The Role of Vicarious and Anticipated Strain on the Overlap of Violent Perpetration and Victimization: A Test of General Strain Theory

Abstract

Numerous studies have documented a relationship between criminal offending and violent victimization. That is, people who commit criminal behavior are also more likely to be victimized. As such, criminological theories traditionally used to explain criminal behavior have now been applied to explain victimization. The current study examines whether Agnew’s general strain theory can explain the offender-victim overlap using a nationally representative sample of males. Results show that vicarious strain is positive and significant in predicting both victimization and perpetration. Anticipated strain was found only to be significant and positive in predicting victimization, but not perpetration. The study’s limitations and future research are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    There are several limitations in using cross-sectional data, such as directly testing the causal relationship between strain variables and the dependent variables. We talk about this concern further in the discussion section of the paper.

  2. 2.

    The primary investigators compared characteristics of the schools that participated to schools that did not participate (across variables such as region, grades offered, enrollment size and public/private), as well as comparing characteristics of their municipalities (such as population size, race/ethnicity, age and gender distributions, educational attainment, income, employment, poverty, and crime). No significant differences were found, with one exception: there was a slight difference in the upper age distribution that does not appear consequential for our study (Sheley & Wright, 1998).

  3. 3.

    The primary investigators report a response rate of 45%, indicating that surveys were sent to about 1,630 students. Most schools were unable to conduct followup mailings or reach truants or dropouts, so there is a potential “good boy” bias to the sample (Sheley & Wright, 1998). To test this possibility, the primary investigators administered the same survey to random comparative samples at three schools in the original school sample. These onsite respondents showed more problematic responses than the original sample in the areas of school performance, shooting and beating victimizations off school grounds, using knives to threaten others, ownership of automatic or semiautomatic handguns, gun carrying outside of the home (ibid). Although this suggests a possible “good boy” bias in our sample, problems with deviance are still evident, as the two samples did not vary regarding victimizations on school property, victimizations involving knives, arrest history, theft, burglary, armed robbery, assault with a gun or knife, drug use or sales, gang membership, or ownership of regular rifles, automatic or semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, sawed-off shotguns, and revolvers (ibid).

  4. 4.

    Some readers might question whether being threatened and actually experiencing victimization should be combined together. The dependent variable is constructed to capture all types of victimization—as those who are at the receiving end of a threat generally consider themselves as victims (Hinduja & Patchin, 2008). In some states, issuing a creditable threat towards a person is an arrestable offense and several studies have found that threats are a precursor to physical victimization (Alsaker, Kristoffersen, Moen, & Baste, 2011; Outlaw, 2009; Follingstad, Rutledge, Berg, Hause, & Polek, 1990).

  5. 5.

    Experienced strain is not tested in the current study. Previous studies have traditionally measured experienced strain by asking respondents about their own personal victimization—one of the study’s dependent variable. This omission should not be a major concern, as Agnew (2002) has pointed out that the majority of studies testing general strain theory have concentrated heavily on personal experiences (i.e. whether the respondent has been or currently being treated in a negative manner by others). This has led many criminologists to neglect the role of anticipated and vicarious strain on criminal behavior, including physical victimization and perpetration (see, Baron, 2009; Lin et al., 2011; Agnew, 2002; McGrath et al., 2012).

  6. 6.

    Although the data are cross-sectional, it was possible to control for prior delinquency. Respondents were instructed to indicate whether they had committed any of the listed acts of delinquency and to indicate their age at which those acts were committed. The ages of which most delinquent acts occurred ranged from 9 to 14 years old, while 97% of the survey’s respondents were 16 years or older (for more details see, Sheley & Wright, 1998; also see Agnew, 2002).

  7. 7.

    To determine the impact of clustering, we examined the intra-class correlation (ICC) for the sample for each dependent variable. If all variation in the sample across the dependent variables were due to grouping in schools, the ICC would equal 1. Conversely, if none of the variation in the sample were due to clustering in schools, the ICC would equal 0. For perpetration, the intra-class correlation (calculated using the “loneway” procedure in Stata) was 0.043, indicating that less than 5% of the variation in the sample is attributable to individual’s grouping in schools. For victimization the ICC is 0.097, indicating that less than 10% of the variation in the sample is attributable to school grouping. Although both values are quite low, we addressed this grouping methodologically by using the “robust” and “cluster” options for Stata to produce logistic regression models with standard errors that are adjusted for the clustering of students in schools. Compared to models that did not address clustering, results for the theoretical variables remained unchanged. However the significance of some of the control variables was impacted. For the model predicting victimization, gang membership became non-significant. For the model predicting perpetration, Hispanic and Other Race became significant predictors.

References

  1. Agnew, R. (2002). Experienced, vicarious, and anticipated strain: An exploratory study on physical victimization and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 19, 603–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Agnew, R., Brezina, T., Wright, J. P., & Cullen, F. T. (2002). Strain, personality traits, and delinquency: Extending general strain theory. Criminology, 40, 43–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Roxbury.

