Despite the widespread adoption of stalking legislation, there is no definitive antistalking

THE INFLUENCE OF PRIOR RELATIONSHIP ON PERCEPTIONS OF STALKING IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND AUSTRALIA ADRIAN J. SCOTT Edith Cowan University REBECCA LLOYD JEFF GAVIN University of Bath Research in the United Kingdom and Australia has produced inconsistent findings regarding the influence of the prior relationship between the perpetrator and the target on perceptions of stalking. It is unclear whether these inconsistencies represent a genuine cross-cultural difference. The current study investigates the influence of prior relationship and the nationality of participants on perceptions of stalking with a combined sample of 315 university students from the United Kingdom and Australia. Overall, perceptions failed to reflect the reality that ex-partner stalkers pose a greater threat than stranger or acquaintance stalkers. Participants were more likely to believe that behavior constituted stalking, necessitated police intervention, caused fear or apprehension, and caused mental or physical harm when the perpetrator was depicted as a stranger rather than an acquaintance or ex-partner. The direction of findings was consistent in the United Kingdom and Australia, although Australian participants perceived the perpetrator s behavior to be more severe than did participants from the United Kingdom. Keywords: stalking; harassment; perceptions; cross-cultural; just world hypothesis Despite the widespread adoption of stalking legislation, there is no definitive antistalking law, and there continues to be controversy over what behaviors constitute stalking and how they should be legislated against. For example, antistalking laws in Australia vary from state to state but typically focus on the repetition of a range of unwanted behaviors and the intention of the perpetrator to cause fear or harm to the victim (Dennison, 2007). In the state of Victoria, the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 lists specific stalking behaviors, and intent to cause fear or harm is determined by whether the perpetrator knows or ought to know that a particular course of conduct would cause fear or harm. The relevant legislation in the United Kingdom does not use the term stalking, nor does it list specific behaviors or require proof of intent. Instead, the England and Wales Protection from Harassment Act (PfHA) 1997 states that a course of conduct amounts to harassment if another reasonable person (i.e., juror or magistrate) would consider the particular pattern of behavior exhibited by the perpetrator to constitute harassment of the victim. With regard to penalties, the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 imposes a maximum of 10 years imprisonment, and the PfHA 1997 imposes a maximum of 5 years imprisonment. Surveys utilizing comparable definitions of stalking suggest that about 9% of men and women in England and Wales and about 4% of men and 7% of women in the state of AUTHORS NOTE: Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Adrian Scott, Sellenger Centre, School of Law and Justice, Edith Cowan University, 270 Joondalup Drive, Joondalup, Western Australia 6027, Australia; e-mail: adrian.scott@ecu.edu.au. CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 37 No. 11, November 2010 1185-1194 DOI: 10.1177/0093854810378812 2010 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology 1185

1186 Criminal Justice and BEHAVIOR Victoria, Australia, are victims of stalking-consistent behavior each year, with the majority of victims knowing the perpetrator in some capacity (Finney, 2006; Purcell, Pathé, & Mullen, 2002; Walby & Allen, 2004). Furthermore, research with perpetrators of stalking (e.g., James & Farnham, 2003; McEwan, Mullen, MacKenzie, & Ogloff, 2009; Meloy, Davis, & Lovette, 2001; Rosenfeld & Lewis, 2005), victims of stalking (e.g., Pathé & Mullen, 1997; Sheridan & Davies, 2001a), and perpetrator victim pairs (e.g., Palarea, Zona, Lane, & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999) has demonstrated that ex-partner stalkers present a greater threat to the personal safety of the victim than either stranger or acquaintance stalkers. These findings are disturbing because violent ex-partner stalkers in the United Kingdom are significantly less likely to be convicted for stalking behavior than violent stranger stalkers (Sheridan & Davies, 