In a new systematic review, researchers have cast doubt on the effectiveness of existing psychological treatment approaches for stalking offenders. The study, conducted across several countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, aimed to assess which interventions were most successful in reducing recidivism among this high-risk group. Despite previous assumptions, the findings indicate that while psychological treatments may have some impact, there is no conclusive evidence to support the superiority of any one approach. The findings were published in the journal International Review of Psychiatry.
Stalking, defined as a series of unwanted and intrusive behaviours that induce fear or distress in the victim, has become a growing concern for public health and law enforcement. Estimates suggest that approximately 15% of women and 6% of men will experience stalking in their lifetime. The behaviours involved range from unwanted communication to physical threats and violence, making it a multifaceted issue that requires targeted intervention.
Recidivism rates among stalking offenders are alarmingly high, with studies showing that over 50% of perpetrators reoffend and between 18% and 40% engage in violent behaviour. Despite the prevalence and severity of stalking, there has been surprisingly little research into effective treatment methods for offenders. The few existing studies often focus on theoretical models rather than empirical evidence, leaving a significant gap in understanding how to reduce the risk of reoffending.
A team of researchers from various universities led the systematic review, which examined ten studies involving 661 people with a history of stalking behaviour. The studies spanned various treatment approaches, including dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT), acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), and cognitive analytic therapy (CAT). Some studies also incorporated pharmacotherapy alongside psychological interventions.
One of the key findings of the review is that while psychological treatments generally show some efficacy in reducing recidivism, no single approach stands out as significantly more effective than others. For instance, two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) compared DBT and CBT-based anger management, with results showing no significant difference in outcomes between the two. Similarly, an RCT comparing ACT with the Duluth Model for domestic violence offenders also found no substantial differences in the rates of domestic assault charges post-treatment.
The review also highlighted several challenges in interpreting the results. The studies included in the review varied significantly in design, sample size, and population characteristics, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions. For example, some studies focused on stalking offenders with specific mental health conditions, such as bipolar disorder or intellectual disabilities, while others included a broader range of offenders. This variability complicates the comparison of treatment outcomes across different studies.
The review also pointed out that the high dropout rates observed in several studies might skew the results. Offenders who failed to complete treatment were more likely to reoffend, but these individuals might represent a more severe subgroup of offenders who are less amenable to treatment. Therefore, the observed effectiveness of some treatments could be partly due to the exclusion of these higher-risk individuals from the final analysis.
Another limitation noted was the varying lengths of follow-up periods across the studies. In some cases, follow-up lasted only a few months, raising concerns that recidivism might have been underestimated. Longer follow-up periods would provide a more accurate picture of the long-term effectiveness of these treatments.
The findings of this review have significant implications for both policy and future research. Given the high rates of recidivism and the serious consequences of stalking, there is an urgent need for more rigorous research to identify the most effective treatment strategies. The review calls for the development of tailored interventions that consider the diverse needs of stalking offenders, including those with specific mental health conditions or who exhibit particular patterns of behaviour.
Policymakers should also be cautious when allocating resources to offender treatment programmes without clear evidence of their effectiveness. The review suggests that investing in more targeted and evidence-based interventions could yield better outcomes in terms of reducing recidivism and protecting potential victims.
