Stalking on Campus: A Gendered Perspective on Target Congruence and Opportunity

Abstract

This study examines target congruence and lifestyle-routine activity behaviors as explanations of stalking victimization among college students, while also considering gender as a moderator in these relationships. Analysis of a nationwide sample of more than 75,000 students from 129 universities across the United States suggests that indicators of target antagonism, target gratifiability, and target vulnerability significantly predict stalking victimization. Indicators of lifestyle-routine activities—in particular, proximity to motivated offenders, exposure to motivated offenders, and target attractiveness—are also significantly related to stalking victimization. In addition, the importance of specific risk factors vary by gender. The results highlight the importance of target congruence as an expansion of lifestyle-routine activities theory, which can help to direct policies and prevention measures in a meaningful and systematic way.

Keywords

target congruence lifestyle-routine activities stalking gendered analysis

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: Author.

Baum

Catalano

Rand

Rose

(2009). Stalking victimization in the United States (NCJ, 224527). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Belknap

Sharma

(2014). The significant frequency and impact of stealth (nonviolent) gender-based abuse among college women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15, 181-190.

Benson

B. J.

Gohm

C. L.

Gross

A. M.

(2007). College women and sexual assault: The role of sex-related alcohol expectancies. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 341-351.

Bjerregaard

(2000). An empirical study of stalking victimization. Violence and Victims, 15, 389-406.

Brady

P. Q.

Nobles

M. R.

Bouffard

L. A.

(2017). Are college students really at a higher risk for stalking? Exploring the generalizability of student samples in victimization research. Journal of Criminal Justice, 52, 12-21.

Buhi

E. R.

Clayton

Surrency

H. H.

(2009). Stalking victimization among college women and subsequent help-seeking behaviors. Journal of American College Health, 57, 419-426.

Cantor

Fisher

Chibnall

Bruce

Townsend

Thomas

Lee

(2015). Report on the AAU campus survey on sexual assault and sexual misconduct (Prepared for the Association of American Universities). Rockville, MA: Westat.

Catalano

(2012). Stalking victims in the United States—Revisited (NCJ, 224527). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

10.

Chan

H. C. O.

Sheridan

(2017). Is this stalking? Perception of stalking behavior among young male and female adults in Hong Kong and mainland China. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance Online Publication. doi:10.1177/0886260517711180

11.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

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

12.

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.

13.

Combs-Lane

A. M.

Smith

D. W.

(2002). Risk of sexual victimization in college women: The role of behavioral intentions and risk-taking behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 165-183.

14.

Davis

K. E.

Ace

Andra

(2000). Stalking perpetrators and psychological maltreatment of partners: Anger-jealousy, attachment insecurity, need for control, and break-up context. Violence and Victims, 15, 407-425.

15.

Elvey

(2016). Beyond the party lifestyle: A quantitative analysis of sexual victimization among college students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, OH.

16.

Felson

(2017). Routine activity approach. In Wortley

Townsley

(Eds.), Environmental criminology and crime analysis (2nd ed., pp. 87-97). New York, NY: Routledge.

17.

Felson

Eckert

(2016). Crime and everyday life (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

18.

Finkelhor

Asdigian

N. L.

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

19.

Fisher

B. S.

Coker

A. L.

Garcia

L. S.

Williams

C. M.

Clear

E. R.

Cook-Craig

P. G.

(2014). Statewide estimates of stalking among high school students in Kentucky: Demographic profile and sex differences. Violence Against Women, 20, 1258-1279.

20.

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.

21.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a national study of college women. Criminology & Public Policy, 1, 257-308.

22.

Fisher

B. S.

Daigle

L. E.

Cullen

F. T.

(2010). Unsafe in the ivory tower: The sexual victimization of college women. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

23.

Fox

K. A.

Nobles

M. R.

Fisher

B. S.

(2011). Method behind the madness: An examination of stalking measurements. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 74-84.

24.

Fox

K. A.

Nobles

M. R.

Fisher

B. 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, 319-347.

25.

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.

26.

Franklin

C. A.

(2011). An investigation of the relationship between self-control and alcohol-induced sexual assault victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 263-285.

27.

Goode

(1995). Stalking: Crime of the ‘90s? Criminal Law Journal, 19, 193-204.

28.

Hamilton

L. C.

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

29.

Hindelang

M. J.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Garofalo

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

30.

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.

31.

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.

32.

Krebs

C. P.

Lindquist

C. H.

Warner

T. D.

Fisher

B. S.

Martin

S. L.

(2009). The differential risk factors of physically forced and alcohol- or other drug-enabled sexual assault among university women. Violence and Victims, 24, 302-321.

33.

Madero-Hernandez

Fisher

B. S.

(2012). Routine activity theory. In Cullen

F. T.

Wilcox

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminological theory (pp. 513-534). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

34.

McNamara

C. L.

Marsil

D. F.

(2012). The prevalence of stalking among college students: The disparity between researcher-and self-identified victimization. Journal of American College Health, 60, 168-174.

35.

McNeeley

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

36.

Ménard

K. S.

Cox

A. K.

(2016). Stalking victimization, labeling, and reporting: Findings from the NCVS stalking supplement. Violence Against Women, 22, 671-691.

37.

Menard

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

38.

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.

39.

Miller

(2012). Stalking: Patterns, motives, and intervention strategies. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 495-506.

40.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

(1999). A routine activity theory explanation for women’s stalking victimizations. Violence Against Women, 5, 43-62.

41.

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.

42.

Nobles

M. R.

Fox

K. A.

(2013). Assessing stalking behaviors in a control balance theory framework. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 737-762.

43.

Nobles

M. R.

Reyns

B. W.

Fox

K. A.

Fisher

B. S.

(2014). Protection against pursuit: A conceptual and empirical comparison of cyberstalking and stalking victimization among a national sample. Justice Quarterly, 31, 986-1014.

44.

Wilcox

. (2017). Routine activity theory, target congruence, and school context: A multilevel analysis of teacher victimization. Victims & Offenders, 13, 349-372.

45.

Owens

J. G.

(2016). Why definitions matter: Stalking victimization in the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 2196-2226.

46.

Paternoster

Brame

Mazerolle

Piquero

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

47.

Popp

A. M.

Peguero

A. A.

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

48.

Reyns

B. W.

Englebrecht

C. M.

(2014). Informal and formal help-seeking decisions of stalking victims in the United States. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 1178-1194.

49.

Reyns

B. W.

Henson

Fisher

B. S.

(2011). Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle-routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1149-1169.

50.

Reyns

B. W.

Henson

Fisher

B. S.

Fox

K. A.

Nobles

M. R.

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

51.

Reyns

B. W.

Scherer

(2017). Stalking victimization among college students: The role of disability within a lifestyle-routine activity framework. Crime & Delinquency, 64, 650-673. doi:10.1177/0011128717714794

52.

Ross

L. T.

Kolars

C. L. K.

Krahn

D. D.

Gomberg

E. S. L.

Clark

Niehaus

(2011). Nonconsensual sexual experiences and alcohol consumption among women entering college. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 399-413.

53.

Scherer

H. L.

(2011). Disability status and victimization risk among a national sample of college students: A lifestyle-routine activities approach (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?0::NO:10:P10_ACCESSION_NUM:ucin1311692494

54.

Smith

S. G.

Chen

Basile

K. C.

Gilbert

L. K.

Merrick

M. T.

Patel

. . . Jain

(2017). The National Intimate partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010-2012 state report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

55.

Spano

Freilich

J. 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.

56.

Spitzberg

B. H.

Cupach

W. R.

(2007). The state of the art of stalking: Taking stock of the emerging literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 64-86.

57.

Stewart

M. C.

Fisher

B. S.

(2013). Vulnerabilities and opportunities 101: The extent, nature, and impact of stalking and cyberstalking among college students and implications for campus policies and programs. In Fisher

B. S.

Sloan III

J. J.

(Eds.), Campus crime: Legal, social and policy perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 236-260). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

58.

Sween

Reyns

B. W.

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

59.

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.

60.

Tjaden

Thoennes

(1998). Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

61.

Tjaden

Thoennes

Allison

C. J.

(2000). Comparing stalking victimization from legal and victim perspectives. Violence and Victims, 15, 7-22.

62.

Turchik

J. A.

Hassija

C. M.

(2014). Female sexual victimization among college students: Assault severity, health risk behaviors, and sexual functioning. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 2439-2457.

63.

Waldner

L. K.

Berg

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

64.

Wilcox

Fisher

B. S.

Lasky

N. V.

(2015). Gendered opportunity and victimization. In Cullen

F. T.

Wilcox

Lux

C. L.

Jonson

C. L.

(Eds.), Sisters in crime revisited: Bringing gender into criminology (pp. 189-208). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

65.

Wilcox

Tillyer

M. S.

Fisher

B. S.

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

66.

Williams

S. L.

Frieze

I. H.

(2005). Courtship behaviors, relationship violence, and breakup persistence in college men and women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 248-257.

67.

Wood

Stichman

(2018). Stalking on the college campus: The influence of suitable target and guardianship variables on victimization comparing male and female students. Victims & Offenders, 13, 487-503. doi:10.1080/15564886.2017.1377656

68.

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