Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Treating Stalking A Practical Guide For Clinicians Troy Mcewan All Chapter
Treating Stalking A Practical Guide For Clinicians Troy Mcewan All Chapter
TROY McEWAN
Centre for Forensic Behavioural Science
Swinburne University of Technology
and Forensicare
Australia
MICHELE GALIETTA
John Jay College and
City University of New York
USA
and
ALAN UNDERWOOD
Stalking Threat Assessment Centre,
North London Forensic Services
Queen Mary University of London
United Kingdom
This edition first published 2024
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo-
copying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain
permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/
go/permissions.
The right of Troy McEwan, Michele Galietta, and Alan Underwood to be identified as
the authors of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Offices
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19
8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information
about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-
demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be
available in other formats.
Trademarks: Wiley and the Wiley logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and/or its affiliates in the United States and other countries
and may not be used without written permission. All other trademarks are the prop-
erty of their respective owners. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is not associated with any
product or vendor mentioned in this book.
For my grandfather Ron who gave me the opportunity for postgraduate study
by covering my course fees. Without his constant encouragement and stub-
born refusal to accept any attempts to repay him, I would not have been here to
write this.
For my mother, Dr Maryann Galietta, who proved that women can indeed “have
it all.” Through her actions and choices, she modelled love of family, love of the
pursuit of knowledge, and how to do the tightrope act that comes with balancing
these – always with compassion, strength, and a good measure of common sense.
Thank you Mom!
Contents
AC KN OWL E D G E M EN TS vii
ABOU T TH E COM PA N IO N W EBS IT E viii
Introduction 1
What Is Stalking? 5
Why Is Treatment for Stalking Needed? 6
Key Facts About Stalking 9
Explaining Stalking 11
Laws Prohibiting Stalking 12
The Use of Anti-stalking Laws 13
Recognising Stalking 14
Biases Influencing This Book 18
Overview of This Book 19
Conclusion 20
References 21
iv
Contents v
Psychometric Testing 92
Conclusion 93
References 94
I N DEX 307
Acknowledgements
Our sincere thanks to our colleagues Prof. Barry Rosenfeld, Dr Frank Farnham,
Dr David James, Prof. Jim Ogloff, Prof. Michele Pathé, Prof. Paul Mullen,
Dr Rachel MacKenzie, Prof. Rosemary Purcell, Dr Sara Henley, and Prof. Ste-
phen Hart for sharing their expertise and knowledge with us over many years.
We also acknowledge colleagues we have worked with and learned from at
Forensicare’s Problem Behaviour Program, the Stalking Threat Assessment
Centre and National Stalking Clinic, and the SHARP Research Team. Without
the opportunity to work with and learn from them, this book would not have
been possible.
Alan’s heartful thanks to Ellie, who has endured the proxy process of
writing (and the hearing about it) for the last two years with grace, good
humour, infinite patience, and the copious provision of tea. Without your
steadfast support, I would not have managed it.
Finally, we would like to thank the clients who have taught us so
much over many years of practice and who have been willing to share their
information and time by participating in research, knowing that it was for our
scientific endeavours and not necessarily their own benefit.
vii
About the
Companion Website
This book is accompanied by the companion website:
www.wiley.com/go/McEwan/APracticalGuideforClinicians
viii
Introduction
S
ince emerging as a concept about 35 years ago, stalking has been con-
sidered a harmful behaviour that warrants a societal response. This
has brought stalking into the realm of mental health professionals
and behavioural scientists, particularly those working within criminal jus-
tice agencies and mental health services that are tasked with intervening to
reduce risks and prevent harm. Yet, despite three decades of stalking research,
there remain few studies examining effective treatment and management of
people who stalk. This leaves efforts to treat stalking poorly evidence-based
and wholly reliant on the knowledge and ability of individual clinicians.
As clinicians with specific interest in stalking, we find the lack of research
on treatment and management of people who stalk troubling. Stalking
victimisation affects approximately 15% of adults during their lifetime, and
in half of cases persists for six months or more. The majority of victims are
threatened, a substantial minority are physically assaulted, and stalking
victimisation is known to lead to significant psychological and social harm.
Fifty percent of people whose stalking attracts criminal justice attention
continue to stalk, even after conviction. Treatment of people who stalk may
be one of the few ways to provide long-term relief for stalking victims, yet it
has attracted little research attention compared to similar harmful behaviours
such as violence or sexual offending.
Between us, we have over 50 years of combined experience working with
people who stalk across three different continents. We also have the benefit
of the collective wisdom of our colleagues, who have a wealth of knowledge
in this area. We wrote this book in an effort to distil some of this knowledge
and experience into a detailed and comprehensive how-to guide for therapists
working with people who stalk. Our goal is to present a structured and practi-
cal approach to treating stalking behaviour based on principles and strategies
that we have found to be effective in our practice.
We begin the book with a case study. Reflecting on our bias as practicing
clinicians, we find that case vignettes are often the most effective way of com-
municating complex clinical ideas, and we make use of them throughout the
book. In this introductory chapter, we have chosen a case study that demon-
strates the kinds of problems that often arise when trying to treat stalking
behaviour and why a specialist approach is needed. The chapter goes on to
argue why treatment of people who stalk is warranted, and why it requires
specific knowledge to do well. We then describe the nature and scope of the
Treating Stalking: A Practical Guide for Clinicians, First Edition. Troy McEwan,
Michele Galietta and Alan Underwood.
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Companion website: www.wiley.com/go/McEwan/APracticalGuideforClinicians
1
2 Introduction
problem of stalking, and how criminal justice systems have tried (and often
failed) to respond to it adequately. We emphasise the importance of being
able to recognise stalking in clinical practice and provide advice about how
to do so, so it is clear when treatment for this pernicious behaviour is needed.
Finally, this introductory chapter concludes by considering the biases inher-
ent in our approach to stalking, before providing an overview of the remainder
of the book.
Our primary goal in writing this book, the first specifically devoted to
treating stalking, is to help clinicians grappling with understanding their
clients’ behaviour and trying to manage the risk that they pose to others.
However, we also hope that the book prompts new research interest in this
under-studied area. We would very much like our book to be a starting point
that can both guide practice and inspire further therapeutic and research
developments in this field.
CAS E EXAM P LE
I wish there was a logical explanation for my obsession with you, which
has been there for so long … Maybe I just want you to think of me,
every day and preferably every hour. That is the best I can achieve … I
don’t care how you think of me, only that you think of me. That I exist,
that you know me and don’t forget me … I can only repeat myself and
tell you about all the great things [about you] that have touched me
so deeply. That make me want to be a part of your life, even if it is the
blackest page in your life, as your stalker.
This letter was sent from prison by a man who had been stalking the woman he
was writing to for over three years. Although he had known the woman when
they were children, three decades later the two were strangers and the stalk-
ing began when she accepted his request to link up on a social media site. He
proceeded to bombard her with messages, gradually escalating to locating her
home and workplace, knocking on her door, and entering her home when she
was not there to leave her gifts of flowers, money, and underwear. He followed
her in the street, loitered outside her workplace, and all the while continued to
try to communicate with her via phone, social media, and occasional letters.
The intensity of the behaviour waxed and waned over three years, but there was
rarely a week without at least one unwanted contact. Eventually, he was arrested,
convicted, and imprisoned. The stalking was his first serious offence and after a
brief period of incarceration the man was placed in a residential mental health
service in the community to receive court-ordered assessment and treatment.
He had been receiving psychological and psychiatric treatment for nearly a year
when the treating clinician contacted one of us for peer supervision. The man’s
Introduction 3
court order was coming to an end in a few months, and he would be discharged,
but the treating team was worried about the stalking victim’s safety.
The clinician reported that the man insisted that the victim wanted his
contact and had only participated in the prosecution against him due to the
influence of police and the judge. He said that he “just wanted to speak to her”
so she could tell him herself that she did not want to see him. He told the ther-
apist that he would continue to try to contact the woman until he was allowed
to speak to her in private, and reported violent fantasies in which he would
kidnap the woman to force her to speak to him. He was unperturbed by the
thought of returning to prison. The man was entirely socially isolated, and his
favourite activity was to go for drives in his car by himself, though the treating
team was not aware of where he was going when he left the facility’s grounds.
The treating team knew that he maintained awareness of the victim via the
internet and that he felt happy when he saw the victim’s activities online. He
voiced the intention of joining a sports club of which she was a member so he
could meet her there.
There was considerable concern about what the most appropriate
diagnosis might be, with thoughts about the relevance of both personality and
pervasive developmental disorder (a psychotic disorder had been excluded and
he had previously been treated with antipsychotic medication with no effect).
Psychological treatment to that point had taken a schema therapy approach to
hypothesised personality disorder, but the clinician was worried that the man
continued to appear “obsessed” with the stalking victim, spent most of his time
ruminating about her, and did not seem to consider his behaviour to be prob-
lematic at all. The clinician had discussed the man’s feelings and thoughts about
the stalking victim and advised that he should write down his thoughts about
her, given they were highly preoccupying. When supervision was sought, the
clinician knew little about the function of the stalking for the client and what
specifically might reinforce it, only that the client perceived that he had a right
to contact the victim due to his feelings for her.
