JOINING FORCES

Joining Families

Volume 17, Issue 2 • Winter 2017

R E A L W O R L D R E S E A R C H F O R F A M I LY A D V O C A C Y P R O G R A M S

F E AT U R E D I N T E R V I E W

Stalking and Intimate Partner Violence: Unwanted,
Repeated, Fear-Inducing
An interview with TK Logan, PhD
TK Logan, PhD

Dr. Logan is Professor, University of Kentucky School of Medicine, Department of
Behavioral Science and the Center on Drug
and Alcohol Research. She is an internationallyrecognized expert on partner violence and stalking. She serves on the editorial board of Violence and Victims, the Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, and Sexualization, Media, & Society.
She is a member of many national organizations

In This Issue
This issue of Joining Forces Joining Families (JFJF) features aninterview with TK Logan, PhD, on stalking victimization and perpetration in
the context of intimate partner violence (IPV). We provide a brief overview
of stalking research, a relatively new topic of investigation in IPV. In our
regular research methods article, we describe differences in qualitativeand quantitative research methods using one of Dr. Logan’s articles as an
example. Another article describes threats in IPV as a form of coercive
control. Websites of interest contains a wide variety of online resourcesthat can be used to educate about stalking as well as provide information
for social service providers, victims, advocates, and criminal justiceprofessionals.
CONTENTS
Stalking and Intimate Partner Violence: Unwanted, Repeated,
Fear-Inducing………………………………………………………… 1
Building Bridges to Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Research:
What are the Differences?…………………………………………… 4
What is Stalking in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence?………… 5
Threats of Intimate Partner Violence are Forms of Coercive Control…… 9
Websites of Interest…………………………………………………… 12

such as the National Domestic Violence Hotline
Research Council, the Violence Against Women
Act Firearms Subcommittee, and is a consultant
to the Kentucky Coalition Against Domestic
Violence. Dr. Logan’s recent research has focusedon coercive control, stalking, protective ordereffectiveness, sexual assault, intimate partner
homicide, and health disparities of rural womenwith partner violence experiences.


Dr. McCarroll: Stalking is considered a type of
intimate partner violence (IPV) and criminal
conduct. It is largely a gendered phenomenon
in which 16% of women and 5% of men
report at least one incident of stalking in their
lifetime and 4% of women and 1.5% of men in
the past 12 months (Black et al., 2011). Thesefigures translate to approximately one in six
women and 1 in 19 men that will be stalked intheir lifetime. How did you become interested
in stalking?
Dr. Logan: One of the themes that drives
my work is what I call silent suffering. [Editor’snote: For example, see her article on silenced
suffering in partner sexual violence (Logan,
Walker, & Cole, 2015).] When I started there
was not much out there about stalking. I noticed that women were leaving, or attempting
to leave, abusive relationships, but the abuse
was not ending with that separation. Yet, theongoing abuse, harassment, and stalking was
not being discussed or addressed. One of thethings that I as a researcher can do is give voice
Continued on page 2

An interview with TK Logan,
PhD, from page 1

Stalking is unwanted,
repeated, and fearinducing. It issystematic, deliberate,and intentional, notaccidental, and the stressis cumulative.

to those who are silenced, who are trying to
speak out, but cannot or do not want to doso. We always ask the question “Why doesn’t
she just leave?” In many cases women do try
to leave. What we should be asking is “Whydoesn’t he just leave her alone?” And that was
the reason I have spent so much time talking
about stalking.
Dr. McCarroll: Let’s talk about the definition.
Most include three components: behavior
on the part of the stalker toward the stalking
victim that is unwanted, repeated, andfear-inducing. Is there anything left out ofthat definition that you think is important forclinicians or law enforcement?
Dr. Logan: The simple definition is that it isa course of conduct that induces fear or concern for safety, typically directed at a specificperson. It is targeted violence. What I meanis, they are targeting a specific victim. If you
put that person in prison or in jail or you send
them to treatment, they are going to re-offend
and you know exactly who they are going to
re-offend. Stalking is systematic, deliberate, andintentional, not accidental, and it is fairly common. It is a set of tactics designed to maintainan unwanted relationship. I go one step further
to talk about psychological warfare. The harm

JOINING FORCES
Joining Families
Editor-in-Chief
James E. McCarroll, PhD
Email:
James.McCarroll.ctr@usuhs.edu
Joining Forces Joining Families
is a publication of the U. S.
Army Installation Management Command and theFamily Violence and Trauma
Project of the Center for the
Study of Traumatic Stress(CSTS), Bethesda, Maryland
20814-4799, tel. 301-2952470. CSTS is part of the
Department of Psychiatry of
Uniformed Services University, which is our nation’sfederal medical school.

