The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Exploration of the Experiences and Needs of 

Former Intimate Stalking Victims 

Author(s): Mary P. Brewster 

Document No.: 175475 

Date Received: May 1999 

Award Number: 95-WT-NX-0002 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies.

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice.
AN EXPLORATION OF THE EXPERIENCES AND NEEDS OF 

FORMER INTIMATE STALKING VIC'TIMS 

Final Report Submitted to the National Institute of Justice* 

Mary P. Brewster 

Department of Criminal Justice 

West Chester University 

West Chester, PA 19383 

June 12, 1998 

*This project was supported under award number 95-WT-NX-0002 fiom the National 

Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view 

in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position 4 

of the U.S. Department of Justice. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The problem of stalking has only received widespread recognition during the 

present decade following the media coverage of a few “high profile” cases involving 

celebrities such as actresses Teresa Saldana, Rebecca Schaffer, and Jodie Foster, talkshow host David Letterman (see Perez, 1993: 268-270), and most recently, Nicole 

Simpson, ex-wife of O.J. Simpson. The result of increased public awareness of this type 

of behavior has resulted in the passage of anti-stalking laws duriing the past seven years in 

every state, beginning with California in 1990 (Cal. Penal Code, Section 646.9).l 

Anti-Stalking Legislation 

Current anti-stalking legislation varies fiom state to state in terms of substantive, 

or legal, definitions as well as the seriousness of the crime (and corresponding sanctions). 

Several authors have written comprehensive overviews of the content of anti-stalking 

legislation throughout the United States (e.g. Hunzeker, 1992; McAnaney, Curliss, & 

Abeyta-Price, 1993; Sohn, 1994; Thomas, 1993). While there is no universally accepted 

definition of stalking, it is generally “associated with pursuit oir harassment rather than 

actual physical harm” (Sohn, 1994: 207). Common elements in stalking statutes are 

references to “repeated following,” “harassing,” “course of conduct,” “harm to victim,” 

and “credible threat” (McAnaney, 1993 : 894-897; see also Ni-itional Criminal Justice 

Association, 1993). 

“Course of conduct” refers to behavior that occurs over some period of time (i.e. a 

series of acts). These acts may be the same or a variety of actiions over time included 

repeated “following, nonconsensual communication, harassing,, and trespassing,” or 

certain other forms of physical contact (McAnaney et al., 1993: 894-895; U.S. 

0 Department of Justice, 1993: 44). The National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) has 

1 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
developed a model anti-stalking code in which they define “course of conduct” as 

“repeatedly [on two or more occasions] maintaining a visual ac physical proximity to a 

person or repeatedly conveying verbal or written threats or threats implied by conduct or 

a combination thereof directed at or toward a person” (NCJA, 1993: 43). Some statutes 

specify the intended, while others specify the actual, effect that the behavior must have 

on the victim in order to constitute stalking. This may include the intent to place the 

person in fear of physical injury or to cause emotional distress (Mchaney et al., 1993: 

896). Finally, in some states the anti-stalking statutes make reference to “credible 

threat.” In essence this means that the victim must actually believe that the stalker has 

the capacity to carry out a threat (e.g. “that would cause an individual to reasonably fear 

for [hidher safety or] the safety of another individual” (McAnaney et al., 1993: 896- 

897)). 

a 

In addition to substantive variations in stalking laws, the classification of the 

crime according to seriousness (and resulting sanctions) also varies from state to state. 

Typically, stalking is classified as a misdemeanor, however several states have provisions 

in their statutes whereby certain aggravating circumstances can result in the behavior 

being classified a felony. For example, if a stalker is violating a temporary restraining 

order or an order of protection, or if a convicted stalker commits subsequent stalking 

behavior, the individual can receive a harsher sentence (McAnaney et al., 1993: 900- 

901). 

Extent of the Stalking Problem 

Although only a handful of highly-publicized cases (and the resultant public 

pressure) appears to have been the impetus for anti-stalking statutes, a recent national 

2 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
survey resulted in estimates that over one million women and 370,000 men each year are 

victims of stalking (Tjaden, 1997). The researchers also suggest that one in twelve 

American women will be stalking victims at some point in their lives. These estimates 

far exceed earlier, more conservative estimates (see e.g. Guy, 19’93: 995). Although 

stalking is estimated to be a widespread problem affecting people of all walks of life, 

research on stalking and victims of stalking has been scant. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Purpose of the Study 

The purpose of this research study was to explore the nature of the stalking 

experiences of non-celebrity, former intimate victims, or “ordinary people.” Victim 

interviews provided the researcher with data on the nature of the stalking, the relationship 

between the victim and the stalker, the victim’s response to the stalking, the 

consequences of the stalking for the victim, and the needs of stalking victims and 

fiilfillment of those needs in terms of victim services and the criminal justice system. 

Research Approach 

Sample 

The sample for the study consisted of 187 women who were recent (i.e. during the 

previous five years) former intimate stalking victims in Chester, Delaware, Bucks, 

Lehigh, Philadelphia, Dauphin, and Montgomery Counties in south-eastem Pennsylvania 

identified through victim service agencies and law enforcement agencies, as well as 

through advertisements in widely distributed area newspapers (e.g Philadelphia Inquirer, 

etc.).’ Counties were selected based on efficiency in terms of the shortest travel distances 

e 

for the researcher and fellow interviewer as well as the potential of the population of the 

0 

3 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
counties to provide large numbers of subjects with varying demographic characteristics. e In addition, fliers were posted in laundromats, supermarkets, and an international 

women’s symposium in Philadelphia. 

The resulting sample consisted of female stalking victims ranging in age from 18 

through 74 (~34.5, s.d.=9.3, median=34), who were between the ages of 15 and 58 when 

the stalking began. About three-quarters of the sample were nonhispanic white (74.5%) 

and 23.4% were African American. Other racial groups were not well represented in the 

sample. Ninety percent of the women had completed at least high school, and 69% had 

completed at least some college. The victims’ annual household incomes ranged fiom 

nothing through $130,000. Most of the women resided in suburban areas (74.3%), some 

in urban areas (23.5%), and few in rural areas (2.2%) despite advertising efforts soliciting 

subjects fiom rural areas. 

Legislative Model 

The general concepts contained in the Pennsylvania staking statute were used as 

the framework upon which this research was based. Pursuant to tllis statute: 

A person commits the crime of stalking when he engages in a 

course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts toward another person, 

including following the person without proper auth’ority, under 

circumstances which demonstrate either of the following: 

(1) an intent to place the person in reasonablle fear of bodily injury; 

(2) an intent to cause substantial emotional (distress to the person. 

or 

PA Code Section 18: 2709 (rev. 1994) 

When women called to inquire about participation in the study, they were 

screened to insure that they met two criteria for inclusion in the saLmple. First, they must 

! 

have been repeatedly harassed, followed, and/or threatened during the past five years by 

0 someone with whom they had had an intimate relationship (i.e. through marriage, 

4 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
cohabiting, or dating).3 Second, the women must have either experienced emotional 

distress, fear of bodily harm, actual bodily harm, or the belief that the stalker intended to 

cause one or more of the above. It is important to note that, unlike the legal definition of 

stalking presented above, actual intent to cause fear of bodily harm or to cause 

substantial emotional distress was not a criteria in this research study. 

Data Collection 

Extensive (1 to 3 hour) semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted 

with each woman in order to gather information about the nature of her former 

relationship with her stalker, characteristics of the stalking experience, the effects of the 

stalking, and her resultant needs. A brief questionnaire was also administered to obtain 

demographic information about the women. Data were collected from January 1996 

through July 1997. 

The interview consisted of both open-ended and fixed alternative questions. 

Respondents were able to elaborate following every question. 'The interview began by 

requesting the woman to describe what happened to her in terms of her stalking 

victimization. Responses to this question lasted anywhere from :5 minutes to two hours. 

Following this question, the respondent was asked a series of folllow-up questions which 

explored five different areas or domains: (1) her prior relationship with the stalker; (2) 

the characteristics of the stalking; (3) her attempts to discourage the stalker (through both 

legal and extralegal mechanisms); (4) assistance sought by the victim through formal and 

informal networks (and the subsequent handling of the situation by others); (5) the effects 

of the stalking on the victim; and (6) other victimization experiences. Several of the 

areas and/or specific questions were based on a review of the scant stalking literature 

e 

5 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
(Dieti: 1989% 1989b; Dietz & Martell, 1989; Dietz et al, 1991% 1991b) as well as the e- general victimization literature (e.g. Abt, 1982; Baurman & Schadler, 199 1; Cohen, 1990; 

Finn & Lee, 1987; Maguire, 1991; Newburn, 1993; U.S. Department of Justice, 1994; 

and Voss, 1991). 

Due to the nature and the length of the interviews, each interview was taperecorded and later transcribed. Content analysis of the data resulted in the identification 

of over 500 variables. All of the variables included in the analysis achieved an inter-rater 

reliability level of 87% or better. 

Characteristics of Stalkers 

Stalkers were, on average, slightly younger than the victims in the sample (~3 1.2 

years, s.d.=8.9, median=30), ranging in age from 17 through 57. Fifty-seven percent of 

the stalkers were nonhispanic white, 37% were Afiican American, and 6.5% were other 

racial minorities. Of the 100 stalkers whose education was specified by the victims, 77% 

had completed at least high school, and 45% had completed at least some college, though 

e 

their educational backgrounds ranged from some elementary school through completion 

of a doctoral program. Sixty-nine percent of the stalkers were employed; 62% in bluecollar positions and 37% holding white-collar positions. 

According to the interview respondents, 61.7% of the stalkers had some type of 

prior criminal record. Of those who were able to specify the type of prior record, 31% 

indicated a prior record for violent offenses. Compounding this propensity for violence is 

the high rate of reported drug and alcohol abuse among stalkers. According to the 

victims, 72% of the stalkers abused either drugs or alcohol. (See Table 2.) Notably, 65% 

of the women in the sample reported physical abuse during their prior relationship with 

a 

6 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
the stalker. Sixty-six percent of these women identified drug and/or alcohol use as a 

trigger of that violence. 

Victim-Stalker Prior Relationship 

0. 

The prior relationship between victim and stalker varied: 37% were married, 25% 

were living together but not married, 24% were seriously dating or engaged, and 15% 

were dating only casually. Seventy-five percent reported that the stalker began his 

controlling behavior during their prior relationship. As highlighted above, nearly twothirds of the women suffered domestic violence during their prior relationship with the 

stalker. 

Characteristics of the Stalking 

The length of the stalkmg period ranged from 1 month through 456 months, with 

a median of 12 months. Generally, the perceived motivation for the stalking was 

reconciliation or revenge. (See Table 3 .) Seventy-five percent of the women perceived 

reconciliation as the stalkers’ motivation, and 45% indicated that revenge was the motive. 

(Women were able to identify more than one motivation.) 

a 

The most common stalking behaviors reported by the victims were phone calls 

(90.4%), watching (78.6%), and following (68.4%). (See Table 4.) Over half the 

respondents reported that they received phone calls at least daily from their stalkers. 

When asked whether they noticed any triggers of the various stalking behaviors, onethird of the women stated that the break-up itself was the trigger and 26.7% mentioned 

drug or alcohol abuse. 

Threats and Violence 

Seventy-three percent of the women reported threats of violence made by their 

a stalkers against them, and 37 percent mentioned threats of violence towards family, 

7 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
fiends, coworkers, or other affiliates. (See Table 8.) Forty-six percent of the victims 

reported that their stalkers had committed violence against them during the stalking. (See 

Table 33.) Those who received explicit threats were also more likely than those who 

received implicit threats or no threats, to have experienced violence at the hands of their 

stalkers (65.7% versus 23.9%, respectively). (See Table 9.) 

aComparisons between victims of nonhispanic white and Mcan American 

stalkers reveal that victims of African American stalkers were more likely to have 

experienced threats of violence and actual violence during the s’talking. (See Tables 15 

and 16.) Data also indicate that stalkers with higher levels of education were less likely 

to be violent and less likely to make explicit threats, while implicit threats did not vary as 

greatly by stalkers’ education. (See Tables 20 and 21 .) 

Victims’ Attempts to Discourage Stalker 

Most of the victims tried various extralegal approaches to discourage their 

stalkers. Reasoning with the stalker (69.5%), ignoring the stalker (42.8%), moving to a 

different residence (33.2%), and changing telephone numbershlocking calls fiom the 

stalker (31.6%) were the most common. (See Table 24.) The majority of women 

reported that each of these attempts was unsuccessfkl in discouraging the stalker. The 

most common legal attempts to discourage the stalker included police contact (71.7%), 

protection fiom abuse orders (51.3%), and arrest (27.8%). As with the extralegal 

attempts to discourage the stalker, the victims expressed that the majority of these legal 

attempts to discourage the stalker had either no effect or made the stalkers’ behavior 

worse. (See Tables 25 and 26.) 

8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Victims’ Needs 0- Interview respondents were asked to identify their greatest need as a result of 

being stalked. Psychological/emotional support was the greatest need of 38% of the 

women. Twenty-three percent mentioned that they needed a sense of security, and 10% 

stated that their greatest need was criminal justice system support. (See Table 29.) 

Typically, victims sought assistance from their fiends (68%) and family (54%), and they 

reported that their fiends (37%), family (21.7%), or themselves (25%) were responsible 

for having met their needs during the stalking. (See Tables 27 and 30.) 

Police Responsiveness 

Victims were asked several questions pertaining to police responsiveness to their 

situation during the staking period. Responses varied greatly from one jurisdiction to the 

next and from one victim to another. Overall, the victims gave t,he highest ratings to the 

police for “speed of police response” and “politeness,” and the poorest ratings for 

“sympathy” and “how well the police lived up to victim’s expectations.” (See Table 3 1 .) 

Effects of Stalking on Victims 

0 

Victims reported a variety of psychological, physical, financial, and quality of life 

effects of the stalking. Victims’ immediate emotional reactions upon learning that they 

were stalked included “fear/terror” (57.2%), anger (23.5%), and insomnia (12.8%). The 

33-item Trauma Symptom Checklist (Briere & Runtz, 1989) was administered to the 

victims, and they indicated the frequency with which they experienced each symptom 

during the stalking (never, occasionally, fairly often, and very often). The symptoms 

with highest mean scores for the sample were sadness, insomnia, restless sleep, and 

tension. (See Table 32.) e 

9 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Forty six percent of the women experienced violence at the hands of their stalkers. 

Eighty-one percent of these women suffered physical injuries ranging from small scrapes 

to gun shot wounds. The most prevalent injuries were bruises (27.3% of the total 

sample), small scrapes and cuts (18.2%), and black eyes (12.3%). (See Table 33.) 

aEighty percent of the victims incurred financial costs ranging from nominal costs 

to costs exceeding $100,000 (median =$1,000). Twenty-seven percent of the women 

incurred moving expenses as a result of trying to evade their stalkers. Twenty-eight 

percent changed their telephone number. Twenty-nine percent reported losing salary or 

tuition as a result of the stalking. Damage to victims’ cars (20%) and other property 

damage (22%) were also experienced by some of the victims. Twenty percent spent 

money changing locks or adding deadbolts for added security. (See Tables 34 through 

36.) e Almost all victims (99%) reported reductions in the qu(a1ity of their lives as a 

result of the stalking. Eighty percent reported a high level of fear, 94% were constantly 

wary, 64% reported changes in activity patterns. (See Tables 37 and 38.) 

Stalking compared to Other Victimizations 

Thirty-eight percent of the stalking victims reported having been victims of 

another crime in their adult lives. When asked to compare the harm of the stalking and 

the other crime, most women (75%) reported that the stalking was more harmfUl than the 

other crime regardless of whether the other crime was a misdemeanor (85.3% stating 

stalking was more hdl), a felony (64.9%), a property offense (83.8%), or a violent 

offense (64.7%). (See Tables 39 and 40.) 

10 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The research findings above shed light on some aspects of stalking behaviors and 

victims’ experiences and needs. Based on the interviews with 187 female victims of 

former intimate stalking, we can conclude that stalking is a serious offense that can have 

a great impact on victims’ lives. It is apparent that these women are suffering first as a 

result of their attempts to leave their partners, and then as a consequence of the relatively 

scarce and/or ineffective assistance in discouraging the stalker aind meeting the victims’ 

needs. The stalkers described by the victims employ a great variety of tactics in the 

commission of the offense, and many of the perpetrators reportedly have drug and/or 

alcohol problems. A large percentage of women in the sample experienced verbal threats 

and/or violence at the hands of their stalkers, intensifying the seriousness of the crime. 

Policy recommendations e The following are policy recommendations for law enforcement agencies, courts, 

legislatures, and victim service agencies based upon the research findings discussed 

above. 

0 Treatment of stalkers by the police, courts, and correctional agencies, whether that 

treatment entails deterrence or rehabilitative approaches, should reflect the 

seriousness of the behavior. When appropriate, this treatment should address drug 

and alcohol abuse among former intimate stalkers. 

Law enforcement and other justice system agency personnel should be trained to 

better understand the plight of stalking victims in order to avoid “re-victimizing” 

them by failing to (1) demonstrate appropriate empathy, (2) implement the provision 

11 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
of current anti-stalking statutes, and (3) make referrals to other agencies that can 

assist victims. 

Legislatures should review current anti-stalking legislatiori and make appropriate 

changes that would increase the effectiveness and enforceability of these laws. 

Legislative review should be implemented, shifting the focus of criminal intent in 

stalking statutes from the stalker’s intention to inflict emotional or physical harm to 

the stalker’s intention to commit acts which, in turn, inflict emotional or physical 

harm. 

The process by which victims obtain restraining orders and protection &om abuse 

orders needs to be streamlined. Present criteria for obtaining restraining orders and 

protection from abuse orders should be reviewed. Alternatives should be made 

available to women who are unable to obtain protection orders due to current criteria. 

Mechanisms should be provided to assist victims of stalking who have not been 

victims of intimate violence. Alternatives to mechanisms available to physically 

battered women @.e. Protection from Abuse orders) should be in place in every 

jurisdiction. 

Victims of former intimate stalking should, at a minimum, be treated as well as 

victims of stranger stalking. The same degree of seriousness should be attributed to 

former intimate stalking as is attributed to a situation where a victim is stalked by a 

stranger. 

Education should be provided to increase awareness among legislators, victim service 

professionals, and criminal justice practitioners of the serious effects of stalking on its 

victims and the importance of treating stalking offenses more seriously. Workshops 

0 

0 

0 

0 

12 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
and training courses should be offered to the police, district attorneys, judges, and 

victim counselors in order for them to be more sensitive to the unique needs of 

stalking victims. 

Training and education of criminal justice professionals regarding the anti-stalking 

legislation in their ,own jurisdiction as well as the Interstate Stalking Punishment and 

Prevention Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C.$2261) should be conducted so that these laws can 

be enforced more effectively and the intended protections can be afforded to stalking 

victims. 

Funding opportunities should be provided to develop innovative programs to better 

coordinate police, court, and victim service agencies in their handling of stalking 

cases. 

Greater resources should be provided to victims of stalking, including education, 

information and guidance, counseling, and support groups. Siupport groups should be 

developed not only for stalking victims who were formerly abused by their partners, 

but also for stalking victims who have not been victims of domestic abuse. 

.- 

0 

0 

0 e 

Future research recommendations 

The following are several suggestions for hture research that should result in an 

even greater understanding of the offense of stalking and victims’ experiences. 

0 Additional research should include data collected fiom the stalkers themselves to 

better understand the nature of stalking. 

Based on the large number of victims reporting the abuse of drugs andor alcohol by 

their stalkers (72%), additional research is needed to hrther investigate the link 

between substance abuse and stalking behavior. 

13 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
0 Three-quarters of the victims reported that “controlling’’ behavior was present in their 

prior relationships with their stalkers. Further research to examine the early 

predictors of later stalking would be helpful. 

Future research on stalking victims should victims of psychlopathic and erotomanic 

stalkers to better understand the uniqueness and similarities of their experiences and 

needs. 

0 

0 The inclusion of male victims of stalking in research would broaden our 

understanding of stalking victimization. 

Ongoing evaluation of the impact (i.e. effectiveness) of state imd federal anti-stalking 

legislation is necessary to determine whether it effectively and adequately redresses 

the harmful behavior of stalking. 

0 

0 Victims revealed that local law enforcement personnel lacked a complete 

understanding of current anti-stalking legislation. Research is needed to assess the 

need for education of law enforcement professionals regarding federal and state antistalking legislation and enforcement procedures. 

The experiences of stalking victims in rural areas should be addressed to determine 

whether their experiences are similar to those of victims in urban and suburban areas, 

and to determine whether their needs are satisfactorily being met by existing services. 

0 

14 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
FINAL REPORT 

INTRODUCTION 

The problem of stalking has only received widespread recognition during the 

present decade following the media coverage of a few “high profile” cases involving 

celebrities such as actresses Teresa Saldana, Rebecca Schaffer, and Jodie Foster, talkshow host David Letterman (see Perez, 1993: 268-270), and most recently, Nicole 

Simpson, ex-wife of O.J. Simpson. The result of increased public awareness of this type 

of behavior has resulted in the passage of anti-stalking laws during the past seven years in 

every state, beginning with California in 1990 (Cal. Penal Code, Section 646.9).4 

ANTI-STALKING LEGISLATION 

Current anti-stalking legislation varies from state to state iii terms of substantive, 

or legal, definitions as well as the seriousness of the crime (and corresponding sanctions). 

Several authors have written comprehensive overviews of the content of anti-stalking 

legislation throughout the United States (e.g. Hunzeker, 1992; Mc Ananey, Curliss, & 

Abeyta-Price, 1993; Sohn, 1994; Thomas, 1993). While there is no universally accepted 

definition of stalking, it is generally “associated with pursuit or harassment rather than 

actual physical harm” (Sohn, 1994: 207). Common elements in stalking statutes are 

references to “repeated following,” “harassing,” “course of conduc:t,” “harm to victim,” 

and “credible threat” (Mchaney, 1993 : 894-897; see also National Criminal Justice 

Association, 1993). 

a 

“Course of conduct” refers to behavior that occurs over some period of time (i.e. a 

series of acts). These acts may be the same or a variety of actions over time included 

repeated “following, nonconsensual communication, harassing, and trespassing,” or 

e certain other forms of physical contact (Mchaney et al., 11993: 894-895; U.S. 

15 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Department of Justice, 1993: 44). The National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) has 

developed a model anti-stalking code in which they define “course of conduct” as 

“repeatedly [on two or more occasions] maintaining a visual or physical proximity to a 

person or repeatedly conveying verbal or written threats or threats implied by conduct or 

a combination thereof directed at or toward a person” (NCJA, 1993: 43). Some statutes 

specify the intended, while others speciQ the actual, effect that the behavior must have 

on the victim in order to constitute stalking. This may include the intent to place the 

person in fear of physical injury or to cause emotional distress (IMcAnaney et al., 1993: 

896). Finally, in some states the anti-stalking statutes make reference to “credible 

threat.” In essence this means that the victim must actually belileve that the stalker has 

the capacity to carry out a threat (e.g. “that would cause an individual to reasonably fear 

for [hidher safety or] the safety of another individual” (McAnaney et al., 1993: 896- 

897)). 

In addition to substantive variations in stalking laws, the classification of the 

crime according to seriousness (and resulting sanctions) also varies fiom state to state. 

Typically, stalking is classified as a misdemeanor, however several states have provisions 

in their statutes whereby certain aggravating circumstances can result in the behavior 

being classified a felony. For example, if a stalker is violating ii temporary restraining 

order or an order of protection, or if a convicted stalker commits subsequent stalking 

behavior, the individual can receive a harsher sentence (McAnaiiey et al., 1993: 900- 

90 1). 

16 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERA‘12TRE 

Although only a handkl of highly-publicized cases (and the resultant public 

pressure) appears to have been the impetus for anti-stalking statutes, a recent national 

survey resulted in estimates that over one million women and 370,000 men each year are 

victims of stalking (Tjaden, 1997). The researchers also suggest that one in twelve 

American women will be stalking victims at some point in their lives. These estimates 

far exceed earlier, more conservative estimates (see e.g. Guy, 1993: 995). 

Although stalking is estimated to be a widespread problem affecting people of all 

walks of life, research on stalking and victims of stalking has been scant. Until recently, 

the research that had addressed the stalking issue has been primarily legal in nature (see 

e.g. Guy, 1993; Hunzeker, 1992; McAnaney, Curliss, & Abeyta-Price, 1993; National 

Criminal Justice Association, 1993; Perez, 1993; Soh, 1994; Thomas, 1993). Much of 

the less common empirical research had focused solely on high-profile cases, or cases 

involving celebrities and political leaders (see e.g. Dietz, Matthews, Martell, Stewart, 

Hrouda, & Warren, 1991a; Dietz, Matthews, VanDuyne, Martell, Parry, Stewart, Warren, 

& Crowder, 1991b; Hoffman, 1943; Sebastiani & Foy, 1965; Shore, Filson, Davis, 

Olivos, DeLisis, & Wyatt, 1985). Other empirical research has fcmsed on small samples 

of erotomanic stalkers who have delusions about another individual with whom they are 

“in love” and who they sometimes believe reciprocates those feelings (see e.g. Doust & 

Christie, 1978; Ellis & Mellsop, 1985; ElGaddal, 1989; Goldstein, 1986, 1987; Leong, 

1994; Segal, 1989; Zona, Sharma, & Lane, 1993). 

0 

Related to, and inclusive of some, stalking behaviors is the area of abuse of 

former and current intimate partners. A great deal of domestic. violence research has a 

17 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
been conducted, but this body of research does not usually reflect the distinction between 

those who have been stalked and those who have not. The exception to this is the 

literature on temporary restraining orders and orders of protection (see e.g. Finn, 1989, 

1991; Finn & Colson, 1990; Harrell, Smith, & Newmark, 1993; ,Schollenberg & Gibbons, 

1992). Again, however, this research fails to present a comprehensive picture of stalking 

experiences because women who obtain restraining orders are not representative of all 

stalking victims. 

0- 

Researchers have examined violence and abusive relationships in terms of “the 

dominance motive” (Rouse, 1990; also see Eastal, 1994); deterrence (e.g. Williams & 

Hawkins, 1992); risk factors related to family violence (e.g. Sugerman & Hotaling, 

1989); and personality characteristics of abusers (e.g. Dutton & Starzomski, 1993; Else et 

al., 1993). While the body of domestic violence literature may provide some insights into a some stalking behaviors, a distinction must be made between domestic violence 

involving the abuse of a current sexual partner and violence against former sexual 

intimates. The latter is more likely to include a stalking component, due to the nature of 

the relationship between the victim and the offender. Although a person may be violent 

towards hidher spouse, this does not constitute “stalking” if the victim remains 

“voluntarily” in the ~ituation.~ Wilson and Daly (1993: 4) discuss this distinction: 

. , .violent possessiveness and sincere threat entail it risk of lethality, 

destroying the very object that the husband is concerned to retain. One 

can.. .assess the magnitude of elevated risk in the aftermath of actual 

separations, at which time possessive husbands may continue their threats 

and violence to coerce the woman’s return. (See hlahoney, 1991, who 

notes that the use of assaults and threats to get estranged wives back has 

scarcely been remarked in the domestic violence Iilerature, since the 

residency status of the couple is rarely reported) lptalics added] 

18 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
In fact, Finn and Colson (1990: 10) claim that police and hospital records indicate that the 

majority of domestic violence incidents take place when the victim and abuser are not 

currently living together. 

0- 

The only recent, large-scale study conducted that has investigated the incidence 

and nature of stalking ,victimization was a telephone survey conducted by Patricia Tjaden 

and Nancy Thoennes of the Center for Policy Research in Denvier (see U.S. Department 

of Justice, 1997). Their study included victims of current intimate, former intimate, 

acquaintance, and stranger stalkers. They found that females were more likely to be 

stalked by current intimates and former intimates than by acquaintances or strangers. 

Conversely, most male victims reported having been stalked by acquaintances or 

strangers (U. S. Department of Justice, 1997: 9). While Tjaden and Thoennes considered 

stalking by current intimates, former intimates, acquaintances, and strangers, the focus of 

the research described in this report is limited exclusively to -former intimate stalking 

experiences. 

a 

TYPES OF STALKERS 

Typically, three types of stalkers have been identified in the literature related to 

stalking: erotomanic, psychopathichociopathic, and former intimate (see e.g. Guy, 1993; 

McAnaney et al., 1993; Sohn, 1994). Each type is characterized by different motivations 

and/or different relationships with the victim. 

Erotomanic Stalkers 

Erotomanic stalkers are interested in a romantic relationship with their victim, 

however this type does not include those with whom the victim has had a previous 

intimate relationship. Numerous researchers have studied erotomanic behavior (e.g. a 

19 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1989b; Dietz & Martell, 1989; Dietz et al., 199 

- 

1978; Ellis & Mellsop, 1985; ElGaddal, 1989; 

a; Dietz et al., 1991 b; Doust & Christie, 

Goldstein, 1986, 1987; Hoffman, 1943; 

Leong, 1994; Leong & Silva, 1992; Meloy, 1989; Noone & Cockhill, 1987; Sebastiani & 

Foy, 1965; Segal, 1989; Shore et al., 1985; Shore et al., 1989; Taylor, Mahendra, & Gunn, 

1983; Zona et al., 1993). Two types of erotomanic stalkers are described in this literature: 

erotomanic and borderline erotomanic. The erotomanic stalker is under the delusional belief 

that hisher feelings for the victim are reciprocated, when in fact they are not.6 Erotomanics 

are typically female (only 20-30% male), withdrawn, unmarried individuals who single out 

"objects" of "greater intelligence, status, looks, authority" (Segal, 1989: 1264). The 

borderline erotomanic desires to create an intimate relationship with the victim, recognizing 

that their "love" interest may not be reciprocal. 

Not every erotomanic, however, becomes a stalker; some are content to fantasize 

about the object of their affections without harassing the individual. Sometimes, however, 

"the lives of their delusionary objects may be disrupted for years by harassment and, in 

extreme cases, by violence" (Segal, 1989: 1265). When attempted or actual contact is made 

and continued, though discouraged by the object of the delusions, the erotomanic individual 

could be classified as a stalker. The contact may be made through various means, including 

sending letters and gifts, making telephone calls, and/or following the victim or conducting 

surveillance. 

SociopathicRsychopathic Stalkers 

The sociopathic stalker is not motivated by relationships (real or imagined). 

Examples of sociopathic stalkers would be serial murderers and serial rapists. 

20 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Sociopathic stalkers “seek individuals that fit their assault criteria - they first formulate 

the characteristics of the ‘ideal victim’ and then seek an ‘acceptable example’ to fit the 

criteria” (McAnaney et al., 1993: 842). These types of stalkers are not suffering from 

delusions, nor have they had prior intimate relationships with their victims. 

Former Intimate Stalkers 

Former intimate stalkers are those who have had a relationship with the victim at 

some point in time. While the domestic violence literature has dealt with a combination 

of current and former intimates, only the former intimate can possibly be included in the 

stalking domain. By definition, a “current intimate” presumes a consensual and ongoing 

relationship (e.g. cohabiting, dating, etc.). Stalking presumes “nonconsensual” 

communication or contact which is not possible to establish in situations of current 

intimates because implicit in the relationship is consent of contact. Offensive behavior 

involved in current intimate relationships, however, may violate other laws (e.g. domestic 

abuse). The focus of this research, then, is on former intimate stalking victims. 

According to McAnaney et al. (1993: 839-840), former intimates “are intensely 

emotionally dependent on their partner” and “may be jealous of real or imagined 

infidelities and exhibit a need to control their former partner.” 

a 

Typically, former intimate stalkers are seeking revenge or reconciliation through 

stalking. Some former intimates may seek revenge while others seek reconciliation, and 

some former intimate stalkers fluctuate between desiring reconciliation and revenge, 

while still others begin with a desire for reconciliation but later become motivated by 

revenge (i.e. if the victim fbrther rejects the stalker). 

21 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
As mentioned earlier, though the existing domestic violence literature is valuable, 

the temporary restraining order and order of protection literature is most closely related to 

the stalking issue. Those former intimates who require civil action to keep them away are 

the most likely to fit the description of the stalker. It is commonly believed that the 

“former intimate” is the most prevalent type of stalking relationship (e.g. Thomas, 1993: 

126) and it has been stated that nearly all (possibly 90%) men who kill their wives, 

girlfriends, or former intimates, stalked them first (Sohn, 1994: 205). 

0- 

STALKING VICTIMS 

In addition to the various categories of stalking offenders, there also exist several 

“types” of stalking victims. Media figures are popular viclims of some stalkers. 

Celebrities are susceptible to all three types of stalkers, but are especially vulnerable to 

erotomanic stalkers. The erotomanic stalker may become so fascinated with the celebrity 

that he or she may harass the victim by mail, phone, and/or iin person. In addition, 

celebrities and politicians are easily accessible by sociopathic stalkers. Finally, former 

intimate stalkers are probably just as likely to stalk a famous person with whom they 

have had a relationship as they are to stalk an “ordinary” ex-spouse, boyfhend, or 

girlfriend. 

e 

Although the media often focuses on celebrities who are stalked, victims of 

stalking are, more often than not, “ordinary people” (Perez, 1990: 276). Like the 

celebrity victims, these victims can be the targets of former intimate, erotomanic, or 

sociopathic stalkers. “Ordinary people” are especially susceptible, however, to those 

with whom they have had intimate relationships. As stated earlier, it is believed that this 

22 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
e- is the most common type of stalking situation (Thomas, 1993: 126). The focus of this 

study is on the experiences of this group - non-celebrity, former intimate stalking victims. 

PROJECT DESCRIPTION 

Purpose of the Study 

The purpose of this research study was to explore the nature of the stalking 

experiences of non-celebrity, former intimate victims, or “ordinary people.” Victim 

interviews provided the researcher with data on the nature of the stalking, the relationship 

between the victim and the stalker, the victim’s response to the stalking, the 

consequences of the stalking for the victim, and the needs of stalking victims and 

fulfillment of those needs in terms of victim services and the criminal justice system. 

Research Approach 

Sample 

The sample for the study consisted of 187 women who were recent (i.e. during the 

previous five years) former intimate stalking victims in Chester, Delaware, Bucks, 

Lehigh, Philadelphia, Dauphin, and Montgomery Counties in south-eastem Pennsylvania. 

Participants were identified through victim service agencies and law enforcement 

agencies, as well as through advertisements in widely distributed area newspapers (e.g. 

Philadelphia Inquirer, etc.).’ Counties were selected based on efficiency in terms of the 

shortest travel distances for the researcher and fellow interviewer as well as the potential 

of the population of the counties to provide large numbers of subjects with varying 

demographic characteristics. In addition, fliers were posted in laundromats, supermarkets, 

e and an international women’s symposium in Philadelphia. 

23 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This sampling size and approach was intended to recruit a diverse group of eresearch participants in terms of socio-economic status, educiation, race, and type of 

geographic area. While this was clearly a sample of convenience (and caution is 

recommended in generalizing beyond the group studied), the research was exploratory in 

nature with the purpose of identifying patterns and common clnaracteristics among the 

victims' experiences. It is expected that hture researchers will use the data provided 

herein to guide them in more rigorous research on more representative samples of 

stalking victims. 

Legislative Model 

The general concepts contained in the Pennsylvania stalking statute (PA Code 

Section 18: 2709 (rev. 1994)) were used as the framework upon which this research was 

based. Pursuant to this statute: a 

A person commits the crime of stalking when he engages in a 

course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts toward another person, 

including following the person without proper authority, under 

circumstances which demonstrate either of the following: 

(1) an intent to place the person in reasonable fear of bodily injury; 

(2) an intent to cause substantial emotional (distress to the person. 

or 

PA Code Section 18: 2709 (rev. 1994) 

When women called to inquire about participation in the study, they were 

screened to insure that they met two criteria for inclusion in the sample. First, they must 

have been repeatedly harassed, followed, and/or threatened during the past five years by 

someone with whom they had had an intimate relationship (i.e. through marriage, 

cohabiting, or dating).' Second, the women must have either experienced emotional 

distress, fear of bodily harm, actual bodily harm, or the belief that the stalker intended to 

cause one or more of the above. It is important to note that, unlike: the legal definition of 8 

24 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
stalking presented above, actual intent to cause fear of bodily harm or to cause 

substantial emotional distress was not a criteria in this research study. 

Data Collection 

Extensive (1 to 3 hour) semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted 

with each woman in order to gather information about the nature of her former 

relationship with her stalker, characteristics of the stalking experience, the effects of the 

stalking, and her resultant needs. This data collection approach was selected due to the 

exploratory nature of this research and the limited knowledge base in the area of stalking 

victimization. A brief questionnaire was also administered to obtain demographic 

information about the women. Data were collected from January 1996 through July 

1997. 

The interview consisted of both open-ended and fixed alternative questions. 

Respondents were able to elaborate following every question. The interview began by 

requesting the woman to describe what happened to her in terms of her stalking 

victimization. Responses to this question lasted anywhere from 5 minutes to two hours. 

Following this question, the respondent was asked a series of follow-up questions which 

explored five different areas or domains: (1) her prior relationship with the stalker; (2) 

the characteristics of the stalking; (3) her attempts to discourage the stalker (through both 

legal and extralegal mechanisms); (4) assistance sought by the victim through formal and 

informal networks (and the subsequent handling of the situation by others); (5) the effects 

of the stalking on the victim; and (6) other victimization experiences. Several of the 

areas and/or specific questions were based on a review of the sc;arce stalking literature 

(Dietz, 1989% 1989b; Dietz & Martell, 1989; Dietz et al, 1991a, 1991b) as well as the 

e 

0 

25 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
general victimization literature (e.g. Abt, 1982; Baurman & Schadler, 1991; Cohen, 1990; 

Finn & Lee, 1987; Maguire, 1991; Newburn, 1993; U.S. Department of Justice, 1994; 

and Voss, 1991). 

eDue to the nature and the length of the interviews, e<ach interview was taperecorded and later transcribed. Although the purpose of the interviews was to identify 

general common themes and patterns, content analysis of the interview transcripts did 

result in the identification of over 500 variables. However, because of the semistructured approach taken in conducting the interviews, not all respondents provided data 

pertaining to every variable. Data analysis, therefore, was limited to bivariate statistics 

since the feasibility of multivariate analyses would be limited by missing values. All of 

the variables included in the analyses achieved an inter-rater reliability level of 87% or 

better. 

Victim (Sample) Characteristics 

The ages of the women in the sample ranged fiom 18 through 74 (~34.5, 

s.d.=9.3, median=34). Their reported ages at the time the stalking began ranged from 15 

through 58 (~30.5, s.d.=8.8, median=29). The majority of the women in the sample 

were nonhispanic white (74.5%). Fewer (23.4%) were Afiican American, and only two 

percent were Asian or Hispanic. The victims’ educational backgrounds ranged from 

some elementary school through completion of a doctoral program. Ninety percent had 

completed at least high school and 69% had completed at least some college. Seventy 

percent of the women worked outside the home, and annual household incomes ranged 

fiom none through $130,000 (x=$3 1,115, s.d.=$26,725, median=$24,000). Most of the 

respondents resided in suburban areas (74.3%), some in urban areas (23.5%), and very 

26 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
few in rural areas (2.2%). Most (82.2%) of the women in the sample had had only one 

stalking experience in their pasts. Those who had more than one experience were asked 

0. 

to answer the interview questions based on their most recent stalking experience. 

Stalker Characteristics 

Victims reported that their stalkers were between 17 and 57 years of age when the 

stalking began (x=31.2, s.d.=8.9, median=30). Over half (57%) of the stalkers were 

nonhispanic white, 37% were Mcan American, and 6.5% were: other racial minorities. 

Only 100 of the stalkers’ educational levels could be specified b:y the victims. Seventyseven percent of the stalkers reportedly had completed high school, and 45% had 

completed at least some college. Sixty-nine percent of the stalkers were employed 

according to their victims. Of these, 62% had blue-collar jobs while 38% were employed 

in white-collar positions. Twenty-three percent were unemployed and 5% were in prison. 

According to the respondents, 61.7% of the stalkers had some type of prior 

0 

criminal record. Of those who were able to specifjr the type! of prior record, 31% 

indicated a prior record for violent offenses. In addition, several of the respondents 

mentioned that the stalker had stalked other former intimates in the past. One-hundredfive respondents indicated whether or not their stalkers had stalked another former 

intimate. Of these respondents, 48.5% stated that their stalkers had stalked at least one 

other former intimate in the past. 

27 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
RESEARCH FINDINGS’ 

GENERAL 

Stalker-Victim Prior Relationship 

The women in the sample had various types of former relationships with their 

stalkers, although all relationships were heterosexual. Thirty-seven percent of the women 

had been married to their stalkers, 25% had been living with, biut were not married to, 

their stalkers, 24% were either seriously dating or engaged to their stalkers, and 15% had 

only casually dated their stalkers. The women reported having known their stalkers for 

between 1 and 456 months prior to the beginning of the stalking (~97, s.d.=79.6, 

median=72 months). 

Seventy-five percent of the women reported that the stalkers began their 

controlling behavior during their prior relationship. 

controlling behavior began immediately after separation. 

Another 17 percent said that e 

Only 3.2% stated that the 

controlling behavior did not begin until a while after separation. Typical controlling 

behaviors included placing limitations on the victims’ participation in social activities, 

financial control (e.g. victim denied access to checking and savings accounts and credit 

cards), denial of mobility (e.g. removing access to automobile), and other related 

constraints. A representative example of this behavior is expressed in the following 

victim’s account: 

He’d call and check on me. And I’d be out. He’d come home that night 

and say, “You were gone all day. Where were you? Were you out 

spending my money again? What did you buy today? What did you do? 

Who were you with?’ He don’t trust me. I’m not idlowed to go with my 

fi-iends out to dinner. I’m not allowed to go out to bars. Nowhere. I sit in 

this house. This is my job.. .my kids, the house. I mean, he doesn’t even 

like me to go outside. 

28 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Many of the stalking victims (n=122, 65.2%) reported having been physical 

abused during their prior relationship with their stalker. The most common types of 

physical abuse suffered at the hands of their former intimates were pushing, slapping, and 

punching. (See Table 1 'below.) When asked about triggers of violence within the prior 

relationship, of those vho were able to specify triggers (n=66), two-thirds stated that drug 

or alcohol abuse were responsible for the violence. Another 10.6% stated that jealousy 

was the trigger for the violence. One hundred (53.5%) of the women reported having 

been emotionally or mentally abused during their prior relationship with their stalker 

Table 1: Types of Violence During Prior Relationship with Stalker 

Types of Violence 

F%shing/Shoving 

Kicking/Stomping 

Slapping 

RapdSexual Assault 

Punching 

Victim Being Thrown 

Use of a Weapon 

Choking 

Grabbing 

Objects thrown at Victim 

FrequencyLPercen tage of Women 

Reporting Each Type of Violence 

48 25.7% 

13 7.0 

36 19.3 

16 8.6 

34 18.2 

15 8.0 

10 5.3 

19 10.2 

11 5.9 

12 6.4 

The Role of Children in Stalking Situations 

The majority (57.2%) of the victims had not had children with their stalkers, 

although 20.9% had one child with their stalkers, and 21.9% shared two or more children 

with their stalkers. Of those who had children with their stalkeas, most stated that the 

stalker had at least some contact with the children, thus increasing the contact between 

stalker and victim. 

There are children involved here so there will alwqys be that connection 

between this person and me. In order for the children to have access to 

29 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
both of us, they live with me, they have visitation with him. In order for 

that to take place, he has to come to the house to pick them up. 

Thirty-three percent of the women reported that the stalker tried to use the 

children to get the victim back. Most often, victims reported that the stalker would 

negatively discuss the victim with the children (20.7% of those who had children). Other 

victims reported that the stalkers would try to get custody of the children (12.6%) or 

withdraw child support (9.2%) in order to “get to” the victim. Only a handful (6.9%) 

reported that the stalker threatened the children or harassedfollowed the children (2.3%). 

Stalker Drug/Alcohol Abuse 

Seventy-two percent of the victims reported that their stalkers abused drugs, 

alcohol, or both. (See Table 2.) Sixty percent of the respondents reported that their 

stalkers abused alcohol, and over a quarter (25.7%) stated that their stalkers drank daily. 

He drinks, and when he drinks, he gets abusive, and that’s the way 

everything starts up. It was a nice month because he was in jail for a DUI 

for 30 days. The next time, he got a third IpUr] after pounding at my 

door. They pulled him over [trying to drive away] and he’ll be in for a 

year for that one. So it’ll be a peaceful year. 

a 

Over half of the women also reported illegal drug abuse by their stalkers (54.9%), 

with crack or cocaine the drugs of choice. 

He was always using drugs. I don’t know what he was like as a normal 

person. I didn’t know him like that. I know him as being under the 

influence of alcohol and drugs. I couldn’t tell you what he would be like 

as a normal person. 

30 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
e. Table 2: Stalkers’ Abuse of Drugs and/or Alcohol 

Alcohol Abuse 

Yes 

No 

Total 

Drug Abuse 

Yes No Total 

75 (42.9%) 30 (17,1?h) 105 (60.0%) 

21 (12.0%) 49 (28.0?6) 70 (40.0%) 

96 (54.9%) 79 (45.1%) 175 (100%) 

Characteristics of Stalking 

The characteristics of stalking are grouped here into fcur basic areas: length, 

motives, conduct, and triggers of stalking behaviors. Of particular interest is the 

occurrence of threats and violence during the stalking experiences. Accordingly, these 

behaviors are addressed separately below. 

Duration of Stalking 

The length of the stalking varied greatly from just one month through 456 months 

(~28 months, s.d.=50.2, median=12 months). While the length does not necessarily 

affect the intensity of the stalking experience, it is worthy of mention that half of the 

victims had their lives actively disrupted by their stalkers for a period of one year or 

more. 

Perceived Motivations of Stalkers 

Victims were asked to identify their former intimates’ motives for stalking them. 

(See Table 3.) Many women gave multiple responses. The most frequently perceived 

reasons for the stalking were: reconciliation (74.9%); revenge: (44.9%); possession/ 

control (26.9%); jealousy (14.4%); and intimidation (6.6%). Often, women would say 

31 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
that the men fluctuated back and forth between reconciliation and revenge, or that they 

started out wanting reconciliation but it later changed to revenge. 

Absolutely reconciliation at the very beginning, I could tell he wanted 

reconciliation. He was trying to get me to go back out with him. And he 

became very angry when I went and filed for divorce. But he just said, 

“As long as you’re my wife, I have every right to (30 whatever I want to 

YOU.” So, I said, “Fine! Let’s get a divorce.” And then he really flipped 

out. Mer that it was clearly revenge. 

Similarly, another woman said: 

He did it to get me back, and then when he saw that he couldn’t get me 

back, it was just a ploy to make my life miserable. 

