Stalking Psychology: Motives, Patterns, Risk, and Treatment
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 11, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Stalking is a pattern of unwanted pursuit, contact, monitoring, or intrusion directed at another person. Its psychological significance lies in the repeated crossing of boundaries and the resulting fear, restriction, or disruption. A person might explain the behavior as love, jealousy, grievance, revenge, a wish to reconcile, or a demand for recognition. Such explanations are information to examine, while the actions and their context determine what occurred.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention describes stalking as a pattern of unwanted harassing or threatening tactics that cause fear or safety concerns. Tactics may include following, workplace appearances, unwanted messages or gifts, contact through others, and electronic surveillance. Research definitions, clinical formulations, and legal offenses serve different purposes. Understanding them together requires care with what evidence proves.
This guide reviews motives, patterns, the classic five types of stalkers, cyberstalking, psychiatric distinctions, risk and predictive limits, intervention research, forensic ethics, and practical implications. Detailed psychometric assessment and safety-management protocols belong in the separate Stalking Risk Assessment: Evidence, Tools, and Safety Planning article.
What is stalking in psychology?
Stalking describes a course of person-directed, unwanted behavior, often involving repeated contact, following, intrusion, monitoring, or threats. A single incident might seem unremarkable without context; several incidents may form a coherent pattern of intimidation or persistence. For example, communication from new accounts after blocking, uninvited appearances at work, and repeated requests made through acquaintances take on greater significance as a sequence.
The target's boundaries, the pursuer's knowledge of those boundaries, the acts that followed, and documented effects all matter. The CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey uses specified tactics and criteria to measure victimization. Other research projects and laws sometimes use different criteria, which changes who is counted as a stalking victim or offender.
An awkward social interaction is not automatically stalking. Physical violence is also not a prerequisite for stalking-related fear or interference with ordinary life. The interpretation depends on behavior, repetition, unwantedness, context, and the particular definition used.
Psychological constructs and legal standards
Psychology addresses the behavior's form, possible maintaining processes, consequences, and opportunities for change. Criminal law asks whether the elements of an offense have been proved to a particular evidentiary standard. The answer to the psychological question may inform an investigation without settling the legal question.
The federal U.S. provision 18 U.S.C. § 2261A addresses specified interstate, territorial, and electronic-communication circumstances. It establishes requirements relating to conduct, mental state, fear, or serious distress. State laws and international jurisdictions differ. No single United States statute establishes a universal psychological definition.
A report of distress is evidence of an experience. A clinical diagnosis is a professional classification of symptoms. A risk score is an assessment output. A forensic opinion interprets available evidence and its uncertainty. An arrest, charge, or judicial finding is a separate legal event. Neither a diagnosis nor a score can establish guilt or replace the legal fact-finding process.
How common is stalking?
The CDC's September 2025 overview reports U.S. lifetime stalking prevalence estimates of about one in five women and one in ten men under the survey's measurement framework. These figures are not criminal conviction rates. Survey prevalence varies with the specified tactics, fear threshold, sampling, recall period, and question design.
The CDC's national stalking report describes relationships between targets and perpetrators and associated health effects. Many people targeted by stalking know the person pursuing them, including present or former intimate partners, acquaintances, and other contacts. Stranger cases also occur.
Police records, protection-order petitions, treatment referrals, and criminal convictions produce different samples. A clinical service may encounter cases that are more persistent or psychologically complicated than typical survey-defined experiences. Generalizing from specialist samples to everyone who engages in stalking risks serious distortion.
Why do people stalk? Motivations and mechanisms
There is no universal motive. Relationship loss, attempts to form intimacy, entitlement, revenge, grievance, coercive control, and instrumental aims can produce superficially similar conduct. Motivations may overlap or shift with time, new contact, legal proceedings, or changes in relationships.
The influential Mullen, Pathé, Purcell, and Stuart (1999) study described 145 people referred to a forensic psychiatry service and proposed a five-type clinical classification. Its value lies in organizing recurring themes, not in detecting hidden intentions or accurately forecasting an individual person's behavior.
Rejection and relationship loss
Unwanted pursuit may follow a breakup or refusal of a desired relationship. The person may demand explanations, attempt reconciliation, seek a meeting, or repeatedly use mutual contacts. Feelings of shame, grief, anger, abandonment, or jealousy can become prominent, and reconciliation attempts may alternate with hostility.
Intense feelings after rejection are common human experiences. The relevant behavioral threshold involves continued intrusion after boundaries, especially threatening, controlling, or surveillance behavior. A relationship's history helps explain the context but does not prove what a person will do next.
Intimacy-seeking and misunderstood reciprocity
Some people persist in seeking a relationship that the other person has never accepted. Professional courtesy, ordinary friendliness, online visibility, or a public figure's communication can be interpreted as personal interest. In some clinically referred cases, fixed false beliefs concerning a relationship may be relevant.
There is a substantial distinction between unrealistic romantic hope, socially inappropriate persistence, a consciously coercive strategy, and a delusional conviction. Assessment requires direct examination of beliefs and observed acts. It is inappropriate to diagnose psychosis remotely based on continued unwanted communication.
Grievance, resentment, and retaliation
Some stalking develops from a workplace conflict, perceived insult, legal dispute, complaint, or refusal. The person may seek acknowledgment, impose a grievance through repeated contact, monitor the perceived wrongdoer, or attempt to punish them. A grievance narrative may shape behavior but is not by itself evidence of a violent plan.
Professionals examine threats, approach behavior, available access, persistence, and corroborated communications. The motive a person claims should be treated as a statement requiring interpretation rather than an unchallenged explanation.
Entitlement, possessiveness, and control
Stalking can operate within a broader pattern of coercive control. Tracking movements, appearing uninvited, using acquaintances as messengers, or threatening disclosure of private information can limit another person's autonomy and sense of safety. The pursuer may present these actions as love or concern, while the observable effect is monitoring and restriction. The relationship-specific distinction is explored further in Jealousy and Intimate Partner Violence: Control, Warning Signs, and Safety.
A case formulation should connect inferred motive to evidence and consider alternatives. Describing conduct as controlling does not substitute for establishing the relevant statutory elements.
Instrumental or predatory stalking
Certain cases involve surveillance or preparation associated with another possible offense. Concrete planning, access-seeking, threatening conduct, or a documented relevant history may matter to assessment. Such cases require careful professional attention. The possibility of instrumental pursuit should never be projected onto all repeated messages or all unwanted approaches.
The 2013 examination of 50 police cases did not reproduce the full clinical five-type classification, supporting caution about converting typologies into presumed predictions.
What are the five types of stalkers?
Mullen's classic framework names rejected, intimacy-seeking, incompetent, resentful, and predatory patterns. The rejected pattern concerns pursuit after a lost relationship. Intimacy-seeking involves a desired or imagined bond. Incompetent pursuit involves repeated, poorly judged attempts to establish contact or courtship. Resentful stalking is organized around grievance. Predatory pursuit concerns surveillance or preparation for another offense.
The labels summarize hypothesized motivations and behavior. They are not clinical diagnoses or five stable kinds of human beings. A person can display more than one pattern and can change tactics or motives over time. Typology alone cannot establish violence risk, a mental disorder, or criminal responsibility.
Youngs, Ioannou, and Straszewicz (2013) tested the typology using 50 Los Angeles Police Department cases. The study found limited support for rejected and incompetent themes but did not support the complete classification. This is a practical demonstration of population limits: models developed among psychiatric referrals do not always fit law-enforcement samples.
The behavioral patterns of stalking
Stalking often spans multiple channels. Repeated calls may lead to texts from alternate numbers, messages to coworkers, unsolicited gifts, appearances near a residence, or digital monitoring. A case can contain quiet periods followed by renewed contact. The absence of visible incidents during one period does not establish future safety, while a quiet period also cannot prove unseen pursuit.
What matters is a documented course: which acts occurred, which boundaries were communicated, how the behavior responded, and whether access or threats changed. The chronology helps distinguish persistence, changing tactics, escalation, and separate events that may have different meanings.
Circumventing boundaries
When someone tries new accounts, intermediaries, or settings after being blocked or refused, the behavior may show continued unwillingness to accept limits. The inferred psychological explanation can range from attempted reconciliation to hostility, entitlement, or the desire to intimidate. The observed circumvention is established separately from an unobserved motive.
