Research has established that individuals lower in self-control are at increased risk of offline criminal victimization due to their proclivity to engage in risky routine activities. While some studies have investigated whether a similar pattern is observed in the online context, additional inquiry into whether the link between low self-control and cybercrime victimization operates indirectly through risky online behavior is warranted given certain measurement and methodological limitations of prior research. Using original data collected on a sample of young adults, we find that the association between low self-control and a variety measure of cybercrime victimization operates entirely and indirectly through a variety measure of risky online behaviors. The implications of this finding for policy and programing are discussed.
AbdulaiM. A. (2020). Examining the effect of victimization experience on fear of cybercrime: University students’ experience of credit/debit card fraud. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 14(1), 157–174.
2.
Álvarez-GarcíaD.NúñezJ. C.González-CastroP.RodríguezC.CerezoR. (2019). The effect of parental control on cyber-victimization in adolescence: The mediating role of impulsivity and high-risk behaviors. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1159.
3.
BergmannM. C.DreißigackerA.von SkarczinskiB.WollingerG. R. (2018). Cyber-dependent crime victimization: The same risk for everyone?Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking, 21(2), 84–90.
4.
BöhmeR.MooreT. (2012, October23–24). How do consumers react to cybercrime? [Conference session]. 2012 eCrime researchers summit, Las Croabas, PR, United States (pp. 1–12).
5.
BosslerA. M.BurrussG. W. (2012). The general theory of crime and computer hacking: Low self-control hackers? In HoltT.SchellB. (Eds.), Cyber crime: Concepts, methodologies, tools and applications (pp. 1499–1527). IGI Global.
6.
BosslerA. M.HoltT. J. (2009). On-line activities, guardianship, and malware infection: An examination of routine activities theory. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3(1), 400–420.
7.
BosslerA. M.HoltT. J. (2010). The effect of self-control on victimization in the cyberworld. Criminal Justice Journal, 38(3), 227–236.
8.
BosslerA. M.HoltT. J.MayD. C. (2012). Predicting online harassment victimization among a juvenile population. Youth & Society, 44(4), 500–523.
9.
ChangF. C.ChiuC. H.MiaoN. F.ChenP. H.LeeC. M.HuangT. F.PanY. C. (2015). Online gaming and risks predict cyberbullying perpetration and victimization in adolescents. International Journal of Public Health, 60(2), 257–266.
10.
ChoiK. S. (2008). Computer crime victimization and integrated theory: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2(1), 308–333.
11.
ChoiK. S.LeeJ. R. (2017). Theoretical analysis of cyber-interpersonal violence victimization and offending using cyber-routine activities theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 394–402.
12.
ClodfelterT. A.TurnerM. G.HartmanJ. L.KuhnsJ. B. (2010). Sexual harassment victimization during emerging adulthood: A test of routine activities theory and a general theory of crime. Crime and Delinquency, 56(3), 455–481.
13.
CohenL. E.FelsonM. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
14.
CulattaE.Clay-WarnerJ.BoyleK. M.OshriA. (2020). Sexual revictimization: A routine activity theory explanation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(15-16), 2800–2824.
15.
DaikelerJ.BošnjakM.Lozar ManfredaK. (2020). Web versus other survey modes: An updated and extended meta-analysis comparing response rates. Journal of Survey Statistics and Methodology, 8(3), 513–539.
16.
FordJ. A.BlumensteinL. (2013). Self-control and substance use among college students. Journal of Drug Issues, 43(1), 56–68.
17.
ForrestW.HayC.WiddowsonA. O.RocqueM. (2019). Development of impulsivity and risk-seeking: Implications for the dimensionality and stability of self-control. Criminology, 57(3), 512–543.
18.
FranklinC. A.FranklinT. W.NoblesM. R.KercherG. A. (2012). Assessing the effect of routine activity theory and self-control on property, personal, and sexual assault victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(10), 1296–1315.
19.
FrieseM.FrankenbachJ.JobV.LoschelderD. D. (2017). Does self-control training improve self-control? A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1077–1099.
20.
GardellaJ. H.FisherB. W.Teurbe-TolonA. R. (2017). A systematic review and meta-analysis of cyber-victimization and educational outcomes for adolescents. Review of Educational Research, 87(2), 283–308.
21.
GottfredsonM. R.HirschiT. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.
22.
GrasmickH. G.TittleC. R.BursikR. J.JrArneklevB. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 5–29.
23.
HayC.MeldrumR. (2015). Self-control and crime over the life course. SAGE Publications.
24.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
25.
HigginsG. E. (2004). Can low self-control help with the understanding of the software piracy problem?Deviant Behavior, 26(1), 1–24.
26.
HigginsG. E.JenningsW. G.TewksburyR.GibsonC. L. (2009). Exploring the link between low self-control and violent victimization trajectories in adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(10), 1070–1084.
27.
HirschiT.GottfredsonM. R. (2000). In defense of self-control. Theoretical Criminology, 4(1), 55–69.
28.
HoltfreterK.ReisigM. D.Leeper PiqueroN.PiqueroA. R. (2010). Low self-control and fraud: Offending, victimization, and their overlap. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37(2), 188–203.
29.
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.
30.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M.MayD. C. (2012). Low self-control, deviant peer associations, and juvenile cyberdeviance. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(3), 378–395.
31.
HoltT. J.CaleJ.BrewerR.GoldsmithA. (2021). Assessing the role of opportunity and low self-control in juvenile hacking. Crime and Delinquency, 67(5), 662–688.
32.
HoltT. J.van WilsemJ.van de WeijerS.LeukfeldtR. (2020). Testing an integrated self-control and routine activities framework to examine malware infection victimization. Social Science Computer Review, 38(2), 187–206.
JeskeD.BriggsP.CoventryL. (2016). Exploring the relationship between impulsivity and decision-making on mobile devices. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 20(4), 545–557.
35.
KabiriS.ChoiJ.ShadmanfaatS. M.LeeJ. (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. Crime and Delinquency, 67, 1706–1727.
36.
KuderG. F.RichardsonM. W. (1937). The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, 2(3), 151–160.
37.
LeukfeldtE. R.YarM. (2016). Applying routine activity theory to cybercrime: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Deviant Behavior, 37(3), 263–280.
38.
LiC. K. W.HoltT. J.BosslerA. M.MayD. C. (2016). Examining the mediating effects of social learning on the low self-control—cyberbullying relationship in a youth sample. Deviant Behavior, 37(2), 126–138.
39.
LohrS. L. (2019). Sampling: Design and analysis (2nd ed.). CRC Press, Taylor & Francis.
40.
LouderbackE. R.AntonaccioO. (2021). New applications of self-control theory to computer-focused cyber deviance and victimization: A comparison of cognitive and behavioral measures of self-control and test of peer cyber deviance and gender as moderators. Crime and Delinquency, 67(3), 366–398.
41.
LuY. F.YuY. C.RenL.MarshallI. H. (2013). Exploring the utility of self-control theory for risky behavior and minor delinquency among Chinese adolescents. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29(1), 32–52.
42.
ManfredaK. L.BosnjakM.BerzelakJ.HaasI.VehovarV. (2008). Web surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rates. International Journal of Market Research, 50(1), 79–104.
43.
MarcumC. D.HigginsG. E.RickettsM. L. (2010). Potential factors of online victimization of youth: An examination of adolescent online behaviors utilizing routine activity theory. Deviant Behavior, 31(5), 381–410.
44.
MeldrumR. C.YoungJ. T. N.WeermanF. M. (2009). Reconsidering the effect of self-control and delinquent peers: Implications of measurement for theoretical significance. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46(3), 353–376.
45.
MeschG. S.DodelM. (2018). Low self-control, information disclosure, and the risk of online fraud. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(10), 1356–1371.
46.
MikkolaM.OksanenA.KaakinenM.MillerB. L.SavolainenI.SirolaA.ZychI.PaekH. J. (2020). Situational and individual risk factors for cybercrime victimization in a cross-national context. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x20981041
47.
MilaniR.CaneppeleS.BurkhardtC. (2020). Exposure to cyber victimization: Results from a Swiss survey. Deviant Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2020.1806453
48.
MoonB.McCluskeyJ. D.McCluskeyC. P. (2010). A general theory of crime and computer crime: An empirical test. Criminal Justice Journal, 38(4), 767–772.
49.
MustaineE. E.TewksburyR. (1998). Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: A routine activity analysis using refined lifestyle measures. Criminology, 36(4), 829–858.
50.
NewmanG. R.ClarkeR. V. (2003). Superhighway robbery: Preventing E-commerce crime. Willan.
51.
NgoF. T.PaternosterR. (2011). Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5(1), 773.
52.
NgoF. T.PiqueroA. R.LaPradeJ.DuongB. (2020). Victimization in cyberspace: Is it how long we spend online, what we do online, or what we post online?Criminal Justice Review, 45(4), 430–451.
53.
PiqueroA. R.JenningsW. G.FarringtonD. P. (2010). On the malleability of self-control: Theoretical and policy implications regarding a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 27(6), 803–834.
54.
PiqueroA. R.JenningsW. G.FarringtonD. P.DiamondB.GonzalezJ. M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis update on the effectiveness of early self-control improvement programs to improve self-control and reduce delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(2), 249–264.
55.
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.
56.
PrattT. C. (2016). A self-control/life-course theory of criminal behavior. European Journal of Criminology, 13(1), 129–146.
57.
PrattT. C.CullenF. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38(3), 931–964.
58.
PrattT. C.HoltfreterK.ReisigM. D. (2010). Routine online activity and internet fraud targeting: Extending the generality of routine activity theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 267–296.
59.
PrattT. C.TuranovicJ. J.FoxK. A.WrightK. A. (2014). Self-Control and victimization: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 52(1), 87–116.
60.
ReisigM. D.GolladayK. A. (2019). Violent victimization and low self-control: The mediating effect of risky lifestyles. Violence and Victims, 34(1), 157–174.
61.
RenL.HeN. “.ZhaoR.ZhangH. (2017). Self-control, risky lifestyles, and victimization: A study with a sample of Chinese school youth. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(5), 695–716.
62.
ReynsB. 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(2), 216–238.
63.
ReynsB. W. (2015). A routine activity perspective on online victimisation. Journal of Financial Crime, 22(4), 396–411.
64.
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.
65.
ReynsB. W.FisherB. S.BosslerA. M.HoltT. J. (2019). Opportunity and self-control: Do they predict multiple forms of online victimization?American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(1), 63–82.
66.
ReynsB. W.FisherB. S.RandaR. (2018). Explaining cyberstalking victimization against college women using a multitheoretical approach: Self-control, opportunity, and control balance. Crime and Delinquency, 64(13), 1742–1764.
67.
ReynsB. W.WooY.LeeH. D.YoonO. 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(4), 423–447.
68.
RiceK. J.CsmithW. R. (2002). Socioecological models of automotive theft: Integrating routine activity and social disorganization approaches. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(3), 304–336.
69.
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.
70.
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.
71.
ShekarkharZ.GibsonC. L. (2011). Gender, self-control, and offending behaviors among Latino youth. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 27(1), 63–80.
72.
ShihT. H.FanX. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20(3), 249–271.
73.
ShihT. H.FanX. (2009). Comparing response rates in e-mail and paper surveys: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 4(1), 26–40.
74.
TennantJ. E.DemarayM. K.CoyleS.MaleckiC. K. (2015). The dangers of the web: Cybervictimization, depression, and social support in college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 50, 348–357.
75.
TewksburyR.MustaineE. E. (2000). Routine activities and vandalism: A theoretical and empirical study. Journal of Crime and Justice, 23(1), 81–110.
76.
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.
77.
Van WilsemJ. (2011). Worlds tied together? Online and non-domestic routine activities and their impact on digital and traditional threat victimization. European Journal of Criminology, 8(2), 115–127.
78.
Van WilsemJ. (2013a). Hacking and harassment—Do they have something in common? Comparing risk factors for online victimization. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29(4), 437–453.
79.
Van WilsemJ. (2013b). ‘Bought it, but never got it’ assessing risk factors for online consumer fraud victimization. European Sociological Review, 29(2), 168–178.
80.
VazsonyiA. T.MikuškaJ.KelleyE. L. (2017). It’s time: A meta-analysis on the self-control-deviance link. Criminal Justice Journal, 48, 48–63.
81.
WardJ. T.NoblesM. R.FoxK. A. (2015). Disentangling self-control from its elements: A bifactor analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(4), 595–627.
82.
WattsS. J.IratzoquiA. (2019). Unraveling the relationships between low self-control, substance use, substance-using peers, and violent victimization. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(6), 979–997.
83.
WrightM. F. (2016). Cyber victimization on college campuses: Longitudinal associations with suicidal ideation, depression, and anxiety. Criminal Justice Review, 41(2), 190–203.
84.
YarM. (2005). The novelty of “cybercrime”: An assessment in light of routine activity theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2(4), 407–427.
85.
YuS. (2014). Does low self-control explain voluntary disclosure of personal information on the Internet?Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 210–215.
