No abstract

Is there a relationship between victimization and subsequent behaviors, and if so, does victimization lead to risky or constrained activities? Previous research is mixed, possibly due to limitations associated with selection bias, cross-sectional data, and floor and ceiling effects. The current study examines how victimization influences lifestyles using longitudinal National Crime Victimization Survey data. To avoid problems of selection bias and spuriousness, we use a propensity score matching approach to compare the subsequent lifestyles of victims and nonvictims. We find that victims tend to engage in higher levels of risky behavior following victimization than do nonvictims at similar points in time but that differences are due to preexisting factors that distinguish victims from nonvictims and not due to the victimization event, itself.

Routine activity theory and lifestyle-exposure theory propose that victimization rates differ across demographic groups because individuals in these groups engage in different activities. This implies that routine activities mediate the relationships between demographic characteristics and victimization. Although this core assumption underlies both theories, few researchers have attempted to test its validity, and the tests that do exist have relied primarily on cross-sectional, nongeneralizable data. The current study examines how routine activities mediate the associations between four demographic characteristics (gender, age, marital status, and household income) and violent victimization and theft using a longitudinal data set created from the National Crime Victimization Survey. We combine a multivariate ordered logistic model with a general structural equation model to examine direct and indirect paths. Results indicate that the effects of gender, income, and marital status on victimization are each at least partially mediated by routine activities, suggesting the applicability of lifestyle theories to the study of victimization.

It is well established that victimization is associated with increased risk of future victimization. According to state dependence arguments, this occurs because the victimization event changes either the individual or the social environment in ways that elevate risk. In contrast, the population heterogeneity perspective argues that the association between victimization events is spurious. Empirical research finds that state dependence and population heterogeneity jointly contribute to risk of repeat victimization, but research has not been able to specify the nature of the relationship between state dependence, population heterogeneity, and repeat victimization risk. Here, we propose that state dependence processes vary across levels of underlying propensity for victimization. Using propensity score matching with longitudinal data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, we find that state dependence effects operate differently depending upon one’s underlying risk of victimization and that the pattern of these effects differ for property and violent victimization.

We examine the effect of perceived school fairness on one's likelihood of participating in school violence and how social support influences this relationship. General strain theory (GST) and procedural justice theory suggest that when students perceive unfairness in school rules or treatment from teachers, they will be more likely to participate in violence. GST proposes that the strength of these relationships may be reduced by social support. Data from the 2009 School Crime Supplement of the National Crime Victimization Survey show that students who perceive unfair treatment from teachers are more likely to bring a weapon to school and fight at school than are students who believe that their teachers are fair. Students who perceive that rules are unfair are more likely to bring a weapon to school than are students who believe rules are fair. Perceived support from adults at school reduces the impact of teacher/rule unfairness on school violence.