Stalking and violence victimization among Finnish university students

Stalking and violence victimization among Finnish university students

Katja Björklund

Institute of Behavioural Sciences University of Helsinki

Finland

Academic dissertation to be publicly discussed, by due permission of the Faculty of Behavioural Sciences at the University of Helsinki in Auditorium XIII, Unioninkatu 34,

on the 24^th of March, 2010, at 12 o’clock

University of Helsinki Institute of Behavioural Sciences

Studies 65: 2010

Supervisors: Docent Helinä Häkkänen-Nyholm Institute of Behavioural Sciences University of Helsinki

and National Bureau of Investigation Finland

Professor Heikki Summala Institute of Behavioural Sciences University of Helsinki

Finland

Reviewers: Docent Juha Holma Department of Psychology University of Jyväskylä Finland

Docent Marianna Virtanen

Finnish Institute of Occupational Health Helsinki

Finland

Opponent: Docent Juha Holma Department of Psychology University of Jyväskylä Finland

ISSN-L 1798-842X ISSN 1798-842X

ISBN 978-952-10-6120-2 (paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-6121-9 (PDF)

http:// w w w.ethesis.helsinki.fi Helsinki University Print

Helsinki 2010

Contents

Abstract….………....5

Tiivistelmä……….7

Acknowledgments………..……..………..9

List of original publications………...……… 11

Abbreviations…..……….. 12

1 Introduction.………13

1.1 Definitions and contextual frames for stalking and violence victimization….………… 13

1.2 Stalking victimization……….………. 15

1.2.1 The nature and prevalence of stalking……..……….. 15

1.2.1.1 Different aspects of defining stalking….………. 16

1.2.1.2 Stalking behavior…….……….. 17

1.2.1.3 Victim-stalker relationship…….……… 18

1.2.1.4 The duration of stalking……….……… 19

1.2.1.5 The prevalence of stalking…….……….. 20

1.3.2 Consequences of stalking….……… 24

1.3.2.1 Stalking and violence……….……… 24

1.3.2.2 Stalking and health…………..……….. 25

1.3.3 Coping with stalking…………..………. 26

1.3.3.1 Coping behavior in the light of stalking research……..……… 26

1.3.3.2 Problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies…..……… 27

1.4 Violence victimization………..……….. 29

1.4.1 The nature and prevalence of violence victimization……...………. 29

1.4.2 Violence and health…………..………. 30

1.4.3 Victims of violence in health care settings…..……… 31

1.5 Typologies and theoretical frames for stalking and violence…………..………. 32

1.5.1 Typologies as a form of theory building regarding the stalking phenomenon.… 33 1.5.2 Routine activity perspective on victimization……..……… 33

