Unwanted Pursuit Behavior After Breakup: Occurrence, Risk Factors, and Gender Differences

Abstract

This study investigated unwanted pursuit behavior (UPB) perpetration in 631 adult ex-partners. UPB involves the unwanted pursuit of intimacy, a widespread and usually less severe form of stalking. The occurrence and various risk factors of UPB perpetration were examined, accounting for differences between male and female ex-partners and same- and opposite-gender ex-partners. Ex-partners showed on average five to six UPBs after their separation. Male and female and same- and opposite-gender ex-partners displayed an equal number of UPBs. The number of perpetrated UPBs was explained by breakup characteristics (ex-partner initiation of the breakup and rumination or cognitive preoccupation with the ex-partner), relationship characteristics (anxious attachment in the former relationship), and individual perpetrator characteristics (borderline traits and past delinquent behaviors). Rumination was a stronger predictor in female than male ex-partners. Borderline traits and anxious attachment positively predicted UPB perpetration in opposite-gender but not in same-gender ex-partners. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Full text

1 23
Journal of Family Violence
ISSN 0885-7482
Volume 30
Number 6
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753-767
DOI 10.1007/s10896-015-9687-9
Unwanted Pursuit Behavior After Breakup:
Occurrence, Risk Factors, and Gender
Differences
Olivia De Smet, Kasia Uzieblo, Tom
Loeys, Ann Buysse & Thomas Onraedt

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer Science
+Business Media New York. This e-offprint is
for personal use only and shall not be self-
archived in electronic repositories. If you wish
to self-archive your article, please use the
accepted manuscript version for posting on
your own website. You may further deposit
the accepted manuscript version in any
repository, provided it is only made publicly
available 12 months after official publication
or later and provided acknowledgement is
given to the original source of publication
and a link is inserted to the published article
on Springer's website. The link must be
accompanied by the following text: "The final
publication is available at link.springer.com”.

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Unwanted Pursuit Behavior After Breakup: Occurrence, Risk
Factors, and Gender Differences
Olivia De Smet &Kasia Uzieblo &Tom L oe ys &
Ann Buysse &Thomas Onraedt
Published online: 10 March 2015
#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract This study investigated unwanted pursuit behavior
(UPB) perpetration in 631 adult ex-partners. UPB involves the
unwanted pursuit of intimacy, a widespread and usually less
severe form of stalking. The occurrence and various risk fac-
tors of UPB perpetration were examined, accounting for dif-
ferences between male and female ex-partners and same- and
opposite-gender ex-partners. Ex-partners showed on average
five to six UPBs after their separation. Male and female and
same- and opposite-gender ex-partners displayed an equal
number of UPBs. The number of perpetrated UPBs was ex-
plained by breakup characteristics (ex-partner initiation of the
breakup and rumination or cognitive preoccupation with the
ex-partner), relationship characteristics (anxious attachment in
the former relationship), and individual perpetrator character-
istics (borderline traits and past delinquent behaviors).
Rumination was a stronger predictor in female than male ex-
partners. Borderline traits and anxious attachment positively
predicted UPB perpetration in opposite-gender but not in
same-gender ex-partners. Implications of these findings are
discussed.
Keywords Stalking related behavior .Separation .
Prevalence .Determinants .Male and female ex-partners .
Same- and opposite-gender ex-partners
In the last two decades, many jurisdictions around the world
have criminalized stalking as a felony in diverse legal statutes
(Meloy and Felthous 2011). These various legal definitions
typically identify stalking as Ban intentional pattern of repeated
behaviors toward a person or persons that are unwanted and
result in fear or that a reasonable person (or jury) would view as
fearful or threatening^(Spitzberg and Cupach 2007,p.66).
Although the media has portrayed a stereotype of stalking as
a celebrity followed by a mad stranger, researchers agree that
relational stalking, not stranger stalking, is the most prototypical
form of this behavior (Spitzberg and Cupach 2003). Indeed,
meta-analyses show that in around 80 % of all cases, victims
and perpetrators have some form of prior relationship and that
half of all stalking results specifically from past romantic rela-
tionships (Cupach and Spitzberg 2004; Spitzberg and Cupach
2007; Spitzberg et al. 2010). With regard to this, intimacy mo-
tives have been found to be present in about one third of all
cases (Spitzberg and Cupach 2007).
The concepts obsessive relational intrusion (e.g., Cupach and
Spitzberg 1998,2004)andunwanted pursuit behavior (UPB;
Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. 2000) specifically describe the
unwanted pursuit of intimacy through repeated privacy-
violating intrusions. UPB significantly overlaps with stalking,
aside from the following two theoretical differences.
1
First, even
though it is mostly the case, stalking—in contrast to UPB—does
not necessarily result from intimacy motives. Second, UPB—in
contrast to stalking—does not per se cause fear or threat in the
victim. As UPB involves the full range of mild to severe unwant-
ed pursuit tactics, it is more widespread than stalking and mostly
aggravating or annoying but not fear-inducing (e.g., Cupach and
Spitzberg 1998,2004). For instance, lifetime prevalence
1
Because stalking and UPB are to a certain extent overlapping and
closely-related concepts, they share the same research literature. In order
to present previous research findings in an accurate way, the terms
stalking or UPB are used in this article in accordance with the exact focus
or topic of the studies that are cited.
O. De Smet (*):K. Uzieblo :A. Buysse :T. Onraedt
Department of Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent
University, Ghent, Belgium
e-mail: Olivia.DeSmet@UGent.be
K. Uzieblo
Department of Health Psychology and Psychopathology,
Thomas More, Antwerp, Belgium
T. Lo ey s
Department of Data Analysis, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753–767
DOI 10.1007/s10896-015-9687-9
Author's personal copy

estimates of ex-partner stalking victimization in nationally repre-
sentative studies amount to 3–4 % (Dressing et al. 2007; Purcell
et al. 2002; Stieger et al. 2008), whereas in a recent representative
study of adult ex-partners, 37 % were found to have used at least
one pursuit tactic after their breakup (De Smet et al. 2012). In the
latter study, most of the registered tactics were benign tactics (i.e.,
watching or monitoring the ex-partner and making exaggerated
expressions of affection). Yet, the risk that milder forms of UPB
escalate into more severe violent, persistent, or recurrent stalking
episodes has been found to be significantly higher among ex-
partners (for review, see McEwan et al. 2007).
In this study, we investigated the widespread and broad
array of intimacy-driven UPBs in former partners who repre-
sent the most important subgroup of stalkers and pursuers. We
specifically examined the occurrence of UPBs in adult ex-
partners and investigated various risk factors of engaging in
UPBs when breaking up. In our assessment of the occurrence
and risk factors of UPB perpetration, we accounted for poten-
tial differences related to the gender of the perpetrator (i.e.,
male vs. female ex-partners) and the gender of perpetrator’s
ex-partner (i.e., same- vs. opposite-gender ex-partners).
Occurrence of UPB
Gender of the Perpetrator Studies regarding stalking show an
unequal male–female ratio. In about three-quarters of all
cases, men are the perpetrators and women the victims of
stalking. This is especially the case in studies that included
feelings of fear or threat in the victim in their stalking defini-
tion, as well as in clinical/forensic samples, or when an indi-
vidual self-identified as a stalking victim (Cupach and
Spitzberg 2004; Spitzberg and Cupach 2007; Spitzberg et al.
2010). In contrast, research in college student samples (e.g.,
Dutton and Winstead 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al.
2000; Wisternoff 2008) or community samples (De Smet
et al. 2012) of ex-partners that assessed the full range of
UPBs without evaluations of fear, revealed that men and
women perpetrate a similar number of UPBs after breaking
up. Only some gender differences have been found with re-
spect to the types of perpetrated behaviors. For instance, men
have been found to less often monitor and physically hurt their
ex-partner (Dutton and Winstead 2006) but to show more
unwanted approach behaviors such as repeatedly asking their
ex-partner out on dates (Wisternoff 2008). The gender differ-
ences in stalking estimates are assumed to partly reflect
gender-specific perceptions of the impact of the behavior.
Namely, women more likely perceive themselves as victims
of unwanted pursuit and perceive the pursuit as threatening—
especially when the pursuer is a man—and men more likely
admit that they engaged in activities that could be viewed as
stalking (Spitzberg et al. 2010). Similarly, male pursuers re-
port more fear in their female targets as a reaction to their
pursuit than female pursuers (Sinclair and Frieze 2000).
With respect to pursuit duration, studies have found no or, at
most, small gender effects (e.g., Sinclair and Frieze 2005;
Spitzberg et al. 2010).
Gender of the Perpetrator’sEx-PartnerResearch on same-
gender stalking, versus opposite-gender stalking, is consider-
ably limited as stalking and UPB most typically occur in
cross-gender contexts (e.g., Purcell et al. 2002; Spitzberg
et al. 2010). Nevertheless, Purcell et al.’s(2002) large-scale
representative study found a 24 % prevalence rate of same-
gender stalking and some cases of this sort have been found to
develop from a previous intimate relationship (14 % in Pathé
et al. 2000; 32 % in Strand and McEwan 2011). Differences in
the characteristics of same- and opposite-gender stalking and
pursuit cases have been observed, but these differences have
unfortunately not yet been examined in the specific context of
post-breakup UPB. The limited number of available studies
on same-gender stalking in general have found that same-
gender dyads experience higher levels of UPB than
opposite-gender dyads (Spitzberg et al. 2010) and that same-
gender stalkers were more likely to send text messages, to
engage in loitering and following, to enter the victim’shome,
to damage property, and to make more threats (Strand and
McEwan 2011). In contrast, in the study of Pathé et al.
(2000), same-gender stalkers were found to be less likely to
engage in following and approaching behavior and equally
likely to threaten the victim and to engage in property
damage and violence. In both studies of Pathé et al. (2000)
and Strand and McEwan (2011), the duration of stalking was
found to be similar in same- and opposite-gender stalking
cases. Research findings on differences in the impact of pur-
suit behaviors as displayed by same- versus opposite-gender
pursuers are, to our knowledge, nonexistent.
Risk Factors of UPB
Explanatory research on stalking traditionally took a clinical/
forensic approach that exclusively explained stalking behavior
by its association with disordered or deviant individual traits of
perpetrators (e.g., Meloy 1998). Yet, currently, a multi-
dimensional view focusing on risk factors at multiple levels is
favored. Similar to intimate partner violence researchers’ecolog-
ical framework (which explains intimate violence from an inter-
play of risk factors on the individual, relational, community, and
societal level; e.g., Heise and Garcia-Moreno 2002), White et al.
(2000) proposed their integrative contextual developmental mod-
el of stalking. According to this model, stalking and UPB are
determined by risk factors at the intrapersonal, situational, dyad-
ic, social network, and sociocultural level. The causes of stalking
and unwanted pursuit thus clearly cannot be assumed to purely
754 J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753–767
Author's personal copy

exist in the individual. In this respect—parallel to White et al.’s
(2000) situational, dyadic, and intrapersonal level—we focus on
a variety of risk factors related to the breakup situation, pre-
breakup romantic relationship, and individual perpetrator that
have been identified in previous studies on post-breakup stalking
and UPB.
As stalking and UPB mainly occur in the context of a failed
intimate relationship, risk factors related to the breakup have
received interest in recent attempts to explain post-breakup
pursuit. These studies found that the probability of someone
resorting to UPB or the number of perpetrated tactics is higher
among persons whose ex-partner held a greater desire to end
the relationship than among persons who desired to end the
relationship themselves or persons who desired the breakup as
much as their ex-partner (Davis et al. 2000;DyeandDavis
2003; De Smet et al. 2011,2012; Wisternoff 2008). Also,
higher levels of cognitive preoccupation with the ex-partner
or past relationship have been found to be particularly predic-
tive of more frequent UPB perpetration (Cupach et al. 2011;
Davis et al. 2000;Dutton-Greene2004).
In addition to breakup characteristics, risk factors related to
the past romantic relationship can be distinguished. In line with
categorical or dimensional conceptualizations of attachment in
adult romantic relationships (Bartholomew and Horowitz
1991; Brennan et al. 1998), numerous studies found that more
anxiously (preoccupied or fearfully) attached partners perpe-
trate more stalking or UPBs after a breakup (Davis et al. 2000;
Dutton and Winstead 2006; Dye and Davis 2003; Kamphuis
et al. 2004; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. 2000; Wigman et al.
2008; Wisternoff 2008). The association between avoidant at-
tachment and UPB perpetration has generally been found to be
insignificant (e.g., Dutton and Winstead 2006). Although there
is an abundance of research on the role of adult romantic at-
tachment in UPB, investigations regarding empathy as a po-
tential risk factor for perpetrating stalking or UPB are rare.
Empathy refers to the ability to attribute mental states to an-
other person and to generate an appropriate affective response
to the mental state of the other (Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright
2004). Empathy is believed to foster prosocial behavior and
inhibit antisocial behavior (Eisenberg 2000; Jolliffe and
Farrington 2004). Despite this, apart from indirect evidence
that unwanted pursuers and stalkers are less socially competent
(Spitzberg and Veksler 2007), a direct link between empathy
and stalking or UPB perpetration has still not been uncovered
(Asada et al. 2004; Lewis et al. 2001). Specific measures of
empathy have been found to be more sensitive than global
measures of empathy (e.g., McGrath et al. 1998) and at present,
researchers favor the view that attachment is a relationship-
specific instead of an individual trait variable (Mikulincer
and Shaver 2007). Therefore, we assessed attachment style
and empathy in a relationship-specific manner (i.e., with refer-
ence to the pre-breakup relationship with the ex-partner) and
considered them as relationship characteristics.
Finally, research on individual perpetrator characteristics
found that ex-intimate stalkers likely have a history of criminal
convictions and mental health problems (Roberts 2002). Cluster
B personality disorders or traits, especially borderline traits, have
been found to distinguish stalkers and pursuers from control
groups (Lewis et al. 2001; Spitzberg and Veksler 2007).
Furthermore, earlier work has shown that narcissistic traits en-
hance the acceptability of UPB perpetrations (Asada et al. 2004)
and that some ex-intimate stalkers fit descriptions of a criminal/
antisocial stalker (Kamphuis et al. 2004). However, in the study
of Spitzberg and Veksler (2007), levels of narcissistic and anti-
social personality characteristics were not found to discriminate
pursuers and stalkers from non-pursuers.
Gender of the Perpetrator To date, there has been very little
discussion on the differential predictability of UPBs as perpe-
trated by male versus female ex-partners. The limited number
of studies that addressed gender differences tend to report few
differences with respect to the variables discussed in this
study. For example, female stalkers are less likely to have a
history of criminal offenses than male stalkers, but male and
female stalkers are equally likely to have personality disorders
(Purcell et al. 2001). Further, the positive associations be-
tween stalking perpetration and borderline traits (Lewis et al.
2001), obsessive thoughts about the ex-partner (Davis et al.
2000), anxious attachment (Davis et al. 2000;DyeandDavis
2003; Lewis et al. 2001), and being the recipient of the break-
up (Dye and Davis 2003), have been found to be similar for
men and women.
Gender of the Perpetrator’s Ex-Partner Again, potential dif-
ferences in the risk factors of post-breakup UPB perpetration as
displayed by same- or opposite-gender ex-partners have received
inadequate research attention. Only a limited number of studies,
performed outside the specific context of breaking up, have com-
pared same- and opposite-gender stalkers while focusing on
some of the risk factors in this paper. These studies have shown
that, relative to opposite-gender stalkers, same-gender stalkers
are no more likely to have a prior history of criminal offending
including violent offences (Pathé et al. 2000) and also do not
differ in their psychopathological status, such as in the presence
of personality disorders (Pathé et al. 2000; Strand and McEwan
2011). As is the case for opposite-gender stalkers, same-gender
stalkers often have a primary diagnosis of a personality disorder,
most frequently borderline and less frequently narcissistic or an-
tisocial disorder (Pathé et al. 2000).
The Present Study
The current study had two major aims. First, alongside regis-
tering the occurrence of UPBs in adult ex-partners, we aimed
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753–767 755
Author's personal copy

to extend the explanatory research on post-breakup UPB per-
petration by taking an integrative approach. Specifically—in
line with the idea that stalking and UPB are determined by risk
factors at different levels—we aimed to perform an integrated
examination of risk factors at the level of the breakup, pre-
breakup relationship, as well as individual perpetrator identi-
fied in previous research. Second, we aimed to examine dif-
ferences between male and female ex-partners and same- and
opposite-gender ex-partners in our assessment of the occur-
rence and risk factors of UPB perpetration. As outlined above,
the moderating effects of the perpetrators’gender and gender
of their ex-partner have not yet been properly addressed in the
particular context of post-breakup UPB. Yet, it is relevant to
know if findings made about UPB can be generalized across
these gender differences.
With respect to the occurrence of UPB, we expected that
male and female ex-partners would perpetrate a similar num-
ber of UPBs (hypothesis 1a) and would differ in the use of
certain types of tactics with men more often engaging in ap-
proach behaviors and less often monitoring and physi-
cally hurting their former partner than women (hypoth-
esis 1b). We also predicted that male and female ex-
partners would perpetrate UPBs for equally long periods
of time (hypothesis 1c) and would differ in their per-
ceptions of the impact of their UPBs with men reporting
more negative reactions to their pursuit than women
(hypothesis 1d). Based on the limited number of avail-
able studies on same-gender stalking, we expected that,
compared to opposite-gender ex-partners, same-gender
ex-partners would perpetrate more UPBs (hypothesis
2a) and that both groups would not differ in the dura-
tion of their pursuit (hypothesis 2b). As findings on
differences between same- and opposite-gender perpetra-
tors in the types and the impact of displayed UPBs are
contradictory or lacking, we considered these research
questions as explorative in nature.
With regard to the risk factors of UPB, we expected that the
number of perpetrated UPBs would be positively related to
being the recipient of the breakup (hypothesis 3a), the degree
of post-breakup rumination (hypothesis 3b), the level of anx-
ious attachment in the past relationship (hypothesis 3c), the
number of earlier perpetrated delinquent behaviors (hypothe-
sis 3d), and the level of borderline personality traits
(hypothesis 3e). Controlling for these effects, we did
not expect effects of the degree of avoidant attachment
(hypothesis 3f) and empathy in the broken relationship
(hypothesis 3 g) and of narcissistic (hypothesis 3 h) and
psychopathic (hypothesis 3i) personality traits. Based on
the available research presented above, we finally as-
sumed that the risk factors of post-breakup UPB perpe-
tration would be largely identical for male and female
ex-partners (hypothesis 4) and same- and opposite-
gender ex-partners (hypothesis 5).
Method
Participants and Procedure
Men and women older than 18 years who had broken up with
a same- or opposite-gender romantic partner within the last
2 years were invited to participate in the study. To reach a
widespread sample, we recruited participants through differ-
ent media: (a) newspaper, magazine, and internet advertise-
ments, (b) distribution of research flyers and posters in
several public places and waiting rooms of mental health
services where ex-partners often look for help and support,
and (c) snowball-sampling via social networks and e-mail
contacts of the researchers. Additional efforts were made
to recruit same-gender ex-partners by advertising in specif-
ic magazines and on websites of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender (LGBT) associations and spreading re-
search flyers and posters in LGBT meeting places. All
recruitment channels promoted our website, where partici-
pants could fill out a series of questionnaires. This result-
ed in a convenience sample of 906 participants of whom
631 (69.6 %) fully completed the online assessment in a
valid way. Respondents were required to complete the
survey during one online session, which took on aver-
age less than an hour (M=47.30 min, SD =18.88). The
drop-out participants did not differ from the 631 partic-
ipants on the criterion variable of this study (non-para-
metric Mann–Whitney Utest for UPB perpetration= 67,
115.50, p=.473).
The 631 participants (64.3 % women; 98.1 % of Belgian
nationality) were on average 30.57 years old (SD= 10.75,
range: 18–61). One hundred and seventy-eight (28.2 %) ex-
partners had separated from a same-gender partner (15.8 %
men and 12.4 % women). Most participants were highly edu-
cated (72.4 % with a Bachelor’s degree or above) and not
currently involved in a romantic relationship (74.0 %). A
smaller proportion had children with the ex-partner (18.7 %)
and indicated that they received post-breakup psychological
guidance or treatment related to their separation (22.7 %). The
relationships had lasted an average of 5.75 years (SD=7.21;
range: 0–38) and ended on average 1 year ago (M=
12.19 months, SD =7.90, range: 0–24).
The password-protected online assessment started with a
description of the study’s goal, inclusion criteria, procedure,
and reward for participation (i.e., a voucher of 20€for every
20th participant). After the participants agreed with the in-
formed consent and typed in their email address (to which a
unique code was automatically sent), they started filling out
the questionnaires. Participation in the study was on a volun-
tary basis. Anonymity was assured as email addresses and
questionnaire data were saved separately. The study was ap-
proved by the ethical committee of Ghent University and the
Belgian Privacy Commission.
756 J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753–767
Author's personal copy