Persistence versus escalation
Persistence means conduct continues or recurs. Escalation needs an identified outcome: increasing message frequency, more intrusive surveillance, physical approach, explicit threats, breaches of an order, or actual violence. These outcomes are related in some cases but are not interchangeable and do not form an inevitable progression.
Intermittent contact and apparent cessation
A person may stop for a time because of changed circumstances, loss of access, an intervention, or personal disengagement. Recurrence can also follow renewed conflict or contact. A useful assessment tracks real-world behavior instead of treating promises, temporary silence, or a change in messaging frequency as a precise indicator of future conduct.
Cyberstalking and digital surveillance
Cyberstalking may include repeated unwanted emails or messages, impersonation, location tracking, unauthorized account access, monitoring, and unwanted contact with the target's social network. Digital and physical tactics frequently overlap, so the online/offline division may be less useful than understanding the ongoing pattern. For a related discussion of monitoring boundaries in intimate relationships, see Transparency vs Surveillance in Relationships.
Weekes, Storey, and Pina's 2025 systematic review identified 80 highly or moderately relevant studies on cyberstalking perpetrators and methods. Reported motives included attempted relationship reconciliation, revenge, relationship-seeking, and control. The studies also documented repeated unwanted contact and, in some cases, account intrusion, GPS tracking, and impersonation.
The review assembled heterogeneous methods and populations. It provides insight into recurring patterns but cannot accurately predict an individual's future behavior from one social-media interaction. Frequent public-profile viewing is different from a sustained pattern of intrusive surveillance; both the research definition and legal context must be specified.
Attachment, obsession, rumination, and jealousy
Popular explanations often describe all stalking as obsessive love or anxious attachment. Psychological inquiry requires distinctions. Rumination may sustain a perceived grievance or an attempt to regain a relationship. Attachment-related insecurities may shape some responses to rejection. Jealousy may relate to perceptions of rivals. Entitlement may influence how someone interprets another person's right to refuse contact.
Each proposed process needs direct evidence in the case at hand. None is sufficient to establish stalking, and none is a validated stand-alone predictor of violence. An individual may have intrusive thoughts without acting on them; another may deliberately pursue or monitor someone without experiencing stereotypical obsessive symptoms.
Stalking is therefore not a synonym for obsessive-compulsive disorder, an attachment style, or an informal popular label such as love addiction. Such conflations obscure both clinical precision and behavioral accountability. For an evidence-based discussion of romantic preoccupation that preserves this distinction, read Social Media and Limerence: Checking, Digital Cues, and Obsessive Preoccupation.
Is stalking a mental illness?
Stalking is defined through conduct. It is not a stand-alone psychiatric diagnosis in DSM or ICD classification. Some people referred for assessment have psychotic symptoms, mood difficulties, substance-related conditions, or personality-related problems; others have no verified mental-health diagnosis. The presence of a condition does not prove the conduct was criminal or that a condition caused it.
The 1999 clinical study found notable psychopathology among people referred to a forensic psychiatric service. Specialist referrals cannot reveal the prevalence of psychiatric disorders among all people who stalk, because referral patterns enrich the sample for complexity and clinical concerns.
Delusional beliefs
An assessed person may hold a fixed belief that another individual returns their interest. Determining whether the belief meets clinical criteria requires a direct examination of content, conviction, persistence, functional effects, cultural meaning, and other symptoms. The inability to accept rejection alone does not establish delusional disorder. For diagnostic detail about fixed relationship beliefs, see Delusional Disorder: Symptoms, Types, and Treatment.
Personality characteristics
Features such as entitlement, hostility, impulsivity, rejection sensitivity, or limited social understanding may help clinicians formulate particular cases. A personality disorder diagnosis has its own criteria. Neither trait scores nor a diagnosis can establish a person's legal responsibility for stalking or individual probability of assault.
Substance use and instability
Intoxication, substance-related problems, and major life changes may contribute to disinhibition or difficulties regulating behavior in some cases. Their relevance depends on timing and evidence. Treating a co-occurring condition can improve functioning while stalking-related boundary violations require separate behavioral attention.