2001b). For example, in 167 cases that went to court under the PfHA 1997, 41% of cases involving intimates were dropped, compared to none of those involving strangers (Harris, 2000). Furthermore, research in Australia has shown that police officers are less inclined to use stalking legislation in the context of ex-partner stalkers because of perceptions that these situations represent domestic disputes (Pearce & Easteal, 1999). Consequently, it appears that similar behaviors are perceived differently according to the nature of the prior relationship, with violent behavior by an ex-partner requiring less serious intervention than violent behavior by a stranger. Skepticism and indifference are particularly apparent in the context of same-sex stalking, regardless of the victim s sexual orientation (Pathé, Mullen, & Purcell, 2000). Such findings are supported by empirical research employing hypothetical stalking vignettes. For example, an early study by Hills and Taplin (1998) utilized a Western Australian community sample and asked participants to imagine that they were the target of a series of events instigated by a stranger, an acquaintance, or an ex-partner of the opposite sex. Participants were found to experience more fear and to believe police involvement was more necessary when the perpetrator was depicted as a stranger rather than an expartner. More recently, research using a U.S. student sample found that participants were more likely to perceive scenarios involving a stranger as stalking and less likely to believe that the target should meet with the perpetrator in comparison to scenarios involving an ex-partner (Phillips, Quirk, Rosenfeld, & O Connor, 2004). Similar findings have been reported with student samples in the United Kingdom. Participants were more likely to perceive behavior as stalking and to necessitate police intervention when the perpetrator was depicted as a stranger rather than an ex-partner (Scott & Sheridan, 2010; Sheridan, Gillett, Davies, Blaauw, & Patel, 2003). The perpetrator s behavior was also perceived to cause the target the greatest alarm or personal distress when the perpetrator was portrayed as a stranger (Scott & Sheridan, 2010). Therefore, people perceive stranger stalkers to be the most dangerous despite national surveys and applied research consistently reporting that ex-partner stalkers pose the greatest threat to the personal safety of victims (Farnham, James, & Cantrell, 2000; McEwan et al., 2009; McEwan, Mullen, & Purcell, 2007; Meloy, 2005). This apparent misperception may be accounted for by the workings of the just world hypothesis (Lerner & Simmons, 1966), which states that people need to see the world as an orderly and predictable place whereby people get what they deserve and deserve what they get (Sheridan et al., 2003). Research has supported the just world hypothesis in the context of rape, with numerous studies showing that victims of date rape are blamed more than victims of stranger rape (Bell, Kuriloff, & Lottes, 1994; Bridges, 1991; Bridges & McGrail, 1989). This finding has

Scott et al. / PRIOR RELATIONSHIP AND PERCEPTIONS OF STALKING 1187 been attributed to the ambiguities inherent in interactions between parties who already know each other. In the case of date rape there, is a perceived potential for misunderstanding between the perpetrator and the victim as well as the possibility of differing interpretations of the situation (Bell et al., 1994; Bridges, 1991). Thus, it is possible that blame will be shifted toward the victim. Similar processes can be seen to operate in the context of expartner stalking, whereby the situation is interpreted in such a way that the perpetrator s behavior is seen as reasonable and the victim becomes partially responsible. For example, the perpetrator s behavior may be mitigated on the grounds that it is a natural part of a breakup, whereas responsibility may be attributed to the victim for misleading the perpetrator during the relationship. Thus, both parties share responsibility for what is perceived to be a domestic situation and should therefore be left to resolve the situation themselves (Sheridan et al., 2003). This perception of shared responsibility in cases of stalking is evident in the assumptions of some Australian police officers who perceive stalking to be the product of poor relationship choices (Pathé, MacKenzie, & Mullen, 2004). The finding that the target is perceived to be more responsible for encouraging the perpetrator s behavior when the two are portrayed as ex-partners rather than strangers adds further weight to this explanation (Scott & Sheridan, 2010; Sheridan et al., 2003). It is important to note that not all studies have demonstrated the same association between prior relationship and perceptions of stalking. For instance, Dennison and Thomson (2000, 2002) used community samples from the state of Victoria, Australia, and found few differences in perceptions of stalking according to the nature of the prior relationship between the perpetrator and the target. Differences were apparent only when persistence was low and there was no explicit evidence of intent, but they contrasted with the aforementioned studies. Specifically, participants were more likely to construe the perpetrator s behavior as stalking and to believe that the perpetrator intended to cause mental or physical harm to the target when they were portrayed as ex-partners rather than acquaintances or strangers (Dennison & Thomson, 2002). Although these findings may reflect stereotypical perceptions of the domestic situation (the perpetrator in the ex-partner scenario was described as having been possessive in the relationship), it is impossible to determine whether these differences reflect genuine cross-cultural differences in perceptions of stalking given the different scenarios used across studies (Dennison, 2007, p. 355). Thus, crosscultural research is necessary to develop a fuller understanding of this behavior and perceptions of stalking (Jagessar & Sheridan, 2004). This study examines the influence of the prior relationship between the perpetrator and the target on perceptions of stalking in the United Kingdom and Australia. Elements of previous perception research are incorporated into a direct cross-cultural comparison to determine whether perceptions genuinely differ between the United Kingdom and Australia. The study employed an experimental 3 2 (Prior Relationship Nationality) independent factorial design in which participants in the United Kingdom and Australia received one of three hypothetical vignettes recounting the behavior of a man seeking the attention of a woman over a period of 2 months. The vignettes were characterized by low levels of intent and persistence to replicate the conditions in which Dennison and Thomson (2002) found the nature of the prior relationship to influence perceptions of stalking. The specific question to be addressed is, does the nature of the prior relationship between the perpetrator and the target and/or the nationality of participants influence perceptions of whether the perpetrator s behavior

1188 Criminal Justice and BEHAVIOR 1. Constitutes stalking 2. Necessitates police intervention 3. Will cause fear or apprehension 4. Will cause mental or physical harm 5. Influences perceptions of whether the target is responsible for encouraging the perpetrator s behavior METHOD PARTICIPANTS A total of 315 university students from the United Kingdom and Australia participated in the study. Student samples were chosen to assist in the gathering of comparative data, although research suggests that students experience high rates of stalking compared to community members and so represent an important cohort in their own right (e.g., Phillips et al., 2004; Sheridan et al., 2003). The U.K. sample comprised 152 participants (41% males and 59% females) with an average age of 21.08 years (SD = 1.66). The Australian sample comprised the remaining 163 participants (27% males and 73% females) with an average age of 23.65 years (SD = 7.05). Differences in the age and gender distributions of the samples reflect differences in the degree programs offered by the two universities. Specifically, the Australian university offers a greater range of vocational and flexible degrees, which are popular with women and mature students, compared to the U.K. university. Participant numbers ranged from 45 to 57 across the six experimental conditions. The proportion of males in each condition ranged from 35% to 46% in the United Kingdom and from 25% to 29% in Australia. To avoid within-sample differences in stalking legislation, the U.K. sample consisted of students from England and Wales, whereas the Australian sample consisted of students from the state of Victoria (consistent with the community samples used by Dennison & Thomson, 2000, 2002). The research was conducted in accordance with the ethical requirements of the British Psychological Society. MATERIALS The study employed an online questionnaire comprising a vignette, five scale items relating to the behavior described in the vignette, a question concerning the most appropriate criminal justice response, and questions concerning demographic information (gender, age, and nationality). The questionnaire did not describe the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 or the PfHA 1997. There were three versions of the vignette, representing the different types of prior relationship: stranger, acquaintance, and ex-partner. All vignettes depicted a man displaying the same unwanted behaviors toward a woman. The stranger vignette is provided below: Jenny had never met Steve before he approached her during a one-day training course and asked her out. She declined his offer on the grounds that she was not interested in a relationship. Since declining Steve s offer 2 months ago, Jenny has received 20 or so calls and e-mails at work in which Steve asks her to go out with him. Jenny also discovered that Steve has asked her friends whether she mentions him in conversation. There have been a few occasions when Steve has got on the same bus as Jenny in the morning and although he does not ask to sit next

Scott et al. / PRIOR RELATIONSHIP AND PERCEPTIONS OF STALKING 1189 to her, he always makes eye contact and sits close by. Most recently, Steve approached Jenny while she was walking a friend s dog in the local park and asked her to change her mind even though Jenny had made it clear that she is not interested in him. In the acquaintance condition, Jenny had worked with Steve for about 18 months when he asked her out. She declined his offer on the grounds that she was not interested in a relationship. In the ex-partner condition Jenny had been in a serious relationship with Steve for about 18 months before she decided to break up with him. She realized that they wanted different things from the relationship. The five scale items were measured on 11-point (0-10) Likert-type scales, as detailed below: 1. To what extent do you consider Steve s behavior to be stalking? (definitely not stalking to definitely stalking) 2. Do you think police intervention is necessary for the resolution of this situation? (definitely not to definitely) 3. Do you think Steve s behavior will create fear or apprehension in Jenny? (not at all likely to extremely likely) 4. Do you think Steve s behavior will cause mental or physical harm to Jenny? (not at all likely to extremely likely) 5. To what extent is Jenny responsible for encouraging Steve s behavior? (not at all responsible to extremely responsible) An additional question asked participants to indicate which of three outcomes case dropped, restraining or intervention order, or criminal conviction would be the most appropriate if Steve was arrested and the case went to trial. The term restraining order was for the U.K. sample, whereas intervention order was used for the Australian sample. The restraining or intervention order and criminal conviction outcomes were collapsed because of low expected frequencies for the criminal conviction category. PILOT STUDY The questionnaires were piloted with a separate group of 20 students to ensure that the vignettes were pitched at an appropriate level. Participant feedback confirmed that the vignettes did not contain explicit evidence of intent to create fear or apprehension or mental or physical harm and that the behavior was low in persistence and likely to cause only low levels of fear. PROCEDURE Participants were recruited via invitations posted on the websites of university sports clubs and societies. Sports clubs and societies were chosen because they offered an effective means of accessing male and female students from a range of academic disciplines. After agreeing to participate in the study, participants were directed to an online questionnaire that took about 10 minutes to complete. The questionnaire was developed using the online survey software SurveyMonkey (http://www.surveymonkey.com). Participants read the informed consent information before being presented with one of three versions of the questionnaire. The allocation of participants to one of the three versions of the questionnaire was random. Participants were then directed to a debrief page on completion of the questionnaire.

1190 Criminal Justice and BEHAVIOR TABLE 1: Multivariate and Univariate Analyses of Variance F Ratios for Prior Relationship Nationality ANOVA MANOVA Stalking Intervention Fear Harm Responsibility Variable F F F F F F Relationship 8.66*** 23.80*** 14.92*** 21.82*** 9.03*** 28.40*** Nationality 5.07*** 10.33** 12.77*** 3.98 14.50*** 6.84** R N 1.14 2.15 0.26 1.08 0.22 1.19 Note. MANOVA = multivariate analysis of variance; ANOVA = univariate analysis of variance. F ratios are Wilks s Lambda approximations of Fs. Bonferroni-corrected alpha value =.01. **p <.01. ***p <.001. TABLE 2: Means and Standard Deviations for the Five Scale Items as a Function of the Prior Relationship and Nationality Five Scale Items Stalking Intervention Fear Harm Responsibility Condition M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Relationship Stranger 7.84 a 1.79 4.94 a 2.39 7.74 a 1.86 5.23 a,b 2.24 0.58 a 0.85 Acquaintance 7.01 a 2.15 4.00 a 2.55 7.02 b 2.14 4.40 a 2.29 1.29 a 1.56 Ex-partner 5.77 a 2.60 3.05 a 2.55 5.69 a,b 2.73 3.83 b 2.63 2.22 a 2.10 Nationality United Kingdom 6.42 2.44 3.44 2.40 6.51 2.39 3.93 2.35 1.64 1.79 Australia 7.23 2.24 4.45 2.71 7.04 2.44 4.97 2.45 1.15 1.65 Note. For the prior relationship, column means sharing subscripts are significantly different. The five scale items relating to participant perceptions of the behavior described in the vignettes utilized 11-point (0-10) Likert-type scales. RESULTS All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Version 14.0. A 3 2 multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed, and significant main effects were obtained for prior relationship, F(10, 610) = 8.66, p <.001, h 2 =.12, and nationality, F(5, 305) = 5.07, p <.001, h 2 =.08, on the combined scale items. The interaction effect was nonsignificant. Further univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs) utilizing Bonferronicorrected alpha values of.01 demonstrated that prior relationship and nationality were significantly associated with the individual scale items. The F ratios and significance are displayed in Table 1. Participants perceptions of whether the perpetrator s behavior constituted stalking, F(2, 309) = 23.80, p <.001, h 2 =.13, necessitated police intervention, F(2, 309) = 14.92, p <.001, h 2 =.09, created fear or apprehension, F(2, 309) = 21.82, p <.001, h 2 =.12, and caused mental or physical harm, F(2, 309) = 9.03, p <.001, h 2 =.06, were all influenced by the prior relationship depicted in the vignettes. The prior relationship also influenced whether the target was perceived to be responsible for encouraging the perpetrator s behavior, F(2, 309) = 28.40, p <.001, h 2 =.16. The means and standard deviations for the five scale items are provided in Table 2.

Scott et al. / PRIOR RELATIONSHIP AND PERCEPTIONS OF STALKING 1191 Post hoc analyses (Tukey s honestly significant difference test) revealed significant differences among all three prior relationship conditions for the stalking, intervention, and responsibility scale items (all p <.05). The perpetrator s behavior was perceived to constitute stalking and necessitate police intervention to the greatest extent in the stranger condition, followed by the acquaintance condition and then by the ex-partner condition. The target was perceived to be least responsible for the perpetrator s behavior in the stranger condition, followed by the acquaintance condition and then by the ex-partner condition. With regard to fear and harm, the perpetrator s behavior was considered to create more fear or apprehension when the perpetrator was either a stranger or an acquaintance compared to an ex-partner (both p <.001), whereas the perpetrator s behavior was considered to cause more mental or physical harm when the perpetrator was a stranger compared to either an acquaintance or an ex-partner (p <.05 and p <.001, respectively). When the influence of nationality was considered, Australian participants perceived the perpetrator s behavior to constitute stalking, F(1, 309) = 10.33, p <.01, h 2 =.03, necessitate police intervention, F(1, 309) = 12.77, p <.001, h 2 =.04, and cause mental or physical harm, F(1, 309) = 14.50, p <.001, h 2 =.05, to a greater extent than participants in the United Kingdom. Conversely, Australian participants perceived the target to be less responsible for encouraging the perpetrator s behavior than participants in the United Kingdom, F(1, 309) = 6.84, p <.01, h 2 =.02. A similar pattern was evident when log linear analysis was performed to identify any significant associations in appropriate criminal justice responses. Significant effects were obtained for both prior relationship and nationality on whether the perpetrator should receive a restraining or intervention order or criminal conviction, c 2 (2, N = 315) = 9.86, p <.01, f =.18, and c 2 (1, N = 315) = 10.32, p <.01, f =.18, respectively. A greater proportion of participants believed a restraining or intervention order or conviction was appropriate when the perpetrator and target were portrayed as strangers (79%) rather than acquaintances (67%) or ex-partners (59%). In addition, Australian participants were more likely to believe a restraining or intervention order or criminal conviction was appropriate compared to participants in the United Kingdom (76% vs. 59%). Although not included in the analysis, it is interesting to note that only six participants thought a conviction was necessary and all were in the stranger condition. The number of participants who thought a conviction was necessary was similar in the United Kingdom and Australia (four and two, respectively). Separate statistical analyses were also performed when the samples were balanced for gender and matched for age. The analyses were deemed necessary because research has shown that women are more likely than men to perceive behavior as stalking (e.g., Dennison & Thomson, 2002; Hills & Taplin, 1998) and because of the possible influence of age on perceptions of stalking (Dennison & Thomson, 2005). Nevertheless, nationality continued to influence perceptions of stalking when the U.K. and Australian samples were comparable for gender (59% female vs. 58% female) and age (average of 21.08 years vs. average of 21.14 years). DISCUSSION When the perpetrator and target were portrayed as strangers rather than acquaintances or ex-partners, the perpetrator s behavior was perceived to constitute stalking, necessitate

1192 Criminal Justice and BEHAVIOR police intervention, cause fear or apprehension, and cause mental or physical harm to a greater extent. Furthermore, the target was perceived to be less responsible for encouraging the perpetrator s behavior when he was depicted as a stranger rather than an acquaintance or ex-partner. With regard to appropriate criminal justice responses, participants were most likely to believe the perpetrator should receive a restraining or intervention order or conviction when the perpetrator and target were portrayed as strangers. The direction of findings was similar in the United Kingdom and Australia and consistent with the majority of existing research (Hills & Taplin, 1998; Phillips et al., 2004; Scott & Sheridan, 2010; Sheridan et al., 2003). Australian participants provided significantly higher ratings for the stalking, intervention, and harm items and significantly lower ratings for the responsibility item. When appropriate criminal justice responses were considered, a greater proportion of Australian participants believed that the perpetrator should receive a restraining or intervention order or criminal conviction. In the context of the just world hypothesis, the perpetrator and target are perceived to share responsibility for the situation when they are portrayed as ex-partners. Consequently, police intervention is considered less necessary as both parties should be left to resolve the situation themselves (Sheridan et al., 2003). As Dennison and Thomson (2005) pointed out, when a victim has had prior contact with the perpetrator, skepticism may exist regarding his or her encouragement of the perpetrator s behavior. This interpretation supports the finding that participants are more likely to believe that a restraining or intervention order or conviction is necessary when the perpetrator is depicted as a stranger rather than an acquaintance or ex-partner. It is also consistent with the real-world finding that ex-partner stalkers are less likely to be convicted than stranger or acquaintance stalkers despite being more persistent and more likely to use violence (Harris, 2000; McEwan et al., 2007; Meloy, 2005). The misperceptions identified in this study could have a significant impact at various stages of the criminal justice system, affecting police and discretionary decision making about the seriousness of stalking cases. For example, it could lead to the dismissal or downgrading of charges, an inappropriate application of antistalking laws, or an inadequate criminal justice response to violations of protection orders (Pathé et al., 2004). Research has demonstrated that Australian police officers share certain misperceptions in relation to ex-partner stalkers (Pathé et al., 2004; Pearce & Easteal, 1999), so it is important that training be provided to ensure that serious claims of ex-partner stalking are not perceived to be unimportant domestic disputes. Training programs are currently being developed across the United Kingdom to address common misperceptions held by police officers (L. Sheridan, personal communication, May 24, 2010). It is interesting that the findings for the influence of prior relationship contrast with the