Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 357–376 | Cite as

Lifestyle changes and risks of criminal victimization

  • Terance D. Miethe
  • Mark C. Stafford
  • Douglas Sloane
Article

Abstract

Routine activity/lifestyle theories have been used to explain temporal changes in crime rates, the social ecology of crime, and individuals' risks of criminal victimization. Using a panel of 33,773 individuals and 19,005 households at two points in time, the current study extends previous research by examining whether changes in lifestyles are associated with changes in individuals' risks of personal and property victimization. Changes in lifestyles which signal greater target visibility or exposure to motivated offenders (greater daytime and nighttime activity outside the home) and reduced guardianship (decreases in the number of household members) are generally associated with increased risks of both types of victimization. Persons who maintained high levels of nighttime activity outside the household were also more likely to remain victims at both time periods. However, “active” lifestyle changes (increased precautionary actions) did not have their expected impact on reducing victimization risks, and several other changes over time also were inconsistent with expectations. The paper concludes with a discussion of the role of “passive” and “active” lifestyle changes on victimization risks and the implications of our findings for developing sociological theories of criminal victimization.

Key words

lifestyle changes victimization exposure to crime guardianship panel design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alba, R. (1987). Interpreting the parameters of log-linear models.Sociol. Methods Res. 16: 45–77.Google Scholar
  2. Clarke, R. (1983). Situational crime prevention: Its theoretical basis and practical scope. In Tonry, M., and Morris, N. (eds.),Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 4, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 225–256.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, L. E. (1981). Modeling crime trends: A criminal opportunity perspective.J. Res. Crime Delinq. 18: 138–164.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, L. E., and Cantor, D. (1980). The determinants of larceny: An empirical and theoretical study.J. Res. Crime Delinq. 17: 140–159.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, L. E., and Cantor, D. (1981). Residential burglary in the United States: Life-style and demographic factors associated with the probability of victimization.J. Res. Crime Delinq. 18: 113–127.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, L. E., and Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach.Am. Sociol. Rev. 44: 588–608.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, L. E., Felson, M., and Land, K. C. (1980). Property crime rates in the United States: A macrodynamic analysis, 1947–77, with ex ante forecasts for the mid-1980s.Am. J. Sociol. 86: 90–118.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, L. E., Kluegel, J. R., and Land, K. C. (1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory.Am. Sociol. Rev. 46: 505–524.Google Scholar
  9. Cook, P. J. (1986). The demand and supply of criminal opportunities. In Tonry, M., and Morris, N. (eds.),Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research, Vol. 7, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 288–315.Google Scholar
  10. Duncan, O. D. (1985). New light on the 16-fold table.Am. J. Sociol. 91: 88–128.Google Scholar
  11. Felson, M. (1986). Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control, and criminal outcomes. In Cornish, D. B., and Clarke, R. V. (eds.),The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending, Springer-Verlag, New York, pp. 119–128.Google Scholar
  12. Felson, M., and Cohen, L. (1980). Human ecology and crime: A routine activity approach.Hum. Ecol. 8: 389–406.Google Scholar
  13. Garofalo, J. (1987). Reassessing the lifestyle model of criminal victimization. In Gottfredson, M., and Hirschi, T. (eds.),Positive Criminology, Sage, Beverly Hills, Calif., pp. 23–42.Google Scholar
  14. Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., and Garofalo, J. (1978).Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for Theory of Personal Victimization, Ballinger, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  15. Hough, M. (1987). Offender's choice of target: Findings from victim surveys.J. Quant. Criminol. 3: 355–369.Google Scholar
  16. Kessler, R. C., and Greenberg, D. F. (1981).Linear Panel Analysis: Models of Quantitative Change, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Lynch, J. P. (1987). Routine activity and victimization at work.J. Quant. Criminol. 3: 283–300.Google Scholar
  18. Messner, S. F., and Blau, J. R. (1987). Routine leisure activities and rates of crime: A macro-level analysis.Soc. Forces 65: 1035–1052.Google Scholar
  19. Miethe, T. D., Stafford, M. C., and Long, J. S. (1987). Sociol differentiation in criminal victimization: A test of routine activities/lifestyle theories.Am. Sociol. Rev. 52: 184–194.Google Scholar
  20. Nelson, J. F. (1980). Multiple victimizations in American cities: A statistical analysis of rare events.Am. J. Sociol. 85: 870–891.Google Scholar
  21. Sampson, R. J., and Wooldredge, J. D. (1987). Linking the micro- and macro-level dimensions of lifestyle-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization.J. Quant. Criminol. 3: 371–393.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terance D. Miethe
    • 1
  • Mark C. Stafford
    • 2
  • Douglas Sloane
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of SociologyVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburg
  2. 2.Washington State UniversityPullman
  3. 3.Catholic University of AmericaWashington, D.C.

Personalised recommendations