Victimology Flashcards
Begins with RAT literature and moves through L-RAT. Additionally, readings connecting the V-O overlap via L-RAT, self-control, and strain are provided.
What was important about Cohen & Felson (1979)?
Original articulation of routine activities theory. The authors sought to explain the increase in violent crime across the country post World War II.
As routine activities move away from the home/family, the opportunity for crime to occur increases
Likely offenders, suitable targets, and absence of guardianship = a criminal event.
What did Cohen & Felson (1979) find?
Using aggregate trends of routine activities—measured by the U.S. household activity ratio (census)— and crime in the U.S. they saw that crime rose as routine activities moved away from the home
What was the purpose of Osgood et al. (1996)?
An extension of routine activities as an individual-level theory of adolescent offending
Attempt to merge RAT and social disorganization perspectives using the key variable: unsupervised teen groups
What was the core argument of Osgood et al. (1996)?
situations conducive to deviance are more prevalent during unstructured socializing of peers, specifically in the absence of authority figures
-crime is inherent to the immediate gains provided by the act itself.
What were the findings of Osgood et al. (1996)?
Routine activities is strongly associated with criminal behavior, heavy alcohol use, weed use and other drug use, and dangerous driving = This relationship was the strongest when unstructured socializing with peers was done so in the absence of an authority figure/guardian
Also, engagement in all leisure activities decreased once adolescents entered adulthood. This means the most deviant structural position someone can be in is around 18 for males.
What does Osgood & Anderson (2004) extend the literature and what do they find?
Extends Osgood and colleagues (1996) individual-level RAT theory by using it to explain aggregate levels of unstructured socializing and its impact on aggregate rates of delinquency
Data and Methods: 4,358 8th grade students across 10 cities. Used MLM.
Time spent in unstructured socializing with peers both at the individual and contextual level, explained a large portion of the variance on rates of delinquency.
What did the following find with regard to RAT?
Maimon, D., & Browning, C. (2010). Unstructured socializing, collective efficacy, and violent
behavior among urban youth. Criminology, 48(2): 443-474.
This is the first study to link unstructured socializing with peers with adolescent violent behavior (e.g., hitting someone, setting fires).
Neighborhood collective efficacy attenuates the strong relationship between unstructured socializing with peers and violent behavior
Supports an integrated RAT and social disorganization approach.
What is the core proposition of Lifestyles-Routine Activities Theory (L-RAT)?
Name the four constructs with definitions/examples.
Victimization becomes more likely when there is an increase in exposure (i.e., visibility and accessibility), proximity (i.e., physical distance), and target attractiveness (e.g., substance abuse), in the absence of capable guardianship (e.g., parents) (Cohen et al., 1981; Hindelang et al., 1978).
Chiefly important in this theory is how risky lifestyles (e.g., engaging in criminal/delinquent behavior) is associated with increased exposure, proximity, and target attractiveness, and therefore, subsequently associated with crime and victimization.
Principle of Homogamy–what is it and how does it relate to victimization?
people are more likely to associate with individuals similar to themselves and, therefore, delinquent persons are more likely to associate with delinquent others (Hindelang et al., 1978).
Consequently, L-RAT would propose that people engaged in delinquent, risky lifestyles, likely associate (and even co-offend) with delinquent others, and this association increases likelihood of victimization via increased exposure, proximity, and attractiveness, and in absence in capable guardianship (Cohen et al., 1981).
What is the victim-offender overlap?
the victim-offender overlap is the phenomenon that many victims are offenders, and many offenders are victims
What did the following find with regard to the V-O overlap?
Lauritzen and colleagues (1991)
Lauritzen and colleagues (1991) found empirical support that involvement in delinquent lifestyles increase one’s likelihood of personal and property victimization (see also Berg & Schreck, 2021; Kulig et al., 2017; Schreck et al., 2002).
How would self-control theory be applied to the V-O overlap?
As articulated in Schreck (1999), low self-control (LSC) causally influences increased likelihood of engaging in criminal behavior for the same reasons it influences likelihood of victimization.
For example, the same individual with low self-control is more likely to engage in crime for short-term gratification to attain something of value (e.g., theft), as they are to co-offend with similar others who may commit acts of theft against them (i.e., principle of homogamy; Gottfredson, 2021; Schreck, 1999).
In short, a self-control perspective would suggest that risky lifestyles—which includes criminal offending— mediates the relationship between LSC and both risk of offending and victimization (Schreck, 1999; see also Kulig et al., 2017).
What is a strength of self-control’s ability to explain the V-O overlap?
Self-control theory, although more recently applied to the victim-offender overlap, extends from L-RAT’s explanation on why victims are differentially at risk for victimization by offering an explanation for who is more likely to engage in risky lifestyles and why (Schreck, 1999).
List the 6 ways Schreck (1999) linked Self-Control Theory to victimization.
Should know 1-2 examples.
(1) Self-control = degree of future orientation.
*includes impulsive behavior and the willingness to defer gratification.
*EXAMPLE: For instance, those with lower self-control are more likely to seize opportunities to have fun without making sure that they or their belongings will be safe from their associates or others
(2) self-control = empathy.
*self-centered people’s acts of kindness are not motivated by genuine concern for others (G&H, 1990).
*EXAMPLE: A person with low empathy also might be poor at evaluating the intent of others; this, too, would increase vulnerability.
(3) self-control = tolerance for frustration
*EXAMPLE: People with this shortcoming could become impatient with complex security devices such as steering wheel locks, and might give up using them or else use them carelessly
(4) self-control = diligence:
*less self-control tend to lack tenacity and persistence
*EXAMPLE: People Low self-control, manifested through lack of diligence, thus helps opportunistic offenders to make quick, effortless gains
(5) self-control = preference physical activity
*Persons who prefer physical activity are less likely to use their cognitive ability to assess a risky situation and possible responses to that situation.
*EXAMPLE: Individuals who prefer physical activity would be more at risk of becoming victims.
(6) self-control = risk avoidance:
*People who are low in self-control are more inclined to involve themselves in thrill-seeking activities. This type of behavior, such as hitchhiking places individuals in situations in which they are vulnerable.
What was a key finding from the Pratt et al. (2014) meta-analysis on victimization?
The effect of self-control was lessened when risky lifestyles (intervening factors) were controlled for in studies.
