Using Structural Equations to Test a Multi-Theoretical Framework with Data on Cyberstalking Victimization in Iran: Self-Control,Control Deficit,Peers’ Online Deviant Behaviors,and Online Deviant Lifestyles
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2021
Using Structural Equations to Test a Multi-Theoretical Framework with Data on Cyberstalking Victimization in Iran: Self-Control,Control Deficit,Peers’ Online Deviant Behaviors,and Online Deviant Lifestyles
Although there exists a growing amount of empirical literature documenting the correlates of cyberstalking victimization, research has yet to elaborate on the potential mechanisms that can explain the risk for cyberstalking victimization. We proposed an integrated theory, which combined low self-control, control deficit, peers’ online deviant behavior, and online deviant lifestyles based on previous research. We tested this integrated theory specifically for cyberstalking victimization using original data from a sample of 408 Iranian college women. Relying on structural equation modeling, we found that low self-control and peers’ online deviant behaviors were significantly associated with cyberstalking victimization not only directly but also indirectly via online deviant lifestyles. Overall, our findings yielded strong support for the integrated model to explain cyberstalking victimization.
AkersR. L. (2009). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Transaction.
2.
AndersonE. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. Norton.
3.
BaronS. W. (2010). Street youths’ control imbalance and soft and hard drug use. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 903−912.
4.
BaronS. W.FordeD. R. (2007). Street youth crime: A test of control balance theory. Justice Quarterly, 24(2), 335−355.
5.
BaronS. W.KennedyL. W.FordeD. R. (2001). Male street youths’ conflict: The role of background, subcultural, and situational factors. Justice Quarterly, 18(4), 759−789.
6.
BosslerA. M.HoltT. J. (2010). The effect of self-control on victimization in the cyberworld. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(3), 227−236.
7.
ChappleC. L. (2005). Self-control, peer relations, and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 22(1), 89−106.
8.
CohenL. E.FelsonM. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588−608.
9.
CurryT. R. (2005). Integrating motivating and constraining forces in deviance causation: A test of causal chain hypotheses in control balance theory. Deviant Behavior, 26(6), 571−599.
10.
CurryT. R.PiqueroA. R. (2003). Control ratios and defiant acts of deviance: Assessing additive and conditional effects with constraints and impulsivity. Sociological Perspectives, 46(3), 397−415.
11.
ElliottD. S. (1985). The assumption that theories can be combined with increased explanatory power: Theoretical integrations. In MeierR. F. (Ed.), Theoretical Methods in Criminology (pp. 123–149). Sage.
12.
FelsonM.EckertM. A. (2019). Crime and everyday life (6th ed.). Sage.
13.
FordeD. R.KennedyL. W. (1997). Risky lifestyles, routine activities, and the general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 14(2), 265−294.
14.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39−50.
15.
FoxK. A.NoblesM. R.FisherB. S. (2016). A multi-theoretical framework to assess gendered stalking victimization: The utility of self-control, social learning, and control balance theories. Justice Quarterly, 33(2), 319−347.
16.
FoxK. A.NoblesM. R.LaneJ. (2016). Control balance behind bars: Testing the generality of Tittle’s theory among incarcerated men and women. Crime & Delinquency, 62(7), 925−953.
17.
GottfredsonM. R.HirschiT. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.
HickmanM. J.PiqueroA. R. (2001). Exploring the relationships between gender, control balance, and deviance. Deviant Behavior, 22(4), 323−351.
20.
HigginsG. E.LauterbachC.TewksburyR. (2005). Control balance theory and violence: An examination of contingencies. Sociological Focus, 38(4), 241−260.
21.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M. (2009). Examining the applicability of lifestyle-routine activities theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant Behavior, 30(1), 1−25.
22.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M.MalinskiR.MayD. C. (2016). Identifying predictors of unwanted online sexual conversations among youth using a low self-control and routine activity framework. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32(2), 108−128.
23.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M.Seigfried-SpellarK. C. (2015). Cybercrime and digital forensics: An introduction. Routledge.
24.
HoltT. J.BurrussG. W.BosslerA. M. (2010). Social learning and cyber-deviance: Examining the importance of a full social learning model in the virtual world. Journal of Crime Justice, 33(2), 31−61.
25.
HoltfreterK.ReisigM. D.PrattT. C. (2008). Low self-control, routine activities, and fraud victimization. Criminology, 46(1), 189−220.
26.
HughesL. A.AntonaccioO.BotchkovarE. V. (2015). How general is control balance theory? Evidence from Ukraine. Justice Quarterly, 32(6), 950−975.
27.
JenningsW. G.PiqueroA. R.ReingleJ. M. (2012). On the overlap between victimization and offending: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(1), 16−26.
28.
KabiriS.ChoiJ.ShadmanfaatS. M.YunI. (2020). Assessing the links between parenting practices, moral emotions, and cyberbullying perpetrations among a sample of Iranian fans. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(16), 1674−1695.
29.
KabiriS.ShadmanfaatS. M.ChoiJ.YunI. (2020). The impact of life domains on cyberbullying perpetration in Iran: A partial test of Agnew’s general theory of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 66, 101633.
30.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Publications.
31.
KrohnM. D.WardJ. T. (2016). Integrating criminological theories. In PiqueroA. R. (Ed.), The handbook of criminological theory (pp. 318−335). John Wiley.
32.
MarcumC. D.HigginsG. E.NicholsonJ. (2017). I’m watching you: Cyberstalking behaviors of university students in romantic relationships. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(2), 373−388.
33.
NgoF. T.PaternosterR. (2011). Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5(1), 773−793.
34.
NoblesM. R.FoxK. A. (2013). Assessing stalking behaviors in a control balance theory framework. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40(7), 737−762.
35.
NunallyJ. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
36.
PereiraF.MatosM. (2016). Cyber-stalking victimization: What predicts fear among Portuguese adolescents?European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22(2), 253−270.
PiqueroA. R.HickmanM. J. (1999). An empirical test of Tittle’s control balance theory. Criminology, 37(2), 319−342.
39.
PiqueroA. R.HickmanM. J. (2003). Extending Tittle’s control balance theory to account for victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(3), 282−301.
40.
PiqueroA. R.MacDonaldJ.DobrinA.DaigleL. E.CullenF. T. (2005). Self-control, violent offending, and homicide victimization: Assessing the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(1), 55−71.
41.
PosickC. (2013). The overlap between offending and victimization among adolescents: Results from the second international self-report delinquency study. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29(1), 106−124.
42.
PrattT. C.TuranovicJ. J.FoxK. A.WrightK. A. (2014). Self-control and victimization: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 52(1), 87−116.
43.
ReynsB. W.BurekM. W.HensonB.FisherB. S. (2013). The unintended consequences of digital technology: Exploring the relationship between sexting and cybervictimization. Journal of Crime and Justice, 36(1), 1−17.
44.
ReynsB. W.FisherB. S.RandaR. (2018). Explaining cyberstalking victimization against college women using a multitheoretical approach: Self-control, opportunity, and control balance. Crime & Delinquency, 64(13), 1742−1764.
45.
ReynsB. W.HensonB.FisherB. S. (2011). Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle–routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(11), 1149−1169.
46.
ReynsB. W.HensonB.FisherB. S. (2012). Stalking in the twilight zone: Extent of cyberstalking victimization and offending among college students. Deviant Behavior, 33(1), 1−25.
47.
ReynsB. W.HensonB.FisherB. S. (2016). Guardians of the cyber galaxy: An empirical and theoretical analysis of the guardianship concept from routine activity theory as it applies to online forms of victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 32(2), 148−168.
48.
SchreckC. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16(3), 633−654.
49.
SchreckC. J.StewartE. A.FisherB. S. (2006). Self-control, victimization, and their influence on risky lifestyles: A longitudinal analysis using panel data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22(4), 319−340.
50.
SchreckC. J.WrightR. A.MillerJ. M. (2002). A study of individual and situational antecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19(1), 159−180.
51.
ShadmanfaatS. M.ChoiJ.KabiriS.LeeJ. (in press). Impact of social concern on cyberbullying perpetration in Iran: Direct, indirect, mediating, and conditioning effects in Agnew’s social concern theory. Deviant Behavior.
52.
ThornberryT. P. (1989). Reflections on the advantages and disadvantages of theoretical integration. In MessnerS. F.KrohnM. D.LiskaA. E. (Eds.), Theoretical integration in the study of deviance and crime (pp. 51−60). State University of New York Press.
53.
TittleC. R. (1995). Control balance: Toward a general theory of deviance. Westview.
54.
TittleC. R.WardD. A.GrasmickH. G. (2003). Self-control and crime/deviance: Cognitive vs. behavioral measures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(4), 333−365.
55.
TokunagaR. S.AuneK. S. (2017). Cyber-defense: A taxonomy of tactics for managing cyberstalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(10), 1451−1475.
56.
TuranovicJ. J.PrattT. C. (2014). “Can’t stop, won’t stop”: Self-control, risky lifestyles, and repeat victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30(1), 29−56.
57.
van BaakC.HayesB. E. (2018). Correlates of cyberstalking victimization and perpetration among college students. Violence and Victims, 33(6), 1036−1054.
58.
Van WilsemJ. (2013). Hacking and harassment—Do they have something in common? Comparing risk factors for online victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29(4), 437−453.
59.
WallD. (2007). Cybercrime: The transformation of crime in the information age. Polity Press.
60.
WikströmP.-O. H.OberwittlerD.TreiberK.HardieB. (2012). Breaking rules: The social and situational dynamics of young people’s urban crime. Oxford University Press.
