The Relationship Between Childhood Maltreatment and Adolescent Violent Victimization

Abstract

Research has identified numerous negative consequences of childhood maltreatment, including poor academic performance, psychological distress, and delinquency. To date, studies examining childhood maltreatment and subsequent victimization have largely focused on the relationship between childhood sexual abuse and intimate partner abuse in adulthood. It is unclear, however, if maltreatment during childhood is related to subsequent violent victimization during adolescence. Theories of victimization, in combination with the existing literature on the causes and consequences of childhood maltreatment, suggest that these experiences would be correlated. This study used longitudinal data from a nationally representative sample of adolescents to examine whether childhood maltreatment is empirically related to subsequent adolescent violent victimization, and if so, whether this relationship can be explained by existing victimization theories. Findings indicate that a significant relationship exists between childhood maltreatment and adolescent violent victimization, and that a risky lifestyle appears to mediate the relationship.

Keywords

victimization childhood maltreatment violence

Research in recent decades has begun to examine the long-term consequences of child abuse and neglect. Maltreatment during childhood has been linked to numerous negative outcomes, including substance abuse, poor academic performance, psychological distress, and delinquency (Huizinga, Loeber, & Thornberry, 1995; Ireland, Smith, & Thornberry, 2002; Kurtz, Gaudin, Wodarski, & Howing, 1993; Perez, 2000; Shin, Edwards, & Heeren, 2009; Thornberry, Ireland, & Smith, 2001; Widom, Schuck, & White, 2006; Wright, Crawford, & Del Castillo, 2009). To date, studies examining childhood maltreatment and subsequent victimization have largely focused on the relationship between childhood sexual abuse and later intimate partner abuse or sexual revictimization (e.g., Collins, 1998; Tyler, Hoyt, & Whitbeck, 2000). It is unclear, however, whether maltreatment during childhood is related to subsequent violent victimization during adolescence.

Research on the victimization of children and adolescents demonstrates that individuals are particularly vulnerable during these periods of the life-course. For example, a nationally representative study of children and youths ages 2 to 17 found that more than half had experienced a physical assault in the previous year (Finkelhor, Omrod, Turner, & Hamby, 2005). There is little research, however, on the relationship between victimization experiences across developmental stages of the life-course. One exception is a recent study by Widom, Czaja, and Dutton (2008) which found that childhood victimization in the forms of physical and sexual abuse and neglect increased the risk for lifetime revictimization. The explanation for this observed relationship, however, remains speculative. Scholars have noted the need for this type of research, stating that the “field of child victimology needs to study, borrow from, and integrate a variety of fields, including . . . criminology” (Finkelhor, 1995, p. 189) and “comparatively little work explains why [childhood] victimization has long-term consequences” (Macmillan, 2001, p. 11). Despite the lack of empirical research directly examining the relationship between childhood maltreatment and subsequent adolescent violent victimization, victimization theories (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Cohen, Kluegel, & Land, 1981; Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996; Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978), when considered in combination with the literature on childhood maltreatment, suggest that these experiences would be correlated. The present study draws on theories of victimization and the existing research on child abuse and neglect to examine the relationship between childhood maltreatment and violent victimization during adolescence. Specifically, this study used longitudinal data from a nationally representative study of adolescents to examine whether maltreatment during childhood increases the likelihood of violent victimization during adolescence, and whether current theories of victimization can account for this relationship.

Adolescent Violent Victimization

Theoretically grounded studies of adolescent violent victimization often rely on an opportunity framework to explain the correlates of violent victimization risk. For example, a lifestyles/routine activities approach suggests that some lifestyles will differentially expose adolescents to risky individuals and situations that create opportunities for victimization (Hindelang et al., 1978). Activities that bring suitable targets together with motivated offenders in the absence of capable guardianship are particularly risky (Cohen et al., 1981; Cohen & Felson, 1979).

Generally, findings from studies examining the correlates of adolescent violent victimization are consistent with a lifestyles/routine activities explanation for victimization. Certain lifestyles and routine activities, such as unstructured activities that lack adult supervision, appear to expose adolescents to risky situations and motivated offenders, thus increasing risk for victimization (Schreck & Fisher, 2004; Schreck, Stewart, & Fisher, 2006; Schreck, Wright, & Miller, 2002). Similarly, substance use and abuse has been positively linked to adolescent violent victimization (Lauritsen, Laub, & Sampson, 1992; Nofziger, 2009; Schreck, Burek, Stewart, & Miller, 2007). Furthermore, a delinquent lifestyle that includes engaging in delinquency and associating with delinquent peers appears to be particularly influential in exposing individuals to motivated offenders (Campbell Augustine, Wilcox, Ousey, & Clayton, 2002; Lauritsen et al., 1992; Lauritsen & Quinet, 1995; Nofziger, 2009; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1990; Schreck & Fisher, 2004; Spano & Nagy, 2005; Taylor, Freng, Esbensen, & Peterson, 2008; Wilcox, Tillyer, & Fisher, 2009). Conversely, social bonds—such as parental, school, or peer attachments—that have the potential to provide guardianship and limit exposure to risky situations and motivated offenders tend to be associated with lower risk for violent victimization (Schreck & Fisher, 2004; Schreck, Fisher, & Miller, 2004; Wilcox et al., 2009).

