The attribution of responsibility in cases of stalking

Adrian J. Scott, Jeff Gavin, Emma Sleath, Lorraine Sheridan

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    4 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    There is a general belief that stranger stalkers present the greatest threat to the personal safety of victims, despite national victimisation surveys and applied research demonstrating that ex-partner stalkers are generally more persistent and violent. The just-world hypothesis offers a possible explanation for this apparent contradiction. The current research used nine hypothetical scenarios, administered to 328 university students, to investigate the assumptions that underlie attributions of responsibility in cases of stalking. It explores whether these assumptions are consistent with the proposed mechanisms of the just-world hypothesis, and whether they vary according to the nature of the perpetrator–victim relationship and conduct severity. Thematic analysis revealed that the victim was perceived to be more responsible for the situation when the perpetrator was portrayed as an ex-partner rather than a stranger or acquaintance. Furthermore, victims were perceived to be more responsible when the perpetrator's behaviour was persistent and threatening. These findings are discussed in the context of the just-world hypothesis and related to the proposed mechanisms by which a person can reinterpret a situation so that the perceived injustice disappears.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)705-721
    JournalPsychology, Crime & Law
    Volume20
    Issue number7
    Early online date15 Nov 2013
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2014

    Fingerprint

    Stalking
    stalking
    attribution
    responsibility
    Crime Victims
    Research
    Students
    Safety
    victimization
    threat
    scenario
    human being
    university
    student

    Bibliographical note

    This article is not yet available on the repository

    Keywords

    • stalking
    • perceptions
    • perpetrator–victim relationship
    • conduct severity
    • just\-world hypothesis

    Cite this

    The attribution of responsibility in cases of stalking. / Scott, Adrian J.; Gavin, Jeff; Sleath, Emma; Sheridan, Lorraine.

    In: Psychology, Crime & Law, Vol. 20, No. 7, 2014, p. 705-721.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Scott, Adrian J. ; Gavin, Jeff ; Sleath, Emma ; Sheridan, Lorraine. / The attribution of responsibility in cases of stalking. In: Psychology, Crime & Law. 2014 ; Vol. 20, No. 7. pp. 705-721.
    @article{4b1f0cbfcd47497687b95547d702ba63,
    title = "The attribution of responsibility in cases of stalking",
    abstract = "There is a general belief that stranger stalkers present the greatest threat to the personal safety of victims, despite national victimisation surveys and applied research demonstrating that ex-partner stalkers are generally more persistent and violent. The just-world hypothesis offers a possible explanation for this apparent contradiction. The current research used nine hypothetical scenarios, administered to 328 university students, to investigate the assumptions that underlie attributions of responsibility in cases of stalking. It explores whether these assumptions are consistent with the proposed mechanisms of the just-world hypothesis, and whether they vary according to the nature of the perpetrator–victim relationship and conduct severity. Thematic analysis revealed that the victim was perceived to be more responsible for the situation when the perpetrator was portrayed as an ex-partner rather than a stranger or acquaintance. Furthermore, victims were perceived to be more responsible when the perpetrator's behaviour was persistent and threatening. These findings are discussed in the context of the just-world hypothesis and related to the proposed mechanisms by which a person can reinterpret a situation so that the perceived injustice disappears.",
    keywords = "stalking, perceptions, perpetrator–victim relationship, conduct severity, just\-world hypothesis",
    author = "Scott, {Adrian J.} and Jeff Gavin and Emma Sleath and Lorraine Sheridan",
    note = "This article is not yet available on the repository",
    year = "2014",
    doi = "10.1080/1068316X.2013.854793",
    language = "English",
    volume = "20",
    pages = "705--721",
    journal = "Psychology, Crime and Law",
    issn = "1068-316X",
    publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
    number = "7",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - The attribution of responsibility in cases of stalking

    AU - Scott, Adrian J.

    AU - Gavin, Jeff

    AU - Sleath, Emma

    AU - Sheridan, Lorraine

    N1 - This article is not yet available on the repository

    PY - 2014

    Y1 - 2014

    N2 - There is a general belief that stranger stalkers present the greatest threat to the personal safety of victims, despite national victimisation surveys and applied research demonstrating that ex-partner stalkers are generally more persistent and violent. The just-world hypothesis offers a possible explanation for this apparent contradiction. The current research used nine hypothetical scenarios, administered to 328 university students, to investigate the assumptions that underlie attributions of responsibility in cases of stalking. It explores whether these assumptions are consistent with the proposed mechanisms of the just-world hypothesis, and whether they vary according to the nature of the perpetrator–victim relationship and conduct severity. Thematic analysis revealed that the victim was perceived to be more responsible for the situation when the perpetrator was portrayed as an ex-partner rather than a stranger or acquaintance. Furthermore, victims were perceived to be more responsible when the perpetrator's behaviour was persistent and threatening. These findings are discussed in the context of the just-world hypothesis and related to the proposed mechanisms by which a person can reinterpret a situation so that the perceived injustice disappears.

    AB - There is a general belief that stranger stalkers present the greatest threat to the personal safety of victims, despite national victimisation surveys and applied research demonstrating that ex-partner stalkers are generally more persistent and violent. The just-world hypothesis offers a possible explanation for this apparent contradiction. The current research used nine hypothetical scenarios, administered to 328 university students, to investigate the assumptions that underlie attributions of responsibility in cases of stalking. It explores whether these assumptions are consistent with the proposed mechanisms of the just-world hypothesis, and whether they vary according to the nature of the perpetrator–victim relationship and conduct severity. Thematic analysis revealed that the victim was perceived to be more responsible for the situation when the perpetrator was portrayed as an ex-partner rather than a stranger or acquaintance. Furthermore, victims were perceived to be more responsible when the perpetrator's behaviour was persistent and threatening. These findings are discussed in the context of the just-world hypothesis and related to the proposed mechanisms by which a person can reinterpret a situation so that the perceived injustice disappears.

    KW - stalking

    KW - perceptions

    KW - perpetrator–victim relationship

    KW - conduct severity

    KW - just\-world hypothesis

    U2 - 10.1080/1068316X.2013.854793

    DO - 10.1080/1068316X.2013.854793

    M3 - Article

    VL - 20

    SP - 705

    EP - 721

    JO - Psychology, Crime and Law

    JF - Psychology, Crime and Law

    SN - 1068-316X

    IS - 7

    ER -