Stalking Myth-Attributions: Examining the Role of Individual and Contextual Variables on Attributions in Unwanted Pursuit Scenarios

DOI 10.1007/s11199-010-9853-8 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Stalking Myth-Attributions: Examining the Role of Individual and Contextual Variables on Attributions in Unwanted Pursuit Scenarios H. Colleen Sinclair # Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010 Abstract Undergraduates from a large southeastern university in the U.S. (n=258) read a scenario describing an unwanted heterosexual pursuit that manipulated story perspective (pursuer s vs.rejecter s) and pursuer/rejecter gender. Measures of 1) external attributions for pursuer behavior, 2) negative internal attributions to rejecters, and 3) Stalking Myths endorsement followed. Individuals adopting the pursuer s perspective showed higher rates of external attributions for pursuer behavior than those in the rejecter perspective condition. They also endorsed more negative internal attributions for rejecters than those in the rejecter perspective condition, especially when the rejecter was male. Participant gender also mattered. Men exhibited more victim blaming tendencies than women when the rejecter was female. However, stalking myth endorsement was the strongest predictor of attributions. Keywords Stalking. Attributions. Social perceptions. Gender differences Introduction Stalking is typically defined as the unwanted and repeated harassment of an individual that causes that person some level of distress (Spitzberg and Cupach 2007). Definitions vary between states in the United States and across countries. However, even employing a conservative definition that requires a high degree of victim fear, stalking is a crime that H. C. Sinclair (*) Department of Psychology & Social Science Research Center, Mississippi State University, P. O. Box 6161, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA e-mail: csinclair@ssrc.msstate.edu affects over a million Americans each year (Tjaden and Thoennes 1998), with recent statistics estimating that as many as 3.4 million Americans are stalked (Baum et al. 2009). Yet, 19 years after the advent of anti-stalking legislation, the legal system is still grappling with fitting this new crime into their existing jurisprudence framework. Only approximately a quarter of stalking instances reported to the police are criminally prosecuted (NIJCDC 2000). This may be due to the fact that stalking often grows out of unwanted relational pursuits where one party seeks to obtain or re-obtain a romantic relationship with a rejecting party (Cupach and Spitzberg 2004; Spitzberg and Cupach 2007). Thus many may be struggling with where to draw the line between stalking behavior and courtship (Emerson et al. 1998; Sinclair and Frieze 2000). Accordingly, an aim of the present study was to explore the conceptions that U.S. undergraduate students hold of stalking and examine how these beliefs, and other individual and situational factors, might shape their perception of a potential stalking case. I focused on how these students made internal and external attributions to rejecters and pursuers, and further examined how gender, perspective (pursuer s side vs. rejecter s side), and the endorsement of stalking stereotypes affected these attributions. Explaining the Problem: Attributions & Misattributions The majority of the existing research on the perceptions of stalking has focused on the application of the label of stalking to one s own experiences (e.g., Jordan et al. 2007, U.S. college women; Tjaden et al. 2000, U.S. citizens), to hypothetical scenarios (e.g., Dennison and Thomson 2002, Australian citizens; Kinkade et al. 2005, U.S. students; Phillips et al. 2004, U.S. students) or to lists of behaviors (e.g., Amar 2007, U.S. college women; Sheridan et al. 2001, British female trade unionists; Sheridan et al. 2002,

British men; Yanowitz 2006, U.S. students). Thus, existing research has been largely limited to determining when individuals believe an incident constitutes stalking. No research presently exists examining how individuals make attributions for the behaviors of the rejecters and pursuers in an unwanted pursuit, and yet the explanations individuals construct to make sense of a situation may impact labeling and perceptions of incident severity. Researchers have long applied attribution theory (Heider 1958) to understanding how individuals make causal explanations for social behavior. At the most basic level of attributions, individuals can make internal or external attributions for behavior. In the case of internal attributions, individuals explain their own or other s behavior as due to dispositional characteristics (e.g., she crashed into that car because she is a bad driver, I did well on the test because I am smart ). External attributions, in contrast, are explanations that focus on the situational factors that contributed to the outcome (e.g., she crashed into that car because the roads were icy, I failed the test because the test was poorly written ) (see Heider 1958). Attributions play an important role when making judgments in legal cases. After all, it is the job of the deciders of fact to determine who to hold responsible for a particular incident and, according to the discounting principle (Kelley 1973), individuals reduce the causality assigned to one source when multiple sources could be also responsible (e.g., victim behavior, external stressors). When individuals assign responsibility to one source (e.g., the victim provoked the defendant) the less blame they attribute to other causes (e.g., perpetrator character). Thus, people may see the pursuer in a stalking case as less responsible to the extent that the rejecter is seen as provoking the pursuer s behavior. Certain factors may contribute to increasing the likelihood that individuals perceive the rejecter of an unwanted pursuit as blameworthy. Since the advent of attribution theory a number of studies have shown that factors such as perspective and level of identification with the subject of one s attributions influence the extent to which one makes internal or external attributions for behavior. Accordingly, I examined how perspective (pursuer vs. rejecter) and gender may have affected the types of attributions made in an unwanted pursuit scenario. The Matter of Perspective When examining attributions it has often been established within social psychological research that perspective matters. In particular, the actor-observer bias (Jones and Nisbett 1972) predicts that actors make more forgiving external attributions for their own behavior, while observers witnessing the actor s behavior make more dispositional attributions. Stalking research has also shown that perspective matters. Sinclair and Frieze (2000, 2005) asked U.S. college students to write about their experiences being both a pursuer and a rejecter and discovered that both told stories that were