What Mad Pursuit - Obsessive Relational Intrusion and Stalking Related Phenomena

Aggression and Violent Behavior
8 (2003) 345 – 375
What mad pursuit?

Obsessive relational intrusion and stalking
related phenomena
Brian H. Spitzberga,*, William R. Cupachb,1
a
School of Communication, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182-4561, USA
b
Department of Communication, Illinois State University, Normal, IL 61790-4480, USA
Received 4 June 2001
Abstract
The topics of stalking and obsessive relationship pursuit rapidly have gained the attention of social
scientists, clinicians, and law enforcement professionals alike. This review takes stock of the burgeoning
multidisciplinary literature in this area. The development of the concept of stalking and its corresponding
literature is charted, delineating and contrasting the clinical/forensic and interactional/relational
perspectives. The review and synthesis of current scholarship yields key conclusions regarding the
incidence of stalking and obsessive relational intrusion (ORI), the various tactics and motives of stalkers
and obsessive pursuers, and the consequences for victims. Further, a comprehensive typology of victim
coping responses is presented, along with a sampling of theoretical frameworks designed to help explain
perpetration and victimization. Several avenues for future investigation are proposed.
D 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stalking; Obsessive relational intrusion; Harassment; Domestic violence
1. Introduction
Somewhere at the nebulous nexus of privacy and possessiveness, courtship and crimin-
ality, intrusion and intimacy, lies the phenomenon of stalking. Few topics seem to have so
rapidly commanded the attention of such disparate discourses, including popular press, legal
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-619-594-7097; fax: +1-619-594-6246.

E-mail addresses: spitz@mail.sdsu.edu (B.H. Spitzberg), wrcupac@ilstu.edu (W.R. Cupach).
1
Tel.: +1-309-438-7110.
1359-1789/02/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00068-X
346 B.H. Spitzberg, W.R. Cupach / Aggression and Violent Behavior 8 (2003) 345–375
opinion, law enforcement, and social scientific (Best, 1999; Cadiz & Spitzberg, 2001;
Lowney & Best, 1995; Mullen, Pathé, & Purcell, 2000). For example, as of this writing,
employing standard search engines, and removing obviously redundant and irrelevant
references, reveals a dramatic increase of interest in stalking. According to PsycInfo and
Criminal Justice Abstracts, prior to 1990, there were only two citations employing the
terminology of stalking. Beginning in 1992, there were 2 cites, 8 in 1993, 13 in 1994, 14 in
1995, 14 in 1996, 21 in 1997, 40 in 1998, 27 in 1999, and 30 in 2000. In our own files, we
note less than 5 empirical studies prior to 1995 and over 60 in the 5 years subsequent. Given
the vast increase in attention stalking has received from these many quarters, it is important to
take soundings from time to time to assure that the course through such a din of voices is
leading in the best directions. This analysis reviews the research on stalking and its
conceptual cousin, obsessive relational intrusion (ORI), in an attempt to better gauge the
progress, and better chart the future course, of this research.
2. The societal construction and criminalization of the stalking phenomenon
Stalking has likely always existed within human societies, groups, and relationships
(Meloy, 1999). The cultural constructions of romantic and passionate love throughout the
ages in poetry, song, and historical narrative suggest that obsession and mad, driven pursuit of
a love object is both terrible and often ironically heroic (Kamir, 2001). This very irony may
help explain why stalking is still ambivalently viewed by society, and perhaps why it took so
long to be criminalized.
The Oxford English Dictionary notes that the term stalking has been in usage since
approximately 1000 A. C. E., originally referring to the act of walking ‘‘softly, cautiously,
stealthily.’’ Shakespeare gave birth to numerous love-obsessed characters engaging in
prototypical stalking actions (Skoler, 1998), but the earliest reference to the actual term in
the present context is a story by Thackeray in 1861: ‘‘Mrs. Matcham’s girl fished for Captain
Woolcomb last year in Scotland, . . .and stalked him to Paris.’’ By the late 19th century,
obsessive pursuit was typified in Louisa May Alcott’s recently discovered novel entitled A
Long Fatal Love Chase.
2.1. The criminalization of stalking
In their extensive review of the history of stalking in Anglo–American law, McAnaney,

Curliss, and Abeyta-Price (1993, p. 866) conclude that ‘‘the criminal law of England through
the 18th century did not criminalize many of the behaviors that might constitute a course of
conduct that we would call ‘stalking.’’’ Despite numerous relevant statutes, such as
prohibitions of threatening or extorting letters, lying in wait, and breach of peace laws,
and some civil injunctions regarding trespass threat and menace, there was little precedent for
legislating against the types of activities implied by stalking.
Thus, as of 1989, no society or jurisdiction had a law explicitly forbidding stalking as an
activity. However, after Robert Bardo murdered actress Rebecca Schaeffer in 1989, and
B.H. Spitzberg, W.R. Cupach / Aggression and Violent Behavior 8 (2003) 345–375 347
following a string of murders in California by persons under restraining orders, the California
legislature passed the first ‘‘anti-stalking’’ law in 1990. Despite previous high profile
stalking-like crimes (e.g., Hinckley’s stalking of Jodie Foster and President Reagan, Aurthur
Jackson’s stalking of Theresa Saldana, Mark David Chapman’s stalking of John Lennon),
stalking was not commonly associated with criminal activity until the Schaeffer crime and the
1990 legislation (Best, 1999; Holmes, 1993; Keenahan & Barlow, 1997; Lowney & Best,
1995; Saunders, 1998; Way, 1994).
Stalking legislation gained immediate and impressive momentum. In less than a decade, all
50 states, the Federal Government, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia passed or
reinforced existing anti-stalking legislation (Department of Justice, Victoria, 1996; Gill &
Brockman, 1996; Kong, 1996; Lawson-Cruttenden, 1996; National Institute of Justice, 1993,
1996; US Department of Justice, 1998; Welch, 1995). Most previous laws prohibiting actions,
such as criminal harassment, menace, trespass, or threats, referred to single actions rather than
patterns of behavior over time. Further, such legislation also had to edge perilously close to
prohibiting constitutionally protected rights to free assembly, free speech, and rights to
movement in pubic spaces (Hueter, 1997; Saunders, 1998).
2.2. The media construction of the stalker mythos
‘‘The term ‘stalking’ appears to have been coined by the tabloid press’’ (Lawson-
Cruttenden, 1996, p. 418). Prior to 1989, the popular press employed the language of
‘‘harassment,’’ ‘‘obsession,’’ or ‘‘psychological rape’’ (Lowney & Best, 1995, p. 34). The
term ‘‘stalking’’ seemed to graft itself perfectly onto Bardo’s behavior in pursuing Schaeffer,
and the moniker remains. One of the early effects of this association, however, was that ‘‘star
stalking’’ became the public stereotype of the crime itself, and stalking was commonly
viewed as a problem primarily of the rich and famous (Best, 1999; Lowney & Best, 1995),
and the perpetrator was viewed as delusional, lunatic, and obsessed. Such narrative elements
were tailor-made for journalistic and media narrative needs (Cadiz & Spitzberg, 2001).
2.3. Current status of stalking as a legal and social scientific construct
Stalking is typically defined in one of two different ways. Although legal definitions of
stalking vary from state to state and country to country, ‘‘most States define stalking as the
willful, malicious, and repeated following and harassing of another person’’ (US Depart-
ment of Justice, 1998, p. 5). This definition requires demonstration of intent to harm and
an ongoing and persistent pattern of behavior. Other jurisdictions and legislation may
‘‘require that the perpetrator, to qualify as a stalker, make a credible threat of violence
against the victim’’ (p. 5), while still others require only demonstration of an implicit
threat. Threat is often evaluated by a ‘‘reasonable person’’ standard (i.e., would a
reasonable person find such a pattern of behavior threatening). There is an extensive
literature on the history, case law, constitutionality, and efficacy of stalking legislation (e.g.,
Anderson, 1993; Bernstein, 1993; Diacovo, 1995; Jordan, 1995; McCann, 1995; Saunders,
1998; Sohn, 1994; Tucker, 1993).
The social scientific literature, in contrast, tends to flow into two subtly but importantly
distinct tributaries: clinical and relational. The clinical literature tends to invoke paradigms
of mental illness and personality disturbance (e.g., DSM) in diagnosing stalkers, and
traumatic effects in treating victims (e.g., Meloy, 1996; Segal, 1989). Predominant in
these literatures are other clinical theoretical touchstones such as object relations,
attachment disorders, and personality theory (e.g., Kienlen, 1998; Kienlen, Birmingham,
Solberg, O’Regan, & Meloy, 1997; Meloy, 1998). Other research in this vein reveals a
keen interest in developing diagnostic and risk-predictive typologies of stalker types (e.g.,
Holmes, 1993; Mullen, Pathé, Purcell, & Stuart, 1999; Zona, Palarea, & Lane, 1998).
Such research tends to be based on relatively small samples of forensic or clinical case
studies, often referred by law enforcement. Such samples, therefore, tend to represent the
more extreme cases that have been sufficiently disruptive in people’s lives to come to the
attention of the authorities.
In contrast, the social scientific literature tends to view stalking more as a dysfunction
of the interactional and relational processes of courtship and relationship evolution, rather
than a disorder of the individual’s attachment system. Thus, stalking is more a disorder of
how culture and society construct courtship rituals and how individuals negotiate
ambiguous paths through those rituals (e.g., Cupach & Spitzberg, 1998; Cupach,
Spitzberg, & Carson, 2000; Dunn, 1999; Emerson, Ferris & Gardner, 1998; Sinclair &
Frieze, 2000). The social scientific approach also tends to be more focused upon theory
and hypothesis testing in an effort to explain, and eventually predict, the trajectory of
such disordered relationships. Such studies have relied more upon college student and
‘‘normal’’ adult samples, and measures of relatively ‘‘normal’’ personality, attitudinal, and
communicative characteristics.
These literatures clearly overlap in a wide variety of ways, especially in terms of their
reviews of respective literatures. But they seem to diverge in both their theoretical under-
pinnings and the types of research questions they ask. The one research objective, however,
that seems to underlie virtually all these domains of literature is to better predict stalking so as
to aid in prevention, deterrence, and treatment of both its perpetrators and its victims. The
ways in which these literatures pursue these objectives are elucidated through an examination
of the evolution of these literatures.
3. Inter-personalizing stalking: ORI
The prototype of stalking began in the public’s imagination as a pathological and

delusional individual engaged in a course of criminal conduct with malicious intent against
a celebrity stranger. This iconic image served as the impetus for many of the legislative
efforts of the 1990s. However, as the political interests involved in implementing these
laws began mobilizing the resources that were involved in enforcement, the conceptual-
ization of stalking began evolving into a more interpersonal and relational phenomenon. A
brief examination of this evolution is important to understanding the current state of
stalking research and theory.
3.1. The forensic view of stalking
Much of the earliest research on stalking was dominated by its linkage to erotomania.
Originally identified as psychose passionelle by de Clérambault (1942), this syndrome
(Leong, 1993; Leong & Silva, 1991) has also been discussed as old maid’s insanity,
delusional loving (Seeman, 1978), and a love pathology (Mullen & Pathé, 1994b). Most
commonly referred to today as erotomania (e.g., Dunlop, 1988; Evans, Jeckel, & Slott, 1982;
Gillett, Eminson, & Hassanyeh, 1990; Harmon, Rosner, & Owens, 1995; Lloyd-Goldstein,
1998; Meloy, 1989; Menzies, Fedoroff, Green, & Isaacson, 1995; Meyers, 1998; Mullen,
2000; Raskin & Sullivan, 1974; Rudden, Sweeney, & Frances, 1990; Segal, 1989; Signer,
1989; Taylor, Mahendra, & Gunn, 1983; Zona, Sharma, & Lane, 1993), this syndrome exists
when a person possesses a delusional belief that another person is in love with him or her.
This delusion is generally part of a morbid fascination with and idealization of the object of
affection. Erotomania tends to be chronic, very resistant to counterfactual reasoning, and
generally co-occurs with other presenting symptoms, such as personality disorder, schizo-
phrenia, or other organic mental disorders (e.g., Mullen & Pathé, 1994a, 1994b). Despite the
obvious connection between erotomania and the likelihood of stalking, it was soon realized
that erotomanics constituted a small minority of all stalkers.
Most stalkers who came to the attention of law enforcement tended to reflect either: (1)
people who were morbidly attached to someone else, but there was no delusion that this
object of affection possessed reciprocal feelings; or (2) domestic stalkers, reflecting ex- or
separated spouses engaging in retaliation or attempts to resurrect a failed relationship. The
fact that these groups came to the attention of law enforcement and thus the public eye is due
in part to the ways in which stalking legislation created a law but no funding for enforcement.
Many police departments housed stalking case processing in the departments most accus-
tomed to handling ‘‘relationship’’ types of disturbance: domestic violence units. The
migration of stalking from a crime of murder and life-threatening potential to a crime of
relational violence and intimidation may also have been facilitated by the influence of groups
that sought to accumulate political capital. If women’s and victims’ advocates groups could
tie stalking to their constituencies and interests, then that would both increase the urgency of
their cause and, potentially, public resources and attention to their activities (Best, 1999;
Cadiz & Spitzberg, 2001; Lowney & Best, 1995; Kappeler, Blumberg, & Potter, 1996). Thus,
a crime that began with the prototypical narrative elements of a ‘‘sick’’ and crazed stranger
stalking a high status celebrity evolved into a passionate and forlorn person pursuing repair or
revenge in the context of a failed relationship. It is this more ‘‘relational’’ view of stalking that
represents the present prototype.
4. The interactional/relational view of stalking
The more that research began to shed light on the process of stalking, the more it became
apparent that most stalking emerges from the remnants of a nascent or already developed
relationship, whether acquaintance or intimate (e.g., Brewster, 1998, 2000; Fisher, Cullen, &
Turner, 2000; Fremouw, Westrup, & Pennypacker, 1997; Gill & Brockman, 1996; Harmon,
Rosner, & Owens, 1998; Hills & Taplin, 1998; Kienlen et al., 1997; Kohn, Flood, Chase, &
McMahon, 2000; Kong, 1996; Nicastro, Cousins, & Spitzberg, 2000; Schwartz-Watts,
Morgan, & Barnes, 1997; Spencer, 1998; Spitzberg & Rhea, 1999; Tjaden & Thoennes,
1998). The fact that stalking became more closely aligned in the public mind with domestic
violence (e.g., Bernstein, 1993; Burgess et al., 1997; Coleman, 1997; Farrell, Weisburd, &
Wyckoff, 2000; Jordan, 1995; Kurt, 1995; Logan, Leukefeld, & Walker, 2000; Mechanic,
Weaver, & Resick, 2000; National Institute of Justice, 1996; Scocas, O’Connell, Huenke,
Nold, & Zoelker, 1996; US Department of Justice, 1998; Walker & Meloy, 1998) illustrates
that stalking increasingly has been associated with relational phenomena. Although stalking
was clearly a criminal act, it was most likely to emerge from a pre-existing relationship rather
than from the lunatic obsession of a complete stranger. As efforts increasingly profiled
stalking as if it were a crime such as serial killings, the more the phenomenon revealed an
interactional topography reminiscent of relatively normal courtship gone awry (Cupach &
Spitzberg, 1998; Emerson et al., 1998). The stalker is engaged in a campaign of messages to
persuade an object of affection to cast a vote in the pursuer’s direction. Even clinical
approaches have defined stalking as a process of communication (e.g., Mullen et al., 2000).
The stalk becomes a chess game of move and countermove, all directed toward establishing
or re-establishing a relationship to suit the stalker’s conception, even if at times that
relationship is one of enemyship rather than friendship or romance.
Conceptualizing stalking as both relational and interactional represents a sea change in the
paradigmatic underpinnings of stalking research. This change is far from complete and
tensions within the literature and theory are still evident. The law enforcement and legal
domains still tend to cling to stalking as a pure crime. Feminist and victims groups tend to
cling to stalking as an issue of power, protection, and patriarchy. Clinical groups tend to
envision stalking as a product of individual pathology. Threat management experts tend to see
stalking as a social epidemic and an ever-present danger. Social scientists, in contrast, have
been pushing the conceptualization of stalking into the realms of interpersonal relationship
theory. This theoretical grounding is concerned with how relationships are initiated, escalated,
maintained, de-escalated, and terminated (Duck, 1988; Hendrick & Hendrick, 2000; Hinde,
1997; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1998), and the role social psychological and communicative
processes play in these trajectories of relational evolution. In this realm are dozens of well-
developed theoretical architectures virtually untouched by the stalking literature of the legal,
law enforcement, threat management, and even clinical domains.
Glimpses of the interactional nature of stalking were apparent fairly early. Research on
the tactical topography of stalking revealed that the lion’s share of the stalker’s repertoire
consisted of interactional activities that in another context would be considered courtly and
romantic (see reviews by Spitzberg & Cupach, 2001a, 2002). Activities such as leaving
gifts, calling, showing up unexpected, writing poems, and attempting frequent contact all
suggest attempts at initiating and escalating romance. Even many of the more extreme forms
of stalking, such as following around, surveillance, and ‘‘protective’’ possessiveness, reflect
tactics common in well-established relationships in which jealousy stimulates mate-guarding
activity (e.g., Guerrero, Andersen, Jorgensen, Spitzberg, & Eloy, 1995). However, only in
the late 1990s did research begin providing relational and interactional conceptualizations
within which such tactics could be housed in something other than a purely forensic or
clinical framework (e.g., Brewster, 2000; Dunn, 1999; Emerson et al., 1998; Langhinrich-
sen-Rohing, Palarea, Cohen, & Rohling, 2000; Sinclair & Frieze, 2000). One particular
research program, largely consistent with the other work in this interactional and relational
perspective, conceptualizes most stalking as a form of obessive relational intrusion.
ORI is defined ‘‘as repeated and unwanted pursuit and invasion of one’s sense of physical
or symbolic privacy by another person, either stranger or acquaintance, who desires and/or
presumes an intimate relationship’’ (Cupach & Spitzberg, 1998, pp. 234–235). It is, in short,
a form of ongoing and unwanted pursuit of a relationship. This program of research has
employed a consistent operational definition of ORI, even if measurement refinement has
continued to evolve (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1996, 1999, 2001;
Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002; Spitzberg, Marshall, & Cupach, 2001; Spitzberg, Nicastro, &
Cousins, 1998; Spitzberg & Rhea, 1999). Specifically, respondents are given an introductory
explanation to disabuse them of the notion that they are necessarily reporting on anything
deviant or severe. They are told that:
People pursue intimate relationships in a variety of ways. Sometimes, a person pursuing

