Routine Activities

  • Billy HensonEmail author
Reference work entry


The growth of technology, and specifically the Internet, has had a profound effect on what was considered routine behavior and actions. Nowhere has this been more evident than with the progression of crime and victimization. As a result of the development of technology and the Internet, traditional crimes have begun to evolve, while new forms of crime have also been born. In an effort to explain cybercrime, researchers have begun adapting and examining criminology theories in this new virtual context. To that end, one of the most popular categories of criminological theory – routine activity theories – has been utilized as a primary means of analyzing online victimization. While the applicability of these types of theories to the nonphysical world of the Internet has received a fair amount of debate, almost all major forms of cybercrime have been studied via a routine activities’ framework. Though results have been mixed, there appears to be a fair amount of evidence indicating the potential for the adaptation of these theories to explain and predict cybercrime.


Routine activities Lifestyle Cybercrime Exposure Guardianship 


  1. Baum, K., Catalano, S., Rand, M., & Rose, K. (2009). Stalking victimization in the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Google Scholar
  2. Beran, T., Mishna, F., McInroy, L. B., & Shariff, S. (2015). Children’s experiences of cyberbullying: A Canadian national study. Children & Schools, 37, 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Bossler, A. M., Holt, T. J., & May, D. C. (2012). Predicting online harassment victimization among a juvenile population. Youth & Society, 44, 500–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Nodes, paths and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (2004). Computer simulation as a tool for environmental criminologists. Security Journal, 17, 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunch, J., Clay-Warner, J., & Lei, M.-K. (2015). Demographic characteristics and victimization risk: Testing the mediating effects of routine activities. Crime & Delinquency, 61, 1181–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choi, K. (2008). Computer crime victimization and integrated theory: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2, 308–333.Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, R. V. (1999). Hot products: Understanding, anticipating and reducing demand for stolen goods. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, L. E., Felson, M., & Land, K. C. (1980). Property crime rates in the United States: A macrodynamic analysis, 1947–1977 with ex ante forecasts for the mid-1980s. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 90–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, L. E., Kluegel, J. R., & Land, K. C. (1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review, 46, 505–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eck, J. E., & Clarke, R. V. (2003). Classifying common police problems: A routine activity approach. In Crime prevention studies (Vol. 16, pp. 7–39). Monsey: Criminal Justice Press.Google Scholar
  14. Felson, M. (1998). Crime and everyday life. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Finn, J. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 468–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher, B. S., Sloan, J. J., Cullen, F. T., & Lu, C. (1998). Crime in the ivory tower: Level and sources of student victimization. Criminology, 36, 671–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a national study of college women. Criminology & Public Policy, 1, 257–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., & Cullen, F. T. (2010). What distinguishes single from recurrent sexual victims? The role of lifestyle-routine activities and first-incident characteristics. Justice Quarterly, 27, 102–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franklin, C. A., Franklin, T. W., Nobles, M. R., & Kercher, G. A. (2012). Assessing the effect of routine activity theory and self-control on property, personal, and sexual assault victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39, 1296–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Grabosky, P. N. (2001). Virtual criminology: Old wine in new bottles? Social and Legal Studies, 10, 243–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hawkins, D. L., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Peer interventions in playground bullying. Social Development, 10, 512–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Higgins, G. E., Hughes, T. T., Ricketts, M. L., & Wolfe, S. E. (2008). Identity theft complaints: Exploring the state-level correlates. Journal of Financial Crime, 15, 295–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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 Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  26. Holt, T. J. (2007). Subcultural evolution? Examining the influence of on- and off-line experiences on deviant subcultures. Deviant Behavior, 28, 171–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2009). Examining the applicability of lifestyle–routine activities theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant Behavior, 30, 1–25.Google Scholar
  28. Holt, T. J., & Bossler, A. M. (2013). Examining the relationship between routine activities and malware infection indicators. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29, 420–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Holt, T. J., Burruss, G. W., & Bossler, A. M. (2018). Assessing the macro-level correlates of malware infections using a routine activities framework. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 1720–1741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jones, L. M., Mitchell, K. J., & Finkelhor, D. (2012). Trends in youth internet victimization: Findings from three youth Internet safety surveys, 2000–2010. Journal of Adolescent Health, 50, 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. KnowBe4. (2018). What is phishing? Retrieved from
  32. Marcum, C. D. (2009). Adolescent online victimization: A test of routine activities theory. El Paso: LFB Scholarly Publishing.Google Scholar
  33. Marcum, C. D., Higgins, G. E., & Ricketts, M. L. (2010). Assessing sex experiences of online victimization: An examination of adolescent online behaviors using routine activity theory. Criminal Justice Review, 35, 412–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miethe, T. D., & McDowall, D. (1993). Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization. Social Forces, 71, 741–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. F. (1990). Opportunity, choice, and criminal victimization: A test of a theoretical model. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27, 243–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. F. (1994). Crime and its social context: Toward an integrated theory of offenders, victims, and situations. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  37. Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (1998). Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: A routine activity analysis using refined lifestyles measures. Criminology, 36, 829–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Navarro, J. N., & Jasinski, J. L. (2012). Going cyber: Using routine activities theory to predict cyberbullying experiences. Sociological Spectrum, 32, 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nobles, M. R., Reyns, B. W., Fox, K. A., & Fisher, B. S. (2014). Protection against pursuit: A conceptual and empirical comparison of cyberstalking and stalking victimization among a national sample. Justice Quarterly, 31, 986–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pratt, T. C., Holtfreter, K., & Reisig, M. D. (2010). Routine online activity and Internet fraud targeting: Extending the generality of routine activity theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47, 267–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reyns, B. W. (2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further expanding routine activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 50, 216–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reyns, B. W. (2015). A routine activity perspective on online victimization: Results from the Canadian General Social Survey. Journal of Financial Crime, 22, 396–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reyns, B. W., & Henson, B. (2016). The thief with a thousand faces and the victim with none: Identifying determinants for online identity theft victimization with routine activity theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60, 1119–1139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2011). Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle-routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1149–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Reyns, B. W., Henson, B., & Fisher, B. S. (2012). Stalking in the twilight zone: Extent of cyberstalking victimization and offending among college students. Deviant Behavior, 33, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tseloni, A., Wittebrood, K., Farrell, G., & Pease, K. (2004). Burglary victimization in England and Wales, the United States and the Netherlands: A cross-national comparative test of routine activities and lifestyle theories. The British Journal of Criminology, 44, 66–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). What is cyberbullying? Retrieved from
  48. van Wilsem, J. (2013). Hacking and harassment – Do they have something in common?: Comparing risk factors for online victimisation. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29, 437–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Weisel, D. (2002). Burglary of single-family houses (Problem-oriented guides for police series, no. 18). Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
  50. Weulen Kranenbarg, M., Holt, T. J., & Van Gelder, J.-L. (2019). Offending and victimization in the digital age: Comparing correlates of cybercrime and traditional offending-only, victimization-only and the victimization-offending overlap. Deviant Behavior, 40, 40–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilcox Rountree, P., & Land, K. C. (1996). Burglary victimization, perceptions of crime risk, and routine activities: A multilevel analysis across Seattle neighborhoods and census tracts. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 147–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Williams, M. L. (2016). Guardians upon high: An application of routine activities theory to online identity theft in Europe at the country and individual level. British Journal of Criminology, 56, 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Yar, M. (2005). The novelty of ‘cybercrime’: An assessment in light of routine activity theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2, 407–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminology and Criminal JusticeMount St. Joseph UniversityCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations