Literature Review of Gender and Stalking

Literature Review of Gender and Stalking An Introduction to Issues of Gender in Stalking Research Stalking has been the subject of empirical examination for a little over 20 years. Interest in stalking both empirical and public has increased substantially within the last decade (see Figure 1).   A PsycINFO search of the first decade of stalking research yields only 74 hits. In contrast, the year 2000 marked an upswing of serious investigation with the publication of the first special issue on stalking (Frieze Davis, 2000). There were 56 publications on stalking in 2000 alone and over 600 publications on the topic published between 2000 and 2010.   The research on stalking has examined predictors of perpetration, consequences of victimization, and public perceptions of stalking. Within each of these domains, one of the lingering questions has been: what role does gender play in stalking? Accordingly, this special issue is intended to contribute to the literature by using gender as a focus point in 1) applying new theoretical perspectives to the study of stalking perpetration (Davis, Swan, Gambone, this issue; Duntley Buss, this issue), 2) extending our knowledge of women and mens (Sheridan Lyndon, this issue; Thompson, Dennison, Stewart, this issue) stalking experiences, and 3) furthering the study of perceptions of stalking (Cass Rosay, this issue; Dunlap, Hodell, Golding, Wasarhaley, this issue; Sinclair, this issue; Yanowitz Yanowitz, this issue). To place this special issue in context of the current state of knowledge on gender and stalking, we will review the state of the current research on examining the role of gender with regard to stalking victimization, perpetration, and the lay and legal perceptions of stalking. We will conclude with a summary of how each of the articles included herein contribute to our knowledge about the role of gender in stalking research. However, it is important to start with clarifying what is meant by the term â€Å"stalking.† The model federal anti-stalking law in the US legally defines stalking as â€Å"a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written, or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear† (National Criminal Justice Association Project, 1993, p. 43-44).   Legal definitions differ across US states, but they tend to have three characteristics: 1) a pattern or â€Å"course of conduct† 2) of unwanted or intrusive harassing behaviors that 3) induces fear of bodily harm or substantial emotional distress in the target (Spitzberg, Cupach, Ciceraro, 2010). Additional terminology has been used in stalking research to discuss unwanted attention, particularly from a romantic pursuer, that does not meet the fear or â€Å"substantial† distress criteria of anti-stalking laws. Alternative labels for these unwanted behaviors engaged in during purs uit of a romantic relationship include â€Å"unwanted pursuit† (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Palarea, Cohen, Rohling, 2000), â€Å"pre-stalking† (Emerson, Ferris, Gardner, 1998), â€Å"obsessive relational intrusion† (ORI: Cupach Spitzberg, 1998, 2004), harassment, or unwanted â€Å"courtship persistence† (Sinclair Frieze, 2000). Whether gender differences may emerge, particularly in perpetration and victimization statistics, may depend on whether the researcher is examining â€Å"stalking† or â€Å"unwanted pursuit.†Ã‚   In fact, as will be discussed throughout this paper, much of the debate about gender differences is largely due to two variables: 1) how stalking is operationalized and 2) what sample is examined. We turn to these issues, and others, first starting with our review of the stalking victimization literature.   Note, our focus for the duration of this paper is on the dominant form of stalking; stalking that occurs within a relational context. Victims One of the questions surrounding gender differences in stalking research is whether women are more likely to be victims of stalking than men. Statistics clearly indicate that the majority of stalking cases often follows the rejection of an intimate relationship (Baum et al., 2009; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). Historically, intimate aggression (e.g., domestic violence, acquaintance rape) has been perceived as synonymous with violence against women because it was believed that the majority of intimate aggression targeted women.   However, this belief that victims of intimate aggression are disproportionately female has been controversial (see Archer, 2000). Likewise, we find that the assertion that stalking victims are predominantly women is not without its controversy.   In the first US national study of stalking victimization, Tjaden and Thoennes (1998) reported that 8% of women and 1.1% of men qualify qualified as stalking victims when the definition was limited to those who are were extremely afraid. The victimization rate climbs climbed to 13% of women and 2.2% of men when somewhat afraid is was used. Thus, a gender difference was still quite apparent when fear was a criterion. In contrast, the British Crime Survey (Budd Mattinson, 2000), which did not require any experiences of fear, reported that 4% of women and 1.7% of men were victims of persistent and unwanted attention. In a more recent US national survey, Baum et al. (2009) found that more stalking victims were women than men when using the legal definition that includes victim fear. In contrast, no gender difference emerged in harassment victimization, which does not include the fear requirement. Further, all of these studies show that women are more likely to be stalked by a prior intim ate than men, who are equally likely to be stalked by acquaintances or intimates.   When focusing on unwanted pursuits, which can include stalking, in the relational contextS studies examining unwanted pursuit have to grapple with definitional issues as well as issues of sample. Studies of unwanted pursuit and ORI are primarily conducted among American college students and have often found few or small gender differences in rates of unwanted pursuit victimization. Among US college students, women and men who rejected a romantic relationship did not differ in their reports of experiencing unwanted pursuit behaviors, such as following and threats of physical assault (e.g., Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Phillips et al., 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2000; Spitzberg, Nicastro, Cousins, 1998). When differences are found, they may be minimal.Overall, Spitzberg et al.s (2010) latest meta-analysis of US college students who experienced persistent pursuit found that women were 55% more likely to have been pursued than men. Comparing these statistics with national statistic s which find women 3-7 times more likely to be stalked, a difference of .55 seems minimal.   Clearly how one concludes whether someone is a victim of stalking depends not only on how one asks the question (requiring fear or not) but who one is asking (college sample vs. national sample). Yet, it seems safe to conclude that women do outnumber men when it comes to victimization rates. To Fear or Not to Fear Where consistent gender differences have been found is that women are more likely to view unwanted pursuit as threatening (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg et al., 2010). The inclusion of fear appears to decrease prevalence rates for men, as men are less likely to report fear than are women (Bjerregaard, 2000; Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Davis, Ace, Andra, 2000; Emerson et al., 1998; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a).   This difference in reports of fear could be due to men actually not feeling afraid, only reporting they are not afraid, or experiencing less severe stalking behavior. It is difficult to parse the true reason. In general, men appear less willing to report fear due to socially desirable responding (Sutton Farrall, 2005) and men discount their risk of victimization (Stanko Hobdell, 1993).   Also, Mmany male victims of stalking do not perceive any threat from their pursuers and therefore do not identify their experience as stalking (Tjaden, Thoennes, Allison, 2000; Sheridan , et al., 2002). Male victims of interpersonal violence report they are more likely to react with laughter than are women (Romito Grassi, 2007) and men discount their risk of victimization (Stanko Hobdell, 1993). Likewise, Emerson, Ferris, and Gardners (1998) US community sample of victims revealed that men felt less vulnerable and threatened than did women. Men who do seek protection from their ex-girlfriends may experience informal social sanctions (Hall, 1998) and be treated with contempt or laughter by legal professionals (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2001). Accordingly, some have argued that the laws emphasis on fear reduces male prevalence rates (Tjaden et al., 2000) and may lead people to discount male victims who may actually need assistance from law enforcement (Baum et. al, 2009; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). Emphasizing fear in stalking definitions may also affect womens reporting of intimate partner stalking. Stalking targeting women is primarily perpetrated by intimates (Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a), but women are paradoxically more afraid of strangers (Pain, 1996). For example, Dietz and Martin (2007) found that women were more afraid of strangers than of boyfriends. Also, Dunn (1999) demonstrated how a group of sorority women reported that they would feel anxious if a man suddenly showed up at their doorstep, but found it romantic and flattering if he showed up with flowers especially when he was . The women also felt more flattered byan ex-partner, s than byrather than a casual dates engaging in the same behaviors. Women may thus be more likely than men to minimize unwanted pursuit when it can be interpreted as romantic (Dunn, 1999; Emerson et al., 1998; Lee, 1998), while men may be more dismissive in general. Frequency counts of stalking thus may not tell the whole story of stalking vi ctimization. For example, general population samples in the UK and the US (Budd Mattinson, 2000; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a) find that women are victims of intimate partner stalking, while men are equally likely to be stalked by partners and acquaintances (exception: Purcell et al.s, 2001 Australian clinical sample); so while it is true that intimate partner stalking is the most prevalent type, there are somewhat differential experiences for women and men. Consequences Coping Even if it is the case that men and women may be targeted in equal numbers by unwanted pursuit behaviors (Bjerregaard, 2000; Haugaard Seri, 2004; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Spitzberg et al., 1998), there are differences in the impact of that unwanted attention. Stalking victims report a wide range of negative consequences, including psychological health problems (e.g., depression, anxiety, PTSD symptomotology), physical health problems (e.g., disturbances in appetite and sleep, headaches, nausea, and damage from the perpetrator), economic losses (e.g., spending money on protective efforts, lost wages, and expenses), and social losses (e.g., losing touch with friends, getting unlisted phone numbers, reducing social activities) (see Bjerregaard, 2000; Centers for Disease Control, 2003; Davis et al., 2002; Dressing, Kuehner, Gass, 2005; Kamphuis Emmelkamp, 2001; Pathà © Mullen, 1997; Sheridan, Davies, Boon, 2001). Even if it is the case that men and women may be targeted in equal numbers by unwanted pursuit behaviors (Bjerregaard, 2000; Haugaard Seri, 2004; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Spitzberg et al., 1998), there are differences in the impact of that unwanted attention. Of these consequences, Davis et al. (2000) found that In addition to finding that female stalking victims had a higher risk of physical and mental health problems than male victims.   Further,, once again highlighting the importance of fear, Davis et al. (2000) found that greater fear was associated with greater health problems for women, but not for men. Also, Bjerregaard (2000) found that female victims of stalking were more likely to have been physically harmed by their stalker than were male victims, and reported greater impact on their emotional health.   It may seem as if one could draw the conclusion that women suffer greater health consequences (Jordan, 2009), but this conclusion is not without its exceptions (Pimlott-Kubiak Cortina, 2003; Wigman, 2009) Stal king is also comorbid with physical, sexual, and psychological abuse female stalking victims experience (Brewster, 2003; Coleman, 1997; Jordan, Wilcox, Pritchard, 2007; Logan, Leukefeld, Walker, 2000; Mechanic, Uhlmansick, Weaver, Resick, 2000; Spitzberg Rhea, 1999; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). Among battered women, Mechanic and colleagues (Mechanic et al., 2000; Mechanic et al., 2002) have found that experiencing stalking contributes to higher levels of depression, fear, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than physical abuse alone. TRANSITION NEEDED.   Stalking victims take a variety of steps to protect themselves, including confronting the stalker (or having a third party do so), changing their home, school, or workplace, or seeking a protection order (Pathà © Mullen, 1997; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). Some of the most common coping tactics for stalking victims involve a passive strategy, with tactics like ignoring or otherwise minimizing the problem (college students, Amar Alexy, 2010, Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Fremouw et al., 1997; Jason, Reichler, Easton, Neal, Wilson, 1984, self-identified victims in a Dutch community Kamphpuis, Emmelkamp, Bartak, 2003). Women are more likely than men to seek help in general. In particular, women are more likely than men to seek counseling and to file a protection order (Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a), and to take more security precautions, including avoiding people or places (Budd Mattinson, 2000), and to confide in a close friend or family member for help (Spitzberg et al. , 1998). In their study on unwanted pursuit in US college students, Cupach and Spitzberg (2000) found that women reported more interaction (e.g., yelled at the person), and protection (e.g., called the police), and less retaliation (e.g., threatened physical harm) than men. Both genders coped using evasion (e.g., ignored them). However, while men and women had different help-seeking patterns, the differences themselves were very small (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg, 2002). In sum, gender differences emerge in more severe experiences, which usually involve a legally-defined fearful victim found in general population samples and those drawn from clinical or forensic populations (Baum, Catalano, Rand, Rose, 2009; Bjerregaard, 2000; Sheridan, Gillett, Davies, 2002 vs. Sheridan, Davies, Boon, 2001; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). In contrast, studies employing college student samples that use a non-fear based definition often do not find such gender differences (Cupach Spitzberg, 1998, 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Phillips et al., 2004; Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2002). Meta-analyses have shown that clinical and forensic samples do have higher prevalence rates than student or community samples; clinical and forensic samples also reveal a stronger pattern of male perpetrators and female victims (Spitzberg, 2002; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Spitzberg, Cupach, Ciceraro, 2010).   We may conclude that there are meaningful gender differences in the ex perience of stalking, but some of these differences may be minimal (Spitzberg et al., 2010). Perpetrators When it comes to examining gender differences in stalking perpetration, we are confronted with some of the same issues.   It makes a difference whether we are examining stalking or, more broadly, unwanted pursuit behaviors.   It also matters which sample is being examined.   However, gender differences in rates of perpetration seem easier to come by.   The issue of whether men stalk more than women is subject to one of the problems that drive questions of victimization: which samples we study. The issue of whether stalking is operationalized using the requirement that victims feel fear is trickier. We cant use the same standard with perpetrators, who may not be able or willing to convey whether their victim was fearful. While we may assume that aggressive stalking behaviors like vandalism, threats, and physical harm are more severe than showing up unexpectedly or repeated phone calls, the meaning and impact of these behaviors may be similar. Depending upon the context of the behavior, even excessive declarations of love may lead to probable cause for fear (Emerson et al. 1998). However, as with victimization studies, males and females in some college student samples report no gender differences in engaging in unwanted pursuit behaviors toward an intimate partner (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Dutton Winstead, 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000). For example, Baum et al.s (2009) found in the data from a US national US survey revealed that approximately 60% of stalkers were male, 28% were female, and the rest were unable to be identified by their victim. Overall, Spitzberg and Cupachs (2003) meta-analysis found that males make up 82% of stalkers, while females represent 18% of stalkers. HoweverIn sum, the most recent meta-analysis of stalking and unwanted pursuit found that 23.90% of men have perpetrated stalking behavior, while compared to 11.92% of women did so (Spitzberg Cupach, 2010). However, as with victimization studies, some college student surveys reveal no gender differences in engaging in unwanted pursuit behaviors toward an intimate partner (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Dutton Winstead, 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000). College students frequently report engaging in unwanted pursuit behaviors, with up to 99% doing at least one (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000). Between 30 and 36% of Davis et al.s (2000) US college student sample reported engaging in one to five acts, and 7 to 10% reported six or more. The most frequent behaviors are various forms of unwanted communication and showing up at work/home/school. Aggressive pursuit behaviors are more infrequent (Davis et al., 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000). In general, unwanted pursuit perpetration in college students involves similar numbers of male and female perpetrators, while stalking among general or clinical populations is predominantl y perpetrated by men (Allen, Swan, Raghavan, 2009; Baum et al., 2009; Budd Mattinson, 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). This pattern parallels the findings regarding dating and domestic violence perpetration. Like the pattern between unwanted pursuit and stalking, dating violence and domestic violence involve similar behaviors with differing prevalence rates, predictors of perpetration, and consequences for women and men (Archer, 2000; Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, Ryan, 1992). In this sense, less severe levels of unwanted pursuit or harassment may mirror Johnsons (1995) category of common couple violence, while more severe levels of stalking equal intimate terrorism (Johnson Ferraro, 2000). The debate of whether gender shapes the experience of IPV leads to research comparing the quantity of male and female victims and perpetrators, but also whether experiences are qualitatively different. In other words, are there gender differences in who perpetrators stalk; their choice of stalking behaviors, and their motivations? Types of Behaviors There is some evidence that women and men engage in slightly different individual stalking behaviors. In both forensic and college student samples in the US and Australia, men are more likely to make in-person contact (e.g., â€Å"approach† behavior; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000), to follow their victims or loiter (Purcell et al., 2001; Purcell