Stalking behavior

Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 255–274, 1998 Copyright  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 1359-1789/98 $19.00 1 .00

PII S1359-1789(97)00023-2

STALKING BEHAVIOR: A LITERATURE REVIEW AND SUGGESTED FUNCTIONAL ANALYTIC ASSESSMENT TECHNOLOGY Darrah Westrup and William J. Fremouw West Virginia University

ABSTRACT. This article provides a discussion of stalking behavior, a phenomenon very much in the forefront of public, legal, and law enforcement attention. To rectify the lack of a consistent and clear definition of stalking behavior in the literature, a behavioral definition is suggested. A review and critique of the existing literature is also provided. The functional analysis is proposed as a means to assist both intervention and research efforts. It is posited that functional analyses will help illuminate the factors that maintain stalking behavior, subsequently guiding intervention. It is also suggested that the information gained by consistent and widespread use of functional analyses will provide points of departure for future research.  1998 Elsevier Science Ltd KEY WORDS. Stalking behavior, assessment THE TOPIC OF THIS ARTICLE is the behavior popularly known as stalking. Despite its notoriety, what exactly is meant by stalking is not easily defined. This difficulty is discussed in detail in the following section. For now, stalking denotes the unwelcome, repetitive, and intrusive harassing and/or threatening behavior directed toward a specific individual. Stalking is currently receiving a great deal of attention from the media, law enforcement communities, and the general public. It is not possible to determine whether the rate of stalking is increasing or decreasing (or is stable) due to the absence of prior information regarding its prevalence. However, rising apprehension is reflected in the significant increase of mainstream news articles on stalking over the last several years. In fact there are now more than 30 law review articles on the topic (Fein & Vossekuil, 1996). The most dramatic indicator of the increased attention accorded this problem is the rapid development of antistalking legislation. The first state to enact an antistalking law was California in 1990, propelled by the widely mourned death of actress Rebecca Schaeffer (stalked and killed by Robert John Bardo in 1989). Today, Maine is the only state without a stalking law; in this state an antiterCorrespondence should be addressed to Darrah Westrup, Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 6040, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV 26506–6040. 255

256

D. Westrup and W. J. Fremouw

rorizing statute is used to prosecute stalking cases (Fein & Vossekuil, 1996; National Institute of Justice Association, 1993). Stalking affects the average individual, as opposed to just celebrities, more than previously thought (Morin, 1993). Fremouw, Westrup, & Pennypacker (1996) administered a survey on stalking to approximately 600 college undergraduates. Thirty percent of the women and 17% of the men responded that they had been stalked as defined by West Virginia law (West Virginia Code, 1995). Admittedly, this sample is not representative of the general population, and the results of this study suggest that stalking is far from rare. The full gravity of this social problem becomes more evident when this surprising prevalence rate is considered in light of the impact that stalking can have on victims. Regardless of whether the victim endures an actual assault, the insidious intrusiveness of being watched, followed, and otherwise harassed can be extremely distressing (De Becker, 1994; Mullen & Pathe´, 1994a, 1994b). Additionally, the deleterious effects can be enduring. For example, it is not uncommon for a stalking victim to significantly change his or her lifestyle in an attempt to cope (Fremouw et al. 1996; Mullen & Pathe´, 1994; National Institute of Justice Association, 1993). Compounding the problem is the intractable nature of stalking. The behavior is repetitive by definition, and many stalkers have an extensive history of similar conduct (Harmon, Rosner, & Owens, 1995; Meloy, 1996). Given the urgency of stalking, and its distressing and potentially harmful effects, the paucity of scientific research devoted to this behavior is surprising. This is unfortunate because the psychological community in particular can offer much to ameliorate this significant problem. This article will further efforts in this area by addressing the following objectives: 1. Formulating a stalking definition that is both consistent with popular usage and conducive to research and treatment efforts. 2. Providing a review, critique, and summary of relevant research. Studies will be examined in terms of how well they increase the ability to predict and control stalking. 3. Introducing a functional analytic model as an assessment technology that will assist efforts to predict and control stalking.

DEFINITION OF STALKING There is a glaring lack of agreement in the literature on what is meant by the term stalking. Before commencing the literature review, it is important to clarify how various authors have interpreted this term, as well as the alternate labels they have suggested. Included in this section is a discussion of erotomania, as the misplaced emphasis on this delusional disorder complicates the literature. Finally, as a means to reconcile both these difficulties, a behaviorally oriented definition of stalking will be provided. Formal definitions of the verb stalking typically incorporate the concept of stealthy pursuit or tracking (DeVinne et al., 1982; Neufeldt, 1988). These definitions emphasize the literal act of following something, as well as stressing the furtive and predatory elements of this behavior. As used by the general public, media, and law enforcement communities, however, stalking loosely refers to a broader range of repeated behaviors (e.g., telephoning, letter writing, conducting surveillance) whose overall effect is to threaten and/or harass another individual. These acts may or may not be surreptitious and may or may not be maliciously intended; some stalkers may actually be pursuing their target out of what they perceive to be love (Harmon et al., 1995; Mullen & Pathe´, 1994b; Zona, Sharma, & Lane, 1993). In addition, one of the behaviors within this behavioral class is literally following someone. Stalking can

Stalking Behavior

257

thus properly refer to the act of stealthily following someone, and it can also properly refer to a broader class of behaviors. This entanglement may be the reason most researchers eschew stalking as an overall descriptor of the behavior class. Unfortunately the alternate terms they suggest engender their own interpretation difficulties. Zona et al. (1993) and Harmon et al. (1995) use the term obsessional harassment to denote stalking. Although harassment better signifies the class of behaviors, the term does not fully represent stalking behavior. Evidence of this difference between stalking and harassment is the fact that 28 states with current harassment statutes found it necessary to enact additional antistalking legislation (National Institute of Justice Association, 1993). A second problem with this terminology concerns the use of the word obsessional, which Zona et al. defined as having ‘‘persistent ideas, thoughts, impulses, or images that result inevitably in some act in relation to the victim’’ (p. 896). Traditionally, obsessions have been viewed as being unwanted and intrusive (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). In recognition that many of the persistent thoughts experienced by stalkers can actually be pleasurable or satisfying, Zona et al. stated that their stalkers’ obsessions are not unwanted or intrusive, which is contrary to the traditional definition. Furthermore, this idiosyncratic interpretation does not take into account those stalkers whose thoughts regarding the target are unwanted and distressing. The definition of obsessions provided by the authors also implies that the obsessions, or persistent thoughts, cause (i.e., inevitably result in) stalking behavior—an unproved hypothesis at this point. The obsessional harassment label evokes an additional problem: Obsessions so defined are thoughts that cannot be objectively identified and measured. To focus on these thoughts as the cardinal aspect of stalking behavior may impede both scientific study and intervention efforts (Barrett, Johnston, & Pennypacker, 1986; Ullman & Krasner, 1969). Meloy and Gothard (1995) prefer obsessional following as a global term for stalking behavior, reserving stalking for a discrete act within this repertoire (which they unfortunately do not define). This solution is questionable because (a) following is no more effective than stalking in differentiating between an entire class of behaviors and one specific action, and (b) use of the word obsessional invites the incumbent previously described difficulties. Finally, Mullen and Pathe´ (1994a, 1994b) labeled their sample of stalkers as those suffering from ‘‘pathologies of love.’’ However, love is difficult to operationalize (philosophers have been at it for years), and this term certainly cannot be applied to the stalker who is following and making death threats to his or her previous employer. This nebulous term is an unfortunate example of the disparate and ineffective nomenclature obscuring research in this area. The lack of clarity and consistency in how stalking is defined in the literature is the first roadblock in examining this behavior. A second problem is the entanglement between stalking research and erotomania, a disorder wrought with its own controversies over definition of meaning (Harmon et al., 1995; Meloy & Gothard, 1995; Mullen & Pathe´, 1994a, 1994b; Zona et al., 1993). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–IV currently lists erotomania as a delusional disorder subtype and proposes its application ‘‘when the central theme of the delusion is that another person is in love with the individual’’ (American Psychiatric Association, 1994, p. 297). The interest in erotomania is not without reason, as some of the more infamous stalking cases have been conducted by individuals fitting this diagnosis (Anderson, 1993; Goldstein, 1987; Leong & Silva, 1992). There has been longstanding controversy over whether erotomania exists as a separate diagnostic entity (Goldstein, 1987; Segal, 1989) or whether it is a symptom of another condition, such as schizophrenia (Ellis & Mellsop, 1985; Leong, 1993; Rudden, Sweeney, & Frances, 1990). Most typically, primary erotomania is considered to be pure erotomania, meaning that it exists without an accompanying disorder. Secondary erotomania is considered to be the case when the delusions coexist with other psychiatric symptoms (Hollender & Callahan, 1975;

258

D. Westrup and W. J. Fremouw

Seeman, 1978; Segal, 1989). A related debate is over the traditional understanding that a diagnosis of erotomania can only be applied if the individual in question believes he or she is loved in return. Most researchers in this area believe this component is the chief marker for whether or not the diagnosis is made (Evans, Jeckel, & Slott, 1982; Goldstein, 1987), whereas others feel it should not be the distinguishing feature (Mullen & Pathe´, 1994; Seeman, 1978). Stalking investigators have repeatedly attempted to create a nosology of stalkers that includes erotomania. Unfortunately, they have inherited the previously described conundrums. For example, Meloy (1996a) revealed that three out of four individuals within the stalking literature suffered from a comorbid Axis I disorder (they had secondary erotomania), creating the possibility that their delusions (and subsequent stalking behaviors) arose from the primary diagnosis. Finally, because (a) many stalkers are not erotomanic (Harmon et al., 1995; Meloy & Gothard, 1995) and (b) few erotomanics actually engage in stalking (Dietz, Matthews, Van Duyne, et al., 1991), erotomania’s conspicuous role in the stalking literature is misleading. It is hoped that illumination of this point will assist interpretation of the literature in the following review. It is possible (and desirable) to define stalking in such a way that the previously described difficulties are reconciled. Further, it is possible to arrive at a conceptualization of the behavior more consistent with other professionals who actually contend with stalking situations. These professionals (i.e., policy makers, law enforcers, and security consultants) increasingly view stalking as a pattern of behavior that has the overall effect of significantly disturbing the individual to whom it is directed (De Becker, 1994; Fein & Vossekuil, 1996; National Institute of Justice Association, 1993). Viewed in this way, for a behavior to be considered stalking it must be experienced by another as a disquieting and often threatening intrusion. An odd implication of this definition is that, if a stalker is unnoticed by the victim, he or she is not technically stalking! The pragmatic approach, and that taken by policy makers, law enforcers, and other stalking experts, is that stalking is a problem behavior that exists only when it serves to distress the targeted individual (Anderson, 1993; Morin, 1993; National Institute of Justice Association, 1993). The proposed definition will incorporate this perspective and will acknowledge that this does not resolve the issue of unnoticed stalking. We propose that the term stalking should be retained as a global descriptor of the behavior, chiefly because of its persistent and pervasive use by the general public, and also because the weaknesses of alternate labels precludes their use. However, adding the word behavior helps signify that stalking typically refers to a group of behaviors. It is proposed then, that stalking behavior be defined as one or more of a constellation of behaviors that (a) are repeatedly directed toward a specific individual (the ‘‘target’’), (b) are unwelcome and intrusive, and (c), induce fear or concern in the target. Defined thusly, the behavior can be observed and clearly identified, and the numerous behaviors that are relevant (ranging from conducting surveillance to letter writing) are included. A stalker, then, is an individual who stalks or engages in these behaviors.

LITERATURE REVIEW This review chronologically examines the literature on stalking. Included herein is research that focuses on at least one particular stalking behavior (i.e., letter writing) or on stalkers. Excluded are case reports of erotomania in which stalking behavior is mentioned only in passing. This review also provides two examples of antistalking efforts developed by the government and private sector to address stalking behavior. Inclusion of these efforts is appropriate given the fact that the problem of stalking behavior affects a cross section of people,

Stalking Behavior

259

agencies, and organizations, and effective intervention requires their joint cooperation (De Becker, 1994; Fein & Vossekuil, 1996; National Institute of Justice Association, 1993).

Psychological Studies Dietz, Matthews, Van Duyne, et al. (1991). This study focused on the association between ‘‘threatening and otherwise inappropriate’’ (p. 185) letters sent to Hollywood celebrities and subsequent approach behaviors. This research is included because (a) the act of sending a threatening or inappropriate letter to a targeted individual is a common stalking behavior (Mullen & Pathe´, 1994b; Zona et al., 1993); (b) the study is one of the few empirical efforts in the literature; and (c) the authors’ pragmatic objective, to assist efforts to predict the dangerousness of these letter writers, is of obvious benefit to those concerned with stalking behavior. To discern differentiating variables, the authors compared 107 letter writers who had attempted to approach the object of their attentions with 107 letter writers who did not. In some cases, these behaviors were but one of many repetitive, unwanted, and intrusive actions the participants directed at their targets. The data were drawn from the archives of Gavin De Becker, Inc., a security consulting firm that assesses and tracks individuals who send threatening and inappropriate communications to celebrities. This sample is most likely representative of only a small subset of possible letter writers, as it includes only those who write to celebrities and whose letters are clearly threatening or disordered. Although their research was archival in nature, Dietz and colleagues used rigorous methods to enhance the validity of their findings. Both groups were randomly drawn and assigned to coders blind to whether or not the participant had approached the celebrity. Coders were carefully trained with clearly operationalized criteria, and interrater reliability (ranging from 64 to 100% on 904 variables) was calculated throughout. Corroborative information was gathered from criminal records, media accounts, and public records, as well as from interviews with the participant and/or family and medical personnel. The number of variables considered in this study (904) and the numerous reported findings suggest that many analyses were made, raising the issue of whether the authors accounted for the increased probability of a Type I error. Dietz, Matthews, Van Duyne, et al. (1991) did acknowledge the problem by stating that, because of the large sample size (N 5 214) and the number of comparisons made, the reader should exercise caution when interpreting results with probabilities between .01 and .05. They did not, however, report the total number of analyses made, and they did not clearly state whether they used a priori or post hoc correction procedures. For this reason, the following ‘‘significant’’ results should be interpreted cautiously. Participants who approached their targets sent more communications to their targets than those who did not. The volume of letters did not predict approach behavior, as they were sent not only prior to approaching the target but after as well. Writing for more than 1 year and the combination of telephoning and letter writing were associated with approach behavior. Participants who specifically stated they would like to meet the target, and whose letters contained specific plans for doing so (i.e., a time and location were suggested), were more likely to approach. Other features significantly associated with approach behavior were (a) letters (specifically the first known communication) that had no return address; (b) letters from more than one state, province, or country (i.e., that had more than one postmark); (c) letters written on tablet paper, either lined or unlined; and (d) letters with enclosed pictures. Letters that repeatedly mentioned public figures other than the target were also significantly related to approach behavior. Two analyses demonstrated an inverse relationship to approaching the target. Dietz, Mat-

260

D. Westrup and W. J. Fremouw

thews, Van Duyne, et al. (1991) assessed whether participants’ letters attempted to evoke a particular emotion from the targets. The ‘‘intent to instill shame’’ (p. 202) was found to be less likely in communications from those who approached their target. Likewise, participants who indicated either a desire to marry or to have sexual relations or children with the target were significantly less likely to seek an actual encounter. Surprisingly, the presence or absence of threats within the letters did not predict approach attempts. This was an ambitious and difficult research effort. It is difficult to assess at this point its practical value, as it described the relations between letter characteristics and approach behavior, not letter characteristics and dangerousness (approaching was not assessed in terms of subsequent harm to the target). However, those who must assess such letters for dangerousness would no doubt be interested in knowing what features are associated with actually approaching the target. The question remains as to why, or how, these characteristics are related to approaching the target. This is a question of function, an aspect of stalking behavior that is neglected by the literature. Dietz, Matthews, Martell, et al. (1991). This research closely parallels the previous study, although the participants had sent threatening or otherwise inappropriate letters (and also cards, telegrams, and packages) to members of the U.S. Congress. The relations between letter characteristics and approach behavior were examined following the same procedure described before, except that data were drawn from the Intelligence Unit of the U.S. Capitol Police rather than from the Gavin De Becker, Inc., archives. Forty-three approach-positive letter writers were compared with 43 writers who did not pursue a face-to-face encounter with the target. Some characteristics of these letters were found to be significantly associated with approach behavior, but again, the authors did not report doing a correction procedure so the validity of these results remains in question. Findings that supported those reported in the previous study were as follows: (a) Participants who approached the target sent more communications, (b) those who wrote and telephoned were more likely to approach, and (c) those who expressed a desire for contact were more likely to pursue an actual encounter. Interestingly, threatening communications from this sample were associated with not approaching the target—Participants whose letters were not threatening were significantly more likely to initiate an approach. Moreover, unlike the previous study, no association was found between how long these participants had been writing to their targets and whether an encounter was sought. The discrepancies between studies may be due in part to the different target populations. If so, it is unlikely that the findings of both studies can be reasonably applied to ‘‘regular’’ individuals (i.e., those who are not public figures). Zona et al. (1993). In 1993, Zona, Sharma, and Lane conducted an archival study comparing erotomanics with obsessional participants (defined as those who have ‘‘persistent ideas, thoughts, impulses, or images that result inevitably in some act in relation to the victim,’’ p. 896) suffering from other mental disorders. Their research is included in this review because all of the individuals in this large sample were drawn from cases followed by the Threat Management Unit (TMU) of the Los Angeles Police Department, a unit established to deal expressly with stalking situations. Information from 74 case files was used to create a data base from which the comparative analyses were made. Participants were separated into three groups depending on how the authors assessed the ‘‘quality’’ of each subject’s obsession (Zona et al., 1993, p. 896). Seven participants were diagnosed as having primary erotomania. Thirty-two were labeled ‘‘love obsessional,’’ the main distinction being that they suffered from a primary psychiatric diagnosis other than erotomania. (Unfortunately the manner in which psychiatric illness was determined was questionable; this will be discussed shortly.) Included in this group (even if they

Stalking Behavior

261

did not have another disorder) were participants who, despite being obsessively in love with their target, did not believe their love was reciprocated (thereby excluding a diagnosis of erotomania). In addition, love obsessional participants ‘‘almost always’’ (p. 896) did not personally know their target (the vagueness of this qualifier was not further explained). The remaining 35 cases were classified as ‘‘simple obsessional.’’ These participants had experienced a prior relationship with their target. By prior relationship, the authors considered not just prior romantic involvement but also relationships such as that between neighbors or between a professional and client. Once participants were divided accordingly, characteristics such as telephoning, letter writing, threatening, and location visits were assessed and then compared across groups. One of the most striking findings was that duration of the obsession varied dramatically between groups. Two considerations must be kept in mind when interpreting this finding. Zona et al. (1993) did not report whether a statistical analysis had been performed on this variable, so there is no way to know whether this difference was meaningful. Additionally, the fact that these participants were drawn from a forensic population may mean that the stalking behavior was interrupted, as opposed to being voluntarily ceased. Nonetheless, it is interesting that the average erotomanic was obsessed with his or her target for as long as 125 months, including 19 months of what the authors called ‘‘actual contact’’ (p. 899), which presumably refers to actual stalking behavior. The love obsessionals were obsessed with their targets for an average of 146 months (9.7 months of contact), and the simple obsessionals contacted their targets for an average of 5.1 months (the duration of their obsession with the target was not assessed). Additional findings were that the simple obsessionals were significantly less likely to write their targets and significantly more likely to threaten. Of the two participants in the entire sample who physically harmed their target, both were in the simple obsessional category. Additionally, 14% of this group damaged their target’s property in some way. These results suggest that stalking incidents involving former associates are potentially more dangerous than those involving strangers, an interesting finding given the likelihood that the majority of stalkers are those who stalk former romantic partners (Fremouw et al., 1996; Mullen & Pathe´, 1994b; National Institute of Justice Association, 1993). The applicability of this finding to stalking situations between former intimates is limited by the fact that any type of prior association between stalker and target (not just a prior romantic or sexual relationship) was cause for inclusion in the simple obsessional group. Zona et al. (1993) reported that 37% of the love obsessional and 40% of the simple obsessional participants evidenced some type of mental disorder (the erotomanic participants all were delusional by definition). Presence of a major mental illness was determined by (a) any indication in the subject’s file of an Axis I disorder, (b) evidence of prior psychiatric hospitalization, and (c) clearly ‘‘psychotic thinking’’ (p. 897) demonstrated in perhaps a letter or tape recording. This finding should be interpreted cautiously because important information was not provided (e.g., what was in the participants’ case files, what criteria were used to identify mental illness, how was psychotic thinking operationalized). The fact that some cases apparently were reviewed by only one investigator further compromised the reliability of this result. The terminology and classification system used in this study were its most problematic aspects, resulting in the interpretation problems discussed in the Definition of Stalking section of this article. For example, when diagnosing erotomania, the authors retained the traditional criterion that the participant must believe his or her love is returned by the target. Those who fit the diagnosis in every other way were placed in the love obsessional group. However, many erotomania researchers do not agree that this should be the cardinal criterion (Mullen & Pathe´, 1994b; Seeman, 1978). Zona et al. (1993) also attempted to group their participants

262

D. Westrup and W. J. Fremouw

based on the ‘‘quality’’ of their obsessions (p. 896), relying not only on an idiosyncratic definition of the term (i.e., that obsessions are not unwanted or intrusive thoughts) but also on a construct (i.e., obsessional quality) that does not lend itself to clear interpretation. For example, the content of the obsessions could actually be quite similar from group to group (e.g., a schizophrenic could have obsessions and engage in behavior very similar to an erotomanic’s), and participants within one such grouping could have very different persistent thoughts. For instance, someone who was stalking her ex-husband’s divorce lawyer would be in the same group as someone stalking his ex-wife, yet the content of their obsessions could be quite dissimilar. Classification and definition difficulties delineated earlier highlight the difficulties in relying on a construct, a diagnosis, or even topography alone to understand a behavior. Mullen and Pathe´ (1994b). In 1994, Mullen and Pathe´ compiled 14 case reports of patients seen in their Australian forensic psychiatric practice, all who suffered from ‘‘pathologies of love’’ (p. 469) and who had engaged in stalking behavior. A pathology of love (a term the authors sometimes used interchangeably with erotomania) was defined according to the following criteria: (a) The participant believed he or she was loved by the target and/or had a ‘‘preoccupying infatuation’’ (this was not defined, p. 471); (b) the target had not encouraged the participant and/or had rejected him or her; (c) the participant was preoccupied to the point where everyday functioning was impaired; (d) the target’s actions were reinterpreted to maintain the love or supposed relationship; and (e) the participant made ‘‘repeated attempts to follow and approach the object of their affections, creating at the very least distress and embarrassment’’ (p. 471). The authors reported that 9 of the 14 participants had preexisting psychiatric diagnoses and that the remaining 5 had a ‘‘pure’’ pathology of love. Despite the report’s obvious drawbacks (i.e., the small sample size, atypical terminology, and the fact that it was merely descriptive rather than empirical), it did provide some useful information. For example, the participants’ various stalking behaviors were assessed; it was determined that 13 of 14 followed and/or loitered near the target and that 11 made an actual approach. Approximately half phoned, and half wrote to their targets. Five participants physically assaulted their target. From information ascertained during interviews with some of the involved targets, Mullen and Pathe´ (1994b) described the negative effects of the stalking behavior, such as being afraid to leave the home, needing to have the telephone disconnected, and moving out of state and even out of the country. The authors reported that a target’s fear seemed to escalate as the stalking behavior continued. The impact of stalking behavior from the targets’ perspective has rarely been provided in the literature. Also provided were details regarding the stalkers’ professed motivations for acting violently. These were primarily feelings of jealousy, rage at rejection, and sexual desire. Such attempts to describe the behavior’s function or to explain why the stalker engaged in the behavior are lacking in the literature and are sorely needed to understand this phenomenon fully. Meloy and Gothard (1995). Recognizing the lack of clinical information on stalkers, Meloy and Gothard compared ‘‘obsessional followers’’ (i.e., those with persistent thoughts or impulses that result in a stalking behavior, p. 258) with other criminal offenders diagnosed with mental disorders in order to compare certain clinical and demographic variables. A sample of 20 obsessional followers was drawn from the Forensic Evaluation Unit in San Diego. The comparison group was randomly drawn from individuals who were also court referred to the clinic, who had received the same type of evaluation (e.g., presentence evaluations, civil commitment) at approximately the same time as had the obsessional followers. Before conducting analyses between the two groups, Meloy and Gothard (1995) reported

Stalking Behavior

263

demographic data on the obsessional followers that had been obtained via forensic evaluations and review of records. Examination revealed that 90% were men with an average age of 35 and that most were White followed by Blacks and Hispanics (35%, 25%, and 15%, respectively). More than 75% of them were single (half had either never been married or were now divorced), and most were unemployed or had ‘‘unstable’’ (not defined) positions. Some 60% of the obsessional followers had previous psychiatric treatment, and 85% had a diagnosable Axis I disorder (i.e., schizophrenia, mood disorder, substance abuse or dependence, adjustment disorder, erotomania, paraphilia, or other) at the time of the forensic evaluation. The authors also reported that 85% met criteria for an Axis II personality disorder at the time of evaluation. Some descriptive information regarding the obsessional followers’ stalking behavior was provided. Eleven of the 20 obsessional followers had targeted former romantic partners, and 9 had pursued a stranger. Twelve went to the target’s home, 8 had telephoned, and 5 wrote letters. The authors also stated that 9 of the obsessional followers had ‘‘stalked’’ (p. 260) their victims (meaning that they had been criminally charged with stalking as defined by the California Criminal Code; J. R. Meloy, personal communication, February, 1997). When possible, the total duration of the obsessional following was assessed as well, with most participants (7) engaging in 10 or more incidents over a period of less than a year. Fourteen of the obsessional followers verbally threatened their target; however, the 2 that did physically assault their targets had not made verbal threats previously. This counterintuitive finding was consistent with Dietz, Matthews, Martell, et al. (1991) and with Dietz, Matthews, Van Duyne, et al. (1991), who found that threats were not positively associated with approaching the target. When comparative analyses were made between the obsessional followers and the other group of offenders, the obsessional followers were found to be significantly older, better educated, and more intelligent (according to IQ scores). No differences in the prevalence of Axis I disorders were found between the two groups, although schizophrenia was determined to be significantly less common in the obsessional follower group; one obsessional follower fit this diagnosis compared with 10 of the other offenders. Two of the obsessional followers were diagnosed with antisocial personality, compared with eight of the other offenders; this difference was statistically significant. This effort by Meloy and Gothard (1995) confirmed previous impressions that stalkers in offender populations suffer from psychiatric illness. However, no one diagnosis was shown to be particular to those who engage in stalking behavior. Both a schizophrenic and an erotomanic may engage in similar stalking behavior to fulfill a particular delusion—so may an irate ex-husband. Stalking behaviors are multivarious even among those with the same mental disorder. Knowing that a stalker has bipolar disorder or suffers from a personality disorder does not lead to a better understanding of his or her stalking behavior (which is, after all, the immediate problem as far as the target is concerned). Again, results of this study demonstrate the need to focus on illuminating the causal relationships (rather than associated characteristics) involved in stalking behavior. Harmon et al. (1995). In this retrospective archival study, Harmon, Rosner, and Owens examined 48 ‘‘obsessional harassers’’ (p. 188). To explain how their sample was selected, the authors stated only that they ‘‘exhibited the type of repetitive behavior patterns with which this study is concerned’’ (p. 188). Although in some cases behaviors were described (e.g., phone calls, letter writing), in others the authors reported simply that the participant ‘‘harassed’’ the target (p. 190). All 48 participants had been court referred to their forensic clinic between January 1987 and January 1994. Recognizing the diversity of stalking behavior, Harmon, Rosner, and Owens separated

264

D. Westrup and W. J. Fremouw

their 48 participants according to two axes. They referred to the first of these as the ‘‘type of attachment’’ (p. 189) between stalker and target. They considered two attachment types: (a) affectionate/amorous and (b) persecutory/angry. This distinction is an indirect but important first attempt to study the function of a stalker’s behavior empirically, a concept discussed in the last section of this article. The second axis was based on whether or not a prior relationship existed between the stalker and target. Six subgroups were created: (a) personal, meaning that a romantic or ‘‘other personal attachment’’ (p. 190) had existed between the participant and target; (b) professional, indicating that the participant had at one time used the professional services of the target; (c) employment, in which the participant was the employee or the employer of the target; (d) media, meaning that the target was a well-known public figure; (e) acquaintance, a situation where the participant and target knew each other only casually; and (f) none, in which no connection between the participant and target could be made. Unfortunately, the distinctions between the various just-listed relationships were unclear. For example, it was not clear how a professional relationship between the participant and target differed from the ‘‘acquaintance’’ category. The authors did not provide a rationale for the just-noted classification system. Therefore, the generalizability of their findings to other stalking situations (their ‘‘external validity’’) is not readily apparent. Analyses were made between the two groups based on the first axis (i.e., attachment type). No significant differences between the affectionate/amorous and the persecutory/angry participants were noted in sex, age, criminal charges, or education level. In fact, the only statistically significant difference was that there were more single participants in the affectionate/ amorous group. The analyses may have been confounded by the fact that the emotions stalkers entertained toward their targets often changed over time. It was not uncommon for a pursuit that began in affection to become vindictive as the stalker was repeatedly rebuffed (De Becker, 1994; Mullen & Pathe´, 1994b; National Institute of Justice Association, 1993). Harmon et al. (1995) reported that no statistical differences based on the second axis (i.e., the six classes of prior relationships) were found. The group of 48 obsessional followers was also compared with all the other cases (N 5 915) that had been referred to the Forensic Psychiatry Clinic during 1993. Although no statistical analyses were performed, the authors reported that obsessional followers were older than the clinic population (mean ages were 40 and 31 years, respectively) and were better educated, with 80% (vs. 30%) having graduated from high school. Forty percent held college degrees (compared with just 6% of the nonstalking cohort). There was also a higher proportion of female participants in the stalking group than in the other clinic population, and more of the stalkers were White (two thirds were White compared with 12% of the clinic population). Whether or not these observed differences were significant enough to be meaningful (as opposed to being merely due to chance) is not clear due to the absence of statistical procedures. Fremouw et al. (1996). To examine prevalence of stalkers and victims of stalking behavior among college students, Fremouw et al. (1996) administered a survey to 294 college undergraduates (165 women, 129 men). The survey was made up of stalking behaviors described in the existing literature (e.g., following, threatening, conducting surveillance) and asked the students whether they had ever been either the recipient or enactor of such behaviors. If they had been the targets of stalking behavior, the students were asked to identify the strategies they used to deter the stalker. When asked the literal question of whether they had ever been stalked (and whether they had stalked someone), defined according to West Virginia law as ‘‘having someone knowingly and repeatedly following, harassing, or threatening you’’ (West Virginia Code, 1995)

Stalking Behavior

265

a surprising 27% of the women and 19% of the men indicated they had been stalked. Only three students admitted to having stalked someone. To replicate these results, the survey was readministered to 299 additional participants, of whom 153 were women and 146 were men. The findings were strikingly similar, with 18% of the men and 35% of the women reporting being victims of stalking. Overall, 30% of the total female sample and 17% of the total male sample indicated they had been stalked. Responding to additional survey questions, the participants indicated that approximately 80% of them knew their stalker. In fact, 52% of the women and 37% of the men who had been stalked had seriously dated the individual. Only one participant was stalked by someone of the same sex. The finding that most of these participants were stalked by former intimates supports previous assertions that most stalking incidents involve this dynamic (Mullen & Pathe´, 1994b; National Institute of Justice Association, 1993). Results also illustrate the social stigma attached to stalking behavior. Given that approximately 30% of the participants reported being stalked by someone with whom they had been romantically involved (someone who most likely is a cohort), and yet only 1% admitted to stalking someone else, the undesirability of having engaged in this behavior seems clear. The participants dealt with being stalked in numerous ways (i.e., changing their phone number, changing their schedule, moving). Women were most likely to ignore the stalker, whereas men were more likely to attempt a confrontation. An obvious limitation of this study was its sample, as college undergraduates are not representative of the community at large. This shortcoming is perhaps partially offset by the fact that this is the only nonforensic sample in the literature. The information was gained via self-report, leading to concerns over exactly how the legal definition of stalking behavior was being interpreted. The survey did not examine what ‘‘repeated following, harassing or threatening behavior’’ meant to each participant who responded positively. However, the participants’ overall responses to the survey (i.e., whether they confirmed or denied experiencing specific stalking behaviors) as well as additional written comments volunteered on their response sheets suggest that this population does indeed experience stalking behavior. The provocative results of this exploratory effort indicate the need for additional research on stalking behavior within this student population as well as within the general community. Meloy (1996a). Meloy provided a review of 10 studies of ‘‘obsessional following’’ published from 1978 to 1995. Two criteria were used to select studies for review: (a) The participants were obsessional followers (defined as someone who ‘‘engages in an abnormal or long term pattern of threat or harassment directed toward a specific individual,’’ p. 2), and (b) the participants were criminally charged due to their obsessional following. Six studies that Meloy included were excluded from the present review because they entailed small sample size case reports (i.e., ranging from 1 to 7 participants) that focused on erotomania (rather than on stalking behavior per se). Meloy grouped and summarized the obessional followers (n 5 180) in an effort to unearth common demographic and psychiatric characteristics. Although the sample was heterogeneous, the data indicated that (a) a stalker is likely to be male, single, and in his mid-30s; (b) he likely suffers from both Axis I and Axis II disorders; (c) he will have repeatedly attempted to contact his victim over a period of several years; and (d) despite having threatened her, he will probably not attempt a physical assault. Although Meloy (1996) distilled much from the available data, grouping the existing research in this way does not reconcile the fundamental sampling, analytical, and definitional difficulties discussed in this review. Interpretation of the reported findings is restricted by these difficulties. Although Meloy’s review was thorough and his intention admirable, who stalks and who is likely to be stalked (and why) remains in question.

266

D. Westrup and W. J. Fremouw

Romans, Hays, and White (1996). To assess the incidence of counselors who have experienced stalking behavior by their current or former clients, Romans et al. (1996) sent a stalking survey to 41 university counseling centers in the United States. Stalking was defined as ‘‘willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly following or harassing another person and making a credible threat,’’ and harassing was defined as a ‘‘willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which seriously alarms or annoys the person’’ (p. 596). Out of 178 counseling staff members who responded to the survey, 10 (5.6%) reported that they had been stalked by a current or former client. Five of the stalkers were female, and three were male (the gender of two was not identified). The age range was from 17 to 40 years. Six stalkers were described as having Axis II personality disorder symptoms. All 10 reported negative effects from being stalked, including lost time from work, financial loss, and stress or worry. These results cannot be fully assessed without knowing what the authors meant by the ‘‘credible threat’’ component included in their definition of stalking (p. 596). Stalking statutes differ from state to state in terms of how threatening behavior is defined. For example, some states require that the stalker make a verbal threat against the target. Others require a verbal threat and behavior that furthers the threat. Most states (33) require only that a ‘‘reasonable’’ person feels threatened, even if no actual verbal threat has been made (National Institute of Justice Association, 1993, p. 13). In the present study, a large number (111, or 63%) of counseling staff members indicated they had experienced ‘‘stalking-related events’’ (p. 597). It is important to know on what basis (i.e., absence of a credible threat, isolated vs. repeated incidents) these individuals were not considered to have experienced stalking in order to interpret these results fully. In addition, the authors stated that 1 of the 10 stalking targets had been stalked three times, without clarifying whether this meant stalked by three different clients or that there were three series of stalking behavior (because stalking is a repetitive behavior by definition, it is assumed that the authors did not mean three events or incidents). Nonetheless, this survey did explore the incidence of stalking behavior in a population (i.e., university counselors) that, given the established comorbidity of stalking behavior and other clinical disorders (Meloy, 1996a, 1996b; Meloy & Gothard, 1995), is likely to be exposed to stalkers. An important point that was highlighted by this survey was that, although 63% of the counseling staff members had experienced some form of stalking-like behaviors, 60% had received no formal training as to how to address such situations. As pointed out by the authors, such training is necessary and attainable.

Antistalking Efforts by Other Organizations National Institute of Justice Association (1993). The National Institute of Justice created the ‘‘Model Anti-Stalking Code for States’’ in response to a 1993 directive by Congress to develop ‘‘constitutional and enforceable’’ antistalking legislation (p. 43). A comprehensive survey on existing stalking policies was distributed to over 400 police chiefs (70% of which responded) from the largest local, county, and state police agencies. The data gathered were extensive and will not be reported in full. The respondents reported that most stalkers were former intimates and that the total population was diverse, including coworkers, neighbors, and strangers. The respondents indicated that the most frequent stalking behaviors were following, verbal threats, letter writing, vandalism, appearing at the workplace, phone calls and, physical assaults. This document included suggestions for further development and study, stressing the need for a multidisciplinary effort between law enforcement agencies and the mental health community. The authors stated the need for more specific information on actual stalking behaviors, including stalkers’ behavioral histories and the environmental factors that contribute to

Stalking Behavior

267

their actions. It was also suggested that stalking statutes require psychiatric evaluation and counseling as part of sentencing, as untreated individuals with psychiatric disorders often worsen while incarcerated (Although it was not mentioned, it is reasonable to propose that incarcerated stalkers without a psychiatric diagnosis would also be unlikely to improve without treatment of their stalking behavior.) Along with providing comprehensive information on the status of antistalking policy, this carefully constructed and thoughtful document represents the concerns and issues encountered by police and professionals charged with resolving stalking situations. Stalking researchers would do well to study it carefully in order to understand fully the nature of the stalking problem and to help determine where their contributions are most needed. Gavin De Becker, Inc. This private security consulting firm headed by Gavin De Becker provides guidance and intervention strategies for public figures who are being ‘‘pursued’’ (De Becker, 1994, p. 1), and it assists organizations such as the TMU of the Los Angeles Police Department, the Secret Service, and several Fortune 500 companies with threat assessment. Since its inception in 1979, the agency has gathered more than 350,000 pieces of data on 18,000 individuals who pursue others. During the course of his work with stalkers and those they target, De Becker developed Mosaic, a computer software program for use by organizations (e.g., the Los Angeles TMU) that encounter numerous stalking incidents and need to determine whether a particular situation requires further attention. The user enters information regarding the current situation (e.g., Does the participant own a weapon? or Is he or she violent?), thus creating a template that is electronically compared with other cases from a vast data base of previous stalking incidents. The end product is an overall evaluation of how similar a particular stalking case is to others that have escalated. The Mosaic system provides consistency in how stalking cases are handled. Regardless of their level of expertise, users are able to assess stalking situations thoroughly, thereby facilitating communication with other professionals and concerned parties. Unfortunately, because no research has been conducted regarding its validity (i.e., concurrent, discriminant, predictive), it cannot actually predict whether a case will or will not escalate. The ultimate decision whether or not to intervene in a given case remains a judgment call.

RESEARCH SUMMARY To summarize the studies included in the previous review, three were purely descriptive of certain stalkers and stalking behavior (Fremouw et al. 1996; Mullen & Pathe´, 1994; Romans et al., 1996). Five described the relationship between stalkers and/or stalking behavior and some other variable such as the presence of a psychiatric illness or approach behavior (Harmon et al., 1995; Meloy & Gothard, 1995; Zona et al., 1993). Two studies were correlational (Dietz, Matthews, Martell et al., 1991; Dietz, Matthews, Van Duyne et al., 1991), and they examined the relationship between certain letter characteristics and approach behavior. Meloy (1996a) provided a review of 10 studies of stalking behavior and summarized the aggregate data. As examples of serious nonclinical work, the National Institute of Justice Association (1993) gathered extensive information on stalking policy, and Gavin De Becker, Inc., compiled a large data base and developed a between-cases comparison system. These efforts have been reviewed with particular attention to how well they contribute to the prediction and control of stalking behavior—A brief summation of the progress made in these areas is presented next.

268

D. Westrup and W. J. Fremouw

Predicting Stalking Behavior Accurate prediction of stalking behavior entails knowing who is going to stalk and when. Attempts to identify distinctive characteristics of stalkers have instead illustrated that the population is far from homogenous. The following features of stalkers (in offender populations) have been suggested: 1. Stalkers are likely to have either an Axis I or an Axis II mental disorder (or both) and/ or a prior history of mental illness (Harmon et al., 1995; Meloy & Gothard, 1995; Zona et al., 1993). Erotomania is rarely present in its pure form, leaving open to interpretation whether the delusional thinking (and subsequent stalking behavior) is due to this subtype of delusional disorder or to a more primary diagnosis (Harmon et al., 1995; Meloy & Gothard, 1995; Mullen & Pathe´, 1994b; Zona et al., 1993). 2. Although many women engage in stalking behavior, most stalkers are men (Harmon et al., 1995; Meloy & Gothard, 1995; Mullen & Pathe´, 1994; Zona at al., 1993). 3. Most stalkers are single, and many have never been married (Harmon et al., 1995; Meloy & Gothard, 1995; Zona et al., 1993). 4. Stalkers in offender populations are typically older than other offenders; their average age ranges from 35 (Meloy & Gothard, 1995; Zona et al., 1993) to 40 years (Harmon et al., 1995; Mullen & Pathe´, 1994b). 5. Stalkers are better educated (Harmon et al., 1995) and more intelligent (Meloy & Gothard, 1995) than other offenders. No causal factors of stalking behavior have been empirically investigated, which precludes understanding the behavior at this time.

Controlling Stalking Behavior To those who must deal with an actual stalking situation, the compelling question is how to make the behavior stop. To date, however, no systematic efforts to assess intervention outcome (either in terms of treatment or legal sanctions) have been attempted. Policy makers and the law enforcement community acknowledge that legal sanctions are often ineffective and unenforceable (Morin, 1993; National Institute of Justice Association, 1993; Perez, 1993). Other experts have observed that legal action can actually exacerbate the situation (De Becker, 1994). Although there is some reported success in treating stalkers with antipsychotic medication and cognitive therapy (Mullen & Pathe´, 1994a, 1994b; Taylor, Mahendra, & Gunn, 1983), most clinicians report poor prognoses. Given the apprehension over stalking behavior and its harmful effects, the current state of affairs is unacceptable, providing all the more reason to consider a new approach to the problem.

Difficulties in Researching Stalking Inconsistencies in terminology and various classification difficulties appeared consistently throughout the literature. All of the studies but two (Fremouw et al., 1996; Romans et al., 1996) involved forensic populations, which limits generalization to the majority of stalking situations. None of the studies focused specifically on stalkers who target former romantic partners. This represents an unfortunate omission, as this population is thought to make up the largest number of stalkers (Fremouw et al., 1996; Mullen & Pathe´, 1994b; National Institute of Justice Association, 1993). None of the studies focused on stalking behavior (as opposed to stalkers) in adequate detail. It must be acknowledged, however, that it is comparatively easy to critique the efforts of

Stalking Behavior

269

others, having the benefit of hindsight and being armed with guidelines, texts, and diatribes as to what ideally constitutes good research. Those who make the first attempts to shed light on a previously murky area have the far more difficult task. Stalking behavior is complex, often secretive in nature, and is currently so denigrated that stalkers are understandably reluctant to present themselves for treatment or study (Fremouw et al., 1996). In fact, it is the appreciation of the daunting nature of the task that fuels this proposal for the following assessment strategy. A Functional Analytic Approach to Stalking Behavior This section proposes utilizing functional analyses when assessing stalking behavior. As the term implies, a functional analytic approach emphasizes the function served by a given behavior. In contrast, the existing literature on stalking behavior has focused on describing various characteristics of stalkers and some stalking behaviors, not the purpose(s) served by the behavior. Our comprehension of stalking behavior has not been appreciably increased from these efforts. It is proposed that a functional analytic approach will generate different information that in turn may improve our understanding of this problem behavior. A functional analysis views behavior in terms of the context in which it occurs. In this sense, behavior is assumed to be purposeful because it is affected both by preceding environmental events and by environmental consequences that follow. Behaviors tend to repeat and escalate when they are successful (i.e., they are rewarded in some way) and when they occur in contexts similar to those where the behavior was successful in the past (Skinner, 1953). Likewise, stalking behavior is purposeful or has a function (no matter how illogical), and it occurs or escalates under some conditions and not under others. This functional analytic account is simply another way to state what has already been found by experts who have contended with stalking behavior—that the relevance of the situation in which it occurs is inescapable (De Becker, 1994; Fein & Vossekuil, 1996; Fein, Vossekuil, & Holden, 1995; National Institute of Justice Association, 1993). A fundamental tenet of the functional analytic approach is that when a behavior’s function is determined, so are the factors that maintain the behavior (Nelson & Hayes, 1986). Additionally, identification of these factors is instructive as to where intervention should be directed (Carr, 1994; Horner, 1994; Mace, 1994). Functional analyses have been used with success in assessing and treating a variety of problematic behaviors from self-injurious behavior to depression (Carr, 1994; Ferster, 1973), and stalking behavior can benefit from this technology as well. It is therefore posited that applying the technology of functional analysis to stalking behavior will help (a) identify what conditions promote and maintain an individual’s stalking behavior (i.e., the behavior’s controlling variables) and (b) determine effective intervention. It is also proposed that consistent and widespread use of functional analyses when assessing stalking behavior will provide direction for future research by better elucidating the controlling factors in stalking behavior. In other words, applying functional analyses to stalking behavior will help gather the information necessary for its prediction and control.

Functional Analyses and the Identification of Controlling Variables A functional analysis hinges on gathering detailed information about the given behavior and the context in which it occurs. A common heuristic for collecting this data is provided by the acronym, ABC. That is to say, the antecedents to the behavior, the behavior itself, and the consequences must be carefully specified. Because the presenting difficulty in a stalking situation is the action directed toward the target, specification of the actual stalking behavior

270

D. Westrup and W. J. Fremouw

FIGURE 1. Illustration of functional relations among antecedent stimuli, responses, and maintaining consequences as demonstrated by a functional analysis. From Advanced Abnormal Psychology (p. 498), by K. T. Larkin and J. L. Edens, 1994, New York: Plenum Press. Copyright 1994 by Plenum Press. Adapted with permission.

is a logical place to begin. The following aspects should be considered: its topography (i.e., how the action is performed, what it looks like), frequency, duration, and intensity. It is also important to learn the history of the behavior (e.g., when it first occurred, whether it has increased or decreased). A functional analysis also determines antecedents or environmental conditions that immediately precede a given stalking behavior. The consequences that follow the behavior determine whether or not a particular antecedent will become a controlling variable. If an antecedent stimulus precedes a behavior that is rewarded, that antecedent then signifies an occasion where future behavior may be reinforced (for an example of a functional relation, see Skinner, 1953, p. 26). The future presence of this antecedent thus increases the likelihood that the behavior will be repeated. Figure 1 illustrates the functional relations described earlier. Imagine that a functional analysis of a stalker who repeatedly telephoned his target determined that he typically telephoned from 5:00 to 7:00 in the evening. It was also found that the act of picking up the telephone receiver was precipitated by wondering what the target was doing at that point in time. Further, the functional analysis determined that such thoughts arose while the stalker prepared his evening meal and that once the thoughts began he experienced increasing unease and excitement, feelings and sensations alleviated only by the sound of the target’s voice on the other end of the line. In this example, a particular setting, fixing dinner, sets the occasion for thoughts and feelings that then serve as antecedents to the telephoning (i.e., fixing a meal, thoughts about the target, uncomfortable physical sensations and feelings). What the stalker gains from calling (also revealed by the functional analysis) apparently reinforces the behavior, so that when he again experiences these antecedents he is likely to call again. To complete the functional analysis, the function of the stalking behavior is determined by identifying its consequences. It is useful to keep in mind that the function of any given behavior can be reduced to two basic processes: It allows one to escape and avoid something

Stalking Behavior

271

or to gain something (O’Neil, Horner, Albin, Storey, & Sprague, 1990; Skinner, 1953). For example, engaging in stalking behavior may allow the stalker to escape or avoid uncomfortable feelings associated with loss or loneliness (i.e., it is negatively reinforced), or the target’s response may evoke a sense of power in the stalker or provide a source of attention (i.e., it is positively reinforced). It is possible that both functions are served by a given stalking behavior; that is to say, the stalking behavior is being multiply maintained (Carr, 1994; Day, Horner, & O’Neill, 1994; Iwata, Dorsey, Slifer, Bauman, & Richman, 1982). Because stalking behavior refers to a class of behaviors, a stalker may also cease one stalking behavior only to resume another that is functionally equivalent (i.e., serves the same purpose). Hence, functional analysis must be ongoing for each problematical behavior, even as interventions are underway. There are many ways to gather the previously described information. It is likely that most of the information regarding stalking behavior will come from interviews with targets of the behavior, witnesses of the behavior (e.g., law enforcers, significant others), and stalkers themselves. Even though individuals who engage in stalking behavior are unlikely to present themselves voluntarily for treatment of this behavior (Fremouw et al., 1996), it is likely, given the high rate of comorbid diagnoses reported in the stalking literature, that stalkers are seen clinically but for other, more familiar disorders (i.e., schizophrenia). Additionally, those who stalk former intimates may actually be in treatment for relationship or marriage difficulties. It is possible, therefore, that clinical access to stalking behavior is more common than presently believed. It is important that clinicians be aware of this possibility, because the identification and subsequent treatment of the behavior rest on the ability to recognize it.

Functional Analysis and Intervention Once a behavior’s controlling variables are identified, they can then be targeted for effective treatment (Nelson & Hayes, 1986). Given the complexity of stalking behavior, it is unlikely that any one factor will stand out as the only contributor (Ferster, 1973; Haynes, 1986). Deciding what controlling variable(s) to target is thus an important part of the intervention process and is greatly aided by functional analysis. Hawkins (1986) provided a thorough discussion on how to best determine the appropriate focal point for intervention. Considerations such as the degree to which a particular variable affects the stalking behavior, how amenable the variable is to change, and its potential position in a chain of related behaviors must be considered. A particular variable can influence a group of related behaviors; this ‘‘keystone’’ behavior may accordingly merit attention (Nelson & Hayes, 1986, p. 32). For example, the delusional belief that a relationship exists between the stalker and target may be the pivoting point for an entire constellation of behaviors, in which case intervention may be best directed there. Intervention may involve clinically treating the stalker, or it may be directed toward the target of the behavior. De Becker (1994) noted that altering the target’s behavior is sometimes more effective than attempting to change the stalker’s. In such instances, he has determined what responses from the target reinforce the stalker and has altered them so that they no longer do so. A functional analysis of a particular stalking situation could determine that effective intervention would best be directed toward the target’s responses that are rewarding the stalking behavior. Many unreported stalking incidents are most likely handled effectively by targets who perceive what responses encourage the stalker and change their behavior accordingly. A finding that lends support to this hypothesis is that many incidents of stalking behavior that did not escalate to legal action were handled by targets who ignored their stalker (Fremouw et al., 1996). Another possibility is that naturally occurring environmental variables, such as the stalker meeting someone else or acquiring a new job, affect the entire

272

D. Westrup and W. J. Fremouw

context; the stalker is now provided with other means of reinforcement, or perhaps more appropriate behavior is being reinforced. Intervention with stalking behavior is at a fledgling state. Consequently, very little is known regarding what techniques are effective in what circumstances. Performing a functional analysis provides an immediate avenue for intervention in the individual case. The functional analytic approach can also contribute to efforts to understand the behavior from a larger perspective.

Functional Analysis and Research Stalking research thus far has followed a course typical of the educative process described by Scotti, Morris, McNeil, and Hawkins (in press). A problem was recognized and labeled as stalking after observations of certain unwelcome behaviors (e.g., telephoning, following) with common features (e.g., repetitive, threatening) accumulated. Descriptions of these observations followed, as seen in case reports and the group descriptive studies cited in the previous literature review. Next (or simultaneously), potential classification schemes were proposed that attempted to sort out and organize stalkers based on some criterion. Ideally, the created taxonomy promotes the development of theory and testable hypotheses. Because of the heterogeneous nature of the stalking population, however, distinct features have not arisen for the most part. If there are typical conditions that elicit stalking behaviors, the consistent and detailed information accumulated through the widespread use of functional analyses should eventually illuminate patterns of purposeful behavior. (If the behavior is random, or nonpurposeful, then no amount of study will benefit us!) These patterns should in turn broaden the field of scientific inquiry and, it is hoped, lead to increased understanding of this phenomenon. In fact, functional analyses may lend support to some of the theories regarding stalking behavior that have already been suggested. The supposition that stalkers engage in stalking behavior due to social isolation is such an example. It has been suggested that, as a type of selfmedication, a delusional stalker may irrationally believe he or she is in a relationship with the target in order to rectify unbearable loneliness (Meloy, 1996b; Meloy & Gothard, 1995). Another possibility is that the stalking behavior is one manifestation of a maladaptive social behavior repertoire. Such individuals are unlikely to enjoy a mature relationship. Both possibilities emphasize the function the stalking behavior is serving—a question best addressed with functional analysis. CONCLUSION This article has reviewed the literature on stalking behavior from the pragmatic perspective of whether the ability to predict and control this problem behavior has been increased. The previous efforts have fallen short of this goal, due in part to the nature of the task as well as to the approaches taken. Given the concern generated by this problem and the limited state of current intervention efforts, it is arguably wise at this point to postpone nomothetic approaches in favor of gathering badly needed detailed and functional information on stalking behaviors. The functional analysis has been proposed as a means to gather information that will guide intervention with not only stalkers but with targets as well. The clinician would be provided with details as to when and why an individual is stalking, subsequently learning what might help him or her to stop. Information would also be gained as to how the targeted individual may best respond to being stalked, which would be of interest to anyone who must contend with stalking situations. It is possible that patterns of behavior will eventually emerge that

Stalking Behavior

273

lead to productive research. It may be found, for example, that individuals who respond to relationship dissolution in a particular manner may be more likely to stalk their former partner. Discovery of such a behavioral pattern would guide subsequent research, even leading to preventive treatment. This example is only one hypothesized outcome of the information potentially garnered by functional analyses of stalking behavior; the real benefits of this assessment technology remain to be seen. It is hoped that clinicians and other involved professionals will utilize this powerful analytic tool when assessing stalking behaviors.

REFERENCES American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, S. (1993). Anti-stalking laws: Will they curb the erotomanic’s obsessive pursuit? Law and Psychology Review, 17, 171–191. Barrett, B. H., Johnston, J. M., & Pennypacker, H. S. (1986). Behavior: Its units, dimensions, and measurement. In R. O. Nelson & S. C. Hayes (Eds.), Conceptual foundations of behavioral assessment (pp. 1–41). New York: Guilford. Carr, E. G. (1994). Emerging themes in the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 393–399. Day, H. M., Horner, R. H., & O’Neill, R. E. (1994). Multiple functions of problem behaviors: Assessment and intervention. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 279–289. De Becker, G. (1994, March). Intervention decisions: The value of flexibility. Paper presented at the CIA threat management conference, Washington, DC. DeVinne, P. B., et al. (Eds.). (1982). The American heritage dictionary. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Dietz, P. E., Matthews, D. B., Martell, D. A., Stewart, T. M., Hrouda, D. R., & Warren, J. (1991). Threatening and otherwise inappropriate letters to members of the United States Congress. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36, 1145– 1468. Dietz, P. E., Matthews, D. B., Van Duyne, C., Martell, D. A., Parry, C. D., Stewart, T., Warren, J., & Crowder, J. D. (1991). Threatening and otherwise inappropriate letters to Hollywood celebrities. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36, 185–209. Ellis, P., & Mellsop, G. (1985). De Cle´rambault’s syndrome—A nosological entity? British Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 90–95. Evans, D. L., Jeckel, L., & Slott, N. E. (1982). Erotomania: A variant of pathological mourning. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 46, 507–520. Fein, R. A., & Vossekuil, B. (1996). Stalking behaviors: An introduction to what is known. Unpublished manuscript. Fein, R. A., Vossekuil, B., & Holden, G. A. (1995, September). Threat assessment: An approach to prevent targeted violence. [National Institute of Justice: Research in Action, 1–7]. (Available from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Association of Justice, Washington, DC 20531). Ferster, C. B. (1973). A functional analysis of depression. American Psychologist, 28, 857–867. Fremouw, B., Westrup, D., & Pennypacker, J. (1996). Stalking on campus: The prevalence and strategies for coping with stalking. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42, 666–669. Goldstein, R. L. (1987). More forensic romances: De Cle´rambault’s syndrome in men. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 15, 267–274. Harmon, R. B., Rosner, R., & Owens, H. (1995). Obsessional harassment and erotomania in a criminal court population. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 40, 188–196. Hawkins, R. P. (1986). Selection of target behaviors. In R. O. Nelson & S. C. Hayes (Eds.), Conceptual foundations of behavioral assessment (pp. 1–41). New York: Guilford. Haynes, S. N. (1986). The design of intervention programs. In R. O. Nelson & S. C. Hayes (Eds.), Conceptual foundations of behavioral assessment (pp. 1–41). New York: Guilford. Hollender, M. H., & Callahan, A. S. (1975). Erotomania or Cle´rambault syndrome. Archives of General Psychiatry, 32, 1574–1576. Horner, R. H. (1994). Functional assessment: Contributions and future directions. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 401–404. Iwata, B. A., Dorsey, M. F., Slifer, K. J., Bauman, K. E., & Richman, G. S. (1982). Toward a functional analysis of self-injury. Analysis and Intervention in Developmental Disabilities, 2, 197–209. Larkin, K. T., & Edens, J. L. (1994). Behavior therapy. In V. B. Van Hasselt & M. Hersen (Eds.), Advanced abnormal psychology (pp. 497–512). New York: Plenum.

274

D. Westrup and W. J. Fremouw

Leong, G. B. (1993). De Cle´rambault syndrome (erotomania) in the criminal justice system: Another look at this recurring problem. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 39, 378–385. Leong, G. B., & Silva, J. A. (1992). The physician as erotomanic object. Western Journal of Medicine, 156, 77– 78. Mace, F. C. (1994). The significance and future of functional assessment methodologies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 385–392. Meloy, J. R. (1996a). Stalking (obsessional following): A review of some preliminary studies. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 1, 147–162. Meloy, J. R. (1996b). Unrequited love and the wish to kill. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 53, 477–492. Meloy, J. R., & Gothard, S. (1995). Demographic and clinical comparison of obsessional followers and offenders with mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 258–263. Morin, K. (1993). The phenomenon of stalking: Do existing state statutes provide adequate protection? San Diego Justice Journal, 1, 123–162. Mullen, P. E., & Pathe´, M. (1994a). The pathological extensions of love. British Journal of Psychiatry, 165, 614– 623. Mullen, P. E., & Pathe´, M. (1994b). Stalking and the pathologies of love. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 28, 469–477. National Institute of Justice Association. (1993). Project to develop a model anti-stalking code for states. Washington, DC: Author. Nelson, R. O., & Hayes, S. C. (1986). The nature of behavioral assessment. In R. O. Nelson & S. C. Hayes (Eds.), Conceptual foundations of behavioral assessment (pp. 1–41). New York: Guilford. Neufeldt, V. et al. (Eds.). (1988). Webster’s new world dictionary. New York: Simon & Schuster. O’Neil, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., & Sprague, J. R. (1990). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A practical assessment guide. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Publishing. Perez, C. (1993). Stalking: When does obsession become a crime? American Journal of Criminal Law, 20, 263– 280. Romans, J. S. C., Hays, J. R., & White, T. K. (1996). Stalking and related behaviors experienced by counseling center staff members from current or former clients. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27, 595– 599. Rudden, M., Sweeney, J., & Frances, A. (1990). Diagnosis and clinical course of erotomanic and other delusional patients. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 625–628. Scotti, J. R., Morris, T. L., McNeil, C. B., & Hawkins, R. P. (in press). DSM-IV and disorders of childhood and adolescence: Can structural criteria be functional? Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. Seeman, M. V. (1978). Delusional loving. Archives of General Psychiatry, 35, 1265–1267. Segal, J. H. (1989). Erotomania revisited: From Kraepelin to DSM-III-R. American Journal of Psychiatry, 146, 1261–1266. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: The Free Press. Taylor, P., Mahendra, B., & Gunn, J. (1983). Erotomania in males. Psychological Medicine, 13, 645–650. Ullman, L. P., & Krasner, L. (1969). A psychological approach to abnormal behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. West Virginia Code. (1995). 62-2-9. Zona, M. A., Sharma, K. K., & Lane, J. (1993). A comparative study of erotomanic and obsessional subjects in a forensic sample. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38, 894–903.