Explaining Victimization Experienced by Latinas: A Test of Target Congruence Theory

Abstract

A small but growing number of studies have begun testing the core propositions of target congruence theory. While these studies have provided modest support, no study to date has applied it to victimization experienced by Latinas. This is somewhat surprising, given that some of the theory’s theoretical constructs may be especially pertinent to this study population. Using data collected from the Sexual Assault Among Latinas (SALAS) study, results from logistic regression analyses showed that a target’s vulnerability, gratifiability, and antagonism modestly predicted victimization. Specifically, Latinas high in Latino orientation reported lower victimization, whereas Latinas high in masculinity traits were more likely to report victimization, while measures that captured antagonism, such as anger, were also found to be significant.

Keywords

Latinas vulnerability gratifiability antagonism target congruence theory victimization

Although introduced over two decades ago, Finkelhor and Asdigian’s (1996) target congruence theory has recently seen a surge of research testing the theory’s core propositions. As pointed out by Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996), routine activity theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979) remains the most popular theory to explain victimization. Routine activity theory is a situational approach that argues that there are three minimal elements that must be present in the same place and time in order for victimization to occur: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian to stop criminal behavior. However, this theory is perhaps not suitable for explaining all forms of victimization. Some individuals are victimized regardless of their daily routines. Therefore, Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) articulated that perhaps looking at how an offender judges a person to be a “suitable target” is a better indication of who is at a greater risk for victimization. How suitable a target can be is based on the target’s vulnerability (e.g., a victim’s inability to defend themselves), gratifiability (e.g., the victim may have something the offender needs), and antagonism (e.g., the victim may incite the offender’s anger; Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996).¹

A review of the literature demonstrates that the theory has modestly predicted criminal behaviors such as antigay violence (Waldner & Berg, 2008), stalking (Elvey et al., 2018), intimate partner violence (IPV; Sween & Reyns, 2017; Zavala, 2017; Zavala & Guadalupe-Diaz, 2018), sexual assault (Elvey & McNeeley, 2018), student-to-teacher victimization (O & Wilcox, 2017), victimization of youth (Augustine et al., 2002; Zavala & Whitney, 2019), cyber victimization (Hawdon et al., 2017), and overall criminal behavior (Zavala, 2018). While these studies have provided a strong foundation for the theory, there are still several areas for research. For instance, no study has tested the theory’s applicability to Latinas who report victimization.² There is the possibility that the theory’s three core concepts (e.g., vulnerability, gratifiability, and antagonism) may be especially relevant in predicting victimization in this study population. For example, studies have shown that Latinas report high levels of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Fox & Kim-Godwin, 2011; Kaltman et al., 2010; Potochnick & Perreira, 2010). In addition, the process of Latino orientation (e.g., oriented toward Hispanic culture or away from Anglo culture) may make some Latinas prone to victimization, given that this ethnic-specific strain or strains may weaken their psychological well-being (Garcia et al., 2005). The high levels of depression, anxiety, PTSD, and the process of Latino orientation may increase the likelihood of victimization among Latinas (target vulnerability).

Furthermore, historical gender roles continue to play a major socialization factor among Latinas (Gil & Vazquez, 1996). The concept of marianismo suggests that Latinas be submissive to the males in their lives as well as being good mothers who must self-sacrifice their personal needs for the well-being of their family and children (Castillo et al., 2010). Refusing to adhere to historical gender roles may elevate the risk of victimization (target gratifiability; Terrazas-Carrillo & Sabina, 2019). Finally, a Latina’s level of anger and their immigration status could contribute to their victimization. Violence may be perpetrated toward those who are immigrants because it may incite anger from an offender in the form of a hate crime (target antagonism). Taken together, this positions target congruence theory as a promising explanation for Latina victimization.

This study advances the literature in at least three significant ways. First, target congruence theory has not been applied to this particular study population. I agree with theorists that one important requirement for evaluating theory is the exploration of core propositions with various study populations. Second, relying exclusively on routine activity theory without testing other victimization theories may prevent scholars and practitioners from discovering new insights that may help further understand victimization among various study populations. Finally, Latinos as a whole are one of the fastest growing segments of the population (Sáenz & Morales, 2015) and their increased presence makes them an important population of study for criminologists and other scholars, particularly in the field of victimology.

These goals are accomplished through the following steps. First, the study begins with an overview of target congruence theory, highlighting the theory’s three theoretical concepts and how it may explain victimization experienced by Latinas. Second, studies that have tested target congruence theory will be reviewed, with emphasis on which of the three theoretical constructs was found to be significant in predicting victimization in each respective study. Third, research hypotheses derived from the literature review will be presented. Fourth, the method and data used in the study are discussed. Finally, the study concludes with an overview of the results and limitations, as well as suggestions for theoretical and policy implications.

Literature Review

Target Congruence Theory

Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) highlighted the importance of identifying elements that draw offenders to the victim to better understand why some people are more likely than others to experience violent victimization. That is, the characteristics or attributes of the victim that can be used by the offender to judge whether they are vulnerable to victimization. Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) identified three factors that can increase the odds of a person’s victimization: target vulnerability, target gratifiability, and target antagonism.

Target vulnerability captures a victim’s personal characteristics that compromise their capacity to resist or deter victimization. Some individuals are chosen for victimization because they are perceived as easy targets. These individuals may possess some personal characteristics that make them vulnerable to victimization. Psychological problems, emotional deprivation, and physical weakness (e.g., a person’s height and weight) have all been identified as examples of target vulnerability by Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996). Individuals with these vulnerabilities may be victimized because the offender may sense them to be weak (physically or mentally) and, therefore, unable to fight back or deter physical violence, making them an easy target for the offender. In regard to target vulnerability, this study will examine the influence of depression, anxiety, PTSD, and Latino orientation.³ These characteristics may increase the risk for victimization because they lower the potential victim’s capacity to deter or resist victimization. Again, research has found that Latinas report high rates of depression, anxiety, and PTSD (Kaltman et al., 2010). In addition, it has been suggested that ethnic-specific factors, such as isolation from family, a lack of social support, and lacking English language proficiency contribute to high levels of depression and anxiety among Latinas, and these risk markers have been found to be associated with victimization, particularly IPV (Edelson et al., 2007). Therefore, this article also includes Latino orientation because studies have found that the process of acculturating can also cause these negative attributes (Hovey, 2000; Moradi & Risco, 2006; Torres, 2010). I predict that these characteristics will be significant in predicting victimization.

Target gratifiability means that the victim has some quality, possession, skill, or attribute that the offenders wants to obtain, possess, manipulate, or have access to. The use of violence toward the victim is one way in which the offender can acquire or manipulate that quality, skill, or attribute of the victim. Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) pointed to the victim’s sex as an example of target gratifiability. They contend that some offenders target women for interpersonal crimes like sexual assaults, while sex offenders target prepubescent boys for their crimes. As it pertains to the current research, this study will look at the respondent’s feminine and masculine traits. As I alluded earlier, in the Latino culture, femininity is closely tied to the concept of marianismo. Here, Latino women are expected to be warm, caring, compassionate, unassertive, and be subordinated to males, such as fathers and husbands (Castillo et al., 2010; Vandello & Cohen, 2003). Masculinity is related to the concept of machismo where Latino males are socialized to be aggressive, independent, and assertive (Arciniega et al., 2008). Given these aspects, it is reasonable to argue that Latinas who do not adhere to their perceived historical gender role of marianismo, but adhere to machismo (or not fully embody marianismo), are more likely to report victimization. Violence can be perpetrated toward a Latina, for example, as punishment for not following tradition (marianismo), while others may deal with victimization for behaving in a way that has been stereotypically associated with male characteristics (machismo; Vandello et al., 2009). These concepts align with target gratifiability because it is a quality or attribute of the victim that the offender would like to manipulate. Prior research has found a relationship between these gender roles and various forms of victimization (Parrot & Zeichner, 2003; Sanchez et al., 2012; Ulloa et al., 2004). I suggest that the concepts of femininity and masculinity will predict victimization.

Target antagonism is the term used to describe personal characteristics or behaviors that elicit anger, jealousy, or other adverse behavior from the offender. For instance, Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) suggested that being a “mama’s boy” or being homosexual can increase the chances of school bullying and hate crimes, respectively. A person being flirtatious toward another individual can arouse their partner’s jealousy, which in turn fuels the partner to use violence toward the victim. The current study will examine the respondent’s level of anger and immigration status, all of which can reasonably ignite anger, jealousy, and other adverse impulses from the perpetrator. For instance, in regard to anger, there is the possibility that a person’s angry outburst can arouse the anger of the offender, leading to the likelihood of victimization (see, Zavala, 2017). Similarly, a Latina may be personally victimized on the grounds of their immigration status as in the form of a hate crime. These ideas are consistent with the theory in that it is still a quality or attribute of the victim (e.g., high levels of anger and their immigration status) that can arouse the anger of the offender. I argue that these characteristics will increase the odds of victimization.

Studies Testing Target Congruence Theory

Although the theory was introduced two decades ago, there are only a small number of studies that have been carried out to test the propositions of the theory. Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) tested their theory using longitudinal data collected from the National Youth Victimization Prevention Study. Three types of victimization (nonfamily, sexual, and parental assaults) were examined; their study showed that variables representing target antagonism (disobedience and acting out behaviors) significantly predicted parental assault, while measures of target vulnerability (physical stature, psychological distress, physical limitations, and age) and gratifiability (respondent’s sex) were significantly related to nonfamily and sexual assaults. Augustine et al. (2002) analyzed cross-sectional data gathered from 40 different middle and high schools in the state of Kentucky. Their study found that target vulnerability (sex and age) and target antagonism (having an impulsive personality and ethnicity) modestly predicted violent and property victimization. Their measure of target gratifiability (socioeconomic status) was not found to be significant in their study. Waldner and Berg (2008) tested the theory in an attempt to explain antigay violence toward a sample of gay, lesbian, and bisexual respondents. As suggested by the theory, respondents who were “out,” visited or engaged in gay organizations or activities, and consumed higher levels of alcohol were in fact more likely to be victimized. These factors increased the risk of victimization because they are signs of vulnerability (intoxication) and antagonism (homosexual behavior in public).

More recently, four studies have used the theory to explain IPV, while other studies used it to explain teacher victimization, stalking, and cyber victimization. Sween and Reyns (2017) analyzed data gathered from the Canadian General Social Survey and found that only two out of the three constructs of the theory were significant in predicting IPV victimization. Specifically, intimate partners who refused to allow the victim access to family income (target vulnerability) and those who put the victim down or destroyed their possessions (target gratifiability) were more likely to report victimization. Jealousy, their measure for target antagonism, was not found to be significant. Zavala (2017) applied the theory to IPV victimization experienced by police officers. He reported that police officers with high levels of depression (target vulnerability), high levels of anger (target antagonism), and officers who had to have the final say on how things are done at home (target gratifiability) were all positive and significant in predicting their IPV victimization. Zavala and Guadalupe-Diaz (2018) examined the theory’s capability to explain emotional abuse, finding that target vulnerability better predicted the dependent variable than target gratifiability and target antagonism. Elvey and McNeeley (2018), using a large representative sample of college students, reported that vulnerability, gratifiability, and antagonism predicted physical IPV and/or sexual IPV, but some of these theoretical constructs predictably varied by the respondent’s gender. A similar result was found by Elvey et al. (2018) when they examined stalking. O and Wilcox (2017) analyzed data from the Rural Substance Abuse and Violence Project to determine what factors increase a teacher’s odds of student-to-teacher victimization, using routine activity and target congruence theories as their theoretical framework. They found that teachers with strong authority in the classroom (invulnerability) were less likely to report victimization, while teachers showing hesitation (hesitation to confront a student) were more likely to report victimization (target vulnerability). Only two out of three measures of target antagonism (ways in which a teacher reacted to a student’s misbehavior) were found to be significant. Finally, this theory has also been applied to cyber victimization. Hawdon et al. (2017) reported that individuals who engaged in online deviance (target antagonism) and those who trusted people they only met online, as well as confiding in others anonymously (target vulnerability), were more likely to report cyber victimization.