The clinician was clearly invested in helping this man avoid further
offending and in preventing harm to the victim. They realised that their efforts
to date had had little effect. However, in discussion with them, it was also clear
that they did not have a thorough understanding of why their client was stalking,
and the focus of therapy was on clarifying and treating the effects of his mental
disorder rather than changing his behaviour. While there were concerns about
the potential risk to the victim, there were no direct risk management strategies
in place. The man was essentially continuing to stalk from hospital – monitoring
the victim online and potentially in person during his long drives to unknown
destinations. While he was engaging in therapy, the treatment provided was
not addressing the functional drivers of the stalking, and the hospital environ-
ment was doing little to actively manage his behaviour or provide incentives
that could motivate him to change.
4 Introduction
We begin with this case example not to criticise the clinician or the
treating team. They were clearly doing their best and were frustrated and
concerned that their best wasn’t having the desired effect. But this case encap-
sulates several issues that we have observed to commonly undermine effective
treatment of stalking behaviour. First, the team had insufficient knowledge
of what stalking is and did not recognise ongoing stalking behaviour when
it was present. Supervision was sought primarily because the client had dis-
closed violent fantasies about the stalking victim, leading to concern for her
safety given his ongoing “obsession.” The fact that he continued to monitor
her behaviour online while hospitalised had not raised any alarm bells. Lack
of stalking awareness meant that there was insufficient monitoring of behav-
iours of concern and not enough attention to actually preventing him from
stalking. Second, the primary focus of formulation and intervention was
mental disorder rather than understanding how (or whether) mental disorder
contributed to stalking and what other treatment needs might be relevant.
It was the stalking that led to the client’s involuntary hospitalisation and
which was associated with the potential for future harm, meaning the stalk-
ing should have been a direct focus of intervention. Despite this, the treating
team had no structured understanding of the meaning of the stalking to the
client, its function and what drove and maintained it, or what might be asso-
ciated with it continuing or escalating to physical violence. The lack of a psy-
chologically informed explanation of the stalking behaviour in turn meant
that the treatment approach was not sufficiently focused on key drivers and
reinforcing factors. While personality dysfunction clearly played an impor-
tant contributing role, schema therapy was unlikely to be effective in address-
ing one of the primary treatment needs: the fact that the client did not see his
behaviour as a problem and had no desire to change.
You may read this case study and identify with the clinician and treating
team, recalling current or past clients whose treatment and management have
presented similar challenges and missed opportunities. Alternatively, you
might have never worked with someone who has stalked, and you are reading
this book in preparation for a future client. In either case, we would like you
to take away four things from this case study that will help you understand
our approach throughout the rest of this book. First, remember that stalking
is a behaviour, not a mental disorder. Treatment should be guided by a com-
prehensive understanding of the individual and situational factors that create
and maintain the stalking, which can then be used to identify ways to change
it. Treating mental disorder is sometimes important to treating stalking, but
often it is not the main focus. Second, to treat someone who stalks, you need
to understand what stalking is and how it presents. Only when stalking is rec-
ognised can effective treatment and risk management be implemented. Third,
make sure you have enough knowledge about stalking to provide competent
treatment. This introductory chapter provides some fundamental information
about stalking that will help prepare you to treat people who stalk but always
What Is Stalking? 5
seek out up-to-date reviews and data. Fourth, and finally, be like this clinician
and reach out for expert help if your treatment is stalled or you are unsure
what to do. Treating people who stalk is not straightforward, and an informed
second opinion is often useful. We hope that this book can provide some
initial insights that make working with this tricky population a little easier.
What Is Stalking?
Given the breadth of behaviour involved in stalking, it is helpful to start
with a clear definition that can be used to identify when treatment might
be required. Stalking is a pattern of behaviour in which one person imposes
themselves into the life of another by making repeated unwanted intrusions
that cause distress or fear. Most stalking behaviour is the stuff of everyday
human interaction – telephone calls, text messages, visiting someone’s house.
It is the pattern of conduct, the actor’s intent, and the effect on the target that
make otherwise routine actions problematic. A defining feature of stalking is
a mismatch in the level of contact desired by the two people involved, with
one insisting on more contact than is wanted by the other (Cupach et al., 2000;
White et al., 2000). Stalking is one end of a continuum of unwanted behaviour
involving such mismatched desires. At the least concerning end of the con-
tinuum are overly intrusive one-off exchanges – an unwanted but relatively
common part of everyday life. In a minority of cases, such events may develop
into short-lived and self-limiting periods of harassment (sometimes termed
unwanted pursuit behaviour) that cause discomfort but are not harmful. In
some cases, such harassment crosses the line into a targeted and protracted
stalking campaign, causing distress or fear and potentially causing consider-
able harm to the victim and those around them (Purcell et al., 2004; Thomas
et al., 2008). What demarcates normal – albeit unwanted – behaviour from
stalking differs from case to case depending on the nature of the behaviour,
its persistence and the vulnerabilities of the target(s).
A stalking episode (the time between the first and last unwanted intrusion)
can involve a multitude of different behaviours over days, weeks, months, or
even years. The types of behaviour used by the person are limited only by their
imagination and what they believe will achieve their goals, whether that is to
frighten the victim, to begin or resume a relationship with them, or to obtain
justice or some other outcome. There is no “prototypical” pattern of stalking.
Most people will use multiple methods of communication (telephone calls,
emails, social media, letters, graffiti, etc.) and contact (following, loitering,
accosting, or other means of putting themselves in close physical proximity
to the victim) to make their presence felt. Many will also use other behav-
iours such as sending unsolicited materials (intended as gifts or to frighten),
getting proxies to contact the victim for them, using the internet or electronic
6 Introduction
and over 100,000 stalking cases being recorded by police each year in the
United Kingdom alone (Home Office, 2022). Data from the Australian Bureau
of Statistics (ABS) suggest that only about one third of stalking victims
report their experiences to police, which gives some sense of the scope of the
problem (ABS, 2016). There is undoubtedly significant unmet treatment need
within the criminal justice system and outside it. Failing to provide appro-
priate treatment and risk management options for stalking places an entirely
unfair burden on victims who have to try to manage this destructive behav-
iour and whose lives can be laid waste as a result (Korkodeilou, 2017, 2020a;
Logan & Walker, 2021; Pathé & Mullen, 1997). It also condemns those who
persistently stalk to endless pointless interactions with the criminal justice
system, simultaneously destroying their lives and costing the community con-
siderable sums.
It might seem reasonable to assume that existing interventions for general
offending, intimate partner abuse, or even general violence might be appro-
priate for people who stalk, meaning specific treatment approaches are not
required. Indeed, physical or sexual violence is relatively common in stalking
episodes (present in 20–50% of cases; McEwan, 2021). While it is possible that
these individuals would benefit from programmes designed to reduce these
behaviours, this does not take into account the remaining majority of people
who stalk but do not engage in physical or sexual violence and may be at
risk of further stalking. Such programmes also fail to address the targeted
and persistent nature of stalking behaviour, which can be severely damaging
regardless of the presence of physical violence (Kamphuis et al., 2003). Simi-
larly, general offending programmes would likely have some relevance for the
substantial proportion for whom stalking is part of a wider pattern of offend-
ing and antisocial behaviour (Eke et al., 2011; McEwan et al., 2017, 2020).
However, such programmes do not address the targeted nature of stalking or
the fixated mindsets that seem to contribute to its persistence. Additionally,
such programmes would not be suitable for those without a wider pattern
of offending behaviour. Finally, though just under half of stalking emerges
out of the breakdown of an intimate relationship (Logan, 2020; Cupach &
Spitzberg, 2004), most existing programmes for intimate partner abuse have
been shown to have minimal effect in reducing the behaviour (Eckhardt
et al., 2013; Gondolf, 2004; Travers et al., 2021). Moreover, while stalking and
intimate partner abuse are clearly related in some cases, whether the two pat-
terns of behaviour share similar treatment needs more generally is unclear.
What little research that exists suggests that most people who abuse intimate
partners do not go on to stalk post-relationship, while a subset of ex-intimate
stalking cases emerge from relationships that are not characterised by abuse
(Edwards & Gidycz, 2014; Ferreira & Matos, 2013; Senkans et al., 2020).
Lack of attention to the unique aspects of stalking in existing treatment
approaches means that there have been calls for stalking-specific interven-
tions for over 20 years (Kamphuis & Emmelkamp, 2000; Mullen et al., 2001a).
Key Facts About Stalking 9
Unfortunately, they have not led to a body of research that can easily
inform psychological treatment. The stalking research literature has largely
focused on epidemiology and risk assessment, with far less attention to the
psychological mechanisms and contextual cues that contribute to stalk-
ing (Parkhill et al., 2022). The treatment literature at present consists of
opinion pieces by clinicians (including the authors of this book) who pro-
vide general guidance and principles for treatment based on their experience
with people who stalk (e.g., Kropp et al., 2002; MacKenzie & James, 2011;
Mullen et al., 2001a, 2001b; Purcell & McEwan, 2019; Rosenfeld, 2000; Rosen-
feld et al., 2009; Siepelmeyer & Ortiz-Müller, 2020). There remains only
one peer-reviewed evaluation of a stalking treatment approach, in which
dialectical behaviour therapy was trialled with some limited effect (Rosenfeld
et al., 2009, 2019). This means that practitioners who provide treatment to
people who stalk are largely working without an integrated evidence base,
drawing on their knowledge of the stalking literature where possible, but fre-
quently generalising from work with other problematic behaviour and having
to reinvent the wheel when treating stalking.