Additional theories of victimization identify specific target characteristics which influence victimization risk by contributing to an individual’s perceived suitability as a target. Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996), for example, argued that the lifestyle/routine activities framework only considers the environmental factors that protect or expose individuals to victimization. More attention needs to be paid, they argue, to personal characteristics that correspond with “the needs, motives or reactivities of offenders” (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996, p. 6). Their revised conceptualization considers personal characteristics of individuals that would increase vulnerability independent of any specific routine activities. “[B]ecause certain offenders are drawn to or react to certain types of victims or certain characteristics in victims, such victims are more vulnerable” (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996, p. 6). Perceived weaknesses—such as small size, physical weakness, emotional problems, or psychological issues—increase target vulnerability because they limit the victim’s ability to resist or deter victimization. In addition, characteristics that evoke hostility or resentment from potential offenders increase victimization risk by contributing to target antagonism (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996). In short, this approach suggests it is not only important to consider opportunities that expose individuals to victimization risk but also the personal characteristics that correspond with the motives, needs, and reactivities of offenders, thus making some adolescents particularly suitable targets.

Some studies have found that specific target characteristics—such as impulsivity, low self-control, and psychological distress—increase the probability of violent victimization (Campbell Augustine et al., 2002; Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996; Schreck, 1999; Schreck et al., 2002; Wilcox et al., 2009; but see Tillyer, Rob, Holly, & Rebekah, 2011). In addition, the limited research on victims with disabilities indicates that individuals with mental and physical disabilities are at greater risk of violent victimization (Petersilia, 2001; Tillyer et al., 2011; Wilson & Brewer, 1992), suggesting that perceived weakness might contribute to the target suitability of some individuals. The following section examines the extent to which the correlates of adolescent violent victimization risk may also be causes or consequences of childhood maltreatment, thus suggesting a relationship—either causal or spurious—between the two experiences.

Linking Childhood Maltreatment to Adolescent Violent Victimization

There are two broad sets of explanations for an observed relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent violent victimization—risk heterogeneity and state dependency. The first, risk heterogeneity, essentially assumes that the relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent violent victimization is spurious: The two experiences have a common cause, thus accounting for their joint occurrence. The second set of explanations—state dependency—suggests that the observed relationship between childhood maltreatment and subsequent violent victimization during adolescence is causal. That is, the experience of childhood maltreatment impacts an adolescent’s risk for subsequent violent victimization. The research on child abuse and neglect has identified several possible causes and consequences of maltreatment, many of which also serve as risk factors for adolescent violent victimization.

Target Characteristics

There are a number of potential causes and consequences of childhood maltreatment that might contribute to the perceived target suitability of an adolescent. For example, Brown, Cohen, Johnson, and Salzinger (1998) identified having a difficult temperament as a risk factor for child abuse and neglect. Similarly, parents of children who were physically abused reported their children as having more externalizing and internalizing behaviors relative to parents of children who were not abused (Black, Heyman, & Slep, 2001), though it is unclear whether these differences were real and whether they were the cause or consequence of physical abuse. In fact, results from a nationally representative twin study indicate that although “difficult” children might provoke corporal punishment, child abuse does not appear to be the result of coercive child behavior (Jaffee et al., 2004). Setting aside the question of whether these problems are the cause or consequence of abuse, they could potentially contribute to the perceived target suitability of an adolescent by producing antagonistic behaviors.

Beyond behavioral characteristics, physical and mental risk factors for childhood maltreatment may also contribute to the target suitability of an adolescent by increasing his or her perceived vulnerability. For example, Brown et al. (1998), in their 17-year longitudinal prospective study on the risk factors of child abuse and neglect, identified being handicapped as a risk factor that increased the probability of child sexual abuse. In addition, low child verbal IQ increased the probability of physical abuse.

Finally, the experience of childhood maltreatment might also change the perceived vulnerability of an adolescent by creating low self-esteem. A longitudinal study comparing maltreated children to nonmaltreated children found that sexual abuse, early onset of maltreatment, and frequent physical abuse were significantly related to difficulties with self-esteem (Bolger, Patterson, & Kupersmidt, 1998). Hutchinson and Mueller (2008), in a study examining the effects of parental emotional and verbal abuse on peer victimization, argued that victims of abuse adapt to their experience through the use of passive acceptance of their status as a victim, which is accompanied by low self-esteem. As a result, they become targets for additional victimization by their peers. Their findings suggest that parental verbal and emotional abuse was associated with lower self-esteem, which in turn increased victimization by one’s peers.

Opportunities

Childhood maltreatment might also influence violent victimization during adolescence through risky lifestyles and activities with weak guardianship that create opportunities for victimization. For example, the research on the consequences of childhood abuse and neglect has linked various forms of maltreatment to substance use and abuse during adolescence, including binge drinking (Shin et al., 2009), illicit drug use (Perez, 2000), marijuana use (Dembo et al., 1992), and problematic alcohol use (Widom et al., 2006). These findings, however, are somewhat tempered by research by Thornberry and colleagues which illustrate the importance of considering the developmental stages during which the maltreatment occurs (Ireland et al., 2002; Thornberry et al., 2001). For example, Ireland et al. (2002) reported that childhood maltreatment is only significantly related to adolescent drug use if the maltreatment persisted into adolescence. Similarly, Thornberry et al. (2001) found that experiencing childhood-only maltreatment (but not maltreatment during adolescence) was unrelated to alcohol-related problems during early and late adolescence, whereas experiencing any adolescent maltreatment was significantly related to alcohol-related problems during both early and late adolescence.