  4. Akers, R. L. (2009). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alexander, P. C., Moore, S., & Alexander, E. R., III. (1991). What is transmitted in the intergenerational transmission of violence? Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 657–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Alsaker, K., Kristoffersen, K., Moen, B. E., & Baste, V. (2011). Threats and acts of intimate partner violence reported by user at Norwegian women’s shelters. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 950–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Baron, S. W., Forde, D. R., & Kay, F. M. (2007). Self-control, risky lifestyles, and situation: The role of opportunity and context in the general theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baron, S. Q. (2009). Street youths’ violent response to violent personal, vicarious, and anticipated strain. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 442–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Battin, S. R., Hill, K. G., Abbott, R. D., Catalano, R. F., & David Hawkins, J. (1998). The contribution of gang membership to delinquency beyond delinquent friends. Criminology, 36, 93–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Broidy, L. M., Daday, J. K., Crandall, C. S., Sklar, D. P., & Jost, P. F. (2006). Exploring demographic, Structural, and behavioral overlap among homicide offenders and victims. Homicide Studies, 10, 155–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Buka, S. L., Stichick, T. L., Birdthistel, I., & Earls, F. J. (2001). Youth exposure to violence: Prevalence, risks, and consequences. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 298–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chang, J. J., Chen, J. J., & Brownson, R. C. (2003). The role of repeat victimization in adolescent delinquent behaviors and recidivism. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 272–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cochran, J. K., Sellers, C. S., Wiesbrock, V., & Palacios, W. R. (2011). Repetitive intimate partner victimization: An exploratory application of social learning theory. Deviant Behavior, 32, 790–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cohen, L. E., Kluegel, J. R., & Land, K. C. (1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review, 46, 505–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Crouch, J. L., Hanson, R. F., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Resnick, H. S. (2000). Income, race/ethnicity, and exposure to violence in youth: Results from the national survey of adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology 28, 625–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Curry, G. D., Decker, S. H., & Jr, A. E. (2002). Gang involvement and delinquency in a middle school population. Justice Quarterly, 19, 275–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Daday, J. K., Broidy, L. M., Crandall, C. S., & Sklar, D. P. (2005). Individual, neighborhood, and situational factors associated with violent victimization and offending. Criminal Justice Studies, 18, 215–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Decker, S. H., Katz, C. M., & Webb, V. J. (2008). Understanding the black box of gang organization: Implications for involvement in violent crime, drug sales, and violent victimization. Crime & Delinquency, 54, 153–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dobrin, A. (2001). The risk of offending on homicide victimization: A case control study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 154–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ehrensaft, M. K., Cohen, P., Brown, J., Smailes, E., Chen, H., & Johnson, J. G. (2003). Intergenerational transmission of partner violence: A 20-year prospective study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 741–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Esbensen, F.-A., & Huizinga, D. (1991). Juvenile victimization and delinquency. Youth & Society, 23, 202–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Esbensen, F.-A., & Thomas Winfree, L. (1998). Race and gender difference between gang and nongang youths: Results from a multisite survey. Justice Quarterly, 15, 505–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fagan, J., Piper, E. S., & Cheng, Y.-T. (1987). Contributions of victimization to delinquency in inner cities. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78, 586–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Follingstad, D. R., Rutledge, L. L., Berg, B. J., Hause, E. S., & Polek, D. S. (1990). The role of emotional abuse in physical abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 5, 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Forde, D. R., & Kennedy, L. W. (1997). Risky lifestyles, routine activities, and the general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 14, 265–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Fox, K. A., Nobles, M. R., & Akers, R. R. (2011). Is stalking a learned phenomenon? An empirical test of social learning theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 39–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., & Cullen, F. T. (2010). What distinguishes single from recurrent sexual victims? The role of lifestyles-routine activities and first-incident characteristics. Justice Quarterly, 27, 102–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fisher, J. C., & Mason, R. L. (1981). The analysis of multicollinear data in criminology. In J. A. Fox (Ed.), Methods in quantitative criminology (pp. 99–125). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Fitzpatrick, K. M. (1997). Aggression and environmental risk among low-income African-American youth. Journal of Adolescent Health, 21, 172–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Gottfredson, M. R. (1981). On the etiology of criminal victimization. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 714–726.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Gover, A. R., Kaukinen, C., & Fox, K. A. (2008). The relationships between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal, 23, 1667–1693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gover, A. R., Park, M., Tomsich, E. A., & Jennings, W. G. (2011). Dating violence perpetration and victimization among South Korean college students: A focus on gender and childhood maltreatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1232–1263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Hay, C., & Evans, M. M. (2006). Violent victimization and involvement in delinquency: Examining predictions from general strain theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 261–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Heyman, R. E., & Smith Slep., A. M. (2002). Do child abuse and interpersonal violence lead to adulthood family violence? Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 864–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Higgins, G. E., Jennings, W. G., Tewksbury, R., & Gibson, C. L. (2009). Exploring the link between low self-control and violent victimization trajectories in adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 1070–1084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crimes: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge: Ballinger Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2008). Cyberbulling: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., Piquero, N. L., & Piquero, A. R. (2010). Low self-control and fraud: Offending, victimization, and their overlap. Criminal Justice & Behavior 37, 188–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Jennings, W. G., Park, M., Tomisich, E. A., Gover, A. R., & Akers, R. L. (2011). Assessing the overlap in dating violence perpetration and victimization among South Korean college students: The influence of social learning and self-control. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 188–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Jennings, W. G., Higgins, G. E., Tewksbury, R., Gover, A. R., & Piquero, A. R. (2010). A longitudinal assessment of the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25, 2147–2174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Jennings, W. G., Piquero, A. R., & Reingle, J. M. (2012). On the overlap between victimization and offending: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jensen, G. F., & Brownfield, D. (1986). Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: beyond routine activity. Violence and Victims, 1, 85–99.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Kerley, K. R., Xiaohe, Xu, & Sirisunyaluck, B. (2008). Self-control, intimate partner anuse, and intimate partner victimization: Testing the general theory of crime in Thailand. Deviant Behavior, 29, 503–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Klevens, J., Duque, L. F., & Ramirez, C. (2002). The victim-perpetrator overlap and routine activities: Results from a cross-sectional study in Bogota, Colombia. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 206–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kort-Butler, L. A. (2010). Experienced and vicarious victimization: Do social support and self-esteem prevent delinquent responses? Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 496–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Lauritsen, J. L., Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Linder, J. R., Crick, N. R., & Andrew Collins, W. (2002). Rational aggression and victimization in young adults’ romantic relationships: Associations with perceptions of parent, peer, and romantic relationships quality. Social Development, 11, 69–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Lin, W.-H., Cochran, J. K., & Mieczkowski, T. (2011). Direct and victimization violent victimization and juvenile delinquency: An application of general strain theory. Sociological Inquiry, 81, 195–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Maldonado-Molina, M. M., Jennings, W. G., Tobler, A. L., Piquero, A. R., & Canino, G. (2010). Assessing the victim-offender overlap among Puerto Rican youth. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1191–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Manasse, M. E., & Ganem, N. M. (2009). Victimization as a cause of delinquency: The role of depression and gender. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 371–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Maxfield, M. G. (1987). Lifestyles and rountine activity theories of crime: Empirical studies of victimization, delinquency, and offender-decision-making. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 275–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. McGrath, S. A., Marcum, C. D., & Copes, H. (2012). The effects of experienced, vicarious, and anticipated strain on violence and drug use among inmates. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 60–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Menard, S. (2010). Logistic regression: From introductory to advanced concepts and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Mihalic, S. W., & Elliott, D. (1997). A social learning theory model of martial violence. Journal of Family Violence, 12, 21–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Miller, M. H., Esbensen, F.-A., & Freng, A. (1999). Parental attachment, parental supervision and adolescent deviant in intact and non-intact families. Journal of Crime and Justice 22, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Miller, J., & Decker, S. H. (2001). Young women and gang violence: Gender, street offending, and violent victimization in gangs. Justice Quarterly, 18, 115–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Moon, B., Hwang, H.-W., & McCluskey, J. D. (2011). Causes of school bullying: Empirical test of a general theory of crime, differential association theory, and general strain theory. Crime & Delinquency, 849877.

  61. Moon, B., & Morash, M. (2004). Adaptation of theory for alternative cultural contexts: Agnew’s general strain theory in South Korea. Journal of International and Comparative Criminal Justice, 28, 77–104.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Moses, A. (1999). Exposure to violence, depression, and hostility in a sample of inner city high school youth. Journal of Adolescence, 22, 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2000). Comparing the lifestyles of victims, offenders, and victim-offenders: A routine activity theory assessment of similarities and differences for criminal incident participants. Sociological Focus, 33, 339–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Nofziger, S. (2009). Victimization and the general theory of crime. Violence and Victims, 24, 337–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Nofziger, S., & Kurtz, D. (2005). Violent lives: A lifestyle model linking exposure to violence to juvenile violent offending. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61, 635–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Osgood, D. W., & Schreck, C. J. (2007). A new method for studying the extent, stability, and predictors of individual specialization in violence. Criminology, 45, 273–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Outlaw, M. (2009). No one type of intimate partner abuse: Exploring physical and non-physical abuse among intimate partners. Journal of Family Violence, 24, 263–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Overstreet, S., Dempsey, M., Graham, D., & Moely, B. (1999). Availability of family support as a moderator of exposure to community violence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 151–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Ozer, M. M., & Engel, R. S. (2012). Revisiting the use of propensity score matching to understand the relationships between gang membership and violent victimization: A cautionary note. Justice Quarterly, 29, 105–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Payne, B. K., Triplett, R. A., & Higgins, G. E. (2011). The relationship between self-control, witnessing domestic violence, and subsequent violence. Deviant Behavior, 32, 769–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., & Esbensen, F.-A. (2004). Gang Membership and Violent Victimization. Justice Quarterly 21, 793–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Piquero, N. L., & Sealock, M. D. (2000). Generalizing general strain theory: An examination of an offending population. Justice Quarterly, 17, 449–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Piquero, A. R., MacDonald, J., Dorbin, 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Pizarro, J. M., Zgoba, K. M., & Jennings, W. G. (2011). Assessing the interaction between offender and victim criminal lifestyles and homicide type. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 367–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Reingle, J. M., Ataras, S. A. S., Jennings, W. G., Branchini, J., & Maldonado-Molina, M. M. (2012). The relationship between marijuana use and intimate partner violence in a nationally representative, longitudinal sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi:10.1177/0886260511425787.

