Individual and Structural Opportunities

Abstract

Opportunity theories are suited to cross-national research on victimization that incorporates a multilevel approach. Comparative research on non-lethal victimization often combines several types of violence into a single category of expressive crime. While expressive crimes do indeed share some characteristics, opportunities leading to specific types of victimization may vary. The current research uses the International Crime Victimization Survey (ICVS) to examine two types of expressive victimization: sexual and physical assault. These data are limited to female victims, as sexual assault in the ICVS is assessed only for females. These data provide a rich source of comparative information on opportunities leading to victimization. Opportunities have been traditionally examined at the individual level through routine activities and lifestyles theories. Opportunity at the structural level of analysis is less commonly employed; however, routine activities theory offers a framework for measuring structural opportunity. The results indicate a multilevel approach of opportunities on victimization is appropriate. Differences in opportunity leading to sexual and physical assault are most evident in the opportunities provided by the development level of the country. The impact of country development on physical assault victimization is moderated by the involvement in leisure activities outside of the home.

A Systematic Review of Lifestyle-Routine Activity Theory in the Context of Direct-Contact Sexual Victimization

“…In addition, Stotzer and MacCartney’s (2016) sample ( n = 524) reflects academic institutions. Furthermore, the majority of analyses were conducted within the United States with only two studies (Schwartz et al, 2001; Stein, 2014) employing samples from outside the US. Given this, the majority of literature employing L-RAT to understand SV is characterized by US-based samples, thus potentially affecting the external validity of core components to non-US-based routines.…”

“…Other scholars operationalized exposure to crime through indicators of relationship status and/or sex behaviors, both of which could be conceptualized as individual factors that would influence the likelihood of victims and offenders converging in time and space. While involvement in a committed relationship may reflect target attractiveness, it also reflects exposure in terms of sexual safety (Franklin & Menaker, 2018) and proximity to risky situations or persons where SV may occur (Stein, 2014). General relationship indicators included being married or living alone (Belknap, 1987; Stein, 2014).…”

“…While involvement in a committed relationship may reflect target attractiveness, it also reflects exposure in terms of sexual safety (Franklin & Menaker, 2018) and proximity to risky situations or persons where SV may occur (Stein, 2014). General relationship indicators included being married or living alone (Belknap, 1987; Stein, 2014). Measures focused on sexual partners or risky sex behaviors comprised the Risky Sex Scale (Combs-Lane & Smith, 2002), and the number of consensual sex partners one had in their lifetime (Franklin & Menaker, 2018).…”

“…Yet, these items were not included in multivariate models. Across these items, only if the respondent lived alone (Stein, 2014) and the lifetime number of consensual partners (Franklin & Menaker, 2018) were significantly associated with SV.…”

“…Items included whether the respondent was ever electronically bullied and if they used a computer for more than 3 hours per day-both of which were positively associated with SV. Stein (2014) included a continuous measure of age that was inversely related to SV. Tillyer et al (2010) included an 11-item low self-control scale that was positively associated with SV for both male and female adolescents.…”