someone else may want friendship, or romantic intimacy, or perhaps just an opportunity to get
to know the other person. In the process of pursuing someone and attempting to get their
attention, a person sometimes does things that under normal circumstances might be seen as
unusual, an invasion of that person’s privacy, or perhaps even threatening. At other times, a
person simply refuses to let go of the relationship that the other person is trying to end.
Respondents are then asked to rate a variety of tactics, either as a victim or as a initiator, in
the following induction context: ‘‘In your lifetime, how often, if at all, have you ever
persistently pursued someone over a period of time for the purpose of establishing an intimate
relationship that the other person expressly claimed not to want?’’
This operationalization differs from stalking in two subtle, but potentially important ways.
First, legal standards require that a pattern of intrusions meet a ‘‘reasonable person’s’’
standard of threat and fear (see Saunders, 1998; US Department of Justice, 1998). ORIs
sometimes may only be annoying, frustrating, or pestering, rather than elevated to the level of
fearful or threatening. However, research indicates that even relatively mild forms of ORI
tend to be viewed as at least moderately threatening (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2000).
Nevertheless, ORI is likely to be a far more common set of activities than stalking, even if
the vast majority of stalking emerges from a context of ORI.
Second, there are instances of stalking that clearly are not forms of ORI, such as political
or assassination stalking (Fein & Vossekuil, 1999; Holmes, 1993). In such cases, the purpose
of the stalking is not to establish a relationship per se, but to destroy the object of pursuit.
Relationships may be established, but only as a means to set up the intended destruction. In
contrast, ORI often turns destructive, but generally only after relational invitations and
overtures have been rejected, thereby threatening the face and goal of the pursuer, leading to
rage and manipulative efforts at intimidation. Further, although there is relatively little
evidence to support the supposition, even such efforts seemingly bent toward destruction may
generally be intended ultimately toward bringing the object of affection back into the fold.
Thus, although stalking and ORI are distinct phenomena, they are also substantially
overlapping conceptual and empirical sets. The nature of ORI is elaborated separately in
the review that follows in an attempt to overview the state of current stalking research.
5. The state of the stalker: incidence and types of stalking-related phenomena
To date the major reviews of stalking research have concentrated on clinical samples
(e.g., Meloy, 1996) or research (e.g., Mullen et al., 2000). The only reviews of the broader
domain of relational and interactional research have relied on traditional interpretive
methods (Meloy, 1998; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2001a, 2002). The review that follows relies
on both these methods as well as a quantitative meta-analysis of currently available studies
on stalking and ORI phenomena. The current sample consists of 68 reports, representing 74
data sets.2 Across these data sets, over 47,000 subjects have been queried or analyzed
regarding their experiences with regard to ORI or stalking. The review will proceed by
identifying the results of this meta-analysis where relevant, providing an interpretive review
and illustration of the literature, and then proceeding to review the specific program of
research on ORI as it applies. Despite the added power of the meta-analysis, it is important
to note that there are significant discrepancies across studies in their operational definitions
and data collection assumptions. Some of these discrepancies will be noted, and others
analyzed, as the review permits.
5.1. Incidence and demographics
Across 25 studies that provided an overall estimate of the proportion of a sample that had
been stalked, the average incidence was 21.2% (13.9% for samples from ordinary popula-
tions, n = 18 and 32.6% for samples from clinical and forensic population studies, n = 6). This
is considerably larger than the estimate provided by the largest scale representative studies to
date. Specifically, in their representative study of 8000 females and 8000 males, Tjaden and
Thoennes (1998) reported that approximately 8% of females and 2% of males had ever been
stalked, using a strict legalistic behavioral definition. Employing a slightly more liberalized
operational definition, these estimates increased to approximately 12% of women and 4% of
men. In their study of almost 4500 representatively selected college female students
employing a similar conservative operationalization as Tjaden and Thoennes, and Fisher et
al. (2000) found that approximately 13% had been stalked since the school year began. If a
more conservative definition is employed requiring that subjects be ‘‘threatened with harm,’’
almost 2% had been stalked since the beginning of the school year. Several studies using very
different operational definitions have resulted in similar estimates (e.g., Coleman, 1997; Kohn
e al., 2000; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1999), whereas other studies find lower (e.g., Eisele,
2
A list of the studies included in the meta-analysis is available from the first author.
Watkins, & Matthews, 1998; McCreedy & Dennis, 1996) or substantially higher estimates
(e.g., Hills & Taplin, 1998; Spitzberg et al., 1998; Turrell, 2000).
Other studies are suggestive, in that they investigated similar types of activities (e.g.,
following, harassing for a date), but did not ask the question in such a way as to determine
whether either stalking or ORI occurred (e.g., Elliott & Brantley, 1997; Herold, Mantle, &
Zemitis, 1979; Leonard et al., 1993; Levitt, Silver, & Franco, 1996; Roscoe, Strouse, &
Goodwin, 1994). Other studies reveal that people in service roles (e.g., counselors, hospital
staff) are at similar or greater levels of risk (e.g., Eisele et al., 1998; Feldmann, Holt, &
Hellard, 1997; Gallagher, Harmon, & Lingenfelter, 1994; Romans, Hays, & White, 1996).
Finally, certain highly select samples (e.g., workplace violence, femicide cases, domestic
violence) tend to reveal very high levels of incidence (e.g., Burgess et al., 1997; Feldmann et
al., 1997; McFarlane, Campbell, Wilt, Sachs, Ulrich, & Xu, 1999; Moracco, Runyon, &
Butts, 1998).
An ongoing controversy, similar to one that has dominated the landscape of relational
violence research for decades (see Straus, 1999) is the relative gender prevalence of stalking
victimization. In the early days of stalking research, when it was associated closely with
erotomania, it was assumed that a large proportion of stalkers would consist of females with
attachment disorders pursuing men of higher social status (e.g., Lloyd-Goldstein, 1998).
Later, as stalking was associated more with forensic and domestic violence concerns, it was
presumed that stalking, although technically a ‘‘gender neutral’’ crime, impacted women
much more than men. This conclusion was certainly reinforced by Tjaden and Thoennes
(1998) who found ratios of 3 or 4 to 1 of female compared to male victims. However, studies
of stalking and ORI, most in college populations, have generally not found large disparities
between victimization rates of men and women (e.g., Cupach & Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg et
al., 1998; Spitzberg & Rhea, 1999; Turell, 2000), or have found ratios much closer to 2:1
(e.g., Elliott & Brantley, 1997; Fremouw et al., 1997; Harmon et al., 1995). Other more
representative studies have also revealed smaller differences between sexes in victimization
(e.g., Hills & Taplin, 1998).
Across 22 studies the average incidence rate of females to males in the meta-analysis
(N 29,000) was 74.59% female and 26.38% male. Interestingly, the prevalence rate of
perpetration was almost a perfect reflection of this ratio (i.e., male perpetration = 82.15% vs.
female perpetration = 18.16%). There were insufficient numbers to compare victimization and
perpetration rates across nationality, but there were some differences across sample type and
sample method. Overall, 19 nonrepresentative studies found an average incidence rate of 23%
compared to three large-scale representative studies that found an incidence rate of 15%.
When this was specified by gender, several other differences emerged. Table 1 displays that
there appears to be an interaction effect between type of sampling method and gender in
estimating victimization and perpetration.
When compared across sample types (i.e., forensic/clinical vs. normal),3 other differences
of incidence emerged. As shown in Table 2, forensic/clinical samples displayed significantly
3
‘‘Victim only’’ studies (e.g., Hall, 1997) were excluded, as were clinical studies that exclusively investigated
stalkers (e.g., Mullen & Pathé, 1994a,b).
Table 1
Comparison of mean victimization and perpetration rates by gender and type of sampling method
Female victimization Female perpetration Male victimization Male perpetration
Nonprobability
Mean 77.89a1 17.14 23.12b 83.17
S.D. 14.65 16.98 13.67 16.88
n studies 18 22 17 23
Probability
Mean 57.33a 25.67 42.67b 74.33
S.D. 19.22 31.94 19.22 31.94
n studies 32 3 3 3
1
Column Means with matching superscripts were significantly different at P < .05.
2
Although there were only three studies, representative studies tend to have much larger sample sizes, thereby
compensating for the relative lack of statistical power of these particular comparisons.
different incidence rates than normal populations. Not surprisingly, clinical and forensic
samples tended to reveal much higher incidence than normal samples (42.67% vs. 13.86%,
respectively). However, again, there appeared to be an interaction with gender. Females were
much more likely to indicate victimization in clinical and forensic samples than in normal
samples, whereas the reverse was true for males. Similarly, females were more likely to
indicate perpetration in normal samples than in clinical or forensic samples, whereas the
reverse was true for males. This suggests that female victims are much more likely to come to
the attention of clinicians and law enforcement than male victims. These results displaying
the sensitivity of incidence by gender, should they continue to hold in future research, suggest
important concerns for theory and intervention. The findings may reflect different schemata
of males and females for defining stalking or threat (Cupach & Spitzberg, 2000; Sinclair &
Table 2
Comparison of mean victimization and perpetration rates by gender and type of sample type
Female victimization Female perpetration Male victimization Male perpetration
Clinical/forensic
Mean 81.50a1 14.94b 18.00c 42.67d
S.D. 9.42 8.46 8.21 8.46
n studies 10 18 10 18
Normal
Mean 61.88a 34.60b 38.13c 65.40d
S.D. 16.69 36.16 16.69 36.16
n studies 82 5 8 5
1
Column Means with matching superscripts were significantly different at P < .05.
2
Although there were only five to eight studies, studies of normal subjects tend to have much larger sample
sizes than clinical/forensic samples, thereby compensating for the relative lack of statistical power of these
particular comparisons.
Frieze, 2000). In other words, even when males experience the same tactics as females, these
tactics may not be perceived as threatening. A second, and not incompatible, explanation
would be that males presuppose that neither the clinical nor the law enforcement establish-
ment, nor perhaps even the culture, would take their victimization seriously. If nothing else, it
calls into question the study of only one gender under the assumption that stalking is a largely
gender-specific problem (e.g., Fisher et al., 2000).
Another conclusion of these analyses is that perpetration is studied significantly less than
victimization. Most studies of perpetrators are clinical or forensic in nature, whereas most
studies in normal populations are of victims. This is hardly surprising, but also is likely to
lead to a number of biases that will be difficult to correct for in summarizing the research on
stalking. In an effort to begin to redress this imbalance, a series of three studies undertaken of
ORI perpetration revealed that, with mixed success, perpetration can be self-reported and
predicted. Table 3 reveals the proportion of college students reporting having engaged in ORI
using any 1 of 24 different tactics. In these studies, significantly more males (19%) than
females (10%) admitted to engaging in persistent and unwanted pursuit in a manner that
Table 3
Percentage of respondents claiming to have perpetrated tactics more than once, by sex (female: n = 212,
male: n = 129, total: N = 341)
F (%) M (%) T (%)
Unwanted messages 43 59 49
Monitoring 47 34 42
Exaggerated affection 35 47 39
Unwanted gifts 22 43 30
Intruding in interactions 26 30 28
Invading personal space 29 25 28
Intruding on friends/family 29 24 28
Following around 27 21 25
Invading property 18 13 17
Covertly obtaining information 21 19 20
Steal/damage possessions 12 6 10
Physically restraining 9 12 10
Physically hurt 11 4 9
Sexually coercing 9 9 9
Involving in activities 6 9 8
Threaten to hurt self 7 8 8
Threaten verbally 6 7 6
Showing up at places 5 5 5
Physically threaten 6 3 5
Threaten others 3 6 4
Regulatory harassment 2 4 3
Threatening objects 2 4 3
Kidnap/restrain 2 3 3
Physically endanger 1 2 1.5
Ever persistently pursued in a way that 10 19 13
could be perceived as threatening
Table 4
A synthesis of tactics by strategy cluster across stalking and obsessive pursuit studies (N = 31 studies: Brewster,