In this context, our intention in writing this book is twofold. First, we
want to provide detailed guidance to practitioners so they can more easily
work with clients in ways that help stop stalking. Between us we have over
50 years of experience directly assessing and treating stalking behaviour and
conducting research with this population. We thought it would be useful to
distil this knowledge, and that gleaned from our colleagues, into consensus-
based, detailed, and practical guidance for assessing and treating stalking.
Second, and equally importantly, we hope that the publication of this book
might trigger renewed research interest in the psychological treatment of
people who stalk. We particularly want to highlight where further research is
needed to build an evidence base that can inform the development of future
treatment approaches.
s ettings. Legal, sociological, and criminal justice research followed and there
is now a sizeable research literature encompassing different philosophical
and scientific perspectives on stalking. The majority of that research comes
from North America, Western Europe, and Australia, though that is gradu-
ally changing (Chan & Sheridan, 2020). This body of research means that we
are now able to describe with some certainty the characteristics of those who
stalk, their victims, and common features of stalking behaviour.
Stalking victimisation is common, with 15–20% of women and 5–10% of
men in Western industrialised nations reporting victimisation during their
adult lives (ABS, 2016; McEwan & Pathé, 2014). The majority (60–80%) of
victims are women, and 70–80% of perpetrators are men (Cupach & Spitzberg,
2004), with same-gender stalking accounting for 15–20% of reported cases
and more commonly involving all-male dyads (Strand & McEwan, 2011).
In forensic settings, these figures are skewed, with approximately 90% of
people who stalk being male and 90% of victims female (McEwan et al., 2017;
Nijdam-Jones et al., 2018). Most women who are stalked will be stalked by
men, whereas men are equally likely to be stalked by a man or a woman (Sher-
idan, North et al., 2014).
Both people who stalk and those who are targeted have an average age in
the mid-30s, though stalking victimisation and perpetration occurs across the
lifespan (Sheridan, North et al., 2014; Sheridan, Scott et al., 2014). The hand-
ful of studies on stalking among adolescents suggests a similar phenomenon,
though adolescents appear to be somewhat less persistent, but potentially more
overtly aggressive, than their adult counterparts (Borges & Dell’Aglio, 2019;
Cloonan-Thomas et al., 2022; Fisher et al., 2014; Purcell et al., 2009; Sheridan
et al., 2014a, 2014b).
Approximately one-third of adult stalking victims are physically assaulted
during the stalking episode, with rates being higher among former intimates
and lower among stranger and acquaintance victims (Logan, 2020). In a very
small proportion of stalking cases such violence is seriously harmful or even
lethal (James & Farnham, 2003; McEwan, 2021; Sheridan & Roberts, 2011).
Yet stalking is harmful even in the absence of physical violence. Some stalk-
ing victims have described the experience as “psychological terrorism” and
“psychological rape” (Mullen & Pathé, 2002). Victimisation is associated
with post-traumatic stress symptomatology, depression, substance misuse,
and reduced employment and education performance (Hall, 1998; Johnson
& Kercher, 2009; Kamphuis et al., 2003; Logan, 2020; Pathé & Mullen, 1997;
Thomas et al., 2008). More prolonged stalking has been associated with
greater psychological impact on victims, regardless of the presence of overt
aggression (Blaauw et al., 2002; Diette et al., 2014; Dreßing et al., 2020; Purcell
et al., 2005). Spitzberg & Cupach’s (2014) meta-analysis of 41 studies suggests
an average stalking duration of approximately 15 months, though with sub-
stantial variation between studies. However, as Spitzberg and Cupach point
out, it is not the duration per se that causes the most harm from stalking but
Explaining Stalking 11
Explaining Stalking
The heterogeneity of stalking behaviour and people who stalk has led multiple
authors to develop descriptive typologies attempting to reduce complexity,
facilitate communication, and guide responses (see McEwan & Davis, 2020
and Spitzberg & Cupach, 2007 for review). The main stalking typologies that
are used in practice have several similarities, most obviously distinguishing
between those who stalk former intimate partners and those with other prior
relationships with the victim. More complex typologies also incorporate some
evaluation of the person’s apparent motivation and the presence and nature
of psychopathology associated with the stalking (McEwan & Davis, 2020).
12 Introduction
Stalking typologies are useful when they are used as a heuristic to help inform
hypotheses about what might be contributing to the stalking and when they
can help guide immediate management actions. However, they are only a way
of organising information to guide initial thoughts. In a treatment context,
the application of a typology is not a substitute for a full assessment and for-
mulation of the individual’s behaviour (see Chapter 2 for further discussion
of the use of typologies when assessing stalking).
Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to the question of what leads
some people to stalk while most others do not. Stalkers’ pursuit can cost
them their friends and family, their job, their health, and in some cases, their
freedom. Yet they persist, persevering for months or years, intentionally or
inadvertently destroying the lives of their victims, and often their own. There
have been attempts to adapt existing theories of relationships and behaviour
to stalking, including applications of attachment theory, behavioural theory,
social learning theory, and social information processing theory. All of these
approaches have explanatory strength and some empirical support, but some
significant explanatory gaps remain (see Parkhill et al., 2022 for review). There
is only one truly novel theory of stalking, Spitzberg and Cupach’s Relational
Goal Pursuit Theory (Cupach et al., 2000; Cupach & Spitzberg, 2004, 2014).
This theory has considerable explanatory potential and has been tested in sev-
eral studies, but at present remains limited to explaining stalking in the con-
text of relationship pursuit. Developing a comprehensive theory of stalking
is difficult because of the heterogeneity of those who stalk, and the fact that
a wide variety of situational and individual factors contribute to it. However,
the lack of a compelling and comprehensive psychological explanation for
stalking may be one reason that the research literature is yet to thoroughly
investigate psychological factors that could be the focus of treatment (Birch
et al., 2018; Parkhill et al., 2022).
while others have been amended after criticisms that they did not in fact
prevent stalking (Harris, 2000; Mullen et al., 2009; Mullen, James et al., 2009).
Stalking is difficult to legislate against because it usually involves behav-
iours that would be, in other circumstances, completely innocuous. Although
some stalkers are overtly threatening or violent, many of the acts that consti-
tute stalking are part of everyday interactions: telephone calls, emails, social
media contacts, sending gifts, waiting for someone at their home or work,
etc. It is their unwanted imposition and repetition over time that creates a
sense of menace. As noted by McEwan et al. (2007), stalking is qualitatively
different from, for example, the legitimate pursuit of a complaint or accept-
able attempts to reconcile a failed relationship, but it has proven difficult for
legislators to specify where such legitimate pursuit ends and when criminal
sanctions are warranted (see also Ogilvie, 2000).
While different jurisdictions have taken different approaches to defining
stalking there are some commonalities across anti-stalking laws. They typi-
cally involve at least two, potentially three, elements: (a) defining the pattern
and nature of the unwanted behaviour (the conduct element), (b) defining the
intent of the perpetrator (the mental element), and often, though not always,
(c) some requirement for a negative impact on the target of the stalking (the
impact element; Fox et al., 2011; McEwan et al., 2007). Different jurisdictions
have defined these three elements in different ways and with different levels
of specificity, which can have real impacts on how laws are used and who can
access them. Some jurisdictions also limit definitions of stalking to behaviour
that occurs between intimate or former intimate partners, or simply outlaw
“stalking” as a form of domestic violence without any further definition. We
encourage readers to find their local anti-stalking statute, consider how the
three elements are operationalised, and how this might impact the use of the
law in their jurisdiction.
Recognising Stalking
The first step in offering treatment for stalking is knowing who might require
it. Stalking does not always present clearly, and assessors need to be alert to its
presence where it is not labelled. It is typical for people who stalk to be pros-
ecuted using a collection of discrete offences (e.g., a threat, an assault, breach
Recognising Stalking 15
of a restraining order) rather than a stalking charge (Brandt & Voerman, 2020;
Lynch & Logan, 2015; Sentencing Advisory Council, 2022; Spitzberg, 2002).
This renders stalking invisible in correctional or forensic systems that fre-
quently rely on the nature of the charge to identify potential assessment and
treatment needs (e.g., those with sexual offences are assessed for sex offender
programmes). An example of this from our own practice is a client who was
serving a probation order for a threat conviction and was referred for risk
assessment and management recommendations. On reviewing the collat-
eral information and speaking to the probation officer, it was clear that the
threat took place in the context of an ongoing pattern of unwanted intrusions
that included following the ex-partner, turning up at her home, and making
dozens of non-threatening telephone calls. At no point in the police or court
process was the pattern of the behaviour described as stalking. Thankfully,
the probation officer was alert to the potential and had identified stalking
from the description in the police summary of charges.
It is essential to be aware that stalking may be present whenever these
kinds of behaviours or offences are present. Always ask questions about the
context in which discrete acts of offending or concerning conduct took place
so patterns of stalking are identified. The questions in Box 1 are a useful
starting point when trying to identify whether stalking is present and whether
the approach outlined in this book is likely to be helpful.
