Just a warning

Some warnings may be "directly communicated" while others may be "novel aggression." It is important to remember that every stalking situation is different, and often victims know their stalker best, thus, if they have reason to believe a warning or threat is valid or reasonable, it should be followed up or acted upon (Meloy, et al. 2011). 

Rosenfeld's (2004) analysis based on six applicable studies found a strong correlation of violence and threats. A finding, Logan (2022) emphasizes.

McEwan, et al. (2009) found that 21% of their sample made direct threats, of which 19% went on to commit serious violence. In 77% of the cases violence was accompanied by a threat, 63% of the threats were uttered separately and prior to violence, thus could be predictors of violence. However, in 60-90% of cases they immediately preceded violence, such that a stalker may follow a victim and become immediately violent (McEwan, et al., 2009). 

Despite not threatening their victim., 64% of McEwan, et al.'s (2009) sample who were not rejected-stalker typologies were subsequently violent.

Logan (2022) found that both men and women who experience assaults endured a greater number of varied types of threats. Further analysis found that for men a number of different threats from the stalker was associated with being assaulted. 

Researchers agree that prior intimates represent a high risk for violence (Rosenfeld, 2004; McEwan, et al., 2009). Logan (2022) found that almost half of the women stalked by an (ex-)partner were assaulted which was almost double the rate of non-partners, and double the rate of men regardless of relationship to their stalker.

McEwan, et al. (2009) identified two potential predictors for Rejected Stalkers - Ex-intimate Stalkers:

• Previous violence
• Threats

McEwan, et al. (2016) later amended the model among ex-intimates, to include:

• Previous IPV, 
• Explicit threats, 
• Property damage, 
• Loitering/spying

Explaining, violent stalkers have more risk factors 77% of the time, those with fewer than two risk factors did not engage in violence.

Research has found the use of cyberstalking techniques were associated with violence among ex-intimates specifically (Logan, 2022). 

However, McEwan, et al. (2016) found there was less violence (a significantly negative relationship) among ex-intimates who engaged in cyberstalking. 

In Logan's (2022) study more women were assaulted by ex-partner stalkers than men. 

While there is often an assumption based on other types of violence literature that prior offense history is the best predictor for stalking-related violence, this area is still under-developed and controversial (Rosenfeld (2004). There were also no significant findings regarding violence history across studies, however, firm conclusions should always be interpreted with caution, there is a possibility that some common correlates of violence in typical offender populations may not be associated with violence in stalking cases. 

McEwan, et al. (2009) found that 41% of their sample had been violent prior to current stalking episode.

Logan (2022) identified that frequency of confrontation, approach and/or surveillance of a victim has been associated with violence.

Logal (2022) found that men and women who reported being assaulted also reported a history of violence towards them as well as forced confrontations. Finding, women in non-partner relationships reporting past violence at 46.3% and men at 16.6% overall%. Further analysis found for women, violence towards others was associated with assault (Logan, 2022).

Rosenfeld (2004) suggests that while the importance of past violence on the part of offenders on current stalking situations is currently inconclusive in relation to non-domestic situations, there is some evidence that it is a predictor (ex-)intimate stalking.

Writing to the victim was significantly negatively associated with stalking violence, however, in McEwan, et al.'s (2009) analysis no stalkers who wrote to victims were subsequently violent. However, Logan (2022) found that both male and female stalking victims reported the use of cyberstalking in association to assaults.

McEwan, et al. (2016) however found less violence (a negative relationship) when cyberstalking was employed.  

McEwan, et al. (2009) also found that most approaches did not lead to violence, furthermore when when a stalker both approached and was violent this behavior was usually concurrent, during an episode of high arousal. 

McEwan, et al. (2016) later identified a significant relationship between approach behaviors and violence (93.10%). However, in only 44.83% of this cases could the approach be determined to be prior to and separate from the violence.

It is questionable whether, approach behaviors have predictive value in risk assessment and are restricted to victim safety planning and risk management, such that action plans are created if a victim is followed or accosted (McEwan, et al., 2009).

Sheridan & Roberts (2011) found that previous research has suggested that short duration is a predictor of serious violence.

Logan (2022) also theorizes that the stalker's lack of concern for consequences such has legal or danger to themselves may be indicators of their lethality to a victim. Lack of consequences for stalking behavior has been shown to embolden stalkers resulting in violence. Logan (2022) also identified environmental factors such as being isolated as well as living or working with or near one's stalker.

Stalker gender has been associated with higher rates of assault, by men (Logan, 2022). Additionally, in her study she found more specifically, no differences in terms of victim gender who was assaulted in terms of non-partners (25.8%).

Rosenfeld (2004) found that while most demographic data has been sparse within stalking literature, therefore limiting its ability to be reviewed, younger offenders have often been more violent, McEwan, et al. (2004) specifically found stalkers under age 30 to be more violent. Previous research has also found non-Caucasian offenders and less educated offenders to have been more violence towards victims (Rosenfeld, 2004). However, data collected are most frequent among victims than offenders, and should be interpreted with caution, they are inconsistent and unclear.

A history of substance use or abuse has been correlated with an increased rate of stalking related violence, research has included alcohol, and other "drug use" (Rosenfeld, 2004, p.21).

McEwan, et al. (2009) specified that substance use at the time of the stalking episode in their study was found to have a significant relationship with stalking violence. 

Stalking offenders with psychotic disorders have been consistently found to be less violent (Rosenfeld, 2004; McEwan, et al., 2009; McEwan, et al., 2016).

Personality disorders are prevalent among stalkers, but antisocial personality disorder, and psychopathy specifically, is noticeably absent, with studies consistently reporting lower prevalence rates as well as lower average PCL:SV scores among participants.

Interestingly, Rosenfeld (2004) found that while individual studies did not find statistically significant associations between personality disorders and violence the meta-analysis found a small association. In Rosenfeld's (2004) view, diagnostic variables are the strongest and most consistent correlates of violence within the stalking literature.

McEwan, et al. (2016) found that personality disorder(s) were unrelated to stalking violence in exploratory analysis.

Despite common misconception, Rosenfeld (2004) found that prior criminal history is unrelated to stalking. While there have been inconsistencies within the literature, the meta-analysis found no significant results. Sheridan & Roberts (2011) concur that previous research shows the absence of a criminal record was a strong predictor of violence. Additionally, McEwan, et al. (2016) finds it unrelated. Logan (2022) disputes this finding.