result from stalking victimization. 2002; Kamphuis & Emmelkamp, 2000; Perez,
Obviously, differing legal definitions are as- 1993; Sinclair & Frieze, 2000), it is clear that re-
sociated with differing problems and outcomes. searchers and practitioners are referring to the
For instance, given that under the England and same phenomenon and that there exists a
Wales Act any persistent, unwanted behavior shared literature. Several studies have at-
can amount to harassment, police may inter- tempted to quantify the similarities between
 Sheridan et al. / STALKING: KNOWNS AND UNKNOWNS 151

various works that have stalking as their pri- experience? Several studies have reported ac-
mary focus. In 1996, Meloy reviewed 10 studies tual stalking behaviors as part of their results.
published between 1978 and 1995 that provided Blaauw, Sheridan, et al. (2002) compared four
data on 180 stalkers, concluding that although studies and noted that “many stalking behav-
similarities were seen across studies, further iors have fairly equal distributions in different
data collection was necessary. A review of 12 samples of victims” (p. 55). For instance,
studies carried out on three continents between Mullen, Pathé, Purcell, and Stuart’s (1999) study
1978 and 1998 revealed that stalkers engage in of 145 stalkers found the most common stalking
very similar patterns of activities (Sheridan & behaviors to include repeated public ap-
Davies, 2001a). By far the most extensive work, proaches, telephoning, assaults, and surveil-
however, is that recently conducted by lance and following. The British Crime Survey
Spitzberg (2002) who undertook a meta- (Budd & Mattinson, 2000) found that the most
analysis of 103 studies representing 68,615 re- common stalking behaviors experienced by
spondents or cases. The following section will their 1,262 stalked respondents were being
examine the main findings from these and other forced to talk to the stalker, telephone calls, and
works in an attempt to clarify what the course of being physically intimidated and followed.
stalking actually involves. Taking a different approach, Sheridan, Davies,
and Boon (2001b) presented a population sam-
THE NATURE OF STALKING ple with a continuum of 42 intrusive behaviors
and asked them to indicate those they believed
In the introduction, it was stated that stalking
to constitute stalking. The highest consensus
is a chronic phenomenon, given its protracted
(above 95%) was found for loitering near and
nature. Stalking represents a course of deviant
telephoning the target’s workplace, following
conduct, rather than an isolated activity, and
the target, taking furtive photographs of the tar-
this has been demonstrated by victim studies
get, and constantly watching/spying on the tar-
that have provided duration periods for stalk-
get. Unsurprisingly, Spitzberg’s (2002) meta-
ing cases. A study conducted prior to the intro-
analysis also found the most common stalking
duction of the term stalking as it is understood in
the current context (Jason, Reichler, Easton, behaviors to include telephone calls, personal
Neal, & Wilson, 1984) interviewed 50 Chicago appearances and contact, and following and
women who had been harassed either after a re- surveillance.
lationship had ended or after they turned down Stalking behaviors do not occur on single oc-
romantic overtures. They were harassed for an casions, nor do they occur in isolation. The vic-
average of 13 months, with an upper range of tims in Blaauw, Winkel, et al.’s (2002) investiga-
120 months. Pathé and Mullen (1997) reported a tion experienced a median and mean number of
median stalking duration of 24 months in a sam- six stalking behaviors, whereas in Mullen et al.’s
ple of 100 Australian victims. Blaauw, Winkel, (1999) study, 63% of stalkers employed between
Arensman, Sheridan, and Freeve (2002) re- three and five methods. The British Crime Sur-
ported a mean duration of 58 months, with 13% vey reported that almost 50% of victims had
reporting a period of more than 10 years, in a been subjected to between two and five distinct
sample of 241 Dutch victims. In Hall’s (1998) stalking behaviors. Thus, it may be concluded
sample of 145 victims in the United States, 13% that stalkers employ multiple stalking tactics
had been stalked for more than 5 years. Simi- and that certain types of conduct tend to occur
larly, 13% of Sheridan, Davies, and Boon’s uniformly and may be considered as examples
(2001a) British sample of 95 victims had been of common stalking behavior (see also Finch,
stalked for 12 years or more (mean of 52 months 2001b). What remains to be clarified, however, is
for ongoing cases, 76 months for historical whether duration and diversity are constant for
cases). all types of victims and stalkers and whether
It is evident that stalking is a long-term prob- there is consistency in the evolution of stalking
lem, but what actually does the stalking victim behaviors over time.
 152 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / April 2003

PREVALENCE OF STALKING had been killed by their partner (McFarlane

Studies in representative samples have et al., 1999). Conversely, rates of stalking were
yielded fairly stable lifetime prevalence rates of found to be as low as 5.6% among 178 university
stalking victimization: approximately 12% to counseling center staff members in the United
16% among women and 4% to 7% among men. States (Romans, Hays, & White, 1996), 13%
An Australian study found that 15% of more among over 4,000 female college students in the
than 6,000 women reported having ever been United States (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2000)
stalked by a man (Austra- and 5.1% among 721 teachers in British Colum-
An actual prevalence lian Bureau of Statistics, bia (Lyon & Douglas, in press). Finally, a large
rate for stalking 1996). The British Crime community sample study of 1,844 Australian
victimization remains survey, sampling almost citizens revealed a lifetime prevalence rate of
unknown due to 10,000 inhabitants of Eng- 23.4% (Purcell, Pathé, & Mullen, 2002), but the
differing requirements land and Wales in 1998, nonresponse rate stood at 39%.
in terms of what revealed a lifetime preva- The findings demonstrate that women are
behaviors constitute l ence of 16% amo n g victimized significantly more frequently than
stalking, what women and 7% among are men and that certain community groups
consequences are men (Budd & Mattinson, have a higher likelihood of victimization than
necessary to ensure 2000). A study among other groups. The findings also indicate that
victim status, and the 1,171 women in Louisi- many people at some point in their lives become
required minimal ana showed that 15% of the victim of stalking behaviors. However, an
duration and number the women reported hav- actual prevalence rate for stalking victimization
of occasions. ing been stalked during remains unknown due to differing require-
their lifetime (Kohn, ments in terms of what behaviors constitute
Flood, Chase, & McMahon, 2000). Finally, a stalking, what consequences are necessary to
study of 16,000 citizens in the United States re- ensure victim status, and the required minimal
duration and number of occasions. In the Aus-
vealed that 12% of women and 4% of men re-
tralian national study, stalking by females was
ported experiences of stalking (Tjaden &
omitted and the respondents were not required
Thoennes, 1998).
to have experienced fear as the result of stalking
Studies in nonrepresentative samples and
(60% did not acknowledge having experienced
studies relying on the return of distributed
safety fears). In the British Crime Survey, only
questionnaires have shown more variable fig- one occasion was required, harassment before
ures (there is reason to believe that a high the age of 16 was excluded, and rates did drop
nonresponse rate in questionnaire research when respondents were required to have expe-
leads to overestimation of prevalence rates be- rienced associated distress or upset. Similarly, in
cause nonvictims are less motivated to return the United States research, prevalence rates
questionnaires than are victims). Lifetime prev- dropped several percentage points with the in-
alence rates were found to be as high as 24% troduction of a more stringent requirement for
among 348 female public services trades union induced fear. In the Louisiana study, a minimal
members in England and Wales (Sheridan et al., duration of 1 month was required. Thus, preva-
2001b), 31% among females and 17% among lence rates of stalking victimization are highly
males in a sample of 299 college undergraduates dependent on the definition that is employed.
in the United States (Fremouw, Westrup, & Prevalence rates are also obscured by false re-
Pennypacker, 1997), 32% among 257 female col- ports of stalking. Clearly, questionnaire studies
lege students in the United States (Blackburn, are hampered by response biases, such as the
2000), 27% in another sample of 130 undergrad- tendency to respond positively to whatever is
uate students (Logan, Leukefeld, & Walker, being asked. Additionally, reports of stalking
2000), 33% among 105 politicians and public fig- can be false when (a) stalkers claim to be vic-
ures in the Netherlands (Malsch, Visscher, & tims, (b) people have delusions that encompass
Blaauw, 2002) and 76% among 141 women who stalking, (c) those who have previously been
 Sheridan et al. / STALKING: KNOWNS AND UNKNOWNS 153

stalked have become hypersensitive to recur- Pathé & Mullen, 1997; Purcell et al., 2002;
rence, (d) people seek gratification of depend- Sheridan et al., 2001a; Tjaden & Thoennes,
ency needs through adopting victim status, and 1998). With regard to psychological complaints,
(e) people consciously fabricate or exaggerate victims reported on increased distrust (44%),
victimization for external incentives (Pathé, paranoia (36%-39%), confusion (28%), fear
Mullen, & Purcell, 1999; for another categoriza- (21%-57%; fear is more common among female
tion of false victimization see Mohandie, victims than male victims) (Bjerregaard, 2000;
Hatcher, & Raymond, 1998). In a sample of 95 K. E. Davis, Coker, & Sanderson, 2002), ner-
stalking victims who had identified themselves vousness (31%), anger or aggression (10%-27%),
as such to a London-based charity, 20% were depression (21%-28%) (Bjerregaard, 2000;
considered to be false claims of stalking and in a Brewster, 1997; Hall, 1998; Sheridan et al.,
sample of 262 self-proclaimed victims who had 2001a) and chronic sleep disturbance (74%), ex-
identified themselves to a similar foundation in cessive tiredness or weakness (55%), appetite
the Netherlands, 10% of the cases were consid- disturbance (48%), frequent headaches (47%),
ered to represent false claims (Sheridan, and persistent nausea (30%) (Pathé & Mullen,
Blaauw, & Winkel, 2002). Two percent of stalk- 1997). Additionally, Pathé and Mullen (1997)
ing reports made to the Los Angeles Police De- found that 55% of the victims suffered from
partment involved stalkers who presented symptoms associated with a diagnosis of post–
themselves as victims (Zona, Lane, & Moore, traumatic stress disorder, Kamphuis and
1996), which leads to an estimated 10% false Emmelkamp (2001) noted that 59% reported
claims when other categories of false claims of symptoms comparable to those reported in
stalking are also taken into account. Thus, false samples of victims of generally recognized
reports of stalking appear to occur reasonably traumata, and Blaauw, Winkel, et al. (2002)
often but as none of these studies were con- noted that 78% of victims had symptom levels
ducted on a representative community sample, that indicated the presence of a diagnosable
there is no way of telling how many reports may psychiatric disorder. As shown by K. E. Davis
be false. et al. (2002), stalking victims are more likely to
report poor current health status, to develop a
chronic disease, and to report depression. All
IMPACT ON VICTIMS
these findings suggest that stalking has deleteri-
Clearly, traumatic events can have severe eco- ous effects on its victims.
nomical, psychological, and social impacts on Blaauw, Winkel, et al. (2002) noted that some
victims. With regard to economical matters, victims were exposed to a horrifying experience
stalking victims have reported suffering finan- but nonetheless displayed only a few symp-
cial losses due to a decrease of work hours or toms, whereas others were exposed to only a
cessation of work or school attendance (23%- limited degree of stalking but nonetheless dis-
53%), spending money on increasing security at played many symptoms of psychopathology.
home, at work, or in their vehicles (22%-73%), Additionally, several victims did not report
replacing broken or stolen property, and so forth about having experienced economical and so-
(Blaauw, Winkel, et al., 2002; Brewster, 1997; cial consequences due to the stalking experi-
Kamphuis & Emmelkamp, 2001; Pathé & ences. Moreover, stalking features explained
Mullen, 1997; Purcell et al., 2002; Tjaden & only 9% of the variance of the level of distress.
Thoennes, 1998). With regard to social conse- Inspection of other studies, too, shows that
quences other than changes in work or school there are often victims without apparent psy-
attendance, victims reported about acquiring chological, economical, or social deterioration
unlisted telephone numbers (64%-81%), avoid- (e.g., Brewster, 1997; Sheridan et al., 2001a).
ing social activities (63%-82%), and going un- These findings indicate that stalking has vary-
derground or relocating residence (11%-66%) ing levels of severity and also suggest that some
(Blaauw, Winkel, et al., 2002; Brewster, 1997; symptoms in victims may be the result of stalk-
 154 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / April 2003

i ng c o mpound i ng on al read y existin g stalker (e.g., Blaauw & Winkel, 2002; Brewster,
vulnerability. 1997), and that the ending of their prior relation-
ship with the stalker causes the onset of stalking
in many cases (e.g., Brewster, 1997; Tjaden &
CHARACTERISTICS OF VICTIMS
Thoennes, 1998; see also K. E. Davis, Ace, &
Despite the fact that studies have adopted Andra, 2000; Langhinrichsen, Palarea, Cohen, &
different definitions of stalking and have em- Rohling, 2000).
ployed different types of samples (e.g., commu- Altogether, the research has demonstrated
nity samples, student samples, the very young, that essentially anyone may become the victim
celebrities), it is clear that stalking affects a large of a stalker. However, it appears that people in
variety of people. Victims are both females and highly visible jobs (e.g., politics, media, public
males but Spitzberg’s (2002) review of 103 stud- services) and people who have a high likelihood
ies showed that a mean of 75% of victims are fe- of engaging in contacts with single people (i.e.,
males. Victims are found to be as young as two students, young people) are at higher risk of
(Sheridan et al., 2001a) and as old as 82 years stalking victimization. Additionally, it appears
(Blaauw, Winkel, et al., 2002), but the largest that prior vulnerability and subjection to do-
group of victims is usually between 18 and 30 mestic violence increases the chances of becom-
years old (Hall, 1998; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998), ing a victim of stalking, especially when poten-
although older (Mullen et al., 2000) and youn- tial stalkers perceive that there are reasons to
ger (Budd & Mattinson, 2000) high-risk groups keep contact with victims (e.g., following a close
have also been identified. Victims are found relationship and when children are involved).
across the socioeconomic continuum, but they
appear to be more often highly educated
(Brewster, 1997; Hall, 1998) and in high-level CHARACTERISTICS OF STALKERS
professions (Hall, 1998; Pathé & Mullen, 1997). As with victims, recognizing a potential
Stalking victimization oc- stalker is not always a simple matter. As sug-
As suggested by the curs among unmarried gested by the high proportion of female victims,
high proportion of people, married people, most recorded stalkers are male. Meloy’s (1997)
female victims, most and couples, but risk ap- review indicated that 72% of stalkers were male,
recorded stalkers are pears to be high among whereas Spitzberg’s (2002) meta-analysis pro-
male. those who are single and duced a mean figure of 79% across 47 studies.
who live alone (Budd & Stalkers tend to be older than other criminals,
Mattinson, 2000; Hall, 1998). Furthermore, with the studies reviewed by Meloy (1997) re-
high-risk groups have been identified as homo- porting mean ages of, for example, 35 and 40.
sexual men (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998), those Similarly, the median age of Mullen et al.’s
with a history of childhood sexual abuse or sex- (1999) stalker sample was 38 years (range 15-75).
ual assault by a relative (K. E. Davis et al., 2002), Kordvani (2000), however, found that 71% of
students (Blackburn, 2000; Budd & Mattinson, 100 Iranian stalkers were between ages 17 and
2000; Fremouw et al., 1997; Logan et al., 2000), 22. It has been noted that failed relationships are
and people working in public services a common feature among criminal stalkers (e.g.,
(Sheridan et al., 2001b) or politics or mass media Meloy, 1999), which is unsurprising considering
(Dietz, Matthews, Martell, et al., 1991; Dietz, that many stalkers are former partners of their
Matthews, Van Duyne, et al., 1991; Malsch et al., victim. Mullen et al. (1999) noted that over half
2002). Research has also shown that a prior his- of their sample of 145 stalkers had never entered
tory of physical abuse is very common among into a long-term relationship and that 30% were
female victims of stalking (Blackburn, 2000; divorced or separated.
Brewster, 1997; Coleman, 1997; Tjaden & Mullen et al. (1999) reported that 42% of their
Thoennes, 1998; see also Baldry, 2002), that sample were given a Diagnostic and Statistical
many stalking victims have children with their Manual of Mental Disorders (fourth edition)
 Sheridan et al. / STALKING: KNOWNS AND UNKNOWNS 155

(DSM-IV) (American Psychiatric Association, male with male stalkers, finding that group de-
1994) Axis I diagnosis, primarily for a delu- mographics did not differ but that more males
sional disorder, but that the primary diagnosis reported criminal histories. Contrary to popular
for this group was a personality disorder, pres- belief, stalkers do not necessarily operate in iso-
ent in 51%. One quarter of stalkers had a lation. Budd and Mattinson (2000) found that
comorbid substance-related disorder, and 41% 79% of stalkers were said to have acted alone,
were psychotic. Meloy (1999) also noted that whereas Sheridan et al.’s (2001a) victim sample
most stalkers will have both Axis I and II diag- identified just 59% as lone offenders.
noses, reporting that the most common Axis I The literature has indicated that although the
diagnoses, in descending order of frequency, are majority of stalkers do tend to share certain
drug abuse or dependence, mood disorder, and characteristics, many outliers exist, meaning
schizophrenia. On Axis II, stalkers are most that it is not possible to readily identify a stalk-
likely to be diagnosed with cluster B personality ing offender. Furthermore, the following sec-
disorders (narcissistic, histrionic, antisocial, tion indicates that victims may first come into
borderline) and are not as likely to be psycho- contact with their stalker in a broad range of
pathic as other criminals. Farnham, James, and contexts.
Cantrell (2000) examined 50 British pretrial
stalkers, more than half of whom were found to STALKER CLASSIFICATION AND
be suffering from a psychotic illness. A criminal THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
history is a common feature among those EX-PARTNER STALKERS
stalkers who have been acknowledged in the lit-
erature. For example, 39% of Mullen et al.’s Diverse attempts have been made to produce
(1999) sample had previous convictions, relat- classificatory systems of stalkers—each with
ing primarily to interpersonal violence and sex- differing objectives. The majority of classifica-
ual offenses. Blaauw and Winkel’s (2002) victim tion systems distinguish between subtypes on
sample reported that 50% of their stalkers had a the basis of particular characteristics of stalkers
criminal record. or their victims, whereas others have made dis-
Meloy (1999, p. 86) neatly summarized the tinctions according to the nature of the prior re-
“modal stalker” as an lationship between the two. Early attempts in-
clude the work of Dietz (Dietz, Matthews,
unemployed or underemployed man in his fourth Martell, et al., 1991; Dietz, Matthews, Van
decade of life. He is single or divorced and has a Duyne, et al., 1991) who distinguished between
prior criminal, psychiatric and drug abuse history. those who target celebrities and other public fig-
He has a high school or college education, however,
ures and “normal persons” and Geberth (1992)
and is significantly more intelligent than are other
criminals. He does not disproportionately appear in who established a typology of stalkers based
any ethnic or racial group. solely on their mental states, labeling his stalker
types as psychopathic personality stalkers and
Of course, not all stalkers fit this mold, and a psychotic personality stalkers. Following a lit-
number of studies have identified less arche- erature review, Holmes (1993) suggested there
typal stalker groups. For instance, McCann were six different types of stalkers based on the
(1998, 2000, 2001, 2002) has demonstrated that nature of the victim. These comprised celebrity
not only do children engage in stalking behav- (who stalks someone famous), lust (who is a se-
ior but that their activities are consistent with rial sexual predator), hit (a professional mur-
those of adult stalkers (McCann, 2000). Pathé, derer for hire), love scorned (who had a
Mullen, and Purcell (2000) examined 29 same- nonintimate relationship with the victim), polit-
gender stalking cases, comparing the results ical (precipitated by political ideology) and do-
with a sample of 134 more prototypical oppo- mestic (ex-intimate) stalkers. Kienlen, Birming-
site-gender stalkers, again finding the two ham, Solberg, O’Regan, and Meloy (1997)
groups to be similar in many respects. Finally, divided stalkers into two groups simply ac-
Purcell, Pathé, and Mullen (2001) compared fe- cording to whether they were or were not
 156 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / April 2003

