3.FullPredicting the Occurrence of Stalking in Relationships Characterized by Domestic Violence

7/29/2019 3.FullPredicting the Occurrence of Stalking in Relationships Characterized by Domestic Violence

1/24

http://jiv.sagepub.com/Violence

Journal of Interpersonal

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/22/1/3The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0886260506294994

2007 22: 3J Interpers ViolenceHeather C. Melton

by Domestic ViolencePredicting the Occurrence of Stalking in Relationships Characterized

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children

can be found at:Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceAdditional services and information for

http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/22/1/3.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Dec 6, 2006Version of Record>>

by RAVI BABU BUNGA on October 23, 2011jiv.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/22/1/3http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/22/1/3http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.apsac.org/http://www.apsac.org/http://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/22/1/3.refs.htmlhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/22/1/3.refs.htmlhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/22/1/3.refs.htmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/22/1/3.full.pdfhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/22/1/3.full.pdfhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/content/22/1/3.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://jiv.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://jiv.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.apsac.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/22/1/3http://jiv.sagepub.com/


2/24

Predicting the Occurrenceof Stalking in RelationshipsCharacterized byDomestic ViolenceHeather C. MeltonUniversity of Utah

A high correlation has been found between domestic violence and stalking.

However, very few studies have examined what factors predict the occur-

rence of stalking in relationships characterized by domestic violence. Using

in-depth interviews with victims of domestic violence whose cases have gone

through the criminal justice system, this article explores this issue. It was

found that experiences of stalking by their abusers were very prevalent in this

group of domestic violence victims. In terms of predicting stalking, domes-

tic violence victims who were not in a relationship with their abuser, whoseabusers had an alcohol or drug problem, who experienced more controlling

behaviors by their abusers, and who had experienced prior stalking by their

abusers were at the greatest risk of experiencing more severe stalking.

Implications for intervention are discussed.

Keywords: stalking; domestic violence; victims of stalking

Researchers, law enforcement, and the press have paid increasing atten-

tion to the problem of stalking throughout the late 20th century and

early 21st century. Although this is partly because of a number of high-

profile cases involving celebrities, we now know that the majority of stalking

incidents involve individuals who are or were intimates or acquainted, and

a high correlation exists between stalking and domestic violence (e.g., see

Baldry, 2002; Coleman, 1997; Davis, Ace, & Andra, 2000; Logan, Leukefeld,

& Walker, 2000; McFarlane et al., 1999; Mechanic, Uhlmansiek, Weaver,

& Resick, 2000; Mechanic, Weaver, & Resick, 2000; National Institute of

Justice [NIJ], 1997; Roberts & Dziegielewski, 1996; Tjaden, 1997; Tjaden& Thoennes, 2000; U.S. Department of Justice [USDOJ], 1998; White,

Kowalski, Lyndon, & Valentine, 2000). Given this relationship, identifying

the factors that predict whether or not stalking will occur within a certain

Journal of Interpersonal

Violence

Volume 22 Number 1

January 2007 3-25

2007 Sage Publications

10.1177/0886260506294994http://jiv.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

3

http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/http://jiv.sagepub.com/


3/24

domestic violence relationship is particularly important. This article explores

this issue.

The term stalking is used to describe the willful, repeated, and maliciousfollowing, harassing, or threatening of another person. Estimates indicate that

stalking may affect anywhere between 200,000 and 1.4 million people annu-

ally (Roberts & Dziegielewski, 1996; Tjaden, 1997; Tjaden & Thoennes,

1998; USDOJ, 1998). Victims are most often the current or former spouses

or intimate partners of their stalkers (Baldry, 2002; Burgess et al., 1997;

Coleman, 1997; Guy, 1993; NIJ, 1996; Roberts & Dziegielewski, 1996;

Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998; USDOJ, 1998). Some estimate that as many as

80% of all stalking cases involve people who were or are intimately involved(Coleman, 1997; Roberts & Dziegielewski, 1996). Previous research has

demonstrated the link between domestic violence and stalking (see Coleman,

1997; Davis et al., 2000; Logan et al., 2000; McFarlane et al., 1999; Mechanic,

Uhlmansiek, et al., 2000; Mechanic, Weaver, et al., 2000; NIJ, 1997; Tjaden

& Thoennes, 2000; White et al., 2000). For example, Tjaden and Thoennes

(1998) reported that 80% of the victims of stalking in their study reported

having been physically assaulted by the partner that later stalked them. It is

estimated that between 29% and 54% of all female murder victims are bat-tered women, and in 90% of these cases, stalking preceded the murder (Guy,

1993; USDOJ, 1998). This has led many to conclude that stalking in intimate

relationships is a form of intimate partner violence.

Very few studies have examined what factors predict stalking within

domestic violence contexts. Given this relationship between the two prob-

lems, predicting which relationships characterized by violence may also

involve stalking becomes important. In one of the few studies that attempts

to predict stalking, Mechanic, Weaver, et al. (2000) found that stalking was

more correlated with psychological abuse than physical abusethe emo-

tional abuse variables in the study better predicted stalking than the physi-

cal abuse variables. Moreover, in another study, Mechanic, Uhlmansiek,

et al. (2000) found that severe stalking in domestic violence relationships is

highly correlated with more severe physical, sexual, and emotional abuse

the more severe were those types of abuses, the more severe was the stalk-

ing. Brewster (2002) found that the best predictor of violence during

stalking incidents was evidence of prior verbal threats.

In addition, research has explored the significance of the duration of therelationship between the parties. Mechanic and her colleagues found that

stalking in a relationship escalated among women who left their partners.

Logan and colleagues (2000) also concluded that stalking is a continuation

of intimate partner violence after the relationship has ended. Thus, prior

4 Journal of Interpersonal Violence



4/24

research has identified the type of abuse experienced, the severity of abuse

experienced, and the time in the relationship as significant predictors of

stalking in domestic violence relationships.This article explores the issue of stalking in the context of domestic vio-

lence. The specific hypotheses and research questions examined are as fol-

lows. First, it is expected that the experience of stalking will be prevalent

among the population of domestic violence victims being studied. Prior

research that has identified this correlation (Coleman, 1997; Davis et al.,

2000; Logan et al., 2000; McFarlane et al., 1999; Mechanic, Uhlmansiek,

et al., 2000; Mechanic, Weaver, et al., 2000; NIJ, 1997; Tjaden & Thoennes,

2000; White et al., 2000). Second, given prior research on predicting stalk-ing, it is expected that more severe stalking will occur in relationships with

more severe domestic violence (Mechanic, Uhlmansiek, et al., 2000). Last,

it is expected that the victim-offender relationship is linked to the victims

stalking experiences. This research attempts to broaden our knowledge of

stalking in the context of domestic violence by understanding predictors of

stalking to determine the appropriate response to this problem.

Method

The study was funded by an NIJ grant (No. 98-WT-VX-0024) titled

A Longitudinal Study of Battered Women in the System: The Victims and

Decision Makers Perceptions. The data for the study were collected

through intensive and longitudinal interviews with female victims of domestic

violence whose cases had at least entered the criminal justice system (i.e.,

the abuser was arrested) in one of three jurisdictions in the United States: a

medium-size Midwestern city, a large Western metropolitan area, and a

Western, rural college county. The respondents were recruited from the

District Attorneys (DA) offices in these three jurisdictions. After their case

closed, they were mailed a flyer briefly describing the research with a

phone number to call for more information as well as a stamped return

postcard. Cases were closed for a number of reasons. The case may have

been closed because the charges were dismissed, the defendant may have

reached a plea bargain, or the case may have gone to trial. Only women

who contacted the project by either calling or returning the card wereincluded in the study. Because of the fact that personnel from the DAs and

prosecutors offices controlled the mailing of the flyers, the overall

response rate is unknown (i.e., they did not keep track of how many flyers

they handed or sent out).

Melton / Predicting Stalking in DV Relationships 5



5/24

Women were interviewed right after their case closed, 6 months later,

and 1 year later. The retrospective time frames covered in each interview

are as follows: at Interview 1, the 6 months before the arrest; at Interview 2,

the 6 months between the case closing and the second interview; and atInterview 3, the 6 months between the second and third interview. They were

paid $40 for the first interview and $50 for each of the two subsequent inter-

views. The final sample included 178 women at Time 1 (right after the case

closed), 160 at Time 2 (6 months later), and 148 at Time 3 (1 year later).

Measures

Dependent Variable

Stalking was measured in a number of ways and included a wide variety

of behaviors. Stalking was operationalized for this study using the Stalking

Behavior Checklist adapted from Coleman (1997; also see Table 1).

The respondents chose from the following responses: 0 (never), 1 (once),

2 (rarely), 3 (sometimes), and 4 (often). A composite score for stalking for

each respondent was created by adding the responses to each individual

stalking variable. Table 2 provides descriptive information for the items

comprising the composite. This measures the level of severity of stalkingexperienced. The composite score (i.e. for each respondent) ranged from

0 to 40 at Time 1 and Time 2, and 0 to 36 at Time 3. The composite range

does not meet its maximum high because no one respondent experienced all

eleven behaviors often. It went down by Time 2 and Time 3.


Table 1

Measures of Stalking

How often in the 6 months before the assailant was arrested has he:

Came unwanted to your home, work or school?

Broken or destroyed something important to you?

Broke into or attempted to break into your home or car?

Stole or read your mail?

Made unwanted calls to your home or work?

Left you unwanted phone or pager messages at home or work?

Checked up on you?

Followed or watched you?

Sent you unwanted gifts, photos, or letters? Threatened, harmed, or attempted to harm your new partner (if you have one)?

Source: Coleman (1997).



6/24

7

Table2

StalkingTypesa

ndFrequenciesReportedatTime1,Time2,an

dTime3

Time1(N=

178)

Time2(N=

160)

Time3(N=

148)

Variables

%a

Meanb

%a

Meanb

tTest

%a

Meanb

tTest

Checkedupon

76.4

13

6

2.52

51.9

83

1.55

6.32**

*

45.9

68

1.40

1.36

Brokesomething

important

65.7

11

7

1.79

24.4

39

0.57

8.64**

*

25.7

38

0.61

0.30

Unwantedcalls

60.7

10

8

1.95

43.1

69

1.22

4.65**

*

37.8

56

1.17

0.47

Followed/watche

d

59.0

10

5

1.73

36.3

58

0.99

5.23**

*

29.7

44

0.90

0.71

Cameunwanted

57.9

10

3

1.75

31.9

51

0.67

6.94**

*

30.4

45

0.85

1.31

Unwantedmessages

52.8

9

4

1.68

28.1

45

0.86

5.36**

*

33.8

50

0.95

0.87

Stole/readmail

43.3

7

7

1.27

15.0

24

0.38

6.62**

*

18.2

27

0.46

0.75

Broke/attempted

tobreak

35.4

6

3

0.82

14.4

23

0.25

5.33**

*

12.2

18

0.32

0.91

intohome/car

Sentunwantedgifts,photos,

27.5

4

9

0.73

16.3

26

0.39

3.09**

13.5

20

0.38

0.18

letters

Threatened/harmednewpartnerc

14.0

2

5

0.44

15.6

25

0.47

0.28

16.9

25

0.47

0.09

Compositeofstalkingd

1

5.17

7.76

8.53***

7.55

0.51

Experiencedany

stalking

92.1

17

8

0.93

56.3

90

0.57

8.84**

*

58.1

86

0.59

0.39

Compositeofphysicalviolence

1

8.45

4.27

10.61***

4.45

0.15

Experiencedany

violence

96.6

17

2

0.97

38.1

61

0.38

14.68**

*

34.9

51

0.35

0.67

a.Thisrepresentsthepercentageoftherespond

entswhoexperiencedanyofth

estalkingbehaviorsatleastonceinthetimeperiodpresented.

b.Therespondentswereaskedhowfrequentlyth

eyexperiencedeachtypeofsta

lkingbehavior.Themeanspresentedhereareforonlythe148

respon-

dentswhoparticipatedineachinterview.Thescalewasnever(0),once(1),rarely(2),sometimes(3),andoften(4).

c.Ifonlywomen

whothisisapplicableto(e.g.

theyhaveanewpartner)aree

xaminedthepercentagesare71.4%atTime1;48.1%atTime2;and

43.1%atTime3

.Moreover,thereisasignificantdifferencebetweentheme

ansofTime1andthemeans

ofTime2itdecreasessignificantly.

However,thereisnotasignificantdifferencebe

tweenTime2andTime3.

d.Thecomposite

wasdevelopedbyaddinguptheresponsestoeachofthestalkingvariables.Itrangedfrom0to40attime1;0to40attime2;and

0to36attime3.

*p

.05.**p.01.***p.001.



7/24

The analysis also compares the relationship between physical violence

and stalking. Thus, the study measures whether the subject experienced

any stalking. Given that stalking is a repeated behavior, any respondent

who experienced one of the above stalking behaviors sometimes or more in

the given time period was coded as having experienced stalking.

Independent Variables

A similar process was used for measuring control and physical violence.

First, experiences with control were measured. Control was defined as any

actions taken by one that is an attempt to have control over another, whether

it is financially and/or emotionally. These measures were taken from the

Index of Psychological Abuse (Sullivan, Parisian, & Davidson, 1991) and

the Violence Assessment and Index of Controlling Behaviors (Dobash &

Dobash, 1998). Control was measured by the following variables at the first

interview, the 6 month interview, and the year interview (see Table 3).

The respondents could answer 0 (never), 1 (once), 2 (rarely), 3 (some-

times), or 4 (often) to each of these eight items. Once again, a composite

scale was created from the responses to each of these controlling vari-

ables. It ranged from 0 to 32 at Time 1, 0 to 25 at Time 2, and 0 to 32 at

Time 3. As with stalking, this composite scale of control was very reliable.

The alpha at Time 1 was 0.81, at Time 2, 0.78, and at Time 3, 0.84. Thismeasures severity of control experienced by the respondents at each of the

three time periods.

A composite measure of physical violence was created by adding the

scores that respondents provided for an extended Conflict Tactic Scale


Table 3

Measures of Control

How often in the 6 months before he was arrested (or since the end of the court case or the

6 months since the end of the court case depending on which interview it is) did assailant do

any of the following to annoy or hurt you:

Tried to control your activities?

Tried to control you money?

Discouraged your contact with family or friends?

Left you somewhere with no way to get home?

Threatened to end the relationship if you didnt do what he wanted?

Tried to force you to leave your home?

Acted like he owned you? Forbid you from leaving your home?

Source: Sullivan et al. (1991), Dobash & Dobash (1998).



8/24

(Straus, 1979). The scale is comprised of the 23 items shown in Table 4.

The respondents answered never (0), once (1), once a month or less (2),

2 or 3 times a month (3) once or twice a week(4), 3 or 4 times a week(5),

5 or 6 times a week(6) or every day (7). For physical violence, a compos-

ite was created. The scores on this measure ranged from 0 to 109 at Time

1, from 0 to 47 at Time 2, and from 0 to 70 at Time 3. This composite rep-

resents the severity of physical violence at each of the time periods.

This scale was highly reliable, with alphas of 0.92 at Time 1, 0.92 at

Time 2, and 0.94 at Time 3. This composite represents severity of physical

violence at each of the time periods.The respondents and the abusers relationship status was measured to

determine the relationship between victim-abuser relationship and stalking.

At several points in each interview, the respondents were asked what their

relationship was with the abuser (see Table 5).


Table 4

Measures of Physical Violence

How often did assailant:

Break your glasses or tear your clothing?

Push or shove you?

Grab you?

Slap you with an open hand?

Pull your hair?

Bite you?

Hit you with a fist?

Kick you?

Throw something at you? Hit you with an object (aside from throwing something)?

Try to hit you with an object?

Twist your arm or leg?

Drove recklessly to scare or hurt you?

Choke you or try to smother you (including drowning)>

Burn you (i.e., cigarette burns)?

Tie you up or physically restrain you somehow?

Beat you up?

Force sexual activity?

Threaten you with a knife? Threaten you with a gun?

Stab you?

Shoot you?

Commit other violence?

Source: Straus (1979).



9/24

Respondents were coded as either together (1) or separated (0).

Respondents reporting that they are married, living together; girl/boyfriend,

living together; girl/boyfriend, not living together; dating but not girl/boyfriend;

or another relationship that implies they are intimately involved, were coded

as together (1). Respondents reporting that they are married and sepa-

rated (not living together), divorced (not living together), ex-girlfriend/

ex-boyfriend, or in another relationship that implies they are not intimatelyinvolved were considered separated (0). They were asked this for the

6 months before the arrest, the 6 months after the court case, and the 6 months

since the 6 month interview. Another variable was also created for whether

or not they lived together at the different time periods0 = did not live

together and 1 = lived together.

Additional variables that were measured and included in the analyses

were victim and abuser race, income, age, education, site, and whether the

abuser had an alcohol or drug problem. Victim and abuser race were

dummy variables, with White as 0 and non-White as 1. Victim income was

measured by the dollar amount of her monthly income. Age was measured

by her age in years at the time of the first interview. For the univariate and

bivariate analyses, education consisted of a number of different categories

based on her educational attainment: less than high school, high school

graduate or some college, and college graduate and beyond. For the multi-

variate analyses, a dummy variable of education was created comparing

respondents who graduated high school or attended some college and respon-

dents who graduated college or beyond, with respondents who had less thana high school education. Site was measured for the univariate and bivariate

analyses by 1 for respondents from the midsized city, 2 for respondents

from the rural college county, and 3 for respondents from the large, metro-

politan city. For the multivariate analyses, a dummy variable was created of


Table 5

Measures of Type of Relationship

How would you describe your relationship with [abusers name]? Would you say that you are:

Married, living together

Married, separated (not living together)

Divorced (not living together)

Girl/boyfriend, living together

Girl/boyfriend, not living together

Ex-girlfriend/ex-boyfriend

Dating but not girl/boyfriend

Other



10/24

site comparing the midsized city and the rural college county to the omitted

group of respondents from the large, metropolitan city. Finally, whether the

abuser had an alcohol or drug problem was measured by 1 (yes) and 0 (no).

Limitations

The study has several limitations. First, it is not known whether the case

from which the respondents were recruited was the victims 1st, 2nd, or

10th interaction with the criminal justice system. Thus, the victims experi-

ences prior to the 6 months before this arrest are not accounted for. Second,

this study only uses the victims perception of the events. Third, this studyonly explores victims of domestic violence and stalking who have had con-

tact with the police. There may be qualitative differences between these vic-

tims and those who have never had police contact. Furthermore, as noted

previously, the response rate to the study is unknown. Thus, the respondents

in this study may not be representative of all women whose cases go

through the criminal justice system. The sample is self-selected. Regardless

of the limitations, this article offers a unique examination of the problem of

stalking in the context of domestic violence.