Measures
UPB Perpetration UPB perpetration was assessed with an
adapted Dutch version of the Relational Pursuit-Pursuer
Short Form (RP-PSF, Cupach and Spitzberg 2004;Dutchver-
sion, De Smet et al. 2012). This 28-item questionnaire mea-
sured how often the participants had pursued their ex-partner
since the breakup, for the purpose of establishing some form
of intimate relationship that their ex-partner did not want by,
for example, BLeaving unwanted gifts (e.g., flowers, stuffed
animals, photographs, jewelry, etc.)^or BFollowing him or her
around (e.g., following the ex-partner to or from work, school,
home, gym, daily activities, etc.).^The frequency with which
the participants conducted each behavior was rated on a 5-
point Likert scale (from 0 = never to 4 = over 5 times). The
RP-PSF is considered to show content and face validity as the
items refer to a wide range of UPBs and were developed
through thorough meta-analytic work (cf., Cupach and
Spitzberg 2004). The overall index of perpetration was calcu-
lated by summing up all items. We refer to the sum score as the
number of UPBs. The 28-item RP-PSF was internally consis-
tent in this study (α=.82)aswellasinpreviousones(e.g.,De
Smet et al. 2012).
To obtain information on the manifestation and perception of
UPB perpetration by our respondents, some additional ques-
tions were asked: BIf you conducted one or more of the afore-
mentioned behaviors, how annoying was this for your ex-
partner?^(0 = notatallto 8 =verymuch); B…,howmuch
fear did your ex-partner feel?^(0 = not at all to 8 = very
much); B…, to what extent did your ex-partner feel
threatened?^(0 = notatallto 8 =verymuch); and B…,for
how long did you exhibit these behaviors?^(number of weeks).
Initiator Status To identify the initiator of the breakup, the
question BWho wanted the breakup the most?^(1 = I,2=
ex-partner,and3=both equally) was asked.
Post-Breakup Rumination To measure the extent of preoccu-
pation with the ex-partner, a forward and backward translated
Dutch version of the 9-item Relationship Preoccupation Scale
(RPS; Davis et al. 2003) was administered. Items, such as BI
think about my ex-partner constantly^and BEverything seems
to remind me of my ex-partner^, were rated on a 7-point Likert
scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).
Previous research has demonstrated a good internal consisten-
cy of the RPS (Davis et al. 2003; Saffrey and Ehrenberg
2007), concordant with the current high alpha value of .94.
Adult Attachment Style An adapted version of the Dutch
Experiences in Close Relationships Scale (ECR, Brennan
et al. 1998; Dutch ECR, Conradi et al. 2006) was used to
assess the participants’levels of anxious and avoidant
attachment in the relationship with their ex-partner before
the breakup. Participants were explicitly instructed to think
of their ex-partner and to recall how they had generally felt
in the relationship before it ended. Eighteen items probed the
degree of anxious attachment (i.e., fear of abandonment and
strong desires for interpersonal merger; e.g., BI worried that
my ex-partner didn’t care about me as much as I cared about
him/her^) and 18 items tested the degree of avoidant
attachment (i.e., discomfort with closeness, dependence,
and intimate self-disclosure; e.g., BI was nervous when
my ex-partner got too close to me^). All 36 items were
answered on a 7-point scale (ranging from 1 = strongly
disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Previous research has
supported the reliability and validity of the ECR (Ravitz
et al. 2010). In the current sample, Chronbach’salphas
were high for both the anxious (α=.88) and avoidant
(α=.89) attachment dimensions.
Empathy An adapted version of the Dutch Empathy Quotient
(EQ, Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright 2004; Dutch EQ, De
Corte et al. 2006) was used to assess the participants’empath-
ic abilities in the relationship with their ex-partner. Forty items
assessed several empathy components including cognitive
empathy (e.g., BI could tell if my ex-partner was masking
his/her true emotions^), emotional reactivity (e.g., BItended
to get emotionally involved with my ex-partner’sproblems^),
and general social skills (e.g., BI find it hard to know what to
do in a social situation^). Items were rated on a 4-point scale
(from 1 = strongly agree to 4 = strongly disagree) and subse-
quently recoded into 1 or 2 points if the participant reported
the empathic behavior slightly or strongly, respectively.
Previous studies have demonstrated good reliability and va-
lidity of the EQ (e.g., Lawrence et al. 2004). Based on Rasch
analyses, the EQ has recently been found to be a one-
dimensional measure of empathy (Allison et al. 2011).
Hence, empathy can be indexed by summing up the 40
recoded items, which proved to be internally consistent in
the present sample (α=.86).
Psychopathic Traits Psychopathic traits were assessed with
the Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-III (SRP-III,
Paulhus et al. in 2015; Dutch SRP-III, Uzieblo et al. 2007)
using 64 items scored on a 5-point scale (from 1 = strongly
disagree to 5 = strongly agree). Analogous to the Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised (Hare 2003), the SRP-III assesses the four
core features of psychopathy: interpersonal manipulative be-
havior (e.g., BI purposely flatter people to get them on my
side^), callous affect (e.g., BPeople sometimes say that I’m
cold-hearted^), erratic lifestyle (e.g., BI’ve often done some-
thing dangerous just for the thrill of it^), and criminal tenden-
cies (e.g., BI have threatened people into giving me money,
clothes, or makeup^). The SRP-III exhibits good reliability
and validity in non-forensic/clinical student and community
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753–767 757
Author's personal copy

samples (Caes et al. 2012;Mahmutetal.2011). In this study,
the SRP-III also showed a good internal reliability (α=.89).
Borderline Traits To assess borderline traits, we used the
McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality
Disorder (MSI-BPD, Zanarini et al. 2003; Dutch MSI-BPD,
Verschuere and Tibboel 2011), which consists of 10 items
(e.g., BHave you been extremely moody?^,BHave you chron-
ically felt empty?^;0=no and1=yes). The degree of bor-
derline traits is indexed by summing up the scores on all items.
A score of seven or above indicates the presence of a border-
line personality disorder (Patel et al. 2011; Zanarini et al.
2003). There is support for the reliability and the factorial,
convergent, and criterion validity of the scale in non-clinical
community and student samples (Patel et al. 2011; Verschuere
and Tibboel 2011). Chronbach’s alpha in this study was ade-
quate (α=.77).
Narcissistic Traits The Dutch Narcissism Scale (NNS; Ettema
and Zondag 2002) was used to measure the degree of non-
pathological narcissism. The development of the NNS was
based on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin and
Hall 1979,1981) and the Hypersensitive Narcissim Scale
(Hendin and Cheek 1997). All 35 items (e.g., BI can easily
get others to do what I feel is necessary^and BWhen I enter a
room I am often painfully aware of the way others look at
me^) were scored on a 7-point scale (from 1 = certainly not
the case to 7 = certainly the case). The validity and reliability
of the NNS are supported (Ettema and Zondag 2002;Zondag
2005) and we observed a good internal reliability (α=.81).
Delinquent Behavior The widely-adopted International Self-
Report Delinquency Survey (ISRD; Junger-Tas et al. 1994)
was used to measure past delinquent behavior. Respondents
were asked to indicate how many times they ever displayed 44
different delinquent behaviors on a 5-point Likert scale (from
0=never to 4 = more than 10 times). The items tapped five
categories of offenses: problem behavior (e.g., BStay away
from school^), vandalism (e.g., BVandalize property belong-
ing to someone else^), theft behavior (e.g., BSteal from
work^), violent and aggressive behavior (e.g., BEngage in
fighting^), and alcohol and drug use (e.g., BUse heroin, co-
caine, crack, PCP, LSD^). The overall index of delinquent
behavior, obtained by summing up the items, proved to be
internally consistent (α=.81). Zhang et al. (2002) found sup-
port for the test-retest reliability and stated that the ISRD can
be reliably used to gather self-reported information on crimi-
nal acts.
Social Desirability Because of the focus on perpetrator re-
ports, we included a measure to control for self-presentation
issues. The 22-item Dutch version of the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire-Lie Scale (EPQ-Lie Scale, Eysenck and
Eysenck 1975; Dutch EPQ-Lie Scale, Sanderman et al.
1995) was used to assess socially desirable responding.
Items were answered on a dichotomous scale (e.g., BDo you
sometimes talk about things you know nothing about?^and
BAre all your habits good and desirable ones?^;0=no and1=
yes). The EPQ-Lie Scale exhibits an acceptable degree of
internal consistency, good test-retest reliability, and validity
(Ferrando et al. 1997; Sanderman et al. 1995). Chronbach’s
alpha for the present sample was .82.
Statistical Analyses
The occurrence of UPB in our overall sample was assessed by
calculating descriptive statistics of the total number of perpe-
trated UPBs, the individual UPB-items, and the additional
UPB-questions referring to the duration and impact of the
pursuit. Male and female and same- and opposite-gender ex-
partners were compared on these variables—using non-
parametric Mann–Whitney Utests—in order to test our hy-
potheses on gender differences.
Risk markers of UPB perpetration were examined with
advanced count regression models that are specifically de-
signed to analyze skewed counts (see Atkins and Gallop
2007; Karazsia and van Dulmen 2010) such as the right
skewed number of perpetrated UPBs in our sample (see
Fig. 1). Among the different types of existing count models,
we found—based on several formal tests (outlined in Atkins
and Gallop 2007; Loeys et al. 2012)—strong evidence that the
hurdle negative binomial (NB) regression model best fitted
our dependent’s distribution. This model splits the distribution
in zero and non-zero counts and assesses the effects of predic-
tors in two parts. In the zero-hurdle part, the probability of all
Number of UPB Perpetrations
Absolute Frequency
0 5 10 15 20
0 50 100 150 200
Fig. 1 Histogram of observed UPB perpetrations (N=631, M=5.70,
SD= 7.61, range: 0–49, Skewness=2.23, Kurtosis=6.35)
758 J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753–767
Author's personal copy

non-zero counts, relative to all zero counts, is modeled. In the
counts part, the frequency of all non-zero counts in the distri-
bution is modeled (for more details, see Loeys et al. 2012). In
other words, the zero hurdle part assessed the effects of our
predictors for showing UPBs or not while the counts part
assessed the effects of our predictors on the frequency of
UPBs perpetrations among the perpetrators. In both parts, re-
gression coefficients are exponentiated (e
B
) and named Odds
Ratios (ORs) and Rate Ratios (RRs), respectively. In percent-
ages—100 × (e
B
−1)—ORs reflect the percentage decrease
(OR<1)orincrease(OR> 1) in the odds of perpetrating
UPB, whereas RRs reflect the percentage decrease (RR<1)
or increase (RR>1) in the expected frequency of UPBs for
each unit increase in the independent variable, controlling
for other predictors in the model. For the categorical and con-
tinuous predictors we, respectively, used dummy coding and
standardized z-scores in our regression models.
After testing a first hurdle NB model that explored the
effects of some control variables, a second hurdle NB model
assessed the effects of our risk markers of interest on the
number of perpetrated UPBs. Descriptives and bivariate cor-
relations of these risk factors are displayed in Table 1. Finally,
moderator analyses were used to examine whether the effects
of our risk factors on UPB perpetration differed between male
and female ex-partners and between same- and opposite-
gender ex-partners.
Results
Occurrence of UPB
The histogram displayed in Fig. 1graphs the skewed distribu-
tion of the dependent variable. About one third of the sample
(31.7 %, n=200) reported no UPB perpetration since the
separation. A large proportion (62.6 %, n= 395) displayed
between 1 and 20 behaviors. The maximum number of ob-
served UPBs was 49, but only a small proportion of partici-
pants (5.7 %, n=36) reported more than 20 behaviors
(grouped together in the histogram in a single category). On
average five to six behaviors were registered. The three most
reported behaviors included making exaggerated expressions
of affection, monitoring the ex-partner or his/her behavior, and
leaving unwanted messages of affection. More extreme be-
haviors were less frequently reported and the least reported
behaviors included showing up at places in threatening ways,
leaving or sending the ex-partner threatening objects, kidnap-
ping or physically constraining the ex-partner, and physically
endangering the ex-partner’slife(≤1 %). Descriptive results of
the additional UPB-questions showed that perpetrators tended
to perceive their behaviors as only slightly annoying for their
ex-partner and nearly not frightening or threatening, respec-
tively M(SD)=2.19(2.27), M(SD)=0.82(1.68), and M(SD)=
0.69(1.50) on a scale from 0 to 8. The behaviors were
displayed for an average of 10 weeks; M(SD)= 9.88(18.14),
range: 0–112.
Gender ofthe Perpetrator and of the Perpetrator’s Ex-Partner
Mann–Whitney Utests revealed that male and female ex-
partners perpetrated a similar number of UPBs, as did same-
and opposite-gender ex-partners (id. to hypothesis 1a, vs. hy-
pothesis 2a). In line with our expectations (cf., hypothesis 1b),
we found differences between male and female ex-partners on
the following specific UPB items: Men more often left un-
wanted gifts and unwanted messages of affection but less
often hurt their ex-partner physically than women (respective-
ly, U=42,419.00, p=.004; U=41,019.50, p=.008; U=47,
471.00, p=.026). Same- and opposite-gender ex-partners also
appeared to differ on some types of pursuit tactics: Same-
gender ex-partners more often left unwanted messages of
Table 1 Descriptives and Pearson correlations of the independent variables (N=631)
Va r i ab l e M(SD)Range23456789
1. Rumination 26.47(12.98) 9–63 .28*** −.19*** −.01 .04 .23*** .13** .00 .01
2. Anxious attachment 72.10(19.16) 18–126 –.06 −.10* .07 .43*** .35*** .06 −.15***
3. Avoidant attachment 50.83(17.45) 18–126 –−.38*** .15*** .15*** .12** .09* −.05
4. Empathy 41.66(11.05) 0–80 –−.37*** −.17*** −.16*** −.18*** .23***
5. Psychopathic traits 132.78(23.83) 64–320 –.36*** .44*** .54*** −.49***
6. Borderline traits 4.58(2.78) 0–10 –.37*** .25*** −.30***
7. Narcissistic traits 153.19(19.31) 35–245 –.22*** −.31***
8. Delinquent behavior
a
11.72(8.83) 0–176 –−.51***
9. Social desirability 8.08(4.46) 0–22 –
10. Initiator status I = 39.0 %, ex-partner = 49.1 %, both = 11.9 %
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p< .001
a
Non-parametric Spearman correlation coefficients are presented for the skew distributed delinquent behavior scale
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753–767 759
Author's personal copy

affection, intruded upon friends/family/coworkers of their ex-
partner, left or sent their ex-partner threatening objects than
opposite-gender ex-partners, but less often engaged in regula-
tory harassment (respectively, U= 43,940.50, p=.027; U=44,
042.50, p=.005; U=40,908.00, p= .037; U= 39,205.00,
p=.048). With respect to the additional UPB-questions, we
found that men and women engaged in pursuit tactics for a
similar number of weeks (id. to hypothesis 1c) and perceived
their behaviors as equally annoying, frightening, or threaten-
ing to their ex-partner (vs. hypothesis 1d). Similarly, same-
and opposite-gender ex-partners did not differ in the duration
of their pursuit (id. to hypothesis 2b) or in the perceived im-
pact of their behavior for their targets, except that opposite-
gender ex-partners perceived their behaviors as more threat-
ening for their ex-partner than same-gender ex-partners (U=
17,426.00, p=.011).
Risk Factors of UPB
The hurdle NB model that explored control variables included
the number of UPBs as dependent variable and as independent
variables the participants’social desirability scores, age, edu-
cation level, involvement in a new romantic relationship, clin-
ical status, the duration of the past relationship, the time since
the breakup, the presence of children with the ex-partner, the
gender of the perpetrator, the gender of the perpetrator’sex-
partner, as well as the Gender of the perpetrator x Gender of
the perpetrator’s ex-partner interaction, to explore potential
differences in man-man, woman-woman, woman-man, or
man-woman relationships. The model showed that the odds
of perpetrating UPB and the frequency of expected UPB per-
petrations were lower for non-clinical relative to clinical ex-
partners (respectively, OR= 0.59 or a 41 % decrease, 95 %
CI= 0.37–0.95, p=.028; RR=0.75 or a 25 % decrease, 95 %
CI= 0.59–0.97, p= .028). In the counts part, we also observed
a positive effect of time since the breakup and a negative effect
of social desirability. Specifically, the expected number of
UPBs increased with 11 % (RR= 1.11, 95 % CI=1.00–1.23,
p=.045) for each SD increase in the number of months since
the breakup and decreased with 15 % (RR=0.85, 95 % CI=
0.77–0.95, p= .003) for each SD increase in the participant’s
score on the Lie-scale.
Hypotheses 3a to 3i were tested by regressing the effects of
initiator status, rumination, anxious and avoidant attachment,
empathy, psychopathic, borderline, and narcissistic traits, and
past delinquent behavior on the UPB counts in a hurdle NB
model (controlling for clinical status, time since the breakup,
and social desirability). The results of this model, presented in
Tab le 2, confirm the proposed hypotheses. The odds of
displaying UPB by our participants after the breakup in-
creased when their ex-partner desired the breakup more than
they did (247 % increase), when they were more preoccupied
by their ex-partner (122 % increase per SD increase in the
rumination score), or when they displayed more borderline
traits (48 % increase per SD increase). In contrast, the odds
of displaying UPB decreased (with 57 %) when participants
indicated that they had both wanted the breakup equally com-
pared to when their ex-partner had a greater desire for the
separation. Similarly, the number of perpetrated UPBs in-
creased in cases where participants reported that their ex-
partner desired the breakup more than they did (34 % in-
crease), or if they ruminated more (34 % increase per SD
increase), or reported more borderline traits (15 % increase
per SD increase). In addition, more UPBs were observed when
the perpetrators had been more anxiously attached in the past
relationship or reported a history involving more delinquent
behavior (14 % increase per SD increase for each).
Moderating Effects of Gender of the Perpetrator and of the
Perpetrator’sEx-PartnerThe moderating effects of the
Table 2 Summary of the hurdle NB main effects model
Zero hurdle part Counts part
Va r i ab l e OR (e
B
)95%CI RR (e
B
)95%CI
Initiator
a
Ex-partner vs. I 3.47*** 2.22–5.42 1.34** 1.10–1.64
Both vs. I 1.48 0.80–2.72 1.22 0.91–1.63
Both vs. ex-partner 0.43** 0.23–0.80 0.91 0.70–1.18
Rumination 2.22*** 1.72–2.87 1.34*** 1.22–1.47
Anxious attachment 1.23 0.96–1.57 1.14* 1.03–1.26
Avoidant attachment 0.82 0.65–1.02 0.95 0.86–1.05
Empathy 1.17 0.92–1.47 0.96 0.87–1.06
Psychopathic traits 0.92 0.70–1.22 0.95 0.84–1.07
Borderline traits 1.48** 1.16–1.89 1.15* 1.03–1.28
Narcissistic traits 1.20 0.94–1.52 0.99 0.90–1.09
Delinquent behavior 1.21 0.94–1.57 1.14* 1.02–1.26
Clinical status
b
Non- vs. clinical 1.08 0.65–1.80 0.99 0.81–1.21
Time since breakup
c
1.23*** 1.13–1.34
Social desirability
c
0.90* 0.81–1.00
Generalized Variance Inflation Factors (for models with ≥three leveled
categorical variables; Fox and Monette 1992)= 1.05–1.48
OR Odds Ratio, RR Rate Ratio, CI confidence interval
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p< .001
a
Initiator status overall contributed to the zero hurdle and counts part:
respectively, χ
2
(2, N=631) =31.68, p< .001 and χ
2
(2, n=431) =8.30,
p=.016
b
The initial significant effect of clinical status in the control variables
model disappeared in this regression model. Post-hoc analyses suggested
that the impact of clinical status was mediated by the significant predic-
tors in this main effects model
c
These variables were insignificant in the zero hurdle part of the control
variables model and therefore not included in the zero hurdle part of the
present model
760 J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753–767
Author's personal copy

perpetrators’gender and the gender of their ex-partner in the
associations between our predictors and UPB perpetration
were finally assessed. In this respect, nine models (one per
risk factor) examined the two- and three-way interaction ef-
fects of gender of the perpetrator and of the perpetrator’sex-
partner (i.e., Gender of the perpetrator x Risk factor, Gender of
the perpetrator’s ex-partner x Risk factor, and Gender of the
perpetrator x Gender of the perpetrator’s ex-partner x Risk
factor). As none of the three-way interaction effects (which
controlled for possible differences between man-man, wom-
an-woman, woman-man, and man-woman relationships) were
significant, they were removed from the models. Next, the
non- or least significant two-way interactions including gen-
der of the perpetrator or of the perpetrator’sex-partnerwere
eliminated (cf., backward regression). Interactions were only
assessed in the counts part of the model in Table 2to halve the
number of tested interactions and reduce the risk of false pos-
itive effects. Although no moderating effects were expected
(cf., hypotheses 4 and 5), three significant two-way interac-
tions were found. First, higher rumination scores resulted in a
larger increase in the number of perpetrated UPBs in female
compared to male ex-partners (see Fig. 2a). Second, a higher
degree of anxious attachment in the past relationship resulted
in less UPB perpetrations by same-gender ex-partners where-
as anxious attachment was involved in a positive association
with UPB perpetration in opposite-gender ex-partners (see
Fig. 2b). Third, borderline traits were positively associated
with UPB perpetration in opposite-gender ex-partners where-
as these traits were not associated with the number of UPBs
perpetrated by same-gender ex-partners (see Fig. 2c).
Discussion
The present study describes the occurrence of UPBs in adult
ex-partners and aimed to perform an integrated examination of
breakup, relationship, and individual perpetrator characteristics in
order to better explain UPB perpetrations. Additionally, this
study aimed to examine differences between male and female
and same- and opposite-gender ex-partners in the occurrence and
prediction of UPB perpetration as such gender differences have
not yet been extensively explored in the context of post-breakup
UPB.
Occurrence of UPB
The estimates in the overall sample showed that the majority
of ex-partners engage in post-breakup UPBs. These behaviors
tend to be perpetrated at rather low frequencies and only for a
restricted period of time, however. This finding is in line with
UPB investigations in separated college students (e.g., Dutton
and Winstead 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. 2000;
Wigman et al. 2008; Wisternoff 2008) suggesting that non-
extreme patterns of pursuit are relatively normal after a break-
up. Compared to the recent UPB study by De Smet et al.
(2012) in a representative Flemish sample of divorced per-
sons, the proportion of Flemish ex-partners found by this
study to have engaged in UPBs was markedly higher, as was
the mean number of perpetrated tactics that we present here
(respectively 68 % vs. 37 % and 5–6vs.2–3 tactics). This
might be explained by this sample’s self-selective convenient
nature, as estimates of interpersonal aggression tend to be
higher in convenient samples compared to representative sam-
ples (Nielsen and Einarsen 2008). The inclusion of younger
adults in this study can also explain this divergence, as youn-
ger persons have been found to show more UPBs (De Smet
et al. 2012). Similar to the previous study, our participants
mainly used hyper-intimacy or surveillance tactics—specifi-
cally, making exaggerated expressions of affection, leaving
unwanted messages of affection, and monitoring the ex-part-
ner—and rarely engaged in threatening or aggressive types of
pursuit. Furthermore, the impact of tactics was perceived as
faintly annoying but virtually not frightening or threatening.
Despite this,these results should be interpreted with caution as
(a) (b) (c)
-2 -1 0 1 2
4 6 8 101214
Standardized Rumination Score
Predicted Mean Number of UPB Perpetrations
Male Ex -Partner
Female Ex-Partner
-2 -1 0 1 2
5678910
Standardized Anxious Attachment Score
Predicted Mean Number of UPB Perpetrations
Opposite-Gender Ex-Partner
Same-Gender Ex-Partner
-2 -1 0 1 2
5678910
Standardized Borderline Traits Score
Predicted Mean Number of UPB Perpetrations
Oppos ite-Gender Ex-Partne r
Same-Gender Ex-Partner
Fig. 2 Plot of significant (a) Rumination x Gender of the perpetrator
interaction (RR= 1.22, 95 % CI=1.03–1.44, p= .018), (b) Anxious
attachment x Gender of the perpetrator’s ex-partner interaction (RR =
0.76, 95 % CI=0.63–0.91, p=.003), and (c) Borderline traits x Gender
of the perpetrator’s ex-partner interaction (RR =0.83, 95 % CI =0.69–
1.00, p=.046)
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753–767 761
Author's personal copy