research of Dennison and Thomson (2002) in which behavior was more likely to be construed as stalking when the perpetrator and target were portrayed as ex-partners rather than acquaintances or strangers. It may be that the differences reported by Dennison and Thomson reflected differences in the scenarios used rather than genuine cross-cultural differences in perceptions of stalking. The scenarios used by Dennison and Thomson refered to the possessiveness of the ex-partner, whereas those used in the current study did not. If the ex-partner is not described as possessive, then the participants lack of concern about his future behavior might be justified. Conversely, if the ex-partner is described as possessive, violent, or controlling, concern about his future behavior is more likely to be warranted. Thus, the possessiveness of the ex-partner may have changed participants perceptions of the

Scott et al. / PRIOR RELATIONSHIP AND PERCEPTIONS OF STALKING 1193 stalking situation. Further research is needed to investigate the influence of different domestic situations, including those characterized by verbal and physical abuse, on perceptions in the context of ex-partner stalking. Research could also investigate the influence of perpetrator gender on perceptions of stalking severity and the likelihood of violence. It was unexpected that Australian participants would perceive the perpetrator s behavior to be more severe. It is possible that the narrower definition of stalking and the harsher maximum penalty imposed by the Victorian Crimes Act 1958 (compared to the PfHA 1997) led Australian participants to consider stalking as more serious and dangerous than participants in the United Kingdom. However, participants were not presented with, or asked about, the respective antistalking laws. Further research is required to explore the underlying reasons for this cross-cultural difference. The current study was restricted to perceptions of stalking in the context of a specific situation that was characterized by low levels of intent and persistence. Furthermore, the ability to generalize these findings is limited by the use of student samples. Res earch has repeatedly shown that students experience higher rates of stalking than community members, which may significantly influence their perceptions (e.g., Phillips et al., 2004; Sheridan et al., 2003). Further research is necessary to determine whether these findings extend to other, more serious stalking situations. The replication and extension of this research to other samples will also help clarify the robustness of the conclusions of the current study. With the exception of Holland and Scandinavia, the concept of stalking is only just beginning to be recognized in non-english-speaking countries within Europe. Future research is required to investigate whether the findings of research conducted in Englishspeaking countries is applicable in their non-english-speaking counterparts. There are clear ambiguities in perceptions of stalking in English-speaking countries; such research could inform legislation and public awareness in non-english-speaking countries that are only now beginning to investigate and legislate against stalking. This study has demonstrated that stranger stalkers are perceived to pose a greater threat than acquaintances or ex-partner stalkers in both the United Kingdom and Australia, and that behavior is more readily interpreted as stalking in Australia than the United Kingdom. Although there is little evidence of gross cultural differences, it is unfortunate that perceptions in both countries fail to reflect the reality that ex-partner stalkers generally pose a greater threat than stranger or acquaintance stalkers. REFERENCES Bell, S. T., Kuriloff, P. J., & Lottes, I. (1994). Understanding attributions of blame in stranger rape and date rape situations: An examination of gender, race, identification, and students social perceptions of rape victims. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1719-1734. Bridges, J. S. (1991). Perceptions of date and stranger rape: A difference in sex role expectations and rape-supportive beliefs. Sex Roles, 24, 291-307. Bridges, J. S., & McGrail, C. A. (1989). Attributions of responsibility for date and stranger rape. Sex Roles, 21, 273-286. Crimes Act, s21a, Victoria (1958). Dennison, S. M. (2007). Interpersonal relationships and stalking: Identifying when to intervene. Law and Human Behavior, 31, 353-367. Dennison, S., & Thomson, D. M. (2000). Community perceptions of stalking: What are the fundamental concerns? Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 7, 159-169. Dennison, S. M., & Thomson, D. M. (2002). Identifying stalking: The relevance of intent in commonsense reasoning. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 543-561.

1194 Criminal Justice and BEHAVIOR Dennison, S. M., & Thomson, D. M. (2005). Criticisms or plaudits for stalking laws? What psycholegal research tells us about proscribing stalking. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11, 384-406. Farnham, F. R., James, D. V., & Cantrell, P. (2000). Association between violence, psychosis, and relationship to victim in stalkers. Lancet, 355, 199. Finney, A. (2006, December). Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the 2004/05 British Crime Survey (Home Office Online Report 12/06). London, UK: Home Office. Harris, J. (2000). An evaluation of the use and effectiveness of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (Home Office Research Study 203). London, UK: Home Office. Hills, A. M., & Taplin, J. L. (1998). Anticipated responses to stalking: Effect of threat and target stalker relationship. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 5, 139-146. Jagessar, J. D. H., & Sheridan, L. (2004). Stalking perceptions and experiences across two cultures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 97-118. James, D. V., & Farnham, F. R. (2003). Stalking and serious violence. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31, 432-439. Lerner, M. J., & Simmons, C. H. (1966). Observer s reaction to the innocent victim : Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 203-210. McEwan, T. E., Mullen, P. E., MacKenzie, R. D., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2009). Violence in stalking situations. Psychological Medicine, 39, 1469-1478. McEwan, T. E., Mullen, P. E., & Purcell, R. (2007). Identifying risk factors in stalking: A review of current research. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30, 1-9. Meloy, J. R. (2005). Stalking and violence. In J. Boon & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Stalking and psychosexual obsession: Psychological perspectives for prevention, policing and treatment (pp. 105-124). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Meloy, J. R., Davis, B., & Lovette, J. (2001). Risk factors for violence among stalkers. Journal of Threat Assessment, 1, 3-16. Palarea, R. E., Zona, M. A., Lane, J. C., & Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (1999). The dangerous nature of intimate relationship stalking: Threats, violence, and associated risk factors. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 17, 269-283. Pathé, M., MacKenzie, R. D., & Mullen, P. E. (2004). Stalking by law: Damaging victims and rewarding offenders. Journal of Law and Medicine, 12, 103-111. Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. (1997). The impact of stalkers on their victims. British Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 12-17. Pathé, M., Mullen, P. E., & Purcell, R. (2000). Same-gender stalking. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 28, 191-197. Pearce, A., & Easteal, P. (1999). The domestic in stalking: Policing domestic stalking in the Australian Capital Territory. Alternative Law Journal, 24, 165-169. Phillips, L., Quirk, R., Rosenfeld, B., & O Connor, M. (2004). Is it stalking? Perceptions of stalking among college undergraduates. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 31, 73-96. Protection from Harassment Act, England and Wales (1997). Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (2002). The prevalence and nature of stalking in the Australian community. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 114-120. Rosenfeld, B., & Lewis, C. (2005). Assessing violence risk in stalking cases: A regression tree approach. Law and Human Behavior, 29, 343-357. Scott, A. J., & Sheridan, L. (2010). Reasonable perceptions of stalking: The influence of conduct severity and the perpetrator target relationship. Psychology, Crime & Law. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/10683160903203961 Sheridan, L., & Davies, G. M. (2001a). Violence and the prior victim stalker relationship. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 11, 102-116. Sheridan, L., & Davies, G. M. (2001b). What is stalking? The match between legislation and public perception. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 6, 3-17. Sheridan, L., Gillett, R., Davies, G. M., Blaauw, E., & Patel, D. (2003). There s no smoke without fire : Are male ex-partners perceived as more entitled to stalk than acquaintance or stranger stalkers? British Journal of Psychology, 94, 87-98. Walby, S., & Allen, J. (2004, March). Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking: Findings from the British Crime Survey (Home Office Research Study 276). London, UK: Home Office. Adrian J. Scott is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Sellenger Centre, School of Law and Justice, at Edith Cowan University. His current research interests include the influence of personal and situational characteristics on perceptions of stalking. Rebecca Lloyd received her bachelor s degree from the Department of Psychology at the University of Bath. Her research focused on perceptions of stalking. Jeff Gavin is a lecturer in the Department of Psychology at the University of Bath. His research focuses on the social aspects of online communication, including online support for a variety of health conditions, social networking, and romantic relationships.