Findings

Univariate Findings

Demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 6.

A total of 178 women who had been abused by their partners or ex-partners

and whose cases had gone through the criminal justice system in either themidsized city, the rural college county, or the large, metropolitan city were

recruited and interviewed at Time 1. Ninety-two of these women were from

the large, metropolitan city, 48 from the rural college county, and 38 from the

midsized city. At Time 2, the retention rate was 90%, with 36 respondents

from the midsized city, 46 from the rural college county, and 78 from the

large, metropolitan city. At Time 3, the retention rate fell to 83.1%; 34 respon-

dents from the midsized city, 44 from the rural college county, and 70 from

the large, metropolitan city. The drop in retention was most significant in thelarge, metropolitan citythe most populous of the three sites in the study.

More than half of the respondents (55.1%) were White, 22.2% were African

American, 16.3% were Latina, and 8.4% were categorized as Other

including persons who were bi- or multiracial, Native American, Asian




11/24


Table 6Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

Variables (N= 178) (N= 160) (N= 148)a

Site % n % n % n

Midsize city 21.4 38 22.5 36 23.0 34

Rural college county 27.0 48 28.8 46 29.7 44

Large city 51.7 92 48.8 78 47.3 70

Race

White 55.1 98 57.5 92 57.4 85

African American 20.2 36 18.1 29 18.2 27

Latina 16.3 29 15.6 25 16.9 25

Other 8.4 15 8.8 14 7.4 11

Ageb

18 to 29 44.4 79 43.1 69 41.9 62

30 to 44 39.3 70 43.8 70 43.9 65

45-plus 13.5 24 13.1 21 14.2 21

Education

Less than high school 14.0 25 13.8 22 12.9 19

High school graduate 25.3 45 23.8 38 23.8 35

Trade school 5.1 9 5.6 9 6.1 9

Some college 30.3 54 31.8 50 30.6 45

Associates degree 5.1 9 3.8 6 4.1 6

College graduate 15.2 27 16.3 26 16.3 24

Professional degree 5.1 9 5.6 9 6.1 9

Incomec

$0.00-$499.99 12.4 22 10.6 17 11.5 17

$500.00-$999.99 19.2 34 18.8 30 17.6 26

$1,000.00-$2,999.99 48.6 86 52.5 84 49.3 73

$3,000.00-plus 19.7 35 15.6 25 20.9 31

Number of children

0 27.5 49 25.0 40 23.6 35

1 to 3 60.1 107 64.4 103 64.2 95

4-plus 12.4 22 10.6 17 12.2 18

Relationship with assailant

Married 9.6 17 10.6 17 8.8 13

Separated 14.0 25 10.6 17 11.5 17

Divorced 10.1 18 12.5 20 15.5 23

(continued)



12/24

American, and European immigrant (noncitizen). The average age of the

respondents was 32, with a range from 18 to 60 years old. The majority of

the respondents either had a high school diploma or attended some college

by the time of the first interview. The majority of the respondents (48.6%)

reported a household income level between $1,000.00 and $2,999.99 per

month at the first interview. One eighth (12.4%) made less than $500.00,

19.2% made between $500.00 and $999.99, and 19.7% made $3,000.00 amonth or more. The income levels remained fairly constant throughout the

three interviews. Most of the respondents had a least one child (72.5%),

with a range from no children to six children. In regards to relationships

with the abuser, close to 70% of the respondents reported that they were no

longer with the abuser at each of the three interviews.

Summarized in Table 2 are the frequencies of stalking behaviors

reported by the respondents. Clearly, stalking was a common occurrence

among this group of abused women. It should be noted that the violenceexperienced by this group of abused women was fairly serious and wide-

spread, with almost 90% of the women reporting some violence at Time 1

and more than one third of the women experiencing violence at Times 2 and 3.


Table 6 (continued)

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3Variables (N= 178) (N= 160) (N= 148)a

Site % n % n % n

Girlfriend/boyfriend 13.5 24 12.5 20 10.1 15

Dating 1.1 2 0.6 1 2.7 4

Ex-girlfriend/ex-boyfriend 46.1 82 46.3 74 47.3 70

Other 5.6 10 6.9 11 4.1 6

a. Significant demographic differences between women who participated in the study at allthree time periods and women who dropped out were only found for the variable site

women were significantly more likely to drop out from the large city than from the rural col-

lege county or the midsize city.

b. The mean age for Time 1 was 32.8, with a range from 18 to 60 years old; the mean age for

Time 2 was 33.1, with a range from 18 to 60 years old; and the mean age for Time 3 was 33.4,

with a range from 18 to 60 years old.

c. The mean income at Time 1 was $2042.00, with a range from $0.00 to $20,000.00 a month;

the mean income at Time 2 was $1,813.00, with a range from $0.00 to $8,000.00; the mean

income at Time 3 was $1,956.00, with a range from $0.00 to $10,000.00.



13/24

14

Table7

Distinguishing

StalkedfromNonstalk

edDomesticViolenceV

ictims

Time1Stalking

Time2Stalking

Time3Stalking

Experiencea

Experience

Experience

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Variables

%

n

%

n

Chi-Square

%

n

%

n

Chi-Square

%

n

%

n

Ch

i-Square

Relationshipwith

abuserattime

ofeachinterview

Notinarelationship

3.1

4

96.9

123

8.84**

5.3

2

94

.7

36

18.92***

6.1

2

93.9

31

4.64*

Inarelationship

15.9

7

84.1

37

54.5

12

45

.5

10

27.8

5

72.2

13

Whetherabuser

hadanalcohol/

drugproblem

attimeofeach

interview

No

16.0

8

84.0

42

10.63**

56.3

9

43

.8

7

12.44***

50.0

6

50.0

6

21.08***

Yes

2.5

3

97.5

117

11.9

5

88

.1

37

0.0

0

100.0

37

Compositeofcontrolc

Leastcontrol

41.9

13

58.1

18

12

.23**

31.3

5

68.8

11

6.25*

Somecontrol

0.0

0

100.0

21

6.9

2

93.1

27

Mostcontrol

16.7

1

83.3

5

0.0

0

100.0

6

Compositeof

0.303*b

0.383*b

physicalviolencecd

a.Thisisstalkinge

xperiencecontrollingforexperienc

ewithphysicalviolence.Onlywom

enwithexperiencewithphysicalviolenceateachtimeareincluded.Thus,a

noindicatesthew

omenexperiencedphysicalviolencewithoutstalkingandayesindicatesthewomenreportedphysicalviolenceandstalking.

b.Cautionshouldbeusedbecauseoformorecellshav

elessthan5.However,bivariatecorrelationalsoshowedasignificant

relationshipbetweenthesevariables.

c.Thesevariablesa

remeasuredatandusedforeachtimeperiod.

d.Bivariatecorrelationanalysisindicatesasignificant

relationshipbetweenwhetherorno

tsheexperiencedmorephysicalviolenceandmorestalkingthemor

esevere

thephysicalviolencethemorestalkingsheexperience

d,controllingforexperiencingphysicalviolence.

*p

.05.**p

.01.***p

.001.



14/24

Regarding stalking, 92.1% of the respondents reported experiencing at least

one of the stalking variables at Time 1. Although stalking decreased during

the three time periods, more than half of the respondents reported experi-encing at least one of the stalking variables at Time 2 (56.3%) and Time 3

(58.1%). Thus, even after criminal justice intervention, more than half of

the respondents continued to experience some form of stalking.

Examining the specific stalking variables, the most common stalking

behavior reported at all three time periods was checking up on (76.4% at

Time 1, 51.9% at Time 2, and 45.9% at Time 3). At Time 1, the following

stalking behaviors were reported at least once by more than half of the

respondents: The stalker broke something important to them or arrivedunwanted, or the victim received unwanted calls or messages, was fol-

lowed, or was watched. More than two fifths (43.3%) reported that their

abusers stole or read their mail. More than a third (35.4%) reported that

their abuser broke or attempted to break into their home or car. More than

a fourth (27.5%) reported that they received unwanted gifts, photos, or

letters from their abuser. Finally, 14.0% of the respondents reported that a

new partner was threatened or harmed by their abuser. However, this last

group includes all respondents not controlling for whether the woman hada new partner. When controlling for whether the respondent had a new part-

ner, 71.4% of the respondents reported that their new partner was threat-

ened or harmed by their abusermaking it the second-most-frequent

stalking behavior experienced at Time 1.

Although the stalking experiences significantly decreased in Times 2

and 3, some of the stalking variables continued to be prevalent in these later

periods. For example, at Time 2 checking up on was still reported by

more than half of the respondents (51.9%), unwanted calls was reported

by more than two fifths of the respondents (43.1%), and followed or

watched was reported by more than a third of the respondents (36.3%). At

Time 3, almost half (45.9%) of the respondents reported being checked up

on, almost two fifths (37.8%) reported receiving unwanted calls, and almost

30% reported being followed or watched (29.7%). Thus, at all three time

periods, abused women whose cases have gone through the criminal justice

system were still quite likely to be subjected to stalking.

It is important to note that using the ttest to compare means indicates

significant differences between the percentages of women experiencingviolence at Time 2 and the percentages of women experiencing stalking at

Time 2. About 38% of the respondents reported experiencing any physical

violence at Time 2; Table 2 indicates that almost three fifths (56.3%) of

the respondents reported experiencing any stalking at Time 2. Thus, this




15/24

suggests that women were more likely to continue to experience stalking

than they were violence between Times 1 and 2. This may indicate that

although domestic violence abusers stop their violence after criminal jus-tice intervention, they may continue to stalk.

A Typology of Domestic Violence Stalkers

In an effort to further understand the difference between domestic vio-

lence abusers who stalk and those who do not, cross-tabulations were con-

ducted with any stalking experience at each of the three times, controlling

for experiences with physical violence. Thus, women who had only experi-enced physical violence without stalking were compared to women who

experienced both physical violence andstalking. The significant results are

presented in Table 7. For all women who experienced physical violence at

Time 1, women who were not in a relationship with their abusers (96.9%)

were significantly more likely to experience stalking than women who were

still in a relationship (84.1%;p .01). Women whose abusers had an alco-

hol or drug problem were significantly more likely to experience stalking

(97.5%) than women whose abusers did not have an alcohol or drug prob-lem (84.0%) (p .01). These two findings also held for Times 2 and 3. In

addition, at Times 2 and 3, two additional variables were significantly

related to whether domestic violence victims who experienced physical

violence also reported stalkingcontrol and physical violence levels. First,

women who reported the most control, also reported the most stalking. The

same held true for physical violence. The more physical violence reported

at Times 1 and 2, the greater the likelihood of experiencing stalking at

Times 2 (p .05) and 3 (p .05). Thus, compared to domestic violence

abusers who do not stalk, domestic violence abusers who stalk were more

likely to (1) no longer be in a relationship with their victim; (2) have an

alcohol or drug problem; (3) exhibit more controlling behaviors in general;

and (4) be engaging in more physical violence abuse against their victims

(refer to Table 2). This may have important implications for criminal jus-

tice practitioners in their attempt to identify those at most risk for stalking

and will be discussed in the discussion.

Multivariate Findings

Numerous multivariate regression models were created for each time

period. These findings are reported in Tables 8 through 10. Table 8 presents

an OLS multiple regression at Time 1, conducted with the composite of




16/24

stalking as the dependent variable. Independent variables included race of

the victim, race of the abuser (0 for White and 1 for non-White), income,

age, victim-abuser relationship at the 6 months before the arrest (0 = not ina relationship, 1 = in a relationship), victims educational attainment, site,

and whether the abuser had an alcohol or drug problem (0 = no and 1 = yes).

Significant relationships were found for the variables victim-abuser rela-

tionship 6 months before the arrest, education, site, and whether the abuser

had an alcohol or drug problem. Specifically, for the variables victim-

abuser relationship at 6 months before the arrest, women who reported that

they were not involved in a relationship with the abuser during this time

period reported significantly higher rates of stalking than women who werestill intimately involved with the abuser (p .001). Table 8 also indicates

that a womans level of education was negatively related to the levels of

stalking. Women with a high school education (and possibly some college)

reported lower levels of stalking than those without a high school education

(p .01). Women with the most education reported the lowest levels of

stalking (p .05). As indicated by the bivariate analysis, abusers who were

reported as having alcohol or drug problems were also reported to have

committed higher severity levels of stalking than abusers without alcohol ordrug problems (p .05). Finally, the study site was significantly related to

the severity of stalking. Compared to respondents from the large, metro-

politan city, respondents from the rural college county were significantly

less likely to experience more severe and more frequent stalking.

