Literature Review of Gender and Stalking

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

The Light and Dark Forces in Joseph Conrads Heart of Darkness Essay

The Light and Dark Forces in Heart of Darkness      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Heart of Darkness, by Joseph Conrad, explores something truer and more fundamental than a mere personal narrative. It is a night journey into the unconscious and a confrontation within the self. Certain circumstances of Marlow's voyage, when looked at in these terms, have new importance. Marlow insists on the dreamlike quality of his narrative. "It seems to me I am trying to tell you a dream - making a vain attempt, because no relation of a dream can convey the dream - sensation." Even before leaving Brussels, Marlow felt as though he "was about to set off for center of the earth," not the center of a continent. The introspective voyager leaves his familiar rational world, is "cut off from the comprehension" of his surroundings, his steamer toils "along slowly on the edge of a black and incomprehensible frenzy." As the crisis approaches, the dreamer and his ship moves through a silence that "seemed unnatural, like a state of trance; then enter a deep fog." In the end , there is a symbolic unity between the two men. Marlow and Kurtz are the light and dark selves of a single person. Marlow is what Kurtz might have been, and Kurtz is what Marlow might have become.      Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Much of the meaning in Heart of Darkness is found not in the center of the book, the heart of Africa, but on the periphery of the book.   The story that Marlow tells centers around a man named Kurtz. However, most of what Marlow knows about Kurtz he has learned from other people, many of whom have good reason for not being truthful to Marlow. Therefore Marlow has to piece together much of Kurtz's story. We slowly get to know more and more about Kurtz. Part of the meaning of Heart of Darkness is ... ...e human condition. Kurtz represents what every man will become if left to his own intrinsic desires without a protective, civilized environment. Marlow represents the civilized soul that has not been drawn back into savagery by a dark, alienated jungle. The book implies that every man has a heart of darkness that is usually drowned out by the light of civilization. However, when removed from civilized society, the raw evil within his soul will be released.    Works Cited and Consulted Conrad, Joseph. Heart of Darkness. New York: Norton, 1971. Greene, Graham. The Heart of the Matter. New York: Penguin, 1984. Hawthorn, Jeremy. Joseph Conrad: Narrative Technique and Ideological Commitment. New York: Arnold, 1990. Murfin, Ross C., ed. Joseph Conrad, "Heart of Darkness": A Case Study in Contemporary Criticism. New York: Bedford-St. Martin's, 1989.

The Bluest Eye Essay -- essays research papers

Beauty is something that a lot of people in life strive for , because everyone has fitted in their mind what exactly beauty is. People know that it can help you out in life. But what most people don’t know is that, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Meaning that beauty should not be characterized by what people are told it is, beauty is different for everyone, what is beautiful for you may be ugly to someone else. The characters in Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye are confronted with the ideal of beauty and strive for it whether they know it or not. The two characters that I think were followed the ideal of beauty in Toni Morrison’s story are Pauline and Pecola. In Toni Morrison’s story and in real life, beauty is described by people as having blond hair, blue eyes , perfect figure, etc. It’s been said that if you have good looks, you can make it in life with just looks alone. People only strive for becoming beautiful because they want attention. As is the case in Toni Morrison’s story. The characters in her story think that they are ugly , by others opinions of them , and want to become beautiful so they will be recognized and be the center of attention. But the harder both characters try, the worse things get. Pauline strived for beauty because she wanted to attention and wanted to be beautiful. Pauline seemed to have just worse case of bad luck, when she was a child she stepped on a nail and she was left with a limp forever. "The wound lef...

Commercial Internet Sites Essay

Go to at least 15 commercial Internet sites such as Yahoo!, MSN, and About.com. Document information on the types of attempts (such as pop-up windows and advertisements) that influence the viewer, including counting the number of references toward social shaping. The websites you consult should be listed in a reference list at the end of the newsletter. Take the information you have gathered and write an article for your company newsletter summarizing your findings and drawing conclusions. The article should be at least 500 words in length and should demonstrate depth of thought as well as originality. The first commercial Internet web site that I am analyzing is the online social networking web site Orkut.   It permits maintaining relationships through pictures, messages, music and videos.   What seem interesting with Orkut are that is permits to establish new connections with people belonging to any part of the world, help to come in contact with old friends and family in any part of the world.   Any individual interested in making friends can open an account on the web site and develop their own profile.   What adds uniqueness to Orkut is the fact that any friend or family member can insert their own testimonials of that person.   In the profile, personal, social and professional information can be demonstrated.  Ã‚   Another unique feature of Orkut is that any person can search for another by simply typing in the name in the search box. MSN is a community web site mainly concerned with email, messaging and social contacting.   This web site is brought out my Microsoft.   The users interested can open an account with the MSN web site and are given an individual username and password.   The user would be getting personalized information from the MSN network.   These include news, sports, weather, local news, etc.   Each user can make changes to the layout, color, themes, etc to the individual web page. Yahoo is a social network web site that mainly provides email, news, searches, messenger, jobs, weather, Horoscope, Health and other information.   The Web site concerns a wide range of areas.   Yahoo has its sources in almost every nation of the world and these provide localized information.   Each user can log into the web site with his or her usernames and password. Google, one of the strongest search engines in the world has extended its services to other areas such as book searches, computation, social network groups, news, maps, etc.   People are mainly attracted towards Google as it search strategy is very strong and would permit the user to use their own initiative whilst search for various aspects in the Internet. Tagged.com is social networking that permits users from various parts of the world to get in contact with old friends and new friends.   It was launched in the year 2004.   The graphic interface of the web site is very appealing and has several innovations such as slides, videos and the music presentation.   It has several reputed news sources such as Wall Street Journal, Business Week Online, Ad week, etc. Travellers Point is a social network that provides personalized information regarding traveling destinations and experiences, photo galleries, blogs, forums, maps, etc.   Users can create their own usernames and passwords on the web site and get upload and download photos and videos of famous travel destinations throughout the world.   The Web site works in association with another organization known as ‘Travel helpers’, which provides expert guidance to travelers. Hikut.com is a social networking web site that provides various features to the users, user such as galleries, blogs, music, videos, polls, groups, quizzes, events, classifieds, etc.   The users can also use several other features on the web site such as chats, interfaces, scrapbook, etc.   The users would have to register on the web site with a user name and a password. Linkedln is a professional social network web site that permits the users to share professional information with other experts and specialists throughout the world.   More than 16 million users have registered from about 150 countries.   Users who have registered include clients, partners and colleagues.   Users can also search for jobs and get in contact with the job seekers. One of the main religious social networking web site in the world is My Church.com.   This web site was launched in 2006 offering services to Catholics in the blogs, forums, messenger services, counseling, calendar events, sermons live telecasts, paying of thanksgivings, etc.   The founders of this web site have combined Internet and technology in a very innovative manner to obtain one of the most advanced Catholic networking web sites in the world. More than 7000 Churches are associated with the web site. One of the major social networking web site in the world concerned with sharing music, videos, photos, etc, is Multiply.   The web site also extends its services to other media other than the Internet including MMS and mobile services.   The web site not only caters to the personal needs of the user, but also to the professional and the academic needs.   