Prior Relationship and Level of Engagement - Report Example

The Influence of Prior relationship and Level of Engagement on Perceptions of Stalking and Responsibility Name Institution Table of Contents Introduction 3 Method 5 Design 5 Participants 5 Materials 6 Procedures 6 Online questionnaire 6 Nine versions of a hypothetical scenario 6 Three versions of prior relationship 6 Three versions of level of engagement 7 Perceptions of stalking 7 Perception of responsibility 8 Results 8 Discussion 9 References 10 The Influence of Prior relationship and Level of Engagement on Perceptions of Stalking and Responsibility Introduction Aim of the study This is a report aims at examining the influence of perpetrator victim and participant sex on perceptions of victim responsibility in cases of stalking (Scott, Gavin, Sleath, & Sheridan, 2014). The report details and brings in the relationship concerning the development of a relationship between Sarah and John. The relationship is a scenario picked in order to communicate the message on trigger factors prior the relationship, engagement levels, and stalking perceptions (Scott, Gavin, Sleath, & Sheridan, 2014). In addition, the report point out a formula that is effective in investigating the perceptions of stalking this provides various ways that examines different explanation that brings out contradictions existing between reality and perception. Sheridan & Roberts (2011) when they were in the process of identifying the key questions to ask in stalking found out that majority of the behaviors associated with stalking are perceived to be normal preceding the dissolution of a relationship. There are several assumptions that brings about the act of responsibility where stalking is concerned. These attributions are aimed at finding out the cause of stalking situation in Sarah’s case. As from the case study, we find out that it resulted from what Sarah did to facilitate the staling process. As the stalking process is triggered, both of the participants Sarah and john were both involved in filling the gap in stalking. These actions contributed to the process to what will eventually happen to Sarah which was as a result of Sarah’s behavior and john’s behavior as well. As from the research, the findings portrays that the stalking victims of the stalking have a task of not maintaining or tolerating close relationship or discouraging the perpetrators so as to reduce their actions (Scott, Gavin, Sleath, & Sheridan, 2014).. In such a situation, they will have reduced their responsibility in case of any form of occurrence. On the other hand, even though the victims try not to tolerate the perpetrators quest, they will not be able to be completely successful since stalking is chronic in nature and the behavior of the perpetrator is likely to change with time. Sheridan & Roberts (2011) found out that in some other scenarios, victims may be able to say NO several times or consistently to the stalkers approach or their questions. This may not be the solution as the stalkers may not be able to see it as a way of rejection but a way to reinforce their actions. As from the results, it is critical to find out the true results from the field through the study in order to come out with better solutions that can be put on application in addressing the issue on stalking. Research Questions 1. What are the influence factors prior relationships? 2. How do we measure the level of engagement on perception of stalking? 3. Who is to blame in the situation where in the stalking behaviour? 4. What are the applicable ways that can be used to offer solutions to stalking? Method Design The participants within this study involve 3 × 3 between-participants experimental design. These participants were just selected to represent a scenario whose role is to represent what Sarah and John did and what they represented on the way they looked like while they were strangers then to their prior relationship, period of acquaintance and finally being ex-partners. They were expected to follow what occurred and replicate their roles exactly as per what the scenario explained. Participants Number and location 170 university students Western Australia Sex and other details 52 males 118 females Average age 24.20 years (SD = 8.42) Minimum 18 Maximum 60 Materials Procedures Online questionnaire The online questionnaire is provided so that the 120 students selected could fill with their view on stalking behaviour, (Cass & Rosay, 2011). Nine versions of a hypothetical scenario The hypothetical scenario is the case study occurs whereby John and Sarah are used to illustrate how perception and stalking occurs as from their their meeting prior to the relationship, acquaintance and finally stalking. Three versions of prior relationship The relationship build up process between John and Sarah was a long one. In the first few months after their meeting, John pursued Sarah relentlessly. He made nearly 30 calls daily trying to reach her out. His persuasion to her was to reconsider her decision not to o out for the date. In addition, he frequently asked her how her day has been. Sarah did not respond fully to his questions but did not reveal information concerning her personal life following constant inquiries from John. John used all means to capture Sarah’s attention, (Woodruff, 2010). He sent joke emails to Sarah using the office account but Sarah did not reply. Luckily, Sarah got a chance to to board the same bus with Sarah when they returned from a function. They had a long conversation whereby he told her how he liked her. Sarah told him blankly that she was not interested and that he should stop contacting her. John did not stop but continued contacting her severally. Three versions of level of engagement Initially, the relationship began through influence by different factors. The major factor here is their meeting. Once John saw Sarah when was renewing the lease on her apartment at the estate agents, she was intrigued by her beauty and thus was prompted to ask her for a date of which she declined. In addition to that, Sarah became johns acquaintance, as from these, they became close and thus john got a chance to interact with her during the events held outside the office. Finally, she ended up giving in to the proposal and thus entered into a romantic relationship. Perceptions of stalking When it comes to the relationship between Sarah and john, stalking is the key factor that