2 • Joining Forces/Joining Families

Editorial Advisor
LTC Ricky J. Martinez. PhD, MSC, USA
Family Advocacy Program Manager
Installation Management Command
Department of the Army
Editorial Consultant
Joshua C. Morganstein, MD
Captain, US Public Health Service
Assistant Director
Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress
Associate Professor & Assistant Chair
Department of Psychiatry
Uniformed Services University

from stalking is psychological and is cumulative over time.
Dr. McCarroll: I remember reading that having
the emotion of fear included in state statutes
can disqualify some people from being
charged because the victim was not afraid.
They may be angry or just irritated. Have you
encountered that?
Dr. Logan: The ways we talk about it are fearor concern for your safety or for close others.
When you cross that line and people become
afraid, then the second piece of the question
comes in. Those being targeted with stalking
often feel angry and irritated as well. The fearand significant distress component though isimportant in distinguishing between the more
harmful aspects of harassing and stalking
behavior. However, a victim does not have to
say they are afraid to show fear. Even if a victim
were to say she were afraid, the police are going to be looking for corroborating evidence.
I could always say to you, how do you tell if
someone is afraid, even if they do not tell you?
What are the things you would look for or you
would notice?
Dr. McCarroll: Face-to-face with a person,
I would look for voice tone and facial
expressions. I would look for changes inbehavior that might indicate that they aretrying to avoid the stalker.
Dr. Logan: Absolutely. An additional component is any extraordinary time, money, or
effort spent for their safety and the safety ofothers: getting a protective order, having to takeoff work, asking for accommodations at work,changing their locks or getting lighting. These
are not anything any of us want to do. We are
all busy. These things cost money and time. You
can corroborate fear with some tangible costs.
When I am doing a training, I ask, “If you
had a victim and you gave her a choice,” andthis is a horrible choice, “He is going to beat
you up, but you are never going to hear from
him again,” versus ”He will never touch you
physically, but he is going to stalk you.” What do
you think that victim would choose?
Dr. McCarroll: I think they would take thebeating and get it over with.
Dr. Logan: Yes, because being stalked is so
uncomfortable. There is no prediction, there isno control, and there is no certainty. For humanbeings, those are very uncomfortable. That
Continued on p. 3
Winter 2017

An interview with TK Logan,
PhD, from page 2

Whenever you have astalker you should beon guard that violence ispossible.

creates a lot of anxiety and misery. You cannot
plan, you cannot rest. You just never let down
your guard. It is a chronic stress overload andyou do not know how to prepare. And anotheraspect of being stalked is that it violates every
assumption about how to stop the abuse andviolence. It is very distressing when you do the
one thing that everyone tells you to do to stop
the abuse, and it does not work.
Dr. McCarroll: What are theories or themesthat are helpful in understanding stalking?
Coercive control is frequently mentioned inyour papers.
Dr. Logan: There is a big difference when
we use the lens of physical violence as the gold
standard to decide when someone is a domestic violence victim or not, versus using the lensof coercive control, which is made up of both
physical abuse and threats. In coercive control, one big component is what the controller
keeps her from doing for herself as well as thethreats of harm. You can walk away from physical violence, but coercive control is about the
chain around the brain. Coercive control reallycuts across a variety of phenomena including
human trafficking, cults, kidnap victims, andprisoners of war.
I often talk about stalking on a continuum.
The beginning of the continuum is normal
courtship or even breakup pursuit. That canmove into being annoying and bothersome. Forme, the line is when the target feels fear or concern for their safety. Typologies are not helpful
to me because as a researcher, I want to havemutually exclusive groups. We are all capable ofexperiencing multiple emotions such as anger,
revenge, and love. So are stalkers. Typologies
rarely help me to understand or to do research.
One that I find helpful is the target-stalker relationship: ex-partner, acquaintance, or stranger.
Dr. McCarroll: Are there differences in violent
and non-violent stalkers? Is their behavior
predictable?
Dr. Logan: Whenever you have a stalker you
should be on guard that violence is possible.
However, when we are talking about coercive
control we have to think beyond violence.
Many relationships can go for years before
there is any physical violence. Coercive control
is about domination over the victim. Violence
is just a tool in that process. I do not believethat in many stalking cases, the stalker’s goal isviolence. That does not mean that it is not partof a course of conduct, that they are not going

http://www.CSTSonline.org

to use violence or sexual assault in the courseof that conduct, but overall, they are not stalking to find an appropriate time to assault thisperson.
That is not what it is about. It is about ruining the life of the victim. It is about sabotage.
It is about control. Understanding stalking requires a shift in thinking. They ruin the victim’s
life, jeopardize their jobs, their financial welfare,and the victim does not have any kind of ability
to predict. It is psychological warfare. That isthe devastating harm. It invades everything. It
invades my ability to have a relationship withmy child because I am so anxious, I never knowwhat he is going to do. Is he going to directlyinterfere with my child? With my parenting
world? Is he going to affect my friends andfamily? Is he threatening to harm them as I
associate with them so I am withdrawing fromthem? He is slashing my tires so it is costing me
financially. It is now affecting my health and I
have to go to the doctor. It is literally the ruin of
my life.
Dr. McCarroll: In addition to protective orders,
what else can be done to help someone
who is being stalked? Protective orders
are a preventive mechanism. Leaving therelationship is obviously another one. What
else?
Dr. Logan: I just use a simple model. I do a
lot of training of law enforcement. I always say,“You only have five minutes with a victim, here
is what I would suggest—What I call STEPS.”
1. See it, acknowledge it, and validate it. You
may be the first person to put this together forthat person. The victim may not realize whatkind of risk they face; they may not realize what
is happening. If they do know it is happening,
it is often dismissed, denied, and minimized.
Acknowledge that this is stalking. 2. Then I talkabout the threats so they are not minimizing or
downplaying any of their safety concerns. 3. Italk about preserving the evidence, and documenting what is happening. Documentation isimportant to get help through the criminal orcivil justice system or other agencies. But, it ishard to write everything down when you justwant it to go away. Every time you document,
you have to re-live everything that is happening
and the documentation is hard to do. However,documentation is not a safety plan. 4. The next
important thing to talk about is self-protection
with the goal to make it as difficult as possible
for the stalker to stalk. We do have SHARP as aContinued on p.10
Joining Forces/Joining Families • 3

BUILDING BRIDGES TO RESEARCH

Qualitative and Quantitative Research: 			
What are the Differences?
By James E. McCarroll, PhD, and Joshua C. Morganstein, MD
Qualitative research is
descriptive and is used
to obtain information
about people’s opinions
and experiences.