1998, 2000; Burgess et al., 1997; Cupach & Spitzberg, 2000; Fisher et al., 1999, 2000; Gill & Brockman, 1996;
Hall, 1997; Harmon et al., 1998; Jason, Reichler, Easton, Neal, & Wilson, 1984; Kienlen et al., 1997; McFarlane
et al., 1999; Mechanic et al., 2000; Meloy & Gothard, 1995; Meloy et al., 2000; Meloy et al., 2001; Mullen &
Pathé, 1994a, 1994b; Mullen et al., 1999; Nicastro et al., 2000; Palarea et al., 1999; Pathé & Mullen, 1997;
Sandberg, McNiel, & Binder, 1998; Sinclair & Frieze, 2000; Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1999, 2001;
Spitzberg & Hoobler, 2002; Spitzberg et al., 1998, 2001; Spitzberg & Rhea, 1999; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998;
Tucker, 1993)a
I. Hyperintimacy tactics
1. Affection, exaggerated messages of;
2. Intrusion in interactions;
3. Invasion of personal space;
4. Involvement in activities;
5. Telephone calls (just to talk, to express interest)b
6. Computer messages: (e-mail, Internet);
7. Dating coercion: (e.g., manipulate or coerce into dating);
8. Expose self;
9. Gifts/objects: (flowers, gifts);
10. Letters: (notes/messages, inappropriate sexually explicit);
11. Sexual coercion, contact (kissing/caressing of victim, forced);
12. Sexual proposition;
II. Pursuit (proximity) tactics
13. Approaches (in public; in threatening or harassing manner);
14. Contact: (forced confrontation; at residence, work, physical, through third party);
15. Drive by: (home, workplace, past the target);
16. Follow: (followed, to car);
17. Lying in wait: (neighborhood, prowling, workplace, home, showing up at places);
18. Move residence closer to where target lives or places target frequents;
19. Visitation: (home, school, workplace, places target frequents);
20. Watch: (from afar, observed, waiting/standing and staring);
III. Invasion tactics
21. Breaking and entering (home, auto); attempted;
22. Breaking and entering (home, auto); actual;
23. Intrusion upon/involvement with friends/coworkers/family;
24. Telephone calls: (workplace; anonymous; hang-ups; obscene, threatening, or mysterious);
25. Invasion of computer (cyberstalking, planting virus, obtaining information)
26. Surveillance: (of home, watching, via friends/family);
27. Surveillance: (monitoring, photographed target without target knowledge);
28. Surveillance: (covertly obtaining information);
29. Theft: (intercepting mail/deliveries, stolen/read, valued possessions, property);
30. Trespass: (on victim’s property);
IV. Intimidation tactics
31. Contempt of court order;
32. Gifts/objects: (bizarre or sinister items);
33. Harassment: computer (e-mail, cyberstalking);
34. Harassment: economic (canceling victim’s credit cards, etc.);
35. Harassment: interpersonal (telling lies to victim’s friends, family, co-workers);
36. Harassment: legal (regulatory harassment, spurious legal actions);
Table 4 (continued)
IV. Intimidation tactics
37. Harassment: written (signs, letters, etc.);
38. Harassment, discredit: (letters, slandering; sabotaging employment; spread gossip);
39. Obscenity: (offensive language, sexual);
40. Property damage: (valued possessions, vandalism, ramming victim’s car);
41. Rage/anger: (displayed, aggressive/insulting upon seeing the target out with others);
42. Threats: mode (via intermediaries, firearm/weapon, implied/overt physical, verbal);
43. Threats: target (third parties, family and/or friends; new partner; pet; property;
44. Threats: type (physical injury, to kill, violence);
45. Verbal messages: (aggression, verbal abuse/mild);
V. Violence
46. Assault/violence, actual: (physical injury, sexual, attack, battery, hit or beat, physical abuse, with weapon);
47. Assault, attempted: (attempted harm; attempted sexual);
48. Assault, third-parties: (child abuse, friends, family, associates, ‘rival,’ etc.)
49. Murder, actual;
50. Murder, attempted;
51. Murder, solicitation to commit;
52. Pet: (killed or injured);
53. Restraint: (confined or kidnapped, physically restraining);
54. Self-harm: (attempt hurt self; threatened, threatening suicide);
a
A number of conventions were adopted for this synthesis. For example, tactical qualifiers such as
‘‘unwanted,’’ ‘‘repeated,’’ ‘‘excessive,’’ etc. were presumed. Functionally redundant terms/concepts were (e.g.,
sexual assault and sexual violence). Overly vague terms were collapsed into nearest reasonable synonym (e.g.,
‘‘harm, physical’’= ‘‘assault, physical’’). Unobservable items were removed (e.g., ‘‘refused to accept that
relationship was over’’).
b
Some tactics are repeated across strategy clusters with similar behavioral content but functional difference.
For example, gifts of flowers vs. sinister gifts.
could be perceived as threatening. Otherwise, there are few systematic differences between
the sexes by individual tactics.
5.2. Tactics
The tactical variegation of stalkers and obsessive pursuers is highly imaginative and
manifold in scope. Studies too have varied immensely in the particular operationalizations of
tactics and subsets of tactics. Across 26 studies that have investigated percentages of samples
engaging in, or experiencing, certain types of tactics, there were over 200 types of tactics
reported. When these tactics were arrayed and reduced on the basis of semantic and
functional similarity, the list in Table 4 was produced.
The resulting tactic-by-strategy list is illuminating. Stalkers and obsessive pursuers appear
to pursue others through one or more of five basic strategic approaches: hyperintimacy,
pursuit and proximity, invasion, intimidation, and violence. Hyperintimacy tactics reflect
those actions aimed at romancing the object of affection. These tactics might be considered
romantic under ordinary circumstances, but are viewed as excessive and inappropriate in the
context of these relationships. Pursuit and proximity tactics represent efforts to increase and
enhance immediacy and contact with the object of affection. In Hargreave’s in press sense, if
normal intimacy approaches fail, the pursuer will attempt other means of information
collection, which involve approaches, following, and surveillance from a distance. Invasion
tactics represent an escalation of surveillance both in covertness and stealth, but also in
planning, boldness, and violation of personal privacy. Intimidation tactics appear to reflect
recognition of rejection by the object of affection, requiring an escalation of coercion in
technique. Finally, violence tactics may represent techniques of last resort, or merely reactions
of rage when rejection is made blatant. Although no claim can be made from these data
regarding sequence, there does appear to be a natural and implicit escalating sequence from
intimate to aggressive in these strategies.
Other tentative conclusions emerge from this typology of tactics. First, it includes strategy
clusters that are similar to dimensions identified by other empirical methods (e.g., factor
analysis, smallest space analysis; see Hargreaves, in press; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1998, 1999,
2001; Spitzberg et al., 2001; Spitzberg & Rhea, 1999). Second, however, the five clusters
appear more comprehensive and more functionally based than prior investigative efforts.
Third, the resulting list of 54 tactics, while almost certainly not exhaustive in terms of tactics,
may be reasonably comprehensive at the strategic level. Consequently, it may be time for
researchers to begin employing similar tactic and strategy schemata so research is more
comparable across programs of study and data collection methods. Finally, although the
strategies appear functional in nature, they still may not reflect the motives of stalkers. That
is, a given tactic may function to intimidate, but there may be multiple motives for wanting to
intimidate the object of affection. The issue of pursuer motivation is reviewed next.
5.3. Motives
Motives have not been studied with nearly the level of interest as other aspects of stalking
and ORI. Nevertheless, seven studies have reported motives in a quantitative manner
(Brewster, 1998, 2000; Hall, 1997; Harmon et al., 1995; Kienlen et al., 1997; Mullen et
al., 1999; Nicastro et al., 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; Wright et al., 1996). These
motives are attributed by victims, and therefore must be viewed with caution. When motives
are examined across studies, one reasonable interpretation is that they divide roughly into two
separate motivational dimensions: instrumental and expressive/affectionate (Table 5). These
dimensions resonate with an enormous and diverse literature in the social sciences regarding
the dimensional topography of everyday social relations and perception (e.g., Spitzberg,
1989). When crossed, they suggest a more formal typology suggesting distinct styles of
stalking and relational intrusion, originally and independently derived by Spitzberg and
Cupach, 2001a, and reproduced in Fig. 1.
In this as yet untested typology, the motive reflects the basic affective orientation the
pursuer feels toward the object within a given episode of interaction. Specifically, it is
hypothesized that lovers seek to love, care for, cherish, idolize, and be cherished by the object
of pursuit. Haters seek to harm, scare, intimidate, destroy, or seek revenge against the object
of pursuit. Controllers attempt to plan, manipulate, and contain or restrain the object of
pursuit. Expressers display or externalize their feelings and inner urges as they occur and
without extensive cognitive editing of such urges. These are stylistic characterizations, and as
Table 5
A synthesis of pursuer motives attributed by victims across stalking and obsessive pursuit studies (N = 9 studies:
Brewster, 1998, 2000; Hall, 1997; Harmon et al., 1995; Kienlen et al., 1997; Mullen et al., 1999; Nicastro et al.,
2000; Sinclair & Frieze, 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; Wright et al., 1996)a
Instrumental
Control: intimidation (scare victim)
Control: possession
Control: predatory (power and sexual attack)
Retaliation/revenge: resentful (frighten and cause distress)
Retaliation/revenge: to catch victim doing something
Powerlessness: dependency
Powerlessness: drug/alcohol abuse
Powerlessness: failed relationship, break-up, inability to accept end
Powerlessness: mental illness
Powerlessness: incompetence
Expressive
Anger/hostility
Intimacy-seeking: establish relationship
Intimacy-seeking: infatuation, obsessed
Intimacy-seeking: keep victim in the relationship
Intimacy-seeking: reconciliation
Intimacy-seeking: sexual
Jealousy: (new partner)
Rejection (desired both reconciliation and revenge)
a
Originally, 34 motives were listed across 7 studies.
such, assume that they are modal tactic tendencies within any given episode of pursuit.
Pursuers may make use of several or all styles, but are expected to rely predominantly on a
given style within a given episode of pursuit (i.e., approach or attempt at contact).
This typology can be compared to any number of other typologies currently in the
literature (e.g., Calhoun, 1998; Cupach & Spitzberg, 1998; Davis & Chipman, 1997;
Dziegielewski & Roberts, 1995; Emerson et al., 1998; Hargreaves, in press; Harmon et al.,
1998; Holmes, 1993; McCann, 1998; Meloy et al., 2000; Mullen et al., 1999; Palarea, Zona,
Lane, & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999; Wright et al., 1996; Zona et al., 1993). Several of
these typologies rely on the type of prior relationship, the sexual component of the prior
relationship, or the underlying clinical nosology of the pursuer. Clearly, more work is needed
in the future in resolving the differences and similarities among typologies of stalking.
5.4. Effects
The research is relatively univocal in the finding that victims of stalking and ORI
experience deleterious effects (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2001a, 2002), with the possible
exception that a few studies have found little effect on general trust or fear of personal
crime risk (Fisher et al., 2000; McCreedy & Dennis, 1996; Romans et al., 1996). A review of
the victimization literature revealed 30 studies that have reported symptoms. These studies
Fig. 1. An a priori typology of stalker and pursuer motives and tactical functions.
typically either employ a checklist or a Likert-type rating of symptoms. With only one
exception (Spitzberg & Rhea, 1999), these studies have exclusively assessed negative
symptomology, with no attention to potential resilience or positive outcomes of victimization.
A synthesis of the symptoms across these studies is listed in Table 6. The original list
consisted of approximately 80 distinct symptoms, which were reduced based upon a
sequential reduction and classification of symptoms.
The research to date indicates that victims of stalking tend to experience elevations in most
of these arenas of their lives, including the resilience symptoms. Perhaps, the most
disconcerting findings concern such intense effects such as disruptions of work/school
(e.g., 44%: Mullen & Pathé, 1994a; 53%: Pathé & Mullen, 1997; 26%: Tjaden & Thoennes,
1998), having to move or change residence (11%: Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998), PTSD (37%:
Pathé & Mullen, 1997; Westrup, Fremouw, Thompson, & Lewis, 1999), and experiencing
violence (Meloy, 2002; Meloy, Davis, & Lovette, 2001). Estimates of physical and sexual
violence vary substantially across studies, due in large part to differences in the type of
sample, operationalization, and type of analysis. For example, physical assault is certainly
more likely to occur in a study of stalking among domestic violence victims than among
former friends or dating partners who are being obsessively pursued. Given this non-
comparability, a sampling of study findings is presented for illustration in Table 7.
Finally, there is a concern regarding the association of stalking with murder. One common
shibboleth, cited in dozens of published articles and books, is that 90% of women who are
Table 6
Synthesis of symptoms and effects of stalking and ORI victimization (N = 24 studies: Brewster, 1998, 2000;
Burgess et al., 1997; Coleman, 1997; Feldmann et al., 1997; Fisher et al., 2000; Gallagher et al., 1994; Gill &
Brockman, 1996; Hall, 1997; Kohn et al., 2000; Kong, 1996; McCreedy & Dennis, 1996; Meloy et al., 2000;
Mullen & Pathé, 1994a; Nicastro et al., 2000; Palarea et al., 1999; Pathé & Mullen, 1997; Pathé et al., 2000;
Romans et al., 1996; Schwartz-Watts et al., 1997; Scocas et al., 1996; Spitzberg & Rhea, 1999; Tjaden &
Thoennes, 1998; Westrup et al., 1999; Zona et al., 1993)
General disturbance
Counseling sought
Experience worse than other crimes experienced
Financial costs
Personality changed
Quality of life costs
Activity patterns: (patterns changed, work/school disrupted, moved)
Affective health
Aggressive/violent, become more
Anger
Annoyed/frustrated
Anxiety symptoms (fear of crime)
Anxiety symptoms (fear/terror, jumpy, nervousness/anxiousness, sense of danger/threat)
Anxiety symptoms (paranoia, feeling being watched/followed, looking over shoulder)
Depression
Jealousy
Nightmares
PTSD/stress/distress
Cognitive health
Distrustful/suspicious (more cynical, more cautious, questioning choice in partners)
Helplessness/imprisonment, sense of
Loss of faith (law enforcement, criminal justice)
Loss of concentration
Recollections/flashbacks, intrusive
Suicide ideation
Physical health
Appetite disturbance/nausea
Headaches
Homicide: (actual, attempted)
Injury: (violence against person, minor harm, injury, bleeding, physical)
Injury: (violence against property)
Injury: emotionally or psychologically
Physical illness
Sexually assaulted, raped
Sleep disruption/insomnia
Resilience health
Awareness/empathy of self/others/relationships greater, more realistic, strengthened
Cautiousness, healthier level of
Personal power/determination, sense of
Safety concern (security measures, self-defense, carry something)
Table 7
Illustrative findings of percentage of sample reporting experiencing violence across studiesa
Percentage
Physical violence
Acts of violence (Brewster, 1998, 2000) 46
Beat face (Burgess et al., 1997) 56
Involved some injury (Fisher et al., 1999, 2000) 30
Injured (Gallagher et al., 1994) 9
Physical violence (Gill and Brockman, 1996) 14
Physical abuse (Hall, 1997) 49
Physical assault, contact, damage [of target] or property (Harmon et al., 1998) 46
Verbally or physically threatened or hit (Jason et al., 1984) 30
Physically assaulted (Kienlen et al., 1997) 24
Physical injury (Kong, 1996) 5
Physically harmed (Mechanic et al., 2000) 89
Physically violent (Meloy et al., 2000) 52
Physically assaulted (Meloy & Gothard, 1995) 25
Assault (Mullen et al., 1999) 6
Minor physical harm (Nicastro et al., 2000) 38
Violence against person (Palarea et al., 1999) 19
Assaulted (Pathé & Mullen, 1997) 34
Attacks (Sandberg et al., 1998) 38
Assaulted/injured (Schwartz-Watts et al., 1997) 39
Personal violence (Zona et al., 1993) 3
Sexual violence
Sexual assault (Burgess et al., 1997) 19
Sexual assault (Hall, 1997) 22
Sexual assault (Kienlen et al., 1997) 4
Sexual assault (Meloy et al., 2000) 3
Sexually assaulted (Mullen & Pathé, 1994a) 32
Sexual assault (Mullen & Pathé, 1994b) 29
Sexually coercing (Nicastro et al., 2000) 13
Sexual assaults (Sandberg et al., 1998) 7
Force sexual contact (Sinclair & Frieze, 2000) 4
Pursuer also charged with rape (Scocas et al., 1996) 5
Sexually assaulted (Tjaden and Thoennes, 1998) 31
a
All percentages have been rounded.
killed by their spouse or partner were stalked beforehand. This statistic is groundless (see
Cadiz & Spitzberg, 2001). It was based on a flawed inference of an interview reported by
Beck et al. (1992) in Newsweek. It has also been mistakenly attributed to studies in Detroit
and Kansas City (Best, 1999; cf. Wilt et al., 1977). The actual data regarding the association
of stalking and murder is more interesting, but also very limited. McFarlane et al. (1999)
found that of femicide and attempted femicide cases studied, 89–91% who had reported
physical abuse had also reported stalking. Feldmann et al. (1997) studied 40 incidents of
Table 8
Synthesis of coping and management tactics by strategy across literatures and studies
Moving inward
1. Ignore the problem (e.g., wait, assume problem will go away on its own, etc.)
2. Minimize the problem in your own mind (e.g., rationalize that the problem is less significant or serious
than it actually is, etc.)
3. Deny the problem (e.g., refuse to acknowledge the problem at all, rationalize alternative explanations
for experiences, etc.)
4. Blame yourself (e.g., attribute responsibility for problems to self-actions or perceptions, etc.)
5. Seek therapies (e.g., invest time and effort into hobbies, drugs, exercise, medicine, therapeutic activities
such as massage, meditation, exercise, watch television, Internet, etc.)
6. Seek meaning in general (e.g., invest time and effort into making sense of your situation, trying to find a
reason, etc.)
7. Seek meaning in context (e.g., invest time and effort into religion, philosophy, education, literature, etc.)
8. Engage in self-destructive escapism (e.g., using drugs or alcohol, doing addictive things, attempting
suicide, etc.)
Moving outward
9. Seek sympathy from others (e.g., cry, explain personal problems caused by the pursuer, etc.)
10. Engage social support (e.g., seek or obtain emotional and/or instrumental support from friends, family,
counselor, etc.)
11. Engage direct involvement of others (e.g., seek or obtain protection or deterrence through signals of
relationships with or by friends, family, colleagues, etc.)
12. Engage legal/law enforcement input (e.g., seek or obtain input from victims advocate, report to public
attorney, police, domestic violence unit, social worker, etc.)
13. Engage independent/private assistance (e.g., private investigator, bodyguard, protection service, etc.)
Moving away
14. Behave cautiously (e.g., make plans of action and escape, become more aware of environment,
become more conservative or careful in daily routine, etc.)
15. Ignore the person’s behavior (e.g., avoid eye contact, be nonresponsive to pursuer’s talk and behaviors)
16. Control the interaction (e.g., avoid asking questions, use closed body orientation, stand/sit closer
with others during conversation, etc.)
17. Distance yourself (e.g., maintain or increase physical distance, lean away during conversation,
walk away, etc.)
18. Detatch or depersonalize (e.g., act impersonal, unemotional, uninvolved, avoid jokes or intimate
communication, behave ritualistically, act strictly polite, etc.)
19. Redirect or divert attention of pursuer (e.g., get pursuer interested in other activities, hobbies,
or another person with whom she or he might be more compatible, etc.)
20. Use verbal ‘‘escape’’ tactics (e.g., make excuses, claim prior commitments, existing relationship,
role restrictions, etc.)
21. Restrict your accessability (e.g., change schedule, arrive or leave earlier, shift activities to more
public venues, etc.)
22. Block your physical accessability (e.g., arrange environment to avoid contact: close office doors,
harden home security, caller ID, * 69, hang up when called, change locks, etc.)
23. Block your electronic or media accessability (e.g., get caller ID, * 69, change e-mail address,
contact ISP or internet provider to block certain contact sources, etc.)
(continued on next page)
Table 8 (continued)
Moving away
24. Relocate (e.g., change jobs, change address, change classes, change hobby/recreational locations, etc.)
25. Attempt to end the relationship (e.g., claim relationship is over, provide relationship ultimatum
or define boundaries, etc.)
Moving toward/with
26. Diminish the seriousness of the situation (e.g., tease or joke with the pursuer, make light of the pursuer’s
actions, etc.)
27. Deceive them (e.g., flirt or hint at interest to get out of immediate situation, arrange or suggest future meetings
with no intent to keep date, etc.)
28. Use problem solving negotiation (i.e., confront pursuer with responsibility for actions and alternative
approaches to achieve objectives, etc.)
29. Negotiate relationship definition (i.e., discuss pursuer’s own preferred relationship objectives to arrive at a
mutual definition; e.g., just be friends, just be colleagues, reconciliation of previous relationship, etc.)
30. Bargain (e.g., offer compromises, promises, or other rewards to get pursuer to alter behavior, etc.)
31. Accept promises (e.g., believe or hope that discussions that pursuer will behave more appropriately will
work, etc.)
32. Attempt to deter future behavior (e.g., carry air horn or mace, show weapon, get self-defense training, put
security stickers on car and home windows, etc.)
Moving against
33. Using electronic retaliatory responses (e.g., sabotaging pursuer’s website, ‘‘spamming’’ pursuer’s e-mail,
sending viruses to pursuer’s e-mail, etc.)
34. Use nonverbal aggression (e.g., yell at, criticize, insult, make fun of, show anger, annoyance, frustration,
use harsh or hostile voice, write a strongly worded e-mail, etc.)
35. Use protective responses to current behavior (e.g., call police, seek restraining order, press charges, sue, etc.)
36. Use electronic protective responses (e.g., contact on-line service to block or investigate e-mail access, enhance
firewalls in computer, sabotaging pursuer’s website, etc.)
37. Issue verbal warnings/threats (e.g., articulate punishments or sanctions that the pursuer will experience if
pursuit continues, threaten the police, violence, etc.)
38. Use physical violence (e.g., hit, shove, use a weapon, throw an object, blackmail, restrain, beat up, etc.)
39. Build a legal case (e.g., save voice mail/e-mail, save gifts/notes, keep log of phone calls, try to entrap them)
40. Pursue a legal case (e.g., sue, swear out a complaint, hire a lawyer, pursue indictment on harassment or
stalking laws, etc.)
workplace violence in a health care setting. In 90% of the cases in which stalking occurred,
the victim died. In Tucker’s (1993) survey of 90 agencies in Florida regarding stalkers, they
had investigated, 8% involved the murder of a victim. In contrast, in examining Canadian
cases of criminal harassment (their equivalent of stalking), there was a 1% homicide rate
among stalking incidents. Despite these reports, Mullen et al. (2000, p. 216) point out that
‘‘homicide rates in stalking cannot conceivably approach rates of 2% or even 0.2%,’’ because
they would be daily and frequent occurrences given the prevalence estimates of stalking in
general. It is likely that stalking that results in murder is likely to come to the attention of law
enforcement and the media, and thus, is almost inevitably represented, whereas orders of
magnitude of other stalking incidents occur without murder that never make it into any form
of systematic data collection.
5.5. Coping
A number of studies have inquired into the ways in which victims attempt to cope with or
manage victimage (e.g., Brewster, 1998, 2000; Cupach & Spitzberg, 2000; Fisher et al., 2000;
Fremouw et al., 1997; Gallagher et al., 1994; Jason et al., 1984; Kohn et al., 2000; Nicastro et
al., 2000; Pathé, Mullen, & Purcell, 2000; Spitzberg et al., 1998, 2001). After an extensive
review of this and related literatures, the typology of coping strategies listed in Table 8 was
produced (adapted from Spitzberg & Cupach, 2001a). The victims of pursuit can (1) move
inward by concentrating on self (e.g., therapy, meditation, drugs, etc.); (2) move outward by
mobilizing network resources or third-party assistance; (3) move with or toward by seeking to
reason with or negotiate a new relational definition with the pursuer, (4) move away by
evading, hiding, moving, or changing routines; and (5) move against by trying to intimidate,
hurt, or pursue enforcement against the pursuer. To date, coping research indicates that the
frequency with which people engage in any of these strategies is positively related to severity
of stalking and ORI victimization. This probably reflects that the more victimized a person is,
the more efforts the victim attempts to end the pursuit. Unfortunately, there are no reliable
data available to determine the efficacy of one coping strategy relative to another, although
most wisdom seems to be assertive early (e.g., stating clearly the intent of not having any
relationship) and then aggressively to protect self and be out of the way of the pursuer (e.g.,
de Becker, 1997).
Other studies have examined the efficacy of pursuing legal redress or seeking protective
orders, although to date, very few of these studies focus exclusively on stalking victims (e.g.,
Berk, Berk, Loseke, & Rauma, 1983; Brewster, 1998, 2000; Buzawa, Hotaling, & Klein,
1998; Chaudhuri & Daly, 1992; Gill & Brockman, 1996; Hall, 1997; Harmon et al., 1998;
Harrell & Smith, 1996; Horton, Willson, Lemmey, & Malecha, 1987; Kaci, 1994; Keilitz,
Davis, Efkeman, Flango, & Hannaford, 1998; Kohn et al., 2000; McFarlane et al., 2000;
Meloy, Cowett, Parker, Hofland, & Friedland, 1997; Nicastro et al., 2000; Tjaden &
Thoennes, 1998; Tucker, 1993). To date, most of the research indicates that protective orders
are routinely violated, but also do not appear to escalate risk of retaliation either (see
Spitzberg & Cupach, 2001a, 2002). Research by Meloy et al. (1997) suggests that a particular
type of restraining order, the mutual order, does have some deterrent effect, but clearly more
research is needed on the efficacy of protective orders and the conditions under which they
are most protective.
6. Theorizing stalking and ORI
A number of theoretical perspectives have been proposed to explain various aspects of

