Violent victimization of youth from a cross-national perspective
| Date | 01 September 2017 |
| Published date | 01 September 2017 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0269758017695606 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Violent victimization of youth
from a cross-national perspective:
An analysis inspired by routine
activity theory
Zuzana Podana
´
Charles University, Czech Republic
Abstract
The article analyses cross-national variation in violent victimization of youth using data from the
second sweep of the International Self-Report Delinquency Study. A multi-level approach is applied
which takes into account individual factors as well as the characteristics of the immediate neigh-
bourhood and the context of the given country. The routine activity theory suggested by Cohen
and Felson is utilized to derive hypotheses about macro-level factors with the potential to explain
differences in violent victimization rates. Specifically, the effects of homicide rates, the Gini
coefficient, and the Human Development Index are analysed. The results reveal that the variation
in violent victimization rates across countries is only partly attributable to the countries’ het-
erogeneity with respect to individual characteristics and lifestyle choices of youth, together with
neighbourhood features. Furthermore, a significant effect is observed for a country’s Human
Development Index, which relates higher levels of development to lower victimization risk, even
when individual and neighbourhood characteristics are controlled for.
Keywords
Violent victimization, juveniles, routine activity theory, comparative research
Research on violent victimization of youth has flourished over the last decades (e.g., Bjarnason
et al., 1999; Boney-McCoy and Finkelhor, 1995; Gibson, 2012; Henson et al., 2010; Higgins et al.,
2009; Lauritsen, 2003; Lauritsen et al., 1992; Nofziger, 2009; Savolainen et al., 2009; Schreck and
Fisher, 2004; Schreck et al., 2002). However, due to a lack of cross-national youth victimization
surveys, the main focus has been on individual-level victimization and research on cross-national
differences is still very limited (e.g., Gruszczyn´ska et al., 2012; Posick, 2013). The aim of this
Corresponding author:
Zuzana Podana
´, Department of Sociology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University, Celetna
´20, Prague 116 42, Czech Republic.
Email: zuzana.podana@ff.cuni.cz
International Review of Victimology
2017, Vol. 23(3) 325–340
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0269758017695606
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
study is thus to contribute to this scarcely researched topic using data from a recent large scale
project, the International Self-Report Delinquency Study 2 (ISRD-2; see Junger-Tas et al. 2012).
The advantage of this dataset is its hierarchical structure which facilitates the employment of
multilevel modelling and the situation of individual level data, not only into its immediate envi-
ronment, but into a macro-level context as well. The routine activity theory (RAT) perspective is
utilized to propose hypotheses about factors with the potenti al to contribute to differences in
violent victimization rates across countries.
Routine activity theory
The foundations of the RAT were formulated by Cohen and Felson (1979) in their famous article
‘Social change and crime rate trends’. They focus on the circumstances under which crime occurs
and suggest that for most crimes to be committed there are three necessary elements which need to
converge in space and time – a suitable target, a motivated offender, and the absence of guardian-
ship. Different everyday routine activities entail different odds of such a convergence and are,
therefore, associated with different levels of crime occurrence risk. Cohen and Felson’s focus is
aimed primarily at a macro level, since their intention is to explain the increase in crime rates in the
US after the Second World War. Their analysis of extensive data sources shows that this rise in
crime was accompanied by changes in citizens’ routine activities which became more unsuper-
vised and public-oriented and hence created a higher opportunity for victimization. Although the
RAT was originally formulated as a general framework for the analysis of crime occurrence, it can
also be applied when explaining victimization.
Another theoretical perspective linking routine activities to victimization through exposure to
high risk situations was proposed at the same time by Hindelang et al. (1978). They consider
lifestyles involving routine activities held in public places, especially at night, highly risky in terms
of victimization. However, a particular lifestyle is not a simple matter of choice, as it is also
influenced by cultural norms and society’s structural constraints. This perspective exhibits many
parallels with Cohen and Felson’s (1979) approach (e.g. Cohen et al., 1980; Cohen et al., 1981).
The idea that individual lifestyle influences the risk of victimization through increased opportunity
of exposure to motivated offenders in the absence of guardianship has become popular within
victimology; these theoretical approaches are sometimes labelled as the routine activities/lifestyles
(RA/LS) perspective.
Findings from individual- and meso-level applications of the RA/LS perspective on violent
victimization
Most research on violent victimization following the RA/LS approach focuses solely on micro-
level predictors or incorporates the community context of victimization. The very first studies were
interested in socio-demographic factors which are assumed to affect victimization risks through
their influence on the individual’s selection of routine activities. Hindelang et al.’s (1978) research
shows higher levels of personal victimization for males, younger people and single persons.
Similar results were replicated for violent victimization even when controlling for various lifestyle
characteristics (e.g. Sacco et al., 1993; Sampson, 1987; Schreck and Fisher, 2004).
Many research studies are aimed at identifying which lifestyle aspects or which routine activ-
ities are most victimogenic with respect to violence. It has been consistently shown that a delin-
quent lifestyle has a prominent effect (e.g., Bjarnason et al., 1999; Jensen and Brownfield, 1986;
326 International Review of Victimology 23(3)
To continue reading
Request your trial