Victimization risks and routine activities: A theoretical examination using a gender-specific and domain-specific model

  • Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine
Article

Abstract

This paper examines female and male victimization risks in general and in three domains: home, work, and leisure/public. In doing so, the analysis is based on a popular victimization model: the routine activities/lifestyle theory of victimization. There are several critiques of the routine activities/lifestyle theory research at present. Most tests of this theory use a sample of victims that does not distinguish between specific populations. Further, research on victimization risks needs domainspecific models of victimization because lifestyle can encompass a large variety of behaviors in several different settings, all of which do not have the same risk of victimization (Lynch, 1987). Analyses using data from the National Crime Survey’s Victim Risk Supplement (1983) indicate the importance of analyzing specific populations and domains in any evaluation of routine activities/lifestyle victimization theory because the determinants of victimization are not identical between men and women or between the domains of home, work, and leisure/public.

References

  1. Biderman, A. D. (1967).Report on a pilot study in the District of Columbia on victimization and attitudes on law enforcement. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  2. Block, R., Felson, M., & Block, C. R. (1984). Crime victimization rates for incumbents of 246 occupations.Social Science Research, 69, 442–451.Google Scholar
  3. Clarke, R., Eckblom, P., Hough, M., & Mayhew, P. (1985). Elderly victims of crime and exposure to risk.Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach.American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohen, L., & Cantor, D. (1980). The determinants of larceny: An empirical and theoretical study.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17, 140–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, L., & Cantor, D. (1981). Residential burglary in the United States: Life-style and demographic factors associated with the probability of victimization.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, L., Cantor, D., & Kleugel, J. (1981). Robbery victimization in the U.S.: An analysis of a nonrandom event.Social Science Quarterly, 62, 644–657.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, L., Kleugel, J., & Land, K. (1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory.American Sociological Review, 46, 505–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, J. J., Cox, B. G., & Langan, P.A. (1987). Job activities and personal crime victimization: Implications for theory.Social Science Research, 16, 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corrado, R., Roesch, R., Glackman, W., Evans, J., & Leger, G. (1980). Life styles and personal victimization: A test of the model with Canadian survey data.Journal of Crime and Justice, 3, 129–139.Google Scholar
  11. DeKeseredy, W. S. (1989). Dating life events stress, informational support and premarital woman abuse: A test of the buffering hypothesis.International Journal of Sociology of the Family, 19, 85–94.Google Scholar
  12. DeKeseredy, W. S., & Kelly, K. (1993). Woman abuse in university and college dating relationships: The contribution of the ideology of family patriarchy.Journal of Human Justice, 4(2), 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ennis, P. (1967).Report of a national crime survey on crime victimization in the United States. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  14. Felson, M. (1994).Crime and everyday life: Insight and implications for society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  15. Garofalo, J., Siegel, L., & Laub, J. (1987). School-related victimizations among adolescents: An analysis of National Crime Survey (NCS) narratives.Journal of Qualitative Criminology, 5(4), 321–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gartner, R., Baker, K., & Pampel, F. (1990). Gender stratification and the gender gap in homicide victimization.Social Problems, 37, 593–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gartner, R., & McCarthy, B. (1991). The social distribution of femicide in urban Canada, 1921–1988.Law and Society Review, 25(2), 287–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gottfredson, M. (1984).Victims of crime: The dimensions of risk. London: Her Majesty’s Stationer.Google Scholar
  19. Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1978).Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  20. Jensen, G. F., & Brownfield, D. (1986). Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: Beyond routine activity.Violence and Victims, 2, 85–99.Google Scholar
  21. Kaufman, R. L. (1993).Fortran program for calculating standardized and semi-standardized coefficients for logistic regression. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Department of Sociology.Google Scholar
  22. Laub, J. (1990). Patterns of criminal victimization in the United States. In W. B. Skogan, A. J. Lurigio, & R. C. Davis (Eds.),Victims of crime: Problems, policies, and programs (pp. 23–49). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Lynch, J. P. (1987). Routine activity and victimization at work.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Massey, J. L., Krohn, M. D., & Bonati, L. (1989). Property crime and the routine activities of individuals.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 378–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maxfield, M. (1987). Household composition, routine activity, and victimization: A comparative analysis.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 301–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. F. (1990). Opportunity, choice, and criminal victimization: A test of a theoretical model.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27, 243–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miethe, T. D., Stafford, M. C., & Long, J. S. (1987). Social differentiation in criminal victimization: A test of routine activities/lifestyle theories.American Sociological Review, 52, 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Miethe, T. D., Stafford, M. C., & Sloane, D. (1990). Lifestyle changes and risks of criminal victimization.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 6(4), 357–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Messner, S. F., & Tardiff, K. (1985). The social ecology of urban homicide: An application of the “routine activities” approach.Criminology, 2, 241–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peterson, R. D., & Bailey, W. C. (1992). Rape and dimensions of gender socioeconomic inequality in U.S. metropolitan areas.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 162–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Riley, D. (1987). Time and crime: The link between teenager lifestyle and delinquency.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 339–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rountree, P. W., Land, K. C., & Miethe, T. D. (1994). Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: A hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods.Criminology, 52(3), 387–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sampson, R. J., & Wooldredge, J. D. (1987). Linking the micro- and macro-level dimensions of lifestyle — Routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization.Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3(4), 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schwartz, M. D., & Pitts, V. L. (1995). Exploring a feminist routine activities approach to explaining sexual assault.Justice Quarterly, 12(1), 9–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stanko, E. A. (1988). Fear of crime and the myth of the safe home. In K. Yllo & M. L. Bograd (Eds.),A Feminist Critique of Criminology (pp. 75–88). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Wooldredge, J. D., Cullen, F. T., & Latessa, E. J. (1992). Research note: Victimization in the workplace: A test of routine activities theory.Justice Quarterly, 9(2), 325–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth Ehrhardt Mustaine
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sociology, 405 HFAUniversity of Central FloridaOrlando

Personalised recommendations