1.5.3 Stress and coping perspective on victimization…….……… 34

1.5.4 World assumption perspective on victimization………. 35

2 Aims of the study……….. 36

3 Methods……….……….. 37

3.1 Participants and procedures……….……… 37

3.1.1 Participants and procedures in stalking victimization study (Studies I-III).……… 37

3.1.2 Participants and procedures in violence victimization study (Study IV)…….…… 38

3.2 Measures………….………. 39

3.2.1 Assessment of stalking victimization (Studies I-III)……….……….. 39

3.2.2 Assessment of coping behaviors (Studies I-III)…….……… 40

3.2.3 Assessment of coping strategies (Studies I-III)……….……… 40

3.2.4 Assessment of violence victimization (Study IV)…….……….. 41

3.2.5 Assessment of health problems and alcohol consumption (Study IV)….……….. 42

3.2.5.1 General and mental health symptoms………..……… 42

3.2.5.2 Psychological health problems………..……….. 42

3.2.5.3 Alcohol use……….………. 43

3.2.6 Assessment of health care usage (Study IV)…….……… 43

3.3 Statistical analysis…….………. 44

4 Results………….……… 46

4.1 Prevalence of stalking among Finnish university students (Study I)…….………. 46

4.1.1 The prevalence and nature of stalking………... 46

4.1.2 Victim and stalker characteristics………….……… 46

4.1.3 Stalking violence………….……… 47

4.2 Latent profile analysis approach to duration of stalking (Study II)………. 48

4.2.1 Defining the dimensions of stalking behavior…….……… 48

4.3. Coping with stalking among Finnish university students (Study III)……….. 52

4.3.1 Behavioral coping actions…….……… 52

4.3.2 Coping strategies…….……….. 53

4.4 Violence victimization among Finnish university students (Study IV)….……… 56

4.4.1 The prevalence of violence……….……….. 56

4.4.2 Victim – offender relationship and its effect on victim symptoms….……….. 57

4.4.3 The effect of violence and gender on victim symptoms………….………. 57

4.4.4 Frequent health care users and violence….……….. 58

5 Discussion……….. 59

5.1 Stalking victimization….………. 59

5.1.1 The prevalence and nature of stalking….………... 59

5.1.2 Victim subgroups, stalking dimensions, and victim-stalker relationship in relation to stalking duration……….. 60

5.1.3 Coping with stalking…….……….. 63

5.2 Violence victimization……….……… 65

5.3 Summary: conceptual and theoretical considerations……….………. 67

5.4 Methodological considerations…….……… 70

5.5 Conclusions and Implications for further research and clinical practice…….………... 71

References………..………76

Original publications………..………. 87

5

Abstract

This study examined the nature and lifetime prevalence of two types of victimization among Finnish university students: stalking and violence victimization (i.e. general violence). This study was a cross-sectional study using two different datasets of Finnish university students.

The stalking data was collected via an electronic questionnaire and the violence victimization data was collected via a postal questionnaire. There were 615 participants in the stalking study (I-III) and 905 participants in the violence victimization study. The thesis consists of four studies.

The aims regarding the stalking substudies (Studies I-III) were to examine the lifetime prevalence of stalking among university students and to analyze how stalking is related to victim and stalker characteristics and certain central variables of stalking (victim-stalker relationship, stalking episodes, stalking duration). Specifically, the aim was to identify factors that are associated with stalking violence and to factors contributing to the stalking duration.

Furthermore, the aim was also to investigate how university students cope with stalking and whether coping is related to victim and stalker background characteristics and to certain other core variables (victim-stalker relationship, stalking episodes, stalking duration, prior victimization, and stalking violence). The aims for the violence victimization substudy (Study IV) were to examine the prevalence of violence victimization, i.e. general violence (minor and serious physical violence and threats) and how violence victimization is associated with victim/abuser characteristics, symptomology, and the use of student health care services.

The present study shows that both stalking and violence victimization (i.e. general violence) are markedly prevalent among Finnish university students. The lifetime prevalence rate for stalking was 48.5% and 46.5% for violence victimization. When the lifetime prevalence rate was restricted to violent stalking and physical violence only, the prevalence decreased to 22% and 42% respectively. The students reported exposure to multiple forms of stalking and violence victimization, demonstrating the diversity of victimization among university students. Stalking victimization was found to be more prevalent among female students, while violence victimization was found to be more prevalent among male students.

Most of the victims of stalking knew their stalkers, while the offender in general violence was typically a stranger. Stalking victimization often included violence and continued for a lengthy period. The victim-stalking relationship and stalking behaviors were found to be associated with stalking violence and stalking duration. Based on three identified stalking

6

dimensions (violence, surveillance, contact seeking), the present study found five distinct victim subgroups (classes). Along with the victim-stalker relationship, the victim subgroups emerged as important factors contributing to the stalking duration. Victims of violent stalking did not differ greatly from victims of non-violent stalking in their use of behavioral coping tactics, while exposure to violent stalking had an effect on the use of coping strategies. The victim-offender relationship was also associated to a set of symptoms regarding violence victimization. Furthermore, violence victimization had a significant main effect on specific symptoms (mental health symptoms, alcohol consumption, symptom index), while gender had a significant main effect on most symptoms, yet no interaction effect was found. The present results also show that victims of violence are overrepresented among frequent health care users.

The present findings add to the literature on the prevalence and nature of stalking and violence victimization among Finnish university students. Moreover, the present findings stress the importance of violence prevention and intervention in student health care, and may be used as a guideline for policy makers, as well as health care and law enforcement professionals dealing with youth violence prevention.

7

Tiivistelmä

Tämän tutkimuksen tarkoituksena oli selvittää elinaikaisen ahdistelun- ja häirinnän sekä ns.

yleisen väkivallan erityispiirteitä ja esiintyvyyttä (lifetime-prevalence) suomalaisilla yliopisto-opiskelijoilla. Tässä poikittaistutkimuksessa käytettiin kahta eri opiskelija-aineistoa.

Ahdistelu-ja häirintäaineisto kerättiin elektronisella kyselylomakkeella ja väkivaltakokemuksiin liittyvä aineisto toteutettiin postikyselynä. Ahdisteluun ja häirintään liittyvissä osatutkimuksissa (I-III) oli mukana 615 osallistujaa ja väkivaltakokemuksiin liittyvässä osatutkimuksessa (IV) oli 905 osallistujaa. Tämä tutkimus koostui neljästä osatutkimuksesta.

