Once Bitten, Thrice Wise: The Varying Effects of Victimization on Routine Activities and Risk Management

Abstract

While the relationship between offending and victimization is well established, less is understood about what contributes to the varied effects of victimization on future behavior. Drawing on qualitative interviews from a sample of at-risk men, the study explores recognized and unrecognized effects of victimization on subsequent behavior and management of lifestyle risks both within and across narratives. Findings demonstrate a range of perceived effects on behavior and risk management, with the presence or absence of substantive effects related to whether the event was both severe and directly attributable to involvement in at-risk behavior. Consequences for the victimization–termination hypothesis are discussed.

Acknowledgments

An earlier version of the article was presented at the 2010 Midwestern Criminal Justice Association annual meeting in Chicago, IL. The author sincerely thanks Jody Miller, T.J Taylor, Finn Esbensen, as well as the editor and anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments and advice on earlier drafts of the article.

Notes

¹See Hindelang and colleagues' (1978) once bitten, twice shy thesis—which assumes some degree of victim rationality.

²These demographic, cultural, and behavioral similarities are more applicable for some forms of violence than others—notable exceptions include child abuse and domestic violence (see Fagan and Browne 1994; Widom 1989a; 1989b).

³Only Curtis, Eddie, and Orlando indicated having never had any involvement in drug sales throughout their lives.

⁴If more individuals volunteered than field researchers were present, a simple random selection process was used. Any unselected volunteers were told they were welcome to volunteer on another day researchers were present. However, the use of this practice was uncommon as there was typically the same number of volunteers as researchers present.

⁵In three interviews (Gary, Lamont, and Sean), respondents were specifically asked to describe their “most recent or most memorable conflict or problem.” These were the only three instances in which subjects were explicitly prompted for their “most recent or most memorable” problem or issue.

⁶While 31 respondents reported some victimization experience, Bobby was excluded from subsequent analysis. While he noted being a victim, he did not discuss the victimization incident and was not asked any of the appropriate follow-up questions. The lack of information about Bobby's victimization and its potential effects on behavior warranted case exclusion.

⁷The extent of victimizations discussed was dependent on how much information the respondent felt comfortable divulging as well as how rigorously the field researcher probed for multiple victimization experiences. Only three individuals (Barry, Franklin, and Isaac) were asked only once if they were the victim of crime or violence. All other victimized respondents were probed to discuss at least two incidences, if applicable.

⁸While 30 respondents reported some victimization experience, three cases (Anton, James, and Eric) were excluded from subsequent analysis because the effects of victimization are unknown. This is because the questions addressing the perceived effect of victimization were either misinterpreted by the subject or were not asked by the field researchers. Close inspection of these respondents' accounts of their victimization experiences indicated that they were not substantively related to their individual behavior.

⁹Prior research with active offender populations has found that retaliation is a commonly reported means of asserting street justice (Jacobs and Wright 2006). While the present study did not directly ask respondents about their use of retaliatory behavior, ten individuals discussed either the threat or use of violence in certain situations. It was commonly discussed as a technique used against drug buyers who did not make good on payment in a timely manner (Lamont, Maurice, Neal, Taylor, Victor, and William), suppliers who stretched drug supplies (Darnell and Philip), and known individuals who attempted or successfully stole drugs (Stanley and Zach). Outside of drug dealers, only Eric “whooped me a couple niggas' ass[es]” in what he perceived as both a retaliatory act and a technique to forestall the threat of future robberies by a few “little crack fiends.”

¹⁰Inspection of the five non-victim respondents (Andrew, Dennis, Eddie, Neal, and Patrick) revealed that two individuals discussed the use of risk management techniques absent any discussed victimization. Andrew would try to remain calm during disagreements to prevent them from boiling over into violent encounters and Patrick would never give out any drugs on credit.

¹¹Two robbery victims (James and Eric) were never asked whether their victimization changed patterns of drug use or behavior. See footnote 7 for additional information regarding their exclusion from analysis specific to behavioral change.

¹²Nelson was the one robbery victim who did not discuss a direct link between his victimization and his drug using and selling lifestyle. Nelson described that his robbery occurred when he was “walking home, they pulled a gun out on me, so empty my pockets—‘Here have it all.’” Further questioning about what may have facilitated the robbery was not addressed by the field researcher; thus it is unclear if the robbery victimization was actually or perceived to be related to Nelson's drug dealing and influenced his discussed use of risk avoidance strategies.

¹³A justifiable criticism of the present study is whether risk management techniques were used absent of or prior to any discussed exposure to victimization. As demonstrated in footnote 10, only two respondents (Andrew and Patrick) articulated the use of risk minimization strategies absent of any discussed victimization. For those who answered that they had been the victim of a crime, respondents were first asked to describe what happened and were then asked whether they perceived the experience to have changed or influenced their subsequent behavior and management of problems or conflicts. While it is possible respondents could have erroneously discussed risk management strategies that were used prior to their victimization, care was taken to clearly delineate those who spoke generally about the use of risk management approaches and those who initiated a change in behavior following a victimization. This is clearly demonstrated by several respondents classified within the “no behavioral change” group. These victimized respondents (Isaac, Lamont, Philip, Reggie, Ronald, and Victor) perceived that their experience did not influence or change their future behavior and spoke only of how they generally managed the risks inherent in their involvement in an at-risk lifestyle.

¹⁴Curtis is counted as one of the five shooting victims who did not experience subsequent behavioral change. While he reported “I been robbed, I been shot at,” the field researcher did not ask any follow up questions specific to the shooting victimization. Thus it is unclear whether his shooting victimization was related to his reported absence of behavioral changes.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

J. Michael Vecchio

J. MICHAEL VECCHIO is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice at the University of Missouri–St. Louis. His research interests include youth violence and victimization, youth gangs, responses to victimization, and crime prevention.