et al., 2010), and to inflict property damage (Purcell et al., 2010). Women, on the other hand, are more likely to engage in behaviors that do not confront the target face-to-face, such as making unwanted calls or leaving unwanted phone messages (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Purcell et al., 2001; Purcell et al., 2010), spreading rumors, or employing others in harassing the victim (Purcell et al., 2010). These patterns are not universal, however, as Dutton and Winstead (2006)s US college student sample found that women reported more monitoring and physically hurting their targets than men. In terms of cyberstalking behaviors,. Burke, Wallen, Vail-Smith, and Knox (2011) found that US college student men were more likely than women to report experiencing and engaging in the use of spyware, photos, and cameras to monitor and pursue their partner (e.g., using GPS devices, web cams, and spyware to monitor their partner). In contrast, college student women were more likely to report excessive communication and checking behaviors (e.g., checking cell phone and e-mail histories, making excessive phone calls and e-mails, checking social networking sites, and using their partners passwords).. However, in a study on pursuit behaviors perpetrated on Facebook, Lyndon, Bonds-Raacke, and Cratty (in press) found no gender differences in US college students   in the three types of behaviors people perpetrated on Facebook to harass their ex-partner: covert provocation (20-54%; e.g., post poetry or lyrics in status updates to taunt ex-partner), venting (7-11%; e.g., write inappropriate or mean things about ex-partner on Facebook), and public harassment (3-10%; e.g., create a false Facebook profile of ex-partner). Thus far the ambiguity about whether gender differences exist in cyberpursuit appears to mirror the findings regarding unwanted pursuit behaviors for women and men, but we need more research on using technology to stalkcyberstalking, especially with perpetrators. One of the most pressing questions regarding stalking is when it might escalate into physically violent behaviors.   Most stalkers, however, are not violent (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a); half of all stalking cases involve a threat and just under a third of all stalking cases involve physical violence. Both male and female stalkers are more likely to be violent if they are an ex-intimate, are younger than 30 years of age, have less than a high school education, and have made prior threats (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002). Other predictors of stalking-related violence include prior criminal convictions (Mullen et al., 1999; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999). Most stalkers, however, are not violent (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a); half of all stalking cases involve a threat and just under a third of all stalking cases involve physical violence. Evidence is mixed as to whether there are gender differences in those who are likely to become violent. Some research using US college student samples suggest that female unwanted pursuit perpetrators of unwanted pursuit engage in more mild aggressive stalking behaviors than men (Dutton Winstead, 2006; Williams Frieze, 2005). However, other college student samples reveal no gender differences in perpetration of   stalking violence (Haugaard Seri, 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2002). StillIn contrast, others find that men are more likely than women to threaten their victims (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000) and to escalate from threats to physical assaults, as reported in both Australian forensic samples (Purcell et al., 2001) and meta-analyses (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). Former romantic partnersEx-intimate stalkers, who are mostly male, are the most violent compared to other categories of stalkers, a pattern that is consistent across culture and sample type (McEwan, Mullen, MacKenzie, Ogloff, 2009; Meloy, Davis, Lovette, 2001; Mohandie, Meloy, McGowan, Williams, 2006; Palrea, Zona , Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999; Sheridan, Blaauw, Davies, 2003; Sheridan Davies, 2001). Given that men are more likely to stalk ex-intimate partners than women (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998), it seems that we should find more male-perpetrated stalking violence. However, other college student samples and forensic samples reveal no gender differences in perpetration of   stalking violence (Haugaard Seri, 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2002). HoweverFor example, current evidence with forensic samples shows no gender differences in actual stalking cases regarding stalker lethality (Mullen et al., 1999; Purcell et al., 2001; Rosenfeld Lewis, 2005).   Specifically, both male and female stalkers can turn violent if they are an ex-intimate, are younger than 30 years of age, have less than a high school education, and have made prior threats (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002).   Evidently, more research is needed to sort out whether gender is a useful predictor of extreme stalking and violence. Motivations and Violence While there are some differences in how men and women pursue, there also may be some differences in their motivations for doing so. Victims in general population studies often attribute the stalkers motivation to attempts to keep them in a relationship, as well as a desire to control the them (Budd Mattinson, 2000; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). Mullen and colleagues (1999) have classified their samples of clinical and forensic stalkers in Australia into five motivation groups: rejected, intimacy-seeker, incompetent suitor, resentful, and predatory types, but have not found consistent gender differences between the groups. Stalking behaviors appear to be motivated most commonly by intimacy (e.g., a desire for reconciliation and feelings of love), with the second most common motive being aggression retaliation (e.g., a desire for revenge; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). In fact, perpetrators often report both motives for reconciliation of a relationship and for revenge (Mullen, Pathà ©, Purcel l, Stuart, 1999; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). These Cclinical/forensic rejected stalkers who are motivated by a mix of reconciliation and revenge needs have a higher likelihood of assaulting their victims than other motivation groups (Mullen et al., 2006). Gender differences in motivations for stalking have been noted in juvenile forensic samples. Juvenile female stalkers more likely to be motivated by bullying and retaliation whereas juvenile male stalkers were have been found to be motivated more by rejection and sexual predation (Purcell et al., 2010).   In a 2001 study of adult stalkers in Australia, Purcell and colleagues found that women were more likely to target professional acquaintances and less likely to target strangers than men. Nonetheless, the majority of female stalkers were still clearly motivated by the desire to establish intimacy with their target, whereas mens motivations were diverse, spreading across the five categories. Likewise, in Meloys (2003) study of 82 female stalkers from the US, Canada, and Australia, he found the female stalkers were more likely to be motivated by a desire to establish intimacy, whereas men were known to stalk to restore intimacy. Ultimately, Tthere is a large gap in stalking motivati on research, particularly using non-forensic samples.   Clinical/forensic rejected stalkers who are motivated by a mix of reconciliation and revenge needs have a higher likelihood of assaulting their victims than other motivation groups (Mullen et al., 2006). Both male and female stalkers are more likely to be violent if they are an ex-intimate, are younger than 30 years of age, have less than a high school education, and have made prior threats (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002). Other predictors of stalking-related violence include prior criminal convictions (Mullen et al., 1999; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999). Most stalkers, however, are not violent (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a); half of all stalking cases involve a threat and just under a third of all stalking cases involve physical violence. Evidence is mixed as to whether there are gender differences in those who are likely to become violent. Some research using US college student samples suggest that female unwanted pursuit perpetrators engage in more mild aggressive stalking behaviors (Dutton Winstead, 2006; Williams Frieze, 2005). However, other college student samples reveal no gender differences in perpetration of   stalking violence (Haugaard Seri, 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2002). Still others find that men are more likely than women to threaten their victims (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000) and to escalate from threats to physical assaults, as reported in both Australian forensic samples (Purcell et al., 2001) and meta-analyses (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). Former romantic partners are the most violent compared to other categories of stalkers, a pattern that is consistent across culture and sample type (McEwan, Mullen, MacKenzie, Ogloff, 2009; Meloy, Davis, Lovette, 2001; Mohandie, Meloy, McGowan, William s, 2006; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999; Sheridan, Blaauw, Davies, 2003; Sheridan Davies, 2001). Given that men are more likely to stalk ex-intimate partners than women (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998), it seems that we should find more male-perpetrated stalking violence. However, current evidence with forensic samples shows no gender differences in actual stalking cases regarding stalker lethality (Mullen et al., 1999; Purcell et al., 2001; Rosenfeld Lewis, 2005).   Single surveys of Ccollege student samples ofabout unwanted pursuit and obsessive relational intrusion are the least likely to find fewgender differences in perpetration rates. However, meta-analyses and US and UK general population studies find that men are more likely to be stalking perpetrators than women, regardless of the victims gender (Baum et al., 2009; Budd Mattinson, 2000; Spitzberg, 2002; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a).While the size of this gender difference varies, it is consistent across methodologies (Spitzberg Cupach, 2003). There are some gender differences in the types of stalking and cyberstalking perpetrationbehaviors e.g., men being more direct and women more indirect and in pursuers motives women being predominantly motivated by intimacy-seeking and men having a broader array of motives. However, we need more research on perpetration to better understand if gender is an important predictor to consider, especially with regard to the likelihood of escalation.   w ith a variety of samples and with better means of differentiating unwanted pursuit from stalking. Perceptions of stalking As attention to the problem of stalking has increased, so has public opinion been shaped.   However, there is not a true consensus in these opinions. Rather, people vary in how much they understand about stalking.   It can be unclear when the line between   normal relational pursuit and stalking is crossed (Dunn, 1999; Emerson et al., 1998; Lee, 1998; Sinclair Frieze, 2000, 2005). Perceptions can also diverge regarding multiple issues including: 1) which behaviors qualify as stalking, 2) how many behavior are enough to represent a â€Å"course of conduct,† 3) is stalking really serious, 4) what   perpetrator intent may have been, 5) whether and how we should incorporate victim fear levels to judge stalking severity, and 6) what is â€Å"real† stalking (e.g., stranger vs. acquaintance stalking). Within each of these issues, gender may influence the perceptions people hold, both lay persons and legal decision-makers. Stalking in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Perceiver Gender The literature is still mixed as to whether men and women differ in judgments to use a label of stalking. Some researchers report that men and women do not differ in terms of which behaviors qualify as stalking (e.g., Kinkade, Burns, Fuentes, 2005; Phillips et al., 2004, in Experiment 1; Sheridan Davies, 2001; Sheridan, Davies, Boon, 2001; Sheridan et al., 2002; Sheridan, Gillet, Davies, Blaauw, Patel, 2003). Others have found Literature Review of Gender and Stalking Literature Review of Gender and Stalking An Introduction to Issues of Gender in Stalking Research Stalking has been the subject of empirical examination for a little over 20 years. Interest in stalking both empirical and public has increased substantially within the last decade (see Figure 1).   A PsycINFO search of the first decade of stalking research yields only 74 hits. In contrast, the year 2000 marked an upswing of serious investigation with the publication of the first special issue on stalking (Frieze Davis, 2000). There were 56 publications on stalking in 2000 alone and over 600 publications on the topic published between 2000 and 2010.   The research on stalking has examined predictors of perpetration, consequences of victimization, and public perceptions of stalking. Within each of these domains, one of the lingering questions has been: what role does gender play in stalking? Accordingly, this special issue is intended to contribute to the literature by using gender as a focus point in 1) applying new theoretical perspectives to the study of stalking perpetration (Davis, Swan, Gambone, this issue; Duntley Buss, this issue), 2) extending our knowledge of women and mens (Sheridan Lyndon, this issue; Thompson, Dennison, Stewart, this issue) stalking experiences, and 3) furthering the study of perceptions of stalking (Cass Rosay, this issue; Dunlap, Hodell, Golding, Wasarhaley, this issue; Sinclair, this issue; Yanowitz Yanowitz, this issue). To place this special issue in context of the current state of knowledge on gender and stalking, we will review the state of the current research on examining the role of gender with regard to stalking victimization, perpetration, and the lay and legal perceptions of stalking. We will conclude with a summary of how each of the articles included herein contribute to our knowledge about the role of gender in stalking research. However, it is important to start with clarifying what is meant by the term â€Å"stalking.† The model federal anti-stalking law in the US legally defines stalking as â€Å"a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written, or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear† (National Criminal Justice Association Project, 1993, p. 43-44).   Legal definitions differ across US states, but they tend to have three characteristics: 1) a pattern or â€Å"course of conduct† 2) of unwanted or intrusive harassing behaviors that 3) induces fear of bodily harm or substantial emotional distress in the target (Spitzberg, Cupach, Ciceraro, 2010). Additional terminology has been used in stalking research to discuss unwanted attention, particularly from a romantic pursuer, that does not meet the fear or â€Å"substantial† distress criteria of anti-stalking laws. Alternative labels for these unwanted behaviors engaged in during purs uit of a romantic relationship include â€Å"unwanted pursuit† (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Palarea, Cohen, Rohling, 2000), â€Å"pre-stalking† (Emerson, Ferris, Gardner, 1998), â€Å"obsessive relational intrusion† (ORI: Cupach Spitzberg, 1998, 2004), harassment, or unwanted â€Å"courtship persistence† (Sinclair Frieze, 2000). Whether gender differences may emerge, particularly in perpetration and victimization statistics, may depend on whether the researcher is examining â€Å"stalking† or â€Å"unwanted pursuit.†Ã‚   In fact, as will be discussed throughout this paper, much of the debate about gender differences is largely due to two variables: 1) how stalking is operationalized and 2) what sample is examined. We turn to these issues, and others, first starting with our review of the stalking victimization literature.   Note, our focus for the duration of this paper is on the dominant form of stalking; stalking that occurs within a relational context. Victims One of the questions surrounding gender differences in stalking research is whether women are more likely to be victims of stalking than men. Statistics clearly indicate that the majority of stalking cases often follows the rejection of an intimate relationship (Baum et al., 2009; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). Historically, intimate aggression (e.g., domestic violence, acquaintance rape) has been perceived as synonymous with violence against women because it was believed that the majority of intimate aggression targeted women.   However, this belief that victims of intimate aggression are disproportionately female has been controversial (see Archer, 2000). Likewise, we find that the assertion that stalking victims are predominantly women is not without its controversy.   In the first US national study of stalking victimization, Tjaden and Thoennes (1998) reported that 8% of women and 1.1% of men qualify qualified as stalking victims when the definition was limited to those who are were extremely afraid. The victimization rate climbs climbed to 13% of women and 2.2% of men when somewhat afraid is was used. Thus, a gender difference was still quite apparent when fear was a criterion. In contrast, the British Crime Survey (Budd Mattinson, 2000), which did not require any experiences of fear, reported that 4% of women and 1.7% of men were victims of persistent and unwanted attention. In a more recent US national survey, Baum et al. (2009) found that more stalking victims were women than men when using the legal definition that includes victim fear. In contrast, no gender difference emerged in harassment victimization, which does not include the fear requirement. Further, all of these studies show that women are more likely to be stalked by a prior intim ate than men, who are equally likely to be stalked by acquaintances or intimates.   When focusing on unwanted pursuits, which can include stalking, in the relational contextS studies examining unwanted pursuit have to grapple with definitional issues as well as issues of sample. Studies of unwanted pursuit and ORI are primarily conducted among American college students and have often found few or small gender differences in rates of unwanted pursuit victimization. Among US college students, women and men who rejected a romantic relationship did not differ in their reports of experiencing unwanted pursuit behaviors, such as following and threats of physical assault (e.g., Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Phillips et al., 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2000; Spitzberg, Nicastro, Cousins, 1998). When differences are found, they may be minimal.Overall, Spitzberg et al.s (2010) latest meta-analysis of US college students who experienced persistent pursuit found that women were 55% more likely to have been pursued than men. Comparing these statistics with national statistic s which find women 3-7 times more likely to be stalked, a difference of .55 seems minimal.   Clearly how one concludes whether someone is a victim of stalking depends not only on how one asks the question (requiring fear or not) but who one is asking (college sample vs. national sample). Yet, it seems safe to conclude that women do outnumber men when it comes to victimization rates. To Fear or Not to Fear Where consistent gender differences have been found is that women are more likely to view unwanted pursuit as threatening (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg et al., 2010). The inclusion of fear appears to decrease prevalence rates for men, as men are less likely to report fear than are women (Bjerregaard, 2000; Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Davis, Ace, Andra, 2000; Emerson et al., 1998; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a).   This difference in reports of fear could be due to men actually not feeling afraid, only reporting they are not afraid, or experiencing less severe stalking behavior. It is difficult to parse the true reason. In general, men appear less willing to report fear due to socially desirable responding (Sutton Farrall, 2005) and men discount their risk of victimization (Stanko Hobdell, 1993).   Also, Mmany male victims of stalking do not perceive any threat from their pursuers and therefore do not identify their experience as stalking (Tjaden, Thoennes, Allison, 2000; Sheridan , et al., 2002). Male victims of interpersonal violence report they are more likely to react with laughter than are women (Romito Grassi, 2007) and men discount their risk of victimization (Stanko Hobdell, 1993). Likewise, Emerson, Ferris, and Gardners (1998) US community sample of victims revealed that men felt less vulnerable and threatened than did women. Men who do seek protection from their ex-girlfriends may experience informal social sanctions (Hall, 1998) and be treated with contempt or laughter by legal professionals (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2001). Accordingly, some have argued that the laws emphasis on fear reduces male prevalence rates (Tjaden et al., 2000) and may lead people to discount male victims who may actually need assistance from law enforcement (Baum et. al, 2009; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). Emphasizing fear in stalking definitions may also affect womens reporting of intimate partner stalking. Stalking targeting women is primarily perpetrated by intimates (Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a), but women are paradoxically more afraid of strangers (Pain, 1996). For example, Dietz and Martin (2007) found that women were more afraid of strangers than of boyfriends. Also, Dunn (1999) demonstrated how a group of sorority women reported that they would feel anxious if a man suddenly showed up at their doorstep, but found it romantic and flattering if he showed up with flowers especially when he was . The women also felt more flattered byan ex-partner, s than byrather than a casual dates engaging in the same behaviors. Women may thus be more likely than men to minimize unwanted pursuit when it can be interpreted as romantic (Dunn, 1999; Emerson et al., 1998; Lee, 1998), while men may be more dismissive in general. Frequency counts of stalking thus may not tell the whole story of stalking vi ctimization. For example, general population samples in the UK and the US (Budd Mattinson, 2000; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a) find that women are victims of intimate partner stalking, while men are equally likely to be stalked by partners and acquaintances (exception: Purcell et al.s, 2001 Australian clinical sample); so while it is true that intimate partner stalking is the most prevalent type, there are somewhat differential experiences for women and men. Consequences Coping Even if it is the case that men and women may be targeted in equal numbers by unwanted pursuit behaviors (Bjerregaard, 2000; Haugaard Seri, 2004; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Spitzberg et al., 1998), there are differences in the impact of that unwanted attention. Stalking victims report a wide range of negative consequences, including psychological health problems (e.g., depression, anxiety, PTSD symptomotology), physical health problems (e.g., disturbances in appetite and sleep, headaches, nausea, and damage from the perpetrator), economic losses (e.g., spending money on protective efforts, lost wages, and expenses), and social losses (e.g., losing touch with friends, getting unlisted phone numbers, reducing social activities) (see Bjerregaard, 2000; Centers for Disease Control, 2003; Davis et al., 2002; Dressing, Kuehner, Gass, 2005; Kamphuis Emmelkamp, 2001; Pathà © Mullen, 1997; Sheridan, Davies, Boon, 2001). Even if it is the case that men and women may be targeted in equal numbers by unwanted pursuit behaviors (Bjerregaard, 2000; Haugaard Seri, 2004; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Spitzberg et al., 1998), there are differences in the impact of that unwanted attention. Of these consequences, Davis et al. (2000) found that In addition to finding that female stalking victims had a higher risk of physical and mental health problems than male victims.   Further,, once again highlighting the importance of fear, Davis et al. (2000) found that greater fear was associated with greater health problems for women, but not for men. Also, Bjerregaard (2000) found that female victims of stalking were more likely to have been physically harmed by their stalker than were male victims, and reported greater impact on their emotional health.   It may seem as if one could draw the conclusion that women suffer greater health consequences (Jordan, 2009), but this conclusion is not without its exceptions (Pimlott-Kubiak Cortina, 2003; Wigman, 2009) Stal king is also comorbid with physical, sexual, and psychological abuse female stalking victims experience (Brewster, 2003; Coleman, 1997; Jordan, Wilcox, Pritchard, 2007; Logan, Leukefeld, Walker, 2000; Mechanic, Uhlmansick, Weaver, Resick, 2000; Spitzberg Rhea, 1999; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). Among battered women, Mechanic and colleagues (Mechanic et al., 2000; Mechanic et al., 2002) have found that experiencing stalking contributes to higher levels of depression, fear, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than physical abuse alone. TRANSITION NEEDED.   Stalking victims take a variety of steps to protect themselves, including confronting the stalker (or having a third party do so), changing their home, school, or workplace, or seeking a protection order (Pathà © Mullen, 1997; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). Some of the most common coping tactics for stalking victims involve a passive strategy, with tactics like ignoring or otherwise minimizing the problem (college students, Amar Alexy, 2010, Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Fremouw et al., 1997; Jason, Reichler, Easton, Neal, Wilson, 1984, self-identified victims in a Dutch community Kamphpuis, Emmelkamp, Bartak, 2003). Women are more likely than men to seek help in general. In particular, women are more likely than men to seek counseling and to file a protection order (Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a), and to take more security precautions, including avoiding people or places (Budd Mattinson, 2000), and to confide in a close friend or family member for help (Spitzberg et al. , 1998). In their study on unwanted pursuit in US college students, Cupach and Spitzberg (2000) found that women reported more interaction (e.g., yelled at the person), and protection (e.g., called the police), and less retaliation (e.g., threatened physical harm) than men. Both genders coped using evasion (e.g., ignored them). However, while men and women had different help-seeking patterns, the differences themselves were very small (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg, 2002). In sum, gender differences emerge in more severe experiences, which usually involve a legally-defined fearful victim found in general population samples and those drawn from clinical or forensic populations (Baum, Catalano, Rand, Rose, 2009; Bjerregaard, 2000; Sheridan, Gillett, Davies, 2002 vs. Sheridan, Davies, Boon, 2001; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). In contrast, studies employing college student samples that use a non-fear based definition often do not find such gender differences (Cupach Spitzberg, 1998, 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Phillips et al., 2004; Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2002). Meta-analyses have shown that clinical and forensic samples do have higher prevalence rates than student or community samples; clinical and forensic samples also reveal a stronger pattern of male perpetrators and female victims (Spitzberg, 2002; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Spitzberg, Cupach, Ciceraro, 2010).   We may conclude that there are meaningful gender differences in the ex perience of stalking, but some of these differences may be minimal (Spitzberg et al., 2010). Perpetrators When it comes to examining gender differences in stalking perpetration, we are confronted with some of the same issues.   It makes a difference whether we are examining stalking or, more broadly, unwanted pursuit behaviors.   It also matters which sample is being examined.   However, gender differences in rates of perpetration seem easier to come by.   The issue of whether men stalk more than women is subject to one of the problems that drive questions of victimization: which samples we study. The issue of whether stalking is operationalized using the requirement that victims feel fear is trickier. We cant use the same standard with perpetrators, who may not be able or willing to convey whether their victim was fearful. While we may assume that aggressive stalking behaviors like vandalism, threats, and physical harm are more severe than showing up unexpectedly or repeated phone calls, the meaning and impact of these behaviors may be similar. Depending upon the context of the behavior, even excessive declarations of love may lead to probable cause for fear (Emerson et al. 1998). However, as with victimization studies, males and females in some college student samples report no gender differences in engaging in unwanted pursuit behaviors toward an intimate partner (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Dutton Winstead, 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000). For example, Baum et al.s (2009) found in the data from a US national US survey revealed that approximately 60% of stalkers were male, 28% were female, and the rest were unable to be identified by their victim. Overall, Spitzberg and Cupachs (2003) meta-analysis found that males make up 82% of stalkers, while females represent 18% of stalkers. HoweverIn sum, the most recent meta-analysis of stalking and unwanted pursuit found that 23.90% of men have perpetrated stalking behavior, while compared to 11.92% of women did so (Spitzberg Cupach, 2010). However, as with victimization studies, some college student surveys reveal no gender