Ahdisteluun ja häirintään liittyvien osatutkimusten tavoitteena (tutkimukset I-III) oli selvittää yliopisto-opiskelijoiden ahdistelun/häirinnän (stalking) elinaikaista esiintyvyyttä yliopisto-opiskelijoilla ja analysoida miten ahdistelu/häirintä on yhteydessä uhrin ja ahdistelijan taustamuuttujiin sekä tiettyihin, keskeisiin ahdisteluun ja häirintään liittyviin muuttujiin (uhrin ja ahdistelijan välinen suhde, ahdistelujaksojen määrä, ahdistelun kesto).

Erityisenä tavoitteena ja kiinnostuksen kohteena olivat väkivaltaiseen ahdisteluun liittyvät ja ahdistelun kestoon vaikuttavat tekijät. Lisäksi tutkimuksen tarkoituksena oli selvittää millaisia selviytymiskeinoja (coping) opiskelijat käyttävät selviytyäkseen ahdistelusta ja ovatko selviytymiskeinot yhteydessä uhrin ja ahdistelijan taustamuuttujiin sekä tiettyihin muihin keskeisiin ahdistelumuuttujiin (suhde ahdistelijaan, ahdistelujaksojen määrä ja kesto, aikaisemmat väkivaltakokemukset, väkivaltainen ahdistelu). Väkivaltakokemuksiin liittyvän osatutkimuksen (tutkimus IV) tavoitteena oli tutkia väkivaltakokemusten (violence victimization) elinaikaista esiintyvyyttä, ja kuinka väkivaltakokemukset (lievä ja vakava väkivalta sekä uhkaukset) ovat yhteydessä uhrin ja väkivallantekijän väliseen suhteeseen, oireisiin ja opiskelijoiden terveydenhoitopalveluiden käyttöön.

Tulokset osoittavat, että ahdistelu- että väkivaltakokemuksia esiintyy yleisesti suomalaisilla yliopisto-opiskelijoilla. Ahdistelun elinaikainen esiintyvyys oli 48.5% ja väkivaltakokemusten esiintyvyys oli 46.5%. Jos elinaikaisen esiintyvyyden tarkastelu rajataan pelkästään väkivaltaiseen ahdistelun ja fyysisen väkivallan esiintyvyyteen niin esiintyvyysluvut laskevat 22% (väkivaltainen ahdistelu) ja vastaavasti 42% (fyysinen väkivalta). Tulosten mukaan opiskelijat olivat kokeneet monia eri ahdistelun ja väkivallan tyyppejä, mikä osoittaa väkivaltakokemusten laajuutta yliopisto-opiskelijoiden parissa.

Ahdistelu- ja häirintäkokemukset olivat yleisempiä naisopiskelijoilla, kun taas väkivaltakokemukset olivat yleisempiä miesopiskelijoilla. Useimmille ahdistelua kokeneille

8

ahdistelija oli ennestään tuttu, kun taas yleistä väkivaltaa kokeneille väkivallantekijä oli tyypillisesti tuntematon. Ahdisteluun liittyi usein väkivaltaa ja ahdistelun kohteena oleminen kesti pitkähkön ajan. Ahdistelun kohteen (uhrin) ja ahdistelijan välinen suhde sekä tietty ahdistelukäyttäytyminen olivat yhteydessä ahdisteluväkivaltaan ja ahdistelun kestoon. Lisäksi suhdemuuttuja (uhrin suhde ahdistelijaan) ja ahdistelukäyttäytymisen kolmelle dimensiolle (väkivalta, tarkkailu, kontaktin hakeminen) pohjautuvat alaryhmät osoittautuivat tärkeiksi ahdistelun kestoon vaikuttaviksi tekijöiksi. Väkivaltaista ahdistelua kokeneet eivät eronneet suuresti ei-väkivaltaista ahdistelua kokeneista coping-käyttäytymisessään, kun taas väkivaltainen ahdistelu oli yhteydessä uhrien käyttämiin coping-strategioihin. Väkivallan kohteen (uhrin) ja väkivallantekijän välinen suhde oli yhteydessä myös tiettyihin fyysisiin ja psyykkisiin oireisiin yleistä väkivaltaa kohdanneiden kesken. Väkivaltakokemuksilla havaittiin olevan merkittävää päävaikutusta suhteessa tiettyihin oireisiin (mielenterveysoireet, alkoholinkäyttö, oireindeksi), kun taas sukupuolella oli merkittävää päävaikutusta useimpiin oireisiin, joskaan yhdysvaikutusta ei löytynyt. Tutkimustulokset osoittavat myös, että väkivallan uhrit ovat yliedustettuina usein terveyspalveluita käyttävien opiskelijoiden ryhmässä.

