Research on socioeconomic differences in violent victimization has relied on surveys. Nationally representative register-based data sets, increasingly used in Nordic criminology, have not been used in such research. We analyse socioeconomic differences in violent victimization in Finland using both survey and register-based data, and assess whether these differences vary by severity of violence. The results show that the data source and the inclusivity of the definition of violence affect the observed socioeconomic differences, with differentials being larger for more severe violence in both data sets and in register rather than in survey data. We conclude that the link between socioeconomic status and victimization is unquestionable when the risk of severe violence is studied.
AaltonenMKivivuoriJMartikainenP (2011) Social determinants of crime in a welfare state: Do they still matter?Acta Sociologica54(2): 119–138.
2.
BjarnasonTSigurdardottirTThorlindssonT (1999) Human agency, capable guardians, and structural constraints: A lifestyle approach to the study of violent victimization. Journal of Youth and Adolescence28(1): 105–119.
3.
Brottsförebyggande rådet (2000) Vanor och trygghet – intervjuundersökning av socialt utsatta personer och normalbefolkning. Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet.
4.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2010) Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2007 Statistical Tables. National Crime Victimization Survey. US Department of Justice. URL (accessed 2 September 2011): bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cvus0701.pdf.
5.
CantorDLynchJ (2007) Addressing the challenge of costs and errors in victimization surveys: The potential of new technologies and methods. In: HoughMMaxfieldM (eds) Surveying Crime in the 21st Century. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
6.
CatalanoS (2007) Methodological change in the NCVS. In: LynchJAddingtonA (eds) Understanding Crime Statistics. Revisiting the Divergence of the NCVS and UCR. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
CohenLFelsonM (1979) Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review44(August): 588–608.
8.
CohenLKluegelJLandK (1981) Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review46(October): 505–524.
9.
DobashRPDobashRE (2004) Women’s violence to men in intimate relationships. British Journal of Criminology44(3): 324–349.
10.
EstradaF (2006) Trends in violence in Scandinavia according to different indicators. An exemplification of the value of Swedish hospital data. British Journal of Criminology46(3): 486–504.
11.
FarnworthMThornberryTKrohnMLizotteA (1994) Measurement in the study of class and delinquency: Integrating theory and research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency31(1): 32–61.
12.
FattahE (2003) Violence against the socially expendable. In: HeitmeyerWHaganJ (eds) International Handbook of Violence Research. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
13.
FelsonRAckermanJ (2001) Arrests for domestic violence and other assaults. Criminology39(3): 655–676.
14.
FinkelhorDAsdigianN (1996) Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyles/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims11(1): 3–19.
15.
FlatleyJKershawCSmithKChaplinRMoonD (eds) (2010) Crime in England and Wales 2009/10. Findings from the British Crime Survey and Police Recorded Crime (Third Edition). London: Home Office.
16.
GallowayTSkarðhamarT (2010) Does parental income matter for onset of offending?European Journal of Criminology7(6): 424–441.
17.
HaggertyK (2001) Making Crime Count. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
18.
HindelangMGottfredsonMGarofaloJ (1978) Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization. Cambridge: Ballinger.
KivivuoriJLehtiM (2006) The social composition of homicide in Finland, 1960–2000. Acta Sociologica49(1): 67–82.
21.
LauritsenJ (2001) The social ecology of violent victimization: Individual and contextual effects in the NCVS. Journal of Quantitative Criminology17(1): 3–32.
22.
LauritsenJ (2010) Advances and challenges in empirical studies of victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology26(4): 501–509.
23.
LauritsenJLaubJ (2007) Understanding the link between victimization and offending: New reflections on an old idea. In: HoughMMaxfieldM (eds) Surveying Crime in the 21st Century. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 22. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
24.
LevittS (1999) The changing relationship between income and crime victimization. Economic Policy Review5 (September): 87–98.
25.
McDowallDLoftinC (2007) What is convergence, and what do we know about it? In: LynchJAddingtonA (eds) Understanding Crime Statistics. Revisiting the Divergence of the NCVS and UCR. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
MeierRMietheT (1993) Understanding theories of criminal victimization. In: TonryM (ed.) Crime and Justice – A Review of Research volume 17. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27.
NilssonAEstradaF (2003) Victimization, inequality and welfare during an economic recession: A study of self-reported victimization in Sweden. British Journal of Criminology43(4): 655–672.
28.
NilssonAEstradaF (2006) The inequality of victimization: Trends in exposure to crime among rich and poor. European Journal of Criminology3(4): 387–412.
29.
NilssonAEstradaF (2007) Risky neighbourhoods or individuals at risk? The significance of neighbourhood conditions for violent victimization in residential areas. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention8(1): 2–21.
30.
NilssonAEstradaF (2009) Criminality and Life Chances. A Longitudinal Study of Crime, Childhood Circumstances and Living Conditions up to Age 48. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
31.
SampsonRRaudenbushSEarlsF (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science277: 918–924.
32.
SavolainenJSipiläPMartikainenPAndersonA (2009) Family, community, and lifestyle: Adolescent victimization in Helsinki. Sociological Quarterly50(4): 715–738.
33.
ShawCMcKayH (1942) Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas: A Study of Rates of Delinquents in Relation to Differential Characteristics of Local Communities in American Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
34.
SirénRAaltonenMKääriäinenJ (2010) Suomalaisten väkivaltakokemukset 1980–2009. Helsinki: Oikeuspoliittinen tutkimuslaitos.
35.
SkoganW (1984) Reporting crimes to the police: The status of world research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency21(2): 113–137.
36.
SmithDJarjouraR (1988) Social structure and criminal victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency25(1): 27–52.
37.
TarlingRMorrisK (2010) Reporting crime to the police. British Journal of Criminology50(3): 474–490.
38.
ThacherD (2004) The rich get richer and the poor get robbed: Inequality in U.S. criminal victimization, 1974–2000. Journal of Quantitative Criminology20(2): 89–116.
39.
Van KesterenJMayhewPNieuwbeertaP (2000) Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialised Countries. Key Findings from the 2000 International Crime Victims Survey. The Hague: Ministry of Justice, WODC.
40.
Von HentigH (1948) The Criminal and His Victim. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
