descriptive meta-analysis based on 240 studies, representing 265,000 cases/persons
DESCRIPTION
Meta-Analysis:. Descriptive meta-analysis based on 240 studies, representing 265,000 cases/persons. “The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 2. The State of the Art of Stalking - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 3
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
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 4
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:
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 5
1/1
Cyber-Stalking Prevalence:
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 6
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)
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 7
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”
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 8
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
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 9
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
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 10
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
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 11
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)
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 12
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
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 13
• 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
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 14
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
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 15
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
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 16
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
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 17
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
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 18
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.
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 19
1/1
Moving With
B A
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 20
1/1
Moving Inward
B A
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 21
1/1
Moving Against
B A
B
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 22
1/1
Moving Away
B A
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 23
1/1
Moving Outward
B A
D
E
C
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 24
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)
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 25
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)
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 26
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
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 27
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:
“The State of the Art of Stalking and Special Focus on the Relational Goal Pursuit Theory” BRIAN H. SPITZBERG, Ph.D. 28