Lopuksi voidaan todeta, että tämän tutkimuksen tulokset antavat moniulotteista ja osittain uutta tietoa ahdistelu-, häirintä-, ja väkivaltakokemuksien erityispiirteistä ja esiintyvyydestä suomalaisilla yliopisto-opiskelijoilla Nämä tulokset korostavat väkivallan ennaltaehkäisyn, tunnistamisen ja puuttumisen merkitystä opiskelijaterveydenhuollossa ja niitä voidaan käyttää suuntaviivoina päättäjien, terveydenhuollon ja lainvalvojien työssä nuorten väkivallan ehkäisemiseksi.

9

Acknowledgments

This study was carried out at the University of Helsinki, Department of Psychology and at the Finnish Student Health Service during years 2005-2010. It was supported by the Finnish Cultural Foundation (Central Ostrobothnia Regional fund), Signe and Ane Gyllenberg foundation, and by the Finnish Student Health Service Research and Development Fund, which I gratefully acknowledge.

I am very grateful to my supervisor Docent Helinä-Häkkänen-Nyholm for her competent guidance into the special field of criminal psychology: her valuable advice, careful reading of my manuscripts, and detailed comments. I also want to thank Professor Heikki Summala, the supervisory professor of this thesis.

I would like to thank the reviewers of this dissertation, Docent Marianna Virtanen from the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health and Docent Juha Holma from the University of Jyväskylä for their very valuable, constructive and highly appreciated comments that helped me improve the thesis.

I wish to express my warmest gratitude to all the co-authors of the original publications, Lorraine Sheridan at Heriott Watt University, Karl Roberts at Charles Sturt University, Kristina Kunttu at Finnish Student Health Service, Teppo Huttunen at Oy 4Pharma Ltd, and Asko Tolvanen at University of Jyväskylä who gave their time, comments and patience to improve the manuscripts. My sincere thanks go to Paul Wilkinson for revising the English language of my thesis.

I wish to give my very special thanks to Erkki Komulainen at the University of Helsinki for statistical help, consultation and expertise. I also want to thank Antti Hulsi at the University of Helsinki for his help in data management and in creating the electronic questionnaire.

I express my gratitude to my colleagues and co-workers who have been encouraging, flexible and patient. I appreciate the opportunity to reduce my working hours at the Finnish student health service so that I could work part time with my thesis. Much of this arrangement was possible due to the competent help of my dear friend and colleague Reetta, who I owe special thanks. I also want to give a special thank to docent Kristina Kunttu at the Finnish student health service for her enthusiastic and encouraging support. Thank you all for making this scientific journey possible and helping me to develop both professionally and personally.

10

I would like to thank my friends and family for all their support during these years. The support of my fellow students and dear friends has been of great value to me: Airi and Eeva, thank you for guiding me through me this process. It has been equally important to have the possibility to turn to friends who have been able to remind me of the fact that life is not only about doing research: thank you all, especially TNK-girls. Maaret, I owe you special thanks for being there for me every day. I express my warmest gratitude to my parents who have been there for me by always believing in me and encouraging me to find my own way in life.

They have also learned me the basics of the world of research; the way to look at the world with compassion and interest, and the art of getting amazed, never stop asking and wondering.

Finally, I am most grateful to my husband Mats who has supported and encouraged me during this process and who took care of our wonderful Emma and sweet Linus by keeping them busy all those days and evenings when I sat by my computer writing this work. I love you all.

Vaasa, February 2010

Katja Björklund

11

List of original publications

This doctoral thesis is based on the following original publications, referred to in the text by Roman numerals I - IV.

I Björklund, K., Häkkänen-Nyholm, H., Sheridan, L., Roberts, K. (in press). Prevalence of stalking among Finnish university students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

II Björklund, K., Häkkänen-Nyholm, H., Sheridan, L., Roberts, K. & Tolvanen, A. (in press). Latent profile approach to duration of stalking Journal of Forensic Sciences.

III Björklund, K., Häkkänen-Nyholm, H., Sheridan, L., Roberts, K. (in press). Coping with stalking among university students. Violence and Victims.

IV Björklund,K., Häkkänen-Nyholm, H., Huttunen, T. & Kunttu, K. (in press). Violence victimization among Finnish university students: prevalence, symptoms and health care usage. Social Science & Medicine.