differences in engaging in unwanted pursuit behaviors toward an intimate partner (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Dutton Winstead, 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000). College students frequently report engaging in unwanted pursuit behaviors, with up to 99% doing at least one (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000). Between 30 and 36% of Davis et al.s (2000) US college student sample reported engaging in one to five acts, and 7 to 10% reported six or more. The most frequent behaviors are various forms of unwanted communication and showing up at work/home/school. Aggressive pursuit behaviors are more infrequent (Davis et al., 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000). In general, unwanted pursuit perpetration in college students involves similar numbers of male and female perpetrators, while stalking among general or clinical populations is predominantl y perpetrated by men (Allen, Swan, Raghavan, 2009; Baum et al., 2009; Budd Mattinson, 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). This pattern parallels the findings regarding dating and domestic violence perpetration. Like the pattern between unwanted pursuit and stalking, dating violence and domestic violence involve similar behaviors with differing prevalence rates, predictors of perpetration, and consequences for women and men (Archer, 2000; Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, Ryan, 1992). In this sense, less severe levels of unwanted pursuit or harassment may mirror Johnsons (1995) category of common couple violence, while more severe levels of stalking equal intimate terrorism (Johnson Ferraro, 2000). The debate of whether gender shapes the experience of IPV leads to research comparing the quantity of male and female victims and perpetrators, but also whether experiences are qualitatively different. In other words, are there gender differences in who perpetrators stalk; their choice of stalking behaviors, and their motivations? Types of Behaviors There is some evidence that women and men engage in slightly different individual stalking behaviors. In both forensic and college student samples in the US and Australia, men are more likely to make in-person contact (e.g., â€Å"approach† behavior; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000), to follow their victims or loiter (Purcell et al., 2001; Purcell et al., 2010), and to inflict property damage (Purcell et al., 2010). Women, on the other hand, are more likely to engage in behaviors that do not confront the target face-to-face, such as making unwanted calls or leaving unwanted phone messages (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Purcell et al., 2001; Purcell et al., 2010), spreading rumors, or employing others in harassing the victim (Purcell et al., 2010). These patterns are not universal, however, as Dutton and Winstead (2006)s US college student sample found that women reported more monitoring and physically hurting their targets than men. In terms of cyberstalking behaviors,. Burke, Wallen, Vail-Smith, and Knox (2011) found that US college student men were more likely than women to report experiencing and engaging in the use of spyware, photos, and cameras to monitor and pursue their partner (e.g., using GPS devices, web cams, and spyware to monitor their partner). In contrast, college student women were more likely to report excessive communication and checking behaviors (e.g., checking cell phone and e-mail histories, making excessive phone calls and e-mails, checking social networking sites, and using their partners passwords).. However, in a study on pursuit behaviors perpetrated on Facebook, Lyndon, Bonds-Raacke, and Cratty (in press) found no gender differences in US college students   in the three types of behaviors people perpetrated on Facebook to harass their ex-partner: covert provocation (20-54%; e.g., post poetry or lyrics in status updates to taunt ex-partner), venting (7-11%; e.g., write inappropriate or mean things about ex-partner on Facebook), and public harassment (3-10%; e.g., create a false Facebook profile of ex-partner). Thus far the ambiguity about whether gender differences exist in cyberpursuit appears to mirror the findings regarding unwanted pursuit behaviors for women and men, but we need more research on using technology to stalkcyberstalking, especially with perpetrators. One of the most pressing questions regarding stalking is when it might escalate into physically violent behaviors.   Most stalkers, however, are not violent (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a); half of all stalking cases involve a threat and just under a third of all stalking cases involve physical violence. Both male and female stalkers are more likely to be violent if they are an ex-intimate, are younger than 30 years of age, have less than a high school education, and have made prior threats (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002). Other predictors of stalking-related violence include prior criminal convictions (Mullen et al., 1999; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999). Most stalkers, however, are not violent (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a); half of all stalking cases involve a threat and just under a third of all stalking cases involve physical violence. Evidence is mixed as to whether there are gender differences in those who are likely to become violent. Some research using US college student samples suggest that female unwanted pursuit perpetrators of unwanted pursuit engage in more mild aggressive stalking behaviors than men (Dutton Winstead, 2006; Williams Frieze, 2005). However, other college student samples reveal no gender differences in perpetration of   stalking violence (Haugaard Seri, 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2002). StillIn contrast, others find that men are more likely than women to threaten their victims (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000) and to escalate from threats to physical assaults, as reported in both Australian forensic samples (Purcell et al., 2001) and meta-analyses (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). Former romantic partnersEx-intimate stalkers, who are mostly male, are the most violent compared to other categories of stalkers, a pattern that is consistent across culture and sample type (McEwan, Mullen, MacKenzie, Ogloff, 2009; Meloy, Davis, Lovette, 2001; Mohandie, Meloy, McGowan, Williams, 2006; Palrea, Zona , Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999; Sheridan, Blaauw, Davies, 2003; Sheridan Davies, 2001). Given that men are more likely to stalk ex-intimate partners than women (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998), it seems that we should find more male-perpetrated stalking violence. However, other college student samples and forensic samples reveal no gender differences in perpetration of   stalking violence (Haugaard Seri, 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2002). HoweverFor example, current evidence with forensic samples shows no gender differences in actual stalking cases regarding stalker lethality (Mullen et al., 1999; Purcell et al., 2001; Rosenfeld Lewis, 2005).   Specifically, both male and female stalkers can turn violent if they are an ex-intimate, are younger than 30 years of age, have less than a high school education, and have made prior threats (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002).   Evidently, more research is needed to sort out whether gender is a useful predictor of extreme stalking and violence. Motivations and Violence While there are some differences in how men and women pursue, there also may be some differences in their motivations for doing so. Victims in general population studies often attribute the stalkers motivation to attempts to keep them in a relationship, as well as a desire to control the them (Budd Mattinson, 2000; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). Mullen and colleagues (1999) have classified their samples of clinical and forensic stalkers in Australia into five motivation groups: rejected, intimacy-seeker, incompetent suitor, resentful, and predatory types, but have not found consistent gender differences between the groups. Stalking behaviors appear to be motivated most commonly by intimacy (e.g., a desire for reconciliation and feelings of love), with the second most common motive being aggression retaliation (e.g., a desire for revenge; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). In fact, perpetrators often report both motives for reconciliation of a relationship and for revenge (Mullen, Pathà ©, Purcel l, Stuart, 1999; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). These Cclinical/forensic rejected stalkers who are motivated by a mix of reconciliation and revenge needs have a higher likelihood of assaulting their victims than other motivation groups (Mullen et al., 2006). Gender differences in motivations for stalking have been noted in juvenile forensic samples. Juvenile female stalkers more likely to be motivated by bullying and retaliation whereas juvenile male stalkers were have been found to be motivated more by rejection and sexual predation (Purcell et al., 2010).   In a 2001 study of adult stalkers in Australia, Purcell and colleagues found that women were more likely to target professional acquaintances and less likely to target strangers than men. Nonetheless, the majority of female stalkers were still clearly motivated by the desire to establish intimacy with their target, whereas mens motivations were diverse, spreading across the five categories. Likewise, in Meloys (2003) study of 82 female stalkers from the US, Canada, and Australia, he found the female stalkers were more likely to be motivated by a desire to establish intimacy, whereas men were known to stalk to restore intimacy. Ultimately, Tthere is a large gap in stalking motivati on research, particularly using non-forensic samples.   