Prior work in homicide research has demonstrated hat gender patterns in victimization vary considerably both over time and across sociocultural contexts. Our research focuses on cross-national comparisons of the gender gap in the risk of homicide victimization (i.e., the ratio of male to female victimization rates). We argue that aggregated differences in the gender gap may concal theoretically meaningfsl patterns in distinct types of lethal violence. Specifically, we predict that differences in the gender gap in homicide victimization between Finland and the United States are not unifonn across all forms of homicides but depend on the nature of the relationship between the victim and the offender. Our findings provide strong support for this basic hypothesis and illustrate the utility of disaggregated analysis in cross-national homicide research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Block, C. R. (1987). Homicide in Chicago. Chicago: Loyola University of Chicago.
2.
Block, C. R., & Christakos, A. (1995). Intimate partner homicide in Chicago over twenty-nine years. Crime and Delinquency, 41, 496-526.
3.
Blumstein, A. (1995). Youth violence, guns, and the illicit-drug industry. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86, 10-36.
4.
Browne, A., & Williams, K. R. (1989). Exploring the effect of resource availability and the likelihood of female perpetrated homicides. Law and Society Review, 23, 75-94.
5.
Browne, A., & Williams, K. R. (1993). Gender, intimacy, and lethal violence: Trends from 1976 through 1987. Gender & Society, 7, 78-98.
6.
Browne, A., Williams, K. R., & Dutton, D. G. (1999). Homicide between intimate partners: A 20-year review. In M. D. Smith & M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (pp. 149-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
7.
Bumpass, L. L., & Sweet, J. A. (1995). NSFH working paper No. 65. Madison: Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
8.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2000). [On-line]. Available: http://stats.bls.gov/cpshome.htm.
9.
Dugan, L., Nagin, D. S., & Rosenfeld, R. (1999). Explaining the decline in intimate partnerhomicide: The effects of changing domesticity, women's status, and domestic violence resources. Homicide Studies, 3, 187-214.
10.
Flewelling, R. L., & Williams, K. R. (1999). Categorizing homicide: The use of disaggregated data in homicide research. In M. D. Smith & M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (pp. 96-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Gartner, R. (1990). The victims of homicide: A temporal and cross-national comparison. American Sociological Review, 55, 92-106.
12.
Gartner, R. (1995). Methodological issues in cross-cultural large-survey research on violence. In R. B. Ruback & N. A. Weiner (Eds.), Interpersonal violent behaviors: Social and cultural aspects (pp. 7-24). New York: Springer.
13.
Gartner, R., Baker, K., & Pampel, F. C. (1990). Gender stratification and the gender gap in homicide victimization. Social Problems, 37, 593-612.
14.
Greenfeld, L. A., Rand, M. R., Craven, D., Klaus, P. A., Perkins, C. A., Ringer, C., Warchol, G., Maston, C., & Fox, J. A. (1998). Violence by intimates. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
15.
Jaakkola, R., & Slntti, R. (2000). Personal responsibility for children in reconstituted families. Helsinki, Finland: National Research Institute of Legal Policy (# 174).
16.
Kivivuori, J. (1999). Patterns of criminal homicide in Finland. Helsinki, Finland: Hakapaino.
17.
LaFree, G. (1999). A summary and review of cross-national comparative studies of homicide. In M. D. Smith & M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (Jp. 125-145). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
18.
Langford, L., Isaac, N., & Kabat, S. (1998). Homicides related to intimate partner violence in Massachusetts: Examining case ascertainment and validity of the SHR. Homicide Studies, 2, 353-377.
19.
Lichter, D. T., McLaughlin, D. K., Kephart, G., & Landry, D. J. (1992). Race and the retreat from marriage: A shortage of marriageable men?American Sociological Review, 57,781-999.
20.
Maxfield, M. O. (1989). Circumstances in supplementary homicide reports: Variety and validity. Criminology, 27,671-695.
21.
National Research Institute of Legal Policy-Finland. (1998). Crime and criminaljustice in Finland. Helsinki, Finland: Hakapaino.