(continued)
16 Introduction
While the failure to name stalking when it is present is the most common
challenge to recognition, the opposite problem can also arise – when stalking
charges are used but the behaviour is not consistent with common social or
research definitions of stalking. In these kinds of cases, proceeding based on
the assumption that the problem behaviour is stalking may result in inad-
equate assessment and failure to identify necessary treatment targets. For
example, a client presents with a stalking charge, but the behaviour involved
a single incident in which he followed a woman down a street for some dis-
tance, and she was sufficiently fearful that she reported it to police. While
potentially consistent with some legal definitions of stalking, this behaviour
does not have the necessary repetition to be considered stalking for the pur-
poses of assessment or treatment (it may of course be concerning for other
reasons, depending on the context). Similarly, we have seen stalking charges
used to prosecute voyeurs or exhibitionists who return to the same location
(e.g., a train station or a school) and so inadvertently offend repeatedly against
the same individual. While a pattern of intentionally targeted behaviour must
be ruled out, in our experience it is more commonly coincidence that the
same victim was in the same location each time in these cases. This behav-
iour would be better conceptualised as harmful sexual behaviour and assessed
using approaches appropriate to that.
Recognising Stalking 17
A similar issue might arise if a stalking charge is used to prosecute someone for
behaviour that occurs during a continuing intimate relationship. For example,
the offender and victim continue to live together, but the offender is engaging
in surveillance and monitoring of their partner’s behaviour, along with other
psychologically or physically abusive behaviour. In this context, our approach
to stalking assessment and treatment would be inappropriate as we define
stalking as an unwanted imposition, implying the absence of a consensual
relationship between the two people involved. If there is an ongoing relation-
ship, then it may be more useful to conceptualise the pattern of behaviour as
intimate partner abuse (or even coercive control; Robinson & Myhill, 2021)
and proceed with the assessment and risk management plan on that basis.
Similarly, if there is an intimate relationship that is “on and off,” with stalk-
ing during periods of relationship breakdown and abuse during periods in
which the relationship has reformed, then it is usually most helpful to con-
ceptualise the behaviour as a pattern of intimate partner abuse but to consider
risks potentially associated with periods of stalking (e.g., the risk of physical
violence may be heightened post-separation) (see McEwan & Underwood, in
press for further discussion of these issues).
A final area where questions may arise about whether a pattern of behav-
iour constitutes stalking is when the unwanted intrusions occur entirely
online. In the past 15 years, it has become relatively common for people
who stalk to use the internet to monitor, harass, or obtain information about
their victims (Cavezza & McEwan, 2014). This is sometimes called “cyber-
stalking,” though, as Wilson et al. (2022) point out, the term cyberstalking is
so poorly defined that the research literature on this construct is difficult to
integrate and generalise. Regardless of what it is called, it is clear that those
who stalk offline routinely also use online methods of intrusion. Dreßing
and colleagues’ (2020) comprehensive epidemiological survey of stalking in
Mannheim, Germany, identified that a quarter of stalking victims were con-
tacted via the internet, while nearly 20% had false information about them
placed online. Over 15% received emails from the person stalking them, triple
the proportion reporting emails in the same survey 15 years prior (Dressing
et al., 2005). Of course, this self-report survey could not identify how often
the internet may have been used by the stalker to monitor or gain information
without the victim being aware, so these are likely underestimates of the true
use of online behaviour by people who stalk. Given how pervasive technology
and the internet are in modern life, it should be assumed that people who
stalk offline will also use the internet to target their victims until there is evi-
dence otherwise.
Conceptualising online behaviour as stalking is relatively straightforward
when there are also unwanted intrusions occurring offline. However, if the
stalking takes place purely online, additional questions might arise. In our
experience, purely online stalking episodes are usually motivated by desire
to start a relationship or have sexual contact with the target, or desire to
18 Introduction
remonstrate with or punish the target(s) for a perceived wrong (an exception
is if the victim is a public figure, where other motivations are also common,
see James et al., 2009). Our approach is to start with the definition of stalking
that was provided at the beginning of this chapter. If there is evidence of a
pattern of repeated, unwanted intrusions upon another person that has the
effect of causing distress or fear, then it is potentially useful to think about
this behaviour as stalking. However, other forms of online harassment such
as trolling and cyberbullying often involve very similar behaviours to online
stalking motivated by a personal grievance. Trolling captures a wide range of
online behaviours that are variously antagonistic, deceptive, or involve vigi-
lantism (Demsar et al., 2021). The common underlying mechanism of troll-
ing is that it is intended to provoke a response from those targeted (Demsar
et al., 2021). Cyberbullying is a targeted, repeated behaviour that is intended
to cause harm and in which a power imbalance between the perpetrator and
target means the target is unable to defend themselves (Slonje et al., 2013).
Both behaviours may look very similar to grievance-based or resentful stalk-
ing. The key difference is that this kind of stalking is triggered by perceived
mistreatment or a personal wrong – the behaviour is motivated by personal
grievance rather than some other cause. Trolling and cyberbullying do not
seem to involve this sense of personal grievance.
Occasionally, someone who has engaged in egregious forms of trolling
or cyberbullying may be charged with stalking. Therefore, if stalking has
occurred purely online it will be necessary to determine whether there is a
personalised grievance against the target that is driving the persistent and
unwanted intrusions. If there is, the behaviour can likely be usefully concep-
tualised as resentful, or grievance-based, stalking and the approach in this
book may be useful. However, if there is no personalised grievance, then
assessment and treatment should proceed more cautiously and with reference
to wider literature on online harassing behaviour. The approaches described
in this book may be useful, but there may be other motivations, goals, and
skills that need to be identified in assessment and addressed in treatment.
some other countries and cultures in the years since, though it is by no means
universally accepted (Mullen et al., 2001b). Indeed what “stalking” means in
different cultures may be quite different (Sheridan et al., 2017). This is not to
say that stalking does not occur outside of WEIRD cultures; multiple studies
have demonstrated that stalking behaviour is reported in a wide variety of
cultures, from the Caribbean to Asia, and parts of Africa and the Middle East
(Sheridan et al., 2019). Nonetheless, the way that we talk about stalking in
this book is culturally bound, both by our personal perspectives and by our
practical knowledge of how service systems function. We strongly hope that
the information in this book is helpful to thinking and practice for those who
work in dissimilar cultures to our own, or who routinely work with clients
from cultural minorities within WEIRD societies. However, we expect that
our approaches and assumptions may need to be challenged and adapted
when working with clients and service systems in different cultural settings.
In addition to our cultural biases, all three authors are psychologists, and
our book presents a psychological approach to understanding stalking and
treating stalking behaviour. Our emphasis is on helping clients to become
aware of patterns of thinking and emotional experience that contribute to
stalking and helping them to change those patterns in ways that help change
their behaviour. Our goal is to equip our clients with both the skills and moti-
vation to build a life that does not involve stalking and supporting any changes
to identity and self-appraisal that may be required to achieve that.
That said, we strongly believe that psychological treatment is only one
part of effective intervention for stalking. Equally important (and in some
cases more important) are mental health treatment, supporting practical
needs with housing and employment, and building social networks. In many
cases, supervision and legal constraints on the person’s behaviour are also
an essential element of intervention (MacKenzie & James, 2011). So, while
this book is heavily focused on the detail of psychological treatment, we urge
readers to think broadly about the needs of their clients, and what other areas
of treatment need and support are required to help them (re)build a mean-
ingful life without stalking.
focuses on risk assessment, discussing the nature of risk in stalking cases and
providing an overview of available structured approaches, their supporting evi-
dence, and advice about using the most appropriate risk assessment instrument.
Chapter 4 then focuses on developing a meaningful cognitive-behavioural
formulation of the stalking that can be used to guide treatment. This chapter
makes suggestions about how to discuss the formulation with the client, linking
it to their own goals and understanding of the behaviour.
Part 3 addresses the core tasks of psychological treatment with people who
stalk. Chapter 5 outlines steps for selecting and prioritising treatment targets
and discusses common areas of treatment need and strategies to address them,
based on our work with clients. Each area is described in depth and practical
strategies for helping clients to change their thinking, respond effectively to
their emotions, and change their behaviour are provided. Chapter 6 discusses
the structure of treatment, from clarifying expectations, engaging clients, and
gaining commitment to work towards collaborative treatment goals in the
early stages, to session structure and planning for termination. Where Chap-
ters 5 and 6 focus on the therapeutic tasks of treatment, Chapter 7 covers
how an awareness of risk must be integrated throughout different stages of
treatment, and how to respond to increases in risk of violence or further stalk-
ing that will occur during most treatment relationships. Chapter 8 is the final
practice-focused chapter and moves beyond the immediate relationship with
the treatment client to consider the importance of multi-agency collaboration
when working with people who stalk. A framework for effective multi-agency
work with stalking is presented, along with discussion of how to deal with
common challenges of multi-agency work in different contexts.
The fourth and final Part of the book is contained in Chapter 9. In addition
to drawing together the key themes, Chapter 9 discusses shortcomings in the
existing evidence base that cause this book to be “consensus-based” rather
than “evidence-based” in its approach. Drawing on the ideas that underpin
our approach to assessment and treatment of people who stalk, Chapter 9
presents recommendations for future research to develop an evidence base
that can inform the development of future stalking treatments.
Conclusion
Stalking is a common and problematic behaviour that can cause severe harm
to those who are targeted and lay waste to the life of the person who stalks.
While stalking is increasingly coming to the attention of criminal justice
agencies, evidence indicates that criminal justice responses alone fail to stop
stalking in up to half of cases, while approximately one in five go on to stalk
someone else. This suggests that there is a need for more complex and nuanced
responses to stalking behaviour, including treatment designed to change the
References 21
psychological factors that are thought to sustain it. Unfortunately, there is very
limited research to inform the design of treatment approaches for stalking, and
only one treatment trial has been conducted to date, with limited effect.
This book is our response to the dearth of information about how to
treat stalking. It is an attempt to distil knowledge gleaned from colleagues
and from our years of psychological practice and research with people who
stalk, into a principled and detailed approach to treatment. Throughout this
book, we use case examples to communicate key ideas and points. These cases
are based on our combined clinical experience, and information has been
altered to protect the identities of those involved. We hope that the advice
and examples that we provide in these pages can not only give practitioners
accessible and useful guidance but also create impetus for more research into
stalking to inform the development and evaluation of future evidence-based
psychological treatments.
References
Albrecht, B., Spivak, B., Daffern, M., & McEwan, T. E. (2022). The tempo-
ral relationship between mental health service use and stalking perpetration.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Advance online publication
doi:10.1177/00048674211072449
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016). Personal safety, Australia. ABS. https://
www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-a nd-justice/personal-s afety-australia/
latest-release
Baum, K., Catalano, S., Rand, M., & Rose, K. (2009). National crime victimization sur-
vey: Stalking victimization in the United States. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special
Report, Issue. US Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/
ovw/legacy/2012/08/15/bjs-stalking-rpt.pdf
Birch, P., Ireland, J. L., & Ninaus, N. (2018). Treating stalking behaviour. In J. L.
Ireland, P. Birch, & C. A. Ireland (Eds.), The Routledge International handbook of
human aggression: Current issues and perspectives. (pp. 194–204). Routledge.
Blaauw, E., Winkel, F. W., Sheridan, L., Malsch, M., & Arensman, E. (2002). The
psychological consequences of stalking victimisation. In J. Bloon & L. Sheri-
dan (Eds.), Stalking and psychosexual obsession (pp. 24–33). John Wiley & Sons.
doi:10.1002/9780470713037.ch2
Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2016). The psychology of criminal conduct (6th ed.).
Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315677187
Borges, J. L., & Dell’Aglio, D. D. (2019). Stalking following the breakup of dating
relationships in adolescence. Trends in Psychology, 27(2), 413–426. doi:10.9788/
tp2019.2-09
Bouffard, L. A., Bouffard, J. A., Nobles, M. R., & Askew, L. (2021). Still in the shad-
ows: The unresponsiveness of stalking prosecution rates to increased legislative
attention. Journal of Criminal Justice, 73, 101794. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101794
22 Introduction
Brady, P. Q., & Nobles, M. R. (2017). The dark figure of stalking: Examining law enforcement
response. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(20), 3149–3173. doi:10.1177/
0886260515596979
Brandt, C., & Voerman, B. E. (2020). The Dutch model: A new approach to policing
stalking. In H. C. Chan & L. Sheridan (Eds.), Psycho-criminological approaches to
stalking behavior: An international perspective (pp. 247–268). Wiley.
Brewster, M. P. (2001). Legal help-seeking experiences of former intimate-stalking vic-
tims. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 12(2), 91–112. doi:10.1177/0887403401012002001
Cavezza, C., & McEwan, T. E. (2014). Cyberstalking versus off-line stalking in a
forensic sample. Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(10), 955–970. doi:10.1080/10683
16X.2014.893334
Chan, H. C. O., & Sheridan, L. L. (2020). Psycho-criminological approaches to stalking
behavior: An international perspective. John Wiley & Sons.
Cloonan-T homas, S., Daff, E. S., & McEwan, T. E. (2022). Post-relationship stalking
and intimate partner abuse in a sample of Australian adolescents. Legal and Crimi-
nological Psychology, 27(2), 194–215. doi:10.1111/lcrp.12206
Coupland, S.H. & Storey, J.E. (in press). What works in the assessment of stalking
threat and risk of harm. In L.A. Craig, L. Dixon & T.A. Gannon (Eds). The Wiley
handbook of what works in offender rehabilitation: An evidence-based approach to
theory, assessment and treatment (2nd ed.). Wiley
Craig, L., Dixon, L., & Gannon, T. A. (2013). What works in offender rehabilitation: An
evidence-based approach to assessment and treatment. Wiley-Blackwell.
Cupach, W. R., Spitzberg, B. H., & Carson, C. L. (2000). Towards a theory of obsessive
relational intrusion and stalking. In K. Dindia & S. Duck (Eds.), Communication
and personal relationships (pp. 131–146). John Wiley & Sons.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (2004). The dark side of relationship pursuit:
From attraction to obsession and stalking (1st ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Demsar, V., Brace-Govan, J., Jack, G., & Sands, S. (2021). The social phenomenon
of trolling: Understanding the discourse and social practices of online provoca-
tion. Journal of Marketing Management, 37(11–12), 1058–1090. doi:10.1080/02672
57X.2021.1900335
Dennison, S. M., & Thomson, D. M. (2005). Criticisms or plaudits for stalking laws?
What psycholegal research tells us about proscribing stalking. Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law, 11(3), 384–406. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.3.384
Diette, T. M., Goldsmith, A. H., Hamilton, D., Darity, W., & McFarland, K. (2014).
Stalking: Does it leave a psychological footprint?: Stalking. Social Science Quarterly,
95(2), 563–580. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12058
Dreßing, H., Gass, P., Schultz, K., & Kuehner, C. (2020). The prevalence and effects of
stalking: A replication study. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, 117(20), 347–353.
doi:10.3238/arztebl.2020.0347
Dressing, H., Kuehner, C., & Gass, P. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and impact of stalk-
ing in a European population: Epidemiological data from a middle-sized German
city. British Journal of Psychiatry, 187(2), 168–172. doi:10.1192/bjp.187.2.168
Eckhardt, C. I., Murphy, C. M., Whitaker, D. J., Sprunger, J., Dykstra, R., &
Woodard, K. (2013). The effectiveness of intervention programs for perpetra-
tors and victims of intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse, 4(2), 196–231.
doi:10.1891/1946-6560.4.2.196
References 23
Edwards, K. M., & Gidycz, C. A. (2014). Stalking and psychosocial distress following
the termination of an abusive dating relationship: A prospective analysis. Violence
Against Women, 20(11), 1383–1397. doi:10.1177/1077801214552911
Eke, A. W., Hilton, N. Z., Meloy, J. R., Mohandie, K., & Williams, J. (2011). Predictors
of recidivism by stalkers: A nine-year follow-up of police contacts. Behavioral Sci-
ences & the Law, 29, 271–283. doi:10.1002/bsl.975
Ferreira, C., & Matos, M. (2013). Post-relationship stalking: The experience of vic-
tims with and without history of partner abuse. Journal of Family Violence, 28(4),
393–402. doi:10.1007/s10896-013-9501-5
Fisher, B. S., Coker, A. L., Garcia, L. S., Williams, C. M., Clear, E. R., & Cook-Craig,
P. G. (2014). Statewide estimates of stalking among high school students in Ken-
tucky: Demographic profile and sex differences. Violence Against Women, 20(10),
1258–1279. doi:10.1177/1077801214551574
Fox, K. A., Nobles, M. R., & Fisher, B. S. (2011). Method behind the madness: An
examination of stalking measurements. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(1),
74–84. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2010.12.004
Fremouw, W. J., Westrup, D., & Pennypacker, J. (1997). Stalking on campus: The prev-
alence and strategies for coping with stalking. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 42(4),
666–669. doi:10.1520/JFS14178J
Gannon, T. A., Olver, M. E., Mallion, J. S., & James, M. (2019). Does specialized psy-
chological treatment for offending reduce recidivism? A meta-analysis examining
staff and program variables as predictors of treatment effectiveness. Clinical Psy-
chology Review, 73, 101752. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2019.101752
Gondolf, E. W. (2004). Evaluating batterer counseling programs: A difficult task
showing some effects and implications. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9(6),
605–631. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2003.06.001
Hall, D. M. (1998). The victims of stalking. In J. R. Meloy (Ed.), The psychology of
stalking: Clinical and forensic perspectives (pp. 113–137). California: Academic
Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012490560-3/50025-6
Harris, J. (2000). An evaluation of the use and effectiveness of the Protection from Har-
assment Act 1997. Research Development and Statistics Directorate Home Office.
Hehemann, K., van Nobelen, D., Brandt, C., & McEwan, T. (2017). The reliability
and predictive validity of the Screening Assessment for Stalking and Harassment
(SASH). Journal of Threat Assessment and Management, 4(3), 164–177. doi:10.1037/
tam0000085
Home Office. (2022). Police recorded crime open data Police Force Area tables from
year ending March 2013. United Kingdom: Crime and Policing Statistics, Home
Office. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-recorded-crime-open-
data-tables. Accessed January 5, 2023.
James, D. V., & Farnham, F. R. (2003). Stalking and serious violence. Journal of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 31(4), 432-439. http://www.jaapl.org/
content/31/4/432.abstract
James, D. V., Mullen, P., Pathé, M., Meloy, J., Preston, L., Darnley, B., & Farnham, F.
(2009). Stalkers and harassers of royalty: The role of mental illness and motivation.
Psychological Medicine, 39(9), 1479–1490. doi:10.1017/s0033291709005443
Johnson, M. C., & Kercher, G. A. (2009). Identifying predictors of negative psycho-
logical reactions to stalking victimisation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(5),
866–882. doi:10.1177/0886260508317195
24 Introduction
McEwan, T. E., & Davis, M. D. (2020). Is there a ‘best’ stalking typology? Parsing the
heterogeneity of stalking and stalkers in an Australian sample. In H. C. Chan & L.
Sheridan (Eds.), Psycho-criminological approaches to stalking behavior: An interna-
tional perspective (pp. 119–139). Wiley.
McEwan, T. E., Harder, L., Brandt, C., & de Vogel, V. (2020). Risk factors for stalking
recidivism in a Dutch community forensic mental health sample. International Jour-
nal of Forensic Mental Health, 19(2), 127–141. doi:10.1080/14999013.2019.1661885
McEwan, T. E., Mullen, P. E., & MacKenzie, R. (2007). Anti-stalking legislation in
practice: Are we meeting community needs? Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 14(2),
207–217. doi:10.1375/pplt.14.2.207
McEwan, T. E., Shea, D., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2019). Development of the VP-SAFvR: An
actuarial instrument for police assessment of family violence risk. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 46(4), 590–607. doi:10.1177/0093854818806031
McEwan, T. E., Shea, D. E., Daffern, M., MacKenzie, R. D., Ogloff, J. R. P., & Mullen,
P. E. (2018). The reliability and predictive validity of the stalking risk profile. Assess-
ment, 25(2), 259–276. doi:10.1177/1073191116653470
McEwan, T. E., & Strand, S. (2013). The role of psychopathology in stalking by adult
strangers and acquaintances. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry,
47(6), 546–555. doi:10.1177/0004867413479408
McEwan, T.E. & Underwood, A. (2023) Assessing and managing risks associated
with stalking. In C. Logan & L. Johnstone (Eds.), Managing clinical risk (2nd ed.).
Informa, UK.
Meloy, J. R., & Hoffmann, J. (2021). International handbook of threat assessment.
Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/med-psych/9780190940164.001.0001
Mohandie, K., Meloy, J. R., McGowan, M. G., & Williams, J. (2006). The
RECON typology of stalking: Reliability and validity based on a large sam-
ple of North American stalkers. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51(1), 147–155.
doi:10.1111/j.1556-4 029.2005.00030.x
Mullen, P. E., James, D. V., Meloy, J., Pathé, M. T., Farnham, F. R., Preston, L., Darn-
ley, B., & Berman, J. (2009). The fixated and the pursuit of public figures. Journal
of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 20(1), 33–47. doi:10.1080/14789940802197074
Mullen, P. E., & Pathé, M. (2002). Stalking. Crime & Justice (Chicago, Ill), 29, 273–318.
doi:10.1086/652222
Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., & Purcell, R. (2000). Stalkers and their victims. USA: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Mullen, P. E., Pathe, M., & Purcell, R. (2001a). The management of stalkers. Advances
in Psychiatric Treatment, 7, 335–342. doi:10.1192/apt.7.5.335
Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., & Purcell, R. (2001b). Stalking: New constructions of
human behaviour. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 35(1), 9–16.
doi:10.1046/j.1440-1614.2001.00849.x
Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., & Purcell, R. (2009). Stalkers and their victims (2nd ed.). USA:
Cambridge University Press.
Muthukrishna, M., Bell, A. V., Henrich, J., Curtin, C. M., Gedranovich, A., McInerney,
J., & Thue, B. (2020). Beyond Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic
(WEIRD) psychology: Measuring and mapping scales of cultural and psychological
distance. Psychological Science, 31(6), 678–701. doi:10.1177/0956797620916782
Ngo, F. T. (2019). Stalking: An examination of the correlates of subsequent police
responses Policing: An International Journal, 42(3), 362–375. doi:10.1108/
PIJPSM-12-2017-0157
26 Introduction
Nijdam-Jones, A., Rosenfeld, B., Gerbrandij, J., Quick, E., & Galietta, M. (2018).
Psychopathology of stalking offenders: Examining the clinical, demographic, and
stalking characteristics of a community-based sample. Criminal Justice and Behav-
ior, 45, 712–741. doi:10.1177/0093854818760643
Ogilvie, E. (2000). Stalking: Legislative, policing and prosecution patterns in Australia.
Australian Institute of Criminology. http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/34/
index.html.
Parkhill, A. J., Nixon, M., & McEwan, T. E. (2022). A critical analysis of stalking
theory and implications for research and practice. Behavioral Sciences & the Law,
40(5), 562–583. doi:10.1002/bsl.2598
Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (1997). The impact of stalkers on their victims. British Jour-
nal of Psychiatry, 170(1), 12–17. doi:10.1192/bjp.170.1.12
Polaschek, D. L. (2010). Many sizes fit all: A preliminary framework for conceptu-
alising the development and provision of cognitive-behavioural rehabilitation
programs for offenders. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(1), 20–35. doi:10.1016/
j.avb.2010.10.002
Polaschek, D. L. L. (2019). Interventions to reduce recidivism in adult violent offenders.
In D. L. L. Polaschek, A. Day, & C. R. Hollin (Eds.), The Wiley international handbook
of correctional psychology (pp. 499–514). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119139980.ch31
Purcell, R., & McEwan, T. E. (2019). Treatment approaches for stalking. In J. L. Ire-
land, C. A. Ireland, & P. Birch (Eds.), Violent and sexual offenders: Assessment, treat-
ment and management (2nd ed., pp. 428–444). Routledge.
Purcell, R., Moller, B., Flower, T., & Mullen, P. E. (2009). Stalking among juveniles.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 194(5), 451–455. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.108.054833
Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. (2000). The incidence and nature of stalking
v ictimisation [Conference paper]. Stalking: Criminal Justice Responses Conference,
Sydney, Australia.
Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (2001). A study of women who stalk. The Ameri-
can Journal of Psychiatry, 158(12), 2056–2060. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.158.12.2056
Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (2004). Stalking: Defining and prosecuting a
new category of offending. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 27(2), 157–
169. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.01.006
Purcell, R., Pathé, M., & Mullen, P. E. (2005). Association between stalking victimisa-
tion and psychiatric morbidity in a random community sample. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 187(5), 416–420. doi:10.1192/bjp.187.5.416
Roberts, A. R., & Dziegielewski, S. F. (1996). Assessment typology and interven-
tion with the survivors of stalking. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 1(4), 359–368.
doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(96)00011-0
Robinson, A., & Myhill, A. (2021). Coercive control. In J. Devaney, C. Bradbury-
Jones, R. J. Macy, C. Øverlien, & S. Holt (Eds.), The Routledge interna-
tional handbook of domestic violence and abuse (pp. 387–402). Routledge.
doi:10.4324/9780429331053
Rosenfeld, B. (2000). Assessment and treatment of obsessional harassment. Aggres-
sion and Violent Behavior, 5(6), 529–549. doi:10.1016/S1359-1789%2898%2900039-1
Rosenfeld, B. (2003). Recidivism in stalking and obsessional harassment. Law and
Human Behavior, 27(3), 251–265. doi:10.1023/A:1023479706822
Rosenfeld, B., Fava, J., & Galietta, M. (2009). Working with the stalking offender:
Considerations for risk assessment and intervention. In J. L. Werth, E. R. Welfel,
& G. A. H. Benjamin (Eds.), The duty to protect: Ethical, legal, and professional
References 27
29
CHAPTER 1
Key Components
and Principles of
Stalking Treatment
O
ur approach to treating stalking is individualised, based on a cognitive-
behavioural formulation derived from a detailed assessment. There is
no session-by-session manual, and the targets for treatment and the
approaches used to try to effect change will differ to some degree from client
to client. That said, our approach does rest on a consistent theory of change; it
has a specified sequence, and there are core principles that should be adhered
to when treating with the aim of reducing stalking behaviour. This chapter
outlines these key features of the approach that are then described in detail in
the remainder of the book.
It is important to be aware that there is virtually no research on
whether, or which, psychological treatments are effective in changing stalk-
ing behaviour. Therefore, the method outlined in this chapter is informed
by our knowledge from working for many years with people who stalk,
synthesising our practice-based experience with the results of research
and evidence of what works when treating other kinds of harmful and
potentially criminal behaviour. We are therefore outlining a “consensus-
based” approach to treatment rather than an “evidence-based” approach.
Essentially, this chapter details what we think has the greatest chance
of success given our own experience and what can be extrapolated from
research at the time of writing.
Treating Stalking: A Practical Guide for Clinicians, First Edition. Troy McEwan,
Michele Galietta and Alan Underwood.
© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2024 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Companion website: www.wiley.com/go/McEwan/APracticalGuideforClinicians
31
32 C H A PT E R 1 Key Components and Principles of Stalking Treatment
Who to Treat?
Reflecting on the substantial literature on “what works” in offender reha-
bilitation (Bonta & Andrews, 2016), we advise that treatment for stalking
behaviour should be offered to those who are assessed as being at relatively
increased risk of future stalking. This means undertaking a risk assessment
that can help prioritise a stalking client for treatment, as discussed in depth in
Chapter 3. It is important to be clear that it is the assessed risk of stalking that
should inform decisions about need for stalking treatment, not the risk of vio-
lence, or sexual offending, or other offending. It is possible that a client may
be assessed as being very likely to continue to stalk the victim, but they are
considered low risk of physical violence, either during the stalking episode
or outside of it. This client would be suitable for stalking treatment, but the
focus of the treatment would not include needs related to their potential for
physical violence. Conversely, a client assessed as being at relatively increased
risk of harmful sexual behaviour, but lower relative risk of stalking would
be referred for treatment of the former rather than the latter. Where there is
thought to be increased risk of multiple problematic behaviours with differ-
ent functions involving different victims, then formulation-driven treatment
of each behaviour is indicated. There will likely be substantial overlap in the
targets of such treatment given the core criminogenic needs common to many
kinds of offending behaviour (Bonta & Andrews, 2016). However, there will
likely be unique needs relevant to stalking or other problematic behaviour
that become apparent through the process of formulation.
What to Treat?
Almost all psychological treatments intended to reduce offending attempt to
change personal characteristics that are thought to be functionally related
to the behaviour of interest (Day et al., 2006). However, determining what
characteristics might be relevant to stalking is challenging, as there is little
research guidance from which to extrapolate (Parkhill et al., 2022). Usu-
ally, clinicians would turn to risk assessment guidelines and theoretical
frameworks to help them understand an individual’s presentation through
the lens of what is known about psychological variables that contribute to
the behaviour of interest (Gannon & Pina, 2010; Gannon et al., 2008; John-
stone & Logan, 2013; Sturmey, 2010). These sources inform their formula-
tion about what might be relevant in the individual case, which would then
translate into a treatment plan (Logan, 2017). However, the two structured
professional judgement guidelines for stalking pre-date most of the research
on stalking risk and have been subject to very limited validation, meaning it
What to Treat? 33
psychological treatment of people who stalk that has been published over
the past 25 years (e.g., Kropp et al., 2002; MacKenzie & James, 2011; Mullen
et al., 2000, 2001, 2009; Purcell & McEwan, 2019; Rosenfeld, 2000; Rosenfeld
et al., 2009; Siepelmeyer & Ortiz-Müller, 2020; Westrup, 1998; Wheatley
et al., 2022). Consistency across these sources provides some level of face
validity for Parkhill and colleagues’ suggestions, though this is of course not a
substitute for a fully developed theory.
In the absence of robust theory or a sizeable research literature to inform
hypotheses about why a particular individual is stalking, our approach to
identifying treatment targets is “bottom-up.” Guided by a detailed assessment,
including functional analysis of stalking behaviours, the clinician develops
an individualised cognitive-behavioural formulation. Frequently, the kinds of
factors identified by Parkhill et al. (2022) will be relevant. However, the formu-
lation will explicitly link these factors to the behaviour via hypothesised causal
mechanisms drawn from broader psychological theories of human behaviour,
evidenced using information gathered during the assessment. The formula-
tion will also go beyond these psychological characteristics to hypothesise
about the potential role of symptoms of psychopathology and important sit-
uational and contextual factors in the origins, development, and function of
the stalking behaviour for that individual. A comprehensive formulation will
lead logically to an individualised treatment and risk management plan (see
Chapters 4 and 5).
How to Treat
As outlined above and in the Introduction, we take the view that stalking
behaviour likely results from similar psychological processes that lead to other
forms of problematic and criminal behaviour and to human behaviour gener-
ally. We are strongly influenced by the broad fields of behavioural, cognitive,
and social-cognitive psychology (Bonta & Andrews, 2016). While having dif-
ferent emphases, these theoretical frameworks share the general approach
that behaviour is goal-directed and shaped by the way a person perceives
and interprets their immediate situation, based on their previous learning,
and that cognitive and emotional states that arise from situational appraisals
affect what goals are prioritised in the short and long terms (Andersen &
Chen, 2002; Bandura, 2001; Beck & Haigh, 2014; Vohs & Baumeister, 2016).
A key principle of social-cognitive approaches is that a person’s thoughts
and feelings are inextricably linked to what is happening in the situation
around them. Therefore, it is the “person in the situation” that is of interest
when seeking to understand and explain an individual’s behaviour (Mischel
& Shoda, 1995, 2010). Translated to stalking, we think that the reason that
some people stalk while others do not is that individual vulnerabilities
How to Treat 35
OUR FOOTGEAR
The fact that the “Wal” had twin-engines gave us greater
confidence in it. In view of the situation of each engine it is possible
with a “Wal” to fly with one engine alone, with a heavy load on board,
much more easily than if the engines had been placed by each wing,
as they are in many other twin-motor machines. With a light load on
board a “Wal” can rise quite easily from the water with one engine
alone.
Our machine was built by “S. A. I. di Construzioni Mecchaniche i
Marina di Pisa” with only a few unimportant differences from the usual
Dornier-Wal. We owe a deep debt of gratitude to the factory’s technical
director, Herr Schulte-Frohlinde, for the great interest he showed in our
expedition. The director accompanied us to Spitzbergen and
superintended the setting up of the machines. In all he spent three
months of his valuable time on us. We, who otherwise would have
been taken up with this work, could now (while the work of mounting
was proceeding) give ourselves up to the completion of other tasks.
We also owe much gratitude to the Rolls-Royce factory. They sent
five men to Marina di Pisa to introduce certain new improvements and
inventions which they had hardly had time to “try out,” and they also
sent Mr. Green with us to Spitzbergen. Mr. Green superintended all the
trial flights and cared for the engines as though they were his
“darlings.” As he (after his final inspection on the 21st of May) smiled
and nodded in answer to my request to be told if all was in order, I set
off at full speed feeling just as safe as if I were only going to cross the
waters of the fjord.
Spare Parts
Spare parts for the machines and engines presented an important
consideration. Spitzbergen lay so far away from the factories which
had made the material that we could not have any missing parts sent
after us. So, as far as the engines were concerned, we decided to
draw up a list of the spare parts which we should most likely need. As
an engine is made up of so many different parts the best things to do
seemed to me to order one complete reserve engine. We should
thereby have the certainty that in every event we should have at hand
one reserve part for the complete engine no matter which part should
suddenly be required. (By chance we came to need a reserve part
which we never had thought about!)
“Rolls-Royce” also made up a list of the parts which they thought
we might need more than one of, and thus we got an extraordinarily
fine equipment. We had in all engine spare parts to a value of 38,000
kronen. We should not have been able to get this equipment had not
the Rolls-Royce people shown us the great consideration of agreeing
to take back everything which we had no use for. We were in a position
similar to most expeditions, and had great financial difficulties to cope
with. I mention this as every one here at home seemed to think that
Ellsworth’s gift of 85,000 kronen would suffice for our needs. But that
was not the case. The two flying machines together cost $82,000, and
on these alone the money was almost all spent. When the expedition’s
accounts are toted up I believed that they will show a sum of at least
$100,000 in excess of Ellsworth’s gift—and that, even after we had
pinched and spared on every side. Against this we can reckon with a
certain income from stamps (this cannot at present be estimated), and
the expedition will also have an income from newspapers, films,
lectures and this book, all of which combined should cover the debt of
this necessary $100,000. The essential part of the expenses all came
before the start, but any income only accrued some time after our
return. The position at Christmas time last year appeared very
unpromising, and the outlook seemed hopeless. The till had long been
empty. Yet orders must be placed if everything was to be ready in good
time, and everything had to be paid in ready cash. Bills streamed in,
followed by demands for payment whenever they were not settled at
once. But where were we to get the money? It is satisfactory to look
back, now that everything has been accomplished, but it was far from
pleasant at the time. Our private household bills got very, very old,—so
hard-up were we!
Dr. Ræstad, who had the financial management of the undertaking,
worked on through these conditions quietly and calmly, and he was
lucky in being able to carry through a task which probably no one else
could have accomplished. Thanks to him we were able in April this
year to have everything collected in Tromsö, ready for our departure
for Spitzbergen, so that after looking through our equipment we were
able to say, “There isn’t one thing missing.”
Up till now only the returns from the newspapers have come in. We
have therefore an alarmingly large overdraft at the bank. As the
account is so overdrawn we have still difficulties to face, and must
therefore set about the fulfillment of our many obligations. We can now
look forward to a time when our income will be sufficient to pay off our
overdraft, and leave a balance, which will be used for the realization of
Roald Amundsen’s old plans.
It is on that account that I have taken this opportunity to write about
the financial side of the expedition. There are a number of people who
think that we have become rich folk. How often have I not been
congratulated—not only because I have come back with my life, but
also because I have returned as a millionaire. Probably the films
shown in this connection have given this impression. But people
should realize that we are at the mercy of the big film companies who
fix the price. If we ourselves had cinema theaters stretching through
the world’s towns, then could Roald Amundsen set out to-day on the
realization of his wonderful plan: the exploration of the sea between
the Pole and Alaska.
* * * * *
Back to the matter which I am really discussing. The same goodwill
met us in Marina di Pisa when Director Schulte-Frohlinde himself
made out the list of spare parts, assuring us (by giving the matter his
own personal attention) that we should have with us every article
necessary for the flying boats’ requirements. The bill for these spare
parts ran up to about 28,000 kronen.
Instruments
During his preparations for his earlier flight Roald Amundsen was
struck with the idea of using a sun-compass, and arranged with “Goerz
Optische Werke” to construct such an instrument. The firm met his
suggestions in the most friendly manner, and the result was our
invaluable solar-compasses. The principle of these is as follows:
The sun’s reflection is cast through a periscope down onto a dull
disc directly in front of the pilot. By the side of the instrument there is a
clock which can be coupled to a cogwheel on the periscope. The clock
is constructed so that it can swing the periscope round 360° in the
average time that it takes the sun to perform a similar movement. By
the aid of a graduated scale on the periscope, which can be placed at
a certain angle, one can set it in agreement with the flying-boat’s nose.
Should I, for example, start exactly at midday, I should set the
periscope so that it points direct astern. Exactly at twelve o’clock I
attach the clock to the instrument. Should the seaplane now by chance
face the north, I would see a little reflection of the sun in the center of
the dull disc which is marked by a cross. The periscope will now follow
the sun’s course so that the reflection will always be in the center of
the disc as long as the seaplane continues the same course.
Should it be set working at another time, it would be calculated
from the angle of the sun, at that moment when the clock is set going.
The clock is always regulated according to Greenwich time (or any
other recognized time), but the longitudinal distance must be taken into
account, and in the same manner the angle must deviate away from
the meridian beneath if one does not desire to steer parallel with it. On
the top of the periscope there is a screw with an inner part, where an
adjustment can be made according to the declination on that day. The
solar-compass is mounted on a base on which can be made
corrections for eventual latitudinal changes. The periscope’s axis must
always stand parallel with the earth’s axis. A change in the upward tilt
of the machine must also be reckoned with.
The lenses in the periscope are constructed to give a radius of 10°;
that is to say, if the sun’s reflection appears in the disc’s outer edge,
one can allow 10° before it disappears in the other outer edge. If one
has set the solar-compass for a flight directly north, one will continue in
the right direction so long as the flying machine has no deflection. In
order to detect such deflections we had a combined speedometer and
deviation measure which was also given to us free of charge by Goerz.
Amundsen attended to these on the northward journey—Dietrichson
on the southward. They both speak of them with high praise. Their
uses are shortly as follows: Inside the instrument, on a move-able ring,
is fastened a diametrical wire. One looks through the instrument down
to the ground below or to the ice, and adjusts the wire the longitudinal
way of the ship, then pays attention to the objects passing aftwards
under the plane (icebergs, for example), noting whether they follow the
direct line of the wire or deviate to the side. Should there be a
deviation, one knows that they are not following the direct course in
which the nose is pointing, so it has to be set at an angle allowing for
the deviation. The wire must be drawn to the side quite slowly until one
finds that the objects which one can notice now follow the line of the
wire exactly. This points now in the direction one comes from, and the
wire’s angle, compared with the boat’s nose, can be read directly in the
instrument. That gives the angle of deviation.
TAKING THE WINGS OUT OF THEIR BOXES
Navigation
It will perhaps interest those readers who have a knowledge of
navigation to hear a little more about Sverdrup of the “Maud’s” cleverly
calculated but simple methods of navigation in the Arctic Sea. I repeat
word by word Sverdrup’s own well-known description:
“One single measuring of the sun’s altitude shows that one stands
on one particular spot, in a small circle whose center is the point,
where at that moment the sun has reached its zenith, the radius of
which is 90° h. (h. indicates the measured height of the sun). This
circle shall be called a local circle.”
In order to find the meridian the sun would be in at the exact
moment of observation one must read a clock, the agreement of which
with Greenwich mean time (G.M.T.) is known. An almanac gives the
time level to be added to, or subtracted from, G.M.T.—giving
Greenwich true time (G.T.T.). The sun would then be over that
meridian, the latitudinal difference of which from Greenwich is equal to
the time taken for a clock to strike, according to G.T.T., and would be in
its zenith over the point, the breadth of which is equal to the sun’s
declination.
Taking an observation of the sun’s altitude, with a simultaneous
noting of the clock’s striking, can be done most rationally by describing
a tangent from a local circle in the neighborhood of the place where
one believes oneself to be. Such a tangent should be called a local
line. In the neighborhood of the Pole it is easy to find local lines without
scientific calculations. The meridian the sun is in can be found directly
one has calculated the clock’s stroke by G.T.T. The local circle cuts the
meridian in the distance h—d from the Pole, where d signifies the
sun’s declination. This cutting-point we will call the local circle’s Pole
point. If the difference h—d is positive, this point will be on the same
side of the Pole as the sun, should it be negative it will be on the
opposite side. A line dropped on the meridian which the sun is in,
through the local circle’s Pole point, describes a tangent from the local
circle. We will call this tangent the “Pole tangent.” At a distance from
the Pole point equal to 5° of latitude, the Pole point will represent the
local circle with sufficient exactitude, and can be considered as a local
line. But if the distance increases, the tangent’s divergence from the
circle will be noticeable. Sverdrup explains how, by an easy method,
one can calculate the corrections which have to be made, should one
find oneself within the above-mentioned limits from the Pole. During
our observations in the ice region we were always within the limit, and
had therefore no need for corrections. The method is of course
particularly simple and sufficiently exact because there is so little
difference between the hour-angle and azimuth. I here give a table of
our observations on the night of the 22nd immediately after landing:
These positions give an idea of the drift of the ice easterly and
southerly.
Soundings
We could see that it would be a matter of great and special interest
if we could take soundings where we landed, and, discussing it fully,
we came to the conclusion that we ought to be able to get sounding
materials with a reasonable weight. We got into communication with
the Behm Echolot Factory in Kiel, and all our difficulties were
immediately brushed aside. After I had been to Kiel and talked over the
matter with Herr Behm an excellent apparatus was made and placed
gratis at our disposal. (As there were great depths in the district where
we were to land, it was not necessary to take the depth to the nearest
meter, but we could make an approximate registration. The weight of
the whole sounding equipment, with cartridges for a number of
charges, was cut down to a few kilograms. There was therefore no
obstacle in the way of our taking it with us in the flying machine—and
we could also have taken it with us even had we had to make a march
towards land.)
The principle was simply as follows. A watertight microphone was
sunk about four meters down in the water of a crack in the ice. The
microphone was attached by a line to an ordinary head-microphone,
which the observer wore. At a distance of twenty-five to fifty meters
from the observer a little charge was sunk under the surface which
contained ten grams of trinol and was provided with a detonator. The
charge was exploded by an electric spark. The observer set a stop-
clock going when he heard the explosion, stopping it as soon as he
heard the echo from the sea bottom.
On May 28th we took two soundings immediately after each other,
and in both cases the stop-clock’s time proved to be five seconds. As
sound travels in sea-water at the rate of 1,500 meters per second, the
distance from the surface down to the bottom and up to the surface
again is equal to 7,500 meters, and thus the sea’s depth is at this
place half the amount, namely, 3,750 meters. The echo was quite
sharp and not to be misunderstood. Therefore during a later drift, as
we did not move far from the place where we had taken the first
sounding, we took no more. We wished to reserve the spare charges
for a possible march.
Variations
For the exact “taking of the sun” the standard compass was
equipped with a special finder, in the same way, as there were water-
levels on the compasses. The compass was placed in the best
position, where it would be as far away as possible from every object
likely to influence it. Observations were taken on the 23rd and 29th of
May, with the results respectively, 39° 5′ and 30° westerly variation.
This is about 5° more variation than the chart allows. These
observations proved to be of great use to us when we started the
homeward flight. By calculating with these variations in arranging our
starting course we found we had achieved an important measure.
* * * * *
I will now briefly give particulars of our further equipment.
Photographic materials and binoculars, etc., were given to us by
Goerz, the cinematograph appartus was a gift from the “Hahn
Aktiengesellschaft für Optik & Mechanik,” Berlin. The films and plates
for the camera, also the cinema films, were given to us in generous
numbers by the “Goerz Photochemische Werke,” Berlin. It is quite
unnecessary to mention that all the things given to us by these firms
were of first class material and everything functioned to our greatest
satisfaction, giving excellent results in spite of the difficult conditions.
Our snow glasses were a present from the firm, Optikus, Oslo, and
were specially made for us. They could not have been better. When I
count them as amongst the most important part of our outfit, I have
good grounds for doing so. Any one wishing to choose glasses, and
looking through the different types, will find that there is a tremendous
difference between them both as regards suitability of color and other
things.
There is a small detail which I should like to mention in this
connection. Many flying-men will have gone through the same
experience as I and realized how unpleasant it is to fly towards the sun
when it is at a low altitude, for, blinded by the sharp light, it is difficult to
see the instruments, and in many ways it causes a continuous strain.
As a deterrent we had small aluminium screens, made in the same
shape as the wind screen. These could be fixed as desired. At 10 p.m.
on the northward journey the sun was so dazzling that I placed the
screen in position, leaving it there until at 1 a.m. I began to look out for
a landing place, when I pushed the screen back, feeling satisfied with
its utility.