Building upon Eck and Clarke’s (2003) ideas for explaining crimes in which there is no face-to-face contact between victims and offenders, the authors developed an adapted lifestyle–routine activities theory. Traditional conceptions of place-based environments depend on the convergence of victims and offenders in time and physical space to explain opportunities for victimization. With their proposed cyberlifestyle–routine activities theory, the authors moved beyond this conceptualization to explain opportunities for victimization in cyberspace environments where traditional conceptions of time and space are less relevant. Cyberlifestyle–routine activities theory was tested using a sample of 974 college students on a particular type of cybervictimization—cyberstalking. The study’s findings provide support for the adapted theoretical perspective. Specifically, variables measuring online exposure to risk, online proximity to motivated offenders, online guardianship, online target attractiveness, and online deviance were significant predictors of cyberstalking victimization. Implications for advancing cyberlifestyle–routine activities theory are discussed.
AlexyE. M.BurgessA. W.BakerT.SmoyakS. A. (2005). Perceptions of cyberstalking among college students. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 5, 279-289.
2.
AshcroftJ. (2001). Stalking and domestic violence: Report to Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
3.
BasileK. C.SwahnM. H.ChenJ.SaltzmanL. E. (2006). Stalking in the United States: Recent national prevalence estimates. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 31, 172-175.
4.
BaumK.CatalanoS.RandM.RoseK. (2009). Stalking victimization in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
5.
BosslerA. M.HoltT. J. (2009). On-line activities, guardianship, and malware infection: An examination of routine activities theory. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3, 400-420.
6.
BrantinghamP.BrantinghamP. (1995). Crime generators and crime attractors. European Journal on Criminal Policy & Research, 3, 5-26.
7.
BuhiE. R.ClaytonH.SurrencyH. H. (2009). Stalking victimization among college women and subsequent help-seeking behaviors. Journal of American College Health, 57, 419-425.
8.
CassA. I. (2007). Routine activities and sexual assault: An analysis of individual- and school-level factors. Violence and Victims, 22, 350-366.
9.
ChoiK. (2008). Computer crime victimization and integrated theory: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2, 308-333.
10.
ClarkeR. V. (1999). Hot products: Understanding, anticipating and reducing demand for stolen goods. London, UK: Home Office.
11.
CohenL. E.FelsonM. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608.
12.
CohenL. E.FelsonM.LandK. 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.
13.
CohenL. E.KluegelJ. R.LandK. C. (1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review, 46, 505-524.
14.
CouperM. P. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 464-494.
15.
DillmanD. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
16.
DillmanD. A.PhelpsG.TortoraR.SwiftK.KohrellJ.BerckJ.MesserB. L. (2009). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research, 38, 1-18.
17.
D’OvidioR.DoyleJ. (2003). A study on cyberstalking: Understanding investigative hurdles. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, 73, 10-17.
18.
EckJ. E.ClarkeR. V. (2003). Classifying common police problems: A routine activity approach (Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 16, pp. 7-39). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
FelsonM. (1995). Those who discourage crime. In EckJ. E.WeisburdD. (Eds.), Crime and place (Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 53-66). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
21.
FelsonM. (1998). Crime and everyday life (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
22.
FelsonM. (2002). Crime and everyday life (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
FinkelhorD.MitchellK. J.WolakJ. (2000). Online victimization: A report on the nation’s youth. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
24.
FinnJ. (2004). A survey of online harassment at a university campus. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 468-483.
25.
FisherB. S. (1995). Crime and fear on campus. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 539, 85.
26.
FisherB. S.CullenF. T.TurnerM. G. (2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a national study of college women. Criminology & Public Policy, 1, 257-308.
27.
FisherB. S.DaigleL. E.CullenF. T. (2010). Unsafe in the ivory tower: The sexual victimization of college women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
FisherB. S.SloanJ. J.CullenF. T.LuC. (1998). Crime in the ivory tower: Level and sources of student victimization. Criminology, 36, 671-710.
29.
GarofaloJ. (1987). Reassessing the lifestyle model of criminal victimization. In GottfredsonM. R.HirschiT. (Eds.), Positive criminology (pp. 23-42). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
30.
GraboskyP. N. (2001). Virtual criminology: Old wine in new bottles?Social and Legal Studies, 10, 243-249.
31.
HensonB.WilcoxP.ReynsB. W.CullenF. T. (2010). Gender, adolescent lifestyles, and violent victimization: Implications for routine activity theory. Victims and Offenders, 5, 1-26.
32.
HilinskiC. M. (2009). Fear of crime among college students: A test of the shadow of sexual assault hypothesis. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 84-102.
33.
HindelangM. J.GottfredsonM. R.GarofaloJ. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
34.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M. (2009). Examining the applicability of lifestyle–routine activities theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant Behavior, 30, 1-25.
35.
HoltfreterK.ReisigM. D.PrattT. C. (2008). Low self-control, routine activities, and fraud victimization. Criminology, 46, 189-220.
36.
JensenG. F.BrownfieldD. (1986). Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: Beyond routine activity. Violence and Victims, 1, 85-99.
37.
JerinR.DolinskyB. (2001). You’ve got mail! You don’t want it: Cyber-victimization and on-line dating. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, 9, 15-21.
38.
JordanC. E.WilcoxP.PritchardA. J. (2007). Stalking acknowledgement and reporting among college women experiencing intrusive behaviors: Implications for the emergence of a “classic stalking case”. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 556-569.
39.
LauritsenJ. L.LaubJ. H.SampsonR. J. (1992). Conventional and delinquent activities: Implications for the prevention of violent victimization among adolescents. Violence and Victims, 7, 91-108.
40.
LauritsenJ. L.SampsonR. J.LaubJ. H. (1991). The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265-292.
41.
MarcumC. D. (2009). Adolescent online victimization: A test of routine activities theory. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly.
42.
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, 381-410.
43.
MenardS. (2010). Logistic regression: From introductory to advanced concepts and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
MietheT. D.MeierR. F. (1990). Opportunity, choice, and criminal victimization: A test of a theoretical model. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27, 243-266.
45.
MustaineE. E.TewksburyR. (1998). Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: A routine activity analysis using refined lifestyles measures. Criminology, 36, 829-858.
46.
MustaineE. E.TewksburyR. (1999). A routine activity theory explanation for women’s stalking victimizations. Violence Against Women, 5, 43-62.
47.
MustaineE. E.TewksburyR. (2002). Sexual assault of college women: A feminist interpretation of a routine activities analysis. Criminal Justice Review, 27, 89-123.
48.
NewmanO. (1996). Creating defensible space. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
49.
NhanJ.KinkadeP.BurnsR. (2009). Finding a pot of gold at the end of an Internet rainbow: Further examination of fraudulent email solicitation. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 3, 452-475.
50.
NoblesM. R.FoxK. A.PiqueroN.PiqueroA. R. (2009). Career dimensions of stalking victimization and perpetration. Justice Quarterly, 26, 476-503.
51.
Parsons-PollardN.MoriartyL. J. (2008). Cyberstalking: What’s the big deal? In MoriartyL. J. (Ed.), Controversies in Victimology (2nd ed., pp. 1031-13). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
52.
Parsons-PollardN.MoriartyL. J. (2009). Cyberstalking: Utilizing what we do know. Victims and Offenders, 4, 435-441.
53.
PattonC. L.NoblesM. R.FoxK. A. (2010). Look who’s stalking: Obsessive pursuit and attachment theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 282-290.
54.
PittaroM. L. (2007). Cyber stalking: An analysis of online harassment and intimidation. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 1, 180-197.
55.
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, 267-296.
ReynsB. W. (2010). A situational crime prevention approach to cyberstalking victimization: Preventive tactics for Internet users and online place managers. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 12, 99-118.
58.
ReynsB. W.HensonB.FisherB. S. (in press). Stalking in the twilight zone: Extent of cyberstalking victimization and offending among college students. Deviant Behavior. DOI 10.1080/01639625.2010.53836410.1080/01639625.2010.538364
59.
RobertsL. (2008). Jurisdictional and definitional concerns with computer-mediated interpersonal crimes: An analysis on cyber stalking. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2, 271-285.
60.
SampsonR. J.LauritsenJ. L. (1990). Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime, and the offender-victim link in personal violence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 27, 110-139.
61.
SampsonR. J.WooldredgeJ. (1987). Linking the micro- and macro- level dimensions of lifestyle-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 371-393.
62.
SchreckC. J.FisherB. S. (2004). Specifying the influence of family and peers on violent victimization: Extending routine activities and lifestyles theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1021-1041.
63.
SchreckC. J.WrightR. A.MillerJ. M. (2002). A study of individual and situational antecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19, 159-180.
64.
SchwartzM. D.PittsV. L. (1995). Exploring a feminist routine activities approach to explaining sexual assault. Justice Quarterly, 12, 9-31.
65.
ShawC. R.McKayH. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
ShermanL. S.GartinP. R.BuergerM. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27, 27-55.
68.
SpanoR.FreilichJ. D. (2009). An assessment of the empirical validity and conceptualization of individual level multivariate studies of lifestyle/routine activities theory published from 1995 to 2005. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 305-314.
69.
SpitzbergB. H.HooblerG. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society, 4, 71-92.
70.
TewksburyR.MustaineE. 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.
71.
TillyerM. S.EckJ. E. (2009). Routine activities. In MillerJ. M. (Ed.), 21st century criminology: A reference handbook (pp. 279-287). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
72.
TjadenP.ThoennesN. (1998). Stalking in America: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
73.
Wilcox RountreeP.LandK. 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.
74.
Wilcox RountreeP.LandK. C.MietheT. D. (1994). Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: A hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods. Criminology, 32, 387-414.
75.
WolakJ.MitchellK. J.FinkelhorD. (2007). Does online harassment constitute cyberbullying? An exploration of online harassment by known peers and online-only contacts. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, S52-S58.
76.
YarM. (2005). The novelty of “cybercrime”: An assessment in light of routine activity theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2, 407-427.
