Employee retention and development Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Employee retention and development - Essay Example Employee retention is more difficult than employee recruitment process in western countries. â€Å"The expense of recruiting and re-training a new worker costing anywhere from half to 200% of the departing employee’s annual salary†(Hebenstreit, Ph.D. 2008, p.4). It is estimated that U.S. companies spent $134.1 billion on employee learning and development in 2008 (Kraimer et al, 2011, p.485). Normally an organization spends a substantial amount of money for the training and development purposes of its employees. When an employee decides to quit an organization, all the money spent for the training and development of that employee by the organization will be wasted. It is the duty of the human resource department of an organization to implement strategies to reduce employee dropouts or turnover. â€Å"The UK average employee turnover rate is approximately 15% a year, although this varies drastically between industries. The highest levels of turnover are found in private sector organisations in retailing, catering, call centres, construction and media†(Workforce Management, 2011). The above employee turnover rate is huge when we compare it with employee turnover rate in other parts of the world. The reasons for higher employee turnover rate could be different like; attractive offers from other organizations, dissatisfaction over the working conditions in the present organization, ill-health, personal problems etc. In any case, it is duty of the human resource department to reduce the employee turnover rate as much as possible. â€Å"Replacing employee is not only time consuming, but expensive, costing you between  50 to 100 per cent of that positions’ annual salary† (Employee Retention and Recruitment Tips, 2009). This paper analyses the possible employ ee retention and development strategies, HRM department can implement in an organization. Theories related to Recruitment Before analysing the employee retention and development policy in detail, it is necessary to evaluate the normal recruitment policies adopting by current organization. In fact retention starts at the time of recruitment itself and therefore HRM professionals should start their efforts to retain the employees at the time of recruitment itself. Recruitment methods can be classified into two broad categories; internal and external. Internal recruitment method is normally adopted by organization when it is in need of emergency requirement of employees at some places. For example, suppose the production manager of manufacturing industry, has resigned due to some reasons. It is difficult for the organization to wait till the HRM department identifies a suitable person using external recruitment method. External recruitment process usually consists of many time consumin g stages such as posting of recruitment ads in various medias, written tests, interviews, etc. The organization may not get a production manager at least for few months if it opts for external recruitment methods. It is difficult for a production oriented organization to manage its production works for longer periods without a production manager. So, when emergency occurs, such organizations will try to promote some of its existing supervisors to the production manager post. In other words, an organization may opt for internal recruitmen

Performance Measurement and Management Assignment

Performance Measurement and Management - Assignment Example This is also ensures that transparency is achieved because stakeholders are informed on the choices the organization intends to take. In addition, it assists an organization to monitor its progress towards its set objectives and standards of performance (Lichiello and Turnock, 2010). In addition, Myer (2005) highlights that performance management is the coordination of activities, which ensures that organizational goals are effectively achieved. It is also the use of performance measures and standards by an organization to ensure that the desired results are met Lichiello and Turnluck, 2010). In performance management, an organization matches its resources, systems and workforce towards desired objectives. Employees, organizations departments and processes in the organization can be the basis of performance management (Lichiello and Turnock, 2010). Myer (2005) also highlights that the benefits of performance management include; reduced costs by decreasing the time of achieving goals and reducing project overruns, motivation of employees by using incentive plans for goals achieved, improved engagement and transparency, and lastly, improved control of organization activities through proper data relationships. This paper will highlight and describe in detail the va rious performance measures that can be used by Allulite Windows and Joinery in measuring performance, and it will emphasize on the balanced score card approach and why it is favorable for the company than any other methods. In general, the metrics of measuring performance in an organization can be broadly classified into financial and nonfinancial measures. Some of the financial measures include the Return on Investment (ROI), Residual income (RI) and discounted cash flow methods such as the NPV method. On the other hand, the nonfinancial performance measures include

Educational Philosophy Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Educational Philosophy - Essay Example In other words, it is necessary to study all theories that are concerned with the issue of education philosophy, in order to single out the ideas that work from those that are irrelevant. The vital question that one has to answer in order to form an education philosophy is what its main goal is. The ultimate goal of the educational philosophy is to encourage the student’s interest in the subject and help them to become more familiar with the concept. In order to achieve this, teachers are expected to set several goals such as persuasiveness, make students respect the teacher, understand the subject well, have friendly relations with students, create a perfect learning environment, and a proper curriculum. â€Å"Education - like democracy, free markets, freedom of the press, and "universal human rights" - is one of those subjects whose virtue is considered self-evident† (Armitage, 2007). Being educated makes it possible for a person to achieve career goals, to make a contribution to a country’s development and to realize oneself in the field one likes. The most important thing that teachers should expect from students is the ability to think creat ively and an urge to explore life and learn more about it. The ability to analyze any problem and give sound arguments to support the teacher’s point of view does play a great role in everybody’s live and career. To put it another way, teachers wants their students to be inquisitive, creative and reasonable. There are several interactions that could occur in the educational scenario: between teachers, students, the educational community (middle school, college, and high school), parents, and society in general. Among these participants it is necessary to mark out the key participants: the student and the teacher. So, what are their roles and responsibilities? â€Å"Colleges are learning communities, and individuals accepted into these

Cesim Global Challange Report Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2750 words

Cesim Global Challange Report - Essay Example This situation made it extremely difficult for the company to be attractive to investors and thereby limiting shareholder participation. It would be admitted that the efforts of Team Ochre has clearly brought some levels of improvement but it has not totally solved the situation. Team Ochre’s success can be attributed to a relatively impressive fixed asset which stood at $766,581. Even though this could be higher, it is generally better than what most other groups recorded. A number of factors can be given to explain this, including the production based investments which have already been referred to. Team Ochre is focused on maximizing shareholder value through the provision of massive global representation. Using the unit sales volumes as an indicator for market shares for the company, it was found that the company recorded positive market share in three technologies globally. Unlike its competitors, Team Ochre’s financial performance was spread across three major technologies. These were Tech 1, 2 and 3 with 0.00% market share in Tech 4. Team Ochre is also able to achieve consistent performance by effective future forecasting of its market demands. For example for Tech 1, the total available products were 8,552,000, all of which were produced in the USA with 0 manufactured in Asia. Meanwhile the demand for both markets was only 1,799,000. For Tech 2 also, the situation was not different with 0 products manufactured in Asia with 5,975,000 USA manufacturing against 1,285,000 demands. This certainly shows the effect of poor forecasting on by Team Ochre, the result of which was overproduction. Looking forward, Team Ochre plans to continue to focus its attention on efficient and lean production. The reason for saying this is that even though the company has become marketable and lucrative to customers and thus attracted some improved levels of sales, profits are still low. As of round 9, the

Kids Should Be Paid for Good Grades Essay Example for Free

Kids Should Be Paid for Good Grades Essay Money can be a motivation to encourage students to study hard. The students will feel that their effort is worthy when they are remunerated. Compensation for children’s good grades can also nurture children’s concept about money. And the last, parents can refuse their kids’ unreasonable request of purchasing and let them earn it. In general, kids should get paid for good marks. First, if kids get paid for good grades, they will be motivated to get high marks. As they grow up, their demands on variety things will increase as well. However, their parents will not always satisfy their children’s needs with everything. At this point, some children might be disappointed because they cannot get what they want even though they attain good grades. For instance, if a child wants an iPhone and the parents refuse the request because it is too expensive, the child will concentrate on the iPhone rather than study hard. Instead of saying â€Å"no† to the child, the parents can reward good grades so that the child will maintain good marks in order to buy the phone. Of course, when the child has enough savings due to good performance, the child will eventually received what he or she desired. Thus, money can be a great incentive for children to study hard. Second, children will form financial concepts about the real value of money. They hardly know the purpose of money except it could be used to exchange with the goods they want. They did not know the value, power or even the amount of money. The perception of kids about money would probably be â€Å"money comes out from mommy’s or daddy’s pocket. Therefore, paying children based on their grades allows them to know the concept of â€Å"all pays deserve gains. † Kids will soon realize that money comes from their effort and is for good reasons. Third, due to the modern society that we live in, kids are attracted by lots of fancy and luxury products and they might have unreasonable demand. Parents can refuse the unpractical demands of their children. The children will not unde rstand their parents since they are immature. In order to establish a balance between â€Å"buying what they want† and â€Å"they cannot have it†, paying for good grades is a better solution. If kids get paid, they will keep studying hard. Paying for good school work does not only benefit the children, but also the parents. Kids will be motivated by the appeal of money, while their knowledge of finance will be developed simultaneously. In addition, kids will understand that they harvest what they plant. Therefore, kids should get paid for their good marks.

The managerial ideas of Taylor and Fayol Essay Example for Free

The managerial ideas of Taylor and Fayol Essay Classical Management comprises three different approaches: Scientific Management (associated with the work of F W Taylor); Bureaucratic Management (hierarchical structure associated with the work of M Weber); Administrative Management (associated with the work of H Fayol). The Human Relations approach is associated with the work of E Mayo and F Roethlisberger. Immediately, we can see a difference between the ideas of Taylor and Fayol and those of Mayo as they are even classified differently. In order to explain how these managerial ideas differ, I will first explain what those ideas were. Taylor Taylor developed the four scientific principles of management: 1. Development of a true science 2. Scientific selection of the worker 3. Scientific education and development of the worker 4. Intimate and friendly cooperation between management and workers. The focus was on the individual rather than the team, aiming to improve efficiency through production-line time studies. Each job was broken down into its components and the quickest and best methods of performing each component were designed. There could be only one best way of maximising efficiency, developed through scientific study and analysis. Rewarding productivity was encouraged as money was seen as the one true motivator. Employees did the physical labour and management did the organising and planning. Through standardisation, worker specialisation and tight  managerial control, Taylor promised increased efficiency. Although Taylors methods did not allow scope for individual workers to excel or think for themselves, they were widely adopted. Fayol Fayol laid down 14 principles of management to be applied in any situation: 1. Specialization of labour. Specializing encourages continuous improvement in skills and the development of improvements in methods. 2. Authority. The right to give orders and the power to exact obedience. 3. Discipline. No slacking, bending of rules. 4. Unity of command. Each employee has one and only one boss. 5. Unity of direction. A single mind generates a single plan and all play their part in that plan. 6. Subordination of Individual Interests. When at work, only work things should be pursued or thought about. 7. Remuneration. Employees receive fair payment for services, not what the company can get away with. 8. Centralization. Consolidation of management functions. Decisions are made from the top. 9. Scalar Chain (line of authority). Formal chain of command running from top to bottom of the organization, like military 10. Order. All materials and personnel have a prescribed place, and they must remain there. 11. Equity. Equality of treatment (but not necessarily identical treatment) 12. Personnel Tenure. Limited turnover of personnel. Lifetime employment for good workers. 13. Initiative. Thinking out a plan and doing what it takes to make it happen. 14. Esprit de corps. Harmony, cohesion among personnel. Fayol divided managerial activities into five functions: planning organising commanding coordinating controlling The emphasis was on rational, central planning, looking at the whole picture, managing from the top down. Like Taylor, Fayol looked upon organisations as machines, viewed money as the one true motivator and emphasised maximum efficiency and productivity through standard operating procedures. Mayo Mayos Hawthorne studies are a landmark in management thinking. They followed preliminary illumination experiments, which studied the affect of light on productivity. The Hawthorne studies examined the affect of fatigue and monotony on productivity and experimented with the introduction of rest breaks, changes in work hours, temperature and humidity. Two key aspects of the Human Relations Approach are employee motivation and leadership style. Mayo learned that: Job satisfaction is increased through employee participation in decisions, rather than through short-term incentives; Leaders are able to positively influence employee motivation and productivity by showing concern for employee relationships; Work groups establish their own informal group performance norm, what it considers to be a fair level of performance, punishing those who perform above and below the norm; Pay can only motivate lower-level needs, once they are satisfied, non-monetary factors such as praise, recognition and job characteristics motivate human behaviour. Differences Classical Management (CM) attempted to apply logic and scientific methods to management of complex organisations. Human Relations Management (HRM) focused on working relationships to improve productivity. Fayol and Taylor both emphasised the production process and adjusted humans to this process, whereas Mayo emphasised the coordination of human and social elements in an organisation through consultation, participation, communication and leadership. CM emphasised the work of the individual, HRM viewed work as a group activity. Although moving in the right direction, Mayo merely replaced rational economic man with emotional social man, shifting the blame for poor performance from structural to personal attitudes and emotions. Both approaches mistakenly held that there was one best way to manage all organisations. Relevance of Classical Management theorists today Taylors work saw the introduction of time studies, work studies and industrial engineering, making an important contribution to the central procedures of many organisations. The modern assembly line is just one legacy of Scientific Management. Its efficiency techniques are applied to many non-industrial tasks, such as fast food service through to training surgeons. However, Taylors methods did not allow scope for individual workers to excel or think for themselves. Innovation is vital in order to maintain a competitive edge. Taylors belief that workers are solely motivated by money has since been proven wrong. Furthermore, his methods emerged from a negative bias against workers, whom he viewed as lazy and uneducated. Nowadays, the extent of command and control over workers that Taylor believed necessary would never work. For one thing, people are better educated nowadays! Taylors methods were also hostile to trade unions and labour organisations, which are widespread nowadays and were heavily relied upon during the 1990s to gain workforce stability, helping attract foreign investment. On the other hand, some of Taylors theories still ring true today, such as: increased output leads to fewer workers; poor incentive schemes and hourly pay rates that are not linked to productivity result in inefficiency (the introduction of Benchmarking confirms such an approach); poor job design leads to poor performance. The concept of separating planning from execution is still in use to some degree, however, workers are now considered to know best how to do their own job and are encouraged to think for themselves. Fayols ideas about central planning set the basis for many modern management techniques, such as Management by Objectives and PPBS. However, motivation is considered a key element in modern management. A third approach to Classical Management is the Bureaucratic approach of M Weber. The hierarchically structured organisation that emerged from CM still bears much relevance today and is widespread amongst large corporations and government departments. However, a mixture of hierarchical and inter-departmental coordination is now considered the way forward. Contemporary management builds on the Classical and Behavioural approaches and goes beyond them. The Systems approach of different strokes for different folks finally put the one best way theory to bed and has dominated modern organisational analysis since the 1980s. The Contingency approach views the organisation as an organism, segmenting as it grows, each segment specialising in knowledge and activity, all of which must cope with their external environment and integrate harmoniously. The main difference between Classical and Contemporary approaches is the modern belief that it is futile to search for one best way to manage an organisation. Instead, managers must take into account the internal and external environment and match the appropriate management practices to the surrounding circumstances for an effective outcome. In my own work, I find myself using a combination of Classical and Contemporary approaches to management. The hierarchical structure is necessary to a certain degree. For one thing, the prospect of promotion motivates staff to do better. However, teamwork definitely gleans better results from the workforce as a whole. Worker specialisation has its uses when certain jobs require particularly high efficiency and speed, however, if used on a permanent basis they would lead to monotony and dissatisfaction. Workers tend to produce good ideas about how best to do their own jobs, however, the policy of the organisation as a whole is often separated from the motivation of individual workers, indicating the need for managerial planning, organisation, coordination, command and control.  Balance is key.

Literature Review of Gender and Stalking

Literature Review of Gender and Stalking An Introduction to Issues of Gender in Stalking Research Stalking has been the subject of empirical examination for a little over 20 years. Interest in stalking both empirical and public has increased substantially within the last decade (see Figure 1).   A PsycINFO search of the first decade of stalking research yields only 74 hits. In contrast, the year 2000 marked an upswing of serious investigation with the publication of the first special issue on stalking (Frieze Davis, 2000). There were 56 publications on stalking in 2000 alone and over 600 publications on the topic published between 2000 and 2010.   The research on stalking has examined predictors of perpetration, consequences of victimization, and public perceptions of stalking. Within each of these domains, one of the lingering questions has been: what role does gender play in stalking? Accordingly, this special issue is intended to contribute to the literature by using gender as a focus point in 1) applying new theoretical perspectives to the study of stalking perpetration (Davis, Swan, Gambone, this issue; Duntley Buss, this issue), 2) extending our knowledge of women and mens (Sheridan Lyndon, this issue; Thompson, Dennison, Stewart, this issue) stalking experiences, and 3) furthering the study of perceptions of stalking (Cass Rosay, this issue; Dunlap, Hodell, Golding, Wasarhaley, this issue; Sinclair, this issue; Yanowitz Yanowitz, this issue). To place this special issue in context of the current state of knowledge on gender and stalking, we will review the state of the current research on examining the role of gender with regard to stalking victimization, perpetration, and the lay and legal perceptions of stalking. We will conclude with a summary of how each of the articles included herein contribute to our knowledge about the role of gender in stalking research. However, it is important to start with clarifying what is meant by the term â€Å"stalking.† The model federal anti-stalking law in the US legally defines stalking as â€Å"a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written, or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear† (National Criminal Justice Association Project, 1993, p. 43-44).   Legal definitions differ across US states, but they tend to have three characteristics: 1) a pattern or â€Å"course of conduct† 2) of unwanted or intrusive harassing behaviors that 3) induces fear of bodily harm or substantial emotional distress in the target (Spitzberg, Cupach, Ciceraro, 2010). Additional terminology has been used in stalking research to discuss unwanted attention, particularly from a romantic pursuer, that does not meet the fear or â€Å"substantial† distress criteria of anti-stalking laws. Alternative labels for these unwanted behaviors engaged in during purs uit of a romantic relationship include â€Å"unwanted pursuit† (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Palarea, Cohen, Rohling, 2000), â€Å"pre-stalking† (Emerson, Ferris, Gardner, 1998), â€Å"obsessive relational intrusion† (ORI: Cupach Spitzberg, 1998, 2004), harassment, or unwanted â€Å"courtship persistence† (Sinclair Frieze, 2000). Whether gender differences may emerge, particularly in perpetration and victimization statistics, may depend on whether the researcher is examining â€Å"stalking† or â€Å"unwanted pursuit.†Ã‚   In fact, as will be discussed throughout this paper, much of the debate about gender differences is largely due to two variables: 1) how stalking is operationalized and 2) what sample is examined. We turn to these issues, and others, first starting with our review of the stalking victimization literature.   Note, our focus for the duration of this paper is on the dominant form of stalking; stalking that occurs within a relational context. Victims One of the questions surrounding gender differences in stalking research is whether women are more likely to be victims of stalking than men. Statistics clearly indicate that the majority of stalking cases often follows the rejection of an intimate relationship (Baum et al., 2009; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). Historically, intimate aggression (e.g., domestic violence, acquaintance rape) has been perceived as synonymous with violence against women because it was believed that the majority of intimate aggression targeted women.   However, this belief that victims of intimate aggression are disproportionately female has been controversial (see Archer, 2000). Likewise, we find that the assertion that stalking victims are predominantly women is not without its controversy.   In the first US national study of stalking victimization, Tjaden and Thoennes (1998) reported that 8% of women and 1.1% of men qualify qualified as stalking victims when the definition was limited to those who are were extremely afraid. The victimization rate climbs climbed to 13% of women and 2.2% of men when somewhat afraid is was used. Thus, a gender difference was still quite apparent when fear was a criterion. In contrast, the British Crime Survey (Budd Mattinson, 2000), which did not require any experiences of fear, reported that 4% of women and 1.7% of men were victims of persistent and unwanted attention. In a more recent US national survey, Baum et al. (2009) found that more stalking victims were women than men when using the legal definition that includes victim fear. In contrast, no gender difference emerged in harassment victimization, which does not include the fear requirement. Further, all of these studies show that women are more likely to be stalked by a prior intim ate than men, who are equally likely to be stalked by acquaintances or intimates.   When focusing on unwanted pursuits, which can include stalking, in the relational contextS studies examining unwanted pursuit have to grapple with definitional issues as well as issues of sample. Studies of unwanted pursuit and ORI are primarily conducted among American college students and have often found few or small gender differences in rates of unwanted pursuit victimization. Among US college students, women and men who rejected a romantic relationship did not differ in their reports of experiencing unwanted pursuit behaviors, such as following and threats of physical assault (e.g., Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Phillips et al., 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2000; Spitzberg, Nicastro, Cousins, 1998). When differences are found, they may be minimal.Overall, Spitzberg et al.s (2010) latest meta-analysis of US college students who experienced persistent pursuit found that women were 55% more likely to have been pursued than men. Comparing these statistics with national statistic s which find women 3-7 times more likely to be stalked, a difference of .55 seems minimal.   Clearly how one concludes whether someone is a victim of stalking depends not only on how one asks the question (requiring fear or not) but who one is asking (college sample vs. national sample). Yet, it seems safe to conclude that women do outnumber men when it comes to victimization rates. To Fear or Not to Fear Where consistent gender differences have been found is that women are more likely to view unwanted pursuit as threatening (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg et al., 2010). The inclusion of fear appears to decrease prevalence rates for men, as men are less likely to report fear than are women (Bjerregaard, 2000; Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Davis, Ace, Andra, 2000; Emerson et al., 1998; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a).   This difference in reports of fear could be due to men actually not feeling afraid, only reporting they are not afraid, or experiencing less severe stalking behavior. It is difficult to parse the true reason. In general, men appear less willing to report fear due to socially desirable responding (Sutton Farrall, 2005) and men discount their risk of victimization (Stanko Hobdell, 1993).   Also, Mmany male victims of stalking do not perceive any threat from their pursuers and therefore do not identify their experience as stalking (Tjaden, Thoennes, Allison, 2000; Sheridan , et al., 2002). Male victims of interpersonal violence report they are more likely to react with laughter than are women (Romito Grassi, 2007) and men discount their risk of victimization (Stanko Hobdell, 1993). Likewise, Emerson, Ferris, and Gardners (1998) US community sample of victims revealed that men felt less vulnerable and threatened than did women. Men who do seek protection from their ex-girlfriends may experience informal social sanctions (Hall, 1998) and be treated with contempt or laughter by legal professionals (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2001). Accordingly, some have argued that the laws emphasis on fear reduces male prevalence rates (Tjaden et al., 2000) and may lead people to discount male victims who may actually need assistance from law enforcement (Baum et. al, 2009; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). Emphasizing fear in stalking definitions may also affect womens reporting of intimate partner stalking. Stalking targeting women is primarily perpetrated by intimates (Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a), but women are paradoxically more afraid of strangers (Pain, 1996). For example, Dietz and Martin (2007) found that women were more afraid of strangers than of boyfriends. Also, Dunn (1999) demonstrated how a group of sorority women reported that they would feel anxious if a man suddenly showed up at their doorstep, but found it romantic and flattering if he showed up with flowers especially when he was . The women also felt more flattered byan ex-partner, s than byrather than a casual dates engaging in the same behaviors. Women may thus be more likely than men to minimize unwanted pursuit when it can be interpreted as romantic (Dunn, 1999; Emerson et al., 1998; Lee, 1998), while men may be more dismissive in general. Frequency counts of stalking thus may not tell the whole story of stalking vi ctimization. For example, general population samples in the UK and the US (Budd Mattinson, 2000; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a) find that women are victims of intimate partner stalking, while men are equally likely to be stalked by partners and acquaintances (exception: Purcell et al.s, 2001 Australian clinical sample); so while it is true that intimate partner stalking is the most prevalent type, there are somewhat differential experiences for women and men. Consequences Coping Even if it is the case that men and women may be targeted in equal numbers by unwanted pursuit behaviors (Bjerregaard, 2000; Haugaard Seri, 2004; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Spitzberg et al., 1998), there are differences in the impact of that unwanted attention. Stalking victims report a wide range of negative consequences, including psychological health problems (e.g., depression, anxiety, PTSD symptomotology), physical health problems (e.g., disturbances in appetite and sleep, headaches, nausea, and damage from the perpetrator), economic losses (e.g., spending money on protective efforts, lost wages, and expenses), and social losses (e.g., losing touch with friends, getting unlisted phone numbers, reducing social activities) (see Bjerregaard, 2000; Centers for Disease Control, 2003; Davis et al., 2002; Dressing, Kuehner, Gass, 2005; Kamphuis Emmelkamp, 2001; Pathà © Mullen, 1997; Sheridan, Davies, Boon, 2001). Even if it is the case that men and women may be targeted in equal numbers by unwanted pursuit behaviors (Bjerregaard, 2000; Haugaard Seri, 2004; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Spitzberg et al., 1998), there are differences in the impact of that unwanted attention. Of these consequences, Davis et al. (2000) found that In addition to finding that female stalking victims had a higher risk of physical and mental health problems than male victims.   Further,, once again highlighting the importance of fear, Davis et al. (2000) found that greater fear was associated with greater health problems for women, but not for men. Also, Bjerregaard (2000) found that female victims of stalking were more likely to have been physically harmed by their stalker than were male victims, and reported greater impact on their emotional health.   It may seem as if one could draw the conclusion that women suffer greater health consequences (Jordan, 2009), but this conclusion is not without its exceptions (Pimlott-Kubiak Cortina, 2003; Wigman, 2009) Stal king is also comorbid with physical, sexual, and psychological abuse female stalking victims experience (Brewster, 2003; Coleman, 1997; Jordan, Wilcox, Pritchard, 2007; Logan, Leukefeld, Walker, 2000; Mechanic, Uhlmansick, Weaver, Resick, 2000; Spitzberg Rhea, 1999; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). Among battered women, Mechanic and colleagues (Mechanic et al., 2000; Mechanic et al., 2002) have found that experiencing stalking contributes to higher levels of depression, fear, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than physical abuse alone. TRANSITION NEEDED.   Stalking victims take a variety of steps to protect themselves, including confronting the stalker (or having a third party do so), changing their home, school, or workplace, or seeking a protection order (Pathà © Mullen, 1997; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). Some of the most common coping tactics for stalking victims involve a passive strategy, with tactics like ignoring or otherwise minimizing the problem (college students, Amar Alexy, 2010, Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Fremouw et al., 1997; Jason, Reichler, Easton, Neal, Wilson, 1984, self-identified victims in a Dutch community Kamphpuis, Emmelkamp, Bartak, 2003). Women are more likely than men to seek help in general. In particular, women are more likely than men to seek counseling and to file a protection order (Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a), and to take more security precautions, including avoiding people or places (Budd Mattinson, 2000), and to confide in a close friend or family member for help (Spitzberg et al. , 1998). In their study on unwanted pursuit in US college students, Cupach and Spitzberg (2000) found that women reported more interaction (e.g., yelled at the person), and protection (e.g., called the police), and less retaliation (e.g., threatened physical harm) than men. Both genders coped using evasion (e.g., ignored them). However, while men and women had different help-seeking patterns, the differences themselves were very small (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg, 2002). In sum, gender differences emerge in more severe experiences, which usually involve a legally-defined fearful victim found in general population samples and those drawn from clinical or forensic populations (Baum, Catalano, Rand, Rose, 2009; Bjerregaard, 2000; Sheridan, Gillett, Davies, 2002 vs. Sheridan, Davies, Boon, 2001; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). In contrast, studies employing college student samples that use a non-fear based definition often do not find such gender differences (Cupach Spitzberg, 1998, 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Phillips et al., 2004; Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2002). Meta-analyses have shown that clinical and forensic samples do have higher prevalence rates than student or community samples; clinical and forensic samples also reveal a stronger pattern of male perpetrators and female victims (Spitzberg, 2002; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Spitzberg, Cupach, Ciceraro, 2010).   We may conclude that there are meaningful gender differences in the ex perience of stalking, but some of these differences may be minimal (Spitzberg et al., 2010). Perpetrators When it comes to examining gender differences in stalking perpetration, we are confronted with some of the same issues.   It makes a difference whether we are examining stalking or, more broadly, unwanted pursuit behaviors.   It also matters which sample is being examined.   However, gender differences in rates of perpetration seem easier to come by.   The issue of whether men stalk more than women is subject to one of the problems that drive questions of victimization: which samples we study. The issue of whether stalking is operationalized using the requirement that victims feel fear is trickier. We cant use the same standard with perpetrators, who may not be able or willing to convey whether their victim was fearful. While we may assume that aggressive stalking behaviors like vandalism, threats, and physical harm are more severe than showing up unexpectedly or repeated phone calls, the meaning and impact of these behaviors may be similar. Depending upon the context of the behavior, even excessive declarations of love may lead to probable cause for fear (Emerson et al. 1998). However, as with victimization studies, males and females in some college student samples report no gender differences in engaging in unwanted pursuit behaviors toward an intimate partner (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Dutton Winstead, 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000). For example, Baum et al.s (2009) found in the data from a US national US survey revealed that approximately 60% of stalkers were male, 28% were female, and the rest were unable to be identified by their victim. Overall, Spitzberg and Cupachs (2003) meta-analysis found that males make up 82% of stalkers, while females represent 18% of stalkers. HoweverIn sum, the most recent meta-analysis of stalking and unwanted pursuit found that 23.90% of men have perpetrated stalking behavior, while compared to 11.92% of women did so (Spitzberg Cupach, 2010). However, as with victimization studies, some college student surveys reveal no gender differences in engaging in unwanted pursuit behaviors toward an intimate partner (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Dutton Winstead, 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000). College students frequently report engaging in unwanted pursuit behaviors, with up to 99% doing at least one (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000). Between 30 and 36% of Davis et al.s (2000) US college student sample reported engaging in one to five acts, and 7 to 10% reported six or more. The most frequent behaviors are various forms of unwanted communication and showing up at work/home/school. Aggressive pursuit behaviors are more infrequent (Davis et al., 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000). In general, unwanted pursuit perpetration in college students involves similar numbers of male and female perpetrators, while stalking among general or clinical populations is predominantl y perpetrated by men (Allen, Swan, Raghavan, 2009; Baum et al., 2009; Budd Mattinson, 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). This pattern parallels the findings regarding dating and domestic violence perpetration. Like the pattern between unwanted pursuit and stalking, dating violence and domestic violence involve similar behaviors with differing prevalence rates, predictors of perpetration, and consequences for women and men (Archer, 2000; Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, Ryan, 1992). In this sense, less severe levels of unwanted pursuit or harassment may mirror Johnsons (1995) category of common couple violence, while more severe levels of stalking equal intimate terrorism (Johnson Ferraro, 2000). The debate of whether gender shapes the experience of IPV leads to research comparing the quantity of male and female victims and perpetrators, but also whether experiences are qualitatively different. In other words, are there gender differences in who perpetrators stalk; their choice of stalking behaviors, and their motivations? Types of Behaviors There is some evidence that women and men engage in slightly different individual stalking behaviors. In both forensic and college student samples in the US and Australia, men are more likely to make in-person contact (e.g., â€Å"approach† behavior; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000), to follow their victims or loiter (Purcell et al., 2001; Purcell et al., 2010), and to inflict property damage (Purcell et al., 2010). Women, on the other hand, are more likely to engage in behaviors that do not confront the target face-to-face, such as making unwanted calls or leaving unwanted phone messages (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Purcell et al., 2001; Purcell et al., 2010), spreading rumors, or employing others in harassing the victim (Purcell et al., 2010). These patterns are not universal, however, as Dutton and Winstead (2006)s US college student sample found that women reported more monitoring and physically hurting their targets than men. In terms of cyberstalking behaviors,. Burke, Wallen, Vail-Smith, and Knox (2011) found that US college student men were more likely than women to report experiencing and engaging in the use of spyware, photos, and cameras to monitor and pursue their partner (e.g., using GPS devices, web cams, and spyware to monitor their partner). In contrast, college student women were more likely to report excessive communication and checking behaviors (e.g., checking cell phone and e-mail histories, making excessive phone calls and e-mails, checking social networking sites, and using their partners passwords).. However, in a study on pursuit behaviors perpetrated on Facebook, Lyndon, Bonds-Raacke, and Cratty (in press) found no gender differences in US college students   in the three types of behaviors people perpetrated on Facebook to harass their ex-partner: covert provocation (20-54%; e.g., post poetry or lyrics in status updates to taunt ex-partner), venting (7-11%; e.g., write inappropriate or mean things about ex-partner on Facebook), and public harassment (3-10%; e.g., create a false Facebook profile of ex-partner). Thus far the ambiguity about whether gender differences exist in cyberpursuit appears to mirror the findings regarding unwanted pursuit behaviors for women and men, but we need more research on using technology to stalkcyberstalking, especially with perpetrators. One of the most pressing questions regarding stalking is when it might escalate into physically violent behaviors.   Most stalkers, however, are not violent (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a); half of all stalking cases involve a threat and just under a third of all stalking cases involve physical violence. Both male and female stalkers are more likely to be violent if they are an ex-intimate, are younger than 30 years of age, have less than a high school education, and have made prior threats (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002). Other predictors of stalking-related violence include prior criminal convictions (Mullen et al., 1999; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999). Most stalkers, however, are not violent (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a); half of all stalking cases involve a threat and just under a third of all stalking cases involve physical violence. Evidence is mixed as to whether there are gender differences in those who are likely to become violent. Some research using US college student samples suggest that female unwanted pursuit perpetrators of unwanted pursuit engage in more mild aggressive stalking behaviors than men (Dutton Winstead, 2006; Williams Frieze, 2005). However, other college student samples reveal no gender differences in perpetration of   stalking violence (Haugaard Seri, 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2002). StillIn contrast, others find that men are more likely than women to threaten their victims (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000) and to escalate from threats to physical assaults, as reported in both Australian forensic samples (Purcell et al., 2001) and meta-analyses (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). Former romantic partnersEx-intimate stalkers, who are mostly male, are the most violent compared to other categories of stalkers, a pattern that is consistent across culture and sample type (McEwan, Mullen, MacKenzie, Ogloff, 2009; Meloy, Davis, Lovette, 2001; Mohandie, Meloy, McGowan, Williams, 2006; Palrea, Zona , Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999; Sheridan, Blaauw, Davies, 2003; Sheridan Davies, 2001). Given that men are more likely to stalk ex-intimate partners than women (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998), it seems that we should find more male-perpetrated stalking violence. However, other college student samples and forensic samples reveal no gender differences in perpetration of   stalking violence (Haugaard Seri, 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2002). HoweverFor example, current evidence with forensic samples shows no gender differences in actual stalking cases regarding stalker lethality (Mullen et al., 1999; Purcell et al., 2001; Rosenfeld Lewis, 2005).   Specifically, both male and female stalkers can turn violent if they are an ex-intimate, are younger than 30 years of age, have less than a high school education, and have made prior threats (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002).   Evidently, more research is needed to sort out whether gender is a useful predictor of extreme stalking and violence. Motivations and Violence While there are some differences in how men and women pursue, there also may be some differences in their motivations for doing so. Victims in general population studies often attribute the stalkers motivation to attempts to keep them in a relationship, as well as a desire to control the them (Budd Mattinson, 2000; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). Mullen and colleagues (1999) have classified their samples of clinical and forensic stalkers in Australia into five motivation groups: rejected, intimacy-seeker, incompetent suitor, resentful, and predatory types, but have not found consistent gender differences between the groups. Stalking behaviors appear to be motivated most commonly by intimacy (e.g., a desire for reconciliation and feelings of love), with the second most common motive being aggression retaliation (e.g., a desire for revenge; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). In fact, perpetrators often report both motives for reconciliation of a relationship and for revenge (Mullen, Pathà ©, Purcel l, Stuart, 1999; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). These Cclinical/forensic rejected stalkers who are motivated by a mix of reconciliation and revenge needs have a higher likelihood of assaulting their victims than other motivation groups (Mullen et al., 2006). Gender differences in motivations for stalking have been noted in juvenile forensic samples. Juvenile female stalkers more likely to be motivated by bullying and retaliation whereas juvenile male stalkers were have been found to be motivated more by rejection and sexual predation (Purcell et al., 2010).   In a 2001 study of adult stalkers in Australia, Purcell and colleagues found that women were more likely to target professional acquaintances and less likely to target strangers than men. Nonetheless, the majority of female stalkers were still clearly motivated by the desire to establish intimacy with their target, whereas mens motivations were diverse, spreading across the five categories. Likewise, in Meloys (2003) study of 82 female stalkers from the US, Canada, and Australia, he found the female stalkers were more likely to be motivated by a desire to establish intimacy, whereas men were known to stalk to restore intimacy. Ultimately, Tthere is a large gap in stalking motivati on research, particularly using non-forensic samples.   Clinical/forensic rejected stalkers who are motivated by a mix of reconciliation and revenge needs have a higher likelihood of assaulting their victims than other motivation groups (Mullen et al., 2006). Both male and female stalkers are more likely to be violent if they are an ex-intimate, are younger than 30 years of age, have less than a high school education, and have made prior threats (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002). Other predictors of stalking-related violence include prior criminal convictions (Mullen et al., 1999; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999). Most stalkers, however, are not violent (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a); half of all stalking cases involve a threat and just under a third of all stalking cases involve physical violence. Evidence is mixed as to whether there are gender differences in those who are likely to become violent. Some research using US college student samples suggest that female unwanted pursuit perpetrators engage in more mild aggressive stalking behaviors (Dutton Winstead, 2006; Williams Frieze, 2005). However, other college student samples reveal no gender differences in perpetration of   stalking violence (Haugaard Seri, 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2002). Still others find that men are more likely than women to threaten their victims (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000) and to escalate from threats to physical assaults, as reported in both Australian forensic samples (Purcell et al., 2001) and meta-analyses (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). Former romantic partners are the most violent compared to other categories of stalkers, a pattern that is consistent across culture and sample type (McEwan, Mullen, MacKenzie, Ogloff, 2009; Meloy, Davis, Lovette, 2001; Mohandie, Meloy, McGowan, William s, 2006; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999; Sheridan, Blaauw, Davies, 2003; Sheridan Davies, 2001). Given that men are more likely to stalk ex-intimate partners than women (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998), it seems that we should find more male-perpetrated stalking violence. However, current evidence with forensic samples shows no gender differences in actual stalking cases regarding stalker lethality (Mullen et al., 1999; Purcell et al., 2001; Rosenfeld Lewis, 2005).   Single surveys of Ccollege student samples ofabout unwanted pursuit and obsessive relational intrusion are the least likely to find fewgender differences in perpetration rates. However, meta-analyses and US and UK general population studies find that men are more likely to be stalking perpetrators than women, regardless of the victims gender (Baum et al., 2009; Budd Mattinson, 2000; Spitzberg, 2002; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a).While the size of this gender difference varies, it is consistent across methodologies (Spitzberg Cupach, 2003). There are some gender differences in the types of stalking and cyberstalking perpetrationbehaviors e.g., men being more direct and women more indirect and in pursuers motives women being predominantly motivated by intimacy-seeking and men having a broader array of motives. However, we need more research on perpetration to better understand if gender is an important predictor to consider, especially with regard to the likelihood of escalation.   w ith a variety of samples and with better means of differentiating unwanted pursuit from stalking. Perceptions of stalking As attention to the problem of stalking has increased, so has public opinion been shaped.   However, there is not a true consensus in these opinions. Rather, people vary in how much they understand about stalking.   It can be unclear when the line between   normal relational pursuit and stalking is crossed (Dunn, 1999; Emerson et al., 1998; Lee, 1998; Sinclair Frieze, 2000, 2005). Perceptions can also diverge regarding multiple issues including: 1) which behaviors qualify as stalking, 2) how many behavior are enough to represent a â€Å"course of conduct,† 3) is stalking really serious, 4) what   perpetrator intent may have been, 5) whether and how we should incorporate victim fear levels to judge stalking severity, and 6) what is â€Å"real† stalking (e.g., stranger vs. acquaintance stalking). Within each of these issues, gender may influence the perceptions people hold, both lay persons and legal decision-makers. Stalking in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Perceiver Gender The literature is still mixed as to whether men and women differ in judgments to use a label of stalking. Some researchers report that men and women do not differ in terms of which behaviors qualify as stalking (e.g., Kinkade, Burns, Fuentes, 2005; Phillips et al., 2004, in Experiment 1; Sheridan Davies, 2001; Sheridan, Davies, Boon, 2001; Sheridan et al., 2002; Sheridan, Gillet, Davies, Blaauw, Patel, 2003). Others have found Literature Review of Gender and Stalking Literature Review of Gender and Stalking An Introduction to Issues of Gender in Stalking Research Stalking has been the subject of empirical examination for a little over 20 years. Interest in stalking both empirical and public has increased substantially within the last decade (see Figure 1).   A PsycINFO search of the first decade of stalking research yields only 74 hits. In contrast, the year 2000 marked an upswing of serious investigation with the publication of the first special issue on stalking (Frieze Davis, 2000). There were 56 publications on stalking in 2000 alone and over 600 publications on the topic published between 2000 and 2010.   The research on stalking has examined predictors of perpetration, consequences of victimization, and public perceptions of stalking. Within each of these domains, one of the lingering questions has been: what role does gender play in stalking? Accordingly, this special issue is intended to contribute to the literature by using gender as a focus point in 1) applying new theoretical perspectives to the study of stalking perpetration (Davis, Swan, Gambone, this issue; Duntley Buss, this issue), 2) extending our knowledge of women and mens (Sheridan Lyndon, this issue; Thompson, Dennison, Stewart, this issue) stalking experiences, and 3) furthering the study of perceptions of stalking (Cass Rosay, this issue; Dunlap, Hodell, Golding, Wasarhaley, this issue; Sinclair, this issue; Yanowitz Yanowitz, this issue). To place this special issue in context of the current state of knowledge on gender and stalking, we will review the state of the current research on examining the role of gender with regard to stalking victimization, perpetration, and the lay and legal perceptions of stalking. We will conclude with a summary of how each of the articles included herein contribute to our knowledge about the role of gender in stalking research. However, it is important to start with clarifying what is meant by the term â€Å"stalking.† The model federal anti-stalking law in the US legally defines stalking as â€Å"a course of conduct directed at a specific person that involves repeated visual or physical proximity, nonconsensual communication, or verbal, written, or implied threats, or a combination thereof, that would cause a reasonable person fear† (National Criminal Justice Association Project, 1993, p. 43-44).   Legal definitions differ across US states, but they tend to have three characteristics: 1) a pattern or â€Å"course of conduct† 2) of unwanted or intrusive harassing behaviors that 3) induces fear of bodily harm or substantial emotional distress in the target (Spitzberg, Cupach, Ciceraro, 2010). Additional terminology has been used in stalking research to discuss unwanted attention, particularly from a romantic pursuer, that does not meet the fear or â€Å"substantial† distress criteria of anti-stalking laws. Alternative labels for these unwanted behaviors engaged in during purs uit of a romantic relationship include â€Å"unwanted pursuit† (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Palarea, Cohen, Rohling, 2000), â€Å"pre-stalking† (Emerson, Ferris, Gardner, 1998), â€Å"obsessive relational intrusion† (ORI: Cupach Spitzberg, 1998, 2004), harassment, or unwanted â€Å"courtship persistence† (Sinclair Frieze, 2000). Whether gender differences may emerge, particularly in perpetration and victimization statistics, may depend on whether the researcher is examining â€Å"stalking† or â€Å"unwanted pursuit.†Ã‚   In fact, as will be discussed throughout this paper, much of the debate about gender differences is largely due to two variables: 1) how stalking is operationalized and 2) what sample is examined. We turn to these issues, and others, first starting with our review of the stalking victimization literature.   Note, our focus for the duration of this paper is on the dominant form of stalking; stalking that occurs within a relational context. Victims One of the questions surrounding gender differences in stalking research is whether women are more likely to be victims of stalking than men. Statistics clearly indicate that the majority of stalking cases often follows the rejection of an intimate relationship (Baum et al., 2009; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). Historically, intimate aggression (e.g., domestic violence, acquaintance rape) has been perceived as synonymous with violence against women because it was believed that the majority of intimate aggression targeted women.   However, this belief that victims of intimate aggression are disproportionately female has been controversial (see Archer, 2000). Likewise, we find that the assertion that stalking victims are predominantly women is not without its controversy.   In the first US national study of stalking victimization, Tjaden and Thoennes (1998) reported that 8% of women and 1.1% of men qualify qualified as stalking victims when the definition was limited to those who are were extremely afraid. The victimization rate climbs climbed to 13% of women and 2.2% of men when somewhat afraid is was used. Thus, a gender difference was still quite apparent when fear was a criterion. In contrast, the British Crime Survey (Budd Mattinson, 2000), which did not require any experiences of fear, reported that 4% of women and 1.7% of men were victims of persistent and unwanted attention. In a more recent US national survey, Baum et al. (2009) found that more stalking victims were women than men when using the legal definition that includes victim fear. In contrast, no gender difference emerged in harassment victimization, which does not include the fear requirement. Further, all of these studies show that women are more likely to be stalked by a prior intim ate than men, who are equally likely to be stalked by acquaintances or intimates.   When focusing on unwanted pursuits, which can include stalking, in the relational contextS studies examining unwanted pursuit have to grapple with definitional issues as well as issues of sample. Studies of unwanted pursuit and ORI are primarily conducted among American college students and have often found few or small gender differences in rates of unwanted pursuit victimization. Among US college students, women and men who rejected a romantic relationship did not differ in their reports of experiencing unwanted pursuit behaviors, such as following and threats of physical assault (e.g., Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Phillips et al., 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2000; Spitzberg, Nicastro, Cousins, 1998). When differences are found, they may be minimal.Overall, Spitzberg et al.s (2010) latest meta-analysis of US college students who experienced persistent pursuit found that women were 55% more likely to have been pursued than men. Comparing these statistics with national statistic s which find women 3-7 times more likely to be stalked, a difference of .55 seems minimal.   Clearly how one concludes whether someone is a victim of stalking depends not only on how one asks the question (requiring fear or not) but who one is asking (college sample vs. national sample). Yet, it seems safe to conclude that women do outnumber men when it comes to victimization rates. To Fear or Not to Fear Where consistent gender differences have been found is that women are more likely to view unwanted pursuit as threatening (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg et al., 2010). The inclusion of fear appears to decrease prevalence rates for men, as men are less likely to report fear than are women (Bjerregaard, 2000; Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Davis, Ace, Andra, 2000; Emerson et al., 1998; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a).   This difference in reports of fear could be due to men actually not feeling afraid, only reporting they are not afraid, or experiencing less severe stalking behavior. It is difficult to parse the true reason. In general, men appear less willing to report fear due to socially desirable responding (Sutton Farrall, 2005) and men discount their risk of victimization (Stanko Hobdell, 1993).   Also, Mmany male victims of stalking do not perceive any threat from their pursuers and therefore do not identify their experience as stalking (Tjaden, Thoennes, Allison, 2000; Sheridan , et al., 2002). Male victims of interpersonal violence report they are more likely to react with laughter than are women (Romito Grassi, 2007) and men discount their risk of victimization (Stanko Hobdell, 1993). Likewise, Emerson, Ferris, and Gardners (1998) US community sample of victims revealed that men felt less vulnerable and threatened than did women. Men who do seek protection from their ex-girlfriends may experience informal social sanctions (Hall, 1998) and be treated with contempt or laughter by legal professionals (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2001). Accordingly, some have argued that the laws emphasis on fear reduces male prevalence rates (Tjaden et al., 2000) and may lead people to discount male victims who may actually need assistance from law enforcement (Baum et. al, 2009; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). Emphasizing fear in stalking definitions may also affect womens reporting of intimate partner stalking. Stalking targeting women is primarily perpetrated by intimates (Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a), but women are paradoxically more afraid of strangers (Pain, 1996). For example, Dietz and Martin (2007) found that women were more afraid of strangers than of boyfriends. Also, Dunn (1999) demonstrated how a group of sorority women reported that they would feel anxious if a man suddenly showed up at their doorstep, but found it romantic and flattering if he showed up with flowers especially when he was . The women also felt more flattered byan ex-partner, s than byrather than a casual dates engaging in the same behaviors. Women may thus be more likely than men to minimize unwanted pursuit when it can be interpreted as romantic (Dunn, 1999; Emerson et al., 1998; Lee, 1998), while men may be more dismissive in general. Frequency counts of stalking thus may not tell the whole story of stalking vi ctimization. For example, general population samples in the UK and the US (Budd Mattinson, 2000; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a) find that women are victims of intimate partner stalking, while men are equally likely to be stalked by partners and acquaintances (exception: Purcell et al.s, 2001 Australian clinical sample); so while it is true that intimate partner stalking is the most prevalent type, there are somewhat differential experiences for women and men. Consequences Coping Even if it is the case that men and women may be targeted in equal numbers by unwanted pursuit behaviors (Bjerregaard, 2000; Haugaard Seri, 2004; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Spitzberg et al., 1998), there are differences in the impact of that unwanted attention. Stalking victims report a wide range of negative consequences, including psychological health problems (e.g., depression, anxiety, PTSD symptomotology), physical health problems (e.g., disturbances in appetite and sleep, headaches, nausea, and damage from the perpetrator), economic losses (e.g., spending money on protective efforts, lost wages, and expenses), and social losses (e.g., losing touch with friends, getting unlisted phone numbers, reducing social activities) (see Bjerregaard, 2000; Centers for Disease Control, 2003; Davis et al., 2002; Dressing, Kuehner, Gass, 2005; Kamphuis Emmelkamp, 2001; Pathà © Mullen, 1997; Sheridan, Davies, Boon, 2001). Even if it is the case that men and women may be targeted in equal numbers by unwanted pursuit behaviors (Bjerregaard, 2000; Haugaard Seri, 2004; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Spitzberg et al., 1998), there are differences in the impact of that unwanted attention. Of these consequences, Davis et al. (2000) found that In addition to finding that female stalking victims had a higher risk of physical and mental health problems than male victims.   