Qualitative research is generally descriptive
and collects rich details, but not measured data.
Quantitative research strives to measure counts
and uses statistics to estimate whether something is likely or not. Neither is better than theother and each has its own unique characteristics. In fact, the same study can use both methods and qualitative data can be quantitated.
Qualitative Research. Qualitative research
is descriptive. Interviews, focus groups, andopen-ended questions are qualitative methods
to obtain information about people’s opinions
and experiences. In cases where little is known
about an event, data collection is exploratoryand descriptive and is intended to suggest
hypotheses for more structured research. Moreformal qualitative methods include structured or semi-structured interviews to answer
specific questions. These are frequently used todetermine if a person has a mental health condition. Qualitative data are frequently grouped
into themes representing responses of research
participants. The results of qualitative research can then be analyzed using quantitative
methods to determine if there are significant
differences between categories.
Quantitative Research. Quantitative research uses formal data collection methods andstatistics. This allows for comparisons between
groups on one or more specific measures.
Simple statistical tests, such as a t-test, comparegroups on a single measure, whereas complex
computer programs can provide sophisticatedanalyses of large volumes of data, sometimes
referred to as “big data” analysis. Quantitative
methods are largely used to determine if thefindings of the study will apply more generally. In order to do this, the investigator has
to sample the population that represents thelarger group. The object of most of this typeof research is to generalize from a sample to a
population.
Differences in qualitative and quantitative
methods are illustrated in much of Dr. Logan’s
work in which she begins with qualitative
methods, by conducting interviews to obtainthe viewpoints and experiences of women

4 • Joining Forces/Joining Families

who have been stalked, and then uses quantitative methods to analyze these data. Logan andWalker (2010) conducted a study of women
who obtained a protective order (PO) against
a male intimate partner. The women and twogroups of key informants (criminal justice professionals and victim services representatives)
were interviewed. The investigators presented
two hypothetical scenarios of women who werebeing stalked and then asked the participant
women and key informants two open-ended
questions: (1) What would you advise her to do?
and (2) How should the women who were being
stalked cope with the situation? The perceptionsof the participants of the three groups werecategorized into themes and chi-square tests
were used to determine significant differencesin the responses. The results of the analyses of
the questions were that, for the first question,
the overwhelming majority believed that the
women who were being stalked should report
it to the police. For the second question, thelargest category of coping was that the womenshould report it to the justice system by calling
the police, filing criminal charges, or obtaining
a PO.
Additional comparisons between the responses of the three groups interviewed showedthat there were significant gaps between theunderstanding of the harms of stalking, particularly between the criminal justice professionals
and social service providers compared to thoseof the victims. Victim service representatives,compared to criminal justice representatives,
believed that women were stalked very often
or always stalked by violent partners, about
50% vs. about 31%, respectively. About 45% ofvictim service representatives believed that the
women should document the stalking behavior compared to about 21% of criminal justicerepresentatives. Finally, about 73% of victim
service representatives believed that the stalking
victims should take steps to protect themselvescompared to about 40% of criminal justice representatives. As shown in this study, both qualitative and quantitative research methods add
complexity and context to research findings.
Continued on page 5
Winter 2017

What is Stalking in the Context of 				Intimate Partner Violence?
By James E. McCarroll, PhD, and Joshua C. Morganstein, MD

A high level of fear was
the most important
predictor variable that
pre-dated a serious
attack by a stalker.

Building Bridges to
Research, from page 4

http://www.CSTSonline.org

Stalking as a concern for intimate partner
violence (IPV) is a relatively recent development in research, practice, and law enforcement. It became a criminal offense in California in 1990. Subsequently, all 50 states, theDistrict of Columbia, and the U.S territories
have anti-stalking laws, from misdemeanors
to felonies, often with jail time and a hefty
fine (see http://victimsofcrime.org/ourprograms/stalking-resource-center/stalking-laws/
criminal-stalking-laws-by-state). While there
are many contexts in which stalking occurs,such as celebrities, politicians, and other public
figures, in this brief review, we will discuss
stalking as it occurs in the context of IPV.
Definition. Stalking is usually definedlegally and for research purposes by three elements: (a) a pattern of (b) unwanted conduct
directed at a specific person that (c) would
cause a reasonable person to feel fear, terrorized, intimidated, harassed, or fearful forfamily members, dating partners, and property(including pets), or death. Stalking involves
concerns about safety (Logan & Walker, 2010).
A high level of fear is the most important
predictor variable that can pre-date a serious
attack by a stalker (Sheridan & Roberts, 2011).
Women who were stalked experienced more
physical and psychological consequences thanmen who were stalked (Sheridan & Lyndon,2012). These consequences are mediated byfear. Women are twice as likely (60%) as men
to report fear of their stalker (30%). Victim fear
mediated the relationship between the victim
gender and the nature of the prior relationship and predicted the psychological, physical,
social, and economic consequences of stalking.
Stalking can also be defined perceptually
as well as legally. In pursuit behaviors, such as
might be involved in courtship, an intimate
partner may not always recognize stalking.
Some victims may not label their experienceas stalking due to a past or current relationship with the stalker. Obsessional relationshipintrusion (ORI) is repeated unwanted pursuitof a love object that may turn into stalking. It ismuch more common than stalking (Spitzberg& Cupach, 2003). Low levels of ORI may beviewed as mildly annoying, but ORI can cross athreshold after which it is perceived as threatening and as a form of stalking. Thus, stalking
can be ambiguous. It may be benign pursuit ofa romantic relationship or threatening behavior
such as harassment and interference with thevictim’s life. Stalking can also be covert, thatis, without the awareness of the target of thestalking. An example is stalking the new partnerof the target. It is another means of obtaining
information about the victim’s routines andrelationships, which can be used in pursuit of
the stalker’s goal (Duntley & Buss, 2012).
Prevalence of Stalking. The National
Violence Against Women (NVAW) survey, thefirst large-scale national study of stalking in the
U.S. found that 8% of women and 2% of men
reported being stalked in their lifetime (Tjaden& Thoennes, 1998). Several more recent studies
have estimated the prevalence of stalking. The
Second Injury Control and Risk Survey (ICARIS-2) found that 7% of women and 2% of men
reported lifetime stalking (Basile, Swahn, Chen,& Saltzman, 2006). These figures were almost
identical to the findings of the NVAW study.
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Study (NISVS) found 16% of women and5.2% of men reported lifetime stalking (Black etal., 2011). The authors explored possible reasonsfor the higher prevalence of stalking of womenfound in their study: its greater recognition by
the public, more study of special populations
such as in IPV victims and in college students,
and advances in technological devices capableof communication.
Continued on page 6

Reference

Quantitative research is used to determine if

Logan KT & Walker R. (2010). Toward a deeper
understanding of the harms caused by partner
stalking. Violence and Victims, 25(4), 440-455.

the results will apply more generally, from asample to a population.

Joining Forces/Joining Families • 5

What is Stalking…
from page 5

Stalking is definedby three elements:(a) a pattern of (b)unwanted conduct
directed at a specificperson that (c) would
cause a reasonable
person to feel fear.
Stalking involves
concerns about safety.

Estimates of stalking of women in the past
12 months were 2.2% and 0.8% for men in a
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) study (Catalano, 2012). A slightly higher figure was foundfor female victims (4%) in the NISVS, but thepercentage of male victims (1.3%) was similar
to the findings of the NIJ study. Criteria forstalking differ in surveys, but these data showthat stalking is a gendered phenomenon andthat men are not unaffected as victims.
In addition to differences in survey methods, it is difficult to arrive at a firm estimateof the prevalence of stalking as the estimates
depend on the sample studied: clinical, forensic, general population, and college students.
Overall, females are more likely to experience
stalking victimization than males. Approximately half of all stalking comes from romantic entanglements, especially among college
samples, in which 80% of stalkers were known
to the victim (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007).
What Constitutes Stalking? Stalking consists of Surveillance, Life Invasion (unwanted
contact), Intimidation, and Interference. An
easy way of remembering these elements ofstalking is by the first letter of each characteristic — SLII. SLII organizes the tactics of thestalker by strategy. This framework is presented
on fact sheets for advocates, judges, law enforcement, victims, and friends (See Connecting the Dots on Outrageus.com on Websitesof Interest). An additional framework forunderstanding stalking behaviors is DIF, which
stands for Duration, Intensity, and Frequencyof stalking.
Some examples of surveillance may
include approaching or following the victim, unexpected appearances, showing up at
the victim’s home, and the use of electronic
media. Life invasion may include unwanted
communications and contacts may include
telephone calls, e-mail, texts, letters, notes,
and graffiti. Interference with the victim’s
life may include property damage, ordering
goods, canceling appointments and physicalassaults. Intimidation may include initiating
bogus legal actions and threats (Ostermeyer,Friedman, Sorrentino, & Booth, 2016). Stalking by means of electronic technology is arelatively new means of stalking, one that iscontinuously developing and may become
very sophisticated depending on the skillsof the stalker (e.g., phones, tablets, computers, and social networking sites). This type ofelectronic surveillance can be used to createa sense of the stalker’s omnipresence and to

6 • Joining Forces/Joining Families

isolate, punish, and humiliate victims (Woodlock, 2016).
Effects of Stalking. The effects of stalking
can occur in three domains: the victim, thesocial and institutional networks of the victim,
and unique effects among network members
such that they may become targets (Spitzberg &Cupach, 2007). As a result of these second andthird order effects, stalking has hidden costs inaddition to direct effects on the victim. Stalking
involves chronic stress due to the accumulationof events, but also on anticipation of further
stress. However, delineation of symptoms associated with stalking has additional complex
factors. Disorders may have existed prior to
the stalking, stalking behavior can change overtime, and victims can develop resilience basedon personal characteristics and help from social
networks.
Variables that impact the extent of physical,
psychological, and economic costs for victims
include a prior relationship with the stalker,
victim gender, and the degree of fear experienced by the victim related to the stalking(Sheridan & Lyndon, 2012). When there is aprior stalker-victim relationship, particularly aprior intimate partner relationship, the severity of stalking increases and victims experience
more serious physical, psychological, social andeconomic costs. In this international study ofwomen (n=896) and men (n=318) who had
been stalked, women were significantly more
likely to report that they were very frightenedof their stalker, 60% and 30%, respectively. Over
half of all respondents said that they lost money
as a result of being stalked (an average of$3,583, gender differences not given). When the
stalker was an ex-intimate partner rather thanacquaintance or stranger, both women and men
reported a higher level of fear, 66.5% and 40%,
respectively. Also, victims who were stalked
by an ex-intimate partner were more likely toexperience a greater number of psychological,
physical, and social costs (e.g., moving, giving
up job, giving up friends, and many other personal connections) than victims without sucha relationship. Consistent with findings fromprevious studies, female stalking victims in thisstudy reported a greater number of physicaland psychological symptoms than male victims.
In addition, further analyses found that victim
fear was a significant mediator of victim genderfor psychological and physical consequences ofstalking victimization. Victim fear was a stronger predictor of the consequences of stalking
than either gender or prior relationship.
Winter 2017

