The Aftermath of Criminal Victimization

Abstract

Criminal victimization is associated with a cascade of negative effects on social development, but research has primarily focused on children and adolescents. Less is known about the effects of criminal victimization on psychosocial functioning of Americans age 50 and older. Relying on individual-level data from Waves 1 and 2 of a longitudinal panel study of older adults—the Americans’ Changing Lives study—the current study explored the effects of criminal victimization on self-esteem and self-efficacy separately for Whites and African Americans. Net of the effects of employment, income, depression, age, sex, self-esteem, and self-efficacy, criminal victimization reduced self-esteem and self-efficacy among African Americans but not Whites. However, Whites who had greater difficulty dealing with their victimization evinced lower subsequent self-esteem. Greater difficulty with their victimization was also modestly associated with subsequent self-efficacy for Whites and African Americans. Implications and directions for future research are provided.

Keywords

criminal victimization race self-esteem self-efficacy older adults

Criminal victimization is a visceral experience that produces multiple short-term and long-term negative consequences. According to data from the most recent National Crime Victimization Survey, nearly 23 million violent and property victimizations occurred last year in the United States for a rate of 20.7 per 1,000 persons (Rand, 2008). Similar to criminal offending, criminal victimization is not equally distributed across social groups (Doerner & Lab, 2005; Dugan & Apel, 2003; Gibson, Morris, & Beaver, 2009; Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978; Lauritsen, Sampson, & Laub, 1991; Singer, 1981). With the exception of sexual victimization, males have higher victimization than females and victimization is inversely related to age. The epidemiology of victimization also partially depends on crime type. For instance, the robbery victimization rate for Whites was 1.9 per 1,000 persons and 4.9 per 1,000 persons for African Americans, a difference of 2.6. There are also important social class differences for victimization. To illustrate, the burglary victimization rate for households with income below $7,500 was 57.6 per 1,000 persons. The commensurate rate for households with income of $75,000 or higher was 17.2 per 1,000 persons, a difference in magnitude of 3.4 times (Rand, 2008).

Irrespective of the social status of the victim; however, criminal victimization imposes an assortment of costs and collateral consequences borne by society, families of victims, and the victims themselves. These costs include loss of life, injury and reduced quality of life, direct property losses, medical and mental health care, lost work and productivity, legal and preventive costs, and others (Doerner & Lab, 2005; Flannery, Singer, van Dulmen, Kretschmar, & Belliston, 2007; Rand, 2008; van Wilsem, 2007).

Empirical Background

At the individual level, criminal victimization wreaks havoc across multiple areas of life and has important affective, cognitive, and behavioral consequences. Although the effects of criminal victimization depend in part on the specific form of victimization (e.g., child abuse and neglect, sexual assault, incest, spouse/intimate partner abuse, robbery, auto theft), criminal victimization has been found to increase depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress disorder, suicidal behavior, substance abuse, avoidant behaviors, fear of crime, and self-blame and to reduce self-esteem, self-efficacy, and quality of life (Flannery et al., 2007; Macmillan, 2001; Ruback & Thompson, 2001). Victimization is associated with maladaptive behaviors spanning antisocial behaviors and delinquency (Lauritsen et al., 1991; Lauritsen, Laub, & Sampson, 1992; Menard, 2002; Schreck, Stewart, & Fisher, 2006) particularly when the victimization occurs early in the life course (Caspi et al., 2002; Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1989; Finkelhor, 1995; Finkelhor & Dziuba-Leatherman, 1994; Lansford et al., 2002; Widom, 1989a, 1989b).

McGloin and Widom (2001), for example, conducted a 22-year follow-up study of 676 certified cases of persons who were abused and neglected between 1967 and 1971 and a control group of 520 persons. Psychiatric assessments were done to evaluate adult success in eight domains of functioning: employment, residency, education, social activity, psychiatric disorder, substance abuse, official arrests, and self-reported acts of violence. Among the formerly abused or neglected treatment group, resilience was defined as persons who were successful in at least six of the eight domain areas. Just 22% of individuals met the criteria for resilience. This means that more than two decades after their victimization and exposure to adverse environments, nearly 80% of formerly maltreated persons continued to suffer across multiple domains of life compared with those who had not been maltreated. In sum, across analytical techniques and data sources, victimization has been linked with an array of maladaptive and negative outcomes including delinquency, psychiatric problems, fear of crime, reduced socioeconomic status, social isolation, residential mobility/relocation, and others (Britt, 2001; Campbell, 2002; Caspi et al., 2002; DeLisi & Regoli, 2000; Dugan & Apel, 2003; Lurigio, 1987; Macmillan, 2000, 2001; Ruback & Thompson, 2001; Xie & McDowall, 2008).

Although there are a wealth of studies on the deleterious effects of victimization on development during childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood, comparatively less is known about the longitudinal consequences of criminal victimization on psychosocial functioning among older adults. In a recent study of stalking victimization based on data from a community survey, Johnson and Kercher (2009) found evidence of multiple negative impacts of stalking on victims. For example, stalking victims experienced a range of negative consequences including loss of sleep and nightmares, loss of appetite, depression, feelings of helplessness, anger, lack of concentration, and fear of being alone. Hawker and Boulton (2000) conducted a meta-analysis of 20 years of cross-sectional studies of the effects of criminal victimization and psychosocial adjustment. They found that victimization was associated with multiple forms of maladjustment including depression, loneliness, generalized and social anxiety, and global and social self-worth. The mean effect size was strongest for the link between victimization and depression.

Theoretical Background

Victimization also negatively affects self-esteem and self-efficacy. Self-esteem, defined as perceived self-worth, and self-efficacy, defined as one’s perceived ability to produce designated levels of performance that exert influences over events that affect one’s life (Bandura, 1994), are important individual-level constructs. These constructs characterize the degree of self-appraisal; view of self-worth; feelings of mastery, control, and achievement; and other self-directed phenomena relating to human agency (Bandura, 1977, 1982, 1997; Gecas, 1989; Hitlin & Long, 2009). Persons with healthy self-esteem and self-efficacy are resilient and able to forge ahead and succeed in life even in the face of adverse circumstances and events. They are able to translate their human capital into successful outcomes. Conversely, persons with low self-esteem and self-efficacy are more often overcome by environmental conditions and unable to persevere through adversity.

From this Bandurian social cognitive theoretical perspective, criminal victimization can set into motion a chain of events whereby victims have reduced self-esteem and self-efficacy, and these negative self-concepts make it increasingly difficult to surmount the victimization experience. For instance, Orava, McLeod, and Sharpe (1996) conducted a comparative study of 21 women who were involved in verbally/physically abusive relationships and 18 comparison women who were not. Women who endured relationship victimization had lower self-esteem, lower self-efficacy, and greater depression symptoms. Intensity of physical abuse was associated with increased depression, and intensity of verbal harassment was associated with reduced self-esteem and self-efficacy. Other investigators have similarly found that criminal victimization contributes to reductions in self-esteem, self-efficacy, and self-empowerment while increasing depression, perceived hopelessness, and self-blame (Clements, Sabourin, & Spiby, 2004; Orava et al., 1996). As Macmillan (2001) noted, “Victimization has implications for an individual’s sense of agency, self-efficacy, and perceptions of others in the social world” (p. 11). The implications are unilaterally negative: Criminal victimization reduces an individual’s sense of agency, self-efficacy, and empowerment and darkens his or her perceptions of others in the social world.

It is possible that victimization has differential effects on subsequent self-esteem and self-efficacy across demographic groups for two reasons. First, there are sharp demographic differences in criminal victimization: Youths, males, and non-Whites have higher victimization rates than older adults, females, and Whites (Beaver et al., 2007; Lauritsen, Heimer, & Lynch, 2009; Schreck, Fisher, & Miller, 2004; Stewart, Elifson, & Sterk, 2004). Second, there are significant differences in fear of crime or the social psychological reaction to crime, and fear of crime is inversely related to victimization risk; that is, it is often highest in groups that have comparatively lower rates of victimization, such as women, older adults, and elderly people (Ferraro, 1995; Ruback & Thompson, 2001; Skogan, 1990; Warr, 2000). Victimization and the negative psychological consequences of it have been shown to constrain social interaction and reduce social interaction and functioning (Benight & Bandura, 2004; Dolan & Peasgood, 2007; Gabriel & Greve, 2003; Liska & Warner, 1991) particularly among older adults (Liska & Warner, 1991). This is important because advancing age also signals changes in self-efficacy among older adults as they face social changes and challenges from younger adults (Bandura, 1994); thus, criminal victimization could be particularly damaging to their psychosocial functioning.

Current Focus

To date, investigators have made clear that criminal victimization, particularly physical forms, such as abuse, maltreatment, and the like, negatively affects social development and bears on psychosocial characteristics including self-esteem and self-efficacy that themselves are meaningful determinants of health and prosperity. Unfortunately, most studies have used small samples, neglected differential responses to criminal victimization by race, and failed to study the putative effects of victimization on human development in later adulthood. The current study addresses these voids using longitudinal panel data from a national sample of adults.

Method

Participants and Procedures

The current study used data from Waves 1 and 2 of the Americans’ Changing Lives study (House, 1994), which is a nationally representative, longitudinal panel survey of older residents in the United States. The Americans’ Changing Lives study focuses especially on differences between African Americans and White Americans in middle and late adulthood, and the survey contains a wide range of sociological, psychological, psychiatric, and physical health items. For Wave 1, which was collected in 1986, a multistate stratified area probability sample of 3,617 was conducted with oversampling of African Americans and persons age 60 and older. In 1989, Wave 2 was completed with 2,867 respondents, resulting in a 79% response rate. Waves 1 and 2 used face-to-face interviews. To preserve respondent confidentiality, certain identifying variables were restricted from general dissemination (House, 1994). The Americans’ Changing Lives data have resulted in several publications (e.g., Boardman & Robert, 2000; Herzog, Kahn, Morgan, Jackson, & Antonucci, 1989; House et al., 1994; House, Kessler, Herzog, Mero, & Breslow, 1999).

Measures

Criminal victimization and dealing with that victimization

Criminal victimization was assessed with the item, “Were you robbed or was your home burglarized in the last three years” and was measured dichotomously (no = 0; yes = 1). Of the White subsample (n = 2,339), 89.4% (n = 2,092) had not been victimized and 10.6% (n = 247) had. Of the African American subsample (n = 1174), 89.1% (n = 1,046) had not been victimized and 10.9% (n = 128) had. Victimization prevalence by race was not significantly different (t = 0.20, p = .42). How the respondent dealt with victimization was measured from 1 = very well to 4 = not very well; thus, higher values indicate a poorer response to the victimization. African Americans (M = 2.25, SD = 1.11) had significantly worse responses to criminal victimization than Whites (M = 1.93, SD = 1.01) at the bivariate level (t = 2.58, p = .01).

Feeling of personal safety

At Wave 1, respondents were asked a single item question about personal safety “Do you feel safe from personal attack in your neighborhood?” that was measured 1= feel very safe to 4 = not very safe. There were sharp racial differences in feelings of personal safety between Whites (M = 1.63, SD = .87) and African Americans (M = 2.17, SD = 1.04) at the bivariate level (t = 15.76, p = .00), with African Americans reported lower levels of personal safety.

Age

Age was continuously measured for Whites (M = 54.55, SD = 17.69, range = 25-95) and African Americans (M = 52.46, SD = 17.36, range = 25-95) and was significantly different (t = 2.67, p =.01) across subsamples.

Gender

The White (61% female, 39% males) and African American (66.2% females, 33.8% male) subsamples were significantly different by gender composition (t = 2.54, p = .01).

Employment

Dichotomous measures of the respondent’s employment status (0 = unemployed; 1 = employed) at both waves were included. At Wave 1, 47.3% of Whites and 47.5% of African Americans were employed, which is not significantly different (t = 0.01, p = .99). At Wave 2, 47.8% of Whites and 47.7% of African Americans were employed, which again is not significantly different (t = 0.44, p = .65). Employment was included because prior research suggests that employment status is positively associated with health, where employed persons have better health (Ross & Mirowsky, 1995).

Income

Continuous measures of total annual income at Waves 1 and 2 were included. Dramatic income differences existed between Whites (M = $49,182 at Wave 1 and $34,655 at Wave 2) and African Americans (M = $33,122 at Wave 1 and $22,707 at Wave 2) for Wave 1 (t = 17.03, p = .00) and Wave 2 (t = 5.30, p = .00). Self-efficacy and self-esteem are partially driven by prior performance; thus, higher levels of educational attainment and income are associated with higher levels of perceived well-being (Bandura, 1994) just as higher socioeconomic status is associated with better health among respondents in the Americans’ Changing Lives data (House et al., 1990; House et al., 1994).

Depression

Depression is an important confounding variable when examining the interrelationships between antisocial behaviors/victimization, self-esteem, and related constructs (Kaplan, 1986; Orava et al., 1996; Ranta, Kaltiala-Heino, Pelkonen, & Marttunen, 2009; Rosenberg, Schooler, & Schoenbach, 1989; Ruback & Thompson, 2001). Symptoms were measured using the National Institute of Mental Health’s Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977), a 20-item self-report of depression symptoms. For Whites, CES-D scores were (M = −0.02, SD = 0.99, range = −1.18 to 4.47) for Wave 1 and (M = −0.10, SD = 0.95, range = −1.13 to 4.25) at Wave 2. For African Americans, CES-D scores were (M = 0.34, SD = 1.12, range = −1.16 to 4.47) for Wave 1 and (M = 0.27, SD = 1.10, range = −1.13 to 4.04) at Wave 2. African Americans reported significantly more depression symptoms than Whites at Wave 1 (t = 9.29, p = .00) and Wave 2 (t = 8.91, t = .00).

Dependent variables

To evaluate the longitudinal effects of criminal victimization on subsequent psychosocial status, two dependent variables were selected. Wave 2 self-esteem index is a composite measure of self-reported self-esteem items (M = 0.07, SD = 0.98, range = −4.32 to 1.01 for Whites and M = −0.04, SD = 1.08, range = −4.32 to 1.15 for African Americans. Whites reported greater self-esteem than African Americans (t = 2.83, p = .00). Wave 2 self-efficacy index is a composite measure of self-reported self-efficacy items (M = 0.04, SD = 1.00, range = −4.25 to 1.35 for Whites and M = −0.18, SD = 1.11, range = −4.74 to 1.33 for African Americans. Whites reported greater self-efficacy than African Americans (t = 5.04, p = .00).

Analytical Strategy

The analyses proceeded in four steps using ordinary-least squares regression. First, Wave 2 self-esteem was regressed on Wave 1 criminal victimization and the other independent variables measured at Wave 1 and/or Wave 2. Second, Wave 2 self-esteem was regressed on how the respondent dealt with the Wave 1 criminal victimization and other independent variables. Third, Wave 2 self-efficacy was regressed on Wave 1 criminal victimization and the other independent variables measured at Wave 1 and/or Wave 2. Fourth, Wave 2 self-efficacy was regressed on how the respondent dealt with the Wave 1 criminal victimization and other independent variables. All models were run separately by race for two reasons. First, the Americans’ Changing Lives data were specifically collected to examine similarities and dissimilarities between Whites and African Americans in their human development in middle to late adulthood. Second, there are significant—and at times dramatic—race differences in terms of criminal victimization, exposure to violence, social psychological response to crime, and related constructs (Anderson, 1999; Baumer, Horney, Felson, & Lauritsen, 2003; DeLisi, 2001; Rountree & Land, 1996; Sampson & Raudenbush, 2004), so we were interested whether regression models produced differing effects by race.

Our research interest necessitated longitudinal data and a modeling strategy containing measures at both waves (baseline assessments at Wave 1 are used as controls for observations at Wave 2). Because employment, income, self-esteem, self-efficacy, and depression measures from both waves were included in the models, there was concern about collinearity and multicollinearity (McClendon, 1994). Regression diagnostics assuaged these concerns evidenced by mean variance inflation factors (VIF) of 1.59 for Equation 1, 1.68 for Equation 2, 1.75 for Equation 3, 2.05 for Equation 4, 1.60 for Equation 5, 1.71 for Equation 6, 1.78 for Equation 7, and 2.12 for Equation 8. All were below the conservative threshold of VIF = 4.0 that is conventional in criminological research (Fisher & Mason, 1981; Messner, 1989).

Findings

The first set of equations shown in Table 1 examined the effects of criminal victimization and the other independent variables on the Wave 2 self-esteem index. For Whites, criminal victimization occurring at Wave 1 had no significant subsequent on their self-esteem. There was strong continuity in self-esteem across waves evidenced by the powerful effect of Wave 1 self-esteem (b = .44, β = .46, t = 15.29). Expectedly, a strong inverse effect was found for Wave 2 depression on Wave 2 self-esteem (b = −.32, β = −.31, t = −10.10). Whether measured at Wave 1 or Wave 2, employment status and income were not related to self-esteem. There were not significant effects observed for age, sex, and feelings of safety from personal attack.

Table 1.

OLS Regression Models for Wave 2 Self-Esteem Index.

	Whites			African Americans
Variables	b	β	t	b	β	t
Criminal victimization (Wave 1)	.04	.01	0.48	−.32	−.10	−2.12*
Self-esteem index (Wave 1)	.44	.46	15.29***	.32	.32	6.17***
Age	.00	.00	0.08	−.00	−.02	−0.33
Sex	.03	.02	0.64	.05	.03	0.53
Feel safe from attack (Wave 1)	.02	.01	0.55	−.04	−.04	−0.88
Employment (Wave 1)	−.04	−.02	−0.48	.13	.06	0.95
Employment (Wave 1)	.08	.04	1.03	−.05	−.02	−0.34
Income (Wave 1)	.01	.03	0.89	.01	.04	0.47
Income (Wave 2)	.00	.02	0.61	.05	.09	1.35
Depression (Wave 1)	.02	.02	0.75	.08	.09	1.50
Depression (Wave 2)	−.32	−.31	−10.10***	−.37	−.36	−6.83***
F	53.98***			14.24***
Adjusted R²	.397			.306
N	886			332

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Essentially identical findings were observed for African Americans with Wave 1 self-esteem (b = .32, β = .32, t = 6.17) exerting a significant positive effect and Wave 2 depression (b = −.37, β = −.36, t = −6.83) exerting a significant negative effect on Wave 2 self-esteem. The major difference was that Wave 1 criminal victimization (b = −.32, β = −.10, t = −2.12) predicted Wave 2 self-esteem for African Americans, but not for Whites. Among African Americans, criminal victimization had a longitudinally negative impact on self-esteem.

As shown in Table 2, how respondents dealt with their criminal victimization also influenced subsequent self-esteem, and these effects varied by race. For Whites, greater difficulty with criminal victimization (b = −.16, β = −.16, t = -1.97) was associated with reduced self-esteem. Wave 1 self-esteem (b = .40, β = .46, t = 5.17) predicted Wave 2 self-esteem as expected and Wave 2 depression was associated with reduced Wave 2 self-esteem (b = −.33, β = −.33, t = −3.23). No other independent variables were significant.

Table 2.

OLS Regression Models for Wave 2 Self-Esteem Index.

	Whites			African Americans
Variables	b	β	t	b	β	t
Dealt with victimization (Wave 1)	−.16	−.16	−1.97*	−.22	−.20	−1.46
Self-esteem index (Wave 1)	.40	.46	5.17***	.42	.45	3.07**
Age	−.00	−.06	−0.60	.00	.04	0.24
Sex	.05	.03	0.31	−.29	−.13	−0.75
Feel safe from attack (Wave 1)	−.12	−.13	−1.58	.15	.13	0.86
Employment (Wave 1)	−.08	−.04	−0.41	.41	.17	0.99
Employment (Wave 1)	−.01	−.00	−0.03	−.18	−.08	−0.42
Income (Wave 1)	.01	.02	0.17	.12	.30	1.17
Income (Wave 2)	.00	.06	0.47	.00	.11	0.47
Depression (Wave 1)	.04	.05	0.55	.17	.16	0.91
Depression (Wave 2)	−.33	−.33	−3.23***	−.22	−.21	−1.26
F	7.29***			3.04**
Adjusted R²	.416			.359
N	98			41

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Although the effect was in the expected direction, how African Americans dealt with Wave 1 criminal victimizations had no significant bearing on their Wave 2 self-esteem. With the exception of Wave 1 self-esteem (b = .42, β = .45, t = 3.07), no other independent variable predicted Wave 2 self-esteem.

The next set of equations involved self-efficacy measured at Wave 2. As shown in Table 3, just as criminal victimization was not significantly related to Wave 2 self-esteem, it also was not associated with Wave 2 self-efficacy among White respondents. Wave 1 self-efficacy was strongly (b = .48, β = .47, t = 16.16) related to Wave 2 self-efficacy as expected. Contrasting findings were also observed for depression. For Whites, Wave 1 depression (b = .06, β = .06, t = 1.98) was positively related to Wave 2 self-efficacy, which was counterintuitive. However, Wave 2 depression exerted a strong (b = −.39, β = −.37, t = =12.15) negative effect on Wave 2 self-efficacy.

Table 3.

OLS Regression Models for Wave 2 Self-Efficacy Index.

	Whites			African Americans
Variables	b	β	t	b	β	t
Criminal victimization (Wave 1)	.08	.02	0.93	−.37	−.11	−2.54**
Self-efficacy index (Wave 1)	.48	.47	16.16***	.34	.33	6.58***
Age	−.00	−.05	−1.39	−.00	−.05	−1.00
Sex	.01	.00	0.15	.04	.02	0.45
Feel safe from attack (Wave 1)	.02	.02	0.68	.05	.05	1.03
Employment (Wave 1)	−.03	−.02	−0.38	.01	.01	0.10
Employment (Wave 1)	.11	.05	1.29	.12	.05	0.87
Income (Wave 1)	−.00	−.01	−0.28	−.01	−.03	−0.49
Income (Wave 2)	.00	.02	0.88	.00	.13	1.97*
Depression (Wave 1)	.06	.06	1.98*	.07	.07	1.23
Depression (Wave 2)	−.39	−.37	−12.15***	−.46	−.43	−8.87***
F	64.04***			22.06***
Adjusted R²	.439			.412
N	886			332

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

For African Americans, criminal victimization at Wave 1 resulted in lower self-efficacy at Wave 2 (b = −.37, β = −.11, t = -2.54). Wave 1 self-efficacy strongly predicted Wave 2 self-efficacy (b = .34, β = .33, t = 6.58), and Wave 2 income (b = .00, β = .13, t = 1.97) was also predictive. Finally, Wave 2 depression was negatively associated with Wave 2 self-efficacy (b = −.46, β = −.43, t = −8.87).

The final regression model examined predictors of Wave 2 self-efficacy with the primary variable of interest as how respondents dealt with their criminal victimization from Wave 1. For the first time, the effects of criminal victimization or response to that victimization were similar for both Whites and African Americans, and both trended toward significance at the p = .07 level. Whites with a poorer response to their criminal victimization (b = −.13, β = −.13, t = =1.79) had reduced self-efficacy, as did African Americans (b = −.27, β = −.25, t = −1.87). For Whites, Wave 1 self-efficacy (b = .41, β = .44, t = 5.35) was positively associated with Wave 2 self-efficacy, and Wave 2 depression (b = −.41, β = −.42, t = −4.52) was negatively related to Wave 2 self-efficacy. White respondents who felt less safe from person attack also trended toward lower self-efficacy at Wave 2 (b = −.13, β = −.14, t = −1.83) at the p = .07 significance level. For African Americans, Wave 1 self-efficacy (b = .47, β = .49, t = 3.15) was positively related and Wave 2 depression (b = −.41, β = −.38, t = −2.33) was negatively related to Wave 2 self-efficacy.

To summarize, despite the use of individual-level data and relatively modest models with 11 independent variables, the explained variation was impressive. For Table 1, where the dependent variable was Wave 2 self-esteem with criminal victimization as the independent variable of interest, R² = 39.7% for the model including Whites and R² = 30.6% for the model including African Americans. For Table 2, where the dependent variable was Wave 2 self-esteem with and dealing with victimization was the independent variable of interest, R² = 41.6% for the model including Whites and R² = 35.9% for the model including African Americans. For Table 3, where the dependent variable was Wave 2 self-efficacy and criminal victimization was the independent variable of interest, R² = 43.9% for the model including Whites and R² = 41.2% for the model including African Americans. For Table 4, where the dependent variable was Wave 2 self-efficacy and dealing with victimization was the independent variable of interest, R² = 52.7% for the model including Whites and R² = 30.6% for the model including African Americans.

Table 4.

OLS Regression Models for Wave 2 Self-Efficacy Index.

	Whites			African Americans
Variables	b	β	t	b	β	t
Dealt with victimization (Wave 1)	−.13	−.13	−1.79^†	−.27	−.25	−1.87^†
Self-efficacy index (Wave 1)	.41	.44	5.35***	.47	.49	3.15***
Age	.00	.00	0.03	.00	.06	0.35
Sex	−.14	−.08	−0.92	−.28	−.13	−0.78
Feel safe from attack (Wave 1)	−.13	−.14	−1.83^†	.03	.02	0.18
Employment (Wave 1)	.01	.00	0.04	.23	.09	0.54
Employment (Wave 1)	−.01	−.00	−0.03	−.26	−.11	−0.63
Income (Wave 1)	−.02	−.05	−0.39	.16	.39	1.53
Income (Wave 2)	.00	.11	0.99	−.00	−.11	−0.46
Depression (Wave 1)	.05	.06	0.67	.29	.28	1.60
Depression (Wave 2)	−.41	−.42	−4.52***	−.41	−.38	−2.33**
F	10.81***			14.24***
Adjusted R²	.527			.306
N	98			332

†

p = .07. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

Criminal victimization is a traumatic event, and the two forms of victimization in the current study—burglary and robbery—are particularly salient to victims. Burglary entails a violation of the sanctity of the home in addition to collateral victimization usually in the form of stolen property. Burglary is a personal affront to the security of victims and carries with it multiple costs and psychological concerns. Although robbery often does not often entail a home invasion, it does involve personal theft victimization by threat or use of force that may include a weapon. In this sense, we concur with Macmillan (2001), who advised that “victimization is an experience that undermines perceptions of individual agency, disrupts social networks, and increases negative ideation” (p. 14). Yet, research (Burrow & Apel, 2008; Menard, 2002; Ranta et al., 2009; Ruback & Thompson, 2001; Soule, Gottfredson, & Bauer, 2008; Spano, Freilich, & Bolland, 2008; Teague, Mazerolle, Legosz, & Sanderson, 2008) on the negative consequences of victimization is usually geared toward children, adolescents, or young adults and rarely focuses on persons age 50 or older. The current study indicates that the pernicious effects of victimization are also present in middle to late adulthood (average age in the total sample was 53.6 years and 25% of respondents were age 68 or older) and could have deleterious effects on psychosocial functioning and mental health.

How victimization matters depends on race. For Whites, criminal victimization exerted nonsignificant effects on their subsequent self-esteem and self-efficacy net of the effects of depression, Wave 1 self-esteem or self-efficacy, feelings of personal safety, and socioeconomic indicators. But Whites who had greater difficulty coming to grips with their victimization, evinced significantly lower self-esteem and reduced self-efficacy (at p = .07 significance level) at Wave 2. For African Americans, criminal victimization directly reduced their self-reported, subsequent feelings of self-esteem and self-efficacy. Moreover, African Americans who had greater difficulty coping with their victimization displayed reduced self-efficacy. For both racial groups, the effects of dealing with victimization on Wave 2 self-efficacy approached significance at the p = .07 level. These findings partially support research suggesting that Whites generally have higher self-efficacy than African Americans but that African Americans display higher self-esteem than Whites (Hoelter, 1983; Hughes & Demo, 1989).

In addition to the negative consequences of criminal victimization per se, how respondents dealt with that victimization was relevant for their subsequent self-esteem and self-efficacy. This means that victimization potentially affects the psychology of the vulnerable in more harmful ways than it does for others. Perhaps these findings suggest that Whites and African Americans make different attributions for their victimization, with Blacks making external attributions (system blame) attributions and Whites making internal attributions (self-blame). Moreover, given the sheer race differences in criminal victimization (Baumer et al., 2003; DeLisi, 2001; Rand, 2008; Sampson & Raudenbush, 2004), the attribution difference could explain difficulty that Whites had coming to grips with their victimization as if their sense of control was taken from them (Ross, Mirowsky, & Pribesh, 2001). The most important point is that despite White or Black self-esteem and self-efficacy before victimization, that event and coping with it over time had deleterious effects for each group. Thus, research is needed to clarify how these coping mechanisms develop over time.

Among respondents in the Americans’ Changing Lives study, both the discrete event of the victimization and the processual, social psychological responses to that victimization are damaging. This is consistent with Bandura’s (1977, 1982) seminal work on self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1982):

Efficacy in dealing with one’s environment is not a fixed act or simply a matter of knowing what to do. Rather it involves a generative capability in which component cognitive, social, and behavioral skills must be organized into integrated courses of action to serve innumerable purposes. A capability is only as good as its execution. . . . Perceived self-efficacy is concerned with judgments of how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations. (p. 122)

Beyond the discrete and processual effects of criminal victimization on self-esteem and self-efficacy, there is an additional importance to the statistical findings. Older age is a period of the life course characterized by diminished self-efficacy brought on by changes in relationships, health, and cognitive ability (Hitlin & Long, 2009). It is a period where Americans feel less equipped to overcome stressors and adversity if for no other reason than the ineluctable physical limitations associating with aging. A criminal victimization during midlife amplifies this further.

There are limitations that should be considered and potentially used to motivate additional research. First, despite the merits of the Americans’ Changing Lives data set, it does not contain measures of criminal offending, which is unfortunate given the empirical links between victimization and subsequent offending (Hindelang et al., 1978; Macmillan, 2001; Schreck, Stewart, & Osgood, 2008; Singer, 1981; Wolfgang, 1958). It is foreseeable that criminal victimization and poor response to that victimization would engender feelings of anger and a desire for retribution; thus, criminal victimization affects not only self-esteem and self-efficacy but antisocial responses as well. For instance, Manasse and Ganem (2009) recently found that a summary measure of criminal victimization increased both offending and depressive symptoms among respondents from the National Youth Survey (age range 18-24 years) and that these effects were more pronounced among males with depression.

Second, the victimization measures are also somewhat limited in that they pale to more severe forms of victimization, such as attempted murder, rape, or assault resulting in great bodily injury. It is likely that the latter offenses would produce even greater reductions in self-esteem and self-efficacy based on their effects on other psychological conditions. For example, Kendler, Karkowski, and Prescott (1998) found that a serious assault victimization increased the odds for major depression nearly eighteen-fold and increased the odds for generalized anxiety ten-fold. By comparison, robbery victimization doubled the odds for major depression and generalized anxiety. Future research could extend the current findings by including more serious forms of victimization, broadening the psychological maladjustment outcomes that result from victimization, and disaggregating their analyses by race given the sharp race differences in victimization for crimes such as murder and robbery.

Third, previous investigators of the Americans’ Changing Lives data set explored the neighborhood-level socioeconomic determinants of individual perceptions of self-efficacy (Boardman & Robert, 2000). Given the salience of collective efficacy to criminological outcomes (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997), a promising extension of the current study could explore multilevel effects of criminal victimization on self-esteem and self-efficacy vis-à-vis neighborhood conditions in which respondents live. It has long been recognized that criminal victimization produces a cascade of negative effects among children, adolescents, and young adults.

The current study provides modest evidence that criminal victimization negatively affects older Americans during a phase of life when they are perhaps less able to physically and emotionally surmount it. Although we prefer more extensive research on the current topic before confidently making policy recommendations, practitioners who assist crime victims should consider the damaging effects of victimization on the psychosocial functioning of all crime victims, not only children, adolescents, and young adults. Interventions that address self-esteem and self-efficacy in particular are important because these constructs are damaged in the wake of victimization. Although racial and cultural sensitivity is universally important, crime victim specialists also must attend to differential responses to victimization across racial groups.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

Author Biographies

Matt DeLisi is coordinator of criminal justice studies, faculty affiliate with the Center for the Study of Violence, and associate professor in the Department of Sociology at Iowa State University. Professor DeLisi’s primary research interests include criminal careers/career criminals, self-control theory, corrections, psychopathy, and the molecular/behavioral genetics of antisocial behavior.

Gloria Jones-Johnson is professor in the Department of Sociology at Iowa State University. Dr. Jones-Johnson teaching and research interests span social psychology, social inequality, work and occupations, mental health, and deviance.