pursuers have the tendency to underreport UPB activities and
to underestimate the negative effects of their behavior (Dutton
and Winstead 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. 2000;
Sinclair and Frieze 2005). Moreover, according to our model,
pursuers were prone to socially desirable responding.
As expected, men and women perpetrated an equal number
of tactics over a similar time span. They only differed in spe-
cific methods in which they attempted to re-establish the bro-
ken intimate relationship: In line with our predictions, men
more often left unwanted gifts and messages of affection
whereas women more often physically hurt their ex-partner.
Similar findings have been reported in college student samples
(Dutton and Winstead 2006; Sinclair and Frieze 2000,2005;
Wisternoff 2008). Gender-specific sociocultural beliefs that
promote men to initiate courtship behaviors and requests for
intimacy and women as the weaker sex may make it more
normative or justifiable for men to display affectionate ap-
proaches and for women to engage in aggressive behaviors
(Langhinrichsen-Rohling 2012). Indeed, Thompson et al.
(2012) found evidence for the sociocultural attitude that a
woman’s use of violence against her partner is more accept-
able, and that women who endorse this attitude self-report
higher levels of stalking and associated violence. Although
the literature (Sinclair and Frieze 2000; Spitzberg et al.
2010) suggests that male perpetrators are more conscious of
the negative impact of their behaviors, we found no differ-
ences in men’s and women’s appraised impact of their UPBs
upon their ex-partner—at least, not at the low levels of annoy-
ance, fear, and threat that we mainly registered in our sample.
It is possible that our hypothesized gender difference only
comes into play in severe pursuit cases. For example, it was
only in the violent stalking cases in Thompson et al.’s(2012)
study, that male perpetrators more likely believed they fright-
ened, intimidated, or harmed their target whereas no such
gender difference was observed in non-violent cases.
Our results further show that same-gender ex-couples are
equally vulnerable to UPBs than opposite-gender ex-couples:
Both groups pursued their ex-partner for equally long and
displayed a similar number of UPBs. This contradicts
Spitzberg et al.’s(2010) evidence for higher levels of pursuit
victimization in same-gender relationships, although it should
be noted that their effect size was trivial and they did not take
the specific context of the breakup into account. Further, we
detected differences in some of the specific tactics that were
perpetrated. In line with Strand and McEwan (2011), same-
gender ex-partners engaged in more approach tactics (i.e.,
engaging in unwanted messages of affection and intruding
upon acquaintances of the ex-partner) and threatening behav-
iors (i.e., leaving or sending threatening objects). Nonetheless,
same-gender ex-partners perceived the impact of their behav-
iors as significantly less threatening than their opposite-gender
counterparts. Two explanations seem plausible. First, same-
gender ex-partners might have devaluated the impact of their
pursuit, as it does not fit with the stereotypical case of a man
pursuing a woman (Yanowitz and Yanowitz 2012). Second,
targets of same-gender pursuers might have shown fewer
signs of feeling threatened: Victims of woman-woman pursuit
might articulate less threat as pursuit by women is generally
appraised as less threatening than pursuit by a man and vic-
tims of man-man pursuit might report less threat as male vic-
tims typically feel less threatened (Spitzberg et al. 2010)and
are less likely to feel that they are being stalked when the
pursuer is a man (Tjaden et al. 2000).
In addition to our focus on differences between male and
female ex-partners on the one hand and same- and opposite-
gender ex-partners on the other hand, we explored whether
male to male, female to female, female to male, and male to
female pursuers differed in the occurrence and risk factors of
UPB perpetration. According to our regression models, these
four types of dyads neither differ with respect to the number of
displayed UPBs nor with respect to the effects of our risk
factors on the perpetration of these behaviors.
Risk Factors of UPB
The risk factors pinpointed by the main effects model show
that—in line with White et al.’s(2000) integrative model—
former partner pursuit is a multiple-determined phenomenon
influenced by risk factors at different levels. As expected, a
higher number of perpetrated tactics was predicted by certain
breakup characteristics (i.e., initiation of the breakup by the
perpetrator’s ex-partner instead of the perpetrator and more
rumination about the former partner), relationship characteris-
tics (i.e., more anxious attachment in the former relationship),
and individual perpetrator characteristics (i.e., more borderline
personality traits and past delinquent behaviors). The other
relationship and individual characteristics in this study—the
degree of avoidant attachment and empathy in the past rela-
tionship and the degree of psychopathic and narcissistic
traits—did not explain the number of tactics pursuers
displayed.
Taken together, these results might imply that more persis-
tent pursuers are people who possess more stable borderline
personality traits that put them at risk of displaying more de-
linquent behaviors and demonstrating anxious attachment in
their intimate relationships. This more anxious attachment
style might subsequently make them less likely to initiate a
separation and more likely to experience elevated levels of
rumination after being rejected. We did not address such in-
terrelationships between our predictors, but previous studies
tend to support this profile. It has namely been found that
being rejected elicits more obsessive thoughts about the ex-
partner (Davis et al. 2000) and that the relationship between
anxious attachment and stalking is mediated by being the re-
cipient of the breakup (Dye and Davis 2003) and obsessive
thoughts (Davis et al. 2000). Furthermore, evidence shows
762 J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753–767
Author's personal copy

that people with borderline traits tend toward fearful or preoc-
cupied attachment patterns in their close relationships (e.g.,
Levy et al. 2005). Borderline personality types are character-
ized by impulsivity and instability in interpersonal relation-
ships, self-image, and affect. They have difficulties with being
alone and make frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined aban-
donment (APA 2000). These characteristics match with anx-
iously attached persons’typical need for approval, inclination
to worry about rejection, and tendency to feel distressed when
the attachment figure is unavailable (Brennan et al. 1998).
Borderlinepersonality types also tend todisplay various forms
of delinquent behavior because of their impulsivity, reckless-
ness, and difficulty with controlling anger (APA 2000). Thus,
the higher levels of past delinquent behaviors displayed by
more persistent pursuers in our sample might—just as the
UPBs themselves—be a product of underlying borderline
traits.
Our moderator analyses show that the effects of some risk
factors differed for male and female and same- and opposite-
gender ex-partners. In contrast to previous observations of
similar correlations between obsessive thoughts about the
ex-partner and acts of stalking in men and women (Davis
et al. 2000), the effect of rumination was stronger for female
ex-partners in our sample. In the depression literature, women
are found to be more prone to rumination. Their greater ten-
dency to ruminate contributes to more depressive symptoms,
which in turn contribute to more rumination (Nolen-
Hoeksema et al. 1999). According to UPB researchers (e.g.,
Cupach and Spitzberg 2004), such mutually exacerbating in-
fluences between rumination and negative affect are central
mechanisms that fuel persistent pursuit. Although these mech-
anisms are assumed to apply to men and women equally (e.g.,
Cupach and Spitzberg 2004; Davis et al. 2012), it seems that
they especially make women more vulnerable to engaging in
persistent UPBs after breakup.
Finally, the number of tactics perpetrated by same-gender
ex-partners in our sample was not explained by their degree of
borderline traits or anxious attachment in the former relation-
ship. Psychological processes such as separation anxiety that
characterize borderline and anxious attached types of per-
sons—as outlined above—do not, therefore, seem to motivate
the perpetration of UPBs by same-gender ex-partners. Based
on the same-gender stalking studies by Pathé et al. (2000)and
Strand and McEwan (2011), it might be assumed that same-
gender pursuers are more motivated by a resentful than a
rejected or affectionate type of motivation. A more dyadic
explanation might also be plausible: It is known that same-
gender couples have higher levels of equality in their relation-
ships than opposite-gender couples (e.g., Kurdek 2004)and
that the perpetration of UPBs by more anxiously attached
persons is lower when separating from a similar more anx-
iously attached partner than when separating from a dissimilar
less anxiously attached partner (De Smet et al. 2013).
Although we did not assess both dyad members’attachment
styles, it is possible that more equal attachment characteristics
in same-gender ex-couples inhibited the perpetration of UPBs
by more anxiously attached persons. Clearly, these tentative
conclusions need to be further validated.
Implications, Strengths, and Limitations
This paper extends previous research by taking an integrative
approach to explaining post-breakup UPB perpetration that
consisted of a simultaneous investigation of risk factors at
different levels. Previous studies often assessed breakup, rela-
tionship, and individual perpetrator characteristics separately
(e.g., De Smet et al. 2011; Spitzberg and Veksler 2007)or
solely focused on individual risk markers as part of the tradi-
tional clinical/forensic view on stalking (e.g., Meloy 1998).
Yet, this study shows that breakup and relationship character-
istics are just as important as individual characteristics in
explaining post-breakup UPB perpetration. As such, the tradi-
tional clinical/forensic perspective, which focuses on individ-
ual risk markers, deserves to be complemented with a situa-
tional and relational view focusing on risk markers related to
the breakup situation and past romantic relationship. In order
to further build on an integrative theory of former partner
pursuit, more studies that approach UPB perpetration from a
multi-faceted perspective seem necessary. As we only
assessed a selective set of risk factors, these studies could
integrate more breakup variables such the number of breakups
and reunions that occurred previously, relationship character-
istics such as violence in the past relationship, and individual
perpetrator characteristics such as Axis-I-disorders (e.g.,
Cupach and Spitzberg 2004; Davis et al. 2000). As stated by
Cupach and Spitzberg (2004): BUltimately, a complete theory
of stalking and unwanted pursuit will need to accommodate
all of these factors^(p. 117). To develop a complete theory,
risk factors situated on broader sociocultural and social net-
work levels could also be assessed (see White et al. 2000).
This examination of gender differences that have been un-
derrepresented in the field of post-breakup UPB also contrib-
utes to the existing knowledge. The gender of the perpetrator
and of the perpetrator’s ex-partner moderated the effects of
some of our risk factors on the number of perpetrated UPBs.
Building on these results, the pursuers’gender and gender of
their ex-partner seem worthwhile to consider in future studies
seeking to explain UPB. The observation that borderline traits
and anxious attachment cannot explain the perpetration of
UPBs by same-gender ex-partners demands further research
to understand what triggers UPB in same-gender ex-partners
and why they are different from opposite-gender ex-partners.
Although the perpetrator’s gender only moderated the effect
of rumination in this study, more differential effects of the
pursuer’s gender can be expected for other risk factors not
included in this paper. Davis et al. (2012), for instance,
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753–767 763
Author's personal copy

recently introduced a theory of coercive control that outlines
gender differences in control motives underlying persistent
pursuit.
The fact that UPBs often follow relationship separations
and might escalate into more severe forms of stalking, calls
for early detection and prevention of these behaviors and ad-
equate treatment interventions. Marriage counselors, divorce
professionals (e.g., mediators, judges, attorneys who intervene
in most relationship breakups), or therapists who work with
ex-partners, might bear a significant role in early identification
of post-breakup UPBs. Based on our findings, these practi-
tioners should be equally vigilant for such harassment among
male and female ex-partners and ex-partners who separate
from someone of the same or opposite sex. Treatment of per-
petrators is usually tailored to address their underlying idio-
syncratic risk factors, which are identified through an overall
assessment (e.g., MacKenzie and James 2011). Based on our
findings, a broad assessment of risk factors related to the
individual, the breakup situation, and the past relationship is
favored.
2
Our findings further support psychotherapeutic in-
terventions that address our identified risk factors. One such
intervention consists of dealing with the cognitive preoccupa-
tion of former intimate stalkers by means of techniques as
acceptance and commitment therapy (Scholing and Sierksma
2005). The use of dialectal behavior therapy (Linehan 1993),
developed for individuals with borderline characteristics, also
may be a promising option to reduce stalking or pursuit tac-
tics. Our observed gender differences that, for instance, bor-
derline traits do not predict pursuit among same-gender ex-
partner, also suggests that the usefulness of certain interven-
tions might differ according to the gender composition of ex-
couples.
Finally, some methodological (dis)advantages of this study
merit consideration. First, whereas previous UPB studies pre-
dominantly used college student samples in non-European,
English-speaking countries (e.g., Spitzberg and Cupach
2007), the present investigation employed a more
ecological-valid sample of Flemish adult ex-partners.
However, relative to the composition of De Smet et al.’s
(2012) representative sample of Flemish adult ex-partners,
our convenient sampling strategy and online assessment chief-
ly attracted younger and higher educated adults who reported
on relatively short-term and mostly childless relationships.
This puts constraints on the generalization of our findings to
the broader population of separated adults. Additionally, our
study merely provides estimates on the occurrence of UPBs
rather than true prevalence rates. The study of risk factors of
UPB perpetration, however, does not necessitate the use of
representative samples. The fact that we could replicate the
findings of other risk factor studies seems to support the gen-
eralizability of our results. Second, although we were able to
recruit a substantial group of hard-to-reach same-gender ex-
partners, these ex-partners were still underrepresented com-
pared to our number of opposite-gender ex-partners. Third,
risk factors were assessed with advanced count models that
fitted the skewed distribution of reported UPBs and non-
parametric tests were used to compare the occurrence of
UPBs across male and female and same- and opposite-
gender ex-partners. This assessment of group differences re-
sulted in several interesting findings. Yet, the large number of
tests enhanced the risk of false positive effects. Replication of
this study’s preliminary findings in future research therefore
seems needed. Finally, the data relied on retrospective self-
reports. The self-reports of UPB perpetration were subject to
self-presentation concerns, implying that future surveys better
combine both the victim’s and perpetrator’s perspective in
order to acquire accurate estimates on the occurrence of
UPBs after breakup. As recall biases may have impacted upon
the retrospective measures in this study, future research should
also use a prospective instead of a cross-sectional design in
order to obtain reliable ratings of the variables. Such prospec-
tive studies could furthermore draw definite conclusions on
the causality of the currently observed effects. Despite these
limitations, this study contributes to a more complete picture
of pursuit behaviors that are often displayed after the conclu-
sion of a romantic relationship.
Acknowledgments The authors thank all participants and gratefully
acknowledge K. Jacobs, K. De Bruyn, I. Daems, W. Croymans, Y. Cuyt,
A. Denis, F. Wauters, A. Verleysen, W. Desmet as well as the LGBT and
mental health services involved in this study for their contribution in
collecting data.
References
Allison, C., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S. J., Stone, M. H., &
Muncer, S. J. (2011). Psychometric analysis of the Empathy
Quotient (EQ). Personality and Individual Differences, 51,829–
835. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.005.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington,
DC: Author.
Asada, K. J., Lee, E., Levine, T. R., & Ferrara, M. H. (2004). Narcissism
and empathy as predictors of obsessive relational intrusion.
Communication Research Reports, 21,379–390. doi:10.1080/
08824090409360002.
Atkins, D. C., & Gallop, R. J. (2007). Rethinking how family researchers
model infrequent outcomes: a tutorial on count regression and zero-
inflated models. JournalofFamilyPsychology,21,726–735. doi:
10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.726.
Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The Empathy Quotient: an
investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning
autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and
2
Practitioners interested in implementing this study’s measures in their
daily practice, can obtain the measures via the corresponding author of
this article and the original authors of the questionnaires who are men-
tioned in the above BMethod^section.
764 J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753–767
Author's personal copy

Developmental Disorders, 34,163–175. doi:10.1023/B:JADD.
0000022607.19833.00.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among
young adults: a test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61,226–244. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.61.2.
226.
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report mea-
surement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A.
Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close
relationships (pp. 46–76). New York: Guilford Press.
Caes, L., Uzieblo, K., Crombez, G., De Ruddere, L., Vervoort, T., &
Goubert, L. (2012). Negative emotional responses elicited by the
anticipation of pain in others: psychophysiological evidence. The
Journal of Pain, 13,467–476. doi:10.1016/j.jpain.2012.02.003.
Conradi, H. J., Gerlsma, C., van Duijn, M., & de Jonge, P. (2006). Internal
and external validity of the Experiences in Close Relationships ques-
tionnaire in an American and two Dutch samples. The European
Journal of Psychiatry, 20, 258–269. Retrieved from http://
dx.doi.org/10.4321/S0213-61632006000400006.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1998). Obsessive relational intrusion
and stalking. In B. H. Spitzberg & W. R. Cupach (Eds.), The dark
side of close relationships (pp. 233–263). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2004). The dark side of relationship
pursuit. From attraction to obsession and stalking.Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cupach, W. R., Spitzberg, B. H., Bolingbroke, C. M., & Tellitocci, B. S.
(2011). Persistence of attempts to reconcile a terminated romantic
relationship: a partial test of relational goal pursuit theory.
Communication Reports, 24,99–115. doi:10.1080/08934215.2011.
613737.
Davis, K. E., Ace, A., & Andra, M. (2000). Stalking perpetrators and
psychological maltreatment of partners: anger-jealousy, attachment
insecurity, need for control, and breakup context. Violence and
Victims, 15,407–425. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/208566016/fulltextPDF?accountid=11077.
Davis, D., Shaver, P. R., & Vernon, M. L. (2003). Physical, emotional,
and behavioral reactions to breaking up: the roles of gender, age,
emotional involvement, and attachment style. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 29,871–884. doi:10.1177/
0146167203252884.
Davis, K. E., Swan, S. C., & Gambone, L. J. (2012). Why doesn’thejust
leave me alone? Persistent pursuit: a critical review of theories and
evidence. Sex Roles, 66,328–339. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9882-3.
De Corte, K., Uzieblo, K., Buysse, A., & Crombez, G. (2006). Authorized
Dutch translation of the empathy quotient. Unpublished manuscript,
Department of Experimental-Clinical and Health Psychology, Ghent
University, Ghent, Belgium.
De Smet, O., Buysse, A., & Brondeel, R. (2011). Effect of the breakup
context on unwanted pursuit behavior perpetration between former
partners. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 56,934–941. doi:10.1111/j.
1556-4029.2011.01745.x.
De Smet, O., Loeys, T., & Buysse, A. (2012). Post-breakup unwanted
pursuit: a refined analysis of the role of romantic relationship char-
acteristics. Journal of Family Violence, 27,437–452. doi:10.1007/
s10896-012-9437-1.
De Smet, O., Loeys, T., & Buysse, A. (2013). Ex-couples’unwanted
pursuit behavior: an actor–partner interdependence model approach.
Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 221–231. doi:10.1037/
a0031878.
Dressing,H., Gass, P., & Kuehner, C. (2007). What can we learn from the
first community-based epidemiological study on stalking in
Germany? International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30,10–
17. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2006.03.006.
Dutton, L. B., & Winstead, B. A. (2006). Predicting unwanted pursuit:
attachment, relationship satisfaction, relationship alternatives, and
breakup distress. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
23,565–586. doi:10.1177/0265407506065984.
Dutton-Greene, L. B. (2004). Testing a model of unwanted pursuit and
stalking (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://search.
proquest.com/docview/305154492.
Dye, M. L., & Davis, K. E. (2003). Stalking and psychological abuse:
common factors and relationship-specific characteristics. Vi ol ence
and Victims, 18,163–180. doi:10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.163.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development.
Annual Review of Psychology, 51,665–697. doi:10.1146/annurev.
psych.51.1.665.
Ettema, J. H. M., & Zondag, H. J. (2002). De Nederlandse Narcisme
Schaal (NNS). Psychodiagnostisch gereedschap. [The Dutch
Narcissism Scale (NNS). Psychodiagnostic tool]. De Psycholoog,
37,250–255. Retrieved from http://ettema.org/Narcisme/NNS_en_
normen_files/NNS.pdf.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the eysenck
personality questionnaire. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Ferrando, P. J., Chico, E., & Lorenzo, U. (1997). Dimensional analysis of
the EPQ-R Lie scale with a Spanish sample: gender differences and
relations to N, E, and P. Personality and Individual Differences, 30,
641–656. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(97)00082-2.
Fox, J., & Monette, G. (1992). Generalized collinearity diagnostics.
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87,178–183. doi:
10.2307/2290467.
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare psychopathy checklist-revised (2nd ed.).
Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Heise, L., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2002). Violence by intimate partners. In
E. Krug, L. L. Dahlberg, J. A. Mercy, et al. (Eds.), Worl d re po rt o n
violence and health (pp. 87–121). Geneva: World Health
Organization.
Hendin, H. M., & Cheek, J. M. (1997). Assessing hypersensitive narcis-
sism: a reexamination of Murray’s narcism scale. Journal of
Research in Personality, 31,588–599. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2204.
Jolliffe, D., & Farrington, D. P. (2004). Empathy and offending: a sys-
tematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior,
9,441–476. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2003.03.001.
Junger-Tas, J., Terlouw, G. J., & Klein, M. W. (1994). Delinquent behav-
ior among young people in the western world: First results of the
International Self-Report Delinquency Study.Amsterdam:Kugler
Publications.
Kamphuis, J. H., Emmelkamp, P. M. G., & de Vries, V. (2004). Informant
personality descriptions of postintimate stalkers using the five factor
profile. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 169–178. doi:10.
1207/s15327752jpa8202_5.
Karazsia, B. T., & van Dulmen, M. H. M. (2010). Modeling infrequent
outcomes: Illustrations using prospective predictors of pediatric in-
juries. In H. Schuster & W. Metzger (Eds.), Biometrics: Methods,
applications and analyses (pp. 1–27). New York: Nova Science.
Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really
different from heterosexual married couples? Journal of Marriage
and Family, 66,880–900. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2004.00060.x.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2012). Gender and stalking: Current inter-
sections and future directions. Sex Roles, 66,418–426. doi:10.1007/
s11199-011-0093-3.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Palarea, R. E., Cohen, J., & Rohling, M. L.
(2000). Breaking up is hard to do: unwanted pursuit behavior fol-
lowing the dissolution of a romantic relationship. Violence and
Vic ti ms , 15 ,73–90. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/208555218/fulltextPDF/13A69D47D3937C6D71D/2?
accountid=11077.
Lawrence, E. J., Shaw, P., Baker, D., Baron-Cohen, S., & David, A. S.
(2004). Measuring empathy: reliability and validity of the Empathy
Quotient. Psychological Medicine, 34,911–924. doi:10.1017/
S0033291703001624.
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753–767 765
Author's personal copy