Beyond substance use and abuse, childhood maltreatment has been linked to involvement in a delinquent lifestyle which may expose one to delinquent peers and risks for victimization. Child abuse and neglect has been found to be correlated with delinquency (Huizinga et al., 1995). For example, Smith and Thornberry (1995) reported that childhood maltreatment is significantly related to self-reported and official measures of delinquency. Lemmon (1999) found that childhood maltreatment significantly influenced the initiation and continuation of delinquency among a sample of low income urban youth males. Swanston et al. (2003), in a longitudinal study comparing sexual abuse victims to nonvictims, found that child sexual abuse was significantly related to self-reported criminal behavior and parental rating of the adolescent’s aggression. Zingraff, Leiter, Myers, and Johnson (1993), however, cautioned that the maltreatment–delinquency relationship might be overstated. Their findings indicate that the maltreatment–delinquency association only exists for status offenses once other variables are controlled. Furthermore, similar to the findings related to substance use, several studies suggest that the developmental stage in which the maltreatment occurs is important for understanding the impact on delinquency. That is, it appears that the significant relationship between maltreatment and delinquency only holds when the maltreatment began or persisted into adolescence (Ireland et al., 2002; Stewart, Livingston, & Dennison, 2008; Thornberry et al., 2001).

Finally, adolescents who experienced childhood maltreatment may be at an increased risk of violent victimization because of insufficient guardianship, as the weak parent–child bond limits the guardianship potential of the relationship. Brown et al. (1998), in their longitudinal analysis of risk factors for child maltreatment, identified low mother involvement, low father involvement, and low father warmth as risk factors for child abuse and neglect. In a study comparing families of runaway youths to nonrunaway families, Whitbeck, Hoyt, and Ackley (1997) found that both runaway adolescents and their parents/caretakers are more likely to report lower levels of parental monitoring, warmth, and supportiveness relative to the nonrunaway families. The runaway families also report higher levels of parental rejection, family violence, and sexual abuse. A study on the effects of adolescent maltreatment found that maltreatment is associated with lower parental attachment and commitment to school (Brezina, 1998). Whether poor attachments are a cause or consequence of maltreatment, they have the potential to weaken the guardianship typically provided by such relationships.

The Present Study

The present study draws on the theoretical and empirical work reviewed above to examine the relationship between childhood maltreatment and subsequent adolescent violent victimization risk. Little is known about the relationship between victimization experiences across developmental stages of the life-course. Victimization theories, when considered in combination with the existing research on childhood maltreatment, suggest that childhood maltreatment would be significantly related to subsequent adolescent violent victimization. The present study examines whether such a relationship does in fact exist, and if so, whether it can be explained using measures derived from theories of victimization. In doing so, the following hypotheses are tested:

Hypothesis 1: Childhood maltreatment is positively and significantly related to the likelihood of experiencing violent victimization during adolescence.

Hypothesis 2: Target characteristics can account for the relationship between childhood maltreatment and violent victimization during adolescence.

Hypothesis 3: Indicators of opportunity can account for the relationship between childhood maltreatment and violent victimization during adolescence.

Hypothesis 2 reflects the idea that adolescents who were maltreated during childhood might be perceived as particularly suitable targets by motivated offenders, due to their personal characteristics that make them appear vulnerable or antagonize offenders. Therefore, the “target characteristics” measure various types of perceived vulnerabilities and antagonistic traits that might be seen as an indicator of target suitability by offenders. Hypothesis 3 reflects the idea that adolescents who were maltreated during childhood might have different opportunities for victimization, via risky lifestyle and a lack of guardianship. Therefore, the “indicators of opportunity” measure various lifestyle risks and guardianship that may differentially expose adolescents to opportunities for violent victimization.

Data

The above hypotheses were tested using public-use data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), which were collected from a sample of adolescents enrolled in American middle and high schools (Harris et al., 2009). Systematic sampling and stratification techniques resulted in a sample of 80 high schools and 52 middle schools. During the 1994-1995 school year, students in Grades 7 through 12 completed the Wave 1 in-school self-report survey that included items related to demographic characteristics, education, household structure, risk behaviors, self-esteem, friendships, and extracurricular activities. A stratified random sample of these students was selected for an in-home interview during Wave 1, which included questions related to decision-making processes, family composition, substance use, and criminal activities. Their primary caregiver (usually the mother) was also interviewed. For the purposes of the present study, all independent variables, with the exception of childhood maltreatment, were created using items from Wave 1. Wave 2 data were collected in April through August of 1996 during follow-up in-home interviews with the adolescents. The dependent variable, adolescent violent victimization, is measured using data collected during Wave 2. Finally, Wave 3 data were collected between August 2001 and April 2002. During Wave 3, respondents were asked about mistreatment by adults prior to entering the sixth grade (Harris et al., 2009).

Wave 1 of the public-use Add Health data includes 6,504 cases. Of these cases, 3,843 participants were interviewed during Waves 2 and 3. The analyses presented below used normalized weights to account for the Add Health sampling design. Listwise deletion of cases based on missing data for study variables and sampling weights resulted in 2,762 cases for analysis.

Measures

Consistent with previous victimization research using the Add Health data (Schreck et al., 2007; Schreck & Fisher, 2004; Tillyer et al., 2011), violent victimization is a dichotomous dependent variable constructed from four items. Respondents were asked how often in the past 12 months (a) they had a knife/gun pulled on them, (b) someone shot them, (c) someone stabbed them, and (d) they were jumped. If respondents reported experiencing any of these victimizations, they received a code of 1. All others (i.e., those who experienced none of the aforementioned victimizations) were coded as a 0.

Four survey items were used to create the childhood maltreatment variable. Respondents were asked about the frequency with which they experienced various mistreatments by adults prior to beginning the sixth grade. Specifically, the items asked how often their parents or other adult caregivers had not taken care of their basic needs, such as keeping them clean or providing food or clothing; slapped, hit, or kicked them; and touched them in a sexual way; forced them to touch him or her in a sexual way; or forced them to have sexual relations. In addition, they were asked how often social services investigated how they were taken care of or tried to take them out of their living situation. Responses ranged from “this never happened to me” to “more than 10 times.” Factor scores were created using principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation. All items loaded on a single factor, with factor loadings ranging from 0.56 to 0.70.

Five target characteristics were operationalized which theory and previous research suggest increase an adolescent’s perceived target suitability or attractiveness as a victim. Furthermore, each of these variables has been identified as a potential cause or consequence of childhood maltreatment and may help explain an observed relationship between childhood maltreatment and violent victimization during adolescence. Psychological vulnerability is a dichotomous variable that measured whether the adolescent is mentally retarded or has a learning disability (based on the caregiver’s report). Physical vulnerability is a dichotomous variable that measures whether the adolescent uses a brace, has difficulty using his or her limbs, or uses a cane or crutches. Target antagonism was created by taking the mean of two items which measured the extent to which the respondent agreed or disagreed with two statements—“you never argue with anyone” and “you never criticize people.” Responses ranged from 1 = strongly agree to 5 = strongly disagree, with higher values indicating higher levels of antagonism. Self-esteem was created by taking the mean of six items which measured the degree to which the respondent agreed or disagreed with the following statements: “You have a lot of good qualities,” “You have a lot to be proud of,” “You like yourself just the way you are,” “You feel like you are doing everything just about right,” “You feel socially accepted,” and “You feel loved and wanted.” Responses ranged from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Finally, poor grooming was created to tap the extent to which the respondent’s physical appearance may contribute to his or her target suitability from an offender’s perspective. Poor grooming is a dichotomous variable based on the interviewer’s assessment of the respondent. A value of 1 indicates that the interviewer identified the respondent as being poorly or very poorly groomed.

In addition to the target characteristics, eight “opportunity” variables were operationalized which may increase victimization through risky lifestyles and activities without capable guardianship. Skip school measured whether the respondent skipped school for a full day without an excuse during the past year. Sneak out is a dichotomous measure of whether the respondent snuck out of his or her home at night without permission in the past year. Drunk measured whether the respondent drank enough alcohol to get drunk in the past year. Delinquent peers was measured by taking the mean of three items: how many friends smoked cigarettes at least once a day, how many friends drank alcohol at least once a month, and how many friends smoked marijuana at least once a month. Violent criminal behavior is a dichotomous variable that measured whether the respondent pulled a knife or gun on someone, shot someone, or stabbed someone in the past 12 months. Nonviolent criminal behavior was created by computing the mean of four items which asked respondents how many times they had stolen from a store, stolen something worth more than US$50, stolen something worth less than US$50, and stolen something from a house or building. Parental attachment was created by taking the mean of four items which asked respondents how close they felt to their mother, how close they felt to their father, how much their mother cared about them, and how much their father cared about them. Responses ranged from 1 = not at all to 5 = very much. Parental supervision was created by taking the mean of seven items that asked respondents whether their parents allowed them to make their own decisions regarding the time they must be home on weekend nights, the people they hang around with, what they wear, how much television they watch, which television programs they watch, what time they go to bed on weeknights, and what they eat.

Finally, the respondents’ demographic characteristics were measured using a series of dummy variables. Prior studies have demonstrated that race/ethnicity, gender, age, and socioeconomic status (SES) are related to adolescent violent victimization (see, for example, Nofziger, 2009; Schreck & Fisher, 2004; Tillyer et al., 2011; Wilcox et al., 2009). Race/ethnicity was measured as Black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, and Other non-Hispanic, with White non-Hispanic as the reference category. Variables were also constructed to measure respondents’ gender (1 = male) and age (1 = 15 years of age or younger). A measure of SES was included that indicates whether the respondent’s family was receiving public assistance, such as welfare, based on the parental report (0 = no, 1 = yes). Descriptive statistics for all study variables are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (N = 2,762).

Variables	Minimum	Maximum	M	SD
Dependent variable
Violent victimization	0.00	1.00	0.14	0.35
Demographics
Black	0.00	1.00	0.12	0.33
Hispanic	0.00	1.00	0.11	0.31
Other	0.00	1.00	0.07	0.25
Male	0.00	1.00	0.49	0.50
Young	0.00	1.00	0.54	0.50
Public assistance	0.00	1.00	0.08	0.27
Childhood maltreatment	−0.48	8.90	0.00	1.00
Target characteristics
Psychological vulnerability	0.00	1.00	0.12	0.33
Physical vulnerability	0.00	1.00	0.03	0.18
Target antagonism	1.00	5.00	3.51	0.81
Self-esteem	1.00	5.00	4.14	0.58
Poor grooming	0.00	1.00	0.04	0.19
Lifestyle/opportunity
Skip school	0.00	1.00	0.21	0.41
Sneak out	0.00	1.00	0.10	0.29
Drunk	0.00	1.00	0.13	0.34
Delinquent peers	0.00	3.00	0.76	0.85
Violent criminal behavior	0.00	1.00	0.04	0.19
Nonviolent criminal behavior	0.00	3.00	0.20	0.44
Parental attachment	1.00	5.00	4.65	0.55
Parental supervision	0.00	1.00	0.29	0.22

Analytic Strategy

A series of logistic regression models were estimated to examine the relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent violent victimization risk. The initial model explored whether childhood maltreatment was associated with an increased risk of violent victimization during adolescence, controlling for demographic characteristics. The subsequent models included additional variables which prior research and theory suggest influence an adolescent’s violent victimization risk. Specifically, Model 2 included measures of “target characteristics” to examine whether specific characteristics of the individual could account for a relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent violent victimization risk. Physical vulnerability, mental vulnerability, target antagonism, self-esteem, and poor grooming were included in Model 2 in addition to the demographic characteristics and the measure of childhood maltreatment. Model 3 examined whether an association between childhood maltreatment and the likelihood of adolescent violent victimization could be explained by variation in opportunities for victimization. This model included the measures which tap the adolescent’s lifestyle and potential guardianship, including skipping school, sneaking out, getting drunk, delinquent peers, violent and nonviolent criminal behavior, parental attachment, and parental supervision. Finally, a series of supplementary models (described below) were estimated in light of the results to further explore the nature of the relationship between childhood maltreatment and subsequent adolescent violent victimization.

Results

Table 2 presents the results from the logistic regression analyses. Consistent with Hypothesis 1, Model 1 reveals that childhood maltreatment maintained a positive and statistically significant relationship with adolescent violent victimization risk, controlling for race, gender, age, and SES. With respect to the demographic characteristics, Black non-Hispanics, Hispanics, and Other non-Hispanics were more likely to be violently victimized relative to White non-Hispanics, and males were more likely to be victimized relative to females.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression for Adolescent Violent Victimization (N = 2,762).

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	B	SE	OR	B	SE	OR	B	SE	OR
Demographics
Black	0.74***	(0.16)	2.09	0.83***	(0.16)	2.29	0.81***	(0.17)	2.25
Hispanic	0.60***	(0.16)	1.82	0.63***	(0.17)	1.88	0.59***	(0.17)	1.81
Other	0.51*	(0.21)	1.66	0.51*	(0.21)	1.66	0.44*	(0.22)	1.55
Male	1.23***	(0.12)	3.43	1.27***	(0.13)	3.57	1.18***	(0.13)	3.25
Young	−0.19	(0.11)	—	−0.14	(0.11)	—	0.18	(0.13)	—
Public assistance	0.26	(0.18)	—	0.24	(0.19)	—	0.03	(0.20)	—
Childhood maltreatment	0.17***	(0.05)	1.18	0.15**	(0.05)	1.16	0.09	(0.05)	—
Target characteristics
Psychological vulnerability				0.36*	(0.15)	1.43
Physical vulnerability				0.24	(0.30)	—
Target antagonism				0.02	(0.07)	—
Self-esteem				−0.34***	(0.10)	0.71
Poor grooming				−0.01	(0.26)	—
Routine activities
Skip school							0.28*	(0.14)	1.33
Sneak out							0.48**	(0.17)	1.61
Drunk							0.29	(0.17)	—
Delinquent peers							0.36***	(0.08)	1.44
Violent criminal behavior							1.02***	(0.23)	2.77
Nonviolent criminal behavior							0.44***	(0.11)	1.55
Parental attachment							−0.14	(0.11)	—
Parental supervision							0.25	(0.27)	—

Constant	−2.68***	(0.13)		−1.47**	(0.53)		−2.93***	(0.51)
Nagelkerke R²	0.11			0.12			0.21
Model χ²	169.00***			189.31***			337.92***

Note: OR = odds ratio.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001.

Model 2 examined whether the association between childhood maltreatment and subsequent violent victimization during adolescence can be attributed to specific target characteristics. Of the five target characteristics, only two maintained a significant relationship with violent victimization risk. Psychological vulnerability was significantly related to violent victimization, indicating that those adolescents whose parents reported they were mentally retarded and/or had a learning disability were at increased risk of violent victimization. Conversely, adolescents with higher levels of self-esteem were significantly less likely to experience violent victimization. Despite these two significant findings, there is no empirical support for Hypothesis 2; the inclusion of target characteristics does not appear to strengthen the model or elucidate the relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent violent victimization. The pseudo R² increased only slightly (from 0.11 to 0.12) with the addition of the target characteristics. Furthermore, the childhood maltreatment factor remained significant in Model 2, indicating that specific target characteristics which were hypothesized to increase an adolescent’s perceived suitability for violent victimization cannot account for the association between childhood maltreatment and adolescent violent victimization.

Model 3 examined whether the association between childhood maltreatment and adolescent violent victimization can be explained by indicators of lifestyle and guardianship which purportedly influence an adolescent’s opportunity for violent victimization. The results indicate that skipping school, sneaking out, associating with delinquent peers, engaging in violent criminal behavior, and engaging in nonviolent criminal behavior were significantly related to an increase in an adolescent’s risk for violent victimization. Those who skipped school were 1.33 times more likely to experience violent victimization. Adolescents who reported sneaking out in the past year were 1.61 times more likely to be victimized. A one-unit change in the delinquent peers measure increased violent victimization by a factor of 1.44. Respondents who self-reported violent criminal behavior were 2.77 times more likely to be violently victimized themselves, whereas those who self-reported nonviolent criminal behavior were 1.55 times more likely to be violently victimized.

Unlike the target suitability variables, the opportunity variables (particularly those measuring a delinquent lifestyle) do improve the model and begin to shed some light on the association between childhood maltreatment and subsequent violent victimization during adolescence. First, the pseudo R² increased substantially (from 0.11 in Model 1 to 0.21 in Model 3). Second, the inclusion of the opportunity variables in the model rendered the childhood maltreatment factor nonsignificant, suggesting that risky lifestyles during adolescence might explain why the experience of childhood maltreatment is associated with an increase in the likelihood of subsequent violent victimization during adolescence.