12

Abbreviations

AUDIT Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test GHQ-12 General Health Questionnaire (12 items) LPA latent profile analysis

OR odds ratio

SD standard deviation

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences WCQ-R The Ways of Coping Questionnaire - Revised

13

1 INTRODUCTION

National crime victimization surveys both in Finland (years 1980-2006) and in the United States (years 1976-2000) have consistently shown the highest violence victimization rates for the youngest age groups (younger than 25 years), with men experiencing more overall violence than women (Klaus & Rennison, 2002; Sirén, Kivivuori, Kääriäinen & Aaltonen, 2007). Furthermore, national crime victimization surveys and large community studies conducted in English-speaking countries also show that also stalking is significantly more common among younger than older people, with young educated women being particularly at risk (Baum, Catalano & Rand, 2009; Budd & Mattinson, 2000; Purcell, Pathé & Mullen, 2002; Tjaden, Thoennes & Allison, 2002). Thus, age-based differences in risks for violence seem clear: younger people are at an increased risk of violence victimization (Ascierno, Resnick & Kilpatrick 1997). Therefore, it is important to study this specific age group for scientific, clinical practice and societal reasons (Koss, Gidycz & Wisniewski, 1987), which in the present study means university students. Alongside the growing public concern regarding issues on violence, the study of victimization has emerged as a growing area of interest and research within several scientific and public policy communities. At the same time, there is a need for practitioners involved to understand the victim correlates and implications in order to provide accurate public policy, health and law enforcement services (Green, Streeter &

Pomeroy, 2005; Green & Pomeroy, 2007).

1.1 Definitions and contextual frames for stalking and violence victimization

Defining violence is a demanding task as the phenomenon of violence is complex and multifaceted; it has been argued that violence is more a matter of judgment than an exact science (Dahlberg & Krug, 2002). Opinions as to what is acceptable in terms of behavior and what constitutes harm are culturally influenced and under constant review as social norms and values develop and change (e.g. corporal punishment). In other words, there are several possible ways to define violence, depending on who is defining it and for what purpose; a definition of violence for the purposes of conviction does not necessarily apply in a public health context. One of the main challenges of defining violence is to capture the array of violent acts of the perpetrators and the subjective experiences of the victims without

14

stretching the definition so far as to lose the meaning (Dahlberg & Krug, 2002). The World Health Organization defines violence as: "The intentional use of force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person or against a group or community that either results or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation", which is also the definition used in the World Report on Violence and Health (Dahlberg & Krug, 2002, p. 7; WHO, 1996, 2002).

This general definition of violence has been complemented by a typology of violence presented by Dahlberg and Krug (2002) in the World Report on Violence and Health (WHO, 2002). The typology divides violence into three main categories according to who has committed the violence (see Figure 1), i.e. self-directed, interpersonal or collective violence (Dahlberg & Krug, 2002). More specifically, self-directed violence refers to violence where the abuser and the victim are the same individual (self-abuse, suicide), interpersonal violence refers to violence between individuals (family/intimate partner violence, community violence), and collective violence refers to violence committed by larger groups of individuals (i.e. social, political and economic violence). Of these three types of violence, the category of intimate partner violence is the most applicable as a general frame for the present study on stalking and general violence victimization. Interpersonal violence is further divided in the model into three subtypes according to the victim-perpetrator relationship. These subtypes refer to interpersonal violence within a family/intimate partner context (intimate partner violence, elder abuse and child maltreatment) or within a community context by an acquaintance or stranger. The typology also differentiates four means in which violence can be inflicted: physical, sexual, psychological, deprivation/neglect (Dahlberg & Krug, 2002).

15

Figure 1. The typology of violence (Dahlberg & Krug, 2002, reproduced with the permission of the copyright holder, World Health Organization, Geneva, 2002).

In the light of this broader context of violence, stalking and violence victimization fall within the interpersonal violence category, where the perpetrator can be either a member of the family or the community, i.e. a family member/partner, an acquaintance or a stranger.

Stalking may include physical, sexual, and/or psychological violence. Similarly, violence victimization can comprise the same three forms of violence where threats may or may not be separated from general violence and categorized as psychological violence. Stalking and violence victimization also fit the model of interpersonal violence regarding the idea that the means of violence can occur separately or they can be overlapping, i.e. victimization can include one or several means of violence.

1.2 Stalking victimization

1.2.1 The nature and prevalence of stalking

Currently stalking is recognized as a significant social problem (Sheridan, Blaauw & Davies, 2003) especially in the English-speaking part of the world (Bartol & Bartol, 2008; Mullen, Pathé & Purcell, 2001). However, stalking received little recognition until a lot of media

16

attention was given to the stalking of certain celebrities in the United States (Mullen, Pathé, &

Purcell, 2000). Moreover, stalking is still often presented by the media as a violent crime targeted towards celebrities by a mentally ill stalker. However, research has shown that stalking tends to emerge from close relationships, often beginning with relatively harmless forms of contact. If the advances are not met or turned down, the behavior might progress towards more intrusive or frequent, or even into potentially dangerous behavior (Rosenfeld 2000; Spitzberg, 2002).

1.2.1.1 Different aspects of defining stalking

In earlier studies stalking was referred to as erotomania, i.e. delusional love (Zona, Sharma &

Lane, 1993) or pathologies of love (Mullen & Pathé, 1994). Erotomania is still a term commonly used in stalking literature (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2001), and considered as a delusional disorder in the contemporary psychiatric diagnostics (see e.g. DSM-IV, ICD-10 or Lönnqvist & Honkonen, 2007). Several other stalking-related phenomena overlap with stalking, i.e. obsessional following (Meloy & Gothard, 1995), obsessional harassment (Harmon et al, 1995; Rosenfeld, 2000), obsessive relational intrusion (Spitzberg, Nicastro &

Cousins, 1998). However, it has been proposed that stalking should be retained as a general term, mainly because of the limitations of the alternating labels, and to retain consistency with its common use of the public (Westrup & Fremouw, 1998). Moreover, stalking is currently often defined as the “willful, malicious and repeated following and harassing of another person that threatens his/her safety” as Meloy and Gothard (1995) first defined it. Later Pathé and Mullen (1997) stressed that stalking behavior (e.g. following, loitering nearby, maintaining surveillance, making approaches) had to be unwanted by the target to constitute stalking. However, defining stalking and agreeing on what elements constitute stalking has proven to be a complex and problematic task (e.g. Kamphuis & Emmelkamp, 2000).

Stalking is often referred to as an old behavior, but a new crime (Meloy, 1998). Thus, it has been recognized as unlawful only the past two decades, the first anti-stalking laws appearing in the USA in 1990 (Bartol & Bartol, 2008; Meloy, 2007). However, there is still no clear consensus regarding what behaviors comprise stalking, the minimum number of occasions required, stalking duration, presence and intent and/or fear, and also legal definitions can vary between countries and states (Blaauw, Sheridan & Winkel, 2002; Mullen, Pathé & Purcell, 1999; Sheridan et al., 2003). Stalking has gradually received more public and academic attention as a social and health problem also in Europe. Yet, only nine

17

European Member States currently have specific anti-stalking legislation: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.

Currently, no specific anti-stalking law exists in Finland. Therefore, in Finland and other European member states without a specific anti-stalking legislation, it is possible to take legal actions against stalking only when the behavior amounts to crimes, which can be prosecuted under other existing legal norms (De Fazio, 2009).

From a legal point of view, a criminal offence usually requires both criminal intent and an action. Yet, most stalkers do not have apparent criminal intentions (Mullen & Pathé, 2001;

Rosenfeld, 2000). As stalking tends to predominantly emerge from intimate and close relationships, the intention may not be to hurt the victim but, for example, to try to initiate or re-establish a relationship (Mullen & Pathé, 2001). However, it might not be the behavior itself, but the way of pursuit that can evoke distress and fear in a victim (Mullen & Pathé, 2001; Rosenfeld, 2000). Furthermore, the victim’s perception and experience of the stalking actions are central to conceptualizing and criminalizing stalking. Moreover, stalking can be referred to as a victim-defined crime (Mullen et al., 1999; Pathé & Mullen, 2002). Despite differences, the definitions of stalking share several key elements; an occurrence of repetitive and unwanted contact that is perceived by the victim as intrusive and/or threatening (Rosenfeld, 2004). Conclusively, even if there has been much debate over the elements constituting stalking, it is clear that the researchers are referring to the same phenomenon and that there exists a shared literature (Sheridan et al., 2003).

1.2.1.2 Stalking behavior

As a whole, varieties of stalking behavior often consist of following, keeping surveillance, phone calls, emails, letters and pursuit. Stalking can also include breaking into a target’s home, trespassing or delivering packages. In some cases the stalker orders goods in the victim’s name, spreads rumors about him/her and makes false announcements (Kamphuis &

Emmelkamp, 2000; Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). Of these, the most common stalking behaviors found in meta-analysis are telephone calls, personal appearances and contact, following and surveillance (Spitzberg, 2002), being in line with the most frequently reported stalking behaviors by university students (Amar, 2006, Bjerregaard, 2002, Cupach &

Spitzberg, 2000; Dennison & Stewart, 2006; Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2002; Finn, 2004;

Jordan, Wilcox & Pritchard, 2007; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Palarea, Cohen & Rohling, 2002;

Logan, Leukefeld & Walker, 2002; Sinclair & Frieze, 2002). Conclusively, stalking can be

18

broadly grouped into three categories: 1) communication by telephone, letters or emails 2) seeking contact by approaching 3) following or maintaining surveillance (Nadkarni & Grubin 2000). Finally, threats, property damage and violence may accompany stalking.

In order to further analyze and understand the stalking phenomenon, stalking behaviors have been clustered into different types of behavior or categorized into more advanced typologies, mostly using clinical and forensic samples, so that various aspects of the phenomenon would be more easily studied and understood (e.g. Groves, Salfati, & Elliot, 2004; Häkkänen, Hagelstam & Santtila, 2003; Mohandie, Meloy, Green, McGovan, &

Williams, 2006). Recently, different types of stalking behaviors have been studied also among student samples. Cupach and Spitzberg (2000) found four factors: pursuit, violation, threat and hyper-intimacy, while Spitzberg et al. (1998) found two factors: pursuit and aggression.