What is Stalking…
from page 6

Stalking involves
chronic stress due to theaccumulation of events,
but also on anticipationof further stress.

http://www.CSTSonline.org

Stalking and Intimate Partner Violence.
In the NVAW study, 52% of stalking victims
were between the ages of 18-29 (Tjaden &Thoennes, 1998). Most stalking perpetratorsand victims knew each other. Women (59%)
were significantly more likely to be stalked byintimate partners than were men (30%). IPV
was common in stalking: 81% of women who
were stalked by a husband or former husband
or cohabiting partner were physically assaulted
and 31% were also sexually assaulted.
Risk Factors for Stalking and Severe IPV.
Risk assessment is difficult as a stalker may exhibit very different behaviors (Schwartz-Watts& Rowell, 2003). Eighty-five stalkers referred
for psychiatric evaluation in London included
27 who had committed serious violence (James& Farnham, 2003). Serious violence wasdefined as homicide, attempted homicide, andassault resulting in bodily harm. These stalkers
were compared with others who stalked, but
had committed general or minor violence. For
the stalkers referred for serious violence, there
was no association between serious violenceand substance abuse, previous convictions forviolence against persons, the presence of apersonality disorder, or unemployment. There
was an association between serious violenceand depression at the time of the incident.
Serious violence was also associated with ashorter duration of stalking, which suggests theimportance of early intervention.
Stalking and Femicide. Stalking coupledwith physical assault is significantly associatedwith murder and attempted murder of women.
A ten-city study of police records of the risk
factors by stalkers for actual or attempted IPV
and intimate partner homicide included 821
female victims: 263 femicides, 174 attempted
femicides, and 384 control women who
reported IPV, but not an attempt on their life
(McFarlane, Campbell, & Watson, 2002). Being followed or spied upon was twice as likely
for the women who were attempted or actual
victims (55.6%) compared to 29.4% for control
women. Other significant differences with agreater percentage by the attempted or actual
victims were unwanted phone calls, sitting in a
car outside the victim’s home or work site, trying to communicate with the victim against her
will, and destroying or vandalizing her property or something she loved. Significant differences were also found in threatening behaviors
by the stalker. These included frightening andthreating her with a weapon, threats to kill,threats to harm children and other membersof the victim’s family, and leaving threatening
notes on the victim’s car.
Court Services and Protection Orders.
Victim service and criminal justice officials may
not understand the harms caused by partner
stalking. In an early study of stalking, in the U.S,
about half of victims reported their stalking to
the police, but only about 25% of these reports
resulted in an arrest (Tjaden & Thoennes,
1998). About 25% of female and 10% of malevictims obtained restraining orders against theirstalkers, but 69% of women and 81% of men
said their stalkers violated the orders. Women
with civil protection orders against violent malepartners or ex-partners and who were stalked
by their violent partners reported significantly
more distress than women who had experienced only protective order violations, but notstalking (Logan & Walker, 2010).
Theories on Stalking. There are several
theories of stalking, but the major ones are attachment theory, relational goal pursuit theory,and coercive control (Davis, Swan, & Gambone,2012). Attachment theory has a long history inpsychiatry and psychology. An infant’s attachment to the parent (or caregiver) can be secure
or insecure. Infants who have a secure attachment have good later interpersonal relationships. Insecurely attached infants do not havegood interpersonal relationships and develop
personality styles that are avoidant, insecure,and ambivalent in that they simultaneously
crave attachment and then reject it (Miller,2012). Insecure attachment styles are hypothesized to characterize stalkers who pursue
former intimate partners. Due to their rejection,
the stalker feels a variety of negative emotions
tied to their own perceived lack of self-worth
and results in desperate measures to reclaim therelationship.
Relational goal pursuit theory is based on
the assumption that certain goals are desirable
and feasible (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). Whena relationship goal is thwarted, the individual
tries even harder to achieve the goal. When thisbehavior becomes extreme and the goal is not
attained, the theory proposes that individuals
will tend to inflate the importance of their goal
leading to thoughts and feelings that fuel persistent relationship pursuit.
The theory of coercive control has beendeveloped to provide a framework for describing IPV in such a way to account for all types ofmaltreatment, particularly physical violence ofContinued on page 8
Joining Forces/Joining Families • 7

What is Stalking…
from page 7

Stalking coupled withphysical assault issignificantly associatedwith murder andattempted murder ofwomen.

women (Stark, 2009). Coercive control includes
perpetrator threats, controlling the victim’s
conduct, sexual coercion, and other behaviors
that result in victims’ isolation and fear (Myhill& Hohl, 2016). Coercive control in the context
of lPV has also been used to examine how it
affects child adjustment, particularly internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Jouriles &McDonald, 2015).
Conclusion. Gender differences and issues
in stalking victimization and perpetration areat the heart of stalking research, clinical practice, law enforcement, and legal statutes andjudgments. Stalking is often overlooked andminimized by law enforcement, counselors,and others, but it is an extremely important influence on people’s lives that often requires significant efforts and help to overcome its effects
on victims, relatives, friends, and providers.

References

Basile KC, Swahn MH, Chen J, & Saltzman LE.
(2006). Stalking in the United States: Recent
national prevalence estimates. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine; 31(2): 172-175.
doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.03.028.

Logan T, & Walker R. (2010). Toward a deeper
understanding of the harms caused by partner
stalking. Violence and Victims; 25(4): 440-455.
doi:10.1891/0886-6708.25.4.440.
McFarlane J, Campbell JC, & Watson K. (2002).
Intimate partner stalking and femicide: Urgent
implications for women’s safety. Behavioral Sciences & the Law; 20(1-2): 51-68. doi:10.1002/
bsl.477.
Miller,L. (2012). Stalking: Patterns, motives,and intervention strategies. Aggression andViolent Behavior; 17(6): 495-506. doi:10.1016/j.
avb.2012.07.001.
Myhill A & Hohl K. (2016). The “Golden Thread”:
Coercive control and risk assessment fordomestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence; doi:10.1177/0886260516675464.
Ostermeyer B, Friedman,SH, Sorrentino R, &Booth BD. (2016). Stalking and Violence. Psychiatric Clinics North America; 39(4): 663-673.
doi:10.1016/j.psc.2016.07.010.
Schwartz-Watts DM & Rowell CN. (2003). Commentary: Update on assessing risk for violence
among stalkers. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law; 31(4): 440-443.

Black MC, Basile KC, Brieding MJ, Smith, SG,
Walter ML, Merrick MT, . . . Stevens ML.
(2011). The National Intimate Partnerand Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010
Report. Atlanta, GA: Division of ViolencePrevention, National Center for Injury Preven-

Sheridan L & Lyndon AE. (2010). The influence ofprior relationship, gender, and fear on the consequences of stalking victimization. Sex Roles;
66(5-6): 340-350. doi:10.1007/s111990109889-9.

Catalano S. (2012). Stalking Victims in the UnitedStates-Revised. Washington, DC: U.S Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Spitzberg BH & Cupach WR. (2003). What madpursuit? Aggression and Violent Behavior; 8(4):345-375. doi:10.1016/s1359-1789(02)00068-x.

tion and Control of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.

Davis KE, Swan SC, & Gambone LJ. (2012). Why
doesn’t he just leave me alone? Persistent pursuit: a critical review of theories and evidence.
Sex Roles; 66: 328-339. doi:10.1007/s11199010-9882-3.
Duntley JD & Buss DM. (2012). The evolution of
stalking. Sex Roles; 66: 311-327. doi:10.1007/
s11199-010-9832-0.
James DV & Farnham FR. (2003). Stalking andserious violence. Journal of the American
Academy of Psychiatry and the Law; 31(4):432-439.
Jouriles EN & McDonald R. (2015). Intimate partner violence, coercive control,and child adjustment problems. Journalof Interpersonal Violence; 30(3): 459-474.
doi:10.1177/0886260514535099.

8 • Joining Forces/Joining Families

Sheridan L & Roberts K. (2011). Key questions to
consider in stalking cases. Behavioral Sciences& the Law; 29(2): 255-270. doi:10.1002/bsl.966.

Spitzberg BH & Cupach WR. (2007). State of theart of stalking: Taking stock of the emerging
literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior; 12:64-86. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.05.001.
Stark E. (2009). Rethinking coercive control.
Violence Against Women; 15(12): 1509-1525.
doi:10.1177/1077801209347452.
Tjaden P & Thoennes N. (1998). Stalking in
America: Findings from the National Violence
Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Woodlock D. (2016). The abuse of technology in domestic violence and stalking.
Violence Against Women; 23(5): 584-602.
doi:10.1177/1077801216646277.

Winter 2017

Threats of Intimate Partner Violence are 			Forms of Coercive Control
By James E. McCarroll, PhD, and Joshua C. Morganstein, MD

Threats are a form of
coercive control thatcreate an ongoing
sense of fear andchronic stress.

http://www.CSTSonline.org

Threats are a form of coercive control that
occur in the course of stalking and intimate
partner violence (IPV) that create an ongoing
sense of fear and chronic stress. Threats can be
explicit or implicit. Explicit threats are easily
recognizable while implicit threats may dependon the context and the history of the relationship. An example of an implicit threat is “I hopenothing bad happens to you” [author’s quotes](Uhl, Rhymer, Terrance, & Plumm, 2017).
The U.S. Department of Justice reported
that from 1993–1998, about two-thirds of IPV
victims were attacked while one-third were
threatened. Threats that were reported byfemale and male victims, respectively, consistedof an unspecified type of threat (52% and 41%),kill (32% and 27%), threaten with a weapon(18% and 22%), throw object (4% and 11%,),
tried to hit, slap, or knock victim down (13%and 15%), followed or surrounded the victim(4% of female victims), and rape (1% of female
victims) (Rennison, 2000).
A review of stalking research found that
54% of stalking cases involved some issuanceof threat. Aggressive verbal and non-verbal
forms of harassment and intimidation such as
insults, spreading rumors, attempting to harm
the victim’s reputation are troublesome, but
not necessarily threatening. However, when behavior escalates from stalking to coercion andthreats, there is the suggestion of future harmto the victim (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007).
In a study to understand the role of threats
in stalking and coercive control in intimate
relationships, Logan (2017) inquired threats
among 210 women with protective orders
against abusive partners. These women received threats of harm and death, threats ofharming friends and family, actual threats tofriends and family, threats to harm children,
pets, coworkers, and supervisors. Ninety-fourpercent of the women endorsed at least oneof the 11 explicit threats inquired. Threats ofharm were reported in 90% of cases at least
once: 81% were threatened with serious harm,
76% with death, and 40% were threatened witha knife or gun. A high frequency of threats ofharm was associated with the highest rates ofabuse, violence, distress, and fear.

In research on IPV, the presence of threats
is rarely measured. Threats are only minimallymeasured on the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS)(Straus, 1979) and Revised Conflict Tactics
Scales (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), the most widely used measures of
IPV. To threaten with a knife or gun was the
only threat item on the CTS. The Revised CTS
has two threat items: threaten to hit or throw
something and threat to make partner have sex.
Threats of violence are, at a minimum, psychological abuse and a form of coercive control.
However, threats of harm are also a criminal act
of assault. Threats of harm to a victim as well as
to a wide variety of others, including pets andproperty, are serious issues for law enforcement,
medical, and social service providers. Service
providers should assess for the presence of
threats and the types of threats in relationships
in which there is IPV. Referring victims for law
enforcement and legal assistance can prevent
injury and death of victims.

References

Logan TK. (2017). “If I can’t have you nobody
will’; Explicit threats in the context of coercive
control. Violence and Victims; 32(1): 126-140.
Rennison CM. (2000). Intimate Partner Violence,
Revised 01/31/02. Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report NCJ 178247. Washington, DC,
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Statistics.
Spitzberg BH & Cupach WR. (2007). The state of
the art of stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior;
12: 64-86.
Straus MA. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflictand violence: The Conflict Tactics Scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family; 41: 75-88.
Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, & Sugarman DB. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics
Scale (CTS2). Journal of Family Issues; 17(3):283-316.
Uhl CA, Rhymer KJ, Terrance CA, & Plumm KM.
(2017). Perceptions of stalking: The impact of
threat level and victim response. Violence andVictims; 32(2): 299-310.

Joining Forces/Joining Families • 9

An interview with TK Logan,
PhD, from page 3

When we are abouttalking coercive control
we have to think beyond
violence. Coercive
control is all about
domination over thatvictim. Violence is just atool in that process.

tool [see Websites of Interest]. This tool helps
with the documentation as well as with somesafety suggestions. 5. And then, finally, making
sure the victim has that one support person,at least one person that they can trust to help
them as they negotiate this psychological terrorism. That person may need to be educatedabout stalking and safety so they can help themthrough all of the process. It is on-going and it
is exhausting. It is hard to stay a step ahead of
the stalker.
Dr. McCarroll: Your paper on threats made meaware of threat as a primary issue in stalking
and domestic violence (Logan, 2017).
Dr. Logan: The vast majority of domestic
violence and stalking victims are threatened
implicitly or explicitly. We need to know more
about the assessment of threats and theirtrajectory. If the threats are detailed, graphic,
and frequent, should that be a higher concern
for us? In domestic violence, the more frequent
the threats the more we tend to ignore them.
I almost feel like sometimes the more threats
there are the more we tune them out and say“Ah, I’m tired of hearing that.” But, frequencyof threats may actually indicate more danger.
Our recent paper found that ex-partners who
stalked were more likely to threaten the victim
and to threaten other people (general public
and the victim’s friends or family) with a gun.
Also, more of the partner violence victims whoreported and those that were threatened witha gun and who were stalked also reported that
their ex-partner carried that gun in public. So,
stalking can become a public safety risk (Logan& Lynch, In press).
Dr. McCarroll: Do you find that stalking isbeing taken more seriously now by courts andlaw enforcement and shelters or not?
Dr. Logan: You have to pound it into theirheads.
Dr. McCarroll: Why does it not catch on asa risk? Is it because it does not involve thedegree of violence that you see with physicalassault?
Dr. Logan: The criminal justice systemtends to be really incident-based and pastfocused. With stalking, one incident might lookcoincidental. It might not even be illegal. You
have to look at the course of conduct and at
the threat of future harm. For law enforcement,
it requires a shift in thinking. The first thing