Three multiple regression models were performed at Time 2 (see Table 9).

First, a regression of stalking and demographic variables (Model 1) was

conducted at Time 2, revealing a significant relationship between the victim-

abuser relationship andthe severity of stalking. Respondents who were no

longer involved with their abusers at Time 2 were more likely than women

involved to report more severe and frequent stalking (p 0.05). All the other

variables were found to be nonsignificant.

A second regression model was developed for stalking at Time 2 (see

Table 9, Model 2). In addition to the demographic variables, Time 1 abuse

characteristics were added to the equation. These included the respondents

experiences with control at Time 1 and the respondents experiences with

violence from the abuser at Time 1. Notably, of the demographic variables

the only one significantly related to stalking severity was whether theabuser had an alcohol or drug problem. Respondents who reported that

their abusers had alcohol or drug problems were more likely than those who

did not to report more severe stalking. Regarding the abuse variables, the

only Time 1 variables significantly related to the severity of stalking women




17/24

reported at Time 2 were experiences with control. More specifically, the

higher the levels of abusers control reported at Time 1, the more severe the

levels of stalking reported at Time 2 (p 0.01). The severity of violence

experienced did not significantly predict the severity of stalking experi-

enced at Time 2.

A final regression model was developed to explain stalking experiences

at Time 2 (see Table 9, Model 3). In addition to Time 1 characteristics

added in the last model, one final Time 1 characteristic was addedtherespondents experiences with stalking at Time 1. The addition of the stalk-

ing variable of Time 1 negated the significance of the control variable from

Time 1. However, stalking experiences at Time 1 became a highly significant

predictor of her stalking experiences at Time 2, with a positive relationship


Table 8

Multiple Regression of Variables Related to Predicting

Stalking Severity at Time 1

Model 1

Victim Characteristics B SE

Race (1 = non-White) 0.006 1.691

Income 0.000 0.000

Age 0.006 0.074

Educationb

High school/some college 6.794** 2.115College graduate or more 7.491** 2.557

Abuser characteristicsc

Alcohol/drug problem (1 = yes) 3.525* 1.622

Victim-abuser characteristics

Victim-abuser relationship (1 = involved) 8.820*** 1.684

Situational characteristics

Sited

Midsize city 4.552* 1.779

Rural college county 7.099*** 1.763

r2

0.306

a. Stalking severity was measured by a composite computed from the individual stalking vari-

ables. The composite ranged from 0 to 40 at Time 1.

b. Dummy variable with less than high school education as the omitted group.

c. Offender age and race could not be included in any of the regression models for it is too

highly correlated with the victim age and race.

d. Dummy variable with the large city site as the omitted group.

*p .05. **p .01. ***p .001.



18/24

between the severity of stalking at Time 1 and the severity of stalking at

Time 2 (p .001). A review of the standardized coefficient reveals that

stalking is the strongest predictor compared to the other variables. Thus, stalk-

ing experience at Time 1 becomes the most significant predictor of stalking

experience at Time 2. The race of the victim and the abuser, their relation-ship, income, age, education level, site, whether or not the abuser had an

alcohol or drug problem, and the respondents experiences with control and

physical violence at Time 1, all had no significant predicting value for

stalking at Time 2.


Table 9

Multiple Regression of Variables Related to Predicting Stalking

Severity at Time 2

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Victim Characteristics B SE B SE B SE

Race (1 = non-White) 1.761 1.823 2.390 1.848 2.185 1.743

Income 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000

Age 0.005 0.078 0.002 0.079 0.003 0.075

Educationb

High school/some college 4.129+

2.131 3.197 2.290 1.666 2.188College grad or more 3.135 2.602 1.789 2.773 0.377 2.636

Abuser characteristics

Alcohol/drug problem 3.041 1.728 3.565* 1.677 2.919+ 1.595

(1 = yes)

Victim-abuser characteristics

Victim-abuser relationship 3.715* 1.849 0.154 1.718 2.195 1.695

(1 = involved)

Situational characteristics

Sitec

Midsize city 0.582 1.851 0.178 1.918 0.792 1.822Rural college county 2.762 1.770 2.381 1.840 0.810 1.777

Time 1 characteristics

Composite of control 0.244* 0.108 0.029 0.115

Composite of violence 0.001 1.694 0.003 0.051

Composite of stalking 0.390*** 0.090

r2 0.140 0.145 0.251

a. Stalking severity was measured by a composite that was computed from the individual stalk-

ing variables at Time 2. The composite ranged from 0 to 40 at Time 2.

b. Dummy variable with less than high school education as the omitted group.c. Dummy variable with the large city site as the omitted group.

*p .05. **p .01. ***p .001. + Approaching significance.



19/24

20

Table10

MultipleRegressiono

fVariablesRelatedtoPredictingStalkingSeverityatTime3

VictimCharacteristics

Model1

Model2

Model3

Model4

Model

5

Race(1=

non-White)

2.142

2.053

2.154

2.062

2.565

1.921

1.192

1.790

3.616*

1.560

Income

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.001

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

Age

0.025

0.081

0.009

0.083

0.013

0.077

0.027

0.071

0.017

0.063

Educationb

Highschool/somecollege

3.256

2.508

2.378

2.609

1.079

2.443

1.736

2.188

0.823

1.857

Collegegradormo

re

3.636

2.980

2.421

3.092

1.119

2.912

3.802

2.588

3.309

2.210

Abusercharacteristics

Alcoholordrugproblem

4.310*

1.918

4.490*

2.022

3.500+

1.916

3.298*

1.688

3.535*

1.479

(1=

yes)

Victim-abusercharacteristics

Relationshipin6m

os.

