To Shred or Not to Shred: Victims’ Decisions to Engage in Protective Behaviors Following Identity Theft Victimization

Abstract

Despite a growing body of research identifying several self-protective behaviors against identity theft victimization, it remains less clear what factors contribute to the adoption of these self-protective behaviors—potentially undermining the efficacy of policies aiming to promote these behaviors. Using data from the 2021 National Crime Victimization Survey Identity Theft Supplement (n = 1,593), multivariate findings suggest that indicators of seriousness were associated with the decision to adopt self-protective behaviors, while distress was associated with certain self-protective behaviors. Moreover, findings suggested that income was positively associated with the odds of adopting certain self-protective behaviors, suggesting that financial barriers to self-protection against identity theft may exist. Findings are discussed in light of areas for future research as well as policy implications.

Keywords

identity theft self-protective behaviors victimization consequences victim decision making

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

K. B.

(2006). Who are the victims of identity theft? The effect of demographics. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(2), 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.25.2.160

Betz-Hamilton

(2023). Reporting behaviors of familiar identity theft victims: An empirical test of Black’s theory of law. Journal of Financial Crime, 30(4), 1055–1065. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-04-2022-0085

Burnes

DeLiema

Langton

(2020). Risk and protective factors of identity theft victimization in the United States. Preventive Medicine Reports, 17, Article 101058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101058

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4). 588–608. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/2094589

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(5), 505–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094935

Copes

Kerley

K. R.

Huff

Kane

(2010). Differentiating identity theft: An exploratory study of victims using a national victimization survey. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 1045–1052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.07.007

Cross

(2018). Expectations vs reality: Responding to online fraud across the fraud justice network. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 55, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2018.08.001

DeLiema

Burnes

Langton

(2021). The financial and psychological impact of identity theft among older adults. Innovation in Aging, 5(4), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igab043

Deryol

Boggess

L. N.

Fisher

Ngo

(2024). Exploring the role of cognitive and physical limitations in explaining identity theft victimization. Victims & Offenders. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2024.2352750

10.

Fissel

E. R.

Lee

J. R.

(2024). Block? Delete? All of the above? The self-protective behaviors of young adult cyberstalking victims. Journal of Aggression, Conflict and Peace Research, 16(4), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1108/JACPR-03-2024-0891

11.

Golladay

K. A.

(2017). Reporting behaviors of identity theft victims: An empirical test of Black’s theory of law. Journal of Financial Crime, 24(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-01-2016-0010

12.

Gove

W. R.

Geerken

M. R.

(1977). Response bias in surveys of mental health: An empirical investigation. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1289–1317. https://doi.org/10.1086/226466

13.

Greenberg

M. S.

Ruback

R. B.

(1992). After the crime: Victim decision making.

14.

Harrell

Thompson

(2023). Victims of identity theft, 2021. US Department of Justice.

15.

Irvin-Erickson

(2023). How does immigration status and citizenship affect identity theft victimization risk in the US? Insights from the 2018 National Crime Victimization Survey Identity Theft Supplement. Victims & Offenders, 18(7). 1401–1424. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2023.2231954

16.

Irvin-Erickson

(2024a). Consequences of identity theft victimization: Disabilities and mental distress. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287241227926

17.

Irvin-Erickson

(2024b). Victim-reporting of instrumental identity theft to law enforcement in the United States: An analysis of the impact of immigration status of victims. American Behavioral Scientist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241300922

18.

(2013). Little's test of missing completely at random. The Stata Journal, 13(4), 795–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1301300407

19.

Little

R. J.

(1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722

20.

Maher

C. A.

(2023). Buyer beware, or buyer unaware? Examining the correlates of consumer fraud victimization acknowledgment in the United States. Crime & Delinquency, 71(6–7), 2493–2517. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287231197422.

21.

Maher

C. A.

(2024). Examining the association between citizenship and ethnicity on identity theft risk: Findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 49(3), 400–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-024-09759-7

22.

Maher

C. A.

Hayes

B. E.

(2024). Nonfinancial consequences of identity theft revisited: Examining the association of out-of-pocket losses with physical or emotional distress and behavioral health. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 51(3), 459–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231223166

23.

Maher

C. A.

Hayes

B. E.

Powers

R. A.

(2025). Vulnerable identities? Examining the association between disability with risk and consequences of identity theft. Journal of Criminal Justice, 96, Article 102333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102333

24.

Rader

N. E.

(2023). Teaching fear: How we learn to fear crime and why it matters. Temple University Press.

25.

Reynolds

(2023). Decisions, decisions: An analysis of identity theft victims’ reporting to police, financial institutions, and credit bureaus. Victims & Offenders, 18(7), 1373–1400. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2128129

26.

Reyns

B. W.

(2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization: Further expanding routine activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(2), 216–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811425539

27.

Reyns

B. W.

Englebrecht

C. M.

(2014). Informal and formal help-seeking decisions of stalking victims in the United States. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(10), 1178–1194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814541441

28.

Reyns

B. W.

Henson

(2016). The thief with a thousand faces and the victim with none: Identifying determinants for online identity theft victimization with routine activity theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(10), 1119–1139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15572861

29.

Reyns

B. W.

Randa

(2017). Victim reporting behaviors following identity theft victimization: Results from the National Crime Victimization Survey. Crime & Delinquency, 63(7), 814–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128715620428

30.

Ruback

R. B.

Greenberg

M. S.

Westcott

D. R.

(1984). Social influence and crime-victim decision making. Journal of Social Issues, 40(1), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1984.tb01082.x

31.

United States Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2023). National crime victimization survey: Identity theft supplement, [United States], 2021. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR38501.v1

32.

Vakhitova

Z. I.

Mawby

R. I.

Alston-Knox

C. L.

Stephens

C. A.

(2020). To SPB or not to SPB? A mixed methods analysis of self-protective behaviours to prevent repeat victimisation from cyber abuse. Crime Science, 9, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-020-00134-5

33.

Vakhitova

Mawby

R. I.

Alston-Knox

(2019). Once bitten, twice shy: An exploratory study of victim impact from and adoption of self-protective behaviours against cyber abuse. SocArXiv. September 6.

34.

Vanhee

(2021). The impact of identity theft victimization on the use of protective measures. [Master’s thesis]. Pennsylvania State University.

35.

Vanhee

A. J.

(2022). Increased protection versus the cost of increased protection: Victimization and the use of protective measures against identity theft. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 49(12), 1779–1799. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548221105824

36.

Williams

M. L.

(2016). Guardians upon high: An application of routine activities theory to online identity theft in Europe at the country and individual level. British Journal of Criminology, 56(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azv011