Stalking, harassment, coercive control, and threats
Harassment is a broad description and may define separate offenses in different places. Stalking generally concerns a repeated, person-directed pattern with fear, serious distress, or related criteria under a given definition. Coercive control refers to a wider pattern of domination that may include monitoring and stalking. Threats, assault, trespass, protection-order breaches, and identity misuse can overlap while retaining distinct legal elements.
Everyday phrases such as social-media stalking sometimes refer to ordinary online curiosity. Clinical and forensic writing must distinguish colloquial usage from documented intrusive conduct. In the other direction, describing repeated surveillance as romantic persistence can trivialize the impact of serious harassment.
Risk factors, protective factors, and future behavior
Risk prediction must identify an outcome and period. Continued unwanted messages, renewed approaches, protection-order violations, violent assault, and other incidents have different meanings and base rates. Risk factors are associations or features relevant to management, not causes of crime or guarantees of an event.
Previous pursuit, threats, prior violence, access, relationship context, current circumstances, and protective restrictions may matter in some cases. Their weight depends on evidence specific to the outcome, population, and time horizon. The same risk marker can have different meaning in different settings.
The Guidelines for Stalking Assessment and Management provide a structured professional judgment framework. A 2018 study of 146 referred adults found that certain SAM judgments discriminated between subsequent stalking outcomes, with reported AUCs of .69 and .76 after revised scoring. It also identified interrater-reliability weaknesses under initial scoring.
In a long-term study of 100 forensic-clinic cases, a summed risk-factor measure predicted recorded stalking recidivism, whereas global risk judgments did not show significant predictive validity. The reported 45% recurrence combined investigations, charges, and convictions across lengthy follow-up. It cannot be used as a national population estimate or an individual's probability of physical assault.
A further study of 86 forensic psychiatric patients examined changes in factors over time and reported moderate discrimination for further stalking. Together the studies support structured, context-sensitive work rather than absolute prediction.
What accuracy statistics actually mean
Discrimination describes how well an instrument separates cases with and without an observed outcome in a study. Calibration asks whether estimated probabilities align with outcome frequencies. A risk scale can demonstrate moderate discrimination and still yield poorly calibrated probabilities when used in a different population.
False positives arise when people are labeled at increased risk but do not exhibit the target outcome in the observed period. False negatives occur when later events were not anticipated. Error rates depend on base rate, threshold, reporting, surveillance, and follow-up period. Police-recorded recidivism is also affected by willingness to report and enforcement.
Much research comes from adult, often predominantly male, forensic or police-selected samples. Validity must not be assumed for women, adolescents, unfamiliar cultures, or other underrepresented groups. Fairness across race, gender, disability, and socioeconomic position must be tested rather than asserted.
Specific tools, calibration problems, protective factors, and operational safety planning are discussed in Stalking Risk Assessment: Evidence, Tools, and Safety Planning.
Psychological and social consequences for targets
Stalking can affect daily routines, relationships, sleep, employment, social activity, and a sense of freedom. People may change travel routes, restrict public information, alter schedules, or ask others for support. Such behavior can be a reasonable response to uncertainty and fear.
The CDC summarizes associations between stalking and mental-health impacts, including anxiety, depressive symptoms, and posttraumatic stress symptoms. Association does not mean everyone develops a clinical disorder. Assessment of an individual requires attention to symptoms, history, functioning, and available support.
The emotional impact of stalking and whether a criminal offense can be established are different questions. A person may need practical or psychological assistance regardless of the outcome of a legal investigation.
Forensic and investigative evaluation
A responsible professional reconstructs the timeline of alleged acts and separates evidence from assumptions. Relevant materials may include the reported prior relationship, direct messages, calls, accounts, witness observations, location evidence obtained lawfully, prior incidents, explicit boundaries, and any protective orders. Each allegation and interpretation has a different level of support.
The evaluator should state the referral question, sources, limitations, competing explanations, and scope of the opinion. Assessment of psychiatric symptoms should use appropriate clinical methods; interpretation of stalking risk requires relevant professional expertise. The APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology emphasize competence, impartiality, and clarity about the role and scientific limits of forensic opinions.
Psychological observations, clinical findings, psychometric results, professional risk formulations, charges, and legal findings must remain distinct. Experts may assist decision-makers, but the legal system applies the governing standard of proof and law.
Can stalking behavior be treated?
Treatment seeks sustained cessation of unwanted conduct and change in the factors maintaining it. Depending on the formulation, a program may address anger, perceived entitlement, relationship expectations, rejection-related rumination, emotional dysregulation, behavioral impulses, and co-occurring mental-health or substance-use conditions.
A 2024 systematic review by Travaini and colleagues included 10 studies involving 661 patients, of whom 14 were women. Reviewed approaches included cognitive behavioral therapy, dialectical behavior therapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, cognitive analytic therapy, and other interventions. The authors described encouraging results for recurrence reduction but emphasized the need for more robust evidence.
Cognitive behavioral interventions
Some programs examine beliefs about rejection, entitlement, and the meaning of contact. They may teach alternatives to checking, approach behavior, repeated messages, and grievance rehearsal. The practical goal is consistent respect for boundaries and sustained reduction of harmful behavior, not simply improved self-description.
Other structured therapies
DBT-informed skills may address intense emotions and impulsive actions. ACT-informed work may address behavioral choices while difficult thoughts or urges remain present. Cognitive analytic approaches may explore recurring interpersonal patterns. These mechanisms are plausible therapeutic applications, while current stalking-specific research cannot definitively rank the therapies or identify a universal best approach.
Co-occurring psychiatric conditions
When a qualified assessment identifies a psychiatric or substance-use disorder, clinically indicated treatment can form part of a coordinated plan. Medication targets a specific diagnosed condition or symptom, not stalking as a stand-alone disease. Treatment of the condition does not remove the need for behavioral accountability and protection of the target.
Evidence limits and long-term outcomes
Studies vary by referral route, comparison condition, intervention, follow-up duration, and definition of recidivism. The review's gender distribution and small evidence base limit extrapolation. Future studies need representative samples, stronger comparisons, careful dropout analysis, longer observation periods, and consistent reporting of physical harm versus renewed contact.
Treatment, supervision, and personal responsibility
Where lawful and appropriate, supervision, protective restrictions, behavioral plans, and coordinated services can complement psychological care. A completed therapy session does not certify that a person presents no future risk. Likewise, a legal restriction may reduce opportunities for contact without resolving the beliefs or habits that contributed to earlier conduct.
The person engaging in repeated unwanted pursuit has responsibility to stop it. A target does not need to provide another explanation, attend mediation, or maintain contact to help the pursuer change. The intervention should respect the target's safety, privacy, and autonomy.
Can stalking stop without therapy?
Some episodes end following changes in circumstances, recognition of boundaries, reduced access, lawful enforcement, or personal disengagement. Others persist or recur. A promise, apology, or quiet interval does not provide a validated prediction of permanent cessation.
Someone who recognizes their own persistent unwanted behavior can stop direct and indirect contact and seek qualified psychological support for intrusive urges, anger, repetitive thinking, or distress. The immediate behavioral objective remains respect for the other person's boundaries.
What can someone experiencing stalking do?
An individualized safety approach may include keeping a dated record of incidents, securely preserving original messages where lawful, reviewing account and device security with competent assistance, involving trusted contacts, and seeking specialist victim services. Response options depend on the threats, relationship, living situation, employment, children, technological access, and jurisdiction.
The U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women provides information and access to victim services. People facing immediate danger in the United States can contact 911; those elsewhere should use their local emergency services. Confrontation and amateur digital investigation may increase risk in some circumstances, so personalized advice is valuable.
Documentation, psychological care, and legal action serve different purposes. A target's need for help does not depend on an existing conviction or clinical diagnosis.
Ethics, myths, and misconceptions
The stereotype of a universally obsessed stranger is unsupported. Known-person and former-partner cases are prominent, and the motives studied range across intimacy, rejection, grievance, coercion, and other contexts. It is also unsupported to assume that all people who stalk have psychosis or a personality disorder. Clinical diagnoses are not synonyms for criminal behavior.
Stalking does not invariably culminate in physical assault, but a lack of injury does not make persistent intrusion harmless. Risk assessment must distinguish continued contact, threats, and violence rather than assuming one inevitable trajectory.
Typologies are not diagnoses. Assessment instruments are not guilt detectors. A statistical association cannot identify a certain future act by an individual. Good forensic work keeps evidence, uncertainty, safety needs, and legal findings in their proper places.
Frequently asked questions
What is the psychology behind stalking?
Stalking describes unwanted repeated pursuit that can arise from relationship loss, perceived intimacy, entitlement, grievance, coercive control, or another purpose. A sound explanation connects the person's behavior and context to evidence rather than relying on one stereotype.
What are the five types of stalkers?
The classic Mullen typology names rejected, intimacy-seeking, incompetent, resentful, and predatory patterns. These categories are descriptive, can overlap, and have limited predictive validity across populations.
Is stalking a mental illness?
Stalking is a behavioral pattern, not an independent psychiatric diagnosis. Clinically assessed conditions may be relevant in specific cases but neither explain every instance nor prove an offense.
Why might a person stalk an ex-partner?
Possible motives include attempted reconciliation, jealousy, anger, humiliation, perceived entitlement, and control. The facts of the conduct and boundaries matter more than assigning one motive from relationship status.
Can stalking happen entirely online?
Yes. Repeated unwanted communication, impersonation, account intrusion, or technology-enabled monitoring may form a pattern of cyberstalking, subject to different research and legal definitions.
Does a risk score predict whether a stalker will become violent?
No assessment offers certain individual prediction. Instrument discrimination, calibration, false-positive and false-negative rates, outcomes, sample characteristics, and timeframes must all be considered.
Does stalking always escalate?
No fixed progression is established. Continued messaging, physical approach, threats, breaches of restrictions, and assault are different behaviors and possible outcomes.
What treatments have evidence?
A systematic review reports promising findings across several psychological interventions, while the evidence remains limited. Programs commonly target unwanted behavior, beliefs, emotional regulation, and relevant clinical needs.
Should someone confront a person who is stalking them?
There is no universal advice. Direct confrontation can be unsafe in some settings. Specialist victim services can help develop an individualized response.
What is the distinction between stalking and harassment?
Harassment is broader in common and some legal usage; stalking typically refers to a repeated, person-directed pattern associated with fear, serious distress, or related legal elements. Definitions vary by jurisdiction.
Related Articles
References
American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology. Professional guidance.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). Stalking: Patterns and effects. CDC resource.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: Definitions and questions. CDC resource.
Coupland, S. H., et al. (2023). Forecasting stalking recidivism using the Guidelines for Stalking Assessment and Management. Assessment. Primary study.
Mullen, P. E., Pathé, M., Purcell, R., & Stuart, G. W. (1999). Study of stalkers. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 1244–1249. DOI: 10.1176/ajp.156.8.1244.
Penney, S. R., et al. (2023). An examination of predictive validity and change in risk factors for stalking over time. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 51, 377–389. Journal article.
Shea, D. E., McEwan, T. E., Strand, S. J. M., & Ogloff, J. R. P. (2018). The reliability and predictive validity of the Guidelines for Stalking Assessment and Management. Psychological Assessment, 30, 1409–1420. DOI: 10.1037/pas0000589.
Smith, S. G., Basile, K. C., & Kresnow, M. (2022). National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 report on stalking. CDC report.
Storey, J. E., et al. (2011). Guidelines for Stalking Assessment and Management. Primary research.
Travaini, G., Flutti, E., Moretti, G., et al. (2024). Efficacy of treatment approaches for stalking offenders: A systematic review. International Review of Psychiatry, 36, 812–825. DOI: 10.1080/09540261.2024.2368796.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women. Stalking: Resources and assistance. Justice Department.
U.S. House of Representatives, Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S.C. § 2261A. Federal stalking provision.
Weekes, C. J., Storey, J. E., & Pina, A. (2025). Cyberstalking perpetrators and their methods: A systematic literature review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. DOI: 10.1177/15248380251333411.
Youngs, D., Ioannou, M., & Straszewicz, A. (2013). Distinguishing stalker modus operandi in a law-enforcement sample. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 24, 319–336. DOI: 10.1080/14789949.2013.795239.