Although the primary goals of the study were achieved with Models 1 through 3, a series of supplementary models were estimated in an effort to further explore the nature of the relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent victimization. These analyses were intended to examine whether the opportunity variables that were significant in Model 3 mediated the relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent violent victimization. Mediation was tested using the Baron and Kenny (1986) procedure and the Sobel Test (Preacher & Hayes, 2004). Three criteria must be met to infer mediation: (a) Variations in the independent variable should significantly account for variations in the mediator, (b) the mediator should vary significantly with the dependent variable, and (c) the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable should no longer be significant when the mediator is included (Baron & Kenny, 1986). The second and third criteria were met with the primary analyses presented above: The opportunity variables varied significantly with adolescent violent victimization risk, and they rendered childhood maltreatment nonsignificant. The supplementary analyses were intended to explore whether childhood maltreatment could significantly account for variations in the presumed mediators.

The five measures of opportunity that were significant in Model 3—skipping school, sneaking out, delinquent peers, violent criminal behavior, and nonviolent criminal—were each regressed on childhood maltreatment and the demographic variables.¹ The purpose of estimating these models was to observe whether maltreatment during childhood significantly predicted the opportunity variables in adolescence, controlling for demographic characteristics. Childhood maltreatment was positively and significantly related to skipping school (p ≤ .001), sneaking out (p ≤ .001), associating with delinquent peers (p ≤ .001), and nonviolent criminal behavior (p ≤ .001) in adolescence. Childhood maltreatment was not significantly associated with violent criminal behavior in adolescence. Sobel’s Test (Preacher & Hayes, 2004), which tests for the significance of the mediated effects, confirms the findings. Skipping school (z = 1.81, p < .10), sneaking out (z = 2.34, p < .05), associating with delinquent peers (z = 3.47, p < .01), and nonviolent criminal behavior (z = 2.81, p < .01) were statistically significant as mediators of the relationship between childhood maltreatment and violent victimization in adolescence.

Discussion

Research on childhood maltreatment has documented several negative consequences associated with abuse and neglect, including substance abuse, poor academic performance, psychological distress, and delinquency (Huizinga et al., 1995; Ireland et al., 2002; Kurtz et al., 1993; Perez, 2000; Shin et al., 2009; Thornberry et al., 2001; Widom et al., 2006; Wright et al., 2009). Studies that have examined the relationship between childhood maltreatment and subsequent victimization tend to focus on intimate partner abuse or sexual revictimization. Few empirical studies, however, have examined whether experiencing maltreatment during childhood is associated with an increased risk for violent victimization during adolescence. The research on adolescent violent victimization generally supports theories that point to opportunity (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Cohen et al., 1981; Hindelang et al., 1978) and specific target characteristics (Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996) as risk factors for victimization. When considered in conjunction with the research on childhood maltreatment, it seems likely these two victimization experiences would be correlated. The present study used a longitudinal design and data from a nationally representative sample of adolescents to examine whether childhood maltreatment was associated with an increased risk for violent victimization during adolescence, and whether such a relationship could be explained by existing theories of victimization.

Results from the initial logistic regression model demonstrate that childhood maltreatment is associated with an increased likelihood of subsequent violent victimization during adolescence, controlling for demographic variables. Models 2 and 3 were intended to help explain the significant relationship childhood maltreatment and adolescent violent victimization by introducing theoretically relevant variables that previous studies have found to be associated with adolescent violent victimization. These additional analyses suggest that a risky lifestyle, rather than specific target characteristics, explains the relationship. Although two of the target characteristics were significantly related to violent victimization, childhood maltreatment remained statistically significant in the model. Childhood maltreatment, however, was rendered nonsignificant in Model 3. Skipping school, sneaking out, associating with delinquent peers, and engaging in violent and nonviolent criminal behavior all increased the likelihood of subsequent violent victimization. A series of additional models intended to further explore the potential mediating effects of the opportunity variables revealed that maltreatment during childhood was positively and significantly associated with skipping school, sneaking out, delinquent peers, and nonviolent criminal behavior during adolescence. Collectively, the analyses suggest that a delinquent lifestyle which likely exposes one to motivated offenders without capable guardianship appears to mediate the relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent violent victimization.

The findings from the present study suggest that victimization, like offending, has causes and consequences that span developmental stages of the life-course, a finding which has both theoretical and policy implications. In his 2010 Sutherland Address to the American Society of Criminology, Cullen (2010) argued that the discipline must move beyond what he calls “adolescence-limited criminology,” stating that “it is obvious that we need to study what happens not only during but also before and after adolescence” (p. 310). The study of victimization within criminology has largely been grounded in an opportunity perspective that identifies the more proximate causes of criminal events; thus, studies tend to examine the immediate opportunity structures that facilitate or prevent criminal victimizations, including the lifestyles and routine activity patterns which presumably create such opportunities. Yet the present study suggests that for some people, victimization early in life by one’s caregivers might set into motion events and patterns (including the structure of one’s lifestyle and routine activities) that continue to unfold across developmental stages and contexts. The experience of maltreatment during childhood, for instance, may lead some adolescents to respond with a delinquent lifestyle, which in turn can increase the risk of violent victimization. It is clear, however, that not all children respond to maltreatment in the same manner. Research by Caspi et al. (2002), for example, suggests that genetics may play a role in how individuals adapt to experiences of maltreatment during childhood. Their study of a large sample of male children from birth to adulthood and found a genetic protective factor which moderated the effect of maltreatment on the development of antisocial problems (Caspi et al., 2002). Future research should continue to examine genetic and nongenetic factors that explain the differential adaptations of children to maltreatment.

The findings from the present study should be interpreted in light of potential limitations associated with measurement of key variables. The measurement of childhood maltreatment warrants further discussion, as the factor used here has strengths and weaknesses. It is an inclusive measure that captures several types mistreatment by one’s caregiver(s), it captures the frequency of maltreatment, and it does not rely on official reports, which likely underestimate instances of childhood maltreatment. Despite these advantages, two specific limitations of the measure should be noted. First, although the variable measures maltreatment that occurred prior to Grade 6, the data were collected during Wave 3 of study. The average age of study participants at Wave 3 was 21.3 years. Given that participants were asked to recall events that happened a decade or more prior, recall errors are a potential limitation of the measure. Second, the present study cannot ascertain when the maltreatment began and whether it continued into adolescence. Research by Thornberry et al. (2001) demonstrates that the timing of the maltreatment (i.e., whether it occurred in childhood only, in adolescence only, or persisted across these developmental stages) is important to consider when examining the influence of childhood maltreatment on subsequent problem outcomes. Thornberry et al. found that maltreatment that persisted across childhood and adolescence and that which occurred only during adolescence were associated with stronger and more negative consequences than maltreatment that occurred only during childhood. Unfortunately, the Add Health data do not measure maltreatment experiences across developmental stages. Future research should use additional data sources to examine the relationship between maltreatment experienced during various developmental stages and subsequent violent victimization risk.

The measurement of the dependent variable—adolescent violent victimization—should also be noted when interpreting the findings. Recall that respondents were coded as being victimized in the present study if (a) they had a knife/gun pulled on them, (b) someone shot them, (c) someone stabbed them, and/or (d) they were jumped. This variable does not include all forms of violent victimization, such as bullying or simple assault. Target characteristics that may contribute to the real or perceived weakness of the adolescent (e.g., physical or mental disability, low self-esteem, and poor grooming) may prove to be more important in explaining these other types of violent victimization.

Despite these noted limitations, the present study offers an examination of how maltreatment during childhood by one’s caregiver(s) can influence the likelihood of future violent victimization during adolescence, and that this relationship is likely explained by a delinquent lifestyle that places the adolescent in risky situations with motivated offenders and a lack of guardianship. In many ways, however, this study is exploratory; additional research is needed to fully understand how victimization risk evolves over the life-course. The next steps in this area of research include identifying the protective and risk factors which explain differential adaptations to maltreatment in childhood, examining the relationship between childhood maltreatment and additional measures of violent victimization (which may have different mediators), and developing more refined measures of childhood maltreatment which consider the development stages in which the maltreatment begins and ends.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Special acknowledgment is due Ronald R. Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the original design. Information on how to obtain the Add Health data files is available on the Add Health website ().

Author’s Note

This research uses data from Add Health, a program project directed by Kathleen Mullan Harris and designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen Mullan Harris at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was funded by Grant P01-HD31921 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 23 other federal agencies and foundations. No direct support was received from Grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.

Notes

Author Biography

Marie Skubak Tillyer is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Her research interests include violence, victimization, and crime prevention. Previous research has appeared in Criminology, Crime & Delinquency, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, Journal of Criminal Justice, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, and Justice Quarterly.

References

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.

Black

D. A.

Heyman

R. E.

Slep

A. M. S.

(2001). Risk factors for child physical abuse. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 6, 121-181.

Bolger

K. E.

Patterson

C. J.

Kupersmidt

J. B.

(1998). Peer relationships and self-esteem among children who have been maltreated. Child Development, 69, 1171-1197.

Brezina

(1998). Adolescent maltreatment and delinquency: The question of intervening processes. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 35, 71-99.

Brown

Cohen

Johnson

J. G.

Salzinger

(1998). A longitudinal analysis of risk factors for child maltreatment: Findings of a 17-year prospective study of officially recorded and self-reported child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse & Neglect, 22, 1065-1078.

Campbell Augustine

Wilcox

Ousey

G. C.

Clayton

R. R.

(2002). Opportunity theory and adolescent school-based victimization. Violence and Victims, 17, 233-253.

Caspi

McClay

Moffitt

T. E.

Mill

Judy

Craig

I. W.

Poulton

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

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

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

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.

10.

Collins

M. E.

(1998). Factors influencing sexual victimization and revictimization in a sample of adolescent mothers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13, 3-24.

11.

Cullen

F. T.

(2010). Beyond adolescence-limited criminology: Choosing our future—The American Society of Criminology 2010 Sutherland Address. Criminology, 49, 287-330.

12.

Dembo

Williams

Schmeidler

Estrellita

Werner

Alan

Christensen

(1992). A structural model examining the relationship between physical child abuse, sexual victimization, and marijuana/hashish use in delinquent youth: A longitudinal study. Violence and Victims, 7, 41-62.

13.

Finkelhor

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

14.

Finkelhor

Asdigian

N. L.

(1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyles theoretical approach. Violence and Victims, 11, 3-20.

15.

Finkelhor

Omrod

Turner

Hamby

S. L.

(2005). The victimization of children and youth: A comprehensive, national survey. Child Maltreatment, 10, 5-25.

16.

Harris

K. M.

Halpern

C. T.

Whitsel

Hussey

Tabor

Entzel

Udry

J. R.

(2009). The national longitudinal study of adolescent health: Research design. Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design

17.

Hindelang

M. J.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Garofalo

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

18.

Huizinga

Loeber

Thornberry

T. P.

(1995). Urban delinquency and substance abuse: Initial findings. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

19.

