Socioeconomic differences in violent victimization: Exploring the impact of data source and the inclusivity of the violence concept
| Author | Reino Sirén,Janne Kivivuori,Mikko Aaltonen,Pekka Martikainen |
| Published date | 01 November 2012 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370811422800 |
| Date | 01 November 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
European Journal of Criminology
9(6) 567 –583
Socioeconomic differences
© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
in violent victimization:
co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1477370811422800
euc.sagepub.com
Exploring the impact
of data source and
the inclusivity of
the violence concept
Mikko Aaltonen and Janne Kivivuori
National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Finland
Pekka Martikainen
University of Helsinki, Finland
Reino Sirén
National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Finland
Abstract
Research on socioeconomic differences in violent victimization has relied on surveys. Nationally
representative register-based data sets, increasingly used in Nordic criminology, have not been
used in such research. We analyse socioeconomic differences in violent victimization in Finland
using both survey and register-based data, and assess whether these differences vary by severity
of violence. The results show that the data source and the inclusivity of the definition of violence
affect the observed socioeconomic differences, with differentials being larger for more severe
violence in both data sets and in register rather than in survey data. We conclude that the link
between socioeconomic status and victimization is unquestionable when the risk of severe
violence is studied.
Corresponding author:
Mikko Aaltonen, National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Criminological Research Unit, PO Box 444,
FI-00531 Helsinki, Finland.
Email: mikko.e.aaltonen@om.fi
568
European Journal of Criminology 9(6)
Keywords
Register-based research, socioeconomic status, survey, victimization
Most scholars would probably agree that the risk of violent victimization is not
distributed evenly across social strata (Fattah, 2003; Nilsson and Estrada, 2006; Von
Hentig, 1948). Moreover, it is possible that the risk of violence is changing so that the
relative risk of socially disadvantaged groups is increasing when contrasted with other
social groups. Such developments have been reported in the United States and in the
Nordic area (Kivivuori, 2003; Levitt, 1999; Nilsson and Estrada, 2003; Thacher, 2004).
They may reflect a decline in the general safety of the lowest social strata, an increasing
capability of the upper strata to ‘purchase’ safety from the security market, increasing
geographical social segregation in metropolitan areas, or any combination of such factors.
Clearly, the existence and persistence of social differentials in violent victimization
warrants continued attention.
On the other hand, some studies do not find a social differential in violence risk
(Van Kesteren et al., 2000; Wikström and Butterworth, 2006). Some of the controversy
in this field may have methodological sources, relating to the ways violent victimiza-
tion is studied. The most basic distinction lies in the traditionally dual nature of crimi-
nological data sources. Register-based studies rely on incidents reported to the criminal
justice system. Although the research tradition using administrative data has been
prominent when analysing offending, official data are seldom used when the determi-
nants of violent victimization are studied. The problem of hidden crime is the most
likely cause of this. Consequently, some researchers prefer victim surveys of differ-
ent kinds because they are believed to be more inclusive of various kinds of violence,
irrespective of police reporting. This, in turn, enables the use of omnibus-type
measures of violence, where everything from verbal abuse to aggravated physical
violence is aggregated into a single outcome measure. However, this conflation of all
violence under one label may reduce the level of comparability between surveys and
have a significant impact on the associations between predictors and victimization.
Inclusivity of the violence outcome should therefore be considered (Dobash and
Dobash, 2004; Felson and Ackerman, 2001) before making definite claims about soci-
oeconomic differences in victimization.
The present study seeks to clarify these methodological issues by examining the
impact of data source and inclusivity of the violence outcome on socioeconomic differ-
ences in violent victimization in two types of data: a nationally representative register-
based sample of Finnish citizens, where we can identify victims of police-reported
violence, and a national criminal victimization survey, where the outcome is based on
self-reports of violent victimization. Our study has three objectives. First, we explore
whether violent victimization risk varies by different measures of socioeconomic status
(SES). Second, we do this twice using both survey and register data. In doing so, we
hope to answer whether these two parallel sets of data give similar results on socioeco-
nomic determinants of violent victimization. Third, because both register and survey
data show variation in the gravity of violence, we analyse how the observed socioeco-
nomic differences are affected when the inclusivity of the victimization outcome is
varied by seriousness.
