Target Congruence as a Means of Understanding Risk of Intimate Partner Violence: A Comparison of Male and Female College Students in the United States

Abstract

This study examines the effects of routine activities and target congruence—or the extent to which an individual’s characteristics match up with offenders’ needs, motives, or reactivities—on intimate partner violence. We also examine whether the effect of target congruence is moderated by gender. Using a nationwide sample of more than 74,000 students from 129 universities across the United States, the results show that indicators of target antagonism, target gratifiability, and target vulnerability are associated with risk of physical and sexual intimate partner violence and that the importance of specific risk factors varies by gender. The results highlight the importance of target congruence in understanding victimization, and provide information that can direct policies to prevent intimate partner violence on college campuses.

Keywords

victimology sex offenses domestic violence

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American College Health Association. (2011). American college health association-national college health assessment II: Reference group executive summary spring 2011. Linthicum, MD: American College Health Association.

American College Health Association. (2011). American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment II: Reference group executive summary spring 2011. Linthicum, MD: Author.

Augustine

M. C.

Wilcox

Ousey

G. C.

Clayton

R. R.

(2002). Opportunity theory and adolescent school-based victimization. Violence and Victims, 17, 233-253.

Banyard

V. L.

Ward

Cohn

E. S.

Plante

E. G.

Moorehead

Walsh

(2007). Unwanted sexual contact on campus: A comparison of women’s and men’s experiences. Violence and Victims, 22, 52-70.

Bethke

T. M.

DeJoy

D. M.

(1993). An experimental study of factors influencing the acceptability of dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8, 36-51.

Bybee

Sullivan

C. M.

(2005). Predicting re-victimization of battered women 3 years after exiting a shelter program. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 85-96.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.

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.

Eaton

Davis

K. S.

Barrios

Brener

Noonan

(2007). Associations of dating violence victimization with lifetime participation, co-occurrence, and early initiation of risk behaviors among U.S. high school students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 585-602.

10.

Elvey

K. M.

(2016). Beyond the party lifestyle: A quantitative analysis of sexual victimization among college students (Doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, OH.

11.

Finkelhor

Asdigian

N. L.

(1996). Risk factors for youth victimization beyond a lifestyle/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 11, 3-19.

12.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G

. (1999). Extent and nature of the sexual victimization of college women: A national-level analysis. (No. 95-WT-NX-0001). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

13.

Franklin

C. A.

(2010). Physically forced, alcohol-induced, and verbally coerced sexual victimization: Assessing risk factors among university women. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 149-159.

14.

Franklin

C. A.

Franklin

T. W.

Nobles

M. R.

Krecher

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.

15.

Gover

(2004). Risky lifestyles and dating violence: A theoretical test of violent victimization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 171-180.

16.

Hamilton

L. C.

(2009). Statistics with Stata (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

17.

Hindelang

M. J.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Garofalo

(1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

18.

Hines

D. A.

Armstrong

J. L.

Reed

K. P.

Cameron

A. Y.

(2012). Gender differences in sexual assault victimization among college students. Violence and Victims, 27, 922-940.

19.

Jordan

C. E.

Combs

J. L.

Smith

G. T.

(2014). An exploration of sexual victimization and academic performance among college women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 191-200.

20.

Kahle

Peguero

A. A.

(2017). Bodies and bullying: The interaction of gender, race, ethnicity, weight, and inequality with school victimization. Victims & Offenders, 12, 323-345.

21.

Kaura

S. A.

Lohman

B. J.

(2007). Dating violence victimization, relationship satisfaction, mental health problems, and acceptability of violence: A comparison of men and women. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 367-381.

22.

Kelley

E. L.

Orchowski

L. M.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2016). Sexual victimization among college women: Role of sexual assertiveness and resistance variables. Psychology of Violence, 6, 243-252. doi:10.1037/a0039407

23.

Kennedy

L. W.

Forde

D. R.

(1990). Routine activities and crime: An analysis of victimization in Canada. Criminology, 28, 137-152.

24.

Kuijpers

K. F.

van der Knapp

L. M.

Lodewijks

I. A. J.

(2011). Victims’ influence on intimate partner violence revictimization: A systematic review of prospective evidence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 12, 198-219.

25.

Livingston

J. A.

Hequembourg

Testa

(2007). Unique aspects of adolescent sexual victimization experiences. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 331-343.

26.

Lynch

J. P.

Cantor

(1992). Ecological and behavioral influences on property victimization at home: Implications for opportunity theory. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 29, 335-362.

27.

Makepeace

J. M.

(1986). Gender differences in courtship violence victimization. Family Relations, 35, 383-388.

28.

Massey

J. L.

Krohn

M. D.

Bonati

L. M.

(1989). Property crime and the routine activities of individuals. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 26, 378-400.

29.

McNeeley

(2015). Lifestyle-routine activities and crime events. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31, 30-52.

30.

Meier

R. F.

Miethe

T. D.

(1993). Understanding theories of criminal victimization. Crime and Justice, 17, 459-499.

31.

Menard

(2002). Applied logistic regression analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

32.

Messman-Moore

T. L.

Brown

A. L.

(2006). Risk perception, rape, and sexual revictimization: A prospective study of college women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 159-172.

33.

Miethe

T. D.

Meier

R. F.

(1990). Opportunity, choice, and criminal victimization: A test of a theoretical model. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 27, 243-266.

34.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

(2013). The routine activities and criminal victimization of college students: Lifestyle and related factors. In Fisher

B. S.

Salon

J. J.

(Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social, and policy perspectives (pp. 158-183). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

35.

Paternoster

Brame

Mazerolle

Piquero

(1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859-866.

36.

Penduzzi

Concato

Kemper

Holford

T. R.

Feinstein

A. R.

(1996). A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 49, 1373-1379.

37.

Perez

Johnson

D. M.

(2008). PTSD compromises battered women’s future safety. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 635-651.

38.

Policastro

Daigle

L. E.

(2016). A gendered analysis of the effects of social ties and risky behavior on intimate partner violence victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0886260516652271

39.

Popp

A. M.

Peguero

A. A.

(2011). Routine activities and victimization at school: The significance of gender. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2413-2436.

40.

Pratt

T. C.

Turanovic

J. J.

(2016). Lifestyle and routine activity theories revisited: The importance of “risk” to the study of victimization. Victims & Offenders, 11, 335-354.

41.

Reyns

B. W.

Henson

Fisher

B. S.

Fox

K. A.

Nobels

M. R.

(2016). A gendered lifestyle-routine activity approach to explaining stalking victimization in Canada. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1719-1743.

42.

Rodgers

Roberts

(1995). Women’s non-spousal multiple victimization: A test of routine activities theory. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 363-391.

43.

Sampson

R. J.

(1987). Personal violence by strangers: An extension and test of the opportunity model of predatory victimization. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78, 327-356.

44.

Sampson

R. J.

Lauritsen

J. L.

(1990). Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime, and the offender-victim link in personal violence. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 27, 110-139.

45.

Sampson

R. J.

Wooldredge

J. D.

(1987). Linking the micro- and macro-level dimensions of lifestyle-routine activities and opportunity models of predatory victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 371-393.

46.

Scherer

H. L.

(2011). Disability status and victimization risk among a national sample of college students: A lifestyle-routine activities approach (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, OH.

47.

Silver

(2002). Mental disorder and violent victimization: The mediating role of involvement in conflicted social relationships. Criminology, 40, 191-212.

48.

Snyder

(2011). College students with ADHD: Extending the lifestyles/routine activities framework to predict sexual victimization and physical assault (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cincinnati, OH.

49.

Straus

M. A.

(2004). Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, 10, 790-811.

50.

Straus

M. A.

Ramirez

I. L.

(2007). Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students in Mexico and USA. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 281-290.

51.

Stuart

G. L.

Temple

J. R.

Follansbee

K. W.

Bucossi

M. M.

Hellmuth

J. C.

Moore

T. M.

(2008). The role of drug use in a conceptual model of intimate partner violence in men and women arrested for domestic violence. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 22, 12-24.

52.

Sween

Reyns

B. W.

(2017). An empirical test of target congruence theory on intimate partner violence. Deviant Behavior, 38, 61-73. doi:10.1080/01639625.2016.1191914

53.

Temple

Freeman

(2011). Dating violence and substance use among ethnically diverse adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 701-718.

54.

Tewksbury

Mustaine

E. E.

(2003). College students’ lifestyles and self-protective behaviors: Further considerations of the guardianship concept in routine activity theory. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 302-327.

55.

Tillyer

M. S.

Wilcox

Gialopsos

B. M.

(2010). Adolescent school-based sexual victimization: Exploring the role of opportunity in a gender-specific multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1071-1081.

56.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner violence as measured by the National Violence Against Women Survey. Violence Against Women, 6, 142-161.

57.

Tyler

K. A.

Beal

M. R

. (2010). The high-risk enviroment of homeless young adults: Consequences for physical and sexual victimization. Violence and Victims, 25(1), 101-115.

58.

Vittinghoff

McCulloch

C. E.

(2007). Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. American Journal of Epidemiology, 165, 710-718.

59.

Waldner

L. K.

Berg

(2008). Explaining antigay violence using target congruence: An application of revised routine activities theory. Violence and Victims, 23, 267-287.

60.

Wilcox

Tillyer

M. S.

Fisher

B. S.

(2009). Gender opportunity? School-based adolescent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 46, 245-269.

61.

Wooldredge

Steiner

(2013). A bi-level framework for understanding prisoner victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 141-162.

62.

Zavala

(2017). When the cop is the victim: A test of target congruence theory on intimate partner violence victimization experienced by police officers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0886260517709801