enabled John to get attention from Sarah as per the the definition of stalking explained by Cass (2011). John made repeated contacts directly towards Sarah in the bid to get her attention. In the case of John and Sarah, the behavior is considered as defiantly stalking, Catalano & Sanders, 2012. Staking at all points necessitate police intervention as it creates a sense of insecurity on the the party being staked. In the case of Sarah and John, the intervention of the police is not required in that Sarah already knew what john wanted from her. It is on extreme cases that the conviction of the police is required when stalking is noted. In Johns and Sarah’s scenario, it was not that extreme that would prompt her to let the police to intervene as explained by James & Farnham, (2003). It is noted that in the beginning of the relationship, John was a nuisance to Sarah’s personal life thus brought discomfort to her. When John started to stalk Sarah, she had already known the intention that he had since the day they met. In this case, she was assured that the stalking could not lead to any form of violence but just desire for a romantic relationship. Perception of responsibility Just as the participants entered into a relationship, they were then to be ready for the responsibility that comes with that. In this case, Sarah remains to be blamed for giving in to the relationship (Cass & Rosay, 2011). She accepted then finally ended it thus heartbreaking John, though she earlier stated that she was not completely interested communicating with him. John is not to be blamed for the relationship because in clear terms he achieved what he wanted as explained by Scott, & Sheridan, (2011). Results Stalking Responsibility Prior relationship Stranger 6.60 (1.70) 1.90 (0.84) Acquaintance 5.20 (1.67) 2.02 (0.75) Ex-partner 5.99 (2.16) 2.53 (0.84) Level of Engagement Low 6.33 (1.99) 1.71 (0.60) Moderate 5.85 (1.97) 2.29 (0.79) High 5.60 (1.93) 2.42 (0.97) Summary of the results Prior relationship influenced perceptions of stalking Stranger: significantly higher than acquaintance Prior relationship influenced perceptions of responsibility Stranger: significantly lower than ex-partner Acquaintance: significantly lower than ex-partner Level of engagement influenced perceptions of responsibility Low: significantly lower than moderate Low: significantly lower than high Level of engagement did not influence perceptions of stalking Discussion As from the study, we have come out with the realization that when one develops an interest on the other person, a relationship is developed. The relationship triggers stalking as the perpetrator attempts to achieve what they want. When it comes to stranger with the prior relationship significantly it leads to higher perception than acquaintance. In connection with the introduction, we find out that stalking begins with level of engagement on perceptions and the responsibility of the victim and the perpetrator. The limitation of this study can be confirmed that the research does not show the real results happening on the whole world but just a representation of the sample study. On the other hand, while carrying out further research, it will be more effective is interview is considered as a method of obtaining data. In essence, after the research we have realized that stalking begins as a simple way from conversation, then to interest then relationship and finally stalking with both parties playing a role in the process. References Protection Against Stalking. (2012). Clare Bernal: The Coroner’s Inquest. Retrieved from http://www.protectionagainststalking.org/ Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2006, August). Personal safety survey, Australia (2005 Reissue, 4906.0). Melbourne: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au Scott, A., Gavin, J., Sleath, E., & Sheridan, L. (2013). The attribution of responsibility in cases of stalking. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(7), 705-721. Campbell, J. C. (2004). Helping women understand their risk in situations of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1464-1477 Sheridan, L. & Roberts, K. (2011). Key questions to consider in stalking cases. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 29(2), 255-270. Cass, A. I. (2011). Defining stalking: The influence of legal factors, extralegal factors, and particular actions on judgments of college students. Western Criminology Review, 12, 1- 14. Retrieved from http://wcr.sonoma.edu/ Catalano, S. (2012, September). Stalking victims in the United States – Revised (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://bjs.gov/ Hoyle, C., & Sanders, A. (2000). Police response to domestic violence: From victim choice to victim empowerment? British Journal of Criminology, 40, 14-36. doi: 10.1093/bjc/40.1.14 James, D. V., & Farnham, F. R. (2003). Stalking and serious violence. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31, 432-439. Retrieved from http://www.jaapl.org/ Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M.,& Purcell, R. (2001). Stalking: New constructions of human behaviour. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35, 9-16. Cass, A. & Rosay, A. (2011). College Student Perceptions of Criminal Justice System Responses to Stalking. Sex Roles, 66(5-6), 392-404. Network for Surviving Stalking. (2009). Stalking survey findings report. London: Network for Surviving Stalking. Retrieved from http://www.nss.org.uk/ Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS version 12 (2nd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press. Pathé, M., MacKenzie, R., & Mullen, P. E. (2004). Stalking by law: Damaging victims and rewarding offenders. Journal of Law and Medicine, 12, 103-111. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ Scott, A. J., & Sheridan, L. (2011). ‘Reasonable’ perceptions of stalking: The influence of conduct severity and the perpetrator-target relationship. Psychology, Crime and Law, 17, 331-343. doi: 10.1080/10683160903203961 Sinclair, H. C. (2012). Stalking myth-attributions: Examining the role of individual and contextual variables on attributions in unwanted pursuit scenarios. Sex Roles, 66, 378391. doi: 10.1007/s11199-010-9853-8 Woodruff, K. (2010). An analysis of the police response to intimate partner stalking (Paper 783). Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Retrieved from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/ Read More