The Role of “Problematic” and “Improved” Indicators of Risky Lifestyles in the Self-Control/Lifestyle Framework of Victimization Among Filipino Adolescents
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.
KeywordsSelf-control Risky lifestyles Victimization Philippines
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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: an empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge: Ballinger.Google Scholar
- Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Nunnally, J. C. (1967). Psychometric theory (1st ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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