Advertisement

American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 63–82 | Cite as

Opportunity and Self-Control: Do they Predict Multiple Forms of Online Victimization?

  • Bradford W. ReynsEmail author
  • Bonnie S. Fisher
  • Adam M. Bossler
  • Thomas J. Holt
Article

Abstract

This study investigates the predictors of four types of cybercrime victimization/experiences: online harassment, hacking, identity theft, and receiving nude photos or explicit content. The effects of victimization opportunity and low self-control are examined as the primary independent variables in logistic regression analyses of data collected from a large sample of undergraduates enrolled at two universities in the United States. Results suggest that opportunity is positively related to each of the four types of online victimization, and that low self-control is associated with person-based, but not computer-based, forms of cybercrime. These findings speak to the utility, and also the limitations, of these perspectives in understanding cybercrime victimization risk among college students, and to the potentially criminogenic nature of the Internet.

Keywords

Online victimization Cybercrime Opportunity Routine activities Self-control 

References

  1. Bossler, A. M., & Holt, T. J. (2009). On-line activities, guardianship, and malware infection: An examination of routine activities theory. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3, 400–420.Google Scholar
  2. Bossler, A. M., & Holt, T. J. (2010). The effect of self-control on victimization in the cyberworld. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 227–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brady, P. Q., Randa, R., & Reyns, B. W. (2016). From WWII to the World Wide Web: A research note on social changes, online “places,” and a new online activity ratio for routine activity theory. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32, 129–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Choi, K. S. (2008). Computer crime victimization and integrated theory: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2, 308–333.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A reply to Wortley's critique of situational crime prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, 16, 41–96.Google Scholar
  7. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Felson, M., & Eckert, M. A. (2015). Crime and everyday life (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Finkelhor, D., & Asdigian, N. L. (1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyles/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 11, 3–20.Google Scholar
  10. Fisher, B., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (1999). The extent and nature of the sexual victimization of college women: A National Level Analysis. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
  11. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik Jr, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime. Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 30, 5–29.Google Scholar
  13. Henson, B., Reyns, B. W., & Fisher, B. S. (2013). Does gender matter in the virtual world? Examining the effect of gender on the link between online social network activity, security, and interpersonal victimization. Security Journal, 26, 315–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  15. Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2008). Examining the applicability of lifestyle-routine activities theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant Behavior, 30, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2013). Examining the relationship between routine activities and malware infection indicators. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29, 420–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2014). An assessment of the current state of cybercrime scholarship. Deviant Behavior, 35, 20–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2016). Cybercrime in progress: Theory and prevention of technology-enabled offenses. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Holt, T. J., Bossler, A. M., Malinski, R., & May, D. C. (2016). Identifying predictors of unwanted online sexual conversations among youth using a low self-control and routine activity framework. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32, 108–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Holt, T. J., Smirnova, O., & Chua, Y. T. (2016). Exploring and estimating the revenues and profits of participants in stolen data markets. Deviant Behavior, 37, 353–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., & Pratt, T. C. (2008). Low self-control, routine activities, and fraud victimization. Criminology, 46, 189–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., Ullman, S., West, C., & White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kulig, T. C., Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Chouhy, C., & Unnever, J. D. (2017). Explaining bullying victimization: Assessing the generality of the low self-control/risky lifestyle model. Victims and Offenders, 12, 891–912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leukfeldt, E. R. (2015). Comparing victims of phishing and malware attacks. International Journal of Advanced Studies in Computer Science and Engineering, 5, 26–32.Google Scholar
  25. Leukfeldt, E. R., & Yar, M. (2016). Applying routine activity theory to cybercrime: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Deviant Behavior, 37, 263–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leukfeldt, R., Kleemans, E., & Stol, W. (2017). The use of online crime markets by cybercriminal networks: A view from within. American Behavioral Scientist, 61, 1387–1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maimon, D., Wilson, T., Ren, W., & Berenblum, T. (2015). On the relevance of spatial and temporal dimensions in assessing computer susceptibility to system trespassing incidents. British Journal of Criminology, 55, 615–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., & Ricketts, M. L. (2010). Potential factors of online victimization of youth: An examination of adolescent online behaviors utilizing routine activity theory. Deviant Behavior, 31, 381–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McNeeley, S. (2015). Lifestyle-routine activities and crime events. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31, 30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Näsi, M., Räsänen, P., Kaakinen, M., Keipi, T., & Oksanen, A. (2017). Do routine activities help predict young adults’ online harassment: A multi-nation study. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17, 418–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Navarro, J. N., & Jasinski, J. L. (2013). Why girls? Using routine activities theory to predict cyberbullying experiences between girls and boys. Women and Criminal Justice, 23, 286–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ngo, F. T., & Paternoster, R. (2011). Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5, 773–793.Google Scholar
  33. Peterson, J., & Densley, J. (2017). Cyber violence: What do we know and where do we go from here? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Piquero, A. R., MacDonald, J., Dobrin, A., Daigle, L. E., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Self-control, violent offending, and homicide victimization: Assessing the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21, 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ponemon. (2016). 2016 Cost of Cyber Crime Study. Available at: www.hp.com/us/en/software- solutions/ponemon-cyber-security-report/.
  36. Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime: A meta‐analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964.Google Scholar
  37. Pratt, T. C., Holtfreter, K., & Reisig, M. D. (2010). Routine online activity and internet fraud targeting: Extending the generality of routine activity theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47, 267–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pratt, T. C., Turanovic, J. J., Fox, K. A., & Wright, K. A. (2014). Self-control and victimization: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 52, 87–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Räsänen, P., Hawdon, J., Holkeri, E., Keipi, T., Näsi, M., & Oksanen, A. (2016). Targets of online hate: Examining determinants of victimization among young Finnish Facebook users. Violence and Victims, 31, 708–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reyns, B. W. (2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further expanding routine activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 216–238.Google Scholar
  41. Reyns, B. W. (2015). A routine activity perspective on online victimization: Results from the Canadian general social survey. Journal of Financial Crime, 22, 396–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reyns, B. W. (2017). Routine activity theory and cybercrime: A theoretical appraisal and literature review. In K.F. Steinmetz & M.R. Nobles (Eds.), Technocrime and criminological theory (pps. 35–54). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Reyns, B. W., Burek, M. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2013). The unintended consequences of digital technology: Exploring the relationship between sexting and cybervictimization. Journal of Crime and Justice, 36, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reyns, B. W., Fisher, B. S., & Randa, R. (2018). Explaining cyberstalking victimization against college women using a multitheoretical approach: Self-control, opportunity, and control balance. Crime and Delinquency,  https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717753116.
  45. Reyns, B. W., & Henson, B. (2016). The thief with a thousand faces and the victim with none: Identifying determinants for online identity theft victimization with routine activity theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60, 1119–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2011). Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle–routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1149–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2014). Digital deviance: Low self-control and opportunity as explanations of sexting among college students. Sociological Spectrum, 34, 273–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reyns, B. W., Woo, Y., Lee, H. D., & Yoon, O. K. (2018). Vulnerability versus opportunity: Dissecting the role of low self-control and risky lifestyles in violent victimization risk among Korean inmates. Crime and Delinquency , 64, 423-447.Google Scholar
  49. Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schreck, C. J., Wright, R. A., & Miller, J. M. (2002). A study of individual and situational antecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19, 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Song, H., Lynch, M. J., & Cochran, J. K. (2016). A macro-social exploratory analysis of the rate of interstate cyber-victimization. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 583–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spano, R., & Freilich, J. D. (2009). An assessment of the empirical validity and conceptualization of individual level multivariate studies of lifestyle/routine activities theory published from 1995 to 2005. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Stewart, E. A., Elifson, K. W., & Sterk, C. E. (2004). Integrating the general theory of crime into an explanation of violent victimization among female offenders. Justice Quarterly, 21, 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Symantec. (2016). 2016 Internet Security Threat Report. Available at www.symantec.com/security-center/threat-report?inid=globalnav_scflyout_istr.
  55. Turanovic, J. J., Reisig, M. D., & Pratt, T. C. (2015). Risky lifestyles, low self-control, and violent victimization across gendered pathways to crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vakhitova, Z. I., Reynald, D. M., & Townsley, M. (2016). Toward the adaptation of routine activity and lifestyle exposure theories to account for cyber abuse victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32, 169–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van Ouytsel, J., Ponnet, K., & Walrave, M. (2016). Cyber dating abuse victimization among secondary school students from a lifestyle-routine activities theory perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516629390.
  58. Van Wilsem, J. (2011). Worlds tied together? Online and non-domestic routine activities and their impact on digital and traditional threat victimization. European Journal of Criminology, 8, 115–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wall, D. S. (2001). Cybercrimes and the internet. In D. S. Wall (Ed.), Crime and the internet (pp. 1–17). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Wilcox, P., & Cullen, F. T. (2018). Situational opportunity theories of crime. Annual Review of Criminology, 1, 123–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wilsem, J. V. (2013). Hacking and harassment—Do they have something in common? Comparing risk factors for online victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29, 437–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wolfe, S. E., Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., & Ricketts, M. L. (2016). Routine cell phone activity and exposure to sext messages: Extending the generality of routine activity theory and exploring the etiology of a risky teenage behavior. Crime Delinquency, 62, 614–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yar, M. (2005). The novelty of ‘cybercrime’: An assessment in light of routine activity theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2, 407–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bradford W. Reyns
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bonnie S. Fisher
    • 2
  • Adam M. Bossler
    • 3
  • Thomas J. Holt
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeWeber State UniversityOgdenUSA
  2. 2.School of Criminal JusticeUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  3. 3.Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, University Hall, Room 226Georgia Southern University, Armstrong CampusSavannahUSA
  4. 4.School of Criminal JusticeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations