Identifying Predictors of Unwanted Online Sexual Conversations Among Youth Using a Low Self-Control and Routine Activity Framework

Abstract

The development of the Internet and computer-mediated communications (CMC), such as email and instant messaging, has transformed the lives of young people. The ability to communicate in near real time with others provides beneficial social impact, though it has also created unique opportunities for victimization. Research has focused on certain forms of sexual activity online, such as sexting, but little study has been devoted to coercion to engage in sexual conversations as a form of sexual harassment. This study examined this phenomenon in a sample of middle and high school youth in Kentucky, applying an integrated low self-control and routine activity framework. The findings demonstrated that youth who were victimized were more likely to have low levels of self-control, view pornography, have peers who engaged others in sexual conversation online, and be female. The relationship between gender and victimization was examined in depth, along with the implications of this study for our understanding of the utility of routine activity theory and the general theory of crime.

Do routine activities help predict young adults’ online harassment: A multi-nation study

“…Our findings therefore appear similar to most of the existing studies using RAT in relation to online victimization, where RAT characteristics built for the offline setting are difficult to fully translate into variables for online study (e.g. Holt et al, 2016; Leukfeldt and Yar, 2016; Marcum et al, 2010; Van Wilsem, 2013). The use of SNS services was the only significant variable in all four countries, placing importance on the potential exposure to motivated offenders.…”

“…RAT has been applied in a number of past studies associated with online victimization (e.g. Holt et al, 2016; Leukfeldt and Yar, 2016; Marcum et al, 2010; Reyns, 2013; Van Wilsem, 2013), with these studies finding RAT to be a partially suitable tool for explaining victimization in the online context. Our findings are therefore somewhat in line with the existing studies.…”

“…Nonetheless, RAT has continued to be used in relation to studies on different forms of online victimization (e.g. Bossler et al, 2012; Holt et al, 2016; Leukfeldt and Yar, 2016; Marcum et al, 2010; Van Wilsem, 2013). Although existing research does mirror some of the aspects of Yar’s earlier criticism, it also indicates that RAT does explain victimization in the online context, at least partially.…”

“…Although existing research does mirror some of the aspects of Yar’s earlier criticism, it also indicates that RAT does explain victimization in the online context, at least partially. In particular, the aspect of guardianship has failed to be significant in explaining online victimization in any past studies (see also Reyns et al, 2016), whereas variables reflecting visibility, or exposure of a suitable target, have served as significant variables in explaining online victimization through existing research (see, for example, Bossler et al, 2012; Holt et al, 2016; Reyns, 2013). Some studies have also applied lifestyle exposure theory (Hindelang et al, 1978) in combination with RAT for the purpose of better examining online crimes.…”

“…Although the RAT approach has been a dominant theoretical framework in social science studies concerning risk factors of victimization in the offline context (Felson, 1987; Felson and Boba, 2010), recent years have seen a number of studies focusing on online victimization relying on RAT as their theoretical basis. Among these online topics have been, for example, internet fraud (Pratt et al, 2010), identity theft (Reyns, 2013), malware victimization (Bossler and Holt, 2009; Choi, 2008), cyberbullying (Navarro and Jasinski, 2012) and online sexual harassment (Holt et al, 2016; Marcum et al, 2010).…”