Clinical/forensic rejected stalkers who are motivated by a mix of reconciliation and revenge needs have a higher likelihood of assaulting their victims than other motivation groups (Mullen et al., 2006). Both male and female stalkers are more likely to be violent if they are an ex-intimate, are younger than 30 years of age, have less than a high school education, and have made prior threats (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002). Other predictors of stalking-related violence include prior criminal convictions (Mullen et al., 1999; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999). Most stalkers, however, are not violent (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a); half of all stalking cases involve a threat and just under a third of all stalking cases involve physical violence. Evidence is mixed as to whether there are gender differences in those who are likely to become violent. Some research using US college student samples suggest that female unwanted pursuit perpetrators engage in more mild aggressive stalking behaviors (Dutton Winstead, 2006; Williams Frieze, 2005). However, other college student samples reveal no gender differences in perpetration of   stalking violence (Haugaard Seri, 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2002). Still others find that men are more likely than women to threaten their victims (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000) and to escalate from threats to physical assaults, as reported in both Australian forensic samples (Purcell et al., 2001) and meta-analyses (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). Former romantic partners are the most violent compared to other categories of stalkers, a pattern that is consistent across culture and sample type (McEwan, Mullen, MacKenzie, Ogloff, 2009; Meloy, Davis, Lovette, 2001; Mohandie, Meloy, McGowan, William s, 2006; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999; Sheridan, Blaauw, Davies, 2003; Sheridan Davies, 2001). Given that men are more likely to stalk ex-intimate partners than women (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998), it seems that we should find more male-perpetrated stalking violence. However, current evidence with forensic samples shows no gender differences in actual stalking cases regarding stalker lethality (Mullen et al., 1999; Purcell et al., 2001; Rosenfeld Lewis, 2005).   Single surveys of Ccollege student samples ofabout unwanted pursuit and obsessive relational intrusion are the least likely to find fewgender differences in perpetration rates. However, meta-analyses and US and UK general population studies find that men are more likely to be stalking perpetrators than women, regardless of the victims gender (Baum et al., 2009; Budd Mattinson, 2000; Spitzberg, 2002; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a).While the size of this gender difference varies, it is consistent across methodologies (Spitzberg Cupach, 2003). There are some gender differences in the types of stalking and cyberstalking perpetrationbehaviors e.g., men being more direct and women more indirect and in pursuers motives women being predominantly motivated by intimacy-seeking and men having a broader array of motives. However, we need more research on perpetration to better understand if gender is an important predictor to consider, especially with regard to the likelihood of escalation.   w ith a variety of samples and with better means of differentiating unwanted pursuit from stalking. Perceptions of stalking As attention to the problem of stalking has increased, so has public opinion been shaped.   However, there is not a true consensus in these opinions. Rather, people vary in how much they understand about stalking.   It can be unclear when the line between   normal relational pursuit and stalking is crossed (Dunn, 1999; Emerson et al., 1998; Lee, 1998; Sinclair Frieze, 2000, 2005). Perceptions can also diverge regarding multiple issues including: 1) which behaviors qualify as stalking, 2) how many behavior are enough to represent a â€Å"course of conduct,† 3) is stalking really serious, 4) what   perpetrator intent may have been, 5) whether and how we should incorporate victim fear levels to judge stalking severity, and 6) what is â€Å"real† stalking (e.g., stranger vs. acquaintance stalking). Within each of these issues, gender may influence the perceptions people hold, both lay persons and legal decision-makers. Stalking in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Perceiver Gender The literature is still mixed as to whether men and women differ in judgments to use a label of stalking. Some researchers report that men and women do not differ in terms of which behaviors qualify as stalking (e.g., Kinkade, Burns, Fuentes, 2005; Phillips et al., 2004, in Experiment 1; Sheridan Davies, 2001; Sheridan, Davies, Boon, 2001; Sheridan et al., 2002; Sheridan, Gillet, Davies, Blaauw, Patel, 2003). Others have found

Article Analysis on Mate Selection Essay

The entire article is based on evolutionary psychology and the title of the article is Mate Selection criteria: A trait desirability assessment study of sex differences of Serbia. The entire paper examines the predictions from socio-structural perspective and evolutionary on sex differences in the mate selection in Serbia. There were a total of 127 respondents that were taken from Serbia and the respondents were mainly college students. The method of Likert scale was used and they were questioned about 60 behavioral traits and personality traits. Differences were obtained on the basis of perceived desirably of strengths, self pity, fragility, thinness’s and beauty. The males in this study consider these traits as more desirable and the females valued strength of the male positively. Female respondents are more concerned with the physical appearance of their partners. Similarly, in this study females are also concerned about the socio-economic class of males. A generalized approach cannot be used in this study because Serbian people are distinct in their culture. Similarly, in this study both sexes are attracted with each other on different factors like sexual attractiveness, beauty, socio-economic factors etc. The purpose of the researcher was to evaluate the sex differences in Serbia. However the actual hypothesis of this research paper is based on the functionality of mate selection criteria that is based on the perspective of subordinate position of women. The entire research was carried out by Bojan Todosijevic, Snezana Ljubinkovic, and Aleksandra Arancic (Todosijevic, Ljubinkovic, & Arancic, 2003). The research was headed by the department of psychology which belongs to the University of Novi. As far as the findings of this research is considered quantitative analysis is used in this the entire research to evaluate the findings of this research. Findings of this research depicts that the traits that are assessed are sincerity, tenderness, passion, maturity, intelligence and etc. The desirable traits among both the sexes are courage, thinness, talent for sports, beauty, elegance, aggressiveness and etc. Both the sexes agree on the general ordering of the traits but the research have identifies certain significant differences statistically. Males consider the traits of self-pity, thinness, beauty; fearfulness as more desirable and the probability of these traits are less than 0. 1. Findings suggest that men scored quite higher on the former items and the character traits were considered to be more desirable by the females. Discussion of the topics with respect to the article The topic of selecting a life time companion and the topic of comparison levels can be related with this research paper (Anderson & Sabatelli, 2007). Certain traits are discussed in this research paper and the through different statistical tools the results are evaluated. In both the topics of the text book the traits are discussed and both the topics evaluate that effectiveness of traits. The phenomenon of how to select an appropriate life partner is discussed and what should an individual do when he/she is selecting its soul mate. Similarly, the other topic of comparison levels discusses the comparison levels between the two sexes. In this research paper research is conducted on the traits of males and females and how both of them select their partners based on these traits. The phenomenon of Likert scale is used in the entire research. Conclusion The hypothesis in this research paper was formulated on the basis of evolutionary psychology. The results of this paper depicts that males give more preference to physical attractiveness of their potential mates. On the other hand women consider socio-economic factors like success in job, capability to earn and wealth related factors as important. The traits that are discussed in this research paper are dependent on culture and it varies with culture to culture. All the traits are evaluated in this research and generalized results are attained from the study (Todosijevic, Ljubinkovic, & Arancic, 2003). The hypothesis that was derived with higher socio-economic interpretation that was related to women should be considered as less important as compared to the hypothesis on evolutionary psychology. In the entire research paper different traits were evaluated and results were achieved through Likert scales. Before reading the article one cannot depict that which traits are more important for women and for men and since the entire article talks about traits and their effectiveness that is the reason why it becomes quite easy to filter out which traits are necessary for men and which are important for women. Statistical analyses are used in this article which helps the reader in finding the viability of the results. This article can definitely help an individual in selecting its partner and after reading this article one can check the traits discussed in this article with the traits that are present in his/her partner or the traits which he/she desires for (Todosijevic, Ljubinkovic, & Arancic, 2003). References Anderson, S. , & Sabatelli, R. (2007). Family Interaction: A Multigenerational Developmental Perspective. Allyn & Bacon. Todosijevic, B. , Ljubinkovic, S. , & Arancic, A. (2003). Mate selection criteria: A trait desirability assessment study of sex differences in Serbia. University in Novi.