Hutchinson

Mueller

(2008). Sticks and stones and broken bones: The influence of parental verbal abuse on peer related victimization. Western Criminology Review, 9, 17-30.

20.

Ireland

T. O.

Smith

C. A.

Thornberry

T. P.

(2002). Developmental issues in the impact of child maltreatment on later delinquency and drug use. Criminology, 40, 359-400.

21.

Jaffee

S. R.

Caspi

Moffitt

T. E.

Polo-Tomas

Price

T. S.

Taylor

(2004). The limits of child effects: Evidence for genetically mediated child effects on corporal punishment but not on physical maltreatment. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1047-1058.

22.

Kurtz

P. D.

Gaudin

J. M.

Jr Wodarski

J. S.

Howing

P. T.

(1993). Maltreatment and the school-aged child: School performance consequences. Child Abuse & Neglect, 17, 581-589.

23.

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.

24.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Quinet

F. D.

(1995). Repeat victimization among adolescents and young adults. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11, 143-166.

25.

Lemmon

J. H.

(1999). How child maltreatment affects dimensions of juvenile delinquency in a cohort of low-income urban youths. Justice Quarterly, 16, 357-376.

26.

Macmillan

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

27.

Nofziger

(2009). Deviant lifestyles and violent victimization at school. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1494-1517.

28.

Perez

D. M.

(2000). The relationship between physical abuse, sexual victimization, and adolescent illicit drug use. Journal of Drug Issues, 30, 641-662.

29.

Petersilia

J. R.

(2001). Crime victims with developmental disabilities: A review essay. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 655-694.

30.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-731.

31.

Sampson

R. J.

Lauritsen

J. L.

(1990). Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime and the offender-victim link in personal violence. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 27, 110-139.

32.

Schreck

C. J.

(1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633-654.

33.

Schreck

C. J.

Burek

M. W.

Stewart

E. A.

Miller

J. M.

(2007). Distress and violent victimization among young adolescents: Early puberty and the social interactionist explanation. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 44, 381-405.

34.

Schreck

C. J.

Fisher

B. S.

(2004). Specifying the influence of family and peers on violent victimization: Extending routine activities and lifestyle theories. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1021-1041.

35.

Schreck

C. J.

Fisher

B. S.

Miller

M. J.

(2004). The social context of violent victimization: A study of the delinquent peer effect. Justice Quarterly, 21, 23-47.

36.

Schreck

C. J.

Stewart

E. A.

Fisher

B. S.

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

37.

Schreck

C. J.

Wright

R. A.

Miller

J. M.

(2002). A study of individual and situational antecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19, 159-180.

38.

Shin

S. H.

Edwards

E. M.

Heeren

(2009). Child abuse and neglect: Relations to adolescent binge drinking in the national longitudinal study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) Study. Addictive Behaviors, 34, 277-280.

39.

Smith

Thornberry

T. P.

(1995). The relationship between childhood maltreatment and adolescent involvement in delinquency. Criminology, 33, 451-481.

40.

Spano

Nagy

(2005). Social guardianship and social isolation: An application and extension of lifestyle/routine activities theory to rural adolescents. Rural Sociology, 70, 414-437.

41.

Stewart

Livingston

Dennison

(2008). Transitions and turning points: Examining the links between child maltreatment and juvenile offending. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 51-66.

42.

Swanston

H. Y.

Parkinson

P. N.

O’Toole

B. I.

Plunkett

A. M.

Shrimpton

Kim

O. R.

(2003). Juvenile crime, aggression and delinquency after sexual abuse: A longitudinal study. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 729-749.

43.

Taylor

T. J.

Freng

Esbensen

F-A.

Peterson

(2008). Youth gang membership and serious violent victimization: The importance of lifestyles and routine activities. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1441-1464.

44.

Thornberry

T. P.

Ireland

T. O.

Smith

C. A.

(2001). The importance of timing: The varying impact of childhood adolescent maltreatment on multiple problem outcomes. Development and Psychopathology, 13, 957-979.

45.

Tillyer

M. S.

Rob

Holly

V. M.

Rebekah

(2011). Reexamining the correlates of adolescent violent victimization: The importance of exposure, guardianship, and target characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2908-2928.

46.

Tyler

K. A.

Hoyt

D. R.

Whitbeck

L. B.

(2000). The effects of early sexual abuse on later sexual victimization among female homeless and runaway adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 235-250.

47.

Whitbeck

L. B.

Hoyt

D. R.

Ackley

K. A.

(1997). Families of homeless and runaway adolescents: A comparison of parent/caretaker and adolescent perspectives on parenting, family violence, and adolescent conduct. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21, 517-528.

48.

Widom

C. S.

Czaja

S. J.

Dutton

M. A.

(2008). Childhood victimization and lifetime revictimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32, 785-796.

49.

Widom

C. S.

Schuck

A. M.

White

H. R.

(2006). An examination of pathways from childhood victimization to violence: The role of early aggression and problematic alcohol use. Violence and Victims, 21, 675-690.

50.

Wilcox

Tillyer

M. S.

Fisher

B. S.

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

51.

Wilson

Brewer

(1992). The incidence of criminal victimisation of individuals with an intellectual disability. Australian Psychologist, 27, 114-117.

52.

Wright

M. O.

Crawford

Del Castillo

(2009). Childhood emotional maltreatment and later psychological distress among college students: The mediating role of maladaptive schemas. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33, 59-68.

53.

Zingraff

M. T.

Leiter

Myers

K. A.

Johnson

M. C.

(1993). Child maltreatment and youthful problem behavior. Criminology, 31, 173-202.