Only individuals who are closely related to one another can share media information. Another social networking web site is Friendster that caters to the needs of small circle of friends.   It is utilized more widely in Asia than in any other part of the world.   It has been in competition with several other social networking web sites such as Yahoo 360 and Facebook.   In the year 2006, the web site came out with an innovative discovery, which entitled it a patent.   It demonstrated a method and an online tool to calculate and develop relationships between people. Facebook was a social networking web site launched in the year 2004, meant for the students of Harvard University.   However, as the web site was a strong success, several other universities were added including Boston University, MIT, etc.   Slowly any student belonging to any university in the world was allowed to register on the web site.   More than 58 million users have been registered on the web site.   The site offers the users several features including sending and receiving messages, gifts, placing ads, blogs, etc. References: Facebook (2007). â€Å"Facebook – Home Page.† Retrieved on December 26, 2007, from www.facebook.com Web site. Friendster (2007). â€Å"Friendster – Home Page.† Retrieved on December 26, 2007, from www.friendster.com Web site. Google (2007). â€Å"Google Help Center.† Retrieved on December 26, 2007, from Google Web site: http://www.google.co.in/intl/en/help/features.html HiKut (2007). â€Å"Hikut.† Retrieved on December 26, 2007, from www.hikut.com Web site. LinkedIn (2007). â€Å"Linkedin.† Retrieved on December 26, 2007, from www.linkedin,com Web site. MSN (2007). â€Å"MSN-Home Page.† Retrieved on December 26, 2007, from MSN Web site: http://www.msn.com/ Multiply (2007). â€Å"Multiply – Home Page.† Retrieved on December 26, 2007, from www.multiply.com Web site. My Church (2007). â€Å"My Church – Home Page.† Retrieved on December 26, 2007, from www.Mychurch.org Web site. Orkut (2007). â€Å"About Orkut.† Retrieved on December 26, 2007, from Orkut Web site: http://www.orkut.com/About.aspx Tagged.com (2007). â€Å"Tagged – Home Page.† Retrieved on December 26, 2007, from Tagged.com Web site: www.tagged.com Travellers Point (2007). â€Å"Travellers Point.† Retrieved on December 26, 2007, from www.travellerspoint.com Web site. Yahoo (2007). â€Å"Yahoo Company Information.† Retrieved on December 26, 2007, from Yahoo Web site: http://info.yahoo.com/

Black Tuesday and the Great Depression

As the American economy is presently dealing with a heavy recession, I deemed it appropriate to choose the Great Depression and the Stock Market Crash of 1929 as the topic for my research paper. The Great Depression was a 10 year period of suffering in the United States from 1929 to 1939, also majorly affecting the rest of North America, Europe and other industrialized areas across the globe, caused by many different events and choices. In early 1929, as the New Era neared its calamitous end, America was the richest nation in the world; the richest in all history.America’s 122 million people had more real wealth and real income, both per person and in total, than the people of any other country (Chandler, 1970). General observations of the stock market frequently discussed were of the high stock prices, and speculations were made about what would happen in the late 1920s. Were the stocks generally too high? Or was this a new level for the stock market? October 29, 1929, otherw ise known as Black Tuesday, gave a precise answer to these questions with the crash of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the start of the Great Depression in America, quickly to spread across the globe.The Great Depression is often said to demonstrate the instability of market economics and the need for government oversight and direction (Smiley, 2002). The stock prices were far too high, which quickly caused the bloated stock market to crash, resulting in dynamic losses for the entire American economy. Stocks had risen to uncommonly high levels which had not been explored before, but occurred regularly throughout the late 1920s. These high prices marked the peak for stocks in September of 1929 just before the market began to drop drastically.The Times estimated the loss for Black Tuesday at between $8 and $9 billion (Harold Bierman, 1998), with the overall loss at a much higher price than that. In reality, the major causes of the Stock Market Crash were because of actions take n and decisions made during the Roaring Twenties. However, the Great Depression did not occur simply because of one cause. It was a combination of easy credit, unequal distribution of wealth between the classes, the Stock Market Crash, and many more rising tribulations.The Roaring Twenties were a time of liberal and progressive ideas which included new technologies and goods resulting in an increase of the monetary prosperity within the economy. There was Henry Ford’s development of the moving assembly line, and new industries and inventions in chemicals, aviation, and electronics. By 1929, the United States were producing over 40% of the world’s manufactured goods (Foner, 2008). The automobile was the backbone of the prosperous economic growth.Henry Ford’s inexpensive Model T, with its ability to be mass produced was very significant, seeing that throughout the 1920s, automobile production tripled from 1. 5 to 4. 8 million. Charles Lindbergh flew the first solo transatlantic flight in 1927, and the nation’s total income rose from $74. 3 billion in 1923 to $89 billion in 1929, along with many other prosperous events (Gusmorino). Even though there were these numerous new expansions that increased the standard of living in the United States, there was a good portion of the economy that remained in poverty and was not able to prosper like the rest of the country.Farmers’ incomes continually declined, which forced many banks to foreclose tens of thousands of farms because owners were not able to pay the mortgage. Also, the majority of families had no savings because everything was bought on easy credit, which would drastically hurt them when the stock market collapsed in 1929. Many goods in the 1920s were commonly purchased on credit through a new type of payment plan, otherwise known as â€Å"buy now, pay later. An interesting fact is that while Calvin Coolidge was in the White House, Herbert Hoover had been warning since 1925 against the use of credit in the market. Coolidge, instead of speaking out against stock market speculation, insisted in March 1929 as he left office, that U. S. prosperity was absolutely sound and that stocks were cheap at current prices (White, 1996). It turns out Hoover had been correct, which most likely had an effect on Hoover getting elected as President after Coolidge. The stock market crash did not, by itself, cause the Depression.There had been signs of economic trouble throughout the decade, with the highly unequal distribution of income and the prolonged depression in farm regions, which resulted in reduced American purchasing power (Foner, 2008). Through the period of imbalance between the earnings and spending of the different classes of families, the only two things the United States could rely on to keep the economy at the same level was credit sales and luxury spending and investment from the wealthy (Gusmorino). The quick collapse of the worldwide economy was dreadf ul and to most, unpredictable. Around 26,000 businesses failed in 1930.Throughout the industrial world, millions of families lost their life savings; depositors immediately withdrew money from the banks because they were worried that they could no longer count on the promise to redeem paper money in gold (Foner, 2008). This was true because the global financial system in this time in history was based on the gold standard, and ill-equipped to deal with the downturn. Four-fifths of the Rockefeller family fortune disappeared; General Motors stock fell from $73 to $8 and U. S. Steel stock fell from $262 to $22, while U. S. Steel, who had 225,000 full-time workers in 1929 had none at the end of 1932 (Foner, 2008).By 1933, 11,000 of the United States’ 25,000 banks had failed (Nelson). Unemployment grew to five million people in 1930 and then up to 13 million by 1932. Hundreds of thousands of Americans roamed the country in search of food, shelter, and work; at least 13 million mem bers of the labor force who were able and willing to work were entirely unemployed, and millions more were only partially employed (Chandler, 1970). The future was masked in plain uncertainty. Over the course of the first few years of the Depression, President Herbert Hoover was thought by many Americans that his response to the Depression was uncaring and inadequate.Nevertheless, the federal government had never faced an economic crisis as severe as the Great Depression, so you can’t blame the political leaders for not knowing exactly what to do in that situation. Hoover remained strongly opposed to direct federal intervention in the economy, and constantly made public statements to aim for higher public confidence, but all it did was make him progressively more out of touch with what was really happening in the country (Foner, 2008). Hoover’s administration’s response was very ineffective, and forced American freedom to be redefined during the 1930s once he le ft office with Franklin D.Roosevelt’s election in 1932. Franklin D. Roosevelt came to be beloved as the symbolic representative of ordinary citizens, which was strongly needed in America at that time. I’m sure this was part the reason he was President for three straight terms and was able to lead the United States out of the Great Depression. One of the best things Roosevelt did when entering his Presidency was to include as many intellectuals and social workers in key positions in his administration with decisions about what should be done to deal with the Depression.He introduced a number of new changes in hopes that it would increase the structure of the American economy by using increased government regulation and massive public-works projects to hopefully promote a recovery (Nelson). Unfortunately, these changes did not help much at all, except for a key move by Roosevelt to take the United