Further,, once again highlighting the importance of fear, Davis et al. (2000) found that greater fear was associated with greater health problems for women, but not for men. Also, Bjerregaard (2000) found that female victims of stalking were more likely to have been physically harmed by their stalker than were male victims, and reported greater impact on their emotional health.   It may seem as if one could draw the conclusion that women suffer greater health consequences (Jordan, 2009), but this conclusion is not without its exceptions (Pimlott-Kubiak Cortina, 2003; Wigman, 2009) Stal king is also comorbid with physical, sexual, and psychological abuse female stalking victims experience (Brewster, 2003; Coleman, 1997; Jordan, Wilcox, Pritchard, 2007; Logan, Leukefeld, Walker, 2000; Mechanic, Uhlmansick, Weaver, Resick, 2000; Spitzberg Rhea, 1999; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). Among battered women, Mechanic and colleagues (Mechanic et al., 2000; Mechanic et al., 2002) have found that experiencing stalking contributes to higher levels of depression, fear, and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) than physical abuse alone. TRANSITION NEEDED.   Stalking victims take a variety of steps to protect themselves, including confronting the stalker (or having a third party do so), changing their home, school, or workplace, or seeking a protection order (Pathà © Mullen, 1997; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). Some of the most common coping tactics for stalking victims involve a passive strategy, with tactics like ignoring or otherwise minimizing the problem (college students, Amar Alexy, 2010, Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Fremouw et al., 1997; Jason, Reichler, Easton, Neal, Wilson, 1984, self-identified victims in a Dutch community Kamphpuis, Emmelkamp, Bartak, 2003). Women are more likely than men to seek help in general. In particular, women are more likely than men to seek counseling and to file a protection order (Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a), and to take more security precautions, including avoiding people or places (Budd Mattinson, 2000), and to confide in a close friend or family member for help (Spitzberg et al. , 1998). In their study on unwanted pursuit in US college students, Cupach and Spitzberg (2000) found that women reported more interaction (e.g., yelled at the person), and protection (e.g., called the police), and less retaliation (e.g., threatened physical harm) than men. Both genders coped using evasion (e.g., ignored them). However, while men and women had different help-seeking patterns, the differences themselves were very small (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Spitzberg, 2002). In sum, gender differences emerge in more severe experiences, which usually involve a legally-defined fearful victim found in general population samples and those drawn from clinical or forensic populations (Baum, Catalano, Rand, Rose, 2009; Bjerregaard, 2000; Sheridan, Gillett, Davies, 2002 vs. Sheridan, Davies, Boon, 2001; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998). In contrast, studies employing college student samples that use a non-fear based definition often do not find such gender differences (Cupach Spitzberg, 1998, 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Phillips et al., 2004; Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2002). Meta-analyses have shown that clinical and forensic samples do have higher prevalence rates than student or community samples; clinical and forensic samples also reveal a stronger pattern of male perpetrators and female victims (Spitzberg, 2002; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Spitzberg, Cupach, Ciceraro, 2010).   We may conclude that there are meaningful gender differences in the ex perience of stalking, but some of these differences may be minimal (Spitzberg et al., 2010). Perpetrators When it comes to examining gender differences in stalking perpetration, we are confronted with some of the same issues.   It makes a difference whether we are examining stalking or, more broadly, unwanted pursuit behaviors.   It also matters which sample is being examined.   However, gender differences in rates of perpetration seem easier to come by.   The issue of whether men stalk more than women is subject to one of the problems that drive questions of victimization: which samples we study. The issue of whether stalking is operationalized using the requirement that victims feel fear is trickier. We cant use the same standard with perpetrators, who may not be able or willing to convey whether their victim was fearful. While we may assume that aggressive stalking behaviors like vandalism, threats, and physical harm are more severe than showing up unexpectedly or repeated phone calls, the meaning and impact of these behaviors may be similar. Depending upon the context of the behavior, even excessive declarations of love may lead to probable cause for fear (Emerson et al. 1998). However, as with victimization studies, males and females in some college student samples report no gender differences in engaging in unwanted pursuit behaviors toward an intimate partner (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Dutton Winstead, 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000). For example, Baum et al.s (2009) found in the data from a US national US survey revealed that approximately 60% of stalkers were male, 28% were female, and the rest were unable to be identified by their victim. Overall, Spitzberg and Cupachs (2003) meta-analysis found that males make up 82% of stalkers, while females represent 18% of stalkers. HoweverIn sum, the most recent meta-analysis of stalking and unwanted pursuit found that 23.90% of men have perpetrated stalking behavior, while compared to 11.92% of women did so (Spitzberg Cupach, 2010). However, as with victimization studies, some college student surveys reveal no gender differences in engaging in unwanted pursuit behaviors toward an intimate partner (Cupach Spitzberg, 2000; Dutton Winstead, 2006; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000). College students frequently report engaging in unwanted pursuit behaviors, with up to 99% doing at least one (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000). Between 30 and 36% of Davis et al.s (2000) US college student sample reported engaging in one to five acts, and 7 to 10% reported six or more. The most frequent behaviors are various forms of unwanted communication and showing up at work/home/school. Aggressive pursuit behaviors are more infrequent (Davis et al., 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000). In general, unwanted pursuit perpetration in college students involves similar numbers of male and female perpetrators, while stalking among general or clinical populations is predominantl y perpetrated by men (Allen, Swan, Raghavan, 2009; Baum et al., 2009; Budd Mattinson, 2000; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). This pattern parallels the findings regarding dating and domestic violence perpetration. Like the pattern between unwanted pursuit and stalking, dating violence and domestic violence involve similar behaviors with differing prevalence rates, predictors of perpetration, and consequences for women and men (Archer, 2000; Bookwala, Frieze, Smith, Ryan, 1992). In this sense, less severe levels of unwanted pursuit or harassment may mirror Johnsons (1995) category of common couple violence, while more severe levels of stalking equal intimate terrorism (Johnson Ferraro, 2000). The debate of whether gender shapes the experience of IPV leads to research comparing the quantity of male and female victims and perpetrators, but also whether experiences are qualitatively different. In other words, are there gender differences in who perpetrators stalk; their choice of stalking behaviors, and their motivations? Types of Behaviors There is some evidence that women and men engage in slightly different individual stalking behaviors. In both forensic and college student samples in the US and Australia, men are more likely to make in-person contact (e.g., â€Å"approach† behavior; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Sinclair Frieze, 2000), to follow their victims or loiter (Purcell et al., 2001; Purcell et al., 2010), and to inflict property damage (Purcell et al., 2010). Women, on the other hand, are more likely to engage in behaviors that do not confront the target face-to-face, such as making unwanted calls or leaving unwanted phone messages (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000; Purcell et al., 2001; Purcell et al., 2010), spreading rumors, or employing others in harassing the victim (Purcell et al., 2010). These patterns are not universal, however, as Dutton and Winstead (2006)s US college student sample found that women reported more monitoring and physically hurting their targets than men. In terms of cyberstalking behaviors,. Burke, Wallen, Vail-Smith, and Knox (2011) found that US college student men were more likely than women to report experiencing and engaging in the use of spyware, photos, and cameras to monitor and pursue their partner (e.g., using GPS devices, web cams, and spyware to monitor their partner). In contrast, college student women were more likely to report excessive communication and checking behaviors (e.g., checking cell phone and e-mail histories, making excessive phone calls and e-mails, checking social networking sites, and using their partners passwords).. However, in a study on pursuit behaviors perpetrated on Facebook, Lyndon, Bonds-Raacke, and Cratty (in press) found no gender differences in US college students   in the three types of behaviors people perpetrated on Facebook to harass their ex-partner: covert provocation (20-54%; e.g., post poetry or lyrics in status updates to taunt ex-partner), venting (7-11%; e.g., write inappropriate or mean things about ex-partner on Facebook), and public harassment (3-10%; e.g., create a false Facebook profile of ex-partner). Thus far the ambiguity about whether gender differences exist in cyberpursuit appears to mirror the findings regarding unwanted pursuit behaviors for women and men, but we need more research on using technology to stalkcyberstalking, especially with perpetrators. One of the most pressing questions regarding stalking is when it might escalate into physically violent behaviors.   