2.350

2.007

0.359

1.806

2.491

1.746

2.346

1.632

1.815

1.514

betweeninterviews

(1=

involved)

Situationalcharacte

ristics

Sitec

Midsizecity

3.114

2.009

3.154

2.033

1.443

1.927

2.557

1.781

2.642

1.559

Ruralcollegecounty

5.021*

1.968

4.130*

2.035

2.329

1.935

3.106+

1.726

2.280

1.488

Time1characteristics

Compositeofcontrol

0.027

0.122

0.270*

0.126

Compositeofviolence

0.106+

0.059

0.077

0.056

Compositeofstalking

0.449***

0.098

Time2characteristics

Compositeofcontrol

0.758***

0.146

0.084

0.156

Compositeofviolence

0.009

0.106

0.009

0.090

Compositeofstalking

0.709***

0.098

r2

0.154

0.169

0.291

0.383

0.573

a.Stalkingseverityismeasuredbyacompositethatwascomputedfromtheindividualstalk

ingvariablesatTime3.Itrangedfrom0to36atTime3.

b.Dummyvariable

withlessthanhighschooleducationastheomittedgroup.

c.Dummyvariable

withthelarge,metropolitancitysiteastheomittedgroup.

*p

.05.**p

.01.***p

.001.

+

Approachingsignificance.



20/24

Four regression models were created for stalking severity at Time 3 (see

Table 10). First, a model was run with the demographic variables as the

only independent variables (Model 1). In this model, whether or not theabuser had an alcohol or drug problem and the site of rural college county

were significant. More specifically, an abuser who was reported to have an

alcohol or drug problem was also more likely to be reported as committing

higher levels of stalking severity (p .05). Also, respondents from the rural

college county were less likely to report more severe stalking than respon-

dents from the large, metropolitan area (p .05).

A second model was created with the addition of Time 1 abuse charac-

teristics (see Table 10, Model 2). The same variables significant in Model 1continue to be significant with the addition of the composite of control and

violence (control and violence experienced at Time 1 do not significantly

predict stalking severity experienced at Time 3). With the addition of the

respondents experiences with stalking at Time 1, the strongest, significant

variable in Model 3 (of the models predicting stalking at Time 3) was stalk-

ing at Time 1: The more severe the stalking reported by the respondents at

Time 1, the more severe the stalking reported by the respondents at Time 3

(p

.001). The composite measure of control also reaches significance.Three additional regression models were estimated predicting stalking

severity at Time 3 (see Table 10, Models 4 and 5). Time 1 and Time 2 abuse

and stalking variables could not be run simultaneously because they are too

highly correlated. In these models, some Time 2 abuse variables were

added. Criminal justice variables were added as well but did not reach sig-

nificance and are addressed in another paper. For Model 4, with the addi-

tion of Time 2 abuse characteristics, except the severity of stalking

experiences, experiences with control was the most significant predictor of

stalking at Time 3. Women who reported more severe control at Time 2

experienced more severe stalking at Time 3 (p .05). With the addition of

stalking severity at Time 2, stalking severity at Time 2 continued to have a

positive relationship with stalking severity at Time 3. Women who reported

more severe stalking at Time 1 continued to report more severe stalking at

Time 3 (p .05). Finally, the strongest predictor of stalking severity at Time

3 was stalking severity at Time 2. Experiencing more severe stalking at

Time 2 increased the likelihood of experiencing more severe stalking at

Time 3 (p .001). Comparing the standardized coefficient for these signif-icant variables in this model (not presented in the tables) also illustrated

that experience with stalking was the strongest and most significant predic-

tor of severity of stalking experience at Time 3.




21/24

Discussion

Clearly, stalking by their current or former abuser is a prevalent problemamong this population of domestic violence victims. At the time of the first

interview, more than 90% of these women had experienced some form of

stalking. By the Time 2 and Time 3 interviews, more than 50% of the

respondents continued to experience some stalking behaviors. This con-

firms prior research on this issue (Coleman, 1997; Davis et al., 2000; Logan

et al., 2000; McFarlane et al., 1999; Mechanic, Uhlmansiek, et al., 2000;

Mechanic, Weaver, et al., 2000; NIJ, 1997; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000;

White et al., 2000). Stalking appears to be a behavior intimately related todomestic violence. This has clear implications for how we deal with domes-

tic violence. Those victims must be given information regarding stalking,

as well as domestic violence, given that they are at high risk for experienc-

ing this behavior.

It is important to note that most of the physical violence and stalking

behaviors decreased during the three time periods (most significantly

between Time 1 and Time 2). The significant occurrence between those

time periods was criminal justice intervention. Although it is not known forcertain, it appears that criminal justice intervention decreases these behav-

iors. This issue is addressed in another paper with these data.

The next question becomes how we differentiate between domestic vio-

lence abusers who engage in physically abusive behaviors from those who

also engage in stalking. In terms of predicting stalking, experiencing prior

stalking behaviors is the best predictor. In other words, victims who have

experienced stalking within their relationships characterized by domestic vio-

lence are at greatest risk for experiencing more stalking (by their abuser) in

the future. This makes sense given that abuse is a fairly stable behavior (e.g.,

prior physical abuse will be the best predictor for future abuse and so on).

This indicates how important it is to intervene in stalking cases to stop future

stalking.

The multivariate models reveal several important findings regarding the

prediction of stalking in the context of domestic violence beyond prior

stalking experiences. First, regarding demographic variables, only the victim-

abuser relationship and the presence of an alcohol or drug problem by the

abuser appear to have any sort of significance. Without controlling for thelevel of prior abuse, only women who were no longer in relationships with

their abusers and those women whose abusers had alcohol or drug problems

were more likely to experience more severe stalking over time. Thus, abusers

may be more likely to stalk once they are no longer in a relationship with




22/24

their victims, supporting previous research (Logan et al, 2000; Mechanic,

Uhlmansiek, et al, 2000). Stalking may be a method of continuing the

domestic violence against the victim after the abuser has lost physicalaccess to them.

Also important, abusers who have alcohol or drug problems may be

more likely to stalk than abusers who do not have such problems. This may

be because of the fact that alcohol/drug abuse may disinhibit the impulse to

stalk. Given this correlation, it is of great import that abusers receive help

for alcohol and/or drug abuse as well as for the violence. Moreover, although

little prior literature has addressed the link between stalking and drug and

alcohol use, it has linked drug and alcohol use with more severe domesticviolence (Pan, Neidig, & OLeary, 1994; USDOJ, 1994). This study high-

lights that drug and alcohol use might even be of greater import to stalking

in the context of domestic violence than to domestic violence alone. This

could illustrate that stalking in the context of domestic violence represents

a more severe form of domestic violence. Regardless, this link between

drug and alcohol use and stalking in the context of domestic violence mer-

its greater study.