W. Roy Johnson is associate professor in the Department of Management at Iowa State University.

Andy Hochstetler is associate professor in the Department of Sociology at Iowa State University. Using wide-ranging methodologies, he writes on offender self-conception, offender identity, and offender decision-making. Dr. Hochstetler also maintains general theoretical interest in examining psychological variables in longitudinal data.

References

Anderson

(1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York: W. W. Norton.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral chance. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Bandura

(1994). Self-efficacy. In Ramachaudran

V. S.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Plenum.

Baumer

Horney

Felson

Lauritsen

J. L.

(2003). Neighborhood disadvantage and the nature of violence. Criminology, 41, 39-72.

Beaver

K. M.

Wright

J. P.

DeLisi

Daigle

L. E.

Swatt

M. L.

Gibson

C. L.

(2007). Evidence of a gene x environment interaction in the creation of victimization: Results from a longitudinal sample of adolescents. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 51, 620-645.

Benight

C. C.

Bandura

(2004). Social cognitive theory of posttraumatic recovery: The role of perceived self-efficacy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1129-1148.

Boardman

J. D.

Robert

S. A.

(2000). Neighborhood socioeconomic status and perceptions of self-efficacy. Sociological Perspectives, 43, 117-136.

10.

Britt

C. L.

(2001). Health consequences of criminal victimization. International Review of Victimology, 8, 63-73.

11.

Burrow

J. D.

Apel

(2008). Youth behavior, school structure, and student risk of victimization. Justice Quarterly, 25, 349-380.

12.

Campbell

J. C.

(2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet, 359, 1331-1336.

13.

Caspi

McClay

Moffitt

T. E.

Mill

Martin

Craig

I. W.

. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297, 851-854.

14.

Clements

C. M.

Sabourin

C. M.

Spiby

(2004). Dysphoria and hopelessness following battering: The role of perceived control, coping, and self-esteem. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 25-36.

15.

DeLisi

(2001). The affordable hypothesis: Punitive beliefs, violent beliefs, and race. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29, 101-106.

16.

DeLisi

Regoli

(2000). Individual neighborhood attachment and perceptions of neighborhoods safety. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 181-188.

17.

Dodge

K. A.

Bates

J. E.

Pettit

G. S.

(1989). Mechanisms in the cycle of violence. Science, 250, 1678-1683.

18.

Doerner

W. G.

Lab

S. P.

(2005). Victimology (4th ed.). Cincinnati: LexisNexis/Anderson Publishing.

19.

Dolan

Peasgood

(2007). Estimating the economic and social costs of the fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 121-132.

20.

Dugan

Apel

(2003). An exploratory study of the violent victimization of women: Race/ethnicity and situational context. Criminology, 41, 959-979.

21.

Ferraro

K. F.

(1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

22.

Finkelhor

(1995). The victimization of children: A developmental perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 177-193.

23.

Finkelhor

Dziuba-Leatherman

(1994). Children as victims of violence: A national survey. Pediatrics, 94, 413-420.

24.

Fisher

J. E.

Mason

R. L.

(1981). The analysis of multicollinear data in criminology. In Fox

J. A.

(Ed.), Methods in quantitative criminology (pp. 99-125). New York: Academic Press.

25.

Flannery

D. J.

Singer

M. I.

van Dulmen

Kretschmar

J. M.

Belliston

L. M.

(2007). Exposure to violence, mental health, and violent behavior. In Flannery

D. J.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Waldman

I. D.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 306-321). New York: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Gabriel

Greve

(2003). The psychology of fear of crime: Conceptual and methodological perspectives. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 600-614.

27.

Gecas

(1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. Annual Review of Sociology, 15, 291-316.

28.

Gibson

C. L.

Morris

S. Z.

Beaver

K. M.

(2009). Secondary exposure to violence during childhood and adolescence: Does neighborhood context matter? Justice Quarterly, 26, 30-57.

29.

Hawker

D. S. J.

Boulton

M. J.

(2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocial maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 441-455.

30.

Herzog

A. R.

Kahn

R. L.

Morgan

J. N.

Jackson

J. S.

Antonucci

T. C.

(1989). Age differences in productive activities. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 44, S129-S138.

31.

Hindelang

M. J.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Garofalo

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

32.

Hitlin

Long

(2009). Agency as a sociological variable: A preliminary model of individuals, situations, and the life course. Sociology Compass, 3, 137-160.

33.

Hoelter

J. W.

(1983). Factorial invariance and self-esteem: Reassessing race and sex differences. Social Forces, 61, 834-846.

34.

House

J. S.

(1994). Americans’ changing lives: Waves I and II, 1986 and 1989 [computer file]. ICPSR version. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center [producer], 1994. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1997.

35.

House

J. S.

Kessler

R. C.

Herzog

A. R.

Mero

R. P.

Kinney

A. M.

Breslow

(1990). Age, socioeconomic status, and health. Milbank Quarterly, 68, 383-411.

36.

House

J. S.

Lepkowski

J. M.

Kinney

A. M.

Mero

R. P.

Kessler

R. C.

Herzog

A. R.

(1994). The social stratification of aging and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 213-234.

37.

Hughes

Demo

D. H.

(1989). Self-perceptions of black Americans: Self-esteem and personal efficacy. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 132-159.

38.

Johnson

M. C.

Kercher

G. A.

(2009). Identifying predictors of negative psychological reactions to stalking victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 866-882.

39.

Kaplan

H. B.

(1986). Social psychology of self-referent behavior. New York: Plenum.

40.

Kendler

K. S.

Karkowski

L. M.

Prescott

C. A.

(1998). Stressful life events and major depression: Risk period, long-term contextual threat and diagnostic specificity. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 186, 661-669.

41.

Lansford

J. E.

Dodge

K. A.

Pettit

G. S.

Bates

J. E.

Crozier

Kaplow

(2002). A 12-year prospective study of the long-term effects of early child physical maltreatment on psychological, behavioral, and academic problems in adolescence. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 156, 824-830.

42.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Heimer

Lynch

J. P.

(2009). Trends in the gender gap in violent offending: New evidence from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Criminology, 47, 361-400.

43.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Laub

J. H.

Sampson

R. J.

(1992). Conventional and delinquent activities: Implications for the prevention of violent victimization among adolescents. Violence and Victims, 7, 91-108.

44.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(1991). The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265-292.

45.

Liska

A. E.

Warner

B. D.

(1991). Functions of crime: A paradoxical process. American Journal of Sociology, 96, 1441-1463.

46.

Lurigio

A. J.

(1987). Are all victims alike? The adverse, generalized, and differential impact of crime. Crime & Delinquency, 33, 452-467.

47.

Macmillan

(2000). Adolescent victimization and income deficits in adulthood: Rethinking the costs of criminal violence from a life course perspective. Criminology, 38, 553-588.

48.

Macmillan

(2001). Violence and the life course: The consequences of victimization for personal and social development. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 1-22.

49.

Manasse

M. E.

Ganem

N. M.

(2009). Victimization as a cause of delinquency: The role of depression and gender. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 371-378.

50.

McClendon

M. J.

(1994). Multiple regression and causal analysis. Itasca, IL: Peacock.

51.

McGloin

J. M.

Widom

C. S.

(2001). Resilience among abused and neglected children grown up. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 1021-1038.

52.

Menard

(2002). Short- and long-term consequences of adolescent victimization. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

53.

Messner

S. F.

(1989). Economic discrimination and societal homicide rates: Further evidence on the cost of inequality. American Sociological Review, 54, 597-611.

54.

Orava

T. A.

McLeod

P. J.

Sharpe

(1996). Perceptions of control, depressive symptomatology, and self-esteem of women in transition from abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 167-186.

55.

Radloff

L. S.

(1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.

56.

Rand

M. R.

(2008). Criminal victimization, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

57.

Ranta

Kaltiala-Heino

Pelkonen

Marttunen

(2009). Associations between peer victimization, self-reported depression and social phobia among adolescents: The role of comorbidity. Journal of Adolescence, 32, 77-93.

58.

Rosenberg

Schooler

Schoenbach

(1989). Self-esteem and adolescent problems: Modeling reciprocal effects. American Sociological Review, 54, 1004-1018.

59.

Ross

C. E.

Mirowsky

(1995). Does employment affect health? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 230-243.

60.

Ross

C. E.

Mirowsky

Pribesh

(2001). Powerlessness and the amplification of threat: Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and mistrust. American Sociological Review, 66, 568-591.

61.

Rountree

P. W.

Land

K. C.

(1996). Burglary victimization, perceptions of crime risk, and routine activities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 147-180.

62.

Ruback

R. B.

Thompson

M. P.

(2001). Social and psychological consequences of violent victimization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

63.

Sampson

R. J.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(2004). Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma and the social construction of “broken windows.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 319-342.

64.

Sampson

R. J.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Earls

(1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.

65.

Schreck

C. J.

Fisher

B. S.

Miller

J. M.

(2004). The social context of violent victimization: A study of the delinquent peer effect. Justice Quarterly, 21, 23-48.

66.

Schreck

C. J.

Stewart

E. A.

Fisher

B. S.

(2006). Self-control, victimization, and their influences on risky activities and delinquent friends: A longitudinal analysis using panel data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22, 319-340.

67.

Schreck

C. J.

Stewart

E. A.

Osgood

D. W.

(2008). A reappraisal of the overlap of violent offenders and victims. Criminology, 46, 871-906.

68.

Singer

(1981). Homogeneous victim–offender populations: A review and some research implications. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 779-788.

69.

Skogan

W. G.

(1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. New York: The Free Press.

70.

Soule

Gottfredson

Bauer

(2008). It’s 3PM do you know where your child is? A study on the timing of juvenile victimization and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 25, 623-646.

71.

Spano

Freilich

J. D.

Bolland

(2008). Gang membership, gun carrying, and employment: Applying routine activities theory to explain violent victimization among inner city, minority youth living in extreme poverty. Justice Quarterly, 25, 381-410.

72.

Stewart

E. A.

Elifson

K. W.

Sterk

C. E.

(2004). Integrating the general theory of crime into an explanation of violent victimization among female offenders. Justice Quarterly, 21, 159-182.

73.

Teague

Mazerolle

Legosz

Sanderson

(2008). Linking childhood exposure to physical abuse and adult offending: Examining mediating factors and gendered relationships. Justice Quarterly, 25, 313-348.

74.

van Wilsem

(2007). Cross-national research on violent victimization. In Flannery

D. J.

Vazsonyi

A. T.

Waldman

I. D.

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 486-500). New York: Cambridge University Press.

75.

Xie

McDowall

(2008). Escaping crime: The effects of direct and indirect victimization on moving. Criminology, 46, 809-840.

76.

Warr

(2000). Fear of crime in the United States: Avenues for research and policy. Criminal Justice, 4, 451-489.

77.

Widom

C. S.

(1989a). Does violence beget violence? A critical examination of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 3-28.

78.

Widom

C. S.

(1989b). The cycle of violence. Science, 244, 160-166.

79.

Wolfgang

M. E.

(1958). Patterns in criminal homicide. New York: Wiley.