judged to be psychotic. Zona, Sharma, and the target is a celebrity with no connection to the
Lane (1993) created a dominant forensic classi- stalker), acquaintance, none, or unknown. After
fication system of stalkers, placing cases into examining the harassment experiences of col-
three categories: erotomanic, love obsessional, lege students, Fremouw et al. (1997) produced
and simple obsessional. A more recent taxon- four victim-stalker categorizations: friend, ca-
omy aimed at law enforcement was provided sual date, serious date, and stranger. Finally,
by Boon and Sheridan (2001). This system parti- Emerson, Ferris, and Gardner (1998) collected
tioned offenders according to their motivational opportunistic victim and archival data from a
orientations and identified four principal classi- variety of sources and produced the following
fications: ex-partner harassment/stalking, in- relational categories: unacquainted, pseudo-
fatuation harassment, delusional fixation stalk- acquainted and semiacquainted stalking.
ing, and sadistic stalking. It should be noted that the current overview
Many of the approaches to classifying of stalker and victim typologies is nonexhaus-
stalkers have shortfalls and are incomplete. tive. There exist additional single-axial categori-
Some are too simple, given that the population zations to those cited above, and J. A. Davis and
is heterogeneous and is likely to include indi- Chipman (2001), Hargreaves (in press), and
viduals who are mentally ill and/or personality Spitzberg and Cupach (2001) have all provided
disordered and those who are not. Others are biaxial systems. Only one categorization system
difficult to decipher and many stalkers may fall to date is triaxial, however (Mullen et al., 2000).
either between two categories or may fit into For each of the five stalker subtypes recognized
more than one. The reliability of such ad hoc by this taxonomy (rejected, intimacy seeking,
typologies may be questioned, given that the resentful, predatory, and incompetent), the con-
number of cases on which they are based is not text for the stalking and stalker motivations, the
always clear and as some are of an arbitrary and stalker ’s psychiatric status, and the prior
impressionistic nature. It is important to re- stalker-victim relationship are incorporated.
member however, that any classification of What is clear from the majority of stalker catego-
stalkers will likely vary in accordance with the rizations, regardless of their aims or format, is
goals of the group who develop it (Mullen et al., the important role of ex-partner stalkers. This is
2000). despite the possibility that ex-intimates were
Zona, Palarea, and Lane (1998) posited that underrepresented in early works due to a focus
the relationship (real or imagined) between on erotomanic disorders and a selection bias on
stalker and victim best the part of law enforcement officers to arrest and
It is now widely informs an understand- prosecute high-profile or stranger stalkers
recognized that ex- ing of stalker motivations. (Meloy, 1997). It is now widely recognized that
partner stalkers As with classifications ex-partner stalkers represent a large, if not the
represent a large, if based on stalker or victim largest, relational subcategory of stalkers, with
not the largest, characteristics, however, Spitzberg (2002) reporting a mean proportion of
relational there is no one relational 49% over 40 studies. Furthermore, ex-intimates
subcategory of category accepted by all appear to be more likely to act out violently than
stalkers. professionals. Zona et al. stranger or acquaintance stalkers (e.g., Farnham
(1993) divided their sam- et al., 2000; Harmon, Rosner, & Owens, 1998;
ple of stalkers into two Kienlen et al., 1997; Meloy, Davis, & Lovette,
categories, prior relationship and no prior rela- 2001; Mullen et al., 1999; Palarea, Zona, Lane, &
tion- ship, with the former grouping being fur- Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999; Pathé & Mullen,
ther subdivided into acquaintance, customer, 1997; Schwartz-Watts & Morgan, 1998; Sheridan
neighbor, professional relationship, dating, and & Davies, 2001b; Zona et al., 1993). Farnham
sexual intimates. Harmon, Rosner, and Owens et al. (2000) found ex-intimate stalkers signifi-
(1995) classified the type of prior interaction be- cantly less likely to be psychotic than past ac-
tween 48 stalkers and their victims into per- quaintances or strangers. Similarly, Coleman
sonal, professional, employment, media (where (2000) reported that ex-intimate stalkers were
 Sheridan et al. / STALKING: KNOWNS AND UNKNOWNS 157