  78. Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1990). Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime, and the offender-victim link in personal violence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27, 110–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Schreck, C. J., Fisher, B. S., & Mitchell Miller, J. (2004). The social context of violent victimization: A study of the delinquent peer effect. Justice Quarterly, 21, 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Schreck, C. J., Wright, R. A., & Mitchell Miller, J. (2002). A study of individual and situational antecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19, 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Schreck, C. J., Stewart, E. A., & Wayne Osgood, D. (2008). A reappraisal of the overlap of violent offenders and victims. Criminology, 46, 871–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Schwab-Stone, M. E., Ayers, T. S., Kasprow, W., Voyce, C., Barone, C., Shriver, T., & Weissberg, R. P. (1995). No safe haven: A study of violence exposure in an urban community. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 1343–1352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Schwartz, M. D., Dekeserdy, W. S., Tait, D., & Alvi, S. (2001). Male peer support and a feminist routing activities theory: Understanding sexual assault on the college campus. Justice Quarterly, 18, 623–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Schwartz, M. D., & Pitts, V. L. (1995). Exploring a feminist routine activities approach to the explaining sexual assault. Justice Quarterly, 12, 9–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Selner-O’Hagan, M. B., Kindlon, D. J., Buka, S. L., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. J. (1998). Assessing exposure to violence in urban youth. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39, 215–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Sheley, J. F., & Wright, J. D. (1998). High school youths, weapons, and violence: A national survey. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Research in Brief.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Silver, E. (2002). Mental disorder and violent victimization: The mediating role of involvement in conflicted social relationships. Criminology, 40, 191–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Silver, E., Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Piquero, N. L., & Leiber, M. (2011). Assessing the violent offending and violent victimization overlap among discharged psychiatric patients. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Singer, M. I., Anglin, T. M., Song, L. Y., & Lunghofer, L. (1995). Adolescents’ exposure to violence and associated symptoms of psychological trauma. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 477–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Singer, S. I. (1981). Homogeneous victim-offender populations: A review and some research implications. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 779–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Smith, D. J., & Ecob, R. (2007). An investigation into causal links between victimization and offending in adolescents. The British Journal of Sociology, 58, 633–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Sparks, R. F., Genn, H. G., & Dodd, D. J. (1977). Surveying victims. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Spohn, R. E., & Kurtz, D. L. (2011). Family structure as a social context for family conflict: Unjust strain and serious delinquency. Criminal Justice Review, 332–356.

  95. Stewart, E. A., Schreck, C. J., & Simons, R. L. (2006). ‘I ain’t gonna let no one disrespect me:’ Does the code of the street reduce or increase violent victimization among African American adolescents? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 427–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middleton, K. A., Busch, A. L., Lundeberg, K., & Carlton, R. P. (2000). The intergenerational transmission of spouse abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 640–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Taylor, T. J., Freng, A., Esbensen, F.-A., & Peterson, D. (2008). Youth gang memberships and serious violent victimization: The importance of lifestyles and routine activities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1441–1464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Taylor, T. J. (2008). The boulevard ain’t safe for your kids: Youth gang membership and violent victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 24, 125–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Taylor, T. J., Peterson, D., Esbensen, F.-A., & Freng, A. (2007). Gang membership as a risk factor for adolescent violent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44, 351–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2000). Routine activities and vandalism: A theoretical and empirical study. Journal of Crime and Justice, 23, 81–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Thaxton, S., & Agnew, R. (2004). The nonlinear effects of parental and teach attachment on delinquency: Disentangling strain from social control explanations. Justice Quarterly, 21, 763–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Wekerle, C., Leung, E., Wall, A.-M., MacMillan, H., Boyle, M., Trocme, N., & Waechter, R. (2009). The contribution of childhood emotional abuse to teen dating violence among child protective services-involved youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Wolfgang, M. E. (1958). Patterns in criminal homicide. Oxford: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Wittebrood, K., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (1999). Wages of sin? The link between offending, lifestyles and violent victimization. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 7, 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Zhang, L., Welte, J. W., & Wieczorek, W. F. (2001). Deviant lifestyle and criminal victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 133–143.

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Egbert Zavala.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Zavala, E., Spohn, R.E. The Role of Vicarious and Anticipated Strain on the Overlap of Violent Perpetration and Victimization: A Test of General Strain Theory. Am J Crim Just 38, 119–140 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-012-9163-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Victim-offender overlap
  • General strain theory
  • Vicarious strain
  • Anticipated strain