States off the gold standard. He also established the Federal Deposit Insu rance Corporation (FDIC), which insured the accounts of individual depositors.By severing the link between the country’s currency and its gold reserves, he made is possible to issue more money in the hope of stimulating business activity; these two measures rescued the financial system and greatly increased the government’s power over it. To show an example of how positive it was, not a single bank failed in the United States in 1936 (Foner, 2008). Franklin Roosevelt’s â€Å"New Deal† was created to help the American public believe that greater regulation would solve many of the country’s problems.The National Recovery Administration (NRA) was established in 1933 along with the National Industrial Recovery Act, which would work with groups of business leaders to establish industry codes to set standards for output, prices, and working conditions. FDR believed that the idea of liberty should be brought back in order to encourage economic activity an d ensure a fair distribution of wealth, and was welcomed immediately. In spite of this, the NRA was declared unconstitutional in 1935, and never produced economic recovery or peace between employers and workers (Nelson).In March 1933, Congress established the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which set unemployed young men to work on projects such as forest flood control and many other jobs outside in nature and the wildlife. The young men’s ages ranged from 18-25; by the time the program ended in 1942, over 3 million young men had participated in the projects where they received government wages of $30 a month (Foner, 2008). In 1935, Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act which gave workers the right to bargain through unions of their choice and gave clear labor practices (Nelson).A policy that took place during the first three months of Roosevelt’s administration, otherwise known as the â€Å"Hundred Days,† was the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) in 1933. Roosevelt moved to bring agriculture under the federal umbrella, and to have farm subsidies and production controls be protected under the AAA (Scaliger). The AAA made the federal government attempt to raise farm prices by setting production quotas for major crops and by paying farmers to plant less (Foner, 2008).This was very effective in providing economic relief for farmers; especially since farmers had been having serious problems for years before the Great Depression began in 1929. Even though not all farmers benefited from this act, it was able to raise farm prices and incomes for many, which opened up a way for farmers to begin receiving benefits once again. Unfortunately, the period of unusually dry weather, otherwise known as the Dust Bowl, in the Great Plains caused some serious problems for the AAA, farmers, and rural America.The Dust Bowl occurred mainly from 1935-1938 in the areas of Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, and Colorado. The region suffered a very severe droug ht, the most severe of the century. Wind and dust storms blew most of the soil away, which resulted in crops being destroyed, cars and machinery being ruined, and people and animals dying and being harmed in general. The drought and dust storms displaced more than 1 million farmers and American citizens, in addition to forcing them to leave the Great Plains and head west, or anywhere they could go where these high winds and droughts were not occurring.Even though the AAA was generally successful, it was deserted in 1936 when it was ruled an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power over local economic activities. The Depression also devastated the American housing industry, but the establishment of the Home Owners Loan Corporation and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) helped insure millions of long-term mortgages issued by private banks (Foner, 2008). Home ownership now became possible for tens of millions of American families, and more opportunities began to arise.Roo sevelt’s First New Deal came to a halt after having many both successful and non-successful experiments, along with being unable to pull the United States out of the Depression. Afterward in 1935, Franklin D. Roosevelt launched the Second New Deal for the reason that he was stimulated by the failure of his First New Deal to pull the country out of the Depression. The First New Deal had focused on economic recovery; the weight of the Second was on economic security, where Americans would be protected against unemployment and poverty (Foner, 2008).In 1935, Congress and Roosevelt attacked the problem of weak demand and economic inequality by levying a highly publicized tax on large fortunes and corporate profits which ended up creating the Rural Electrification Agency (REA). The purpose of the REA was to bring electric power to homes that lacked it, and proved to be one of the Second New Deal’s most successful programs. FDR then approved the establishment of the Works Pro gress Administration (WPA), which hired countless Americans every year until it ended in 1943.The attempt was to provide work instead of welfare; buildings, roads, schools, airports, bridges, stadiums, swimming pools, and sewage treatment plants were built across the United States. On top of all this, Congress created the National Youth Administration in 1935 which was set to provide much needed relief for teenagers and young adults who were unemployed. The centerpiece of the Second New Deal was the Social Security Act of 1935. This act created a system to provide unemployment insurance, old age pensions, and aid to the disabled, the elderly poor, and families with dependent children (Foner, 2008).Social Security, along with these many other actions taken by Congress during the Second New Deal showed a great deal of promise for the American people in hopes to soon rise out of the Depression. Roosevelt was the also first president to make effective use of the radio to promote his pol icies. He won a landslide victory against Alfred M. Landon in 1936 to become President for a second term in a row even though some critics believed the expansion of government functions would undermine the liberties of the people.President Roosevelt insisted to these critics that his measures to increase an economic well-being would strengthen liberty and democracy (Nelson). He reminded the American people on a radio address in 1938 that: Democracy has disappeared in several other great nations, not because the people of those nations disliked democracy, but because they had grown tired of unemployment and insecurity, of seeing their children hungry while they sat helpless in the face of government confusion and government weakness through lack of leadership†¦.Finally, in desperation, they chose to sacrifice liberty in the hope of getting something to eat. We in America know that our democratic institutions can be preserved and made to work. But in order to preserve them we nee d†¦ to prove that the practical operation of democratic government is equal to the task of protecting the security of the people†¦. The people of America are in agreement in defending their liberties at any cost, and the first line of the defense lies in the protection of economic security. (Nelson)Toward the end of the 1930s, tension began building between Japan and the United States while the war in Europe had started, and the United States had joined Canada in a Mutual Board of Defense. At this point, the American economy was still in distress, with Roosevelt getting elected once again in 1940. FDR was the president for the third term in a row for the first and only time in U. S. history. During 1941, the United States had become more and more closely allied with those fighting Germany and Japan. FDR declared that, â€Å"America would be the great arsenal of democracy† (Foner, 2008).Roosevelt froze Japanese assets in the U. S. , which halted virtually all trade b etween the countries. In retaliation, Japan involved the United States in World War II when Japanese planes bombed the naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii on December 7, 1941. This resulted in the destruction of 19 ships (including five battleships), about 150 planes, and the deaths of more than 2,300 soldiers, sailors, and civilians. The following day the United States declared war with Japan; three days later Germany and Italy declared war on the United States.Less than a month later, President Roosevelt announced that the upcoming year would deliver 60,000 planes, 45,000 tanks, 20,000 antiaircraft guns and 18 million deadweight tons of merchant shipping to help fight the war (Nelson). The United States entry into WWII also brought many new jobs and opportunities for Americans, such as working in areas of mass production of weapons and manufacturing, along with joining the United States’ Army, which helped turn the economy around even though the country was at war.In the l ong run, freedom, not government, is the best cure for economic crises; the American Great Depression fostered from start to finish by our own federal government, with the help of wily bankers and financiers (Scaliger). A depression occurs when something disrupts the free market system so that resource owners and consumers cannot accurately identify and respond to change. The recovery during the Great Depression shook the faith of many people, took many changes in the role of the federal government, and in more ways than one, created the conditions that led to World War II (Smiley, 2002).In reality, there is no reason to believe that recessions will not continue to occur in the United States, just like the recession we are currently in as Americans. Luckily, we do have reason to believe that we now have the knowledge, instruments, and national will to prevent recessions from developing into deep and prolonged depressions (Chandler, 1970). The Great Depression of the 1930s was a worl dwide phenomenon composed of an infinte number of separate but related events. The Great Depression was a terrible time in America, lasting for more than ten years, and forced millions of people out of jobs, homes and life.I believe it may have been necessary to have a depression like the Great Depression at some point in history so we know what not to do if the time were unlucky enough to come; but since it did take place, we can today have more high hopes about the future. Some people question today in 2008 if this is a repeat of 1929 or 1930, but we are not even close to the terrific economic turmoil that took place back in the 1930s, and I am thankful for that. Nobody in their right mind should ever desire an event as tragic as the Great Depression to ever transpire again.Works Cited Anonymous. (n. d. ). Finance And Economics: 1929 and all that; Echoes of the Depression. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from ProQuest: http://proquest. umi. com/pqdweb? did=1566742201&sid=8&Fmt=3&clien tId=5046&RQT=309&VName=PQD Chandler, L. V. (1970). America's Greatest Depression 1929-1941. New York: Harper ; Row. Foner, E. (2008). Give Me Liberty! An American History. New York: W. W. Norton ; Company, Inc. Garraty, J. A. (1987). The Great Depression. New York: Anchor Books. Harold Bierman, J. (1998). The Causes of the 1929 Stock Market Crash. Westport: Greenwood Press. (Gusmorino), P. A. (n. d. ). Main Causes of the Great Depression. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from (Gusmorino) World: http://www. (Gusmorino). com/pag3/greatdepression/ Nelson, C. (n. d. ). The Depression in the United States- An Overview. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from Modern American Poetry: http://www. english. uiuc. edu/maps/depression/overview. htm Scaliger, C. (n. d. ). The Great Depression. Retrieved October 19, 2008, from ProQuest: http://proquest. umi. com/pqdweb? did=1504859451;sid=8;Fmt=3;clientId=5046;RQT=309;VName=PQD Smiley, G. (2002). Rethinking The Great Depression. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee. Wigmore , B. A. (1985). The Crash and Its Aftermath. Westport: Greenwood Press.

Technical report -information system for a FBO Assignment

Technical report -information system for a FBO - Assignment Example The main business operation is focused around the hangar maintenance with other departments to provide the support functions of the business. First, the back office solutions will be discussed as a support function for the information system. This report will then break down the information system as it pertains to each department by the hardware and software that is required for the users to properly perform the functions of their job. Schematic System requirements Hardware Requirements All the computer system in this setup have a similar structure containing the main memory, the processor, and peripheral devices such as output and input devices, secondary storage, Visual display unit among others. The main functionality of the system is to synchronize all the systems so that they are able to carry out several functionalities as being commanded by the installed programs. The central processing Unit (CPU) is the most fundamental component of any computer system. This directly implies that the proper functionality of a system is fully dependent on the type and speed of the processor. Also, the functions of the processor are made possible by the availability of the main memory also known as random access memory (RAM) which acts as a storage for the programs that are processed by the central processing unit and this also depicts its importance. In this scenario, high performance of the setup system is importance. Thus to enhance this high performance, powerful computers are required. In summary, the hardware specifications to enhance high performance in this system are listed in the table below. Component Requirement Processor Specification 3rd Generation Intel Core i5-3330 processor 6M Cache Speed – 3.2GHz Memory 8GB Dual Channel DDR3 SDRAM, 1600MHz Available Disk Space 1TB Hard Drive 3.5" 7200rpm, SATA Drive DVD+/-RW Tray Load Drive, 16X, SATA Display and Peripherals Monitor, Keyboard and pointing device The recommended computer system which contains the above stated components is Inspiron 660 Desktop. This Computer is designed produce high performance. This is made possible by the third generation Intel core processor and the main memory of 8 GB. Moreover, the computer is equipped with four USB 3.0 ports, HDMI connection, 8 – in -1 media card to facilitate connectivity to other peripheral devices. Other peripheral devices Device Cost Cisco Linksys E1200 Wireless Router $ 44.99 HP – Office jet Pro 8600 Plus Network-Ready Wireless All-In-One Printer $ 229.99 To facilitate communication of all the devices over the network and the internet, Local Area Network is setup which includes a wireless network for wireless devices. Also, to facilitate the day to day printing services, HP – Office pro 8600 plus printer is installed. Basic Structure of the network Server Hardware Requirements The processor should 3rd generation Intel i3 processors with a minimum speed of 2 GHz. The recommended for this task should 3rd generat ion i3 processors with a speed of 2.16 GHz. The processor should Intel Manufactured. The recommended minimum Random Access Memory is 1 GB or higher. Considering the above stated specifications, the best server to