forgiving of any role that they might have had in perpetuating the unwanted pursuit. For instance, the pursuer saw the rejecter as giving many signals to indicate interest and barely a hint of disinterest, whereas the rejecter believed s/he clearly told the pursuer that there was no hope for a relationship. Ultimately, the studies by Sinclair and Frieze (as well as similar research on unrequited love by Baumeister et al. 1993, also with American undergraduates) showed us that pursuers and rejecters cast themselves in favorable lights when recounting their experiences as actors in each role. Other studies have yielded similar findings regarding perspective. In work by Chaikin and Darley (1973; U.S. male college students) as well as Leary and colleagues (1998; U.S. undergraduates), researchers instructed students to take the perspective of a perpetrator or to recall being a perpetrator (in an accident or when hurting someone). Regardless of how identifying with a perpetrator was achieved, those standing in the perpetrator s shoes recounted their crime in a light favorable to him/herself, even if that included blaming the victim for provoking the act. In contrast, those assigned to recall a time when they were victimized did not see how they precipitated anything. Rather they focused on blaming the person who had wronged them. Thus, both actors and targets shaped their causal attributions to cast themselves in the best light possible. As such, it would be expected that those adopting the perspective of a potential stalker would be higher in external attributions for their behavior and higher in internal attributions to rejecters, potentially blaming the victim. People taking the rejecters perspective, on the other hand, would be lower on both indices. Such predictions would be consistent with attribution literature. In the present study, I manipulated perspective by controlling whether the firstperson story of an unwanted pursuit was told from the perspective of the pursuer or the rejecter to test these predictions. However, it is important to note that the only study to experimentally manipulate perspective in a stalking scenario failed to find significant perspective effects with regard to whether the behavior was viewed as stalking, illegal, or serious (Dennison 2007; Australian community sample). Accordingly, perspective differences may only extend to attributions and not to perceptions of severity or labeling. Gender, Roles, and Identification Through scenario manipulations, we may be able to systematically affect the likelihood that an individual will

adopt the perspective of the pursuer or the rejecter. However, it may also be important to take gender of the perceiver into account. Historically, when examining different types of intimate aggression (e.g., partner abuse, rape, sexual harassment) there has been a gender divide in how men and women perceive such crimes (see Koss et al. 1994 for review). Gender differences in the endorsement of stereotypes about these crimes (e.g., rape myths), in attributions of blame, in the perception of what warrants the label of battering, rape, or sexual harassment, and in the level of perceived severity have all been documented (Koss et al. 1994). As stalking is a relatively new addition to this category of intimate aggression, so is the question of whether similar gender differences in perceptions exist. With regard to gender differences in perceptions of stalking, our knowledge is limited to observing differences in the application of the label of stalking, in perceived severity, or level of threat. Within this literature, the results are mixed as to whether men and women see stalking similarly or differently. Some find women more willing to apply the stalking label (Dennison and Thomson 2002, Australian citizens; Yanowitz 2006, U.S. undergraduates) while others find more similarities than differences with regard to the application of the stalking label or in viewing the perpetrator as threatening (Kinkade et al. 2005, U.S. undergraduates; Phillips et al. 2004, undergraduates; Sheridan et al. 2001, British female trade unionists; Sheridan et al. 2002, British men). However, this existing literature does not address the issue of attributions in stalking scenarios. As such, I turned to research in related domains. Previous research has applied attribution theory to determining reactions to and perceptions of victims and offenders of other types of intimate aggression (Bell et al. 1994, U.S. undergraduates; Ben-David and Schneider 2005, Israeli undergraduates; Elkins et al. 2002, U.S. undergraduates; Rye et al. 2006, U.S. psychology students; Witte et al. 2006, U.S. undergraduates; Workman and Freeburg 1999, U.S. undergraduates). According to the similarity-leniency hypothesis (see Kerr et al. 1995 for review; see also the judgmental leniency aspect of the Defensive Attribution theory; Shaver 1970), individuals may show more forgiving attributions e.g., more external attributions for pursuers and less negative internal attributions for rejecters for an individual with whom they identify. When it comes to a situation as gendered as courtship and stalking, identification may occur when individuals identify with the role an individual is in. For example, in an unwanted pursuit scenario women may identify more with the role of the pursued and men with the role of pursuer regardless of the gender of that rejecter or pursuer. After all, in the real world, men as pursuer and women as pursued is our prototype of both the typical courtship and the typical stalking situation (see Yanowitz and Yanowitz 2011, U.S. college sample). Indeed, in Dennison s (2007) stalking scenario study, male Australian citizens identified more with the male pursuer while female participants identified more with the female rejecter. Thus, participants identified more within their own gender and gender-typic role. However, in Dennison s (2007) study the Australian citizens only received a scenario where the actor or victim matched the participant gender. Women received either a scenario depicting a female pursuer/male rejecter or a female rejecter/male pursuer and men only received male actor or male rejecter scenarios. Thus, it is difficult to parse the role that identifying with one s own gender over another gender plays. Similar difficulties affect conclusions regarding other intimate aggression studies of judgmental leniency, because, by and large, these studies have asked U.S. undergraduates to judge scenarios featuring exclusively male perpetrators and female victims (Bell et al. 1994; Workman and Freeburg 1999). It is not all that surprising when these studies find that men identify more with the role of the perpetrator and women with the role of victim when all the perpetrators are male and the victims female. Similarly, although there are some instances in which women assign more blame to victims (see Heater et al. 2002; Sinclair and Bourne 1998 both employing U.S. undergraduate samples), by and large the evidence shows that men are more likely to endorse beliefs that blame the female victims of intimate aggression and/or minimize the overall severity of aggression between acquaintances (Ben-David and Schneider 2005, Israeli undergraduates; Bryant and Spencer 2003, U.S. undergraduates; Ewoldt et al. 2000, U.S. undergraduates; Koss et al. 1994, review; Lonsway and Fitzgerald 1994, review; Sinclair and Bourne 1998, U.S. undergraduates). However, it is important to note that in past research on intimate aggression these gender differences were primarily assessed with regard to perceptions of female victims and male perpetrators. Yet, it could be that men identify with the male perspective and women with the female perspective regardless of role, and thus may place blame on pursuers so long as those pursuers are of the opposite gender. After all, studies on unrequited love show that both men and women have experienced being the rejected lover as well as the rejecter (Sinclair and Frieze 2000, U.S. undergraduates). Accordingly, it remains to be seen how the gender of the participant may interact with gender of the character and/or role of the character when it comes to making attributions in stalking cases. Why Attitudes Matter To some extent, participant gender differences in attributions and perceptions of incident seriousness may be accounted for by differences in related attitudinal variables (e.g., traditional

gender role beliefs, acceptance of intimate violence; Acock and Ireland 1983, U.S. college students; Ben-David and Schneider 2005, Israeli students; Hurt et al. 1999, U.S. undergraduates). Thus, it is important to account for potential attitudinal variables to see if gender differences might be due to beliefs more so than gender. Of particular interest to researchers of intimate aggression (e.g., partner abuse, rape, and sexual harassment) has been the examination of the endorsement of victim blaming myths such as rape myths (see Lonsway and Fitzgerald 1994 for review). Rape myths are often defined as widely held misconceptions about rape that serve to 1) blame the victim, 2) excuse the perpetrator, and 3) minimize the crime (Koss et al. 1994; Lonsway and Fitzgerald 1994). Similar stereotypes about partner abuse (see Grothues and Marmion 2006, review;peters2003, U.S. university students) and sexual harassment (see Cowan 2000, American college women; Lonsway et al. 2008, U.S. undergraduates) have been shown to exist (see also Koss et al. 1994 for review). These perceptions of intimate aggression have been linked to outcomes favoring defendants in legal cases (e.g., LaFree 1989, Illinois jury pool; Sinclair and Bourne 1998, U.S. undergraduates), the likelihood to perpetrate acts of intimate aggression (e.g., Bohner et al. 1998, German male students), and negative beliefs about women (such as Hostility Toward Women and sexism; see Caron and Carter 1997, U.S. college students; Cowan 2000, American female undergraduates; De Judicibus and McCabe 2001, Australian workers and college students). Mirroring the work in other domains of intimate violence, Sinclair (2006, U.S. college students) showed that endorsement of stalking myths is also connected to the same outcomes. Individuals who endorse such attitudes as Many instances of stalking by would-be-lovers could be avoided if the alleged victim would have just told his/her stalker clearly that s/he was definitely not interested in a romantic relationship have been found to give lower sentences as mock jurors, be higher on reports of engaging in stalking-related behavior in the past, and exhibit other types of sexist beliefs and tolerance of intimate aggression. Also, Kamphuis and colleagues (2005) conducted a survey of perceptions of stalking among European Union helping professionals (e.g., police officers). In their study they found no gender differences in perceptions of stalking (e.g., is it stalking?, should you intervene?, is it normal? ), but it could be that the gender differences were explained instead by endorsement of the unpublished stalkingrelated attitudes scale they included. Their scale included items like somewomenactuallywanttobestalked and endorsement of these beliefs were a strong predictor of participant responses to the stalking scenarios. No work has yet connected these types of victim blaming attitudes to stalking attributions, but it is likely that endorsing stereotypes that minimize stalking and blame the victim would be linked to higher negative internal attributions to rejecters in an unwanted pursuit scenario. Thus, consistent with the discounting principle discussed previously wherein blame attributed to one cause reduces the blame attributed to another, those higher in endorsement of stalking myths should also be higher in external attributions for pursuer behavior. Summary of Hypotheses To review, consistent with past studies on attribution and other types of intimate aggression, I anticipated that gender and perspective differences would exist with regard to the assignment of blame in a given instance of relational intrusion. Specifically: H1 Effect of Perspective: People adopting the pursuer s perspective as opposed to the rejecter s perspective should be more likely to a) make external attributions for the pursuer s actions and b) make negative internal attributions for the rejecter s role in the pursuit. Individuals adopting the rejecter s perspective should show the opposite pattern. H2 Gender & Roles: With regard to gender, I expected that women might make fewer negative internal attributions to rejecters than men, whereas men might make more external attributions for pursuer behavior than women. This finding (i.e., a main effect of participant gender on each DV) would indicate that individuals identify with a gender-typic role more so than their gender. However, I considered the possibility that attribution patterns might depend on the gender of the pursuer/ victim as well as the gender of the participant. For example, compared to women, men might only endorse more external attributions for male pursuer. Also, women might only endorse less internal attributions than men for female rejecters. This pattern (i.e., an interaction of participant and pursuer gender) would potentially indicate that individuals not only identify with a gender-typic role but also their gender. H3 Attitudes: Lastly, I expected that individuals accepting more stalking myths which men may be higher on than women would be higher on both a) external attributions for pursuer actions, and b) negative internal attributions about the rejecter s character. I explored whether these beliefs may explain more of the variance in the attribution outcomes than participant gender, as I believed that once differences in stalking-relevant attitudes are accounted for it was possible that any participant gender differences in attributions for relational intrusions might disappear.

