Download Is stalking a learned phenomenon? An empirical test of social

Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (2011) 39–47
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Criminal Justice
Is stalking a learned phenomenon? An empirical test of social learning theory
Kathleen A. Fox a,⁎, Matt R. Nobles a, Ronald L. Akers b
a
b
Sam Houston State University, College of Criminal Justice, P.O. Box 2296, Huntsville, Texas 77341-2296, United States
University of Florida, Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law, P.O. Box 117330, 3219 Turlington Hall, Gainesville, Florida 32611-7330, United States
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Available online 10 November 2010
a b s t r a c t
Purpose: We examine the extent to which components of social learning theory (i.e., definitions, differential
reinforcement, and differential association/modeling) predict stalking victimization and perpetration using
survey data from a large sample of college students.
Methods: Among a sample of 2,766 college students, logistic regression models were estimated to analyze the
relationships between social learning theory and stalking perpetration and victimization.
Results: Results suggest that victimization and perpetration are functions of social learning. The findings also
indicated that females were significantly more likely to be both stalking victims and perpetrators.
Conclusions: Regarding stalking perpetration and victimization, our results suggest that there may be
responses, attitudes, and behaviors that are learned, modified, or reinforced primarily through interaction
with peers. Overall, social learning theory concepts appear to be important predictors of stalking perpetration
and victimization that help to develop theoretical explanations for stalking.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
While stalking definitions vary among researchers and legislation,
stalking is generally defined as unwanted, harassing, and threatening
behavior that occurs repeatedly (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Some
stalking definitions require victims to experience fear (Tjaden,
Thoennes, & Allison, 2000) whereas others do not (Jordan, Wilcox,
& Pritchard, 2007). Unlike most crimes, stalking is generally
comprised of otherwise legal behaviors. Collectively, these behaviors
are considered illegal only when a reasonable person would consider
the behavior to be threatening, harassing, and frightening (California
Penal Code § 646.9, 1990; Saunders, 1998). Among a myriad of
behaviors, some common forms of stalking include showing up at
places uninvited where the person being stalked may be, leaving
items and/or gifts for that person, and repeatedly communicating
using telephones and/or the Internet in a manner undesired by the
person receiving the communication (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007).
Repeated exposure to such unwanted pursuit behaviors often results
in victims experiencing serious physical consequences (i.e., headaches, nausea, appetite and/or sleep disruption) and psychological
effects (i.e., paranoia, anxiety, nightmares, suicidal thoughts) (Pathé &
Mullen, 1997; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2003).
Given that stalking behaviors often produce unpleasant and
potentially dangerous consequences for victims, it is important to
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 936 294 4748; fax: +1 936 294 1653.
E-mail address: [email protected] (K.A. Fox).
0047-2352/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.10.002
examine why individuals become stalking perpetrators or victims.
However, theoretical tests of stalking victimization and perpetration
have been largely overlooked by prior research. The current study is
the first to empirically examine stalking, both perpetration of
stalking behavior and experiencing stalking victimization, by testing
propositions from social learning theory (Akers, 1973; Bandura,
1977; Sutherland, 1939). While there is a sizeable body of
theoretical and empirical literature on social learning theory with
regard to a range of deviant and criminal behavior, this paper reports
the first study of stalking victimization within the framework of
social learning theory. Considering the empirical support for social
learning theory to explain intimate partner violence (IPV) (Sellers,
Cochran, & Winfree, 2007) and the evidence that suggests stalking is
often committed in the context of IPV (Douglas & Dutton, 2001), the
current study aims to determine whether stalking behavior can be
explained by social learning theory.
The link between stalking and intimate partner violence
Stalking and IPV share many similar qualities given that both
crimes are characterized by unwanted, harassing, and frightening and/
or threatening behavior. Defined generally, IPV is the physical, sexual,
and/or psychological abuse of an intimate partner whereas stalking
refers to repeated, unwanted, and threatening pursuit behaviors
(Coker, Smith, Bethea, King, & McKeown, 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes,
1998). Additionally, much of stalking and IPV occurs over a period of
time. By definition, stalking must occur repeatedly (i.e., more than
once) while IPV may occur on a single occasion; however, the nature of
IPV (i.e., the cycle of violence) and prior research suggests that IPV is
40
K.A. Fox et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (2011) 39–47
largely characterized by repeated abuse (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000).2
Although stalking and IPV are separate crimes that occur independently, they often co-occur among current or former intimate partners
(Douglas & Dutton, 2001). Furthermore, exposure to IPV produces
negative effects for victims that are similar to stalking victimization,
such as anxiety, depression, headaches, loss of appetite, and stomach
ulcers (Campbell et al., 2002; Coker et al., 2000).
Further evidence linking stalking and IPV suggests that both are
crimes of power and control. While scholars have long established
that IPV is a crime of power and control (Bograd, 1990; Carlson, 1996;
Dutton & Strachan, 1987; Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, & Sebastian,
1991; Stets & Pirog-Good, 1990),3 stalking has only recently been
recognized as such (Brewster, 2003). Researchers and practitioners
have identified specific tactics IPV perpetrators use to manipulate and
control their victims (i.e., intimidation, coercion, threats), many of
which represent the controlling behaviors employed by stalkers
(Brewster, 2003). Based on the connection between stalking, IPV, and
control, Douglas and Dutton (2001) suggest that stalking may be
representative of the cycle of violence, which is commonly used to
demonstrate the phases of IPV (tension-building, crisis, and contrition). Douglas & Dutton (2001) further speculate that the tensionbuilding phase of stalking may be characterized by less severe – yet
intimidating – behaviors (i.e., phone calls, threats), the crisis phase
elicits more severe actions (i.e., physical assault), and the contrition
phase exhibits apologetic conduct (i.e., leaving unwanted gifts).
While most research treats stalking and IPV as separate phenomena,
scholars have recently begun to empirically examine the relationship
between stalking and IPV by assessing: (1) the extent to which stalking
victims report being stalked by an intimate partner, (2) the stalking
behaviors of IPV perpetrators and the IPV behaviors of stalking
perpetrators, and (3) the stalking experiences of IPV victims and the
IPV experiences of stalking victims. While stalking can also occur
between non-intimate partners (McEwan, Mullen, MacKenzie, & Ogloff,
2009), survey data from stalking victims suggest that stalking is more
likely to occur between current or former intimate partners, especially
in certain populations. Among college students, between one-third
(Spitzberg & Rhea, 1999) and three-quarters (Haugaard & Seri, 2001) of
stalking victims were pursued by former intimate partners. Among the
general public, women were more likely than men to report being
stalked by a spouse or ex-spouse (38% of female victims versus 13% of
male victims) (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Overall, a substantial portion
of stalking victims (approximately 50% to 60%) are pursued by a current
or former partner (Douglas & Dutton, 2001).
Research examining the stalking behaviors of IPV perpetrators and
victims and the IPV behaviors of stalking perpetrators and victims is
underdeveloped. Among men and women charged with domestic
violence, 30% admitted to stalking their romantic partner (Burgess et al.,
1997). Among a sample of stalkers, 65% had perpetrated IPV (Kileen &
Dunn, 1998). Furthermore, stalkers who pursued former intimate
partners were more likely to make threats (Meloy & Gothard, 1995) and
stalkers who reported being attached to their victims were more likely
to be violent (80%) compared with those who were not attached to their
victims (55%) (Schwartz-Watts & Morgan, 1998). Additionally, IPV
victims were likely to report stalking victimization (Mechanic,
Uhlmansiek, Weaver, & Resick, 2000) and stalking victims were likely
to experience IPV (Logan, Leukefeld, & Walker, 2000). According to the
National Violence Against Women survey (NVAWS), 81% of women
stalked by an intimate partner were also physically assaulted by the
partner (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Given the conceptual and thematic
links between stalking and IPV, theoretical explanations of IPV may also
successfully explain stalking victimization and perpetration.
Theoretical framework
For nearly two decades scholars have developed a substantial body
of literature on stalking; however, direct tests of theoretical explana-
tions of stalking behavior are surprisingly scarce. To date, routine
activities theory (Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2002; Mustaine & Tewksbury,
1999) and self-control theory (Fox, Gover, & Kaukinen, 2009) have
received some support as explanations of stalking victimization,
whereas attachment theory has been used with some success to predict
stalking perpetration (Kienlen, Birmingham, Solberg, O'Regan, & Meloy,
1997). The relative dearth of tests of theories of stalking victimization
and perpetration has resulted in an incomplete understanding of this
complex crime, and additional theoretical tests are necessary to
understand the causative factors in the processes of stalking victimization and perpetration. Although hypothesis testing with cross-sectional
data cannot fully address issues of causality, this is nevertheless a
reasonable preliminary step in determining whether stalking may be
associated with social learning processes.4
Considering the link between stalking and IPV (Douglas & Dutton,
2001), theoretical explanations for IPV may also account for stalking.
Variations of social learning theory have demonstrated some support as
theoretical explanations for IPV perpetration and victimization (i.e.,
intergenerational transmission of violence). Social learning theory
suggests that crime is a function of social factors, including differential
association (e.g., criminal behaviors of significant others, especially
peers), modeling (e.g., imitating the behavior of others), differential
reinforcement (e.g., balance of costs and benefits of crime), and
definitions (e.g., beliefs and values about crime) (Akers, 1973; Bandura,
1977; Sutherland, 1939). Essentially, social learning theory posits that
crime is a social phenomenon that is learned largely by interacting
within intimate groups (i.e., peers) whereby a criminal or delinquent
actor models and imitates deviant behavior of fellow group members,
including their techniques and rationalizations regarding crime. As
these interactions within deviant groups become more frequent and
more important to the actor, a process of differential reinforcement
increases the likelihood that deviant behavior will persist over time.
Eventually, definitions favorable to criminal behavior outweigh unfavorable definitions, suggesting that the actor's attitudes with respect to
the wrongfulness of his or her actions are rewritten or reorganized to
incorporate the new patterns of deviance. This process may also
implicate related intellectual or emotional processes, such that deviant
behavior is increasingly likely to be viewed as necessary, normal, or
advantageous. As the actor differentially associates with more likeminded, deviant peers, these processes may become recursive.
However, the relative behavioral influence stemming from the
process of social learning is not necessarily expected to manifest in
observed criminal history, patterns of abuse, or other discrete
behavioral indicators; endorsing stalking perpetration or victimization can be measured directly by assessing attitudes, opinions, and
perceptions, especially with respect to peer relationships. While some
research examines the effects of social learning theory via survey
questions about the proportion of deviant peers or behavioral selfreports, prior literature has also measured the theoretical tenets by
assessing attitudes or perceptions (Boeringer et al., 1991; Sellers et al.,
2005). According to social learning theory, one's perception of a peer's
behavior and that peer's reaction to specific behaviors are more
influential and thus more important than the actual behavior itself. In
other words, an individual's belief about how his or her friends would
react to that individual's deviant behavior is the overriding factor that
may affect the individual's behavior. If the individual does not
perceive any peer influences that affect his or her definitions,
differential reinforcement, or differential association/modeling, then
peer influences regarding stalking perpetration or victimization must
not play a role in the stalking behavior.
Although many tests of social learning theory feature “traditional”
peer group deviance, such as adolescent delinquency, the theory may
hold considerable promise for understanding the etiology of crimes
that are not usually studied in the context of peer interactions. For
example, under the umbrella of social learning theory, scholars suggest
that IPV perpetration and victimization are behaviors learned by
K.A. Fox et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (2011) 39–47
experiencing or witnessing abuse during childhood (e.g., the intergenerational transmission of violence) and are also related to peer
attitudes and behavior (Boeringer, Shelan, & Akers, 1991; Gover,
Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008; Jankowski, Leitenberg, Henning, & Coffey,
1999; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Hankla, & Stormberg, 2004; Marshall &
Rose, 1988; Sellers et al., 2005, 2007). While it is unlikely that stalking
victims and perpetrators learn their behavior during childhood, it is
plausible that some stalking-related behaviors, attitudes, or reactions
(e.g., rationalization) are observed early in the life course, similar to
children who witness domestic violence and then become victims or
offenders themselves in adulthood. Additionally, the limited theoretical evidence on stalking suggests that disorders of attachment, which
begin in childhood but manifest much later as relationship dysfunction, could be helpful in understanding the evolution of stalking over
the life course (Patton, Nobles, & Fox, 2010; Douglas & Dutton, 2001).
For example, disorders of attachment may include insecure-anxious
and insecure-avoidant attachment styles. Insecure-anxious attachment can manifest as jealousy, paranoia, and a greater need for contact
while insecure-avoidant attachment often results in indifference,
defiance, and a greater emotional distance (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters,
& Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1969; Meloy, 1996). Within this framework, the
critical elements of the social learning process may begin early but
remain latent into adolescence, when exposure to differential
associations and schedules of reinforcement influence other factors,
such as opportunity, normative expectations, and perceptions of social
gratification, that collectively predict stalking victimization and
perpetration. Thus, although it may be rooted in early childhood
experiences for some individuals, stalking behavior may be primarily
learned through the mechanisms specified in social learning theory by
post-childhood relationships, attitude development, reinforcement,
and imitation.
Social learning theory and stalking perpetration
Because social learning theory was originally designed to explain
offending (and related) behavior (Akers, 1973; Bandura, 1977;
Sutherland, 1939), applying the theory to stalking perpetration is
consistent with its established theoretical principles and prior
empirical tests. While social learning theory has not yet been used
to examine stalking, the theory has been primarily tested to explain
group-related deviance (i.e., smoking, drinking, drug use, gang
involvement) and has rarely been employed to examine non-group
phenomena (but see Sellers et al., 2007). Along these lines, Sellers
et al. (2007, p. 111) recently suggested that future research test “social
learning theory in which the dependent variable is an act that is
normally committed in isolation rather than in a general social
context should provide a more demanding test of social learning
principles.” Stalking is one such type of crime, since it is primarily
committed individually, rather than in or by a group. If social learning
theory can predict stalking perpetration, then we would expect that
stalkers will imitate the behavior of their peers that perpetrate
stalking (modeling), socialize with others that stalk (differential peer
association), adopt attitudes favorable to stalking (definitions), and
balance the risks and rewards associated with stalking (differential
reinforcement). According to Akers’ general theory (1973, 1998),
crime is learned by social processes whereas criminal behaviors are
not necessarily committed in social settings. Therefore, we offer the
first application of social learning theory to stalking perpetration.
Understanding stalking perpetration in terms of peer influence
requires attention to several areas of development and socialization
over the life course. First, stalking behavior may be intentionally or
unintentionally modeled and imitated. For example, some individuals
may perceive family violence as normal or healthy based on prior
experiences, and thus carry forward these behaviors into adulthood.