Haugaard and Seri (2003) also reported a two-factor solution, one factor characterized stalking behaviors, which involved personal contact and the other factor involved noncontact stalking behavior. Dennison and Stewart (2006) found four categories of stalking behavior:

direct communication, covert pursuit, self-harm and other-harm. Also Sinclair and Frieze (2002, 2005) found four subcategories based on factor analysis; approach (normal courtship approach behavior), surveillance, intimidation, and verbal and physical aggression.

1.2.1.3 Victim-stalker relationship

Most stalking cases involve men harassing women, but in 10-20% of the cases women are the perpetrators and men the targets (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). In contrast to the common belief of stalkers being strangers, research has consistently shown that most victims (approximately 80 %) know their stalkers (Amar, 2006; Fisher et al., 2002; Jordan et al., 2007; Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007; Spitzberg & Rhea, 1999). The stalker is often an acquaintance (co-worker, fellow student), friend, or a former partner. Thus, stalking is often referred to as a form of intimate violence, a phenomenon where the relationship plays a central part (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). The victim-stalker relationship has emerged as one of the core variables in stalking research and for example research on stalking classifications has not only concentrated on the stalkers, but also on the various relationships between the stalker and the victim (e.g. Meloy, 1998; Zona et al., 1993), and also multi-axial classifications/typologies have been proposed (Mohandie et al., 2006; Mullen et al., 1999, 2000). Mullen et al. (1999, 2000) for example incorporated the context and the motivations in which the stalking emerged, the prior stalker-victim relationship and the stalker’s psychiatric

19

diagnosis. This classification presented five stalker types: the rejected, the intimacy seeker, the incompetent, the resentful and the predatory stalker. In general, most researchers agree on the importance of the distinction between stalking in the context of some sort of prior relationship and stalking where there has not been a real relationship at all, but differ in their subdivisions (Kamphuis & Emmelkamp, 2000). Meloy (1998) suggested that future studies should utilize a system based on relational typology identifying three groups of victims: prior sexual intimates, prior acquaintances, and strangers, which is also the classification used in the present study.

1.2.1.4 The duration of stalking

The concerns of risks in stalking do not only include the risk of violence (Mullen et al., 2006).

It is the prolonged duration causing greater potential psychological and social damage regardless of the presence or absence of actual assault (Blaauw, Winkel, Arensman, Sheridan

& Freeve, 2002; Purcell, Pathé & Mullen, 2004; McEwan, Mullen & MacKenzie, 2009).

Furthermore, the duration of stalking has been shown to vary according to the nature of the prior relationship, with strangers stalking the shortest and ex-intimate partners stalking the longest period (Mullen, et al., 2000; Purcell et al., 2002). However, recent study results show that acquaintance stalkers may be as persistent and in some cases even more persistent than ex-intimate stalkers (McEwan et al., 2009). Across 28 studies the average duration of stalking is approximately two years (SD=20, Range 4-85, Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). Among university students the average stalking duration may be shorter than general; the mean duration of stalking among college students being approximately 150 days, i.e. about 5 months (Fisher et al., 2002; Spitzberg & Rhea, 1999). The comparison is however difficult as all studies do not report the duration of stalking. Altogether, efforts are usually made to intervene and prevent stalking from becoming lengthy; persistent episodes are often the major concern of both the victims and professionals working with stalking issues. Considering this and the fact that the duration is one of the key concepts in stalking, i.e. that stalking is defined by persistence, it is surprising that studies concentrating on stalking duration are scarce. It is only now that stalking research has started to put more focus on the duration of stalking, its association with violence (James & Farnham, 2003; Purcell et al., 2004), and its role in a broader context of risk assessment (McEwan, Mullen & Purcell, 2007, McEwan et al., 2009).

20 1.2.1.5 The prevalence of stalking

A number of studies have attempted to examine the actual prevalence of stalking within specific groups or larger communities. It has however been difficult to obtain reliable data regarding the prevalence and incidence of stalking as the prevalence rate of stalking is very much dependent on the definition of the stalking employed, study sample, methodological design, and cultural differences (Dressing, Kuehner & Gass, 2006; Jagessar & Sheridan, 2004; Jordan et al., 2007; Kamphuis & Emmelkamp, 2000; Meloy 1998; Sheridan et al., 2003; Spitzberg, 2002; Tjaden, et al., 2002). Many of the earlier studies on stalking were unrepresentative clinical and forensic samples. However, meta-analysis across 108 samples shows that currently the study populations are relatively evenly distributed across the three major categories, i.e. clinical/forensic (40%), general population (33%), and college (24%) populations (Spitzberg, 2002). Generally, the lifetime prevalence rates have ranged from 2-13

% for men and 8-32 % for women depending on the criteria employed. As a whole, 25% of the study population across 175 samples reported experiencing stalking according to a recent meta-analysis (Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007).