more likely to be diagnosed with substance cases this might also lead to a cessation of the
abuse and antisocial and narcissistic personality stalking as the victim may become a less obvi-
disorders, whereas nonintimate stalkers were ous target. A secondary goal could be to encour-
more likely to be diagnosed with schizoid per- age victims to take appropriate security mea-
sonality disorder. Community samples, how- sures and to inform their social network (see
ever, have stated that they would be less fright- also Kropp et al., 2002). In certain cases, how-
ened of an ex-intimate stalker than a stranger ever, victim-directed strategies could mean that
stalker (Hills & Taplin, 1998) and have judged the victim is encouraged to change his or her
victims to bear greater responsibility for their residence, job, or leisure activities due to the in-
stalking where they were previously close to the effectiveness of less radical strategies (Boon &
stalker (Sheridan, Gillett, Blaauw, Davies, & Sheridan, 2001).
Patel, in press). Blaauw and Winkel (2002) also With regard to stalker-directed interventions,
noted that ex-intimate stalkers had a higher it is important to bear in mind that stalkers are
likelihood of engaging in violence against their likely to be comorbid for a range of disorders
victims but additionally noted that such stalkers (e.g., Farnham et al., 2000; Kamphuis &
displayed a larger diversity of stalking behav- Emmelkamp, 2000; Mullen et al., 2000). A posi-
iors and that these behaviors had a faster attri- tive prospect for the treatment of stalkers is that
tion rate when compared with those of other re- they as a group do not appear to be very psycho-
lational subgroups. These findings warrant pathic (Kropp et al., 2002; Meloy, 1999), which is
further research on the evolution of stalking be- known to be extremely difficult to treat. How-
haviors and appropriate intervention strategies ever, the apparently high prevalence of person-
for different stalker categories. ality disorders (e.g., Meloy, 1999; Mullen et al.,
1999) does not offer much hope to victims as
such disorders tend to be resistant to treatment.
PREVENTING AND ENDING STALKING
Conversely, stalkers without clear psychopath-
Despite the bulk of literature pertaining to ology, psychotic stalkers, and stalkers with Axis
various aspects of stalking, very little is known I disorders may be receptive to pharmacological
about how stalking may be curtailed or pre- (for psychoses, depression, etc., but mainte-
vented. Those few studies that have addressed nance may be problematic) and psycho-
this issue found that victims predominantly re- therapeutic interventions (see also Mullen et al.,
ported that their stalking ended because the vic- 2000) such as therapy based on a functional
tim moved away from his or her house, because analysis approach (see Westrup, 2000) or a cog-
the stalker entered a new relationship, or be- nitive approach (see Lindsay, Olley, Jack, Morri-
cause the police warned or arrested the stalker son, & Smith, 1998). Further research, however,
(Sheridan et al., 2001a; Tjaden & Thoennes, is necessary to clarify which treatments are most
1998). Nonetheless, from a logical point of view appropriate for different stalker subtypes.
it would seem that measures to halt stalking ex- Stalking-directed interventions are the re-
ist within three areas: victim directed, stalker di- sponsibility of the criminal justice system. Re-
rected, and stalking directed. The notion that search has shown that reporting to the police
the chances of becoming a victim of stalking are differs between samples with either the minor-
related to preexisting vulnerability (such as liv- ity (e.g., 18%, Bjerregaard, 2000; 35%,
ing alone or having celebrity status) and subjec- Blackburn, 2000) or the majority reporting to the
tion to domestic violence (which has also been police (e.g., 89%, Blaauw, Winkel, et al., 2002;
found to be associated with vulnerability; see, 96%, Nicastro, Cousins, & Spitzberg, 2000; 60%,
e.g., Wileman & Wileman, 1995) suggests that Pathé et al., 2000). It is a consistent finding, how-
victim safety planning should focus on victims’ ever, that far from all cases result in criminal jus-
resilience (see also Blaauw, Winkel, et al., 2002; tice responses such as criminal charges, re-
Kropp, Hart, Lyon, & LePard, 2002). The pri- straining orders, and imprisonment (e.g., 9%,
mary goal should be to prevent (further) im- Bjerregaard, 2000; 45%, Blaauw, Sheridan, et al.,
pacts on the victim’s well-being, but in some 2002; 33%, Blackburn, 2000; 56%, Nicastro et al.,
 158 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / April 2003

2000). It is also consistently found that restrain- in Uzbekistan, noting that the victims were not
ing orders are often violated by stalkers (with protected by criminal law.
Spitzberg’s [2002] meta-analysis providing an Still other aspects of stalking prove unequiv-
overall figure of 40%) and that other criminal ocal. It is not known how far stalking is linked to
justice responses also frequently fail to curtail other crimes and how often it stands alone.
the activities of stalkers. An important question Questions arise such as How many victims of
that remains to be answered is whether the suc- domestic violence become victims of stalkers?
cess of criminal justice responses is dependent (see, e.g., Baldry, 2002; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998;
on the nature of stalking and the type of stalker Walker & Meloy, 1998). How many murder vic-
and victim. tims have been stalked first? How frequently
does stalking facilitate other criminal acts, such
as fraud or professional “hits”? These questions
CONCLUSIONS
are unlikely to be answered in the near future,
The current work has reviewed the main ar- given that the most dangerous and violent
eas so far covered by research into stalking by stalkers are difficult to identify within the crimi-
providing overviews of what is now under- nal justice system as they may have been
stood about stalkers, their victims, and the charged with crimes other than stalking or ha-
stalking process. Additionally, indications have rassment, such as rape, assault, or murder.
been given as to which issues require further ex- One contentious issue that may be raised is
amination. Not all stalking-related work has that of whether stalking is overrated as a crimi-
been included, as lengthy discussions of the nal act and social problem, with the subsequent
most appropriate legal sanctions and debates effect that the gravity of more serious stalking
surrounding the complex area of stalker moti- cases may not be appreciated. Large-scale repre-
vations are beyond the remit of this general re- sentative surveys have indicated that stalking is
view article. a widespread problem, affecting up to 1 in 6
There are other issues associated with stalk- women and 1 in 14 men at some point in their
ing that so far have barely been addressed. For lives, but also that the majority of cases are not
instance, there exists very little research on judged (either by the authorities or, more fre-
stalking that has been conducted outside West- quently, by the victims themselves) to warrant
ern countries, the authors only being able to criminal investigation. Issues of definition and
identify two such studies: that by Kordvani measurement affect tremendously how preva-
(2000), who carried out lent and serious stalking is judged to be, given
It is important that preliminary work on 100 its nebulous quality (see, e.g., Hills & Taplin,
stalking be examined stalking cases in Iran, and 1998; Sheridan & Davies, 2001a; Tjaden,
in non-Western Suzuki’s (1999) popula- Thoennes, & Allison, 2000). As a result, re-
countries to identify tion study of 600 Japanese searchers need to be continually aware of the
whether it is a global women. Neither could possibility of applying overinclusive defini-
phenomenon, the authors identify any tions and rendering acceptable behavior
particularly given that published cross-cultural unacceptable.
many countries have studies (but see Jagessar The most encouraging aspect of the material
not yet legislated & Sheridan, 2002). It is im- reviewed is that it demonstrates a huge ad-
against this form of portant that stalking be vancement in awareness of the course and na-
harassment. examined in non-Western ture of stalking since 1990. Despite the difficul-
countries to identify ties inherent to providing a definition of
whether it is a global phenomenon, particularly stalking, the current state of knowledge has re-
given that many countries have not yet legis- vealed that stalkers do in fact engage in similar
lated against this form of harassment. One re- patterns of behavior and that researchers and
cent work (Human Rights Watch, 2001) how- practitioners alike are addressing the same is-
ever, has identified two serious cases of stalking sues within a shared literature. This research
 Sheridan et al. / STALKING: KNOWNS AND UNKNOWNS 159