Method Participants A total of 258 undergraduate participants were recruited from a large southern university in the United States to participate in this study. Overall, the sample was 65.9% female and 34.1% male. This gender ratio is common to the standard university convenience sample of introductory psychology students. The majority were Caucasian (74.8%), with 20.5% African American,.5% Asian American, 1.9% Hispanic, and 1.9% multi-racial. I ran a chi-square analysis of race (0 = White, 1 = non-white) across cells, and no significant differences emerged. The ratio of the sample being 70 76% Caucasian was consistent across conditions. The average age was 18.52 (SD=1.23). Ages ranged from 17 to 29. All received credit in their introductory psychology classes for participating. Design The present research employed a P E factorial design: 2 (Perspective: Pursuer s vs. Rejecter s) 2 (Pursuer gender: Male vs. Female) 2 (Participant gender: Male vs. Female). Thus participants could be assigned to receive one of four possible two-page scenarios that depicted the break-up of a heterosexual relationship. In order to manipulate perspective, the story varied as to whether the I in the story was the pursuer or the rejecter. To fit with the change in perspective, things that the I felt in one scenario ( I was angry in the rejecter s story) were either said or perceived in the alternate scenario ( She said she was angry, She seemed angry in the pursuer s story). Lastly, scenarios also varied systematically as to whether the pursuer was male (and thus the rejecter was female) or the pursuer was female (and the rejecter was male). Cell sizes ranged from 21 to 46 participants. Materials and Procedure In the following description of the present study s scenario and dependent variables, I used the term unwanted pursuit instead of stalking. I purposefully created a scenario about which there were disparities as to whether it qualified as stalking. I made no explicit mention of fear on the part of the rejecter, but did indicate the rejecter was uncomfortable. In some countries and in some American states, distress is sufficient to warrant a stalking label. In other instances, a high degree of victim fear is required. However, in all cases it fits the label of unwanted pursuit. I left it up to the participants to decide whether it was stalking. To remain consistent with the labeling of the incident as unwanted pursuit, perpetrators are referred to as pursuers and victims are rejecters. Prior to participant arrival, research assistants assembled and randomized all survey packets using a block randomization technique. Assistants assembled the packets such that, after demographics, the order of portions of the survey was counter-balanced. Some participants read the scenario and scenario-relevant questions next. Others completed the Stalking Myths scale first, and then read the scenario. The entire survey took approximately 40 minutes for participants to complete. Stimulus Materials The scenarios fit onto two pages and were 82 lines long and 1485 words. A longer scenario was used than typical of scenario studies to provide participants with richer material to draw from in order to construct both situational and dispositional explanations for pursuer and rejecter behavior. Due to scenario length, copies are available from the author rather than included in the appendix. A summary follows. Each scenario depicted the romantic relationship of Shawn and Alicia (race neutral names, New York City Health Department 2007) that had broken up after 6 months. After the first break-up, the relationship partners had gotten back together once for 2 months, but then broke up again and the rejecter in the relationship moved onto dating another person. However, the rejected individual was unable to let go of the relationship. The pursuit continued for the remainder of the semester. The scenario went on to depict the pursuer s numerous attempts to reconcile. The pursuer s behaviors were selected based on those indicated by the literature as common to real-life stalking situations. These actions included repeated phone calls, hang-up calls, sending/ leaving unwanted gifts/notes, confrontations with third parties, using third parties to find out the rejecter s new phone number, showing up at the rejecter s clubs, stores, and hang-outs, and finally dropping off dead roses on the rejecter s doorstep. These behaviors all occurred during the rejecter s repeated attempts to avoid the pursuer (e.g., avoid going to hang-outs, dropping out of clubs, changing phone numbers) and an escalation in attempts to tell the pursuer that the calls/gifts were unwanted. Rejecter reactions, like the actions of the pursuer, were also selected based on the literature s assessment of common rejecter responses (e.g., Baumeister et al. 1993; Cupach and Spitzberg 2004; Dunn 2002; Folkes 1982; Sinclair and Frieze 2000). These scenarios were piloted at two separate universities to ensure that the majority of participants labeled the pursuer behaviors as overly persistent and intrusive, however, there was intended variability about the application of the stalking label. Specifically, when participants were asked to determine to what extent they felt that the scenario warranted a stalking

charge. Only 19.8% felt not at all, 26.0% said slightly, 22.9% said somewhat, 19.0% indicated probably, and a last 12.0% said definitely. Accordingly, the distribution was fairly well-spread across the options available. Also pilot studies were used to generate the internal and external attribution items, as participants were initially given the scenarios and asked open-ended questions about the possible contributors to the pursuer and rejecter s behaviors. These open-ended responses were then turned into forced-choice options for a second pilot, and the items that showed the best internal consistency were used for the present administration. Dependent Variables After reading the scenario, the participants were asked a number of follow-up questions. Of primary interest to the present study were the items that assessed: 1) external attributions for pursuer behavior and 2) negative internal attributions for rejecter behavior. Excusing Perpetrators: External Attributions for Pursuer Behavior (EAP) After reading the scenario, study administrators asked the participants to rate which of the following 12 factors they felt contributed to