As mentioned earlier, the conceptualization and recognition of stalking as a serious social problem have mainly been restricted to the English-speaking countries (Mullen, Pathé &

Purcell, 2001), where also the vast majority of the research on stalking has been conducted (93% of 175 samples, Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007). Thus, there is little information available on stalking regarding other than English-speaking countries (Dressing, Gass & Kuehner, 2007). However, one community-based study on stalking in continental Europe has been made in Germany (Dressing, Kuehner & Gass, 2005). The lifetime prevalence rate of this study was 12%, which is in line with population-based studies in the United Kingdom, Australia, and the United States (Budd & Mattinson, 2000; Purcell et al., 2002; Tjaden &

Thoennes, 1998). The results of the above mentioned German community study suggest that stalking is a widespread phenomenon also in continental Europe and should be taken into consideration in law and health care (Dressing et al., 2007). However, in Europe studies on stalking are still scarce and there is still a clear need for further research. In parallel with community studies, studies with more selected high-risk samples are also needed (Dressing et al., 2007). Thus, the present study focuses on university students as this population has been suggested as being at increased risk for stalking victimization (Ravensberg & Miller, 2003) based on both studies on student population (Fisher et al., 2002; Jordan et al., 2007) and large-scale community studies (Budd & Mattinson, 2000; Purcell et al., 2002; Tjaden et al., 2002).

21

Several studies of stalking among university students have shown relatively high prevalence rates ranging from 11% to 40% (Amar, 2006; Bjerregaard, 2002; Fisher et al., 2002; Fremouw, Westrup & Pennypacker, 1997; Haugaard & Seri, 2003; Jordan et al., 2007;

Logan et al., 2002; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1999; Spitzberg et al., 1998). The variation regarding the prevalence of stalking in general, and regarding the studies on university students, depend most likely on differences in sampling methods and in the definitions used (see Table 1).

Table 1. Summary of previous studies regarding stalking among the university student population. Author(s) Prevalence Study designVictim-stalker relationshipDefinition Amar, 200625% Lifetime N=601; F Subsample of a dating violence study, data collected on two college campuses Measure: Asurveyincludingnine items fromthe NVAWS and three from stalking literature.

Partner ex-partner date

A definition of stalking was not provided. The stalking screening question was "Have you ever been stalked or harassed by a partner, date, or someone important to you?" Bjerregaard, 200221% Lifetime N=788; F=512, M=276 Sample drawn from randomly selected classrooms at one university. Measure: A survey including a series of questions that characterize the stalking event was designed for the purposes of the study.

Stranger vs. stalker known (e.g. acquaintance, friend, co-worker, boyfriend, husband, family)

The respondents were provided with a general definition of stalking and asked if they believed that they had ever been stalked. The definition of stalking was not reported in the study. Fisher, Cullen & Turner 200213% Within an academic year (in the study, on average a seven- month period)

N=4,446 ; F A random sample of female college/university students. The data were collected through a telephone survey as a part of a broader national telephone survey. Measure: A stalking screen question and a stalking incident questionnaire were developed for the purposes of the study.

Stranger vs. stalker known (e.g. acquaintance, friend, co-worker, boyfriend, husband, family)

Stalking was asked and defined as "The same person exhibiting repeated pursuit behavior that seemed obsessive and made the respondent afraid or concerned for her safety." Fremouw, Westrup & Pennypacker, 1997

24% Lifetime N=593; F=319, M=275 (two samples combined) Samples drawn from psychology classes in one university. Measure: The questionnaire used was developed for the purposes of the studies and based on research literature and authors' clinical experience.

Strangers Acquaintances Intimate partners

Stalking and stalking victimization were defined as "Have you ever been stalked, defined as having someone knowingly, and repeatedly following, harassing or threatening you?" Haugaard & Seri, 200320% Following a breakup in a relationship

N=631; 80% female, 20% men The sample was drawn from several social science courses at two medium-sized, public universities. Measure: The questionnaire used was designed by the authors for the purposes of the study and based on examination of research and on a series of in-depth interviews.

Dating or intimate relationshipThe study focuses on stalking and other forms of intrusive contact. Intrusive behaviors were defined as any unwanted behavior perceived as intrusive. While responding to the questionnaire the participants were asked to refer to a relationship which had begun during high school or college and which one of the persons involved wanted to end.

22