Opportunity and Self-Control: Do they Predict Multiple Forms of Online Victimization?
This study investigates the predictors of four types of cybercrime victimization/experiences: online harassment, hacking, identity theft, and receiving nude photos or explicit content. The effects of victimization opportunity and low self-control are examined as the primary independent variables in logistic regression analyses of data collected from a large sample of undergraduates enrolled at two universities in the United States. Results suggest that opportunity is positively related to each of the four types of online victimization, and that low self-control is associated with person-based, but not computer-based, forms of cybercrime. These findings speak to the utility, and also the limitations, of these perspectives in understanding cybercrime victimization risk among college students, and to the potentially criminogenic nature of the Internet.
KeywordsOnline victimization Cybercrime Opportunity Routine activities Self-control
- Bossler, A. M., & Holt, T. J. (2009). On-line activities, guardianship, and malware infection: An examination of routine activities theory. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3, 400–420.Google Scholar
- Choi, K. S. (2008). Computer crime victimization and integrated theory: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2, 308–333.Google Scholar
- Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A reply to Wortley's critique of situational crime prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, 16, 41–96.Google Scholar
- Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Felson, M., & Eckert, M. A. (2015). Crime and everyday life (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Finkelhor, D., & Asdigian, N. L. (1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyles/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 11, 3–20.Google Scholar
- Fisher, B., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (1999). The extent and nature of the sexual victimization of college women: A National Level Analysis. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
- Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik Jr, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime. Journal of research in crime and delinquency, 30, 5–29.Google Scholar
- Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
- Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2016). Cybercrime in progress: Theory and prevention of technology-enabled offenses. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Leukfeldt, E. R. (2015). Comparing victims of phishing and malware attacks. International Journal of Advanced Studies in Computer Science and Engineering, 5, 26–32.Google Scholar
- Ngo, F. T., & Paternoster, R. (2011). Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5, 773–793.Google Scholar
- Ponemon. (2016). 2016 Cost of Cyber Crime Study. Available at: www.hp.com/us/en/software- solutions/ponemon-cyber-security-report/.
- Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime: A meta‐analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964.Google Scholar
- Reyns, B. W. (2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further expanding routine activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 216–238.Google Scholar
- Reyns, B. W. (2017). Routine activity theory and cybercrime: A theoretical appraisal and literature review. In K.F. Steinmetz & M.R. Nobles (Eds.), Technocrime and criminological theory (pps. 35–54). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Reyns, B. W., Fisher, B. S., & Randa, R. (2018). Explaining cyberstalking victimization against college women using a multitheoretical approach: Self-control, opportunity, and control balance. Crime and Delinquency, https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717753116.
- Reyns, B. W., Woo, Y., Lee, H. D., & Yoon, O. K. (2018). Vulnerability versus opportunity: Dissecting the role of low self-control and risky lifestyles in violent victimization risk among Korean inmates. Crime and Delinquency , 64, 423-447.Google Scholar
- Symantec. (2016). 2016 Internet Security Threat Report. Available at www.symantec.com/security-center/threat-report?inid=globalnav_scflyout_istr.
- Van Ouytsel, J., Ponnet, K., & Walrave, M. (2016). Cyber dating abuse victimization among secondary school students from a lifestyle-routine activities theory perspective. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516629390.
- Wall, D. S. (2001). Cybercrimes and the internet. In D. S. Wall (Ed.), Crime and the internet (pp. 1–17). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar