Descriptive meta-analysis based on 240 studies, representing 265,000 cases/persons

STUDIEDAGWANNEER LIEFDE UITMONDT IN EEN GEVECHT…DETERMINANTEN, SCREENING & INTERDISCIPLINAIRE AANPAK

Faculteit Rechtsgeleerdheid Zeger van Hee - Tiensestraat 41 - 3000 LeuvenDinsdag 2 juni 2009

1/1

• Descriptive meta-analysis based on 240 studies, representing 265,000 cases/persons

Meta-Analysis:

“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 2

1/1

• Descriptive meta-analysis based on 247 studies, representing 265,000 cases/persons

The State of the Art of StalkingAnd Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory

Brian H. Spitzberg, Ph.D., School of CommunicationSan Diego State University


1/1

Stalking Versus ORI: Stalking: An unwanted and fear-inducing [intentional]

pattern of intrusions or communication imposed on another (Mullen et al., 2000)

Obsessive Relational Intrusion: Unwanted pursuit of intimacy through repeated intrusions of privacy (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2001, 2002)

INTIMATE

RELATIONSHIPS

ORI

STALKING

IPVStalking need not seek intimacy

ORI need not cause fear or threat


1/1

META-ANALYSIS Clinical/Forensic SD

General Population SD

College Samples SD

%SAMPLE STALKED*** 35 32 29 25 25 28

%FEMALE VICTIMS** 57 29 39 23 29 29

%MALE VICTIMS 19 14 10 15 16 13

%THREAT USE** 51 51 37 21 27 16

%PHYSICAL VIOLENCE ** 41 54 29 16 22 25

%SEXUAL VIOLENCE 12 27 9 11 13 8

DURATION (Mos.) 17 21 14 8 4 3

%KNOWN TO VICTIM 85 55 79 22 79 19

%MALE PERPETRATOR* 80 52 73 12 61 19

Stalking Prevalence:


1/1

Cyber-Stalking Prevalence:


All Stalking HarassmentAny cyber-stalking or monitoring

• Cyber-stalking 26.6% 26.1% 27.4%• Electronic monitoring 23.4 21.5 26.4

% of cyber-stalking involving: a

• E-mail 82.6% 82.5% 82.7%• Instant messaging 28.7 35.1 20.7• Blogs or bulletin boards 12.5 12.3 12.8• Internet sites re: victim 8.8 9.4 8.1• Chat rooms 4.0 4.4 3.4

% of monitoring involving: b

• Computer spyware 44.1% 33.6% 81.0%• Video/digital cameras 40.3 46.3 19.3• Listening devices 35.8 41.8 14.8• GPS 9.7 10.9 5.2

1/1

• Females are 78% of victims (n=82);• Males are 76% of pursuers (n=72).• Perhaps males are…?:

Pigs?

less fearful of stalking,

less likely to define stalking as stalking,

more embarrassed to report,

more pursuer, & females more ‘gatekeeper’

Sex Differences:

(Bjerregaard, ’00; Cupach & Spitzberg, ‘00; Davis et al., 2002; Sinclair & Frieze, ’00; Tjaden & Thoennes, ’00; Tjaden et al., ’00)


1/1

Sex Differences:A meta-analysis of 25 college samples (n > 7,000) mostly SDSU college students, found:

•Females find ORI more threatening than males do;

•Females find male pursuers as more threatening than males find female pursuers;

•Pursuers report perpetrating “unwanted pursuit” on females more than on males;

•But female victims do not report more ORI or self-labeled “stalking” than males victims report;

•And females and males do not differ in self-attributions of having engaged in “stalking”


1/1

Interactional ProfileIntimacy ‘Normal’ ORI/StalkingDimension Relationships Relationships

Self- Disclosure

Cautiously progressive

Unregulated &Unreciprocated‘torrent’

Liking & Loving

Displays caring &empathy consistentwith stage

Excess gifts, notes,calls, tokens, & professions of love

Expressions of Commitment

Mutual negotiationof exclusivity

Early & unilateral insistence on exclusivity; ‘fated future,’ jealousy


1/1

Interactional ProfileIntimacy ‘Normal’ ORI/StalkingDimension Relationships Relationships

Interests/ Activities

Gradual & mutual interpenetration

Increasingly non-mutual

Physical Interaction

Escalation of comfortintimacy, rapport, rituals, & synchrony

P expresses desire &graphic scenarios, increasing ‘strain’

Closeness & Proximity

Progressive butpunctuated

Hyperactivepossessiveness


1/1

ORI/Stalking Topography:

(> 250 tactic labels, study N = 40, Spitzberg, 2002)

I. HYPER-INTIMACY TACTICS II. MEDIATED CONTACTS III. INTERACTIONAL CONTACT TACTICSIV. SURVEILLANCE TACTICSV. INVASION TACTICS VI. HARASSMENT & INTIMIDATIONVII. COERCION & THREAT TACTICS VIII. AGGRESSION/VIOLENCE TACTICS

IX.p

P UR RO SX UY I

T


1/1

Violence & Threats: Threat use: 44% (n=91)

Sexual aggression: 12% (n=47)

Violence: 34% (n=98)

> 50% with prior sexual relationship (Meloy, 2000; Rosenfeld, 2006) Threats predict violence (r = .37) (n=73, p<.001)

However: false positive rates = 62% (n = 12) false negative rates = 16% (n = 10) (C&S, 2004)


1/1

• INSTRUMENTAL (persecutory1, predatory2, revenge3):• Agenda (issue-based, disputes)• Control (intimidation, isolation, possession)• Instrumental Affect (attention-seeking, harass, humiliate, revenge,

jealousy possessiveness, scare)• EXPRESSIVE (amorous1, affective2, love3):

• Affective (love, infatuation, jealousy, envy)• Affective (anger, rage, betrayal, grief)• Relational Bid (friendship, escalation, reconciliation)• Sexual Attraction


• Motives: “The desires of the heart are as crooked as corkscrews” (W.H. Auden, 1937)

1=Harmon et al. ‘98; 2=Meloy ‘01; 3=*Rosenfeld ‘00

1/1

• PERSONALOGICAL:• Incompetence: mental disorder, social incompetence

• CONTEXTUAL:• Break-up/separation/divorce• Incidental• Interactional• Interdependence• Nostalgia• Rival

• Motives: “The desires of the heart are as crooked as corkscrews”

(W.H. Auden, 1937)

1=Harmon et al. ‘98; 2=Meloy ‘01; 3=*Rosenfeld ‘00


1/1

Relational Goals Theory

GOAL LINKING

IDENTITY THREAT

RUMIN-ATION

RELATIONAL ENTITLEMENT & PROPRIETARINES

S

SELF-EFFICACY

DETERM-INATION ORI

SENSI-TIVITY BLAME

COGNITIVE

AFFECTIVE

HYPER-INTIMAC

Y

SURVEIL-LANCE

AGGRES-SION


1/1

Relational Goals TheoryKam & Spitzberg (2005): • GOAL LINKAGE (Investment Size, Commitment, Inclusion, Dependence,

Relationship Thinking, Goal Linkage) predicted:• REJECTION-BASED AROUSAL (Perceived Rejection, Face Threat, Negative

Arousal), which predicted:• RUMINATION ESCALATION (Thought Intrusion, Paradoxical Rebound),

which predicted:• OBSESSION (Low CLALT, Obsession), which we hoped would predict:• ORI PERPETRATION• RESULTS: Optimal scaling regression (due to restricted variance of DV)

accounted for 28% of the variance in ORI perpetration


1/1

Relational Goals TheoryCupach, Spitzberg, Younghans, & Gibbons (2006): • GOAL LINKAGE• RUMINATION & ANTICIPATORY EMOTIONS• SELF-EFFICACY • EMOTIONAL FLOODING• RECONCILIATION PERSISTENCE• ORI PERPETRATION• MODERATOR: Who initiated the breakup• RESULTS:

• 59% reconciliation persistence accounted for by linking, rumination, and self-efficacy for those whose partner wanted out (vs. 32% for Ss who wanted out)

• 16% ORI accounted for by linking, rumination, and self-efficacy, with no moderation


1/1

Effects/Symptoms:

1st ORDER EFFECTS:Physical

PsychologicalEmotional

SocialResource

2nd ORDER EFFECTS:Relations-ChildrenRelations-FamilyRelations-Friends

Relations-Colleagues

3rd ORDER EFFECTS:‘Direct’ Impacts on

ChildrenFamilyFriends

Colleagues

4th ORDER EFFECTS:Law Enforcement

Moral PanicSocietal Costs


1/1

Effects/Symptoms:GENERAL DISTURBANCE: e.g., injured emotionally or psychologically; personality changed; PTSD;

quality of life costs; etc.

AFFECTIVE HEALTH: e.g., anger; anxiety, depression, fear, frustration, feeling imprisoned, intimidated, jealousy, paranoia, stress, etc.;

COGNITIVE HEALTH: e.g., confusion; distrust, loss of self-esteem, suspiciousness, helplessness/powerlessness; suicide ideation;, etc.

BEHAVIORAL DISTURBANCE: e.g., changing behavioral routines, change work/school/residence, etc.;

PHYSICAL HEALTH: e.g., alcohol problems; appetite disturbance; cigarette smoking; insomnia; nausea; physical illness; suicide; etc.

SOCIAL HEALTH: e.g., avoid certain places/people; cautiousness; relationship deterioration; lifestyle disruption; etc.

RESOURCE HEALTH: e.g., disruption of work or school; financial costs; lost time from work; etc.

SPIRITUAL HEALTH: e.g., loss of faith, loss of religion, loss of belief in social institutions; etc.

RESILIENCE: e.g., develop stronger relationships with family or friends, develop greater self-efficacy/self-concept, etc.


1/1

Moving With

B A


1/1

Moving Inward

B A


1/1

Moving Against

B A

B


1/1

Moving Away

B A


1/1

Moving Outward

B A

D

E

C


1/1

Moving Against: Attempting to deter/punish pursuer

33%

Moving With: Attempting to negotiate/redirect relationship

25%

Moving Away: Attempting to avoid pursuer

25%

Moving Outward: Mobilizing assistance/input of others

32%

Moving Inward: Working on oneself

17%

RELATIONAL RESPONSES: Prevalence

EXTRA-RELATIONAL RESPONSES:

MeanCoping—Prevalence:

(> 18 studies, Spitzberg, 2002)


1/1

Law Enforcement:Contacts M N SD

% Friends/family contact 59 14 25% Contact someone 75 8 22

% Contact police 42 41 26% Police “helpful” 47 7 30% Police “NOT helpful” † 45 5 15

† Reason for not reporting: 8% “attacker was a police officer” (NVAW, Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000, “Extent…” Ex. 17, n = 16,000)

† Reason why police didn’t take action: 6% “offender was police officer” (Suppl. Victimization Survey, Baum et al., 2009, App. 12, n = 65,000)


1/1

Law Enforcement:

* Study of DV PO’s in Arizona indicates even when violated, most women FEEL better for obtaining a protective order (Johnson, Luna & Stein, 2003).

Protective Orders (PO) M N SD

% Sought PO 45 15 36

% POs Violated* 38 24 25

% POs “Made Worse” 17 5 5


1/1

• Brian H. Spitzberg, • Ph.D., SDSU Senate Distinguished Professor • [email protected]• To contribute to the meta-analytic data-base:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=X4GrMTqoMLIjAEujNEs7AQ_3d_3d

Further Information:


mailto:[email protected]



Documents

Descriptive meta-analysis based on 240 studies, representing 265,000 cases/persons