Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 223–245 | Cite as

Are repeatedly victimized households different?

  • Denise R. Osborn
  • Dan Ellingworth
  • Tim Hope
  • Alan Trickett


Much recent victimization research has concentrated on predicting who will be victimized, with relatively little concern for the number of events suffered. This study turns to the latter issue by focusing attention on the prediction of repeat victimization. A statistical methodology is employed which allows for the explicit recognition that an initial victimization must occur prior to any repeat event. When applied to property crime information from the 1984 British Crime Survey, we find little evidence that repeat victims have distinctive characteristics compared with single victims. Nevertheless, households with characteristics which protect from victimization, in the sense of giving rise to a low initial risk, have this protection reduced for a subsequent event. Moreover, comparing two households with different risk characteristics, their repeat victimization probabilities are more similar than were those for the initial occurrence.

Key Words

bivariate probit event dependency heterogeneity repeat victimization 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. BJS (1987).Series Crimes: Report of a Field Test, Bureau of Justice Statistics Technical Report, NCJ-104615, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  2. Cameron, A. C., and Trivedi, P. K. (1986). Econometric models based on count data: Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests.J. Appl. Econometr. 1: 29–53.Google Scholar
  3. Ellingworth, D., Farrell, G., and Pease, K. (1995). A victim is a victim is a victim.Br. J. Criminol. 55: 360–365.Google Scholar
  4. Farrell, G. (1992). Multiple victimisation: Its extent and significance.Int. Rev. Victimol. 2: 89–111.Google Scholar
  5. Farrell, G. (1993).Repeated Criminal Victimisation, Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Economic and Social Studies, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  6. Farrell, G., and Pease, K. (1993).Once Bitten, Twice Bitten: Repeat Victimisation and Its Implications for Crime Prevention, Crime Prevention Unit, Paper No. 46, Home Office Police Department, London.Google Scholar
  7. Fienberg, S. (1980). Statistical modelling in the analysis of repeat victimization. In Fienberg, S., and Reiss, A. (eds.),Indicators of Crime and Criminal Justice: Quantitative Studies, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pp. 41–53.Google Scholar
  8. Forrester, D., Chatterton, M., and Pease, K. (1988).The Kirkholt Burglary Prevention Project, Rochdale, Crime Prevention Unit, Paper 13, Home Office, London.Google Scholar
  9. Gottfredson, M. R. (1984).Victims of Crime: The Dimensions of Risk, Home Office Research Study, No. 81, HMSO, London.Google Scholar
  10. Greene, W. H. (1992).LIMDEP Version 6.0: User's Manual and Reference Guide, Econometric Software, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Greene, W. H. (1993).Econometric Analysis, 2nd ed., Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., and Garofalo, J. (1978).Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Jones, A. M. (1989). A double-hurdle model of cigarette consumption.J. Appl. Econometr. 4: 41–56.Google Scholar
  14. Kennedy, L. W., and Forde, D. R. (1990). Routine activities and crime: An analysis of victimization in Canada.Criminology 28: 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. King, G. (1989).Unifying Political Methodology: The Likelihood Theory of Stastistical Inference, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  16. Lasley, J. R., and Rosenbaum, J. L. (1988). Routine activities and multiple personal victimization.Sociol. Soc. Res. 73: 47–50.Google Scholar
  17. Lauritsen, J. L., and Davis-Quinet, K. F. (1995). Repeat victimisation among adolescents and young adults.J. Quant. Criminol. 11: 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maxfield, M. G. (1987). Household composition, routine activity, and victimization: A comparative analysis.J. Quant. Criminol. 3: 301–320.Google Scholar
  19. Meng, C.-L., and Schmidt, P. (1985). On the cost of partial observability in the bivariate probit model.Int. Econ. Rev. 26: 71–85.Google Scholar
  20. Meier, R. F., and Miethe, T. D. (1993). Understanding theories of criminal victimization. In Tonry, M. (ed.),Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 17, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  21. Miethe, T. D., Stafford, M. C., and Long, J. S. (1987). Social differentiation in criminal victimization: A test of routine activities/lifestyle theories.Am. Sociol. Rev. 52: 184–194.Google Scholar
  22. Nagin, D. S., and Farrington, D. P. (1992). The onset and persistence of offending.Criminology 30: 501–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nelson, J. F. (1980). Multiple victimization in American cities: A statistical analysis of rare events.Am. J. Sociol. 85: 870–891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. NOP Market Research Limited (1985).1984 British Crime Survey: Technical Report, NOP, Southampton.Google Scholar
  25. Osborn, D. R., Trickett, A., and Elder, R. (1992). Area characteristics and regional variates as determinants of area property crime levels.J. Quant. Criminol. 8: 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reiss, A. (1980). Victim proneness in repeat victimisation by type of crime. In Fienberg, S., and Reiss, A. (eds.),Indicators of Crime and Criminal Justice: Quantitative Studies, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, pp. 41–53.Google Scholar
  27. Rountree, P. W., Land, K. C., and Miethe, T. D. (1994). Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: A hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods.Criminology 32: 387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sampson, R. J., and Lauritsen, J. L. (1994). Violent victimization and offending: Individual-situational-, and community-level risk factors. In Reiss, A. J., and Roth, J. A. (eds.),Understanding and Preventing Violence: Social Influences on Violence, Vol. 3. Committee on Law and Justice, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Skogan, W. (1986). Methodological issues in the study of victimisation. In Fattah, E. (eds.),From Crime Policy to Victim Policy, Macmillan, London.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, D. A., and Jarjoura, G. R. (1989). Household characteristics, neighborhood composition and victimization risk.Social Forces 68: 621–640.Google Scholar
  32. Sparks, R. F. (1981). Multiple victimization: Evidence, theory and future research.J. Crim. Law Criminol. 72: 762–788.Google Scholar
  33. Sparks, R. F., Genn, H., and Dodd, D. (1977).Surveying Victims, Wiley, London.Google Scholar
  34. Trickett, A., Osborn, D. R., Seymour, J., and Pease, K. (1992). What is different about high crime areas.Br. J. Criminol. 31: 81–89.Google Scholar
  35. Trickett, A., Osborn, D. R., and Ellingworth, D. (1995). Property crime victimisation: The roles of individual and area influences,Int. Rev. Victimol. 3: 273–295.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denise R. Osborn
    • 1
  • Dan Ellingworth
    • 1
  • Tim Hope
    • 2
  • Alan Trickett
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Economic and Social StudiesUniversity of ManchesterManchesterU.K.
  2. 2.Department of CriminologyKeele UniversityU.K.

Personalised recommendations