Aaltonen et al.
569
Background
Theoretical approaches to differential victimization risks by SES
A combination of lifestyle and routine activity theories has been the most widely applied
explanation for why some socioeconomic and demographic groups are more likely to
be victimized than others (Cohen et al., 1981; Cohen and Felson, 1979; Hindelang et al.,
1978). Although originally developed to answer different questions (Meier and Miethe,
1993), the two theories are commonly presented as one framework, where opportunity
structure has a central role (Meier and Miethe, 1993; Wilcox et al., 2003). In this frame-
work, the factors that influence the risk of victimization are usually formulated as expo-
sure to crime, proximity to crime, target attractiveness and capable guardianship
(Cohen et al., 1981; Finkelhor and Asdigian, 1996; Meier and Miethe, 1993).
According to the original formulation of lifestyle theory, ‘lifestyle differences
result from differences in role expectations, structural constraints, and individual and
subcultural adaptations’ (Hindelang et al., 1978: 245). Lifestyles and routine activities
modify the exposure to risk, which in turn affects the likelihood of violent victimiza-
tion in the long run. Additionally, when victims share sociodemographic features with
offenders, the resulting lifestyle similarities increase the likelihood of contacts between
the two.
Some elements of exposure to crime are more directly influenced by SES than others.
Although the term ‘lifestyle’ might imply a freedom of choice, it is evident that economic
resources shape individual lifestyles. For instance, violence in the workplace might con-
tribute to the SES–victimization link, because some occupations are more susceptible to
violence than others. Choice of area of residence is affected by economic resources, and
living in a poor, high-crime neighbourhood increases one’s proximity to crime. Research
has often concentrated on neighbourhood-level measures of affluence and levels of vic-
timization (for example, Lauritsen, 2001; Nilsson and Estrada, 2007; Sampson et al.,
1997). The economic status of a neighbourhood is also emphasized in social disorganiza-
tion theory, where poverty is a key factor affecting the breakdown of social control in a
neighbourhood (Shaw and McKay, 1942; Smith and Jarjoura, 1988). Finally, victim–
offender overlap should also be considered as a contributing factor to the SES–
victimization link, because criminal offending has consistently been identified as a major
risk factor for victimization (Lauritsen and Laub, 2007). Because offending is associated
with low SES, a person’s own criminal behaviour might mediate the link between low
SES and victimization (Bjarnason et al., 1999; Savolainen et al., 2009).
SES and victimization in recent studies
Major victimization surveys include varying measures of SES, and socioeconomic dif-
ferences in victimization rates are routinely reported in the descriptive reports of the
surveys. The National Crime Victimization Surveys (NCVS) in the United States report
consistent differences in the prevalence of violent victimization between income groups:
those reporting the lowest household income (family income of less than US$7500) have
the highest risk of violent victimization, with a yearly prevalence of 18.6 percent,
570
European Journal of Criminology 9(6)
whereas the group with the highest income (family income of US$75,000 or more) has a
prevalence of 3.2 percent (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2010).
The British Crime Survey (BCS), on the other hand, reports much smaller differ-
ences between income groups (Flatley et al., 2010). However, being unemployed is
associated with the likelihood of victimization in the BCS. The unemployed have a 7.7
percent yearly prevalence of all violence, whereas those in employment have a 3.3 percent
yearly prevalence. There are also small differences in victimization risk by the respond-
ent’s occupation and educational qualifications. However, when a variety of variables
are controlled in a logistic regression model explaining violent victimization, the
increased victimization risk associated with employment status is greatly diminished:
sex, age and marital status remain the most robust predictors of victimization in the
British data, and SES differences, measured by occupation, education...
To continue reading
Request your trial