Table 3: Respondents’ Perceived Reasons for Stalking by Former Intimates 

Reason 

Reconciliation 

Revenge 

Possession/Control 

Jealousy 

Intimidation 

To see children 

Mental illness 

Frequency 

125 

75 

45 

24 

11 

6 

4 

Percentage 

74.9 

44.9 

26.9 

14.4 

6.6 

3.6 

2.4 

The finding that reconciliation was the most common motivation for the stalking 

coincides with others’ domestic violence research findings. For e:xample, in his study of 

100 women who applied for restraining orders against intimatesl and former intimates, 

James Ptacek (1997) found that nearly half of the women specified some type of 

“separation assault” in their affidavits for obtaining the orders. In these cases, the men 

reportedly battered the women in order to force them to remain in or return to the 

relationship with the batterer. Or, if this failed, the battering was used as revenge against 

the women for leaving. 

32 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Stalking Behavior 

I went to my grandmom’s and lived with her for awhile. He would be 

parked outside of her house, and be calling me up at work and threatening 

to kill me. “You can’t leave me. I won’t let you leave me. I’ll kill you.” 

And then I got my own apartment and the same thing - he’d be parked 

outside or follow me around. One time my friend and I were on our way 

to my mother’s house and he was trying to run me off the road. I had to 

finally get a restraining order. 

Table 4 below depicts the most common stalking behaviors according to this 

sample of 187 women. Telephone calls were, by far, the most typical behavior involved 

in the stalking situations. Not only was it the most prevalent behavior, but it was the 

most fiequent behavior as well. Over half of the respondents indicated that they had 

received phone calls at least daily from their stalkers. 

Table 4: Number of Women Reporting Various Stalking Behaviors 

Stalking Behavior 

Phone calls 

Letters 

Gifts 

Following 

Driving/Walking by house 

Watching 

Sabotaging employment 

Trespassing 

Breaking into housekar 

Property damage 

Stealing Victim’s Property 

Involving other members 

Involving victim’s friends 

of victim’s family 

Number of women 

reporting behavior 

169 

111 

71 

128 

101 

147 

63 

100 

67 

82 

46 

106 

108 

~ 

Percentage of women 

90.4% 

- reporting behavior 

59.4% 

38.0% 

68.4% 

54.0% 

78.6% 

33.7% 

53.5% 

35.8% 

43.9% 

24.6% 

56.7% 

57.8% 

Victims were asked to describe the content of the letten and telephone calls. 

(Many victims also brought the actual letters to the interview.) The responses of the 101 

a victims who described the content of the letters they received from their stalkers are 

33 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
presented in Table 5. Most of the letters received were amorous in nature, according to 

the victims. Stalkers were less likely to put threatening or angry content in the letters. 

The content of telephone calls, however, was distinctly different fiom that of the letters. 

(See Table 6.) Stalkers were much more likely to make verbal threats than written ones. 

Table 5: Content of Letters Sent by Stalkers to Their Former Intimate Victims 

Type of Content 

Type of Content 

Number of women 

reporting type of content 

(n=158) 

Plercentage of women 

reporting type of content 

Amorous 

Threatening 

Delusional accusations 

Friendly (but not 

Amorous) 

Apologetic 

Blank 

Angry 

Amorous 

Threatening 

Angry 

Delusional accusations 

Friendly (but not 

Apologetic 

Hang-ups 

€heck-up calls 

amorous) 

Number of women 

reporting type of content 

(n=101) 

78 

28 

12 

6 

75 47.5% 

106 67.1% 

50 38.0% 

20 12.7% 

6 3.8% 

5 3.2% 

50 31.6% 

11 7.0% 

7 

6 

4 

~ 

Percentage of women 

reporting type of content 

- 

77.2% 

27.7% 

11.9% 

5.9% 

6.9% 

5.9% 

4.0% 

Table 6: Content of Phone Calls by Stalkers to Their Former Intimate Victims 

Many of the behaviors involved in stalking are seeminghi mild, however, when 

taken together, they create a situation where the victim’s life is greatly affected, as 

articulated by the following victim: 

34 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Just because a woman is not punched in the face does not mean that she’s 

not being stalked or murdered or anything else, but there are lots of other 

ways you can tell. If there’s consistent behavior, you know, if there’s a 

pattern of unusual events, and that’s basically whist stalking is. It’s a lot of 

isolated events culminated into something that rnakes sense. Because if 

you look at the isolated incidents, I mean if you just looked at the cough 

medicine incident, where this guy knew what I had bought at the store, 

you would think, “Yeah, so what?, But then, as my friend said, “If you 

look at every single incident throughout the five months that occurred, you 

see a clear pattern.” And that’s what the criminal justice people don’t 

understand. They don’t know anything about that. 

Triggers of Stalking Behaviors 

Women were asked whether they noticed any triggers to the stalking types of 

behaviors (e.g. phone calls, letters, following, violence, etc.). Ninety-four of the women 

mentioned specific triggers that they believed led to the stalking behavior. One woman, 

who was separated from her husband stated: 

At different times over a period of a few years, if I was to date someone or 

if I was to pursue child support, I would suddenly start getting a lot of 

threats. I would come out of work and my windows would be smashed or 

my tires would be slashed. My son was kidnapped once for four days. At 

that point I went and got emergency custody, and then T got permanent 

custody, so it lasted a while. 

The most commonly perceived triggers of stalking behaviors ale presented in Table 7 

below. A third of the all triggers mentioned were directly related to the break-up or 

termination of the intimate relationship. Over a quarter of the perceived triggers were 

related to drug and/or alcohol abuse. General jealousy and the victim acquiring a new 

boyfriend accounted for 16% and 11% of the triggers, respectively. Almost nine percent 

of the triggers were scheduled court appearances. Victims mentioned that the stalker 

would try to intimidate them into dropping charges or failing to appear in court. 

35 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 7: Victims’ Perceptions of Triggers of Stalking 

Perceived Trigger of Stalking 

Break-up 

Drug/alcohol abuse 

Jealousy (general) 

Victim has new boyfriend 

Court hearings coming up (PFA, child 

Victim had a baby 

support, criminal) 

Total 

Frequency of Women Reporting Trigger 

35 (33.3%) 

28 (26.7) 

17 (16.2) 

12 (11.4) 

9 ( 8.6) 

4 ( 3.8) 

105 (100.0) 

RESEARCH FINDINGS 

THREATS AND VIOLENCE DURING STALKING 

Threats during Stalking 

Many of the victims reported threats made by their stalkers. Table 8 below 

indicates the number of women who experienced each type of threat. Where available, 

data are included regarding whether the threat was direct or explicit (e.g. “I’m going to 

kill you.”) or implied (e.g. “You’d better start looking for a new job.”). The most 

common threats were threats of violence towards the victim (72.7%), followed by threats 

of violence towards those affiliated with the victim (37.4%) such as victims’ family, 

friends, and coworkers. The number of direct threats of violence far exceeded the 

number of implied threats. 

e 

36 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 8: Types of Threats Made During the Stalking 

Types of Threats Frequency Percentage of women i 

Threats of violence 

towards victim 

Threats of violence 

towards victims’ affiliates 

Threats to take children 

away 

Threats to sabotage job 

Sexual threats 

Threats to kill self and 

victim 

37 

reporting this type of threat 

136 (99 direct, 37 72.7% 

implied) 

implied) 

with children) children) 

70 (62 direct, 8 37.4 

3 1 (of 85 women 16.6 (36.5% of those with 

10 5.3 

4 (3 direct, 1 2.1 

implied) 

33 17.6 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Threats and Violence during Stalking 

Actual 

Violence 

Women who were explicitly threatened with physical violence were significantly 

Threats of Violence 

more likely to have experienced physical violence during the stalking than women in 

Yes 

situations where there were implicit or no threats made by their stalkers. (See Table 9 

below.) Almost two-thirds of those who reported explicit threats of physical violence 

Explicit Implicit 

65 (65.7%) 9 (24.3%) 12 

also suffered physical violence, whereas less than a quarter of tholse who reported implicit 

or no threats suffered physical violence. This merely demonstrates that a correlation 

exists. However, it does not necessarily indicate a causal relatiomhip. The stalkers who 

both made explicit threats and were physically violent did not necessarily carry out the 

specific threats of violence indicated in the threats. 

Table 9: Actual Violence by Threats of Violence 

34 (34.3%) 28 (75.7%) 39 ('76.5%) 101 (54.0??) 

99 (100%) 37 (100%) 51 

No 

Total 

X2=32.77, de2, p<.OOOOl 

Physical Violence Before and/or During Stalking 

As indicated in Table 10 below, in about a third of the situaiions where there was 

no before-stalking physical violence, stalkers were violent during t.he stalking period, 

while just over half of the women who suffered before-stalking violence also suffered 

violence during the stalking. 

38 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Violence during 

Stalking 

No 

YeS 

Total 

Age, Threats, and Violence 

Before-Stalking Violence 

No Yes Total 

44 (67.7%) 57 (46.7%) 101 (54.0%) 

21 (32.3%) 65 (53.3%) 86 (46.0%) 

65 (100%) 122 (1 OO??) 187 (100%) 

Threats and violence during the prior intimate relationship did not vary greatly by 

Physical 

Violence 

During 

Stalking 

No 

Yes 

Total 

victim’s age. Violence during the stalking, however, was reporte:d most often by victims 

Victim’s Age 

< 20 years 21-30 3 1-40 41 or older* Total 

17 (68.0%) 34 (49.3%) 26 (50.0%) 1’7‘ (70.8%) 94 (55.3%) 

8 (32.0%) 35 (50.7%) 26 (50.0%) 7 (29.2%) 76 (44.7%) 

25 (1 00%) 69 (1 00%) 52 (1 00%) 24 (100%) 170 (1 00%) 

who were over forty when the stalking began. (See Tabie 1’1 below.) In addition, 

stalkers who were in their thirties were more likely than any other age group to have been 

violent during their prior relationship with the victim. (See Table 12 below.) 

I 

L 

X2=5.58, df-3, p=.134 

*Age groups “41-50” and “5 1 and older” were combined due to the small number in the 

“5 1 and older” group (n=3). 

39 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 12: Physical Violence Before Stalking by Stalker’s Age 

Physical 

Violence 

Before Stalking 

No 

Yes 

Total 

7 (41.2%) 22 (44.0%) 7 (15.9%) 6 (30.0?/0) 

10 (58.8%) 28 (56.0%) 37 (84.1%) 14 (70.0%) 

17 (100%) 50 (100%) 44 (100%) 20 (100%) 

Stalker’s Age 

< 20 years 21-30 31-40 41 or older* Total 

42 (32.1%) 

89 (67.9%) 

31 (100%) 

X2=9.23 , df-3 , pz.026 

*Age groups “41-50” and “51 and older” were combined due to the small number in the 

“5 1 and older” group (n=3). 

Race, Threats, and Violence 

Because 96.8% of the victims were nonhispanic white or &can American, 

comparisons based on race were limited to these two groups. Although most women 

(72.6%) reported having been threatened by their stalkers, nonhispanic white victims 

were less likely to experience threats than were Afiican American women. Similarly 

nonhispanic white victims were less likely to suffer violence at the hands of their stalkers 

than were African American victims (42% and 58%, respectively, experienced violence). 

Since most women shared the same race as their stalkers, similar findings resulted when 

comparisons were made between stalkers of each race. &can American stalkers were 

more likely to make threats and commit physical violence during the stalking than were 

nonhispanic white stalkers. (See Tables 13 through 16 below.) 

@ 

40 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 13: Threats of Physical Violence by Victim’s Race 

Threats of Physical 

Violence 

None 

Implied only 

Victim’s Race 

Nonhispanic white African American Total 

42 (30.4%) 8 (18.6%) 50 (27.6%) 

28 (20.3%) 8 (18.6%) 36 (19.9%) 

Explicit threats 

Total 

68 (49.3%) 27 (62.8%) 95 (52.5%) 

138 (100%) 43 (loo(%) 181 (100%) 

1 

Xz=2.85, df-2, p=.241 

Table 14: Physical Violence During Stalking by Victim’s Race 

Physical Violence 

During Stalking 

No 

Yes 

Total 

Victim’s Race 

NonhisDanic White African American Total 

80 (58.0%) 18 (41.9%) 98 (54.1%) 

58 (42.0%) 25 (58.1%) 83 (45.9%) 

138 (100%) 43 (100%) 181 (100%) 

X’=3.43, del, p=.064 

41 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 15: Threats of Physical Violence by Stalk.er’s Race 

I 

Threats of Physical 

Violence 

None 

Implied only 

Explicit threats 

Total 

X”6.87, d62, p=.032 

Stalker’s Race 

Nonhispanic white African American Total 

20 (28.2%) 8 (17.4%) 28 (23.9%) 

19 (26.8%) 6 (13.0%) 25 (21.4%) 

32 (45.1%) 32 (69.6’%) 64 (54.7%) 

71 (lO0.10/,) 46 (1 00%) 117 (100%) 

Table 16: Physical Violence During Stalking by Stalker’s Race 

Physical Violence 

During Stalking 

No 

Yes 

Total 

X2=2.79, del, pz.095 

Stalker’s Race 

Nonhispanic White African American Total 

39 (54.9%) 18 (39.1%) 57 (48.7%) 

32 (45.1%) 28 (60.9%) 60 (5 1.3%) 

71 (100%) 46 (100%) 117 (100%) 

Education, Threats, and Violence 

The greater the victims’ education, the less prevalent before-stalking and duringstalking violence. (See Tables 17 and 18 below.) Interestingly, however, threats of 

violence did not vary by victims’ education. Tables 19, 20, and 21 below present data 

regarding the stalker’s education, threats, and violence. The patterns in the table 

depicting violence before and during stalking (Tables 19 and 20) are similar to the 

42 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
patterns found in the corresponding tables that included the victim’s education. One 

other pattern worth noting is that, the greater the stalker’s level of education, the less 

likely the stalker was to make explicit threats (Table 21). Implicit threats, however, did 

not vary greatly by stalker’s education. 

Table 17: Physical Violence Before Stalking by Victim’s Education 

~ 

Physical 

Violence 

During Stalking 

No 

Yes 

~ 

Victim’s Education 

< high school Completed Some B.A./B.S 

diploma high school college or more Total 

4 (21.1%) 11 (28.2%) 21 (31.3%) 28 (46.7%) 64 (34.6%) 

15 (78.9%) 28 (71.8%) 46 (68.7%) 312 (53.3%) 121 (65.4%) 

Total 19 (100%) 39 (100%) 67 (100%) 60 (100%) 185 (100%) 

X2=6.42, de3, p=.093 

Table 18: Physical Violence During Stalking by Victim’s Education 

Victim’s Education 

Physical 

Violence < high school Completed ”.:

Durin Stalkin di loma hi h school colle e ormore Total 

No 

Yes 

Total 

5 (26.3%) 22 (56.4%) 34 (50.7%) 40 (66.7%) 101 (54.6%) 

14 (73.7%) 17 (43.6%) 33 (49.3%) 20 (33.3%) 84 (45.4%) 

19 (100%) 39 (100%) 67 (100%) 60 (100%) 185 (100%) 

X2=10.11, de3, p=.018 

43 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 19: 

Stalker’s Education 

< high school Completed Some B.AJ6.S 

diploma high school college or more Total 

1 ( 4.3%) 12 (37.5%) 10 (41.7%) 112 (57.1%) 35 (35.0%) 

22 (95.7%) 20 (62.5%) 14 (58.3%) 9 (42.9%) 65 (65.0%) 

23 (1 00%) 32 (1 00%) 24 (1 00%) 60 (1 OPh) 100 (1 00%) 

Physical 

Violence 

Before Stalking 

. 

No 

Physical 

Violence 

During Stalking 

No 

Yes 

Total 

a 

YeS 

Stalker’s Education 

< high school Completed Some B.A./B.S 

diploma high school college or more Total 

8 (34.8%) 16 (50.0%) 12 (50.0%) 14 (66.7%) 50 (50.0%) 

15 (65.2%) 16 (50.0%) 12 (50.0%) ’7 (33.3%) 50 (50.0%) 

23 (100%) 32 (100%) 24 (100%) 21 (100%) 100 (100%) 

Total 

X2=14.58, de3, p= 

Physical Violence Before Stalking by Stalker’s Education 

Table 20: Physical Violence During Stalking by Stalker’s Education 

44 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
0. Table 21: Threats of Physical Violence During Stalking by Stdker’s Education 

Verbal 

Threats of 

Physical 

Violence 

During Stalking 

None 

Explicit 

Implicit 

Total 

Stalker’s Education 

< high school Completed Some B.AA3.S 

, diploma high school college or more Total 

~- 

4 (17.4%) 6 (18.8%) 5 (20.8%) 110 (47.6%) 25 (25.0%) 

15 (65.2%) 18 (56.3%) 14 (58.3%) 6 (28.6%) 53 (53.0%) 

4 (17.4%) 8 (25.0%) 5 (20.8%) 5 (23.9%) 22 (22.0%) 

23 (100%) 32 (100.1%) 24 (99.9%) 21 (100%) 100 (100%) 

Xz=9. 10, de6, p=. 168 

Income and Violence 

When viewing the cross-tabulations for victim income anti violence (Table 22), a 

pattern emerged revealing that those victims with the greatest annual household income 

(over $40,000) were the least likely to have experienced violence at the hands of their 

stalkers. This pattern is also apparent in the cross-tabulations for victim income and 

violence during the prior relationship (i.e. before-stalking violence). The group reporting 

an annual household income of over $50,000 was the least likel!y group to report that 

violence occurred during their prior relationships with their stalkers (Table 23). 

a 

45 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 22: Physical Violence During Stalking by Victim’s Annual Household 

Physical 

Before 

Stalking 

Violence 

No 

Physical 

Violence 

During 

Stalking 

No 

Yes 

Total 

X2=6. 43, 

Victim’s Income 

$10,001- $20,001- $30,001- $40,00 L- 

<$10,001 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,0010 >$50,000 Total 

6 (21.4%) 13 (27.7%) 11 (37.9%) 5 (22.7%) 8 (33.3%) 14 (73.7yo) 57 (53.3%) 

Income 

Victim’s Income 

$1 0,OO 1- $20,00 1- $30,001- $40,001- 

<$10,001 $20,000 S0,OOO $40,000 $50,0100 >$50,000 Total 

14 (50.00/,> 20 (42.6Yo) 16 (55.2?40) 11 (50.0%) 15 (62.!i%) 14 (73.7%) 90 (53.3%) 

14 (50.00/) 27 (57.40/) 13 (44.8%) 11 (SO.OO/) 9 (37.5%) 5 (26.3%) 79 (46.7Yo) 

28 (IOOYo) 47 (100Yo) 29 (1000/) 22 (100%) 24 (100%) 17 (100%) 169 (100%) 

%, p=.267 

Table 23: Physical Violence Before Stalking by Victim’s Annual Household Income 

Yes 22 (78.6%) 34 (72.3%) 18 (62.1%) 17 (77.3%) 16 (66.7%)) 5 (26.3%)112 (46,7yo) 

Total 1 28 (100%) 47 (100%) 29 (100%) 22 (100%) 24 (100%) 19 (100%) 169 (100%) 

X2=17.66, df-5, p=.003 

46 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
RESEARCH FINDINGS 

VICTIMS’ ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO STALKING 

Extralegal Attempts to Discourage Stalking 

Victims reported numerous extralegal attempts that they made to discourage their 

stalkers. (See Table 24 below.) Most women tried to reason with their stalkers (69.5%), 

and many tried to simply ignore them (42.8%). Moving and changing one’s phone 

number/blocking calls fiom the stalker were also fairly common. About 19% pleaded 

with the stalker, and 13% threatened to call the police in order to discourage the stalker. 

I had my telephone number changed three times already this month. I 

want my children to know who their father is, so I would try.. . like when I 

thought that he would be calm, I tried to give him my number, allow him 

to have communication with his children because they would ask for him. 

. . .But then he starts acting like a nut again, I changed my number. 

Table 24: Victims’ Extralegal Attempts to Discourage Stalking 

Attempts to Discourage 

Reasoning with stalker 

Ignoring stalker 

Moving 

Changing telephone numberhlocking 

calls from stalker 

Pleading with stalker 

Threatening to call police 

Had family/friends talk to stalker 

Threatened to get stalker in trouble at 

Argued with stalker 

work 

Number and Percentage of Victims 

Trying This Approach 

130 (69.5%) 

80 (42.8) 

62 (33.2) 

59 (31.6) 

35 (18.7) 

24 (12.8) 

8 ( 4.3) 

7 ( 3.7) 

3 ( 1.6) 

When asked what effect the attempts to discourage seemed to have on their 

stalkers, few women reported positive effects. Of 408 reported types of discouragement, 

a victims reported behavior improvements following only 37 (9.1%) of these attempts. All 

47 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
of the attempts reported above had no effect or a negative effect according to the majority 

e. of the women in the sample. 

If you’re going to stay in the same location.. .work through the [court] 

system. But you’d better be prepared to give up your life, because it’s a 

full-time job, it takes up every penny you have, and you get very little 

recourse. So you’re putting out 90% of energy and you’re getting back 

maybe 10%. But it’s all you can do.. . . 

Attempts to Discourage Stalking through the Legal System 

Most victims (n=150, 80.2%) used various legal approaches to attempt to 

discourage their stalkers. (See Table 25.) Seventy-two percent of the victims sought 

police assistance in discouraging their stalkers, and 28% of the stalkers were arrested at 

some point during the stalking period. Just over half (51%) of the women filed for 

Protection from Abuse Orders (PFAs). Fewer than one-quarter of the stalkers faced 

criminal charges. e As was the case with the extralegal attempts to discourage the stalker, victims 

reported that the legal attempts to discourage the stalker were largely ineffective. (See 

Table 26.) Seventy-seven percent of the victims stated that police involvement either had 

no effect or made the stalkers’ behavior worse. Similarly, victims reported very little 

effectiveness of arrest, criminal charges, or protection orders. These findings coincide 

with earlier research findings on the effectiveness of arrests and restraining orders in 

deterring domestic violence (see e.g. Hirschel & Hutchinson, 1996; Klein, 1996; 

Schmidt & Sherman, 1996). However, the results of this study conflict with the results of 

a study conducted by the National Center for State Courts. In that study (see U.S. 

Department of Justice, 1997: 37-44), 285 women who were petitioning for protection 

orders in three different jurisdictions were interviewed and asked #about the effectiveness 

48 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
of the civil protection orders. The majority of women in that sample perceived protection 

orders to be effective deterrents to hrther abuse. 

Only four of the victims whose stalkers went to trial commented on its 

effectiveness. Although two of the four stated that this legal approach had a positive 

effect on the stalkers' behavior, these numbers are too small upon which to base any 

generalizations. 

Table 25: Legal Action Taken to Discourage Stalker 

Effects 

No change 

Worse behavior 

Better behavior 

Other (eg varied) 

Total 

I Legal Action 

Legal Attempts to Discoiirage 

Police Criminal Tem1Porary 

Involvement Arrest Charges Trial Restr.0rder PFA Total 

65 (61.9%) 16 (44.4) 14 (40.0) 2 (50.0) 8 (4'2.1) 37 (45.7) 142(50.7) 

16 (15.2) 5 (13.9) 9 (25.7) 0 ( 0.0) 4 (21.1) 13 (16.0) 47(16.8) 

8 ( 7.6) 9 (25.0) 7 (20.0) 2 (50.0) 5 (26.3) 15 (18.5) 46(16.4) 

16 (15.2) 6 (16.7) 5 (14.3) 0 ( 0.0) 2 (180.5) 16 (19.8) 45(16.1) 

105 (99.9) 36 (100) 35 (100) 4 (100) 19 (1100) 81 (100) 280(100) 

Called police/Went to police 

Stalker was arrested 

Criminal charges filed 

Stalker brought to trial (no plea bargain) 

Stalker was convicted or plea bargained 

Victim filed for Temporary Restraining 

Victim filed for Protection From Abuse 

Before going to trial 

Order (TRO) 

Order (PFA) 

Number and Percentage of Women 

Reporting Legal Action 

105 (71.7%) 

105 (27.8) 

105 (24.1) 

105 ( 5.9) 

105 (24.1) 

105 (12.3) 

96 (51.3) 

Table 26: Perceived Effectiveness of Legal Attempts to Discourage Stalker 

49 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Orders of Protection 

As indicated in Table 26 above, over half of the victims in the sample filed for 

protection orders. According to the victims, in 62% of the cases, the order of protection 

either had no effect or worsened the stalker’s behavior 

Some women expressed frustration because they were told that they would not be 

able to obtain orders of protection. One woman who had been stalked for 35 months by 

someone she had dated twice, was frustrated by his constant phone calls, letters, and 

showing up at her office when she was there alone in the evenings. When asked whether 

she had ever tried to obtain a protection order, her response was: 

Towards the end, I remember talking to a detective about that. And I 

couldn’t ... there was some reason that I couldn’t. I think it was because I 

never had an intimate relationship with him. 

Another woman stated: 

I was having a lot of trouble getting a protection order because you never 

saw him do these things [stealing the car, stealing the beeper, harassing 

me, etc.]. I lived in an apartment, and he’d be hanging outside my 

apartment, and the police would say, “Well, we can’t make him leave 

because this is not your private property.” He’d sit there right on the hood 

of my car right in fiont of them. And then the copls would leave and then 

he would slash my tires or whatever it was. I had a hard time getting any 

protection. 

0 

Other women who had not formerly lived with or been married to their stalkers expressed 

similar experiences. 

One woman who had a protection from abuse order described her hstrations 

with the court when she went to a hearing for a PFA violation. 

They threw one away because they say that I was the one who broke it for 

taking him back. But I guess they didn’t understand, it wasn’t my choice 

to take him back. He kept on harassing me and threatened me. If1 didn’t 

take him back, he was gonna do this, that, and the other thing. 

50 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
This woman’s stalker had a prior record that included aggravated assault and statutory 

rape. He tracked the victim down at a battered women’s shelter and constantly showed 

up there to harass her. He also made threats to kill the victim anti himself. 

eRESEARCH FINDINGS 

ASSISTANCE, VICTIMS’ NEEDS, AND COMMUNITY RESPONSIVENESS 

Sources from Whom Victims Sought Assistance 

But there was just no one there through most of it. And women feel very 

isolated and they get to feel ashamed somehow. We’ve been taught that 

it’s our fault. And you just tend to be really ashamed to tell anybody. It’s 

just like this vicious cycle. 

Nearly all victims sought assistance during the stalking (95.7%) through family, 

fiends, victim service agencies, therapists, and the like. Most (82.4%) requested 

assistance shortly after realizing that they were being stalked. Those who didn’t ask for 

help right away (17.6%) gave various reasons for the delay including the belief thet the 

stalking would cease, embarrassment, fear, lack of information, arid lack of support. 

a 

Typical people from whom victims sought assistance were fiiends (67.9%) and 

family (54%). Less frequently, victims identified victim service agencies (37.4%) and 

therapists (27.8%) as sources from whom they sought help. (See Table 27.) Based on 

these findings, it is apparent that the stalking victims in this sample overwhelmingly 

sought aid through informal support networks (e.g. friends and family) as opposed to 

more formal “helping” organizations (e.g. shelters, victim support ,groups). 

51 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
e- Table 27: Sources From Whom Victims Sought Help 

Sources from whom help was sought 

Friends 

Family 

Victim Service Agency 

Ps ychologist/Therapist 

Spouse/Boyfhend 

Legal Aid 

BossKO-workers 

Victim Support Group 

Neighbors 

Shelter 

Frequency and percentage of women 

seeking help from this source 

127 67.9% 

101 54.0 

70 37.4 

52 27.8 

30 16.0 

26 13.9 

16 8.6 

16 8.6 

11 5.9 

11 5.9 

Needs and Fulfillment of Needs 

Victims were asked to rate, on a five-point scale, how well their needs were met 

by the four most common sources of assistance (i.e. fiends, farnily, victim counselors, 

a and private therapists). The mean ratings are presented in Table 28 below. A score of 

“1” indicates that none of the victim’s needs were met by that person while a score of “5” 

represents that all of the victim’s needs were met. The mean sciore for “friends” was a 

3.97, with scores for “victim counselors” (3.94) and “private therapists” (3.89) falling 

closely in line. The mean score for “family” was a 3.55. All of these scores exceed the 

mean score for the police (2.90) as presented below in Table 31, indicating that the 

victims’ needs were better fblfilled by fiiends, family, therapists, ,and counselors than by 

the police. This may be due, at least in part, by the types of needs that the victims 

expressed. One woman expressed her frustration with the inability of a battered women’s 

shelter to respond to her needs. 

It was hard at first because, when I wanted to leave here and go to a 

shelter or somewhere, I couldn’t because they didn’t have enough beds for 

five kids. I was like, “Oh, man! What am I supposed to do?” I didn’t 

52 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
... 

Source of Assistance 

Family 

WcUlL LU WIIIC UQbh llClC LIIUlllCJ. ll Wilb 1ItllU LlCLilLlbC, 1 &.lt;SS, d IO1 01 

people aren’t prepared for a single parent with five kids in trouble. 

Victims were asked to identify their greatest need, and lheir responses were then 

categorized into one of several categories. (See Table 29 below.) More women (38%) 

identified needs pertaining to psychological and emotional support than any other area. 

Twenty-three percent stated that “a sense of security” was their greatest need. Another 

10% stated that they needed “criminal justice system support.” 

Table 28: Victims’ Ratings of How Well Their Needs Were 

Met by Various Groups 

N X Stand. Dev. 

154 3.55 1.40 

Private Therapist 

Victim Counselor 

Friends 

44 

84 

157 

3.89 

3.94 

3.97 

1.32 

1.3 1 

1.19 

Table 29: Victims’ Greatest Needs 

Greatest Need Identified 

PsychologicaYemotional support 

Sense of security 

Criminal justice system support 

Financial support 

Other 

Number of 

Respondents 

66 

40 

18 

15 

36 

175 

*Total sum exceeds 100% due to rounding. 

Percentage of 

Respondents 

3 7.7% 

22.9 

10.3 

8.6 

20.6 

100.1* 

Victims were also asked whether their needs were met, and if so, by whom? 

Forty-nine percent of the victims said that their needs were met. Of those women (n=92), 

most stated that their needs were met by their friends, their families, or themselves. (See 

53 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 30 below.) It is interesting to note that informal support systems were much more 

beneficial in meeting the needs of the victims than were the formal support agencies. 

Table 30: Who Met Victims’ Needs? 

Person who met victims needs 

Friends 

Self 

Family 

Significant other 

Stalker (by stopping) 

Therapisth’sychiatrist 

Police 

Co-workers 

courts 

Other 

Frequency and percentage of women reporting 

that that person met their needs* 

34 3 7.0% 

23 25.0% 

20 21.7% 

11 12.0% 

12 7.6% 

6 6.5% 

4 4.3% 

3 3.3% 

3 3.3% 

3 3.3% 

*Based on those women whose needs were met (n=92). Several women listed two 

people who met their needs. 

Police Responsiveness a As stated earlier, most women (72%) requested police assistance at some point 

during the stalking. These women were asked to rate, on a five-point scale, how quickly 

the police responded; how polite, helpful, and sympathetic the police were; the extent to 

which the police lived up to the victim’s expectations; and the extent to which the police 

met the victim’s needs. The mean ratings for each of the items are presented in Table 3 1. 

In each case, the lower the score, the more positive the rating. :For example, a score of 

“1” for sympathy would mean that the police were very sympathietic, while a “5” would 

mean that the police were not at all sympathetic. The best (lowest) mean scores that the 

police received were for the items “response time” and “politeness,” while the worst 

(highest) mean scores were for “sympathy” and “living up to victim’s expectations.” 

54 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
, Police responsiveness 

Speed of police response 

Politeness of police 

Sympathy of police 

Helpfulness of police 

Lived up to victim’s 

Expectations 

How well police met needs 

variable 

\ 

Many women expressed frustration with the way the police handled the situation ’ 

N X Std. Dev. 

129 2.22 1.15 

139 2.35 1.31 

138 3.07 1.34 

139 2.88 1.35 

134 3.13 1.53 

130 2.90 1.44 

or with the limitations that they perceived were placed on the police. 

I [called] ten times before the cops really did anything. Yeah, they would 

lock him up for 24 hours and then let him back out again. And then, they 

only had lock-up one other time for like 2 minutes. They let him back out. 

He came back, busted the windows. I called the clops again, and the cop 

says, “Well, he doesn’t have to leave the house. You do.” But another 

cop said that wasn’t necessarily true. 

Another woman who had been stalked for two years said: 

I wanted him arrested and in jail. And when he hLad his hands around my 

neck, my thinking at that moment was, “Am I gonna have to get my face 

smashed in for the police to believe me?” I was pretty frustrated with their 

lack of power, really. 

Other victims were fhstrated with the apparent ignorance of the police with respect to the 

validity and enforceability of protection orders from other jurisdictions (as specified in 

VAWA), and with the frequent requirement made by the police that the victim obtain a 

restraining order prior to the police taking any action against the stalker. 

55 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
RESEARCH FINDINGS 

EFFECTS OF STALKING ON VICTIMS 

Respondents were asked numerous questions regarding the effect that the stalking 

has had upon their lives. These consequences can be categorized into four general 

categories: psychologicaVernotiona1 effects, physical effects, financial costs, and 

practicaVquality of life effects. 

. . .I was spending my precious time on the phone with lawyers and crises 

hotlines, and it was emotionally taking me away from time with my 

children. And I was, when I could have been 01’ should have been there 

cheering them at a game, I’m sitting at a pay-phone trying to get all this 

solved, or I had to pick them up late from school because I’d have to sit in 

courtrooms. You go to court at 9:00 and they don’t see you until 4:OO. It 

took me away from my children at a time when they absolutely needed 

me. 

Psychological/Emotional Effects 

There were several interview questions aimed at eliciting information about 

psychological consequences. The women were asked open-ended and fixed-alternative 

questions about the emotionaVpsychologica1 impact. One open-ended question pertained 

to the immediate reactions of the victim upon realizing that they were being stalked. The 

most common responses were “feadterror” (n=107, 57.2%), anger (n=44, 23.5%), 

insomnia (n=24, 12.8%), frustration (n=23, 12.3%), depression (n=21, 11.2%), 

questioning choice in men (n=21, 1 1.2%), and nervousness/anxioi~sness (n=19, 10.2%).” 

When specifically asked about the emotional effects (in another question), 44.4% stated 

that they had become very distrusthl or suspicious, 41.7% said that they were fearful, 

and 31% stated that they were nervous or “jumpy.” Other corrimon emotional effects 

cited were angedresentment (26.7%), paranoia (35.7%), and depression (21.4%). 

56 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
In addition to open-ended questions, the interview included fixed-alternative e. questions based on Briere and Runtz’s (1989) Trauma Symptom Checklist (TSC-33, a 

33-item checklist to measure traumatic impact of abuse. Respondents were asked to rate 

how frequently they experienced each of 33 symptoms during :the stalking period. The 

possible responses were never, occasionally, fairly often, and very often. Responses were 

rated zero (0) for never through three (3) for very often. 

Mean sample scores for each checklist item are found in Table 32 below. The 

most frequently occurring symptoms for the sample were sadness (x==2.16), insomnia 

(x=2.15), restless sleep (x=2. lo), and tension (~2.06). 

Physical Effects 

Many of the women suffered physical consequences during the stalking. (See 

Table 33.) Forty-six percent (n=86 women) experienced violence at the hands of their 

stalkers, and of these women, 8 1.4% (n=70) suffered physical injuries ranging from small 

scrapes to gun shot wounds. The most prevalent injuries sustained were bruises (27.3% 

of the total sample), small scrapes and cuts (18.2%), and black eyes (12.3%). Of the 

women who experienced violence at the hands of their stalkers, the majority (66.3%) 

reported one or two violent incidents. 

0 

57 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
0. 

Table 32: TSC-33 Item Means and Standard Deviations for Entire Sample 

# Item X SD 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

Insomnia 2.15 1.00 

Nightmares 1.39 1.14 

Early morning awakenings 1.66 1.19 

Weight loss 

Restless sleep 2.10 .99 

Isolation 

Loneliness 

Low sex drive 

Sadness 

Flashbacks 

Spacing out 

Headaches 

Stomach problems 

Crying 

Anxiety attacks 

Temper problems 

Getting along with others 

Dizziness 

Passing out 

Hurt self 

Hurt others 

Sexual problems 

Sexual overactivity 

Fear of men 

Fear of women 

Excessive washing 

Inferiority 

Guilt 

Unreality 

Memory problems 

Out of body experiences 

Tension 

Trouble breathing .56 .81 

1.18 1.19 

1.78 1.12 

1.74 1.13 

1.58 1.20 

2.16 .98 

1.99 1.00 

1.45 1.10 

1.28 1.06 

1.25 1.23 

1.27 1.04 

1.55 1.11 

1.24 1.12 

.70 .95 

.45 .79 

.ll .46 

.40 .81 

1.01 1.17 

.60 .99 

.I4 .52 

1.31 1.15 

.16 .54 

37 .88 

1.23 1.08 

1.44 1.13 

1.38 1.11 

1.02 1.11 

.65 .85 

2.06 .90 

58 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
0. 

* 

Table 33: Frequencies for Various Violence and Physical Cost-Related Variables 

Stalker on victim violence 

No 

YeS 

Number of violent incidents 

None 

One or two incidents 

Three or more incidents 

Physical injuries 

None (no violence) 

None (despite violence) 

Yes, physical injuries 

Types of Physical Injuries Suffered 

Small scrapeshts 

Serious cuts (requiring 

Bruises 

Black eye 

Bloody nose 

Sprain 

Knocked unconscious 

Broken bone(s) 

Long-lasting injury 

Internal injury 

Gun shot wound 

treatment) 

Financial Costs 

Frequencj 

86 (46%) 

101 (54%) 

101 (54.0%) 

57 (30.5%) 

29 (15.5%) 

101 (54.0%) 

16 ( 8.6%) 

70 (37.4%) 

34 (I 8.2%) 

9 ( 4.8%) 

51 (27.3%) 

23 (12.3%) 

3 ( 1.6%) 

9 ( 4.8%) 

9 ( 4.8%) 

12 ( 6.4%) 

2 ( 1.1%) 

2 ( 1.1%) 

7 ( 3.7%) 

Most (79.6%) of the victims reported experiencing at least some financial cost as 

a result of being stalked. (See Table 34.) These expenses ranged from nominal amounts 

up to over $100,000 (median = $1,000), with few women (<11%) receiving 

reimbursement through insurance. Financial costs were often the result of attempts to 

discourage the stalker through such means as changing one’s telephone number (27.8%) 

or moving (26.7%). (See Table 35.) Nearly one-fifth of the women reported changing or a 

59 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
adding locks or deadbolts. About one-fifth of the victims also incurred expenses due to 

legal fees. Twenty-nine percent reported financial losses as a result of lost salary for 

missed work or forfeited college tuition. These losses were incurred due to either missed 

time for court appearances or changing jobs or schools due to the harassment. Some 

women were “encouraged” by their superiors to leave their jobs due to the perceived risk 

.- 

of potential harm to their coworkers. 

As a result of physical and psychological duress, 16% of the women in the sample 

incurred medical and/or counseling expenses. Twenty percent of the women reported 

damage to their automobiles, and 22% reported other propmy damage (e.g. broken 

windows, broken doors, vandalism). 

Of the costs reported by the women in the sample, the most common (though not 

necessarily the most expensive) costs were the result of attempts to discourage the a 

stalkers @e. changing phone number, moving, etc.). Nearly a third of the costs 

mentioned were related to these attempts. Another 13.4% of the costs reported were 

related to measures to increase security (i.e. changing locks, purchasing weapons, etc.). 

(See Table 36.) Nineteen percent were the result of property damage, and 13.4% of all of 

the costs reported were due to the loss of tuition or salary. 

The emergency custody order cost me $800, three smashed windshields. 

Two full sets of tires.. .one here, two there.. . . Let’s see, I’d round it off at 

$2000. 

When asked if any of the losses were covered by insurance, the victim responded: 

No, it was all out-of-pocket and he never had to pay for anything. And the 

damages were never enough to surpass my insurance deductible. 

60 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 34: Financial Costs to Victims and Insurance Coverage 

Financial Cost to 

Victims 

None 

$1 - $249 

$250 - $499 

$500 - $999 

$1,000 - $2,999 

$3,000 - $9,999 

$10,000 or more 

Total 

Insurance Coverage 

None 

$1 - $999 

$1000 or more 

Total 

Frequency 

32 

19 

6 

14 

27 

36 

23 

157 

98 

3 

9 

110 

*Does not sum to 100% due to rounding. 

Percentage 

20.4 

12.1 

3.8 

8.9 

17.2 

22.9 

14.6 

99.9* 

89.1 

2.7 

8.1 

99.9* 

61 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 35: Frequency of Most Common Financial Costs 

Expenses 

Attempts to Discourage Stalker 

Changing telephone number 

Loss selling old home to buy new home 

Moving expenses 

Purchasing a different car 

Measures to Increase Security 

Changing or adding lockddeadbolts 

Purchase of a weapon 

Security system 

Installation of motion lights 

Car alarm 

Legal Fees 

Loss of SalarylTuition 

MedicaVPsychiatry BillsMedication 

Damage to Property 

Damage to car 

Other property damage 

Xher 

Freauency 

52 

25 

50 

7 

37 

8 

8 

1 

1 

37 

55 

30 

37 

41 

- 21 

Expense 

27.8 

13.4 

26.7 

3.7 

19.8 

4.3 

4.3 

.5 

.5 

19.8 

29.4 

16.0 

19.8 

21.9 

11.2 

62 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
, 

Table 36: Financial Costs Incurred Classified by Type 

Expenses 

Attempts to Discourage Stalker 

Measures to Increase Security 

Legal Fees 

Loss of Salary/Tuition 

MedicaVPsychiatry BiWMedication 

Damage to Property 

Other 

To tal 

Frequency 

134 

55 

31 

55 

30 

78 

21 

410 

Percentage of 

Total Costs in 

CatePory 

32.7% 

13.4 

9.0 

13.4 

7.3 

19.0 

5.1 

100.1 

Quality of Life Costs 

In addition to which my stomach was constantly queasy and I was always 

looking in the rear view mirror when I was driving. I was afraid to answer 

the phone at night, it just gives you an awful, creepy feeling. 

Some of the most significant costs to the victims do not fit in the three categories 

listed above, yet seriously impact upon the victims’ daily lives. (See Table 37.) These 

“quality of life” costs range f?om changing activity patterns to quitting one’s job to 

moving. Nearly 99% of the women reported quality of life costs. These 185 women 

reported 843 quality of life changes resulting from the stalking experience. Ninety-four 

percent of the women said that they were very wary or “constantly looking over my 

shoulder.” Sixty-four percent reported changes in activity patterns such as avoiding 

certain areas or taking a circuitous route to work. Seventy-two percent of the victims a reported locking doors and windows that they previously left unlocked, and almost 59% 

63 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
leave lights on or off as a deterrent to their stalkers. Fourteeln percent of the women 

mentioned that changing their phone number affected the quality of their life and 13% 

e. 

mentioned that they purchased Caller ID boxes andor avoided answering the telephone 

until they were able to identify the caller. l1 

I watch, who I give my address to. I watch who I[ give me phone number 

to. Very, very rarely do I give my phone number out. I told a couple of 

my neighbors if they ever see this person to notify the cops. ... I carry 

mace with me. 

Another woman stated: 

I don’t really go and hang out with my fiiends that much. I don’t go 

anywhere by myself for the most part. I don’t trust anybody ... that I 

didn’t know before . . .because I don’t know who he’s fiiends with, who I 

can trust. I don’t go out that much. I refuse to go to parties.. .because you 

never know if he’s gonna be there. 

Several questions related to fear were included in the interview. Victims were 

0 asked to rate on a ten-point scale their level of fear of the stalker during the stalking 

period. Eighty percent rated fear at a high level (8 through 10). When asked of what 

they were fearful, 60% feared violence, 32% feared the unknowrr or element of surprise, 

and 7.1% feared that the stalker would kidnap their children. (See Table 38.) 

64 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Table 37: Practical or “Quality of Life” Costs to Stalking Victims 

Change in Quality of Life (QOL) 

None 

Changes in activity patterns (Avoids 

certain areas, circuitous route to work, etc.) 

Does not go out alone 

Walks with keys in hand 

Constantly looking over shoulder 

Locks doors etc. not locked before 

Leaves lights on or leaves lights off 

Moved 

Bought weapon (gunknife) 

Mace/pepper spray 

Caller IDDoes not pick up phone 

Purchased dog for protection 

Installed bars on windowddoors 

Purchased additional life insurance 

Changed phone number 

Quit job 

Frequency 

2 

119 

44 

4 

175 

134 

110 

62 

30 

76 

24 

18 

10 

7 

26 

4 

Table 38: Fear of Stalker 

~~ 

Fear Measure 

Fear of stalker (on a scale of 1 - 10) 

Little or no fear (1 -3) 

Moderate fear (4-7) 

High fear (8-10) 

Fear of violence 

Fear of unknowdsurprise 

Fear of harm to others 

Fear of stalker kidnapping children 

*Adds to 101.1% due to rounding. 

- 

Frequency 

32 

142 

102 

54 

2 

12 

Percentage 

1.1 

63.6 

23.5 

2.1 

93.6 

71.7 

58.8 

33.2 

16.0 

40.6 

12.8 

9.6 

5.3 

3.7 

13.9 

2.1 

Percentage 

1.7 

18.1 

80.2 

60.0 

31.8 

1.2 

7.1* 

65 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
RESEARCH FINDINGS 

COMPARISON TO OTHER CFUMElS 

Victims' Comparisons of Stalking to Other Crimes 

Near the conclusion of the interview, victims were asked if they had been victims 

of other crimes in their adult lives. Ifthey indicated that they had been, they were asked 

to specify the type of crime and to briefly describe what had happened. Based on the 

information given, the crimes were classified according to seriousness and by whether 

they were property or violent offenses. 

Victims were also asked to compare the other crime with the stalking in terms of 

relative harm to the victim. The results are presented in Tables 39 and 40 below. 

Seventy-one of the stalking victims reported having been victims of other crimes in their 

adult lives. Fifty-three of the victims (75%) reported that the stalking was more harmful a 

to them than the other victimization experience. Another 14% stated that the two crimes 

were comparable. Eighty-three percent of the stalking victims who had been victims of 

property offenses during their adult lives said that the stalking caused greater harm to 

them, while 65% of the victims of violent offenses stated that the harm from the stalking 

was greater than the harm from the violent offense. Of those who were victims of 

misdemeanors (besides the stalking), 85% stated that the stalking was more harmful to 

them, and 65% of the victims of felonies indicated that the stalking cause them greater 

harm than the felony. 

66 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
I 

Table 39: Relative harm - Stalking versus other victimizations 

a 

Relative harm 

Stalking was more harmful 

Other offense was more harmful 

Offenses were equally harmful 

Total 

X2=5.254, de2, p=.072 

Seriousness of other offense 

Misdemeanor Felony Total 

29 (85.3%) 24 (64.9%) 53 (74.6%) 

1 ( 2.9%) 7' (18.9%) 8 (1 1.3%) 

4 (11.7%) tI (16.2%) 10 (14.1%) 

34 (99.9%) 37 (100%) 71 (100%) 

Table 40: Relative harm - Stalking versus other victimizations 

Relative harm 

Stalking was more harmful 

Other offense was more harmful 

Offenses were equally harmful 

Total 

X2=3 .28, de2, p=. 194 

Type of other offense 

Property 'Violent Total 

30 (83.8%) 22 (64.7%) 52 (74.6%) 

3 ( 8.1%) 5 (14.7%) 8 (1 1.3%) 

3 ( 8.1%) 7 (20.6%) 10 (14.1%) 

36 ( 100%) 34 (100%) 70 (100%) 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The research findings above shed light on some aspects of stalking behaviors and 

victims' experiences and needs. While the qualitative nature of the research, combined 

with the use of an availability sample that was limited in size, places constraints on data 

analysis and the generalizability of the results, the data shed light on the nature of 

stalking and victimization experiences. Based on the interviews with 187 female victims 

of former intimate stalking, we can conclude that stalking is a serious offense that can 

have a great impact on victims' lives. It is apparent that these women are suffering first 

a as a result of their attempts to leave their partners, and then as a consequence of the 

67 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
relatively scarce and/or ineffective assistance in discouraging the stalker and meeting the 

victims’ needs. The stalkers described by the victims employ a great variety of tactics in 

the commission of the offense, and many of the perpetrators replortedly have drug andor 

alcohol problems. A large percentage of women in the sample experienced verbal threats 

and/or violence at the hands of their stalkers, intensifying the seriousness of the crime. 

The research findings raise issues for fiture research and the consideration of a 

number of legislative and justice system policy changes. 

Policy recommendations 

The following are policy recommendations for law enforcement agencies, courts, 

legislatures, and victim service agencies based upon the research findings discussed 

above. 

Treatment of stalkers by the police, courts, and correctional agencies, whether that 

treatment entails deterrence or rehabilitative approaches, should rleflect the seriousness of 

the behavior. When appropriate, this treatment should address drug and alcohol abuse 

among former intimate stalkers. Law enforcement and other justice system agency 

personnel should be trained to better understand the plight of stallring victims in order to 

avoid “re-victimizing,’ them by failing to (1) demonstrate appropriate empathy, (2) 

implement the provision of current anti-stalking statutes, and (3) make referrals to other 

agencies that can assist victims. 

Legislatures should review current anti-stalking legislation and make appropriate 

changes that would increase the effectiveness and enforceability of these laws. 

Legislative review should be implemented, shifting the focus of criminal intent in 

stalking statutes fiom the stalker’s intention to inflict emotional or physical harm to the 

a 

68 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
stalker’s intention to commit acts which, in turn, inflict emotional or physical harm. The 

process by which victims obtain restraining orders and protection from abuse orders 

should be streamlined. Present criteria for obtaining restraining orders and protection 

from abuse orders should be reviewed. Alternatives should be rnade available to women 

who are unable to obtain protection orders due to current criteria. Mechanisms should be 

provided to assist victims of stalking who have not been victiims of intimate violence. 

Alternatives to mechanisms available to physically battered wornen (i.e. Protection from 

Abuse orders) should be in place in every jurisdiction. Victims of former intimate 

stalking should, at a minimum, be treated as well as victims of stranger stalking. The 

same degree of seriousness should be attributed to former intimate stalking as is 

attributed to a situation where a victim is stalked by a stranger. 

Education should be provided to increase awareness among legislators, victim 

service professionals, and criminal justice practitioners of the serious effects of stalking 

on its victims and the importance of treating stalking oflenses more seriously. 

Workshops and training courses should be offered to the police, district attorneys, judges, 

and victim counselors in order for them to be more sensitive to the unique needs of 

stalking victims. Training and education of criminal justice professionals regarding the 

anti-stalking legislation in their own jurisdiction as well as the Interstate Stalking 

Punishment and Prevention Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C.92261) should be conducted so that 

these laws can be enforced more effectively and the intended protections can be afforded 

to stalking victims. Funding opportunities should be provided to develop innovative 

programs to better coordinate police, court, and victim service agencies in their handling 

of stalking cases. 

69 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Greater resources should be provided to victims of stalking, including education, 

information and guidance, counseling, and support groups. Support groups should be 

developed not only for stalking victims who were formerly abused by their partners, but 

also for stalking victims who have not been victims of domestic abuse. 

Future research recommendations 

The following are several suggestions for hture research that should result in an 

even greater understanding of the offense of stalking and victims’ experiences. 

Additional research should include data collected from the stalkers themselves to 

better understand the nature of stalking. Based on the large numlber of victims reporting 

the abuse of drugs and/or alcohol by their stalkers (72%), additional research is needed to 

hrther investigate the link between substance abuse and stalking behavior. Threequarters of the victims reported that “controlling” behavior was present in their prior 

relationships with their stalkers. Further research to examine the early predictors of later 

stalking would be helpfbl. 

e 

Future research on stalking victims should include victims of psychopathic and 

erotomanic stalkers to better understand the uniqueness anal similarities of their 

experiences and needs. Also, the inclusion of male victims of stalking in research would 

broaden our understanding of stalking victimization. 

Ongoing evaluation of the impact (i.e. effectiveness) of state and federal antistalking legislation is necessary to determine whether it effectively and adequately 

redresses the harmful behavior of stalking. Victims revealed that local law enforcement 

personnel lacked a complete understanding of current anti-stalking legislation. Research a 

70 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
is needed to assess the need for education of law enforcement professionals regarding 

federal and state anti-stalking legislation and enforcement procedlures. 

ab 

The experiences of stalking victims in rural areas should be addressed to 

determine whether their experiences are similar to those of victims in urban and suburban 

areas, and to determine whether their needs are satisfactorily being met by existing 

services. 

71 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
REFERENCES 0. Abt Associates (1 982). Sample victim witness needs assessment questionnaire. 

Appendix D in Finn & Lee, 1987 

Baurman, M.C. & W. Schadler (1991). Victims of reported crime - their expectations, 

needs, and perspectives. An inquiry of crime victims concerning victim 

protection, victim support, and mediation. In Kaiser et al., pp. 3-27. 

Briere, J. & M. Runtz (1989). The Trauma Symptom Checklist (TSC-33). Journal of 

Interpersonal Violence. 4 (2): 151-163. 

Buzawa, E. & C.G. Buzawa (eds.) (1996). Do arrests and restraining orders work? 

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Carderelli, A.P. (ed.) (1 997). Violence Between Intimate Partners: Patterns, Causes, 

and EfJects. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. 

Cohen, M.A (1990). A note on the cost of crime to victims. Urban Studies. 27 (1): 

139- 146. 

Dietz, P.E. (1 989a). Publicfigures as victims of harassment, thretgts, and attacks. Paper 

presented by Gavin DeBecker to the National Conference (of Personal Managers 

(October 18, 1989). 

Dietz, P.E. (1989b). Defenses against dangerous people when arrest and commitment 

fail. In American Psychiatric Press Review of Clinical Psychiatry and the Law. 

R.I. Simon (ed.), Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press (Volume 1: 

205-2 19). 

Dietz, P.E. & D.A. Martell (1 989). Mentally Disordered Oflenders in Pursuit of 

Celebrities and Politicians. Report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, 

Washington, DC, October 15, 1989. 

Dietz, P.E.; D.B. Matthews; D.A. Martell; T.M. Stewart; D.R. Hrouda; & J. Warren 

(1991a). Threatening and otherwise inappropriate letters to members of the 

United States Congress. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 36 (1): 185-209. 

Dietz, P.E.; D.B. Matthews; C. VanDuyne; D.A. Martell; C.D.H. F’any; T. Stewart; J. 

Warren; J.D. Crowder (1991b). Threatening and otherwise inappropriate letters 

to Hollywood celebrities. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 36 (1): 185-209. 

Doust, J. W.L. & H. Christie (1978). The pathology of love: Some: clinical variants of 

DeClerambault’s Syndrome. Social Science andMedicine. 12A-B: 99-106. 

Dutton, D.G. & A.J. Starzomski (1 993). Borderline personality in perpetrators of a psychological and physical abuse. Violence and Victims. 8 (4): 327-337. 

72 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Eastal, P. (1994) Homicide between adult sexual intimates in Australia: Implications for a. prevention. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention. 3: 24-40. 

ElGaddal, Y.Y. (1989). DeClerambault’s Syndrome (erotomania) in Organic Delusional 

Syndrome. British Journal of Psychiatry. 54: 714-716. 

Ellis, P. & G. Mellsop (I 985). DeClerambault Syndrome - a nosological entity? British 

Journal of Psychiatry. 146: 90-95. 

Else, L.; S.A. Wonderl’ich; W. W. Beatty et al. (1 993). Personality characteristics of men 

who physically abuse women. HoJpital and Community 1%ychiatry. 44 (1): 54- 

58. 

Finn, P. (1991). State-by-state guide to enforcement of civil protlection orders. Response 

to the Victimization of Women and Children. 14 (78): 342. 

Finn, P. (1989). Statutory authority in the use and enforcement of civil protective orders 

against domestic abuse. Family Law Quarterly. 23: 43-73. 

Finn, P. & S. Colson (1990). Civil Protection Orders: Legislation, Current Court 

Practice, and Enforcement. U. S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice 

Programs. National Institute of Justice. 

Finn, P. & B.N.W. Lee (1987). Serving Crime Victims and Witmsses. U.S. Department 

of Justice. National Institute of Justice. Ofice of Communications and Research 

Utilization. 

a 

Goldstein, R.L. (1987). More forensic romances: DeClerambault’s Syndrome in men. 

Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiav and Law. 15: 267-2 74. 

Goldstein, R.L. (1986). Erotomania in men. American Journal of Psychiatry. 143: 802- 

803. 

Guy, R.A. (1 993). The nature and constitutionality of stalking laws. Vanderbilt Law 

Review. 46: 991-1029. 

Harrell, A.; B. Smith; & L. Newmark (1 993). Court Processing mzd the Efsects of 

Restraining Orders for Domestic Violence Victims. Washington, DC: Urban 

Institute. 

Hirschel, J.D. & I.W. Hutchison (1996). Realities and implications of the Charlotte 

Spousal Abuse Experiment. In Buzawa & Buzawa, (eds.), 1996, pp. 54-82. 

Hoffman, J.L. (1943). Psychotic visitors to government offices in the national capital. 

American Journal of Psychiatry. 99: 5 71 -5 75. 

73 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Hunzeker, D. (1 992). Stalking laws. State Legrslative Report. 1 7 (19): 1-6. am 

Kaiser, G.; H. Kury; & H.J. Albrecht (1991). Victims and Criminal Justice. Freiburg, 

Germany: Max-Plank Institute for Foreign and International Penal Law. 

Klein, A.R. (1996). Re-abuse in a population of court-restrained male batterers: Why 

restraining orders don’t work. In Buzawa & Buzawa (eds.), 1996, pp. 192-2 13. 

Leong, G.B. (1994). DeClerambault Syndrome (erotomania) in the criminal justice 

system: Another look at this recurring problem. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 

39 (2): 378-385. 

Leong, G.B. & J.A. Silva (1992). The physician as erotomanic object. Western JoumuZ 

of Medicine. 156: 77- 78. 

Maguire, M. (1991). The needs and rights of victims of crime. 111 M. Tonry (ed.) Crime 

and Justice: A Review of Research, Volume 14: 363-433 (Chicago: University 

of Chicago Press). 

McAnaney, K.G.; L.A. Curliss; & C.E. Abeyta-Price (1993). From imprudences to 

crime: Anti-stalking laws. Notre Dame Law Review. 68: 8 19-909. 

Meloy, J.R. (1989). Unrequited love and the wish to kill: Diagnosis and the treatment of 0 borderline erotomania. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic. 53 : 477-492. 

National Criminal Justice Association (1 993). Project to Develop a Model Anti-Stalking 

Code for States. A final Summary Report Presented to the National Institute of 

Justice (October). 

Newburn, T. (1 993). ?he Long-Term Nee& of Victims: A Review of the Literature. 

(Research and Planning Unit Paper 80). London: Home Office. 

Noone, J.A. & L. Cockhill (1987). Erotomania: The delusion of being loved. American 

Journal of Forensic Psychiao. 8: 23-31. 

Perez, C. (1993). Stalking: When does obsession become a crime? American Journul of 

Criminal Law. 20: 263-280. 

Ptacek, J. (1 997). The tactics and strategies of men who batter: Testimony fiom women 

seeking restraining orders. In A.P. Carderelli (ed.), 1997, pp. 104-123. 

Rouse, L.P. (1990). The dominance motive in abusive partners: Identifying couples at 

risk. Journal of College Student Development. 3 1: 330-335. 

Schmidt, J.D. & L. Sherman (1996). Does arrest deter domestic violence? In Buzawa & 

Buzawa (eds.), 1996, pp. 43-53. 

74 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
e Schollenberg, E. & B. Gibbons (1992). Domestic violence protection orders: A 

comparative review. Canadian Journal of FamiZy Law. 10 (2): 191-238. 

Sebastiani, J.A & J.L. Foy (1965). Psychotic visitors to the White House. American 

Journal of Psychiatry. 122: 679-686. 

Segal, J.H. (1989) Erotomania revisited: From Kraepelin to DSM-III-R American 

Journal of Psychiatry. 146: 1261-1266. 

Shore, D.; C.R. Filson; T.S. Davis; G. Olivos; L. DeLisis; & R.J. Wyatt. (1985). White 

House cases: Psychiatric patients and the Secret Service. American JoumZ of 

Psychiatry. 142: 308-312. 

Shore, D.; C.R. Filson; W.E. Johnson; D.S. Rae; P. Muehrer; D.J. Kelley; T.S. Davis; 

I.N. Waldman; & R.J. Wyatt (1989). Murder and assault arrests of White House 

cases: Clinical and demographic correlates of violence subsequent to civil 

commitment. American Journal of Psychiatry. 146: 645-65 1. 

Sob E.F. (1994). Anti-stalking statutes: Do they actually protect victims? Criminal 

Law Bulletin. 30 (3): 203-241. 

Sugerman, D.B. & G.T. Hotaling (1989). Violent men in intimate relationships: An a analysis of risk markers. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology. 19: 1034-1048. 

Taylor, P.; B. Mahendra; & J. Gunn (1983). Erotomania in males. Psychological 

Medicine. 13: 645-650. 

Thomas, K.R. (1 993). How to stop the stalker: State antistalking, laws. CriminaZ Law 

Bulletin. 30 (3): 203-241. 

Tjaden, P. (1 997). ne crime of stalking: Haw big is the problem? National Institute of 

Justice, Research Preview. 

U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1994). Violence Against 

Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report. 

U.S. Department of Justice. Ofice of Justice Programs. Violence against Women 

Grants OfSice (1997). Domestic Violence and Stalking: Ihe Second Annual 

Report to Congress under the Violence against Women Ad. Washington, D.C.: 

U. S. Department of Justice. 

Voss, M. (1991). Victim expectations, diversion, and informal settlement: Results of a 

victim survey. In Kaiser et al., pp. 67-94. 

75 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Williams, K.R. & R. Hawkins (1992). Wife assault, costs of arrest, and the deterrence 

process. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 29 (3): 292-3 10. 

e9 

Wilson, M. & M. Daly (1993). Spousal homicide and estrangement. Violence and 

Victims. 8 (1): 3-16. 

Zona, M.A.; K.K. Sharma; & J. Lane (1993). A comparative study of erotomanic and 

obsessional subjects in a forensic sample. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 38 (4): 

894-903. 

76 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
See Sohn, 1994: 204, footnote 2 for a list of most state statutes pertaining to stalking. 

This researcher realizes that males are also victims of former intimate (and other types of) stallan& 

however the focus of this study is on female victims because it has been established that women are much 

more frequently the victims of stalking than are men (see e.g. Tjaden, 1997). 

It should be noted that ‘former intimate” here does not necessarily imply having formerly had a sexual 

relationship with the stalker., 

See Sohn, 1994: 204, footnote 2 for a list of most state statutes pertaining to stalking. 

Although the “voluntary“ nature of the victim’s decision to remain in the situation is questionable and 

quite controversial, this aspect of the situation negates the prerequisites for being classified as a stalking 

victim. 

variation of erotomania is deClerambault’s Syndrome in which the “eroitomanic believes[s] that his 

fantasized object of affection initiated the relationship” [italics added] (McArmey, 1993: 828). 

This researcher realizes that males are also victims of former intimate (and other types of) stallring, 

however the focus of this study is on female victims because it has been established that women are much 

more frequently the victims of stallang than are men (see e.g. Tjaden, 1997). 

‘It should be noted that “former intimate” here does not necessarily imply having formerly had a sexual 

relationship with the stalker. 

respondent Therefore, data analysis is limited to bivariate statistics due to the large number of missing 

values when additional variables are entered into a given statistical equation 

‘OPercentages total more than 100% because some women mentioned two or more immhte reactions. 

”The number of victims reporting changing their telephone number as a quality of life factor is less than 

the number reporting it as an expense. This discrepancy is due to the former king based solely upon 

factors that the victim reported as changes made that speclscally affected the quality of their lives. 

7 

, 

Because data were collected through semi-structured interviews, the same data were not available for each 

77 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Ap%%NT)lX D: SURVEY INSTRUMENT 

Check the appropriate response. IJx------ 

1. Age 

2. Race 

-I Nonhi spanic white 

-- Black 

-- Hispanic 

-Asian 

- Other, please specify 

3. Indicate the highest level of education completed. 

- No formal education 

-- Some elementary school 

-- Completed elementary school 

-Some high school 

-Completed high school or GED 

- Some college 

-Completed 4 years of coIlege (B.A. or B.S. degree) 

- Some graduate school 

- Completed M.A. or M.S. 

-- Completed doctoral program 

4. Indicate approximate household income 

5. Marital status 

-- Single, never married 

--- Married 

--- Separated 

--- Divorced 

--- Widowed 

43 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
B 

6. Current employment status: 

--- full-time student 

-- unemployed, seeking job 

- full-time employment, please state occupatioln - 

-- part-time employment, pl ease state occu pation 

- not employed by choice 

7. City and County of Residence 

44 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
APPENDIX E: INTERVIEW GUIIDE 

AN EXPLORATION OF THE EXPERlENCES AND NEEDS OF STALKlNG VICTIMS: 

Researcher: Mary Brewster, West Chester University 

The interview is designed to be unstructured, using open-ended 

Below is a list of areas, or domains, about 

questions in order to obtain the most valuable information regarding the 

victim and her experiences. 

which the researcher will attempt to derive information. The interview 

will consist of general questions, followed by cues or prompts, when 

necessary, to extract information regarding each of the domains. 

Introduction; 

As indicated in the consent form, you are not obligated to answer 

any questions, nor are you obligated to complete the interview. 

reason you would like to discontinue, simply state that and no further 

questions will be asked. All responses will be completely confidential. 

Your identity will not be revealed in research reports, etc. 

any questions before we get started? 

If for any 

Do you have 

1, Tell me about your experiences as someone who has been "stalked." 

[Note: 

areas and to address issues not raised by respondent in Part B above.] 

lnterviewer will use following sections to elaborate upon specific 

C. ReMbnship with the Stalker 

1. Describe your relationship to the stalker. 

What was your relationship with the stalker (him)? 

(e.g. someone you dated once or twice, former boyfriend, fiance, 

spouse, etc.) 

2. How long had (have) you known him? 

45 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
D. Charactermhcs of Stalking .. 

1. Tell me what happened. 

2. What do you know about the stalker? (e.g. demographics, prior 

record, personality, etc.) 

3. Do you know if he used drugs or alcohol? (If so, what types, amount, 

frequency?) 

4. Why was this person stalking you? 

a. Was he seeking revenge or reconciliation? 

What indications were there which suggested that he wanted 

revenge/reconciliation? 

5. What types of behaviors were involved in the stall&~g'? 

a. Were there letters, gifts, phone calls, faxes, E-mail, visits, face-toface conversations, following, etc. 

b. Where did these occur'? 

c. What was the content of letters, gifts, phone calls, faxes, E-mail, or 

face- to-face conversati ons, e tc. ? 

d. Was the content of the letters, phone calls, conversations 

threatening or amorous? 

e. If letters or faxes were sent: 

Were letters/faxes typed or handwritten? If handwritten, 

print or cursive? 

Were there ever any enclosures? Describe. 

f. Were there ever threats'? If so, what were they? 

Were the threats direct, veiled, or conditional threats? 

(e.g. direct = I'm going to kill you?) 

(e.g, veiled = We were meant to be together. Who knows what 

might happen if you try to fight fate? 

(e.g. conditional = If you don't go to dinner. with me, I will hurt 

your bo yfr i e n d . ) 

46 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6. How long were you stalked by this person? 

a. How frequently were you followed, te1ephone:d. written to, etc.? 

Approximately how many letters did you receive? 

phone calls? Faxes? Gifts? How often were you followed? 

How many 

b. Is the stalking continuing today? If not. why not? (What stopped 

the stalker?) 

7. Was there ever any violence? Can you tell me about it? 

a. When did it take place'? 

b. What form of violence was it'! 

c. Did you attempt to fight - him off? 

d. What were the results of your attempts at self-protection? 

[Interviewer should gather information about each violent incident.] 

8. Did the offender involve other members of your family, loved ones, 

friends, coworkers, etc. (indirect victims)'? 

a. If so, in what way? (e.g. threats, etc.) 

1. Did you ever try to discourage him from stalking you? 

a. If so, how? 

b. What effect did it have? (e.g. Made situation worse, better?) 

c. Did you verbally request that he leave you alone? 

d. Did you attempt to discourage him through legal means 

(temporary restraining orders, orders of protection, pressing 

charges, filing civil suits, etc.)? 

e. Did any of the attempts discourage him? If so. which one(s)? 

47 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2. Which, if any, of the following interventions took place in terms of 

your stalker? 

Police contact 

Arrest 

Hospitalization 

Conviction 

Incarceration 

Deportat ion 

a. At what point did this occur? 

b. What was the result of this intervention? 

3. Did you report the stalking to the police? 

a. If not reported to the police, why not? 

b. If reported to the police, what were your expectations'? What did 

you expect the police to do? 

c. On a scale of 1 through 5, did the police live up to your 

expectations? (1 = No, not at all; 5 = Yes, completely) 

F. ce from Others 

1. Did you seek help from anyone else (besides the police)'? 

Significant other (spouse, boyfriend), friends, parents, other 

immediate family members, victims agencies, victim support groups, 

shelters, psychologists, etc. 

a. If so, at what point? 

b. What exactly made you decide to ask others for help? 

c. How difficult was it to find the help that you needed? 

d. On a scale of 1 through 5 (1 = not difficult at all and 5 = extremely 

difficult) how would you rate the difficulty? 

e. Did any of these people help you to deal with the situation? If so, 

how? 

f. If you did not seek help (through legal or other means) why not? 

48 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
B 

2. How was your victimization handled by family? 

by friends? 

by police? 

by prosecutors? 

by judges? 

by victim counselors? 

by psychologists? 

a. On a scale of through - how well were your needs met by each? 

1 = None of my needs were met; S = all of my needs were met) 

Interviewer: read any of the following that are relevant to the 

respondent.] 

By family? 

By friends? 

By police? 

By prosecutors? 

By judges? 

By victim counselors? 

By ps ychologi st s? 

3. The next several questions focus specifically on your experiences with 

the police. 

a. Focusing specifically on your experiences with the police, how 

quickly did they respond? (Scale 1 - 5, 1 := right away, 5 = 

never showed up) 

b. On a scale of 1 - 5, how polite were they towards you? (l=very 

polite, S=very rude) 

c. On a scale of 1 - 5, how sympathetic were they? (1 = not at all, 5 = 

very sympathetic) 

d. On a scale of 1 - 5, how safe did you feel when the police were 

there? (1 = very safe, 5 = not safe at all) 

e. On a scale of 1 - 5, how helpful were the police? (1 = very helpful, 

5 = not helpful at all) 

4. Repeat b,c, and e for prosecutor, if applicable. 

49 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
G. Effects on Vicm 

Now I would like you to tell me about the effects that the stalking had on 

** 

D 

you? 

B 

1. When did you realize that the person was becoming a probIem? 

2. What were your immediate reactions? [e.g. nervousness, crying or 

shaking, anger, confusion, shock, physical illness, nausea, etc.) 

3. What were the immediate and long-term effects of the stalking? 

How has the stalking affected your life? 

4. Have there been financial costs? 

(E.g. change residence, job, car, phone number, property damage, 

hospital bills, time missed from work, court fees for temporary 

restraining orders or orders of protection)? 

a. What was the total cost of financial damages? 

b. Were (will) the losses (be) covered by insura:nce? 

5. Has the stalking caused you to change your behavior or caused any 

inconveniences? Describe these to me. 

a. Has it changed your security behaviors? Have: you: 

-changed your activity patterns? 

-starting locking doors and windows that you have not locked 

-changed the locks on your doors? 

-placed bars on your windows? 

-instaIIed a security system? 

-purchased a dog? 

-purchased a weapon? 

-for your home? 

-to carry with you outside of the home? 

in the past? 

-purchased mace or pepper spray? 

-bought insurance? 

-started leaving lights on in your home? 

50 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6. Has there been physical harm? 

B (e.g. bodily injury, hospitalization, etc.) 

a. If so, what physical injuries have you suffered (at the hands of 

your s t a1 ke r) ? 

E.g. Which of the foIIowing types of injuries didt you suffer? 

-knife wounds 

-broken bones or teeth 

-internal injuries, knocked unconscious, concussion 

-bruises, black eyes, scratches 

-cuts, other than knife wounds 

-other (tell me about it) 

-gun shot wounds 

b. Which of these were immediate and which were Iong-lasting 

injuries? 

c. Were you treated at a dental or medical facility? 

d. Were you treated at a hospital? If so, did your injuries require 

that you stay overnight at the hospital? 

e. Did your insurance cover the dental/medical/hospital bills? 

7. How has the stalking affected you emotionally? 

[Researcher: Allow the respondent to answer open-ended question 

prior to using probes.} 

E.g. stress, nervousness, distrust, suspicion, depression, anxiety, fear 

of being alone, fear of entering your home, fear of leaving your 

home, fear of going out at night, anger, memory loss, crying or 

shaking, confusion or state of shock, reliving the: fear, diminished 

interest or involvement with the external world,. helplessness, 

powerlessness, physiological disturbances (such as physical sickness 

or nausea, trouble sleeping, headaches, Iack of appetite), other 

a. When did these symptoms begin (at what point during the 

stalking)? When did they stop? 

b. What attempts have you made to "get over" irhe emotiona1 effects 

of the experiences? 

c. Have you sought counseling? When? How frequently? Duration? 

51 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
, 

8. I am going to read a Iist of symptoms [Trauma Symptom Checklist, 

Briere & Runtz, 19891. 

each of the following during the time you were being stalked. 

responses are "never, occasionally, fairly often, very often). 

Please tell me how frequently you experienced 

The 

B 

Trouble getting to sleep(Never, Occasionally, fairly often, very often?) 

Restless sleep 

Nightmares 

Waking up early in the morning and can't get back to sleep 

Weight loss (without dieting) 

Feeling isolated from others 

Lone1 i ness 

Low sex drive 

Sadness 

'I FI ash bac k s " ( sudd en , vi vi d , d i s t rac t i n g me m ori e s) 

"Spacing out" (going away in your mind) 

Headaches 

Stomach problems 

Uncontrollable crying 

Anxiety attacks 

Trouble controlling temper 

Trouble getting along with others 

Dizziness 

Passing out 

Desire to physically hurt yourself 

Desire to physically hurt others 

Sexual problems 

Sexual overactivity 

Fear of men 

Fear of women 

Unnecessary or over-frequent washing 

Feelings of inferiority 

Feelings of guilt 

Feelings that things are "unreal" 

Memory problems 

Feelings that you are not always in your body 

Feeling tense all the time 

Having trouble breathing 

Di s trust/Suspicion 

Depression 

Fear of being alone 

Fear of entering your home 

Fear of leaving your home 

52 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Fear of going out at night 

Anger 

Confusion or state of shock 

Diminished i ntere s t/i nvol vement with the external world 

He1 plessness 

9. What were your needs as a result of being stalked? 

[Clarification probe, if requested: 

financial needs were a result of being stalked? 

support did you need?] 

What medical, psychological, 

What types of 

a. Which of these was your greatest need? 

b. Were your needs met? 

c. If so, by whom? 

10. What role did your famiIy play in helping you to "get over" your 

victimization? 

a. What role did your friends play? 

b. What role did your private therapist play? 

c. What role did your victim services counselor play? 

d. How helpful were each of these people, on a scale of 1 through 5 

(1 = not helpful at all, 5 = extremely helpfiul)? 

Family? 

Friends? 

Private therapist? 

Victim services counselors? 

11. Is there anything that would have made "getting over" the experience 

easier for you? What would it have been? 

12. Thinking [back] about the stalking, how much would you say the 

incident affected you? 

(Scale of 1 through 5, 1 = A great deal, 5 = Not at all) 

a. How much did the stalking affect others in your household? 

53 

(Scale of 1 through 5, 1 = A great deal, 5 = Not at all) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
13. On a scale of 1 to 10, how fearful werelare you of him (the stalker)? 

One=not fearful at all, lO=extremely fearful) 

have ended, ah ask how fearful victim is now.] D [Note: If stalking appears to 

14. What would you [have] like[d] to see happen to the stalker? Why? 

(e.g. jail for retribution or deterrence; counseling for rehabilitation; 

etc.) 

OJher ulctlrmz;rtion experiences ... 

1. Have you been the victim of any other crime in the past? 

2. Describe the experience to me. 

3. In comparison, which was more harmful to you, the or the 

stalking? Why? 

1. Is there anything else that you would like to add that I may not have 

asked you about? 

Thank you for taking the time to talk with me #about your 

experiences. As mentioned earlier, this information will be kept 

completely confidential. 

questions, concerns, or comments regarding this research study, 

Please do not hesitate to call me if you have any 

54 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
TRANSMITTAL FOR FINAL REPORTS AND OTHER GmVT PRODUCTS 

National Criminal Justice Reference Senice 

National Institute of Justice 

TO: Manager; NCJRS Acquisition Department DATE: 

ADDMSS: National Institute of Justice 

810 Seventh Street, Nw 

Washington, DC 20531 

GR4NT #/:&I~JLL~-/~%-(~~~~ 

FINAL REPORT TITLE: 

! OTHER DOCUMENTS PRODUCED FROM GRANT: 

ADDRESS: 

Attached please find the Final Report for this grant. 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service 

National Institute of Justice 

TO : DATE: 

FROM: NCJRS Acquisition Department GRANT #: 

This material has been entered into the NCJRS data base, with the NCJ accession number(s) 

listed below. 

FINAL REPORT: 

OTHER DOCUMENTS: * 

Letter sent by NCJRS to grantee. DATE:. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice.

This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view

expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official

position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.