↓ Skip to main content

A critical analysis of stalking theory and implications for research and practice

Overview of attention for article published in Behavioral Sciences & the Law, September 2022
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A critical analysis of stalking theory and implications for research and practice
Published in
Behavioral Sciences & the Law, September 2022
DOI 10.1002/bsl.2598
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alice J. Parkhill, Margaret Nixon, Troy E. McEwan

Abstract

This article comprehensively reviews and critiques theories providing an aetiological account of stalking. We evaluate applications of preexisting psychological theories to stalking (attachment theory, evolutionary theory, social learning theory, information processing models of aggression, coercive control theory, and behavioural theory) as well as the only novel theory of stalking to date: Relational goal pursuit theory. Our aim was to identify which are supported by research, identify gaps in theoretical scope and explanatory depth and examine how current theories might inform clinical practice. This evaluation suggests that theories of stalking are underdeveloped relative to other areas of forensic clinical psychology and the theoretical literature is relatively stagnant. Consequently, there is limited research into clinically meaningful constructs that can guide the assessment, formulation and treatment of this client group. We identify similarities across existing theories, discussing implications for future research and clinical practice with people who stalk.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Lecturer 2 6%
Unspecified 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 17 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 12 33%
Arts and Humanities 3 8%
Unspecified 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Engineering 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 17 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 April 2023.
All research outputs
#13,650,911
of 24,350,163 outputs
Outputs from Behavioral Sciences & the Law
#466
of 731 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,677
of 424,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavioral Sciences & the Law
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,350,163 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 731 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 424,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.