Regarding the abuse variables independent of prior stalking experiences,the victims experiences with controlling behaviors appears to have the

greatest predictive power. Women who experience more severe controlling

behaviors were more likely to experience more severe stalking behaviors

over time. This, in part, supports prior research (Mechanic, Weaver, et al.,

2000). This may illustrate that stalking is a method of maintaining control

over the victim after the abuser perceives a loss of that control.

In this study, the severity of the violence experienced did not predict

whether or not a victim experienced more severe stalking over time, which

contradicts prior research (Mechanic, Uhlmansiek, et al., 2000) and high-

lights that prediction of stalking within relationships characterized by domes-

tic violence may be more complex than previously asserted (i.e., dependent

on the type of abuse).

Thus, both the bivariate and the multivariate analysis reveal that, compared

to domestic violence abusers who do not stalk, domestic violence abusers who

stalk were more likely to (a) no longer be in a relationship with their victim,

(b) have an alcohol or drug problem, and (c) exhibit more controlling behav-

iors in general. This may have important implications for criminal justice prac-titioners in their attempt to identify those at most risk for stalking.

This has important implications for dealing with stalking in the context

of domestic violence. Given the high correlation between stalking and

domestic violence, victims who enter the system experiencing domestic




23/24

violence must be given resources regarding stalking. Particularly important

are resources regarding how to deal with stalking once a couple has broken

up. Information on protective orders, restraining orders, no-contact orders,shelters, and the criminal justice process must be given to these victims to

protect their safety. Treatment programs for offenders must address stalk-

ing as well as domestic violence. Given that many of the offenders may stop

physically abusing their partners after criminal justice intervention, but

continue to stalk their partners, attention must be paid to this behavior.

Furthermore, given that drug/alcohol abuse may be a risk factor for domes-

tic violence abusers becoming stalkers, prevention and intervention must be

focused on that behavior as well. All in all, helping practitioners identifypotential domestic violence stalkers may aid them in their treatment of both

victims and offenders, and this is an important step in our effort to deal with

the serious, criminal problem of stalking and domestic violence.

References

Baldry, A. C. (2002). From domestic violence to stalking: The infinite cycle of violence. In

J. C. W. Boon & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Stalking and psychosexual obsession: Psychologicalperspectives for prevention, policing, and treatment(pp. 83-104). Chichester, UK: Wiley.

Brewster, M. P. (2002). Stalking by former intimates: Verbal threats and other predictors of

physical violence. In K. E. Davis & I. H. Frieze (Eds.), Stalking: Perspectives on victims

and perpetrators (pp. 292-311). New York: Springer.

Burgess, A. W., Baker, T., Greening, D., Hartman, C. R., Burgess,A., Douglas, J. E., et al. (1997).

Stalking behaviors within domestic violence.Journal of Family Violence, 12(4), 359-403.

Coleman, F. L. (1997). Stalking behavior and the cycle of domestic violence. Journal of

Interpersonal Violence, 12(3), 420-432.

Davis, K. E., Ace, A., & Andra, M. (2000). Stalking perpetrators and psychological maltreat-

ment of partners: Anger-jealousy, attachment insecurity, need for control, and break-upcontext. Violence and Victims, 15(4), 407-425.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1998).Rethinking violence against women. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage.

Guy, R. A. (1993). The nature and constitutionlity of stalking laws. Vanderbilt Law Review,

46(4), 991-1029.

Logan, T. K., Leukefeld, C., & Walker, B. (2000). Stalking as a variant of intimate violence:

Implications from a young adult sample. Violence and Victims, 15(1), 91-111.

McFarlane, J. M., Campbell, J. C., Wilt, S., Sachs, C. J. U. Y., & Xu, X. (1999). Stalking and

intimate partner femicide.Homicide Studies, 3(4), 300-316.

Mechanic, M. B., Uhlmansiek, M. H., Weaver, T. L., & Resick, P. A. (2000). The impact ofsevere stalking experienced by acutely battered women: An examination of violence, psy-

chological symptoms and strategic responses. Violence and Victims, 15(4), 443-458.

Mechanic, M. B., Weaver, T. L., & Resick, P. A. (2000). Intimate partner violence and stalk-

ing behaviors: Exploration of patterns and correlates in a sample of acutely battered

women. Violence and Victims, 15(1), 55-72.




24/24

National Institute of Justice (NIJ). (1996).Domestic violence, stalking, and antistalking legis-

lation: An annual report to Congress under the Violence Against Women Act. Washington,

DC: Author.Pan, H., Neidig, P., & OLeary, K. (1994). Predicting mild and severe husband-to-wife physi-

cal aggression.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 975-981.

Roberts, A., & Dziegielewski, S. (1996). Assessment typology and intervention with the sur-

vivors of stalking.Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1(4), 359-368.

Straus, M. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT)

Scale.Journal of Marriage and Family, 41(1), 75-88.

Sullivan, C. M., Parisian, J. A., & Davidson, W. S., II. (1991, August).Index of Psychological

Abuse: Development of a measure. Paper presented at the American Psychological

Association Annual Meeting

Tjaden, P. (1997). The crime of stalking: How big is the problem. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Tjaden, Patricia and Nancy Thoennes. 2000. The Role of Stalking in Domestic Violence

Crime Reports Generated by the Colorado Springs Police Department. Violence and

Victims 15(4):427-41.

U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ). (1994). Bureau of Justice statistics selected findings:

Violence between intimates. Washington, DC: Author.

USDOJ. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women

Survey. Washington, DC: Author.

USDOJ Violence Against Women Grants Office. (1998). Stalking and domestic violence: The

third annual report to Congress Under the Violence Against Women Act. Washington, DC:Author.

White, J., Kowalski, R. M., Lyndon, A., & Valentine, S. (2000). An integrative contextual

developmental model of male stalking. Violence and Victims, 15(4), 373-388.

Heather C. Melton, PhD, is an assistant professor at University of Utah in the Department of

Sociology. Her research focuses on violence against women and the criminal justice response

to it. She earned her doctorate in sociology at the University of Colorado at Boulder.


Documents

3.FullPredicting the Occurrence of Stalking in Relationships Characterized by Domestic Violence