Advertisement

Asian Journal of Criminology

, Volume 13, Issue 3, pp 175–191 | Cite as

The Role of “Problematic” and “Improved” Indicators of Risky Lifestyles in the Self-Control/Lifestyle Framework of Victimization Among Filipino Adolescents

  • Dan Jerome Barrera
Article

Abstract

Pratt and Turanovic (European Journal of Criminology, 13(1):129–146, 2016) argue that previous studies operationalizing risky lifestyles as mere “going out” (problematic indicators of risky lifestyles) were misspecified and that “improved” indicators of risky lifestyle (risky behaviors) would perform better than “problematic” indicators in models that explain victimization. This study examines these propositions by testing the self-control/lifestyle framework of victimization using the data from a random sample of Filipino high school students at a state university in Dumaguete City, Philippines. Results show strong support to Pratt and Turanovic’s claims. Self-control has stronger effects on improved indicators than on problematic ones. And, improved indicators have stronger effects than problematic indicators on property, violent, peer/sibling and sexual victimization. Moreover, the findings provide partial support for the self-control/lifestyle framework of victimization.

Keywords

Self-control Risky lifestyles Victimization Philippines 

Notes

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Compliance

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Burt, C. H., Simons, R. L., & Simons, L. G. (2006). A longitudinal test of the effects of parenting and the stability of self-control: Negative evidence for the general theory of crime. Criminology, 44(2), 353–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cho, S. (2017). Self-control and risky lifestyles in context: Cross-level integration between opportunity and collective efficacy in the study of peer victimization among South Korean youth. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(1), 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: a routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coxe, S., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2009). The analysis of count data: a gentle introduction to Poisson regression and its alternatives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Engel, C. (2012). Low self-control as a source of crime: a meta-study. Bonn: Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.Google Scholar
  6. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics and sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll (4th ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Finkelhor, D., Hamby, S., Turner, H., & Ormrod, R. (2011). The juvenile victimization questionnaire: 2nd revision (JVQ-R2). Durham: Crimes Against Children Research Center.Google Scholar
  8. Forde, D. R., & Kennedy, L. W. (1997). Risky lifestyles, routine activities, and the general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 14(2), 265–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Franklin, C. A. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-control and alcohol-induced sexual assault victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 263–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gardner, W., Mulvey, E., & Shaw, E. (1995). Regression analyses of counts and rates: Poisson, overdispersed Poisson, and negative binomial models. Psychological Bulletin, 118(3), 392–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gottfredson, M. R. (1981). On the etiology of criminal victimization. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72(2), 714–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Grasmick, H., Tittle, C., Bursick, R., & Arneklev, B. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: an empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge: Ballinger.Google Scholar
  15. Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., & Pratt, T. C. (2008). Low self-control, routine activities, and fraud victimization. Criminology, 46, 189–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kirby, S., Francis, B., & O’Flaherty, R. (2014). Can the FIFA World Cup football (soccer) tournament be associated with an increase in domestic abuse? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51, 259–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Lance, C. E., Butts, M. M., & Michels, L. C. (2006). The sources of four commonly reported cutoff criteria: what did they really say? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 202–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Messner, S. F., Lu, Z., Zhang, L., & Liu, J. (2007). Risks of criminal victimization in contemporary urban China: an application of lifestyle/routine activities theory. Justice Quarterly, 24(3), 496–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1998). Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: a routine activity analysis using refined lifestyle measures. Criminology, 36(4), 829–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108, 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  23. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  24. Pauwels, L. J. R., & Svensson, R. (2011). Exploring the relationship between offending and victimization: what is the role of risky lifestyles and low self-control? A test of two urban samples. Eur J Crim Pol Res, 17, 163–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., & Farrington, D. P. (2010). On the malleability of self-control: theoretical and policy implications regarding a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 27(6), 803–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pratt, T. C. (2016). A self-control/life-course theory of criminal behavior. European Journal of Criminology, 13(1), 129–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: a meta-analysis. Criminology, 38(3), 931–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pratt, T. C., & Turanovic, J. J. (2016). Lifestyle and routine activity theories revisited: the importance of “risk” to the study of victimization. Vict Offenders, 11(3), 335–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pratt, T. C., Turanovic, J. J., Fox, K. A., & Wright, K. A. (2014). Self-control and victimization: a meta-analysis. Criminology, 52(1), 87–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ren, L., He, N. P., Zhao, R., & Zhang, H. (2017). Self-control, risky lifestyles, and victimization: a study with a sample of Chinese school youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(5), 695–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reyes, J. (2015). Loób and Kapwa: an introduction to a Filipino virtue ethics. Asian Philos, 25(2), 148–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schreck, C. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: an extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16(3), 633–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schreck, C. J., Wright, R. A., & Miller, J. M. (2002). A study of individual and situational antecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19(1), 159–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schreck, C., Stewart, E., & Fisher, B. (2006). Self-control, vicitmization, and their influence on risky lifestyles: a longitudinal analysis using panel data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spano, R., & Freilich, J. D. (2009). An assessment of the empirical validity and conceptualization of individual level multivariate studies of lifestyle/routine activities theory published from 1995 to 2005. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stewart, E. A., Elifson, K. W., & Sterk, C. E. (2004). Integrating the general theory of crime into an explanation of violent victimization among female offenders. Justice Quarterly, 21(1), 159–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. (2010). Cohen, Lawrence E., and Marcus K. Felson: Routine activity theory. In F. Cullen & P. Wilcox (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminological theory (Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  38. Tiangco, J. A. N. Z. (2005). Understanding the Filipino philosophy of resiliency: katatagang-loob [emotional strength/resiliency] and its phenomenological considerations. In R. M. Gripaldo (Ed.), Filipino cultural traits. Washington, DC: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  39. Turanovic, J. J., & Pratt, T. C. (2014). “Can’t stop, won’t stop”: self-control, risky lifestyles, and repeat victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 29–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Turanovic, J. J., Reisig, M. D., & Pratt, T. C. (2015). Risky lifestyles, low self-control, and violent victimization across gendered pathways to crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Criminal Justice EducationNegros Oriental State UniversityDumaguete CityPhilippines

Personalised recommendations