|
Abstract
|
This article assesses the theoretical and empirical status of offense activity and proximity to offending for explaining personal victimization. Our theoretical approach to the often-neglected linkage between offending and victimization is derived from recent revisions of lifestyle-routine activity theory (Jensen and Brownfield 1986; Garofalo 1987). Analyses of two national surveys of victimization in England and Wales suggest that offense activity--whether violent or minor deviance (e.g., drinking or drug use)--directly increases the risk of personal victimization. Moreover, ecological proximity to violence has positive effects on personal victimization, regardless of individual-level offense patterns. These results are generally replicated across time, across type of victimization (e.g., stranger vs. acquaintance-crime), and are independent of major demographic and individual-level correlates of victimization. Consequently, the data support the hypothesis that general deviance and violent offense activity may be considered a type of lifestyle that increases victimization risk, and that the structural constraint of residential proximity to crime has an effect on victimization that is unmediated by lifestyle and individual-level demographic factors. Our research therefore demonstrates that three broad factors--violent offending, deviant lifestyles, and ecological proximity to crime and violence--are deserving of further consideration in theoretical and empirical accounts of personal victimization.
VioLit summary:
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this study by Sampson and Lauritsen was to determine if the personal risk of victimization increases if one's behaviors are deviant or violent.
METHODOLOGY:
In considering the role of one's lifestyle to the probability of becoming a victim, this study reviewed and tried to combine and apply theoretical models. Theories mentioned included: routine activity and lifestyle theories of victimization (Hindelang et al. 1978; Cohen and Felson 1979; Cohen et al. 1981; Garofalo 1987); subculture of violence theory, (Wolfgang and Ferracuti, 1967); and "principle of homogamy" Hindelang et al. 1978, pp.256-257).
This study was a quasi-experimental cross-sectional design comprising of a two-staged analysis, using two nationally representative samples from the British Crime Surveys (BCS), conducted in 1982 and 1984. The first sample (1982) was comprised of 10,905 people, one person per residence aged 16 or older, who was randomly selected and interviewed. In 1984 a separate interview was conducted using data obtained from the second BCS survey. This was conducted independently of the 1982 BCS, not a follow-up, and was comprised of a representational sample of 11,030 residents who were similar to the 1982 survey sample.
In each year, all participants were interviewed over the phone and asked to recall personal victimizations that occurred to them within the last year, and if they had any previous experience with their offender. The BCS surveys included information such as: lifestyle, night time and leisure activities, deviant and violent behavior, and the respondent's address. Both surveys controlled for gender, age, marital status, and college education. The BCS surveys employed a stratified sampling design. Other analysis used included logistic regression in multivariate analysis, raw logistic coefficients and ratios of C/SE.
FINDINGS/DISCUSSION:
In the first stage of analysis, bivariate results reported three important lifestyle factors: 1) A significant relationship exists between the risk of victimization and prior involvement in violence, vandalism, and theft, 2) Heavy alcohol abusers were twice a likely to become victims as non-drinkers, and 3) Living in high violence areas almost doubles ones risk of victimization.
Mutivariate results looked at lifestyles, offending, and proximity to crime as independent variables of victimization. These results indicated that males and younger people are most likely to become victims, due to self-reported offending and their proximity to crime areas. Also, those who drink excessively and stay out at night face higher rates of personal victimization. Many findings agreed with Jensen and Brownfield (1986), that the effect of gender on being a victim is larger because men engaged in greater offense activity.
In the second stage of analysis, using the data from the 1984 BCS sample, analysis was conducted to try and replicate the 1982 major results. Unfortunately, the 1984 sample data did not include indicators of self-reported violence or drinking. The results did, however, replicate findings that a deviant lifestyle was a strong indicator of victimization. Results of proximity to crime show a significant association but not as strong as in the 1982 sample. Replicated in the 1984 survey (from 1982) were results showing that those who resided in high crime areas were twice as likely to be victimized by acquaintances than those residing in low crime areas.
The authors determined three major points including: 1) That offensive activity (drinking and drug use) and lifestyle choices increase one's risk of becoming a victim, 2) The principle of homogamy held true and was shown to be valid--the influence of ones surrounding environment on becoming a victim is independent of one's preference for offending, and 3) Closeness to the crime area is a determinant of victimization supporting the revised lifestyle theory.
AUTHORS' RECOMMENDATIONS:
The authors suggested a problem with disentangling the causal effect of violent offending and victimization by violence. They were interested to know if their findings could be replicated under different cultural and structural conditions like those in the U.S. (CSPV Abstract - Copyright © 1992-2007 by the Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Institute of Behavioral Science, Regents of the University of Colorado)
N1 - Call Number: NC, AB-241
KW - 1980s
KW - England
KW - Countries Other Than USA
KW - Victimization Risk Factors
KW - Victimization Causes
KW - Routine Activities
KW - Lifestyle
KW - Subculture of Violence Theory
KW - At Risk Juvenile
KW - At Risk Youth
KW - Juvenile Victim
KW - Juvenile Violence
KW - Juvenile Offender
KW - Juvenile Deviance
KW - Juvenile Delinquency
KW - Juvenile Crime
KW - Deviance Effects
KW - Delinquency Effects
KW - Crime Effects
KW - Violence Effects
KW - Adult Victim
KW - Adult Violence
KW - Adult Offender
KW - Adult Crime
KW - Individual Risk Factors |