into the general features and diverse aspects of we now possess a basic knowledge of the
stalking has allowed practical progress to be fundaments of criminal stalking, research needs
made in recognizing, understanding, and inter- to move on to address more specific issues and
vening in stalking cases, both at individual and to uncover new ways of tackling this chronic
state or national levels. Of course, this advance- problem.
ment does not suggest that stalking research has
reached a peak. Rather, it implies that because

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE, POLICY, AND RESEARCH

• Research and practice should not consider stalkers • Prevention strategies should not focus on victims,
and victims as homogeneous groups but should pay stalkers, or criminal justice responses alone but
attention to different subgroups. Certain subgroups rather on interactions between the three.
of stalkers are more often mentally disordered or vi- • Research should address the extent to which stalk-
olent and persistent than others and certain sub- ing is linked to other crimes and also perceptions
groups of victims appear to suffer more from their and prevalence of stalking in non-Western coun-
experiences than others. tries, to identify whether it is a global phenomenon.
• Given the different types of stalkers and their differ- • Researchers should be wary of providing
ential risk of violence, research and clinical practice overinclusive definitions of stalking that may result
should focus more on risk assessment. in inflated prevalence estimates and the labeling of
routine behavior as deviant.

REFERENCES college women. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60,

5763.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and
Boon, J. C. W., & Sheridan, L. (2001). Stalker typologies: A
statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washing-
law enforcement perspective. Journal of Threat Assess-
ton, DC: Author.
ment, 1, 75-97.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1996). Women’s safety, Aus-
Brewster, M. P. (1997). An exploration of the experiences and
tralia 1996. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
needs of former intimate stalking victims: Final report sub-
Badcock, R. (2002). Psychopathology and treatment of
mitted to the National Institute of Justice. West Chester, PA:
stalking. In J. C. W. Boon & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Stalking
West Chester University.
and psychosexual obsession: Psychological perspectives for
Budd, T., & Mattinson, J. (2000). Stalking: Findings from the
prevention, policing and treatment (pp. 125-139).
1998 British Crime Survey. London: Home Office.
Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Coleman, F. L. (1997). Stalking behavior and the cycle of
Baldry, A. (2002). From domestic violence to stalking: The domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12,
infinite cycle of violence. In J. C. W. Boon & L. Sheridan 420-432.
(Eds.), Stalking and psychosexual obsession: Psychological Coleman, F. L. (2000). Clinical characteristics of stalkers.
perspectives for prevention, policing and treatment (pp. 83- Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sci-
104). Chichester, UK: Wiley. ences and Engineering, 60, 5766.
Bjerregaard, B. (2000). An empirical study of stalking vic- Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1998). Obsessional rela-
timization. Violence and Victims, 15, 389-406. tional intrusion and stalking. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R.
Blaauw, E., & Winkel, F. W. (2002). Stopping stalking. Manu- Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships (pp. 233-
script submitted for publication. 263). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Blaauw, E., Sheridan, L., & Winkel, F. W. (2002). Designing Daly, E. (1996, December 17). Sweeping penalties in new
anti-stalking legislation on the basis of victims’ experi- laws on stalkers. The Independent, p. 9.
ences and psychopathology. Psychiatry, Psychology and Davis, J. A., & Chipman, M. A. (2001). Stalkers and other
Law, 9(2). obsessional types: A review and forensic psychological
Blaauw, E., Winkel, F. W., Arensman, E., Sheridan, L., & typology of those who stalk. In J. A. Davis (Ed.), Stalking
Freeve, A. (2002). The toll of stalking: The relationship crimes and victim protection: Prevention, intervention,
between features of stalking and psychopathology of threat assessment and case management (pp. 3-18). Boca
victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 50-63. Raton, FL: CRC.
Blackburn, E. J. (2000). Forever yours: Rates of stalking vic- Davis, K. E., Ace, A., & Andra, M. (2000). Stalking perpe-
timization, risk factors and traumatic responses among trators and psychological maltreatment of partners:
160 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / April 2003

Anger-jealousy, attachment insecurity, need for control, Jason, L. A., Reichler, A., Easton, J., Neal, A., & Wilson, M.
and break-up context. Violence and Victims, 15, 407-425. (1984). Female harassment after ending a relationship:
Davis, K. E., Coker, A. L., & Sanderson, M. (2002). Physical A preliminary study. Alternative lifestyles, 6, 259-269.
and mental health effects of being stalked for men and women. Kamphuis, J. H., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (2000). Stalking:
Manuscript submitted for publication. A contemporary challenge for forensic and clinical psy-
Dietz, P. E., Matthews, D. B., Martell, D. A., Stewart, T. M., chiatry. British Journal of Psychiatry, 176, 206-209.
Hrouda, D. R. & Warren, J. (1991). Threatening and oth- Kamphuis, J. H., & Emmelkamp, P. M. G. (2001). Traumatic
erwise inappropriate letters to members of the United distress among support-seeking female victims of stalk-
States Congress. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36, 1445- ing. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 795-798.
1468. Kienlen, K. K., Birmingham, D. L., Solberg, K. B, O’Regan,
Dietz, P. E., Matthews, D. B., Van Duyne, C., Martell, D. A., J. T., & Meloy, J. R. (1997). A comparative study of psy-
Parry, C. D. H., Stewart, T. M., et al. (1991). Threatening chotic and nonpsychotic stalking. Journal of the American
and otherwise inappropriate letters to Hollywood Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 25, 317-334.
celebrities. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36, 185-209. Kohn, M., Flood, H., Chase, J., & McMahon, P. (2000). Prev-
Emerson, R. M., Ferris, K. O., & Gardner, C. B. (1998). On alence and health consequences of stalking—Louisi-
being stalked. Social Problems, 45, 289-314. ana, 1998-1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,
Farnham, F. R., James, D. V., & Cantrell, P. (2000). Associa- 49(29), 653-655.
tion between violence, psychosis, and relationship to Kordvani, A. H. (2000). Women stalking in Iran. Paper pre-
victim in stalkers. The Lancet, 355, 199. sented (by proxy) to the Criminal Justice Responses to
Finch, E. (2001a, September 21). Is stalking a violent crime? Stalking Conference, Australian Institute of Criminol-
Police Review, pp. 25-26. ogy, Sydney, Australia.
Finch, E. (2001b). The criminalisation of stalking: Con- Kropp, P. R., Hart, S. D., Lyon, D. R., & LePard, D. A. (2002).
structing the problem and evaluating the solution. London: Managing stalkers: Coordinating treatment and super-
Cavendish. vision. In J. C. W. Boon & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Stalking and
Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual psychosexual obsession: Psychological perspectives for pre-
victimization of college women. Washington, DC: Depart- vention, policing and treatment (pp. 141-163). Chichester,
ment of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Bureau of UK: Wiley.
Justice Statistics,.
Langhinrichsen, R. J., Palarea, R. E., Cohen, J., & Rohling,
Fremouw, W. J., Westrup, D., & Pennypacker, J. (1997).
M. L. (2000). Breaking up is hard to do: Unwanted pur-
Stalking on campus: The prevalence and strategies for
suit behaviors following the dissolution of a romantic
coping with stalking. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42, 666-
relationship. Violence and Victims, 15, 73-90.
669.
Lindsay, W. R., Olley, S., Jack, C., Morrison, F., & Smith, A.
Geberth, V. J. (1992). Stalkers. Law and Order, 10, 1-6.
H. W. (1998). The treatment of two stalkers with intellec-
Hall, D. M. (1998). The victims of stalking. In J. R. Meloy
tual disabilities using a cognitive approach. Journal of
(Ed.), The psychology of stalking: Clinical and forensic per-
Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 11, 333-344.
spectives (pp. 113-137). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hargreaves, J. (in press). Stalking behaviour. In D. V. Can- Logan, T. K., Leukefeld, C., & Walker, B. (2000). Stalking as
ter & L. Alison (Eds.), Profiling rape and murder a variant of intimate violence: Implications from a
(Offender profiling series V, pp. 1-16). Aldershot: young adult sample. Violence and Victims, 15, 91-111.
Ashgate. Lyon, D. R., & Douglas, K. S. (in press). Violence against edu-
Harmon, R. B., Rosner, R., & Owens, H. (1995). Obsessional cators: The British Columbia Teacher’s Federal Violence Sur-
harassment and erotomania in a criminal court popula- vey. Vancouver: BCTF.
tion. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40, 188-196. Malsch, M., Visscher, M., & Blaauw, E. (2002). Stalking van
Harmon, R. B., Rosner, R., & Owens, H. (1998). Sex and vio- bekende personen [Stalking of celebrities]. Den Haag, the
lence in a forensic population of obsessional harassers. Netherlands: Boom.
Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 4, 236-249. McCann, J. T. (1998). Subtypes of stalking (obsessional fol-
Hills, A. M., & Taplin, J. L. (1998). Anticipated responses to lowing) in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 667-
stalking: Effect of threat and target-stalker relationship. 675.
Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 5, 139-146. McCann, J. T. (2000). A descriptive study of child and ado-
Holmes, R. H. (1993). Stalking in America: Types and lescent obsessional followers. Journal of Forensic Sci-
methods of criminal stalkers. Journal of Contemporary ences, 45, 195-199.
Criminal Justice, 9, 317-327. McCann, J. T. (2001). Stalking in children and adolescents: The
Human Rights Watch. (2001). Sacrificing women to save primitive bond. Washington, DC: American Psychologi-
the family? Domestic violence in Uzbekistan. Human cal Association.
Rights Watch, 13, 1-54. Retrieved October 11, 2002, from McCann, J. T. (2002). The phenomenon of stalking in chil-
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/uzbekistan/ dren and adolescents. In J. C. W. Boon & L. Sheridan
uzbek0701.pdf. (Eds.), Stalking and psychosexual obsession: Psychological
Jagessar, J., & Sheridan, L. (2002). Cross-cultural aspects of perspectives for prevention, policing and treatment (pp. 125-
stalking. Manuscript submitted for publication. 139). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
 Sheridan et al. / STALKING: KNOWNS AND UNKNOWNS 161

McFarlane, J. M., Campbell, J. C., Wilt, S., Sachs, C. J., staff members from current or former clients. Profes-
Ulrich, Y., & Xu, X. (1999). Stalking and intimate partner sional Psychology, Research and Practice, 27, 595.
femicide. Homicide Studies, 3, 300-316. Rosenfeld, B. (2000). Assessment and treatment of obses-
Meloy, J. R. (1996). Stalking (obsessional following): A sional harassment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 5,
review of some preliminary studies. Aggression and Vio- 529-549.
lent Behavior, 1, 147-162. Schwartz-Watts, D., & Morgan, D. W. (1998). Violent ver-
Meloy, J. R. (1997). A clinical investigation of the obses- sus non-violent stalkers. Journal of the American Academy
sional follower: “she loves me, she loves me not . . .”. In of Psychiatry and the Law, 26, 241-245.
L. Schlesinger (Ed.), Explorations in criminal Sheridan, L., Blaauw, E., & Winkel, F. W. (2002). Characteris-
psychopathology (pp. 9-32). Springfield, IL: Charles C tics of false stalking allegations. Manuscript submitted for
Thomas. publication.
Meloy, J. R. (1999). Stalking: An old behavior, a new crime. Sheridan, L., & Davies, G. M. (2001a). Stalking: The elusive
Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 22, 85-99. crime. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 133-147.
Meloy, J. R., Davis, B., & Lovette, J. (2001). Risk factors for Sheridan, L., & Davies, G. M. (2001b). Violence and the
violence among stalkers. Journal of Threat Assessment, 1, prior victim-stalker relationship. Criminal Behavior and
3-16. Mental Health, 11, 102-116.
Metropolitan Police Service. (1997). The Protection from Sheridan, L., Davies, G. M., & Boon, J. C. W. (2001a). The
Harassment Act 1997: A guide (Version 2.0). London: course and nature of stalking: A victim perspective.
New Scotland Yard. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 215-234.
Miller, N. (2001). Stalking investigation, law, public policy
Sheridan, L., Davies, G. M., & Boon, J. C. W. (2001b).
and criminal prosecution as problem solver. In J. A.
Stalking: Perceptions and prevalence. Journal of Inter-
Davis (Ed.), Stalking crimes and victim protection (pp. 387-
personal Violence, 16, 151-167.
426). Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
Sheridan, L., Gillett, R., Blaauw, E., Davies, G. M., & Patel,
Mohandie, K., Hatcher, C., & Raymond, D. (1998). False
D. (in press). “There’s no smoke without fire”: Are male
victimization syndromes in stalking. In J. R. Meloy
ex-partners perceived as more “entitled” to stalk than
(Ed.), The psychology of stalking: Clinical and forensic per-
stranger or acquaintance stalkers? British Journal of
spectives (pp. 225-256). San Diego: Academic Press.
Psychology.
Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., & Purcell, R. (2000). Stalkers and
Sinclair, H. C., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Initial courtship
their victims. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
behavior and stalking: How should we draw the line?
Press.
Violence and Victims, 15, 23-40.
Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., Purcell, R., & Stuart, G. W. (1999).
Study of stalkers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, Skoler, G. (1998). The archetypes and psychodynamics of
1244-1249. stalking. In J. R. Meloy (Ed.), The psychology of stalking:
Clinical and forensic perspectives (pp. 113-137). San Diego,
Nicastro, A. M., Cousins, A. V., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2000).
The tactical face of stalking. Journal of Criminal Justice, CA: Academic Press.
28, 69-82. Spitzberg, B. H. (2002). The tactical topography of stalking
Palarea, R. E., Zona, M. A., Lane, J. C., & Langhinrichsen- victimization and management. Trauma, Violence &
Rohling, J. (1999). The dangerous nature of intimate Abuse, 3, 261-288.
relationship stalking: Threats, violence and associated Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2001). Paradoxes of pur-
risk factors. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 269-283. suit: Toward a relational model of stalking-related phe-
Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (1997). The impact of stalkers on nomena. In J. A. Davis (Ed.), Stalking crimes and victim
their victims. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 12-17. protection: Prevention, intervention, threat assessment and
Pathé, M., Mullen P. E., & Purcell, R. (1999). Stalking: False case management (pp. 97-136). Boca Raton, FL: CRC.
claims of victimisation. British Journal of Psychiatry, 174, Suzuki, S. (1999). Victimization by stalkers among young
170-172. females. Reports of the National Research Institute of Police
Pathé, M. T., Mullen, P. E., & Purcell, R. (2000). Same-gen- Science, 40, 53-66.
der stalking. Journal of the American Academy of Psychia- Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: Find-
try and the Law, 28, 191-197. ings from the National Violence Against Women Survey.
Perez, C. (1993). Stalking: When does obsession become a Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and Cen-
crime. American Journal of Criminal Law, 20, 263-280. ters for Disease Control and Prevention.
Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (2001). A study of Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N., & Allison, T. J. (2000). Comparing
women who stalk. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, stalking victimization from legal and victim perspec-
2056-2060. tives. Violence and Victims, 15, 7-22.
Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (2002). The incidence Walker, L. M., & Meloy, J. R. (1998). Stalking and domestic
and nature of stalking in the Australian community. violence. In J. R. Meloy (Ed.), The psychology of stalking:
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 114- Clinical and forensic perspectives (pp. 140-159). San Diego,
120. CA: Academic Press.
Romans, J. S. C., Hays, J. R., & White, T. K. (1996). Stalking Westrup, D. (2000, December). Stalking in the U.S.: Time to
and related behaviors experienced by counseling center focus on treatment. Paper presented to the Criminal Jus-
162 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE / April 2003

tice Responses Conference, Australian Institute of Lorraine P. Sheridan is a lecturer in psy-

Criminology, Sydney, Australia. chology at the University of Leicester, United
Wileman, R., & Wileman, B. (1995). Towards balancing Kingdom. She wrote her Ph.D. dissertation
power in domestic violence relationships. Australian on psychological aspects of stalking and
and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 165-176.
harassment and has published several arti-
Zona, M. A., Lane, J., & Moore, M. (1996). The psychology
cles, book chapters, and an edited book on this topic. Dr.
and behavior of stalkers. Paper presented at the American
Academy of Forensic Sciences Annual Meeting, Nash- Sheridan’s other research interests include understanding
ville, Tennessee. racist and Islamophobic behavior and the psychological
Zona, M. A., Palarea, R. E., & Lane, J. C., Jr. (1998). Psychiat- correlates of violent crime.
ric diagnosis and the offender-victim typology of stalk-
ing. In J. R. Meloy (Ed.), The psychology of stalking: Clini- Eric Blaauw, Ph.D., is a senior lecturer in
cal and forensic perspectives (pp. 70-83). San Diego, CA: forensic psychology at the Department of
Academic Press. Clinical Psychology of the Vrije University
Zona, M. A., Sharma, K. K., & Lane, J. C. (1993). A compara- Amsterdam. Dr. Blaauw has conducted
tive study of erotomanic and obsessional subjects in a
research on prison suicides, police custody
forensic sample. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38, 894-903.
procedures, mental illnesses among prisoners, and stalk-
ing. He has published several books and articles on these
SUGGESTED FUTURE READINGS areas and provides postgraduate courses on these topics.
Boon, J. C. W., & Sheridan, L. (Eds.). (2002). Stalking and
psychosexual obsession: Psychological perspectives for pre- Graham M. Davies is a professor of psy-
vention, policing and treatment. Chichester, UK: Wiley. chology at the University of Leicester, United
McCann, J. T. (2001). Stalking in children and adolescents: The Kingdom. He has published widely in the area
primitive bond. Washington, DC: American Psychologi- of witness testimony, in particular on the fal-
cal Association. libility of eyewitness identification and the
Meloy, J. R. (Ed.). (1998). The psychology of stalking: Clinical reliability of children as witnesses. His most recent work
and forensic perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic has concerned the use of CCTV footage in police investiga-
Press. tions and on memory for motor vehicles.
Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., & Purcell, R. (2000). Stalkers and
their victims. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.