Determinants Of Victimization Research Articles

Discontinuities in the Age-Victimization Profile and the Determinants of Victimization

Discontinuities in the Age-Victimization Profile and the Determinants of Victimization

Cyberbullying: Who Are the Victims?

Bullying is not a phenomenon exclusive to the school environment. Pupils also become victims of verbal aggression (teasing, threats, insults, or harassment) in the context of internet chatrooms. The present study addresses the following questions: (1) How often does bullying occur in internet chatrooms? (2) Who are the victims of bullying in internet chatrooms? (3) What are the determinants of victimization in internet chatrooms? A total of 1700 pupils from various German secondary schools participated in the study. Results revealed a strong relationship between victimization in school and victimization in internet chatrooms; school victims are significantly more often chat victims. Furthermore, the predictors of chat and school victimization show both commonalities (gender, self-concept, child-parent relationship) and differences (social integration, popularity, and bullying behavior).

The Determinants of Criminal Victimization in São Paulo State, Brazil

In this paper, the determinants of victimization by burglary/larceny are assessed theoretically by a model that takes into account the victim’s investment in self-protection and criminals with heterogeneous ability. Such features generate a non-increasing relationship between an individual’s income (which is attractive to the criminal) and her victimization likelihood. Thus, we obtain a novel result indicating that rich people might experience less victimization than middle-class individuals. The determinants are also investigated empirically using a victimization survey for São Paulo state – Brazil (Pesquisa de Condição de Vida – 1998 ), and unlike the previous literature, we found evidence that most of the city size effect on victimization likelihood is explained by the city’s population characteristics (income, education, etc.). Moreover, crime and city size do not have an increasing relationship, and the same applies to victimization likelihood and victim’s income. These results are in line with our theoretical model predictions. Finally, we found evidence that people do not consider their victimization likelihood when choosing a city to live in.

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

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.

Individual risk and social risk as interacting determinants of victimization in the peer group.

This study evaluated the hypothesis that the behavior problems that place children at risk for victimization by peers are associated with victimization primarily when children are also at social risk for victimization. Social risk was defined as lacking supportive friends or as being rejected by the peer group. Participants were 229 boys and girls in the 3rd through 7th grades (M age = 11 years 2 months). As predicted, behavior problems (internalizing problems, externalizing problems, and physical weakness) were more strongly related to victimization when children had few friends, had friends who were incapable of fulfilling a protective function (e.g., were physically weak), or were rejected by peers than when children had more friends, had friends capable of defending them, or were better liked by peers. Results illustrate the principle that individual risk variables depend on social context for expression.

Trends in victimization in schools and elsewhere, 1974?1981

Trends in the rate of victimizations of juveniles in three settings-schools, homes, and streets/parks-are examined monthly during the period 1974–1981. The relationship between in-school victimization rates and those occurring outside of school are analyzed with multivariate ARMA models informed by previous research on school victimization (Gottfredson and Gottfredson, 1985) and an importation perspective on the source of crime and victimization in institutions such as schools. Results indicate that the overall in-school victimization rate remained relatively stable during this period but that victimization rates of juveniles in other settings had significant effects on in-school victimizations. This suggests that underlying causes of victimization in general are important determinants of victimization in schools. These results are limited, however, as we examine these sources of victimization only indirectly via relationships among the different victimization rates in dynamic models and by the aggregate nature of the monthly data from the National Crime Survey.