the problems depicted in the scenario. For each item, the participants rated whether they felt it was 0 = not at all a contributing factor to 4 = definitely a major contributing factor. Sample items include: pursuer stressed about mother sillness,having difficulty adjusting to new place, had just moved, didn t know anyone else, was following cultural norms, the on-again/offagain relationship fed hope of reunion, campus environment meant they were likely to run into each other, similar interests/ majors meant they d see each other, etc. All items loaded onto a single factor and had a reliability of α=.88. I averaged scores across the 12 items, thus participants could have a score ranging from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating higher levels of external attributions. Blaming Victims: Negative Internal Attributions for Rejecter Behavior (NIAR) Using the same 5-point Likert response format as for the external attributions, the survey required participants to rate which of the 14 different rejecter characteristics contributed to the incident depicted in the scenario. Of the different attributions that could be made, participants could attribute the incident to the rejecter being manipulative, selfish, insensitive, dishonest, disloyal, over-reacting, intentionally leading pursuer on, playing hard to get, afraid of commitment, using the pursuer, paranoid, unclear, just interested in having fun, or a jerk/ bitch. These items formed a single factor with a reliability of α=.90. Scores were averaged across the 14 items, thus participants could have a score ranging from 0 to 4, with higher scores indicating higher levels of internal attributions to rejecters. Additional Measures I included other measures in the survey (e.g., positive internal attributions for pursuer and rejecter, external attributions for rejecter, and negative internal attributions for pursuer) but they are not discussed in the present report. However, the following indices were of relevance to the present project: Predictor variable All participants were given the Stalking Myths Scale (SMS: Sinclair 2006). The SMS has 21 items, six of which are reverse-scored, intended to tap popular beliefs about the impact of stalking and the characteristics of typical victims and perpetrators. Note, however, that unlike many myths scales that focus on violence against women, the SMS is gender neutral in its item wording. Participants respond to each item by indicating the extent to which they agree or disagree (1 = strongly disagree, 6= strongly agree). Sample items include: Many instances of stalking by would-be-lovers could be avoided if the alleged victim would have just told his/her stalker clearly that s/he was definitely not interested in a romantic relationship and Being in love is not justification for stalking someone (reverse-scored). Item responses were averaged, thus participants could have a score ranging between a 1 and a 6. Higher scores indicate greater myth endorsement. The SMS has reported reliabilities ranging from α=.80.82, and was α=.76 in the present sample. Manipulation check Also, I included a manipulation check to verify that the perspective manipulation was effective in getting participants to identify more with the I in the scenario. The survey included items that asked participants (on a scale of 0 = not at all to 4 = definitely) to what extent they identified with, felt sympathy for, and understood the pursuer and the rejecter. Reliability was α=.70 for both pursuer and rejecter sub-scales. Results I first address the results for the manipulation checks and then move to hypothesis testing regarding effects of perspective, pursuer gender, and participant gender on attributions. Hypothesis testing results are presented in order of the hypotheses, thus first address effects of perspective and then effects of participant and pursuer gender. Included in the last section of hypothesis testing is

the introduction of the Stalking Myths Scale as a potential predictor of attributions. Participant gender differences on stalking myth endorsement are also examined. Stimulus Checks To verify that the perspective had the intended effect of increasing identification with the appropriate role I ran a MANOVA including participant gender, pursuer gender, and perspective as the independent variables and pursuer sympathy and rejecter sympathy as the dependent variables. Main effects of perspective were important to find to verify the effectiveness of the perspective manipulation. I also included gender of participant and gender of pursuer to test whether men and women might identify differently with pursuer and rejecter roles respectively as found by Dennison (2007). Interactions were explored. The multivariate results revealed significant main effects of perspective, F(2,249)=5.99, p=.003, η 2 =.05, participant gender, F(2,249)=4.23, p=.016, η 2 =.03, and pursuer gender, F(2,249)=4.64, p=.010, η 2 =.04, but no significant interactions. However, as univariate tests reveal, these main effects appeared primarily for pursuer sympathy and were less apparent for rejecter sympathy with one exception. There was a main effect of perspective on rejecter sympathy. These effects are described below. The subsequent univariate tests showed that there was a main effect of perspective on sympathy for the pursuer, F(1,250)=7.29, p=.007, η 2 =.03, such that those in the pursuer condition (M=1.88, SD=1.15) exhibited a higher level of sympathy for the pursuer than those in the rejecter condition (M=1.49, SD=1.09). Thus the manipulation had the desired effect. There was also a significant main effect of participant gender, F(1,250)=8.25, p=.004, η 2 =.03. Effects were that men (M=1.96, SD=1.03) tended to identify more with pursuers than women (M=1.53, SD=1.09). This was the case regardless of pursuer gender as there was not a significant interaction of participant gender and pursuer gender, so men seemed to identify more with the role than gender. Lastly, there was also an unanticipated main effect of pursuer gender, F(1, 250)=7.79, p=.006, η 2 =.03. Participants, regardless of gender, found it easier to identify with the male pursuer (M=1.90, SD=1.10) than the female pursuer (M=1.47, SD=1.06). For rejecter sympathy there was a main effect of perspective, F(1,250)=5.01,p=.026, η 2 =.02, such that participants in the rejecter perspective condition identified more with the rejecter (M=2.46, SD=1.13) than those in the pursuer perspective condition (M=2.11, SD=1.22). There were no main effects of participant or pursuer gender. Accordingly, although the perspective manipulation was effective, there was no evidence from this analysis that women identified more with the rejecter role than men. Hypothesis Testing To test Hypotheses 1 and 2 a MANOVA was used including participant gender, pursuer gender, and perspective as the independent variables and the dependent variables of negative internal attributions to rejecters (NIAR) and external attributions to pursuers (EAP). Results from this MANOVA are discussed for both Hypotheses 1 and 2. For Hypothesis 3, a MANCOVA with the same IVs and DVs was used, but the stalking myths scale was included as a covariate. For each DV, means across all cells are presented in Tables 1 (external attributions to pursuers) and 2 (negative internal attributions to rejecters). Differences between means, as determined by least squares difference, are indicated by differing subscripts. Effects of Perspective The first hypothesis predicted that those adopting the pursuer perspective would exhibit an attribution pattern that was more forgiving of the pursuer (i.e., more external attributions for pursuers) and more blaming of the rejecter (i.e., more negative internal attributions for rejecters) than those in the rejecter perspective condition. Those adopting the rejecter perspective were expected to show the opposite Table 1 Means and standard deviations for external attributions to pursuers by condition Male Pursuer/Female Rejecter Female Pursuer/Male Rejecter Pursuer Perspective Rejecter Perspective Pursuer Perspective Rejecter Perspective Participant Gender Male 2.20 a,b (.92) 2.14 a,b (.80) 2.52 b,c (.60) 1.98 a (.76) Female 2.50 b,c (.84) 2.12 a (.68) 2.70 c (.76) 2.26 a,b (.93) Means with different subscripts are significantly different from one another (as determined by least squares difference means comparisons). Note, analysis only revealed a significant main effect of perspective on level of external attributions. Means on External Attributions to Pursuers could range from 0 to 4 with a higher score = a greater the amount of external attributions endorsed

Table 2 Means and standard deviations for negative internal attributions to rejecters by condition Male Pursuer/Female Rejecter Female Pursuer/Male Rejecter Pursuer Perspective Rejecter Perspective Pursuer Perspective Rejecter Perspective Participant Gender Male.89 b,c (.76).92 b,c (.76).95 b,c (.62).49 a (.52) Female.65 a,b (.71).47 a (.60) 1.01 c (.78).52 a (.57) Means with different subscripts are significantly different from one another (as determined by least squares difference means comparisons). MANOVA showed significant main effects of perspective, as well as interactions of perspective and pursuer gender and participant gender and pursuer gender. Means on Negative Internal Attributions to Rejecters could range from 0 to 4 with a higher score = a greater the amount of negative internal attributions endorsed pattern, thereby exhibiting an attribution pattern that was more forgiving of the rejecter s role in the unwanted pursuit. Consistent with expectations, multivariate tests showed a significant perspective main effect, Wilks Lambda F (2,249)=7.97, p<.001, η 2 =.06. Subsequent univariate tests showed that this main effect of perspective was evident for both external attributions for pursuers, F(1, 250)=11.28, p=.001, η 2 =.04, and negative internal attributions to rejecters, F(1, 250)=9.80, p=.002, η 2 =.04. Means were consistent with the prediction. Those in the pursuer perspective condition (M =2.52, SD=.80) exhibited more external attributions to pursuers than those in the rejecter perspective condition (M=2.15, SD=.81). Meanwhile, those in the rejecter perspective condition (M=.57, SD=.62) had lower scores on the Negative Internal Attributions to Rejecters scale than did those in the pursuer perspective condition (M=.86, SD=.74). It is worth noting that levels of negative internal attributions to the rejecters were relatively low. Nonetheless, results confirm Hypothesis 1. Although no interactions with perspective were necessarily expected, the MANOVA tests for all possible interactions of IVs. According to the multivariate tests, there was a marginal interaction of perspective and pursuer gender, Wilks Lambda F (2,249)=2.80, p=.07, η 2 =.02. Further exploration of the univariate tests showed that this marginal effect was due to there being a significant interaction of these two IVs for negative internal attributions to rejecters, F(1, 250)=5.32, p=.02, η 2 =.02, but not for external attributions to pursuers, F(1, 250)=1.58, p>1. Effects were such that participants showed the lowest amount of negative internal attributions to male rejecters (M=.50, SD=.57) when in the rejecter perspective condition, and they showed the highest rate of negative internal attributions to male rejecters when in the pursuer perspective condition (M=.99, SD=.73). Negative internal attributions to female rejecters did not vary by perspective (rejecter perspective: M=.64, SD=.69, pursuer perspective: M=.77, SD=.73). Effects of Gender & Roles The second hypothesis was intended to explore the role of gender both of the pursuer (and thus rejecter) and the participant in affecting attributions in unwanted pursuit scenarios. Based on intimate aggression literature, it was expected that men might exhibit a greater tendency to place blame on rejecters by making more negative internal attributions to rejecters than women. Men may likewise be more forgiving of pursuers, thus exhibiting higher rates of making external attributions for pursuers than women. However, these outcomes may depend on the gender of the pursuer and rejecter (e.g., men may only blame female rejecters and be forgiving of male pursuers). Thus, both main effects and interactions were explored. As these hypotheses employ the same correlated DVs as hypothesis one, the same MANOVA results were used to examine for main effects or interactions of participant gender and pursuer gender. Multivariate tests revealed a significant main effect of participant gender, Wilks Lambda F (2,249) =4.40, p=.01, η 2 =.03, but when examining the univariate effects, gender differences on each of the dependent variables was only marginal. Thus, overall, participant gender differences alone did not account for much variance (η 2 only.01 for each individual DV), and so the first prediction of Hypothesis 2 was not confirmed. However, in the second part of Hypothesis 2, I posited that perhaps differences in attributions wouldn t be due to participant gender alone, but might also depend on pursuer gender. Consistent with this prediction, although multivariate tests also showed a marginally significant interaction of pursuer and participant gender, Wilks Lambda F (2,249)=2.45, p=.09, η 2 =.02, univariate analyses showed a significant interaction for internal attributions, F(1, 250)=4.84, p=.029, η 2 =.02, just not for external attributions, F(1, 250)<1. The lowest rate of negative internal attributions to rejecters was exhibited by women reading about a female rejecter/male pursuer (M=.55, SD=.66). Whereas the highest rate of victim blaming

attributions were exhibited by men reading about a female rejecter/male pursuer (M=.90, SD=.75). There was no evidence in this analysis that men and women varied in negative internal attributions to male rejecters (Male participants: M=.72, SD=.61; Female participants: M=.73, SD=.71). These results partially confirm the interaction predicted in Hypothesis 2, at least with regard to negative internal attributions for rejecter behavior. The analyses did not yield any other significant main effects (e.g., of pursuer gender) or interactions (e.g., of perspective and gender or of all three independent variables). Please see Tables 1 and 2 for means across all conditions. The Role of Attitudes The goal of hypothesis three was to examine what effect, if any, the endorsement of stalking myths had on the types of attributions individuals make in unwanted pursuit scenarios. I anticipated that those higher in endorsing stalking myths would also be higher in making negative internal attributions to rejecters and external attributions to pursuers. Before proceeding to further analyses to test how much myth endorsement contributes to the outcomes relative to the independent variables, it is important to note that there was a significant participant gender difference on the SMS according to the results of an ANOVA with participant gender as IV and SMS as the DV, F(1,256)=12.54, p<.001, η 2 =.05. Thus, despite the gender neutral wording, men still endorsed more stalking myths than women (Men: M=3.47, SD=.51, Women: M=3.22, SD=.55). Note, just to be thorough, differences on the SMS were also tested with a 3-factor ANOVA including all three independent variables (perspective, participant gender, pursuer gender) to ensure that no other significant differences emerged. The participant gender difference was the only significant effect found. Next, as hypothesis three includes a continuous predictor variable, namely the Stalking Myths Scale (SMS), I used both MANCOVAs and correlations to examine hypothesis three. The MANCOVA would show what, if any, effects of the independent variables existed while accounting for stalking myth endorsement as a covariate. Also, the MANCOVA would reveal the relative effect size of the SMS compared to that of the independent variables. Meanwhile, correlations would confirm the direction of the relationship between stalking myth acceptance and the dependent variables. In the first set of correlational analyses there is some support for hypothesis three in that scores on the Stalking Myths Scale (SMS) were significantly positively correlated with both attribution indices (negative internal attributions to rejecters: r=.34, external attributions to pursuers: r=.34). The correlations were moderate. Thus, endorsing stalking stereotypes is not exactly the same as making causal attributions that blame rejecters or excuse pursuers. However, the correlations support Hypothesis 3, such that greater stalking myth endorsement was related to higher rates of external attributions for pursuers and negative internal attributions for rejecters. Next, as mentioned above, the SMS was entered as a covariate in a MANCOVA analysis to see if it proved to be a significant covariate. Not surprisingly, the SMS was a significant covariate according to multivariate analyses, Wilks Lambda F (2,248)=29.05, p<.001, η 2 =.19, as well as univariate analyses: negative internal attributions to rejecters: F(1, 248)=30.29, p<.001, η 2 =.11, external attributions to pursuers F(1, 248)=40.84, p<.001, η 2 =.14. The inclusion of the Stalking Myths Scale in the MANCOVA did not dramatically change the pattern of results regarding main effects found in the MANOVA. There were still significant main effects of perspective, Wilks Lambda F (2,248)=7.69, p=.001, η 2 =.06, and participant gender, Wilks Lambda F (2,248)=6.07, p=.003, η 2 =.05. However, where the participant gender differences in the univariate tests had been marginal once SMS was included as a covariate the gender difference in external attributions (i.e., an unanticipated finding that women made more external attributions for pursuers than men) went from being marginal to significant in the univariate analyses, F(1, 248)=10.42, p<.001, η 2 =.04. Meanwhile, the gender difference in internal attributions went from marginal to non-significant, F(1, 248)<1, once stalking myth endorsement was included. The latter finding the lack of a significant gender difference on internal attributions once myth endorsement is accounted for is consistent with Hypothesis 3. The strengthening of the gender difference on external attributions is inconsistent with Hypothesis 3. So the aspect of Hypothesis 3 that asserted that gender differences may disappear once attitudes are accounted for is only supported for internal attribution patterns. For interactions, again, the patterns were generally the same except that the interaction of pursuer gender and perspective became significant, instead of simply marginal, at the multivariate level, Wilks Lambda F (2,248)=4.14, p=.02, η 2 =.03. However, as in the MAN- OVA, this interaction was only apparent for negative internal attributions to rejecters, F(1, 248)=7.18, p=.008, η 2 =.03, and the pattern of results was the same as described above. The interaction of pursuer and participant gender remained marginal, Wilks Lambda F (2,248)=2.42, p<.09, η 2 =.02, at the multivariate level because it was only significant at the univariate level of analysis for internal attributions, F(1, 248)=4.82, p=.008, η 2 =.03. Again, the pattern of means for this interaction is the same as described above.

Overall, the SMS had a larger effect size than any of the independent variables (follow-up hierarchical multiple regressions also revealed that inclusion of the SMS scale had larger beta weights than any of the IVs and accounted for the majority of the variance). Thus, the hypothesis (3) that attitudes were important to examine and may account for more variance than gender alone was supported. In sum, Hypothesis 3 was supported but for the failure of stalking myth endorsement to explain the unexpected participant gender difference on pursuer external attributions. Discussion To review, the purpose of the present study was to examine the role of perspective and gender in affecting attributions about rejecters and pursuers in unwanted pursuit scenarios. I also examined the role of participant attitudes, namely the endorsement of stalking myths. I will review the findings regarding each in turn. The Matter of Perspective Consistent with attribution theory, participants who adopted the pursuers perspective were more forgiving of pursuer behavior than those reading the rejecter s perspective. Also, individuals in the pursuer s shoes saw the male rejecter s character contributing to the problem more than those seeing things from the rejecter s perspective. Perspective did not affect whether people blamed female rejecters. Within intimate aggression literature, strong evidence exists that shows that individuals, including the victims themselves, blame female victims for their plight (e.g., Koss et al. 1994), and there was some evidence of female victim blaming in the present study. However, growing bodies of literature comparing the amount of blame assigned to female vs. male victims of intimate aggression has shown that male victims are viewed as even more responsible for their victimization (Felson 2002). For example, when Harris and Cook (1994) asked students to make attributions of responsibility in battering vignettes, the battered husband was seen as more responsible for the violence and the incident was seen as less serious than parallel vignettes featuring a female victim. Likewise, in their review of literature on perceptions of male rape victims, Davies and Rogers (2006) found that male victims, especially of female perpetrators, were more negatively viewed and blamed more. Indeed, in present study I did find that that male rejecters were blamed the most, but only in the eyes of the pursuer. This could be a result of the perception that men should be able to handle an unwanted pursuer, and thus if the situation gets out of control he is partly at fault for having not stopped it. Philips and colleagues (2004) study showed that male stalking victims were viewed by college students as better able to simply resolve the situation by talking to the perpetrator. Also, in their study of perceptions of rape victim, Perrott and Webber (1996) showed that while college students blame women for not having foreseen the incident, they blame men for not stopping it. Ultimately, these differences in perspective are important to examine. Sinclair and Frieze (2000, 2002) noted that pursuers and rejecters have quite different perceptions of when a pursuit crosses the line. The findings of the present study complement those of Sinclair and Frieze, as their studies were surveys of students recalling their experiences on either side of an unwanted pursuit, whereas the present study assigns people those roles. Thus, in the present study I have established a perspective difference experimentally, thereby showing that simply assuming the role of pursuer or rejecter can lead to differences in how one sees the same instance of unwanted pursuit. If in a courtroom dealing with a real stalking case these attributional biases might be even stronger than in a simple experimental study as both perpetrator and victim are more entrenched in the situation and the outcomes are far more serious. So when jurors are weighing which of these two stories of blame to believe the extent to which they can identify with each person might partially determine the legal outcome. Future studies should explore how external and internal attributions relate to legal outcomes in stalking cases. It remains to be seen whether making external attributions for pursuer behavior actually results in them being excused from criminal responsibility. Likewise, do the high levels of negative internal attributions to rejecters translate to a reduction of criminal responsibility for a defendant? The discounting principle would argue that an increase in blaming the victim should result in an increase in excusing the perpetrator, and indeed, the correlations between the dependent variables supports this principle. We don t know, though, whether this discounting principle affects perceptions of severity, applying of charges, or assignment of sentences in stalking cases. The Matter of Gender In addition to the role of perspective, the impact of gender on perceptions of unwanted pursuit scenarios was examined. Of interest was both the impact of participant gender as well as the gender of the pursuer/rejecter. It was anticipated that men might exhibit more victim blaming tendencies than women. To some extent this was supported when examining stalking myth endorsement. Men endorsed more stalking myths than women and this