stalking and ORI perpetration and victimization. These approaches tend to be in relatively
early stages of application and empirical testing with respect to obsessive intrusion and
stalking. Although space prohibits a thorough review of these theories, we briefly summarize
three promising perspectives. These exemplars demonstrate the diversity and complementarity
of conceptualizations that can be employed to develop a comprehensive understanding of the
complex dynamics surrounding obsessive intrusion and pursuit. Theoretical understanding

will contribute to the goals of successful prediction, prevention, intervention, and treatment.
6.1. Routine activity theory
‘‘Routine activity theory argues that criminal events are the product of the intersection in
time and space of motivated offenders, suitable targets, and an absence of guardians capable
of preventing the offense’’ (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1999, p. 46). Thus, an understanding of
criminal events is obtained by focusing on how specific activities of subpopulations of
victims are associated with the risk of victimization. It is assumed that certain characteristics
and activities of victims render them more accessible to perpetrators, and therefore more
vulnerable. In other words, the routine activities of some victims increase the likelihood of
coming into contact with a potential perpetrator by virtue of what activities they engage in,
where they appear, and with whom they come into contact. For example, individuals who
work generally are exposed more frequently to potential perpetrators compared to individuals
who are unemployed.
Mustaine and Tewksbury (1999) employed routine activities theory to predict the
likelihood of stalking victimization among female university students. They surveyed 861
women from nine different institutions about their individual demographics, social activities,
self-protective measures, illegal activities, etc. The criterion variable was whether or not the
participant was a victim of stalking in the prior 6-month period. In determining the best
predictive model, the researchers found the following factors were associated with increased
odds of having been a stalking victim: frequency of going to the mall, living off campus,
being employed, having bought illegal drugs in the past 6 months, and carrying mace or
pocketknives for self-protection. Mustaine and Tewksbury acknowledge that some of these
factors may be effect rather than cause. For example, victims of stalking may be more
inclined to carry mace for self-protection because they fear being attacked. Longitudinal data
are needed to more rigorously test the theory. Nevertheless, the data suggest that lifestyle
characteristics partially explain the likelihood of stalking victimization.
6.2. Attachment theory
One explanation that has been offered to explain an individual’s predisposition to engage
in stalking is the individual’s early childhood disturbance of attachment (e.g., Kienlen, 1998;
Kienlen et al., 1997; Meloy, 1992, 1996). Infants who experience healthy patterns of
attachment with their caregivers develop confidence and assurance that permits normal
management of relationships in adulthood. When the infant – caregiver relationship is
disrupted, however, the individual may exhibit an insecure style of attachment as an adult.
Disruption may be due to physical separation from the primary caregiver, or result from
physical, emotional, or sexual abuse by the caregiver. Three types of insecure attachment
style are labeled preoccupied, fearful, and dismissive (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). The
preoccupied and fearful attachment styles, in particular, have been proposed as precursors to
obsessive intrusion and stalking (Kienlen, 1998; Meloy, 1996).
Individuals who develop a preoccupied attachment style possess a negative view of self
but a positive view of others. These individuals actively work to gain approval from an
attachment object in order to compensate for their lack of self worth. Preoccupied attachment
is associated with feelings of jealousy, and rejection by the object tends to foster anger
directed toward the object. Those who possess a fearful attachment style possess negative
views regarding both self and others. Similar to those with preoccupied attachment, those
with fearful attachment are chronically anxious about rejection and abandonment. However,
because fearfuls distrust others, they are ambivalent in their desire for intimate relationships,
which results in an approach/avoidance orientation to relationships. Clinical evidence
supports the idea that stalkers frequently exhibit a profile suggesting a preoccupied or fearful
attchment style (e.g., Kienlen et al., 1997).
One variation of attachment pathology is represented by Meloy’s (1996, 1998) psychody-
namic model. Meloy suggests that ongoing pursuit of an object begins with the pursuer forming
a narcissistic linking fantasy with respect to an object of pursuit. ‘‘Such fantasies are not
unusual in normal individuals. . . and form the basis of romantic love and infatuation’’ (Meloy,
1998, p. 18). When the pursuer experiences chronic or acute rejection by the object, the pursuer
experiences a range of emotions such as hurt and grief, and normally withdraws from the
relationship with the object. However, pursuers whose narcissism is pathological respond to
rejection differently. They exhibit an extreme sensitivity to rejection and the concomitant
feelings of shame and/or humiliation. These feelings are then defended against with rage, which
further motivates pursuit of the object. ‘‘The intent is to dominate, devalue, and in some cases,
destroy’’ the object of pursuit (Meloy, 1998, p. 20). Ironically, if the object is sufficiently
devalued in the mind of the pursuer, it permits the pursuer to re-establish the narcissistic linking
fantasy. As Meloy (1998, p. 20) states, ‘‘If the real object, which now has become an aversive
stimulus, or negative reinforcement, due to its rejection of the stalker, can be removed, the
linking fantasy can, once again, restore the narcissistic equilibrium of the stalker. . ..’’
6.3. Linking and obsessive rumination theory
The interactional view of ORI suggests explanations of pursuit alternative to the structural
and clinical models just summarized. We propose one such explanation, in which the
processes of goal linking, rumination, emotional flooding, and rationalization conspire to
transform normal relationship development and/or maintenance into obsessive and persistent
pursuit in the face of clear rejection (Cupach et al., 2000).
Relationship pursuit is grounded in the pursuer’s goal of possessing or maintaining a
relationship with the object of affection. Linking occurs when an individual connects lower-
order goals to higher-order goals—in other words, the individual believes that attainment of a
lower-order goal is necessary for the achievement of a higher-order goal (McIntosh & Martin,
1992). In the case of obsessive pursuit, the pursuer links the goal of having/maintaining a
relationship with the object to a high-order goal such as self-worth or life happiness. Thus,
relationship-specific linking entails the belief that life happiness is contingent upon success-
fully achieving the goal of a relationship with the object. Linking accords the relationship
goal supreme importance.
To the extent that the relationship goal is extremely important, and to the extent that
achievement of the goal is thwarted, the pursuer experiences rumination (Martin & Tesser,
1989, 1996). Rumination consists of repeated, intrusive, obsessive thoughts about the unmet
goal. These thoughts are distressing, and persist until the goal is met, or the unmet goal is
abandoned. Linking the relationship goal to the higher-order goal such as life happiness fuels
rumination, which, in turn, promotes persistence in striving to achieve the relational goal.
Over time, rumination magnifies in intensity and frequency, which, in turn, escalates the
relational pursuit activities.
Emotional flooding and cognitive rationalizing result from, and contribute to, further
rumination and escalated relationship pursuit. ‘‘The pursuer gets trapped in a vicious cycle
of absorbing and aversive rumination and affect. Rumination leads to greater negative
affect, which, in turn, increases rumination, and so on, thereby perpetuating persistence in
the recovery or development of the desired relationship’’ (Cupach et al., 2000, p. 141).
Rationalization by the pursuer concomitantly disinhibits the pursuer’s obsessive and escalated
actions, despite overt and repeated rejection by the object. Since relational connection is
sought, the pursuer rationalizes that his/her motives are noble. The pursuer perceives signs of
encouragement and reciprocation where none objectively exist, and object efforts at rejection
may be misinterpreted as signs of affection. In general, the pursuer ignores or grossly
downplays the adverse consequences of persistent pursuit for the object.
7. Summary
Our review indicates that ORI and stalking are pervasive and impactful phenomena. These
phenomena are receiving considerable and growing attention from scholars and professionals
in the fields of clinical psychiatry and psychology, counseling, forensics, law and law
enforcement, threat assessment and management, sociology, women’s studies, communica-
tion, social psychology, and more. Collectively, empirical efforts have begun to provide a
clearer picture of the incidence, prevalence, and consequences of these phenomena. As
research proliferates, the knowledge base is becoming more complicated and greater efforts at
synthesizing and distilling accumulated knowledge will be important. At the same time, the
employment of more sophisticated research designs, more representative samples, and more
valid measurement techniques will be essential to ratcheting up the quality of empirical data.
These efforts, as well as the development of more powerful and precise theories, will
ultimately lead to significant and needed improvements in the prevention, intervention, and
treatment of offenders and victims of ORI.
References
Anderson, S. C. (1993). Anti-stalking laws: will they curb the erotomanic’s obsessive pursuit? Law and Psychol-
ogy Review, 17, 171 – 191.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a four-category
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226 – 244.
Beck, M., Rosenberg, D., Chideya, F., Miller, S., Foote, D., Manly, H., & Katel, P. (1992, July 13). Murderous
Obsession. Newsweek, 60 – 62.
Berk, R. A., Berk, S. F., Loseke, D. R., & Rauma, D. (1983). Mutual combat and other family violence myths. In
D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling, & M. A. Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families: current family
violence research ( pp. 197 – 212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Bernstein, S. E. (1993). Living under siege: do stalking laws protect domestic violence victims? Cardozo Law
Review, 15, 525 – 567.
Best, J. (1999). Random violence: how we talk about new crimes and new victims. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Brewster, M. P. (1998). An exploration of the experiences and needs of former intimate stalking victims.
Final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice (NCJ 175475). Washington, DC: US Depart-
ment of Justice.
Brewster, M. P. (2000). Stalking by former intimates: verbal threats and other predictors of physical violence.
Violence and Victims, 15, 41 – 54.
Burgess, A. W., Baker, T., Greening, D., Hartman, C. R., Burgess, A. G., Douglas, J. E., & Halloran, R. (1997).
Stalking behaviors within domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 389 – 403.
Buzawa, E., Hotaling, G., & Klein, A. (1998). The response to domestic violence in a model court: some initial
findings and implications. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 185 – 206.
Cadiz, M., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2001, March). Stalkers and streetwalkers: the media construction of stalking myth.
Paper presented at the Association for Women in Psychology, Los Angeles, CA.
Calhoun, F. S. (1998). Hunters and howlers: threats and violence against federal judicial officials in the
United States, 1789 – 1993. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice United States Marshals Service
(USMS No. 80).
Chaudhuri, M., & Daly, K. (1992). Do restraining orders help? Battered women’s experience with male violence
and legal process. In E. S. Buzawa, & C. G. Buzawa (Eds.), Domestic violence: the changing criminal justice
response (pp. 227 – 252). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Coleman, F. L. (1997). Stalking behavior and the cycle of domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12,
420 – 433.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1998). Obsessive relational intrusion and stalking. In B. H. Spitzberg, & W. R.
Cupach (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships (pp. 233 – 263). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2000). Obsessive relational intrusion: incidence, perceived severity, and
coping. Violence and Victims, 15, 1 – 16.
Cupach, W. R., Spitzberg, B. H., & Carson, C. L. (2000). Toward a theory of obsessive relational intrusion and
stalking. In K. Dindia, & S. Duck (Eds.), Communication and personal relationships (pp. 131 – 146).
New York: Wiley.
Davis, J. A., & Chipman, M. A. (1997). Stalkers and other obsessional types: a review and forensic psychological
typology of those who stalk. Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine, 4, 166 – 172.
de Becker, G. (1997). The gift of fear: survival signals that protect us from violence. Boston: Little, Brown
and Co.
de Clérambault, C. G. (1942). Les psychoses passionelles. In Oeuvres psychiatriques ( pp. 315 – 322). Paris:
Presses Universitaires.
Department of Justice, Victoria (1996). Crimes family violence act: 1994/95 monitoring report. Caseflow Analysis
Section, Courts and Tribunals Services, Melbourne, Australia.
Diacovo, N. (1995). California’s anti-stalking statute: deterrent or false sense of security? Southwestern University
Law Review, 24, 389 – 421.
Duck, S. (Ed.) (1988). Handbook of personal relationships: theory, research and interventions. New York: Wiley.
Dunlop, J. L. (1988). Does erotomania exist between women? British Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 830 – 833.
Dunn, J. L. (1999). What love has to do with it: the cultural construction of emotion and sorority women’s
responses to forcible interaction. Social Problems, 46, 440 – 459.
Dziegielewski, S. F., & Roberts, A. R. (1995). Stalking victims and survivors: identification, legal remedies, and
crisis treatment. In A. R. Roberts (Ed.), Crisis intervention and time-limited cognitive treatment (pp. 73 – 90).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eisele, G. R., Watkins, J. P., & Matthews, K. O. (1998). Workplace violence at government sites. American
Journal of Industrial Medicine, 33, 485 – 492.
Elliott, L., & Brantley, C. (1997). Sex on campus: the naked truth about the real sex lives of college students. New
York: Random House.
Emerson, R. M., Ferris, K. O., & Gardner, C. B. (1998). On being stalked. Social Problems, 45, 289 – 314.
Evans, D. L., Jeckel, L. L., & Slott, N. E. (1982). Erotomania: a variant of pathological mourning. Bulletin of the
Menninper Clinic, 46, 507 – 520.
Farrell, Weisburd, D., & Wyckoff, L. (2000). Survey results suggest need for stalking training. Police Chief,
67(10), 162 – 167.
Fein, R. A., & Vossekuil, B. (1999). Assassination in the United States: an operational study of recent assassins,
attackers, and near-lethal approachers. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44, 321 – 333.
Feldmann, T. B., Holt, J., & Hellard, S. (1997). Violence in medical facilities: a review of 40 incidents. Journal of
the Kentucky Medical Association, 95, 183 – 189.
Fisher, B.S., Cullen, F.T., & Turner, M.G. (1999). The extent and Nature of the sexual victimization of College
women: A national-level analysis. Final Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice (NCJ 179977).
Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice.
Fremouw, W. J., Westrup, D., & Pennypacker, J. (1997). Stalking on campus: the prevalence and strategies for
coping with stalking. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42, 664 – 667.
Gallagher, R. P., Harmon, W. W., & Lingenfelter, C. O. (1994). CSAOs’ perceptions of the changing incidence of
problematic college student behavior. NASPA Journal, 32, 37 – 45.
Gill, R., & Brockman, J. (1996). A review of section 264 (criminal harassment) of the Criminal Code of
Canada. Working document WD 1996 – 7e. Research, Statistics and Evaluation Directorate, Department of
Justice, Canada.
Gillett, T., Eminson, S. R., & Hassanyeh, F. (1990). Primary and secondary erotomania: clinical characteristics and
follow-up. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 82, 65 – 69.
Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., Jorgensen, P. F., Spitzberg, B. H., & Eloy, S. V. (1995). Coping with the green-
eyed monster: conceptualizing and measuring communicative and behavioral reactions to romantic jealousy.
Western Journal of Communication, 59, 1 – 35.
Hall, D. M. (1997). Outside looking in: stalkers and their victims. PhD dissertation, Claremont Graduate School,
Claremont, CA.
Hargreaves J. Stalking behaviour. In D. V. Canter, & L. Alison (Eds.), Profiling rape and murder. Offender
profiling series, vol. V (pp. 1 – 19). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate (in press).
Harmon, R. B., Rosner, R., & Owens, H. (1995). Obsessional harassment and erotomania in a criminal
court population. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40, 188 – 196.
Harmon, R. B., Rosner, R., & Owens, H. (1998). Sex and violence in a forensic population of obses-
sional harassers. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 4, 236 – 249.
Harrell, A., & Smith, B. E. (1996). Effects of restraining orders on domestic violence victims. In E. S. Buzawa, &
C. G. Buzawa (Eds.), Do arrests and restraining orders work? ( pp. 214 – 242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick S. S. (Eds.) (2000). Close relationships: a sourcebook. ( pp. 1 – 476). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Herold, E. S., Mantle, D., & Zemitis, O. (1979). A study of sexual offenses against females. Adolescence, 14, 65 – 72.
Hills, A. M., & Taplin, J. L. (1998). Anticipated responses to stalking: effect of threat and target-stalker relation-
ship. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 5, 139 – 146.
Hinde, R. A. (1997). Relationships: a dialectical perspective. East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press.
Holmes, R. M. (1993). Stalking in America: types and methods of criminal stalkers. Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice, 9, 317 – 327.
Horton, A. L., Simonidis, K. M., & Simonidis, L. L. (1987). Legal remedies for spousal abuse: victim character-
istics, expectations, and satisfaction. Journal of Family Violence, 2, 265 – 279.
Hueter, J. A. (1997). Lifesaving legislation: but will the Washington stalking law survive constitutional scrutiny?
Washington Law Review, 72, 213 – 240.
Jason, L. A., Reichler, A., Easton, J., Neal, A., & Wilson, M. (1984). Female harassment after ending a relation-
ship: a preliminary study. Alternative Lifestyles, 6, 259 – 269.
Jordan, T. (1995). The efficacy of the California stalking law: surveying its evolution, extracting insights from
domestic violence cases. Hastings Women Law Journal, 6, 363 – 383.
Kaci, J. H. (1994). Aftermath of seeking domestic violence protective orders: the victim’s perspective. Journal of
Contemporary Criminal Justice, 10, 204 – 219.
Kamir, O. (2001). Every breath you take: stalking narratives and the law. University of Michigan Press: Ann
Arbor, MI.
Kappeler, V. E., Blumberg, M., & Potter, G. W. (1996). The mythology of crime and criminal justice (2nd ed.).
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Keenahan, D., & Barlow, A. (1997). Stalking: a paradoxical crime of the nineties. International Journal of Risk,
Security and Crime Prevention, 2, 291 – 300.
Keilitz, S. L., Davis, C., Efkeman, H. S., Flango, C., & Hannaford, P. L. (1998, January). Civil protection orders:
victims’ views on effectiveness (National Institute of Justice Research Preview). Washington, DC: US Depart-
ment of Justice.
Kienlen, K. K. (1998). Developmental and social antecedents of stalking. In J. R. Meloy (Ed.), The psychology of
stalking ( pp. 51 – 67). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Kienlen, K. K., Birmingham, D. L., Solberg, K. B., O’Regan, J. T., & Meloy, J. R. (1997). A comparative study of
psychotic and nonpsychotic stalking. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 25, 317 – 334.
Kohn, M., Flood, H., Chase, J., & McMahon, P. M. (2000). Prevalence and health consequences of stalking—
Louisiana, 1998 – 1999. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 49(29), 653 – 655.
Kong, R. (1996). Criminal harassment. Juristat, 16(12), 1 – 13 (Statistics Canada: Canadian Centre for Justice).
Kurt, J. L. (1995). Stalking as a variant of domestic violence. Bulletin of the Academy of Psychiatry and the
Law, 23, 213 – 219.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Palarea, R. E., Cohen, J., & Rohling, M. L. (2000). Breaking up is hard to do:
unwanted pursuit behaviors following the dissolution of a romantic relationship. Violence and Victims, 15,
73 – 90.
Lawson-Cruttenden, T. (1996). Is there a law against stalking? New Law Journal, 6736, 418 – 420.
Leonard, R., Ling, L. C., Hankins, G. A., Maidon, C. H., Potorti, P. F., & Rogers, J. M. (1993). Sexual harassment
at North Carolina State University. In G. L. Kreps (Ed.), Sexual harassment: communication implications
( pp. 170 – 194). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Leong, G. B. (1993). De Clérambault syndrome (erotomania) in the criminal justice system: another look at this
recurring problem. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39, 378 – 385.
Leong, G. B., & Silva, J. A. (1991, May). Lovesick: the erotomania syndrome. VA Practitioner, 39 – 43.
Levitt, M. J., Silver, M. E., & Franco, N. (1996). Troublesome relationships: a part of human experience. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 523 – 536.
Lloyd-Goldstein, R. (1998). De Clérambault on-line: a survey of erotomania and stalking from the old world
to the world wide web. In J. R. Meloy (Ed.), The psychology of stalking ( pp. 193 – 212). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Logan, T. K., Leukefeld, C., & Walker, B. (2000). Stalking as a variant of intimate violence: implications from a
young adult sample. Violence and Victims, 15, 91 – 111.
Lowney, K. S., & Best, J. (1995). Stalking strangers and lovers: changing media typifications of a new crime
problem. In J. Best (Ed.), Images of issues: typifying contemporary social problems (2nd ed.) ( pp. 33 – 57).
New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1989). Toward a motivational and structural theory of ruminative thought. In J. S.
Uleman, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 306 – 326). New York: Guilford.
Martin, L. L., & Tesser, A. (1996). Some ruminative thoughts. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Ruminative thoughts
( pp. 1 – 47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
McAnaney, K. G., Curliss, L., & Abeyta-Price, C. (1993). From imprudence to crime: anti-stalking laws. Notre
Dame Law Review, 68, 819 – 909.
McCann, J. T. (1995). Obsessive attachment and the victimization of children: can antistalking legislation provide
protection? Law and Psychology Review, 19, 93 – 112.
McCann, J. T. (1998). Subtypes of stalking (obsessional following) in adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 21,
667 – 675.
McCreedy, K. R., & Dennis, B. G. (1996). Sex-related offenses and fear of crime on campus. Journal of
Contemporary Criminal Justice, 12, 69 – 80.
McFarlane, J., Campbell, J. C., Wilt, S., Sachs, C. J., Ulrich, Y., & Xu, X. (1999). Stalking and intimate partner
femicide. Homicide Studies, 3, 300 – 316.
McFarlane, J., Willson, P., Lemmey, D., & Malecha, A. (2000). Women filing assault charges on an
intimate partner. Violence Against Women, 6, 396 – 408.
McIntosh, W. D., & Martin, L. L. (1992). The cybernetics of happiness: the relation of goal attainment,
rumination, and affect. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Emotion and social behavior ( pp. 222 – 246). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Mechanic, M. B., Weaver, T. L., & Resick, P. A. (2000). Intimate partner violence and stalking behavior:
exploration of patterns and correlates in a sample of acutely battered women. Violence and Victims, 15,
55 – 72.
Meloy, J. R. (1992). Violent attachments. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson.
Meloy, J. R. (1989). Unrequited love and the wish to kill: diagnosis and treatment of borderline erotomania.
Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 53, 477 – 492.
Meloy, J. R. (1996). A clinical investigation of the obsessional follower: ‘‘She loves me, she loves me not. . .’’. In L.
Schlesinger (Ed.), Explorations in criminal psychopathology (pp. 9 – 32). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Meloy, J. R. (1996). Stalking (obsessional following): a review of some preliminary studies. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 1, 147 – 162.
Meloy, J. R. (1998). The psychology of stalking. In J. R. Meloy (Ed.), The psychology of stalking (pp. 2 – 24). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Meloy, J. R. (1999). Stalking: an old behavior, a new crime. Forensic Psychiatry, 22, 85 – 99.
Meloy, J. R. (2002). Stalking and violence. In J. Boon & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Stalking and psychosexual obsession
( pp. 105 – 124). London: Wiley.
Meloy, J. R., Davis, B., & Lovette, J. (2001). Risk factors for violence among stalkers. Journal of Threat
Assessment, 1, 3 – 16.
Meloy, J. R., & Gothard, S. (1995). Demographic and clinical comparison of obsessional followers and offenders
with mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 258 – 263.
Meloy, J. R., Cowett, P. Y., Parker, S. B., Hofland, B., & Friedland, A. (1997). Domestic protection orders and the
prediction of subsequent criminality and violence toward protectees. Psychotherapy, 34, 447 – 458.
Meloy, J. R., Rivers, L., Siegel, L., Gothard, S., Naimark, D., & Nicolini, J. R. (2000). A replication study of
obsessional followers and offenders with mental disorders. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45, 147 – 152.
Menzies, R. P. D., Fedoroff, J. P., Green, C. M., & Isaacson, K. (1995). Prediction of dangerous behaviour in male
erotomania. British Journal of Psychiatry, 166, 529 – 536.
Meyers, J. (1998). Cultural factors in erotomania and obsessional following. In J. R. Meloy (Ed.), The psychology
of stalking ( pp. 213 – 224). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Moracco, K. E., Runyan, C. W., & Butts, J. D. (1998). Femicide in North Carolina, 1991 – 1993. Homicide
Studies, 2, 422 – 446.
Mullen, P. E. (2000). Erotomanias (pathologies of love) and stalking. In F. Flach (Ed.), The Hatherleigh guide to
psychiatric disorders ( pp. 145 – 162 (Part II)). New York: Hatherleigh Press.
Mullen, P. E., & Pathé, M. (1994a). The pathological extensions of love. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165,
614 – 623.
Mullen, P. E., & Pathé, M. (1994b). Stalking and the pathologies of love. Australian and New Zealand Journal
of Psychiatry, 28, 469 – 477.
Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., & Purcell, R. (2000). Stalkers and their victims. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., Purcell, R., & Stuart, G. W. (1999). Study of stalkers. American Journal of Psychiatry,
156, 1244 – 1249.
Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1999). A routine activity theory explanation for women’s stalking victim-
izations. Violence Against Women, 5, 43 – 62.
National Institute of Justice (1993). Project to develop a model anti-stalking code for states. Washington, DC: US
Department of Justice.
National Institute of Justice (1996). Domestic violence, stalking, and antistalking legislation. Annual Report to
Congress under the Violence Against Women Act, NCJ 160943. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.
Nicastro, A. M., Cousins, A. V., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2000). The tactical face of stalking. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 28, 69 – 82.
Palarea, R. E., Zona, M. A., Lane, J. C., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1999). The dangerous nature of intimate
relationship stalking: threats, violence, and associated risk factors. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17,
269 – 283.
Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (1997). The impact of stalkers on their victims. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170,
12 – 17.
Pathé, M., Mullen, P. E., & Purcell, R. (2000). Same-gender stalking. Journal of the American Academy of
Psychiatry and the Law, 28, 191 – 197.
Raskin, D. E., & Sullivan, K. E. (1974). Erotomania. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 1033 – 1035.
Romans, J. S. C., Hays, J. R., & White, T. K. (1996). Stalking and related behaviors experienced by counseling
center staff members from current or former clients. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27,
595 – 599.
Roscoe, B., Strouse, J. S., & Goodwin, M. P. (1994). Sexual harassment: early adolescent self-reports of expe-
riences and acceptance. Adolescence, 29, 515 – 523.
Rudden, M., Sweeney, J., & Frances, A. (1990). Diagnosis and clinical course of erotomanic and other
delusional patients. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 625 – 628.
Sandberg, D. A., McNiel, D. E., & Binder, R. L. (1998). Characteristics of psychiatric inpatients who stalk,
threaten, or harass hospital staff after discharge. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 1102 – 1105.
Saunders, R. (1998). The legal perspective on stalking. In J. R. Meloy (Ed.), The psychology of stalking
( pp. 25 – 50). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schwartz-Watts, D., Morgan, D. W., & Barnes, C. J. (1997). Stalkers: the South Carolina Experience. Journal of
the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 25, 541 – 545.
Scocas, E., O’Connell, J., Huenke, C., Nold, K., & Zoelker, E. (1996). Domestic violence in Delaware 1994:
an analysis of victim to offender relationships with special focus on stalking. Dover, DE: Statistical
Analysis Center.
Seeman, M. V. (1978). Delusional loving. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, 1265 – 1267.
Segal, J. H. (1989). Erotomania revisited: from Kraepelin to DSM-III-R. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146,
1261 – 1266.
Signer, S. (1989). Homo-erotomania. British Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 729.
Sinclair, H. C., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Initial courtship behavior and stalking: how should we draw the line?
Violence and Victims, 15, 23 – 40.
Skoler, G. (1998). The archetypes and psychodynamics of stalking. In J. R. Meloy (Ed.), The psychology of
Sohn, E. F. (1994). Antistalking statutes: do they actually protect victims? Criminal Law, 30, 203 – 241.
Spencer, A. C. (1998). Stalking and the MMPI-2 in a forensic population. PhD dissertation. University of Detroit
Mercy, Detroit, MI.
Spitzberg, B. H. (1989). Issues in the development of a theory of interpersonal competence in the intercultural
context. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13, 241 – 268.
Spitzberg, B. H. (2000, November). Forlorn love: attachment styles, love styles, loneliness, and obsessional
thinking as predictors of obsessive relational intrusion. Paper presented at the National Communication
Association Conference, Seattle, WA.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (1996, August). Obsessive relational intrusion: victimization and coping. Paper
presented at the International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships Conference, Banff, Canada.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach W. R. (Eds.) (1998). The dark side of close relationships ( pp. 1 – 415). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W.R. (1999, June). Jealousy, suspicion, possessiveness and obsession as predictors of
obsessive relational intrusion. Paper presented at the International Network on Personal Relationships and
International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships Joint Conference, Louisville, KY.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2001a). Paradoxes of pursuit: toward a relational model of stalking-related
phenomena. In J. Davis (Ed.), Stalking, stalkers and their victims: prevention, intervention, and threat assess-
ment. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2001b). Power, empathy, and sex role ideology as predictors of obsessive
relational intrusion. Top four paper presented at the Western States Communication Association Conference,
Coeur d’Alene, ID.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2002). The inappropriateness of relational intrusion. In R. Goodwin & D.
Cramer (Eds.), Inappropriate relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Hoobler, G. D. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New
Media & Society, 14, 67 – 88.
Spitzberg, B. H., Marshall, L., & Cupach, W. R. (2001). Obsessive relational intrusion, coping, and sexual
coercion victimization. Communication Reports, 14, 19 – 30.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Rhea, J. (1999). Obsessive relational intrusion and sexual coercion victimization. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 14, 3 – 20.
Spitzberg, B. H., Nicastro, A. M., & Cousins, A. V. (1998). Exploring the interactional phenomenon of stalking
and obsessive relational intrusion. Communication Reports, 11, 33 – 48.
Straus, M. A. (1999). The controversy over domestic violence by women: a methodological, theoretical, and
sociology of science analysis. In X. Arriaga, & S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence in intimate relationships
(pp. 19 – 44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taylor, P., Mahendra, B., & Gunn, J. (1983). Erotomania in males. Psychological Medicine, 13, 645 – 650.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: findings from the national violence against women
survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(NCJ 169592).
Tucker, J. T. (1993). Stalking the problems with stalking laws. Florida Law Review, 45, 609 – 707.
Turell, S. C. (2000). A descriptive analysis of same-sex relationship violence for a diverse sample. Journal of
Family Violence, 15, 281 – 293.
US Department of Justice (1998). Stalking and domestic violence. Third Annual Report to Congress under the
Violence Against Women Act, NCJ 172204. Washington, DC: Violence Against Women Grants Office, US
Department of Justice.
Walker, L. E., & Meloy, J. R. (1998). Stalking and domestic violence. In J. R. Meloy (Ed.), The psychology of
Way, R. C. (1994). The criminalization of stalking: an exercise in media manipulation and political opportunism.
McGill Law Journal, 39, 379 – 400.
Welch, J. M. (1995, Fall). Stalking and anti-stalking legislation: a guide to the literature of a new legal concept.
Reference Services Review, 23, 53 – 58, 68.
Westrup, D., Fremouw, W. J., Thompson, R. N., & Lewis, S. F. (1999). The psychological impact of stalking on
female undergraduates. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44, 554 – 557.
Wilt, G. M., Bannon, J. D., Breedlove, R. K., Kennish, J. W., Sandker, D. M., & Sawtell, R. K. (1977). Domestic
violence and the police: studies in Detroit and Kansas City. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.
Wright, J. A., Burgess, A. G., Burgess, A. W., Laszlo, A. T., McCrary, G. O., & Douglas, J. E. (1996). A typology
of interpersonal stalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 487 – 502.
Zona, M. A., Palarea, R. E., & Lane, J. C. (1998). Psychiatric diagnosis and the offender – victim typology of
stalking. In J. R. Meloy (Ed.), The psychology of stalking ( pp. 69 – 84). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Zona, M. A., Sharma, K. K., & Lane, J. (1993). A comparative study of erotomanic and obsessional subjects in a
forensic sample. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38, 894 – 903.

What Mad Pursuit - Obsessive Relational Intrusion and Stalking Related Phenomena

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Mad Pursuit - Obsessive Relational Intrusion and Stalking Related Phenomena

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aggression and Violent Behavior

8 (2003) 345 – 375

What mad pursuit?

Received 4 June 2001

Keywords: Stalking; Obsessive relational intrusion; Harassment; Domestic violence

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-619-594-7097; fax: +1-619-594-6246.

2. The societal construction and criminalization of the stalking phenomenon

2.1. The criminalization of stalking

In their extensive review of the history of stalking in Anglo–American law, McAnaney,

2.2. The media construction of the stalker mythos

2.3. Current status of stalking as a legal and social scientific construct

3. Inter-personalizing stalking: ORI

The prototype of stalking began in the public’s imagination as a pathological and

3.1. The forensic view of stalking

4. The interactional/relational view of stalking

People pursue intimate relationships in a variety of ways. Sometimes, a person pursuing

5. The state of the stalker: incidence and types of stalking-related phenomena

5.1. Incidence and demographics

6. Theorizing stalking and ORI

A number of theoretical perspectives have been proposed to explain various aspects of

complex dynamics surrounding obsessive intrusion and pursuit. Theoretical understanding

6.1. Routine activity theory

6.2. Attachment theory

6.3. Linking and obsessive rumination theory

You might also like