22.
Neapolitan, J. L. (1997). Cross-national crime: A research review and sourcebook. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
23.
OECD. (1996). Education at a glance: OECD indicators, 1996 edition. Paris: OECD Publications.
24.
Parker, R. N., & Rebhun, L. (1995). Alcohol and homicide: A deadly combination of two American traditions. Albany: SUNY Press.
25.
Peterson, R. R. (1996). A re-evaluation ofthe economic consequences ofdivorce. American Sociological Review, 61, 528-536.
26.
Rainwater, L., & Smeeding, T. M. (1995). Doingpoorly: The real income of American children in a comparative perspective. LIS working paper No. 127. Available: http:/Ilisweb.ceps.lulpublications/liswps/127.pdf.
27.
Riedel, M. (1989). Nationwide homicide datasets: An evaluation of UCR and NCHS data. In D. L. McKenzie, P. J. Baunach, & R. R. Roberg (Eds.), Measuring crime: Large-scale, long-range efforts (pp. 175-205). Albany: SUNY Press.
28.
Riedel, M. (1999). Sources of homicide data: A review and comparison. In M. D. Smith & M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (pp. 75-95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
Riedel, M., & Best, J. (1998). Patterns in intimate partner homicide in California, 1987-1996. Homicide Studies, 2,305-320.
30.
Saluter, A. F. (1996). Marital status and living arrangements: March 1994 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Series P20484). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
31.
Savolanen, J., Messner, S. F., & Kivivuori, J. (2000). Crime is part of the problem: Contexts of lethal violence in Finland and the USA. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 1, 41-55.
32.
South, S. J., & Lloyd, K. (1992). Marriage markets and nonmarital fertility in the United States. Demography, 29,247-264.
33.
Statistics Finland. (1995). Families 1994. Helsinki, Finland: Painatuskeskus OY.
Treas, J. (1993). Money in the bank: Transaction costs and the economic organization of marriage. American Sociological Review, 58, 723-734.
36.
U.S. Bureau ofthe Census. (2001a). Historical income tables, Table P-2 [On-line]. Available: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p02.htmnl.
37.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2001b). MS-I. Marital status of the population 15 years old and over, by sex and race: 1950 to present [On-line]. Available: http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/tabMS-1.txt.
38.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2001c). Statistical abstract of the United States, Table 244 [On-line]. Available: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97/pubs/97statab/educ/pdf
39.
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1990). Uniform crime reporting program data: Supplementary homicide reports [Datafilel. ICPSR Edition. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
40.
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1998). Uniform crime reporting program data: Supplementary homicide reports [Computerfile]. ICPSR Edition. Ann Arbor, MI: Lnter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.
41.
Verkko, V. (1951). Homicides and suicides in Finland and their dependence on national character. Copenhagen, Denmark: C.E.C. Gads Forlag.
42.
Weiner, N. A., & Ruback, R. B. (1995). inquiry through a comparative lens: Unraveling the social and cultural aspects of interpersonal violent behaviors. In R. B. Ruback & N. A. Weiner (Eds.), Interpersonal violent behaviors: Social and cultural aspects (pp. 171-182). New York: Springer.
43.
Williams, K. R., & Flewelling, R. L. (1987). Family, acquaintance, and strangerhomicide: Alternative procedures for rate calculations. Criminology, 25, 543-560.
44.
Williams, K. R., & Flewelling, R. L. (1988). The social productions of criminal homicide: A comparative study of disaggregated rates in American cities. American Sociological Review, 53, 421-431.
45.
Wilson, M. I., & Daly, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal killings in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215.
46.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
47.
Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Random House.
48.
Wolfgang, M. E. (1958). Patterns in criminal homicide. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
49.
Zahn, M. A., & McCall, P. L. (1999). Trends and patterns of homicide in the 20th century United States. In M. D. Smith & M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Homicide: A sourcebook of social research (pp. 9-23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1997). Crime is not the problem: Lethal violence in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
