Case Study 32.1: The Sociology of Stalking — Who Stalks, Who Is Victimized, and What Helps

Case Study 32.1: The Sociology of Stalking — Who Stalks, Who Is Victimized, and What Helps

Defining the Problem

Stalking is notoriously difficult to study. It requires a pattern of behavior — which means retrospective self-report or long-term observation — and it involves subjective fear assessments that vary by target, relationship context, and prior experience with the person. Researchers have used three primary definitional frameworks: legal definitions (which vary by state and country), victim-centered definitions (behavior that causes fear), and behavior-based definitions (specific acts, regardless of fear induced).

These definitional choices produce dramatically different prevalence estimates. Studies using broad behavioral definitions (following someone, making unwanted contact) find lifetime prevalence rates in the 20–40% range. Studies using the narrow legal definition find much lower rates. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), which requires "feeling very fearful" or "believing you or someone close to you would be harmed," finds approximately 1 in 6 women and 1 in 17 men report lifetime stalking victimization.

Who Stalks?

Research on stalker typologies has identified several reasonably consistent patterns:

The Rejected Stalker is the most common type, accounting for roughly 40–50% of cases in clinical samples. This person has had some prior intimate or close relationship with the victim and is stalking in response to rejection or abandonment. This type is associated with both attempts at reconciliation and angry, retaliatory motives — often in the same person.

The Resentful Stalker seeks to frighten and distress the victim, often framing the behavior as retribution for a perceived wrong. This type is frequently associated with paranoid ideation.

The Intimacy Seeker seeks to establish a romantic relationship with someone who does not want one. This type often has a delusional quality — the stalker believes in a special connection that exists only in their imagination. Celebrity stalking frequently falls in this category.

The Incompetent Suitor lacks basic social skills for courtship and pursues through repeated unwanted contact, typically without recognition that the target is genuinely not interested.

This typology (Mullen et al., 2000) is clinically derived and has been replicated across different countries, though proportions vary by sample.

The Criminal Justice Response

Stalking laws exist in all fifty U.S. states, passed primarily in the 1990s following the 1989 murder of actress Rebecca Schaeffer by an obsessed fan. Despite widespread legal coverage, the criminal justice response to stalking is widely acknowledged as inadequate. Research by Tjaden and Thoennes found that of those who reported to police:

Many reported that police "could not do anything"
Only a minority received restraining or protective orders
Of those who did receive orders, a significant percentage reported violations
Enforcement of restraining order violations is inconsistent

The gap between legal existence of protections and practical protection is large. Critics point to several factors: evidentiary standards that require documentation of a "pattern" before police can act; police training that historically underemphasized stalking; and the resource limitations of threat assessment in most jurisdictions.

Effective Interventions

Despite the limits of the criminal justice response, some interventions show promise:

Stalking-specific threat assessment: Structured professional judgment tools (like the SAM — Stalking Assessment and Management) allow trained professionals to assess escalation risk and prioritize resources. These are used primarily in clinical and correctional settings but have potential for broader use.

Victim safety planning: Practical support for targets — documenting contacts, varying routines, notifying workplaces and family, and having safety plans — is associated with better outcomes independent of legal intervention.

Diversionary intervention with perpetrators: Programs that address the psychology underlying stalking behavior (relationship therapy, cognitive restructuring of entitlement beliefs) have shown some effectiveness in reducing recidivism, though evidence is limited.

Discussion Questions

The chapter notes that most stalking is perpetrated by known individuals — ex-partners and acquaintances — rather than strangers. Why does public perception focus on stranger stalking? What are the consequences of this misperception for victims and institutional responses?
The Rejected Stalker type combines reconciliation-seeking with retaliatory motives. What does this tell us about how the psychology of loss and the psychology of entitlement can coexist in the same person?
What would a genuinely adequate institutional response to stalking require? Consider legal, technological, clinical, and community dimensions.
The research on stalking law finds that legal protections exist but are underenforced. Is this primarily a problem of law (inadequate legal tools) or implementation (adequate tools poorly deployed)? What difference does the answer make for how we approach reform?