Levy, K. N., Meehan, K. B., Weber, M., Reynoso, J., & Clarkin, J. F.
(2005). Attachment and borderline personality disorder: implica-
tions for psychotherapy. Psychopathology, 38,64–74. doi:10.1159/
000084813.
Lewis, S. F., Fremouw, W. J., Del Ben, K., & Farr, C. (2001). An inves-
tigation of the psychological characteristics of stalkers: empathy,
problem-solving, attachment and borderline personality features.
Journal of Forensic Sciences, 46,80–84. Retrieved from http://
library-resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_46/iss_1/JFS4610080.
pdf.
Linehan, M. M. (1993). Cognitive behavioral treatment of borderline
personality disorder. New York: Guilford Press.
Loeys, T., Moerkerke, B., De Smet, O., & Buysse, A. (2012). The anal-
ysis of zero-inflated count data:beyond zero-inflated Poisson regres-
sion. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,
65,163–180. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.2011.02031.x.
MacKenzie, R. D., & James, D. V. (2011). Management and treatment of
stalkers: problems, options, and solutions. Behavioral Sciences and
the Law, 29,220–239. doi:10.1002/bsl.980.
Mahmut, M. K., Menictas, C., Stevenson, R. J., & Homewood, J. (2011).
Validating the factor structure of the Self-Report Psychopathy scale
in a community sample. Psychological Assessment, 23,670–678.
doi:10.1037/a0023090.
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. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2006.
03.005.
McGrath, M., Cann, S., & Konopasky, R. (1998). New measures of
defensiveness, empathy, and cognitive distortions for sexual of-
fenders against children. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment, 10,25–36. doi:10.1177/107906329801000104.
Meloy, J. R. (1998). The psychology of stalking: Clinical and forensic
perspectives. San Diego: Academic.
Meloy, J. R., & Felthous, A. (2011). Introduction to this issue: interna-
tional perspectives on stalking. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29,
139–140. doi:10.1002/bsl.982.
Mikulincer, R., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood:
Structure, dynamics, and change. New York: Guilford Press.
Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2008). Sampling in research on interper-
sonal aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 34,265–272. doi:10.1002/
ab.20229.
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Larson, J., & Grayson, C. (1999). Explaining the
gender difference in depressive symptoms. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 77, 1061–1072. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.
77.5.1061.
Patel, A. B., Sharp, C., & Fonagy, P.(2011). Criterion validity of the MSI-
BPD in a community sample of women. Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 33, 403–408. doi:
10.1007/s10862-011-9238-5.
Pathé, M. T., Mullen, P. E., & Purcell, R. M. (2000). Same-gender
stalking. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the
Law, 28,191–197. Retrieved from http://jaapl.org/content/28/2/191.
short.
Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2015). Manual for the
self-report psychopathy scale. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (2001). A study of women who
stalk. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 2056–2060. doi:10.
1176/appi.ajp.158.12.2056.
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. doi:10.1046/j.1440-
1614.2002.00985.x.
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1979). A narcissistic personality inventory.
Psychological Reports, 45, 590. doi:10.2466/pr0.1979.45.2.590.
Raskin, R. N., & Hall, C. S. (1981). Narcissistic personality inventory:
alternate form reliability and further evidence of construct validity.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 45,159–162. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa4502_10.
Ravitz, P., Maunder, R., Hunter, J., Sthankiya, B., & Lancee, W. (2010).
Adult attachment measures: a 25-year review. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 69, 419–432. doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.
2009.08.006.
Roberts, K. A. (2002). Stalking following the breakup of romantic rela-
tionships: characteristics of stalking former partners. Journal of
Forensic Sciences, 47, 1070–1077. Retrieved from http://library-
resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_47/iss_5/JFS2001397_475.pdf.
Saffrey, C., & Ehrenberg, M. (2007). When thinking hurts: attachment,
rumination, and postrelationship adjustment. Personal
Relationships, 14, 351–368. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2007.
00160.x.
Sanderman, R., Arrindell, W. A., Ranchor, A. V., Eysenck, H. J., &
Eysenck, S. B. G. (1995). Het meten van
persoonlijkheidskenmerken met de Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire (EPQ): Een handleiding. [The measurement of per-
sonality traits with the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ): A
manual.]. Groningen: Stichting Drukkerij C. Regenboog.
Scholing, A., & Sierksma, W. (2005). Geobsedeerd door je ex en
aanverwante verschijnselen: Preoccupaties bij stalkers. [Obsessed
by your ex and related symptoms: Preoccupations in stalkers.].
Directieve Therapie, 25,112–119. Retrieved from http://link.
springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF03060385.
Sinclair, H. C., & Frieze, I. H. (2000). Initial courtship behavior and
stalking: how should we draw the line? Violence and Victims, 15,
23–40. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/
208556114/fulltextPDF/139CAA5B3B64EA056B3/2?accountid=
11077.
Sinclair, H. C., & Frieze, I. H. (2005). When courtship persistence be-
comes intrusive pursuit: comparing rejecter and pursuer perspectives
of unrequited love. Sex Roles, 52,839–852. doi:10.1007/s11199-
005-4203-4.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2003). What mad pursuit? Obsessive
relational intrusion and stalking related phenomena. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 8,345–375. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00068-
X.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. (2007). The state of the art of stalking:
taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 12,64–86. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.05.001.
Spitzberg, B. H., & Veksler, A. E. (2007). The personality of pursuit:
personality attributions of unwanted pursuers and stalkers.
Violence and Victims, 22,275–289. doi:10.1891/
088667007780842838.
Spitzberg, B. H., Cupach, W. R., & Ciceraro, L. D. L. (2010). Sex differ-
ences in stalking and obsessive relational intrusion: two meta-anal-
yses. Partner Abuse, 1,259–285. doi:10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.259.
Stieger, S., Burger, C., & Schild, A. (2008). Lifetime prevalence and
impact of stalking: epidemiological data from Eastern Austria.
European Journal of Psychiatry, 22,235–241. doi:10.4321/S0213-
61632008000400006.
Strand, S., & McEwan, T. E. (2011). Same-gender stalking in Sweden and
Australia. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 29,202–219. doi:10.
1002/bsl.981.
Thompson, C. M., Dennison, S. M., & Stewart, A. (2012). Are female
stalkers more violent than male stalkers? Understanding gender dif-
ferences in stalking violence using contemporary sociocultural be-
liefs. Sex Roles, 66,351–365. doi:10.1007/s11199-010-9911-2.
Tjaden, P., Thoennes, N., & Allison, C. J. (2000). Comparing stalking
victimization from legal and victim perspectives. Violence and
Victims, 15,7–22. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/208555174/fulltextPDF/13AB61E084055EBCA22/2?
accountid=11077.
Uzieblo, K., De Ruiter, C., Crombez, G., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D.
(2007). The Dutch translation of the self-report psychopathy scale-
766 J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753–767
Author's personal copy

III. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Experimental-Clinical
and Health Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Verschuere, B., & Tibboel, H. (2011). De Nederlandstalige versie van de
McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder
(MSI-BPD). [The Dutch version of the McLean Screening
Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder (MSI-BPD).].
Psychologie and Gezondheid, 39,243–248. doi:10.1007/s12483-
011-0046-0.
White, J., Kowalski, R. M., Lyndon, A., & Valentine, S. (2000). An
integrative contextual developmental model of male stalking.
Violence and Victims, 15, 373–388. Retrieved from http://libres.
uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/J_White_Integrative_2001.pdf.
Wigman, S. A., Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2008). Investigating
sub-groups of harassers: the roles of attachment, dependency, jeal-
ousy and aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 23,557–568. doi:
10.1007/s10896-008-9171-x.
Wisternoff, M. (2008). Unwanted pursuit and stalking following
intimate relationship dissolution (Master’s thesis). Retrieved
from http://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/10092/1663/1/
Thesis_fulltext.pdf.
Yanowitz, K. L., & Yanowitz, J. L. (2012). The role of gender in the
generation of stalking scripts. Sex Roles, 66, 366–377. doi:10.
1007/s11199-010-9867-2.
Zanarini, M. C., Vujanovic, A. A., Parachini, E. A., Boulanger, J. L.,
Frankenburg, F. R., & Hennen, J. (2003). A screening measure for
BPD: the McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality
Disorder (MSI-BPD). Journal of Personality Disorders, 17,568–
573. doi:10.1521/pedi.17.6.568.25355.
Zhang, S., Benson, T., & Deng, X. (2002). A test-retest reliability assess-
ment of the international self-report delinquency instrument.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 283–295. doi:10.1016/S0047-
2352(00)00045-3.
Zondag, H. (2005). Between imposing one’s will and protecting oneself.
Narcissism and the meaning of life among Dutch pastors.
Journal of Religion and Health, 44,413–426. doi:10.1007/
s10943-005-7180-0.
J Fam Viol (2015) 30:753–767 767
Author's personal copy