Most stalkers, however, are not violent (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a); half of all stalking cases involve a threat and just under a third of all stalking cases involve physical violence. Both male and female stalkers are more likely to be violent if they are an ex-intimate, are younger than 30 years of age, have less than a high school education, and have made prior threats (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002). Other predictors of stalking-related violence include prior criminal convictions (Mullen et al., 1999; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999). Most stalkers, however, are not violent (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a); half of all stalking cases involve a threat and just under a third of all stalking cases involve physical violence. Evidence is mixed as to whether there are gender differences in those who are likely to become violent. Some research using US college student samples suggest that female unwanted pursuit perpetrators of unwanted pursuit engage in more mild aggressive stalking behaviors than men (Dutton Winstead, 2006; Williams Frieze, 2005). However, other college student samples reveal no gender differences in perpetration of   stalking violence (Haugaard Seri, 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2002). StillIn contrast, others find that men are more likely than women to threaten their victims (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000) and to escalate from threats to physical assaults, as reported in both Australian forensic samples (Purcell et al., 2001) and meta-analyses (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). Former romantic partnersEx-intimate stalkers, who are mostly male, are the most violent compared to other categories of stalkers, a pattern that is consistent across culture and sample type (McEwan, Mullen, MacKenzie, Ogloff, 2009; Meloy, Davis, Lovette, 2001; Mohandie, Meloy, McGowan, Williams, 2006; Palrea, Zona , Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999; Sheridan, Blaauw, Davies, 2003; Sheridan Davies, 2001). Given that men are more likely to stalk ex-intimate partners than women (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998), it seems that we should find more male-perpetrated stalking violence. However, other college student samples and forensic samples reveal no gender differences in perpetration of   stalking violence (Haugaard Seri, 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2002). HoweverFor example, current evidence with forensic samples shows no gender differences in actual stalking cases regarding stalker lethality (Mullen et al., 1999; Purcell et al., 2001; Rosenfeld Lewis, 2005).   Specifically, both male and female stalkers can turn violent if they are an ex-intimate, are younger than 30 years of age, have less than a high school education, and have made prior threats (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002).   Evidently, more research is needed to sort out whether gender is a useful predictor of extreme stalking and violence. Motivations and Violence While there are some differences in how men and women pursue, there also may be some differences in their motivations for doing so. Victims in general population studies often attribute the stalkers motivation to attempts to keep them in a relationship, as well as a desire to control the them (Budd Mattinson, 2000; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a). Mullen and colleagues (1999) have classified their samples of clinical and forensic stalkers in Australia into five motivation groups: rejected, intimacy-seeker, incompetent suitor, resentful, and predatory types, but have not found consistent gender differences between the groups. Stalking behaviors appear to be motivated most commonly by intimacy (e.g., a desire for reconciliation and feelings of love), with the second most common motive being aggression retaliation (e.g., a desire for revenge; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). In fact, perpetrators often report both motives for reconciliation of a relationship and for revenge (Mullen, Pathà ©, Purcel l, Stuart, 1999; Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). These Cclinical/forensic rejected stalkers who are motivated by a mix of reconciliation and revenge needs have a higher likelihood of assaulting their victims than other motivation groups (Mullen et al., 2006). Gender differences in motivations for stalking have been noted in juvenile forensic samples. Juvenile female stalkers more likely to be motivated by bullying and retaliation whereas juvenile male stalkers were have been found to be motivated more by rejection and sexual predation (Purcell et al., 2010).   In a 2001 study of adult stalkers in Australia, Purcell and colleagues found that women were more likely to target professional acquaintances and less likely to target strangers than men. Nonetheless, the majority of female stalkers were still clearly motivated by the desire to establish intimacy with their target, whereas mens motivations were diverse, spreading across the five categories. Likewise, in Meloys (2003) study of 82 female stalkers from the US, Canada, and Australia, he found the female stalkers were more likely to be motivated by a desire to establish intimacy, whereas men were known to stalk to restore intimacy. Ultimately, Tthere is a large gap in stalking motivati on research, particularly using non-forensic samples.   Clinical/forensic rejected stalkers who are motivated by a mix of reconciliation and revenge needs have a higher likelihood of assaulting their victims than other motivation groups (Mullen et al., 2006). Both male and female stalkers are more likely to be violent if they are an ex-intimate, are younger than 30 years of age, have less than a high school education, and have made prior threats (Rosenfeld Harmon, 2002). Other predictors of stalking-related violence include prior criminal convictions (Mullen et al., 1999; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999). Most stalkers, however, are not violent (Purcell, Pathà ©, Mullen, 2004; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a); half of all stalking cases involve a threat and just under a third of all stalking cases involve physical violence. Evidence is mixed as to whether there are gender differences in those who are likely to become violent. Some research using US college student samples suggest that female unwanted pursuit perpetrators engage in more mild aggressive stalking behaviors (Dutton Winstead, 2006; Williams Frieze, 2005). However, other college student samples reveal no gender differences in perpetration of   stalking violence (Haugaard Seri, 2004; Sinclair Frieze, 2002). Still others find that men are more likely than women to threaten their victims (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2000) and to escalate from threats to physical assaults, as reported in both Australian forensic samples (Purcell et al., 2001) and meta-analyses (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007). Former romantic partners are the most violent compared to other categories of stalkers, a pattern that is consistent across culture and sample type (McEwan, Mullen, MacKenzie, Ogloff, 2009; Meloy, Davis, Lovette, 2001; Mohandie, Meloy, McGowan, William s, 2006; Palrea, Zona, Lane, Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1999; Sheridan, Blaauw, Davies, 2003; Sheridan Davies, 2001). Given that men are more likely to stalk ex-intimate partners than women (Spitzberg Cupach, 2007; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998), it seems that we should find more male-perpetrated stalking violence. However, current evidence with forensic samples shows no gender differences in actual stalking cases regarding stalker lethality (Mullen et al., 1999; Purcell et al., 2001; Rosenfeld Lewis, 2005).   Single surveys of Ccollege student samples ofabout unwanted pursuit and obsessive relational intrusion are the least likely to find fewgender differences in perpetration rates. However, meta-analyses and US and UK general population studies find that men are more likely to be stalking perpetrators than women, regardless of the victims gender (Baum et al., 2009; Budd Mattinson, 2000; Spitzberg, 2002; Tjaden Thoennes, 1998a).While the size of this gender difference varies, it is consistent across methodologies (Spitzberg Cupach, 2003). There are some gender differences in the types of stalking and cyberstalking perpetrationbehaviors e.g., men being more direct and women more indirect and in pursuers motives women being predominantly motivated by intimacy-seeking and men having a broader array of motives. However, we need more research on perpetration to better understand if gender is an important predictor to consider, especially with regard to the likelihood of escalation.   w ith a variety of samples and with better means of differentiating unwanted pursuit from stalking. Perceptions of stalking As attention to the problem of stalking has increased, so has public opinion been shaped.   However, there is not a true consensus in these opinions. Rather, people vary in how much they understand about stalking.   It can be unclear when the line between   normal relational pursuit and stalking is crossed (Dunn, 1999; Emerson et al., 1998; Lee, 1998; Sinclair Frieze, 2000, 2005). Perceptions can also diverge regarding multiple issues including: 1) which behaviors qualify as stalking, 2) how many behavior are enough to represent a â€Å"course of conduct,† 3) is stalking really serious, 4) what   perpetrator intent may have been, 5) whether and how we should incorporate victim fear levels to judge stalking severity, and 6) what is â€Å"real† stalking (e.g., stranger vs. acquaintance stalking). Within each of these issues, gender may influence the perceptions people hold, both lay persons and legal decision-makers. Stalking in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Perceiver Gender The literature is still mixed as to whether men and women differ in judgments to use a label of stalking. Some researchers report that men and women do not differ in terms of which behaviors qualify as stalking (e.g., Kinkade, Burns, Fuentes, 2005; Phillips et al., 2004, in Experiment 1; Sheridan Davies, 2001; Sheridan, Davies, Boon, 2001; Sheridan et al., 2002; Sheridan, Gillet, Davies, Blaauw, Patel, 2003). Others have found