10 • Joining Forces/Joining Families

they will always say is that there is no evidence.
It is pretty hard to get a charge if there is noevidence. I always say that we should start withthe assumption that there is always evidence
because they are continually repeating thisbehavior. Of course there is evidence. Does ittake a little more work to get the evidence, towork this case? Think about white-collar crime,
which again is a course-of-conduct crime. You
have to go in and show these patterns. It takes
a longer time to build those cases. Also, it isimportant to show the full picture of the courseof conduct of the stalker.
Incidents often look minor and trivial, butwhen you put all of the incidents together you
start to see the big picture and can better understand victim reactions to what is going on.
Unfortunately, it is the victim who is the crime
scene. There is no crime scene without her orhim. The victim must keep themselves safe, butalso they have to collect the evidence and put
it together in a coherent way. Just sitting down
and telling the story is the biggest barrier togetting help and support—helping others to
see that bigger picture. Victims often do notknow how to tell that larger story. That is why I
created SHARP, to help them with this narrative
picture.
Dr. McCarroll: Much of what you have said
also applies to social service providers aswell as law enforcement personnel. Whatmessages would you like law enforcement andproviders to take away?
Dr. Logan: That is a hard one. We needto take stalking seriously and every reaction
matters. The other thing that I would tell themis that you have to ask the right questions, questions that help clarify that bigger picture. Someof what you are going to hear may sound trivial,coincidental, or unbelievable, but reactions
matter. Even if you cannot see enough information or evidence right there to make a case, how
you react to that man or women who is being
stalked can make all the difference in the world.
Victims have told me that the reaction from theauthorities or even close friends or family wasso minimizing or dismissing, that they went on
suffering for several years before they were able
to tell someone again to try to get help. Meanwhile, they were stalked all those years. Many
women who are stalked are murdered. There isalways that risk of lethal violence, and there isalso much suffering in between.

Winter 2017

An interview with TK Logan,
PhD, from page 10

It is surprising that the
stalkers did not evenrealize that their behavior
was unacceptable.

Dr. McCarroll: What do we know about
treatment for stalkers?
Dr. Logan: Research on stalker treatment
has been limited. Some batterer treatment
providers talk about discussing stalking with
their participants. They tell the stalker, “Hey!
This is against the law.” They think it is theirright to follow their wife to see if she is cheating or to know where she is. It is surprisingthat the stalkers did not even realize that their
behavior was unacceptable. Another difference between using the framework of coercive
control versus physical abuse is that if you put
batterers in treatment, they know before they
get to treatment that they should not be hitting
their wife. They do not necessarily understandthat controlling, dominating, and taking away
their wife’s freedom of opportunity and choice
is also not ok. That may be one avenue for addressing stalking.
Dr. McCarroll: Do you find the same themeswith men who are stalked?
Dr. Logan: I have not focused as much on
male stalking victims, in part, because they area much smaller proportion of victims. Also, it
is important to remember that both men andwomen are often stalked by men. For example,
it may be the male ex-partner of the woman
who is stalking her new male partner. What we
do not know is how the stalking may differ formen if the stalker is male rather than female.
The impact of stalking is similarly devastating
across males and females. One difference may
be that men who have been stalked by females
may worry more about others close to themand about their reputation. Also, the experiences of male stalking victims are different because
there are even fewer services for them and lessunderstanding of the stalking dynamic.

We are very “yes-no”. There are many barriers for the rural women. For example, to get aprotective order may take twice as long; they
may have to hunt the judge down. They have todeal with more stigma and backlash; the urban
women will complain about no parking. We are
all annoyed with little things, but another person would feel so blessed if that were all they
had to deal with.
Dr. McCarroll: Thanks for your time. This has
been a real pleasure.
Dr. Logan: Thank you.

References

Black MC, Basile KC, Brieding MJ, Smith SG,
Walter ML, Merrick MT, . . . Stevens ML.
(2011). The National Intimate Partner andSexual Abuse Survey (NISVS): 2010 Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
Logan, TK. (2017). “If I can’t have you nobody
will”: Explicit threats in the context of partner
abuse. Violence and Victims; 32(1): 126-140.
Logan TK & Lynch KR. (In press.) Dangerous
liaisons: Examining the connection of stalking
and gun threats among partner abuse victims.
Violence and Victims.
Logan TK, Walker R, & Cole J. (2015). Silenced
suffering: The need for a better understandingof partner sexual violence. Trauma, Violence,and Abuse; 16(2): 111-135.

Dr. McCarroll: You have done a great deal ofresearch in rural areas. Were you surprisedat the differences you found in the cases inurban and rural areas?
Dr. Logan: I have been doing work ineastern Kentucky for a long time. Rural womenare amazing. They overcome all these barriers
and still survive and are optimistic. The otherthing about the Appalachian rural women isthat they are storytellers. I taped interviews andtranscribed them. When I read the transcripts
from a rural woman, I feel like I am right therewith her. They are just so good at telling stories.
We in the urban areas are very businesslike.

http://www.CSTSonline.org

Joining Forces/Joining Families • 11

Websites of Interest
There are a number of websites devoted to various aspects of stalking. We include here some that
we believe are the most informative and can be used
for both educational and clinical purposes.

Connecting the Dots — Recognizing andResponding to Stalking

An 18-minute video on stalking produced by
the Stalking Resource Center, National Center forVictims of Crime. It presents discussions on what
constitutes stalking, responding to stalking such as
assessing risk, and resources for victims.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2BHO8eXvxA

Outrageus.org

www.OutrageUs.Org
Contains a wide variety of materials on stalking
including miniseries documentaries on stalking, dating violence, and views from criminal justice professionals, and many other sources on stalking. It also
provides fact sheets for coping with stalking under
the framework of Connecting the Dots for advocates, judges, law enforcement, victims, and friends.
Many other valuable resources on stalking and otherforms of violence are available on this website.

Stalking and Harassment Assessment and Risk
Profile (SHARP)The Stalking and Harassment Assessment andRisk Profile (SHARP) is a research informed tool
developed by Dr. Logan for increasing awareness of
stalking. It can be used by victims, friends, or other
who want to gain information about possible risks ofbeing stalked. See: www.StalkingRisk.com
Another route to both OutrageUs and SHARP is
through the website www.CoerciveControl.org. It
has access to these resources and many more.

12 • Joining Forces/Joining Families

Winter 2017