Children may also be socialized by the media to endorse attitudes that are
favorable to stalking celebrities (McCutcheon, Scott, Aruguete, & Parker,
41
2006; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2008). Furthermore, some people may
misperceive stalking as an expression of dedication, loyalty, or love for
a potential mate who has not yet realized his or her true feelings (Sinclair
& Frieze, 2000). Second, stalkers may accidentally or purposively
associate with like-minded peers, as in self-selecting groups or
subcultures (e.g., fraternities, gangs, or certain occupations) that promote
biased views toward relationships and gender roles. Third, definitions
may be shaped and adapted as a result of the prior two factors, as
individuals reconsider their own perspectives on the wrongfulness of
unwanted pursuit of a romantic interest. Finally, stalking perpetrators,
increasingly involved and committed to the behavior, may decide that
the perceived benefits of stalking are increasingly worth the risks. This
differential reinforcement may account for persistence on the part of the
perpetrator despite the escalating severity of reactions from the victim,
even after the justice system becomes involved.
Examining social learning theory's ability to predict stalking
perpetration is important for theoretical advancement and practical
policy implications. The dominant perspective among many criminologists suggests that offenders do not tend to specialize in violent
behavior (Blumstein, Cohen, Das, & Moitra, 1988; Piquero, 2000) and,
therefore, it may be argued that theoretical variables predicting one
crime type can successfully predict another. While the lack of
specialization argument accurately characterizes the offending patterns of some offenders, this finding may be overstated and some
research argues that specificity and generality in offending may not be
mutually exclusive (Lussier, 2005). Certainly, a long line of empirical
testing has yielded support for and against a variety of theories to
predict various types of crimes, including macro-level theories such as
social disorganization, strain, economic deprivation, routine activity,
rational choice, social altruism, subcultural theories, and micro-level
theories such as general theory of crime, social learning theory (see
meta-analyses by Pratt & Cullen, 2000, 2005; Pratt et al., 2009). In fact,
some research that examines the overlap between committing
intimate partner violence (which is closely related to stalking) and
other crimes suggests a fundamental difference, which supports the
“uniqueness of partner violence relative to other crime and violence”
(Moffitt, Krueger, Caspi, & Fagan, 2000, p. 199).
The publication of the first major test of social learning theory on
adolescent substance use (Akers et al., 1979) had as its subtitle, “a
specific test of a general theory.” Since then, the theory has been
tested on a variety of dependent variables, but, as it is true for other
theories as well, the dependent variable in many of those tests have
been toward the adolescent and non-violent deviance end of the scale.
Testing the theory with stalking behavior provides another “specific
test” of the general theory that expands the range of deviant behavior
for which the theory has been empirically examined, without regard
to the question of whether or not offenders specialize in stalking. The
scope claims of a general theory of crime, and deviance is examined by
testing its empirical applicability to a range of offending behavior
from minor to serious. Testing the theory with stalking behavior
provides both another test with regard to a specific type of deviant
behavior and adds additional evidence for the claim to be a general
theory. Collectively, the theoretical and empirical evidence suggests a
need to continue to conduct theory tests of specific types of crime.
Therefore, the current study extends this line of work by testing the
effects of social learning theory to stalking perpetration.
Social learning theory and stalking victimization
While social learning theory was not intended as a theory of
victimization, we argue that the theory can be readily extended to
account for crime victimization in general for several reasons. First,
social learning theory is a general theory of behavior comprised of
tenets that can logically be applied to crime victimization (e.g.,
indicating strong face validity). Like offending, the experience of
victimization may also be shaped by the beliefs (definitions),
42
K.A. Fox et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (2011) 39–47
behaviors (differential association/modeling), and perception of net
benefits versus costs (differential reinforcement) of significant others
(i.e., peers) regarding stalking. In other words, just as offenders can
learn to act criminally, victims can also learn to adopt beliefs,
behaviors, and perceptions that may put them at risk of victimization.
Second, given that offenders are often also victims (Lauritsen,
Sampson, & Laub, 1991; Lauritsen & Laub, 2007), some other general
theories of criminal behavior (e.g., self-control theory) have recently
and successfully been extended to explain victimization (Schreck,
1999; Stewart et al., 2004). While there is no empirical evidence, to
date, that suggests stalking victims are also likely to become offenders,
or vice versa, there is evidence to suggest generally that theories
explaining offending may also account for victimization.
Finally, empirical evidence suggests that explanations that are
compatible with, or variations of, social learning theory (i.e.,
intergenerational transmission of violence hypothesis) have successfully explained IPV victimization, as described earlier (Gover et al.,
2008).5 As Jensen and Brownfield (1986, p. 87) have stated,
“victimogenic” variables are very much the same as “criminogenic”
variables found in explanations of offending behavior. Also, Cullen,
Wright, Gendreau, and Andrews (2003) proposed that exposure and
proximity to offenders increased the risk of victimization while
differential association and social learning theories propose that the
same variables increase the chance of criminal behavior. If social
learning theory accurately describes processes associated with
stalking victimization, then we would expect stalking victims to
imitate the behavior of their peers that are stalked (modeling),
socialize with others that are stalking victims (differential peer
association), adopt similar attitudes toward stalking (definitions), and
balance the risks and rewards associated with stalking victimization
(differential reinforcement).
Experiences for stalking victims may sometimes be characterized
as terrifying and isolating. Thus, at first glance, the applicability
between social learning theory and stalking victimization may seem
obscure or counterintuitive. However, careful examination reveals the
nature of this relationship. A central premise is that although stalking
may be underreported to officials, victimization certainly does not
occur, generally speaking, in a vacuum. It is precisely because victims
rely upon peers for advice, support, and recovery that social learning
represents an important part of stalking victimization. First, stalking
victims may, knowingly or unknowingly, model and imitate fellow
victims. In the former case, an individual may model peer behavior
because the peer's specific reaction to previous stalking victimization
is seen to be strong, independent, or efficacious. In the latter case, an
individual may unwittingly model general peer behavior without a
priori knowledge of that peer's specific victimization experiences
because the peer is influential in other aspects of the victim's life.
Second, definitions may adapt accordingly in the process of forming
differential associations with like-minded, fellow victims. Finally, the
victim may experience a shift in differential reinforcement with
respect to the rewards and punishments from stalking. Although it
seems unlikely that most individuals would consider being stalked to
be a “rewarding” experience in the usual sense, gaining first-person
experience with stalking may lead an individual to classify the
punishments as even greater than he or she believed possible prior to
their own victimization.
Extending social learning theory to predict stalking victimization is
also important for theoretical advancement and practical policy
implications. Crime victims in general, and stalking victims in particular,
may learn to adopt definitions and attitudes favorable to victimization
and they may also experience positive reinforcement and modeling
behaviors that increase the propensity to be victimized. It may be argued
that victimization is contingent upon the opportunity to be victimized
and interaction with motivated offenders, which draws from the routine
activities framework. However, these two theoretical perspectives may
interact in some ways. For example, individuals who adopt positive
beliefs about victimization may proactively associate with those who
have been victimized, which may ultimately lead to an elevated risk of
being victimized themselves (e.g., through increased associations with
known offenders). It is important to note that testing theoretical
explanations for victimization should not be interpreted as support for
victim blaming (see also Schreck, 1999). Instead, this line of work has
practical implications aimed to identify and reduce or eliminate the
common factors that are associated with crime victimization. For
example, if social learning theory is a successful predictor of stalking
victimization, anti-stalking campaigns may be targeted toward educating individuals (in this case, college students) about the dangers of
stalking and possible self protective measures, in addition to helping
college students to identify peers who may be at risk. Given the
importance for theoretical advancement and potential practical implications, the current study also offers the first test of social learning
theory and stalking victimization.
Sample
A random sample of 15,000 college students from the population
of 50,701 students attending a large southeastern university was
e-mailed an invitation to participate in a web-based survey regarding
crime and violence. Of these, a total of 2,783 students participated
voluntarily, which represented a 19% response rate.6 While the
response rate is relatively low, the rate is consistent with other webbased survey research, particularly without respondent incentives
(Nobles, Fox, Piquero, & Piquero, 2009; see also Couper, 2000).
Despite the lower response rate, the sample demographics were
similar to the population. For example, 58% of survey respondents
were female (compared to 53% of the population) and 76% were
White (compared to 65% of the population).
Measures
Stalking perpetration and victimization
Consistent with prior research (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998), stalking
was defined as harassing, intrusive, frightening or threatening, and
unwanted behavior that occurred on more than one occasion
(excluding communication from bill collectors, solicitors, etc.).
Respondents answered a series of questions measuring stalking
victimization and then responded to an identical set of items assessing
stalking perpetration. Respondents were first presented with the
definition of stalking, which emphasized to respondents that stalking
consists of harassing behavior that is frightening/threatening, intrusive/unwanted, and committed on more than one occasion. While
some research avoids using the term “stalking” and suggests that the
term may bias responses (Haugaard & Seri, 2003), other research
indicates that wording does not influence responses regarding being
“stalked” or being “repeatedly followed and/or harassed” (Phillips,
Quirk, Rosenfeld, & O'Connor, 2004, pp. 80-81). Next, respondents
were presented with 11 items measuring possible dimensions of
stalking victimization (e.g., “has any one person ever…”) and the 11
items were presented again to measure stalking perpetration (e.g.,
“have you ever done the following to one person…”). The survey
included skip patterns such that respondents were asked to report
each stalking victimization and perpetration episode separately.
Therefore, if a respondent had been stalked by (or had stalked)
multiple people, they were directed to additional pages which
allowed them to respond to the same set of questions for each
episode. For example, in terms of victimization, the instructions
informed respondents that although they may have experienced
stalking from multiple people, they were asked to report their
experiences from only one stalker and they would have the
opportunity to respond to questions about other stalkers. Although
respondents were permitted to provide information about multiple
K.A. Fox et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (2011) 39–47
stalking victimization and perpetration experiences, the analysis for
the current study exclusively examined the first stalking victimization
and perpetration episode. This decision was driven by the data, given
that few respondents reported multiple victimization episodes
(10.57% reported a second stalker and 0.78% reported a third stalker)
or perpetration episodes (7.2% reported a second victim and 2.7%
reported a third victim).
Nine of the 11 items were from the NVAWS (Tjaden & Thoennes,
1998) and two items were included to measure cyber-stalking (e.g.,
unwanted electronic messages and unwanted messages/pictures
posted to internet websites). The items included: (1) followed,
watched, or spied on, (2) stood outside home, school, or workplace,
(3) showed up at a place uninvited, (4) vandalized property or
destroyed something, (5) sent unsolicited letters, written correspondence, or unwanted emails, (6) made unwanted phone calls, (7) left
unwanted messages, (8) left unwanted items, (9) tried to communicate in other ways, (10) sent unwanted messages electronically, and
(11) posted unwanted messages/pictures to internet websites.
Response options for each of the items (for perpetration and
victimization) were never (=0), once (=1) , and more than once
(=2). Responses from the 11 items were summed and dichotomized
separately for perpetration and victimization such that a summed
score of two or more indicated stalking victimization/perpetration
(meaning that one behavior occurred more than once or at least two
behaviors occurred). Cronbach's alphas indicated high reliability for
stalking victimization (0.893) and perpetration (0.861).
43
overall balance of rewards and risks that would come from stalking
behavior (labeled “differential reinforcement balance (perpetration)”) was measured by the item: “Considering any potentially
positive and negative factors, if you were to stalk someone, how likely
would it be that stalking would be worth the risk overall?” (1 = very
likely and 4 = very unlikely). The perceived reinforcement balance
with regard to being a victim of stalking (labeled “differential
reinforcement balance (victimization)”) was measured by: “Considering any potentially positive and negative factors, if you were to be
stalked by someone, how likely would it be that stalking would be
rewarding overall?” (1 = very likely and 4 = very unlikely).
Two items measured differential association with four-point Likert
response options (both anchored by 1 = none and 4 = most or all) and
included: “As far as you know, do any of your friends engage in
stalking behaviors?” (labeled as “differential peer association (perpetration)”) and “As far as you know, are any of your friends victims of
stalking?” (labeled as “differential peer association (victimization)”).
Collinearity diagnostics indicated that items measuring social learning
theory components for both victimization and perpetration performed adequately.
Demographic variables
Demographic variables of interest included sex (0 = female,
1 = male), race (0 = White, 1 = non-White), Hispanic ethnicity
(0 = non-Hispanic, 1 = Hispanic), sexual orientation (0 = heterosexual, 1 = other), and age (continuous).
Social learning variables
Results
A series of nine variables were used to reflect the major
components of social learning theory, as outlined by Akers (1973,
1998; Akers et al., 1979). More specifically, items were designed
expressly to operationalize the main components of social learning
theory, including definitions favorable and/or unfavorable to, stalking
perpetration and stalking victimization, differential reinforcement, and
differential association/modeling. Definitions were measured separately for stalking perpetration and victimization. Definitions (perpetration), endorsing favorable or unfavorable beliefs about stalking
behavior was measured by a single item asking about the extent to
which the respondent's response to a friend stalking someone would
express positive or negative attitudes toward stalking behavior: “How
would you react to any friends who were engaging in stalking
behaviors?” (1 = very positive to 4 = very negative). Definitions
(victimization) indicating the extent to which the respondent was
sympathetic toward victims of stalking was measured by a single
item: “How would you react to any friends who were victims of
stalking?” (1 = very sympathetic to 4 = very unsympathetic).7 Neutralizing definitions were conceptualized as beliefs that favored or
otherwise tolerated the behavior. These definitions were operationalized and measured by a single item that assessed the extent to which
the respondent held permissive or excusing attitudes about stalking:
“Please rate your reaction to this statement: there are some situations in which stalking someone is okay” (1 = strongly agree and
4 = strongly disagree).
Two items measured differential social reinforcement (one for
perpetration and one for victimization) as a reflection of the extent to
which the respondent perceived anticipated peer's reaction to be
positive or negative with regard to stalking perpetration or victimization with four-point Likert response options and consisted of the
following: “As far as you know, if you were to stalk someone, how
would your friends react?” (labeled as “differential peer reinforcement (perpetration)” and anchored by 1 = very positive and 4 = very
negative), “As far as you know, if you were being stalked by someone,
how would your friends react to you?” (labeled as “differential peer
reinforcement (victimization)” and anchored by 1 = very sympathetic
and 4 = very unsympathetic). The respondent's estimate of the
Univariate analysis indicates that the sample (N = 2,766) is
predominately female (N = 1,618; 58.5%), White (N = 2,100; 76.5%),
non-Hispanic (N = 2,332; 87.4%), and heterosexual (N = 2,633;
95.5%). The mean age for respondents was 22.8 years. Stalking
victimization was reported at a much higher rate (25.9%) in the
sample than was stalking perpetration (5.79%). Additionally, the
majority of the sample reported mean scores for most social learning
items in a consistent direction, including differential reinforcement
(3.75, where 4 = very negative reactions from friends), differential
reinforcement balance (perpetration) (3.78, where 4 = very unlikely
that stalking would be worth the risks), differential reinforcement
(victimization) (1.58, where 1 = friends reacting very sympathetic to
stalking victimization), and differential reinforcement balance (victimization) (3.76, where 4 = very unlikely that stalking would be
rewarding), differential peer association (perpetration) (1.12, where
1 = no friends who engage in stalking behaviors), differential
association/modeling (victimization) (1.36, where 1 = no friends
who are victims of stalking), definitions (perpetration) (3.74, where
4 = very negative reactions towards friends who stalk), definitions
(victimization) (1.29, where 1 = very sympathetic toward friends
who are stalking victims), and definitions (favorable/unfavorable)
(3.42, where 4 = strong disagreement with the statement that
stalking is okay in some situations). This lack of variation in responses
to the items measuring the independent variables and the skewed
distribution of the dependent variables (especially perpetrating
stalking) produces a very conservative test of the theoretical model.
Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1.
Logistic regression models were estimated to analyze the relationships between social learning theory and stalking given that the
dependent variables (stalking perpetration and victimization) were
dichotomous (Long, 1997). The first binary logistic regression model
estimated relationships between stalking perpetration and several
social learning factors while controlling for demographic variables (see
Table 2). Sex and Hispanic ethnicity are significantly associated with
stalking perpetration, indicating that females and Hispanics were more
likely to be stalking perpetrators in the sample. Results also indicate that
44
K.A. Fox et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (2011) 39–47
Table 1
Descriptive statistics
Table 3
Relationship between stalking victimization and social learning factors
N
Stalking Victimization
Stalking Perpetration
Differential reinforcement
(perpetration)
Differential reinforcement
balance (perp.)
Differential peer association
(perpetration)
Definitions (perpetration)
Differential reinforcement
(victimization)
Differential reinforcement
balance (vic.)
Differential association/
modeling (vic.)
Definitions (victimization)
Neutralizing Definitions
Sex (male)
Age
Race (non-White)
Ethnicity (Hispanic)
Sexual orientation
(non-heterosexual)
Percent
or Mean
Std. Dev.
Min
Max
2783
2783
1887
25.9%
5.8%
3.754
.438
.234
.537
0
0
1
1
1
4
1880
3.780
.570
1
4
1891
1.122
.375
1
4
1885
1891
3.741
1.584
.483
.828
1
1
4
4
1877
3.759
.564
1
4
1888
1.355
.504
1
4
1887
1888
2766
2727
2746
2669
2756
1.291
3.424
41.5%
22.832
23.5%
12.6%
4.5%
.577
.733
.493
5.999
.424
.332
.207
1
1
0
18
0
0
0
4
4
1
62
1
1
1
there is a positive and significant association between stalking
perpetration and differential peer association (perpetration) (b= .578,
p b .003), while there is a negative and statistically significant association between stalking perpetration and definitions (perpetration)
(b= -.529, p b .013) as well as definitions (favorable/unfavorable)
(b = -.819, p b .000). In other words, stalking perpetrators were
significantly more likely to report knowing one or more friends who
were stalking perpetrators (differential peer association). Additionally,
perpetrators reported that they would react less negatively to any
friends who also engaged in stalking behaviors (definitions) and they
believed stalking someone was okay in some situations (neutralizing
definitions). Overall, the findings suggest that stalking perpetration is a
social, peer-related process that involves differential association,
modeling, and definitions favorable to stalking.
The second binary logistic regression model estimated relationships between stalking victimization and several social learning
factors while controlling for demographic variables (see Table 3). Sex,
age, and sexual orientation are significantly associated with stalking
victimization, indicating that females, older individuals, and nonheterosexuals were more likely to be stalking victims. Results also
indicate that there is a positive and significant association between
stalking victimization and differential reinforcement (victimization)
Table 2
Relationship between stalking perpetration and social learning factors
Differential peer reinforcement
(perpetration)
Differential reinforcement
balance (perpetration)
Differential peer association
(perpetration)
Definitions (perpetration)
Neutralizing Definitions
Sex
Age
Race
Ethnicity
Sexual orientation
Constant
b
B
Exp(B)
Robust SE
p
-0.058
-0.017
0.944
0.181
0.749
-0.235
-0.074
0.791
0.146
0.108
0.578**
0.120
1.783
0.197
0.003
-0.529*
-0.819***
-0.593**
0.012
-0.184
0.571*
0.353
2.267**
-0.141
-0.331
-0.161
0.039
-0.043
0.105
0.040
–
0.589
0.441
0.552
1.012
0.832
1.769
1.423
–
0.213
0.132
0.212
0.016
0.226
0.244
0.404
0.838
0.013
0.000
0.005
0.459
0.416
0.019
0.382
0.007
Log pseudolikelihood: - 408.632; Pseudo R2: 0.152.
*** = p b .001; ** = p b .01; * = p b .05.
b
Differential peer reinforcement
(victimization)
Differential reinforcement
balance (victimization)
Differential association
/modeling (victimization)
Definitions (victimization)
Definitions
(favorable/unfavorable)
Sex
Age
Race
Ethnicity
Sexual orientation
Constant
Exp(B)
Robust SE
p
0.162*
B
0.074
1.176
0.074
0.028
0.197
0.061
1.218
0.114
0.082
1.177***
0.328
3.246
0.112
0.000
-0.096
-0.275***
-0.031
-0.111
0.908
0.759
0.111
0.081
0.384
0.001
-0.954***
0.025**
-0.138
0.092
0.649*
-2.717***
-0.259
0.084
-0.032
0.017
0.074
–
0.385
1.026
0.871
1.097
1.914
–
0.132
0.009
0.145
0.174
0.265
0.562
0.000
0.004
0.341
0.595
0.014
0.000
Log pseudolikelihood: -979.307; Pseudo R2: 0.095.
*** = p b .001; ** = p b .01; * = p b .05.
(b = .162, p b .028) and differential association/modeling (victimization) (b = 1.177, p b .000), while there is a negative and statistically
significant association between stalking victimization and definitions
(favorable/unfavorable) (b = -0.275, p b .001). Thus, stalking victims
are significantly more likely to report knowing one or more friends
who are stalking victims (differential association/modeling). Additionally, victims report believing that their friends would react to their
victimization with less sympathy (reinforcement) and they believed
stalking someone was acceptable in some situations (definitions
favorable/unfavorable). Collectively, these results support the notion
that stalking victimization is also, as predicted by the model, a social,
peer-related process that involves differential association, modeling,
reinforcement, and definitions favorable to stalking.8
Conclusion
This study provided the first test of an explanatory model of
stalking victimization and perpetration behavior within the framework of social learning theory (Akers, 1973; Bandura, 1977; Sutherland, 1939). In addition to suggesting several new avenues for stalking
researchers to test formalized sociological explanations for the
evolution of this phenomenon, it is one of very few studies to date
that has examined similarities in factors influencing both victimization and perpetration of the same crime. Our results show that several
social learning factors, including definitions, differential association/
modeling, and reinforcement, are empirically associated with both
stalking outcomes in this sample, while holding various demographic
factors constant.
Regarding stalking perpetration, our results suggest that there may
be responses, attitudes, and behaviors that are learned, modified, or
reinforced primarily through interaction with peers. In particular, the
relationships between stalking perpetration, differential peer association and definitions indicates that perpetrators believe that stalking
is sometimes justifiable. Furthermore, perpetrators anticipate reacting
positively to friends who were engaged in stalking. These findings
make sense when considering that stalking perpetrators are likely to
rationalize or neutralize their own deviant behaviors, and are likely to
feel reified by condoning the stalking activities of others. Also, these
attitudes persist despite perpetrators’ apparent belief that many of
their friends are victims of stalking. The interpretation of this
association is more difficult due to time order issues; it is unclear,
for example, whether perpetrators identify their “friends” as victims
of stalking because they target people known to them, or whether
they may be encouraged to stalk as a result of associations with peers
who have been victimized.
