Target Congruence as a Means of Understanding Risk of Intimate Partner Violence: A Comparison of Male and Female College Students in the United States

Abstract

This study examines the effects of routine activities and target congruence—or the extent to which an individual’s characteristics match up with offenders’ needs, motives, or reactivities—on intimate partner violence. We also examine whether the effect of target congruence is moderated by gender. Using a nationwide sample of more than 74,000 students from 129 universities across the United States, the results show that indicators of target antagonism, target gratifiability, and target vulnerability are associated with risk of physical and sexual intimate partner violence and that the importance of specific risk factors varies by gender. The results highlight the importance of target congruence in understanding victimization, and provide information that can direct policies to prevent intimate partner violence on college campuses.

Gendered Pathways Into Co-Offending Among a Sample of Adult Burglary and Robbery Offenders

“…Furthermore, consistent with research on pathways theory (Gehring, 2018; McClellan et al, 1997; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009; Simons & Whitbeck, 1991; Watts & Iratzoqui, 2019; Widom & White, 1997), some turning points had different relationships with the nature of co-offending depending upon gender, providing partial support for Hypothesis 6. This is consistent with a great deal of work on the gendered nature of risk factors for outcomes such as crime (Belknap & Holsinger, 2006; Holtfreter et al, 2004; Reisig et al, 2006; Van Voorhis et al, 2010; Walters, 2018; Zimmerman & Messner, 2010) and victimization (Elvey & McNeeley, 2018; Wilcox et al, 2009). However, although there was evidence that the predictors of co-offending are somewhat gendered, the results were not entirely consistent with pathways theory.…”

“…Moreover, the pathways literature suggests that the turning points identified in Hypothesis 5 are especially salient for female crime (McClellan et al, 1997; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009; Simons & Whitbeck, 1991). However, because male and female victimization may be influenced by different risk factors (e.g., Elvey & McNeeley, 2018; Wilcox, Tillyer, & Fisher, 2009), the consequences of child abuse and victimization may differ by gender as well. Consistent with this idea, studies confirm that the effects of child maltreatment on delinquency vary by gender (Watts & Iratzoqui, 2019; Widom & White, 1997).…”

The Sexual Victimization of College Students: A Test of Routine Activity Theory

“…A student’s living situation can also influence an individual’s physical proximity to motivated offenders. While previous research has operationalized this concept as whether the respondent lives on campus (Elvey & McNeeley, 2019; Snyder, 2015), it is likely more important to scrutinize who the respondent lives with . As Elvey and McNeeley (2019) suggested, respondents who live on campus likely do not live with romantic partners, which is important to assessing victimization risk given the ubiquity of intimate partner SA (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006).…”

“…While previous research has operationalized this concept as whether the respondent lives on campus (Elvey & McNeeley, 2019; Snyder, 2015), it is likely more important to scrutinize who the respondent lives with . As Elvey and McNeeley (2019) suggested, respondents who live on campus likely do not live with romantic partners, which is important to assessing victimization risk given the ubiquity of intimate partner SA (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2006). Moreover, Schreck and Fisher (2004) posit that individuals who live with family will have a reduced likelihood of being in physical proximity with motivated offenders resulting in a reduced likelihood of victimization.…”

Assessment of Ambivalent Sexism in University Students in Colombia and Spain: A Comparative Analysis

“…It is also important to mention, especially for the research topic analyzed here, the research carried out by Kalof [21] in which it is suggested that many victims of gender-based violence in the academic environment do not perceive GBV as such, in addition to the existing relationship among the structures that reinforce a model of masculinity in which some men may have assumed. Several current studies in this field have made it possible to examine in greater depth the university as a social space that also has to deal with gender-based violence and that has special characteristics that need to be analyzed to understand the complexity of this social problem [22][23][24][25][26][27].…”