The Appeal of Unique Essay Topics

The Appeal of Unique Essay Topics If You Read Nothing Else Today, Read This Report on Unique Essay Topics At any time you catch yourself feeling captivated by a person's essay or article, take a close look at it. When you're writing about yourself, be certain to include words that explain the emotions you're feeling at several portions of the story. Obviously, you can decide on any topic, nobody could ever know that you're describing experience that you never actually had, but don't forget that it is always simpler to tell the truth than to invent lies. There might be things you'll be looking at without knowing they will make great essay topics. Remember you can make funny argumentative essays if you do a few things. The primary goal of writing an argumentative essay is to understand how to convince individuals to modify their perception of things they strongly believe in. One of the largest hiccups in choosing funny argumentative essay topics is how comedy is a rather touchy field, and various folks have various opinions of what comedy is about. Now, the time you compose an essay might be the thing that gives it an exceptional nature. Unique Essay Topics Options Categories, essay topics might be divided into. You are a genuine expert in regards to persuasive essay topics. You must find decent essay topics, and the superior essay topics you should find has to be unique ones. Get Goofy Goofy topics still need sound reasoning and very good writing. Whatever college essay topic you select or are assigned, the trick is to compose a fantastic stand-out essay. Each of these forms of paper is owned by the category of informative essay. The essay is easily among the most troublesome sections of the college application procedure. If you're applying to a college that doesn't accept the Common App, you will have to answer their precise essay questions. Who knowsthe reply to that question may be the foundation for your admission essay. One particular important and appropriate subject is technology. Whatever They Told You About Unique Essay Topics Is Dead Wrong...And Here's Why The college essay is among the main elements of your college application. College professors see that students are well-trained and inspired to compose essays when asked to achieve that. Colleges are not searching for perfect individuals. They want to get to know more about you. The Nuiances of Unique Essay Topics Application essays about challenges re veal how you respond to difficulty to folks who are quite interested in how you are going to deal with the subsequent four years all on your own. Tell us a topic that you've changed your head on in the last three years. A number of individuals have been citing that education is the secret to success. Luckily, you have our top-class group of writers who can assist students and teach them how to opt for the most suitable essay direction. New Step by Step Roadmap for Unique Essay Topics To choose which subject you're likely to discuss, it's vital to see the complete collection of good persuasive speech topics from the specific area of study. Now, you've got loads of topics to select from and lay down your thoughts on paper. Read from three or more distinct sources so that you get a whole picture of the topic. Okay, now you have the fundamentals about how to opt for an informative essay topic, let's dig into some terrific ideas! Who Else Wants to Learn About Unique Essay Topics? Tons of essays are doctored or written by other folks, she explained. Your essay might incorporate the factors for teen pregnancy and talk about the recent rates of teen pregnancy and potential solutions. Humorous essays are frequently a ton more fun to write. Writing an essay on contemporary events may be an exciting endeavor but that's only in case you have been following global happenings. It's possible to just write about your extracurricular pursuits. On our site you will discover a lot more useful one of a kind information that is certain to be handy for junior and higher school kids from, like common home task essay about Hamlet, along with, for instance, application essays for college for future students. You might discover that lots of the topics can be adapted to suit almost any sort of writing assignment. Therefore, once you are developing a topic to write on, you should take decent time and critically think out. New Step by Step Roadmap for Unique Essay Topics If you're thinking that you require someone to compose my essay at this time, you can just rely on our honest reviews. Don't neglect to bring a strong hook at the beginning (introduction paragraph) and wind up with an impressive conclusion to create the reader want to go over the interesting persuasive essay topics of your pick. When you finish your research notes you can begin writing with confidence that you have all of the pieces you should create a good essay. Or perhaps you strive to write like a particular author one day. Gossip, Deception and Unique Essay Topics Thanks to the correct selection of presentation style and a thorough understanding of the goals you need to accomplish in your essay, there are many categories essay themes may be broken into. If you're struggling, you always have the option to acquire help by utilizing an essay writing service such as ours. It's extremely important to read carefully essay services reviews, because you wish to avoid low excelle nt services. The very best essay editing service ought to have an on-line resource created to fulfill the greatest standards of internet design.

7 Essential Tips for Writing a Motivation Essay for an Exchange Program

If you want to show the world what you’ve got, you need to show it in the most convincing manner. You want to visit places through the exchange program? Recall all the essay writing tips you probably never took too seriously in high school. Stand out of the Crowd Now how to outshine other applicants, and ensure your selection for the program? Much the same way your CV is your personal statement when applying for a job, the motivation essay is your personal statement for the program. What Should My Essay Include? A giant sized Minion sketch. Nah, we’re just kidding. Here is what you need to include: information about your interests, the classes you are enrolled in and your take future educational plans; you would be required to explain why you are interested in the student exchange program and how it would assist you in achieving your future goals. But everyone has a Unique Name, what exactly makes my essay so special? Thinking before putting ramblings of your mind on paper If the authorities get the impression that you made no effort to write a good essay, they would obviously think you are least bothered about the program too. We discuss some tips on writing a convincing essay, devoid of clichà ©s and unnecessary details. 1-Learn about the country you are visiting To show your seriousness for the program, you need to write your essay in a manner which shows you have made an effort to learn the country’s history, politics, etc. Oh, we know what you’re thinking. So what if you have no idea about your own country’s history? Just learn more about your new home, if you want to increase your chances of selection in the program. 2-  Explain what you will learn from the visit Write about the experience you look forward to during the trip. What amazes you the most about the country? Is it the people, or are you mesmerized by the local music? Are you enthusiastic about the country’s rich literature? There must be something right? Yeah, just write it down. 3- Explain how the two communities benefit from your visit Write how you plan on building contacts in the country, and carry out various campaigns with them. Shed light on how such activities would bring the two communities closer. 4- Sound enthusiastic, avoid clichà ©s You should make every effort to sound enthusiastic, but remember over-doing anything can ruin it. Don’t use oft-repeated phrases, and avoid sounding too dramatic. Just be yourself! What? Did that sound clichà ©d too? 5- Don’t sing your praises Please. Don’t. Don’t go on and on about how the country or the university that you are applying for needs you so much. You should sound confident, explain your achievements in detail, but you need not act like that nerd you and your friends used to make fun of, for doing exactly that. 6- Bad grammar: strict no-no Correcting other people’s spelling on Facebook, but making silly mistakes in their own essay†¦. Yes, that’s exactly how some people are like. Get your essay proofread by a capable person for any grammar and punctuation mistakes. 7- Have a look at samples Explore the Internet for some samples. It will help you with writing a good essay.