Regarding stalking victimization, our results are similar to stalking
perpetration and suggest that there may be responses, attitudes, and
K.A. Fox et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (2011) 39–47
behaviors that are learned, modified, or reinforced primarily through
interaction with peers. In general, this supports a conception of
victimization as a social phenomenon, in which victims actively assess
and are influenced by observed behaviors as well as anticipated
reactions from peers and others. In particular, it appears that victims
sometimes adopt a positive attitude toward stalking as indicated by their
definitions (favorable/unfavorable), despite anticipated unsympathetic
reactions from friends. It is possible that victims’ interpretation of the
stalking experience may mirror reactions to IPV, in which the cycle of
violence persists because the offender is emotionally manipulative and
periodically appears contrite. Victims may also be influenced by early
childhood experiences in which they observed their parents in various
IPV scenarios; this experiential effect could, in turn, shape early
definitions regarding normative expectations within intimate relationships. Victims apparently believe that many of their friends are involved
in stalking, both as victims and as perpetrators. This provides a clear
articulation between differential association, modeling, and stalking,
although it is unclear from these results whether the reported
associations preceded or followed victimization. This ambiguity
suggests that one possible byproduct of stalking victimization is the
expansion of the victim's social support network to include other
victims. Another possibility is that associations with other victims
increase the individual's risk profile due to exposure to stalking
perpetrators. The inference from the reciprocal and feedback effects
proposed in social learning theory (Akers, 1998) is that both are
involved but at different times in the behavioral sequence. Differential
association with other victims produces risk exposure and behavioral
modeling, which then could lead to the victim seeking out additional
association with other victims for social support, which later could
produce more victimization through exposure and modeling.
The findings also indicated that females were significantly more
likely to be both stalking victims and perpetrators. While prior
research overwhelmingly finds that women are more likely than men
to be stalking victims (McCreedy & Dennis, 1996; Tjaden & Thoennes,
1998), the consensus on gender and stalking perpetration is mixed. For
example, some work suggests that men were more likely than women
to be stalking perpetrators (Bjerregaard, 2000), while other scholars
find no gender differences (Dye & Davis, 2003), and still others find
that women are more likely than men to report engaging in stalking
perpetration (Patton et al., 2010; Nobles et al., 2009). The finding that
women reported significantly more involvement with stalking
perpetration suggests several possible explanations. One possible
explanation may be that female perpetrators are targeting victims who
are not in college and, therefore, not represented in a college-based
sample. Another explanation for the finding that women are more
likely to report perpetrating stalking may be a function of male
respondents’ hesitation to self-report perpetrating such socially
undesirable behaviors (similar to sexual assault). In other words,
women may be more willing to admit perpetrating stalking whereas
men may perceive a more serious stigma when admitting to stalking
perpetration. Finally, although a substantial amount of stalking occurs
in intimate relationships, stalking also occurs in other relationships
(e.g., between acquaintances, family members, coworkers). Given that
the overwhelming majority of the sample reported being heterosexual
(over 95%), it is unlikely that the sample is comprised of female
perpetrators targeting female victims within the context of romantic
relationships. The nature of the relationships may reflect a variety of
social dynamics. Ultimately, an exhaustive discussion of these
different situations is beyond the scope of this study, although future
research may be able to further examine the effects of gender on
stalking victimization and perpetration.
While the findings suggest some previously untested relationships, it is important to consider several issues that warrant caution
when considering the generalizability of the findings and the level
of support for the social learning explanation. For example, the
sample was comprised of college students who were mostly female
45
(58.5%), White (76.5%), non-Hispanic (87.4%), and young (mean
age 22.8). The ability to generalize these findings to other
populations may be hampered by the demographics of the sample;
however, it is important to note that the demographics of the
sample closely match those of the university population from which
it was drawn. Generalizing these findings to explain stalking among
the general population may be premature without further research,
especially since relatively little is known regarding the similarities
and differences among college students and other populations with
regard to stalking. Some research supports the notion that collegeage populations may be disproportionately more likely to feature
stalking victims and perpetrators (see Nobles et al., 2009). While
college student samples are often successfully used to test a variety
of criminological theories (Payne & Chappell, 2008), as well as
social learning theory in particular (Sellers et al., 2005), future
research should examine the effects of social learning theory on
stalking within other populations. A second limitation involves the
issue of time order and sequence in associating social learning
factors with stalking outcomes, which unfortunately cannot be fully
resolved with the available data. Given the support for social
learning theory found in this cross-sectional research on stalking
perpetration and victimization among college students, future
research should test social learning models measuring both
offending and victimization with other types of behavior and
among other populations, as well as collecting longitudinal data
over the life course.
The current study was also necessarily limited in its inclusion of
social learning theory variables. Future research that builds upon
this work would benefit from incorporating additional measures of
definitions, differential reinforcement, and differential association/
modeling. More specifically, future research may wish to use
alternative wording from “sympathetic” for measuring definitions
and reinforcement. While this term was specifically selected to
measure respondents’ personal affinity with stalking victimization,
we acknowledge that alternate measures may also capture this
concept. Given that this is the first empirical test of social learning
theory and stalking, these measures may serve as a starting point
for this line of research. It should also be noted that other
theoretical factors may influence or predict stalking (e.g., low
self-control). For example, the experience of victimization may lead
an individual to seek out peers with similar experiences. Such
association may result from the victim joining a support group, or
may develop when peers learn of the trauma and consequently seek
out the victim to offer comfort and support. Finally, stalking was
measured using a self-report method, which may have resulted in
over-reporting or underreporting. For example, respondents may
have underreported their involvement with perpetrating stalking
given that offenders were required to acknowledge that their
behavior was frightening or threatening, intrusive, and unwanted.
Alternatively, respondents may have over-reported their exposure
to stalking victimization if they incorrectly interpreted customary
romantic social cues as stalking.9 This may be especially true in light
of traditional romantic pursuit behavior such that men are
socialized to pursue women and women are socialized to resist
their advances before conceding (Sinclair & Frieze, 2000). Consistent with other self-report studies on stalking perpetration and
victimization, these limitations may also affect the current study.
However, it should be noted that respondents in the current study
were not provided with any incentives to report socially desirable
responses given that the surveys were anonymous. Furthermore,
prior research indicates that self-reports of personal information
(i.e., delinquency) are “acceptably valid and reliable” (Thornberry &
Krohn, 2000, p. 3).
The results here, especially if confirmed by future research,
suggest clear policy implications. Like IPV, stalking appears to be
a learned phenomenon that can be explained by reference to
46
K.A. Fox et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (2011) 39–47
concepts and measures derived from or consistent with social
learning theory (i.e., definitions, differential reinforcement, and
differential association/modeling). Based on the current study,
policy implications consistent with social learning theory appear to
be ideal for preventing or reducing stalking perpetration and
victimization. Simply stated, knowing that stalking perpetration
and victimization are learned phenomena suggests that these
behaviors can be unlearned or, rather, that individuals can learn
to avoid stalking behavior or to change their own stalking behavior
through cognitive/behavioral programs designed to manipulate
treatment variables taken from or guided by learning theory. This is
not meant to suggest victim blaming; rather, the current study
suggests that social factors influence victimization (and perpetration), and that just as one may learn to take precautionary action to
avoid victimization by other crimes, one may learn actions that help
to avoid or reduce stalking victimization.
The current study offers fairly strong empirical support for social
learning theory as a general theory of crime and offers support for the
theory's ability to predict crime victimization. As Sellers et al. (2007)
point out, the majority of tests of social learning theory have focused
on predicting behavior that is inherently group-related (i.e., smoking,
drinking, drug use, gang involvement). The current study is among
the first to examine social learning theory among stalking behavior,
which is typically committed by an individual against another individual rather than in the company or others or as part of group
action, similar to IPV (Sellers et al., 2007). Overall, social learning
theory concepts appear to be important predictors of stalking
perpetration and victimization that help to develop theoretical
explanations for stalking while leveraging existing bodies of criminology literature.
Notes
1. See Dietz and Martin (2007) for a comprehensive review regarding requiring
stalking victims to feel frightened.
2. It is important to note that some longitudinal research indicates that relationship violence sometimes decreases or does not occur over time. For example, Caetano,
McGrath, Ramisetty-Mikler, and Field (2005) found that the majority of men (61%)
and women (56%) did not re-victimize their partners over a five year period of time.
3. It may be unclear whether batterers wish to control a particular situation or
desire to control the victim. Additionally, some research suggests that other, less
control-oriented, motives may explain violent relationships, including jealousy (Stets &
Pirog-Good, 1989) and retaliation (Follingstad et al., 1991).
4. Importantly, statistical significance is not functionally equivalent to effect size;
therefore, in addition to unstandardized coefficients, we provide standardized
coefficients and odds-ratios for comparisons of the relative influence of several
theoretical and demographic variables.
5. However, other research does not support the intergenerational transmission of
violence. For example, Widom (1989) found that the majority of abused children did not
engage in violence. As discussed in the review by Langhinrichsen-Rohling (2005), more
research is needed regarding this line of inquiry.
6. Of the 15,000 students e-mailed, 121 e-mails were returned as undeliverable
(invalid addresses). The response rate was calculated by dividing the number of
completed surveys (N = 2,783) by the number of delivered invitations (N = 14,879).
7. It was determined that “sympathy” would reflect respondents’ personal understanding, affinity, and perceptions of the way in which they define and accept stalking
victimization among their friends.
8. In response to a reviewer's suggestion, we also estimated these models with
dichotomous recodes of the social learning measures, although substantive conclusions
were unchanged. Additionally, the log likelihood and R2 values were very similar.
9. Going a step further, it is also conceivable that social cues from others, in addition
to the larger context of normative attitudes about behavior, could be delusionally
projected, as in cases where some stalking offenders exhibit psychotic tendencies.
However, this sort of cognitive loophole is immaterial for two reasons. First, in
concordance with the Thomas theorem, “If men define situations as real, they are real in
their consequences” (Thomas & Thomas, 1928: 572); thus perceptions about the
attitudes and opinions of others are at issue, rather than objective facts. Furthermore, a
key tenet of social learning theory allows for non-social reinforcement through selfgratification, thus the absence of friends’ pro-stalking opinions in fact does not
necessarily invalidate the assertion that social learning processes are at work. To the
suggestion that delusional tendencies may bias self-reported experiences or attitudes in
the available sample, the authors regard this as relatively unlikely since surveys were
conducted with a college sample rather than a clinical or forensic sample, and because
anticipated rates of serious delusional disorders among this population would be low.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A
psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Akers, R. L. (1973). Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Akers, R. L. (1998 [2009]). Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime
and Deviance. Paperback reissue. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Akers, R. L., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979). Social learning and
deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory. American Sociological Review,
44, 636−655.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.
Bjerregaard, B. (2000). An empirical study of stalking victimization. Violence and
Victims, 15, 389−406.
Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Das, S., & Moitra, S. D. (1988). Specialization and seriousness
during adult criminal careers. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 4, 303−345.
Boeringer, S., Shehan, C. L., & Akers, R. L. (1991). Social context and social learning in
sexual coercion and aggression: Assessing the contribution of fraternity membership. Family Relations, 40, 558−564.
Bograd, M. (1990). Why we need gender to understand human violence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 5, 132−135.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. I: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
Brewster, M. P. (2003). Power and control dynamics in prestalking and stalking
situations. Journal of Family Violence, 184, 207−217.
Burgess, A., Baker, T., Greening, D., Hartman, C., Burgess, A., Douglass, J., et al. (1997).
Stalking behaviors within domestic violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12,
389−403.
Caetano, R., McGrath, C., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., & Field, C. A. (2005). Drinking, alcohol
problems and the five-year recurrence and incidence of male to female and female to
male partner violence. Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 29, 98−106.
California Penal Code § 646.9 (1990).
Campbell, J., Jones, A. S., Dienemann, J., Kub, J., Schollenberger, J., O'Campo, P., et al.
(2002). Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences. Archives of
Internal Medicine, 162, 1157−1163.
Carlson, B. (1996). Dating violence: Student beliefs about consequences. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 11, 3−18.
Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., Bethea, L., King, M. R., & McKeown, R. E. (2000). Physical health
consequences of physical and psychological intimate partner violence. Archives of
Family Medicine, 9, 451−457.
Couper, M. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 64, 464−494.
Cullen, F. T., Wright, J. P., Gendreau, P., & Andrews, D. A. (2003). What correctional
treatment can tell us about criminological theory: Implications for social learning
theory. In R. L. Akers & G. F. Jensen, (Eds.), Social Learning Theory and the Explanation
of Crime, Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 11 (pp. 339-362). New Jersey:
Transaction.
Dietz, N. A., & Martin, P. Y. (2007). Women who are stalked: Questioning the fear
standard. Violence Against Women, 13, 750−776.
Douglas, K. S., & Dutton, D. G. (2001). Assessing the link between stalking and domestic
violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 519−546.
Dutton, D. G., & Strachan, C. E. (1987). Motivational needs for power and spousespecific assertiveness in assaultive and nonassaultive men. Violence and Victims, 23,
145−156.
Dye, M. L., & Davis, K. E. (2003). Stalking and psychological abuse: Common factors and
relationship-specific characteristics. Violence and Victims, 18, 163−180.
Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in
a national study of college women. Criminology and Public Policy, 1, 257−308.
Follingstad, D., Wright, S., Lloyd, S., & Sebastian, J. (1991). Sex differences in motivations
and effects in dating violence. Family Relations, 40, 51−57.
Fox, K. A., Gover, A. R., & Kaukinen, C. (2009). The relationship between gender and
stalking victimization among college students. American Journal of Criminal Justice,
34, 181−197.
Gover, A. R., Kaukinen, C., & Fox, K. A. (2008). The relationship between violence in the
family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 23, 1667−1693.
Haugaard, J. L., & Seri, L. G. (2001). Stalking and other forms of intrusive contact in
adolescent and young-adult relationships. University of Missouri-Kansas City Law
Review, 69, 227−238.
Haugaard, J. J., & Seri, L. G. (2003). Stalking and other forms of intrusive contact after the
dissolution of adolescent dating or romantic relationships. Violence & Victims, 18,
279−297.
Jankowski, M. K., Leitenberg, H., Henning, K., & Coffey, P. (1999). Intergenerational
transmission of dating aggression as a function of witnessing only same sex parents
vs. opposite sex parents vs. both parents as perpetrators of domestic violence.
Journal of Family Violence, 14, 267−279.
Jensen, G. F., & Brownfield, D. (1986). Gender, lifestyle, and victimization: Beyond
routine activity. Violence and Victims, 2, 85−99.
Jordan, C. E., Wilcox, P., & Pritchard, A. J. (2007). Stalking acknowledgement and
reporting among college women experiencing intrusive behaviors: Implications for
the emergence of a “classic stalking case”. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 556−569.
Kienlen, K. K., Birmingham, D. L., Solberg, K. B., O'Regan, J. T., & Meloy, J. R. (1997). A
comparative study of psychotic and nonpsychotic stalking. The Journal of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 25, 317−334.
K.A. Fox et al. / Journal of Criminal Justice 39 (2011) 39–47
Kileen, K., & Dunn, J. (1998). Victim and law enforcement strategies for managing
forceful interaction and coercive pursuit. Paper presented at the annual Threat
Management Conference, Los Angeles, CA.
Lauritsen, J. L., & Laub, J. H. (2007). Understanding the link between victimization and
offending: New reflections on an old idea. Crime Prevention Studies, 22, 55−75.
Lauritsen, J. L., Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). The link between offending and
victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265−292.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2005). Top 10 greatest “hits”: Important findings and future
directions for intimate partner violence research.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Hankla, M., & Stormberg, C. D. (2004). The relationship
behavior networks of young adults: A test of the intergenerational transmission of
violence hypothesis. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 139−151.
Lussier, P. (2005). The criminal activity of sexual offenders in adulthood: Revisiting the
specialization debate. Sexual abuse: A journal of research and treatment, 17, 269−292.
Logan, T. K., Leukefeld, C., & Walker, B. (2000). Stalking as a variant of intimate violence:
Implications from a young adult sample. Violence and Victims, 15, 91−111.
Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables.
California: Sage Publications.
Marshall, L. L., & Rose, P. (1988). Family of origin violence and courtship abuse. Journal
of Counseling and Development, 66, 414−418.
Mechanic, M. B., Uhlmansiek, M. H., Weaver, T. L., & Resick, P. A. (2000). The impact of
severe stalking experienced by acutely battered women: An examination of
violence, psychological symptoms and strategic responding. Violence and Victims,
15, 443−458.
Meloy, J. R., & Gothard, S. (1995). A demographic and clinical comparison of obsessional
followers and offenders with mental disorders. The American Journal of Psychiatry,
152, 256−263.
Meloy, J. R. (1996). Stalking (obsessional following): A review of some preliminary
studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 1, 147−162.
McCutcheon, L. E., Scott, V. B., Jr., Aruguete, M. S., & Parker, J. (2006). Exploring the link
between attachment and the inclination to obsess about or stalk celebrities. North
American Journal of Psychology, 8, 289−300.
McCreedy, K., & Dennis, B. (1996). Sex related offenses and fear of crime on campus.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 12, 69−80.
McEwan, T. E., Mullen, P. E., MacKenzie, R. D., & Ogloff, J. R. (2009). Violence in stalking
situations. Psychological Medicine, 39, 1469−1478.
Moffitt, T. E., Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., & Fagan, J. (2000). Partner abuse and general
crime: How are they the same? How are they different? Criminology, 38, 199−232.
Mustaine, E., & Tewksbury, R. (1999). A routine activity theory explanation for women's
stalking victimizations. Violence Against Women, 5, 43−62.
Nobles, M. R., Fox, K. A., Piquero, N. L., & Piquero, A. R. (2009). Career dimensions of
stalking victimization and perpetration. Justice Quarterly, 26, 476−503.
Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (1997). The impact of stalkers on their victims. The British
Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 12−17.
Patton, C., Nobles, M. R., & Fox, K. A. (2010). Look who's stalking: Stalking perpetration
and attachment theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 282−290.
Payne, B. K., & Chappell, A. (2008). Using student samples in criminological research.
Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 19, 175−192.
Phillips, L., Quirk, R., Rosenfeld, B., & O'Connor, M. (2004). Is it stalking? Perceptions of
stalking among college undergraduates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 73−96.
Piquero, A. (2000). Frequency, specialization, and violence in offending careers. Crime &
Delinquency, 37, 392−418.
Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi's
general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38(3), 931−964.
Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of
crime: A meta-analysis. Crime and Justice, 32, 373−450.
Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Sellers, C. S., Winfree, L. T., Jr., Madensen, T. D., Daigle, L. E., et al.
(2009). The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta-analysis. Justice
Quarterly, 1745−9109.
Saunders, R. (1998). The legal perspective on stalking. In The psychology of stalking:
Clinical and forensic perspectives, ed. J. Reid Meloy, California: Academic Press.
Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test
of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633−654.
47
Schwartz-Watts, D., & Morgan, D. W. (1998). Violent versus nonviolent stalkers. The
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 25, 541−545.
Sellers, C. S., Cochran, J. K., & Branch, K. A. (2005). Social learning theory and partner
violence: A research note. Deviant Behavior, 26, 379−395.
Sellers, C. S., Cochran, J. K., & Winfree, L. T., Jr. (2007). Social learning theory and courtship
violence: An empirical test. In R. L. Akers & G. F. Jensen, (Eds.), Social Learning Theory
and the Explanation of Crime, Advances in Criminological Theory, Vol. 11 (pp. 339-362).
New Jersey: Transaction.
Sinclair, H. C., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Initial courtship behavior and stalking: How should
we draw the line? Violence and Victims, 15, 23−40.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2003). What mad pursuit? Obsessive relational intrusion
and stalking related phenomena. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 8, 345−375.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of
the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 64−86.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2008). Fanning the flames of fandom: Celebrity
worship, parasocial interaction, and stalking. In J. R. Meloy, L. Sheridan, & J.
Hoffmann (Eds.), Stalking, threatening, and attacking public figures: A psychological
and behavioral analysis (pp. 287−321). New York: Oxford University Press.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Rhea, J. (1999). Obsessive relational intrusion and sexual coercion
victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 3−20.
Stets, J., & Pirog-Good, M. (1989). Sexual aggression and control in dating relationships.
Journal of Applied and Social Psychology, 19, 1392−1412.
Stets, J. E., & Pirog-Good, M. A. (1990). Interpersonal control and courtship aggression.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 371−394.
Stewart, E. A., Elifson, K. W., & Sterk, C. E. (2004). Integrating the general theory of crime
into an exploration of violent victimization among female offenders. Justice
Quarterly, 21, 159−181.
Sutherland, E. H. (1939). Principles in criminology, 3rd edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America: Behavior problems and
programs. New York: Knopf.
Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2000). The self-report method for measuring
delinquency and crime. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Measurement and analysis of crime and
justice: Criminal justice 2000 (vol. 4, pp. 33−84). Washington, DC: US Department
of Justice.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National
Violence Against Women Survey (Special Report No. NCJ 1669592). National
Institute of Justice, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, nature, and consequences of intimate partner
violence: Findings from the National Violence Against Women survey. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N., & Allison, C. J. (2000). Comparing stalking victimization from
legal and victim perspectives. Violence and Victims, 15, 7−22.
Widom, C. S. (1989). The cycle of violence. Science, 244, 160−166.
Kathleen A. Fox is an Assistant Professor in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam
Houston State University. Her research interests include crime victimization, gangs,
fear of crime, gender, and campus safety and security issues.
Matt R. Nobles is an Assistant Professor in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam
Houston State University. His research interests include violent and interpersonal
crimes, GIS and spatial econometrics, criminological theory, and quantitative methods.
Ronald L. Akers is Professor of Criminology and Sociology at the University of Florida.
Dr. Akers is author of numerous books including Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning
Approach, Criminological Theories, and Social Learning and Social Structure: A General
Theory of Crime and Deviance and journals articles in leading journals in criminology
and sociology. He is one of the original authors and the chief proponent and developer
of social learning theory in criminology and the sociology of deviance.