Current Study and Research Hypotheses

Prior research has provided modest support for target congruence theory and these studies suggest that it is worthy to continue testing its core concepts. While the theory has been examined using different study populations, no study to date has examined its efficacy on Latinas, a study population more likely to possess the characteristics outlined in the theory and, therefore, more likely to be victimized. Based on the premise of target congruence theory and prior studies, the following hypotheses are examined:

Hypothesis 1: Target vulnerability (e.g., depression, anxiety, PTSD, and Latino orientation) will be significant in predicting victimization.

Hypothesis 2: Target gratifiability (e.g., femininity and masculinity) will be significant in predicting victimization.

Hypothesis 3: Target antagonism (e.g., anger and immigration status) will be significant in predicting victimization.

Method

Data

Data for the proceeding analyses come from the cross-sectional study Sexual Assault Among Latinas (SALAS) study (Cuevas & Sabina, 2008). These data were collected through a national bilingual telephone survey of only Latinas mostly living in the states of Texas, Florida, and California. A random-digit dialing (RDD) technique was used in predominately Latino neighborhoods as identified in the 2000 Census. These telephone interviews were conducted between May and September 2008. To be eligible to participate, the respondent had to be a Latina and above the age of 18 years. The average time for the interviews was 28 minutes and participants could answer the survey in either English or Spanish. In total, 2,000 Latinas participated in the survey, with an overall response rate of 30.7%. Respondents were specifically asked about their experiences with victimization, as well as questions about their mental health (e.g., depression, anxiety, and anger). It is important to note at this point that the cross-sectional nature of the data does not allow us to talk about causes, but rather limits our discussion to correlates. This limitation is discussed further in the “Discussion” section of the article. For more information, see the final report published by Cuevas and Sabina (2010).

Dependent Variable

One single question was used in the current study to capture physical victimization.⁴ Participants were asked as follows: “Have you ever been shot at, stabbed, struck, kicked, beaten, punched, slapped around, or otherwise physically harmed?” Respondents marked their answer using a yes or no response (0 = no, 1 = yes).

Independent Variables

Target vulnerability

Target vulnerability indicates whether the victim can physically deter or resist their victimization. Four variables are used to tap into this concept. Depression was captured by using eight questions from the Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI; Briere, 1995). Participants were asked how often they experienced the following feelings: “Sadness,” “Wanting to cry,” “Feeling depressed,” “Wishing you were dead,” “Feeling hopeless,” “Feeling like life wasn’t worth living,” “Feeling so depressed that you avoided people,” and “Feeling worthless.” Participants recorded their responses using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (often). These eight questions were summed into an index, with higher scores indicating higher levels of depression (α = .86).

Anxiety was captured by again using eight questions from the TSI. Participants were asked how often they experienced the following feelings: “Periods of trembling or shaking,” “Feeling tense or on edge,” “Worrying about things,” “Feeling jumpy,” “High anxiety,” “Nervousness,” “Being startled or frightened by sudden noises,” and “Feeling afraid you might die or be injured.” Participants recorded their responses using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (often). These eight questions were summed into an index, with higher scores indicating higher levels of anxiety (α = .85). PTSD symptomatology was captured by using the 17 questions contained in the PTSD checklist (Weathers et al., 1993). Participants recorded their responses using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). These 17 questions were summed into an index, with higher scores indicating higher levels of PTSD symptomatology (α = .93).

Latino orientation was measured with the Brief Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans–II (Cuellar et al., 1995). Participants were asked how often the following items described them: “I speak Spanish,” “I enjoy speaking Spanish,” “I enjoy Spanish language TV,” “I enjoy Spanish language movies,” “I enjoy reading books in Spanish,” and “My thinking is done in the Spanish language.” Participants recorded their responses using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (almost always). These six questions were summed into an index, with higher scores indicating higher levels of Latino orientation (α = .86).⁵

Target gratifiability

Target gratifiability is the term given to some of the victim’s quality, possession, skill, or attribute that the offenders wants to obtain, possess, manipulate, or have access to. Feminine and masculine traits were used to capture this concept, which were obtained from the BEM Sex Role Inventory (Bem, 1981). Ten questions were used to capture the respondent’s feminine traits. Participants were asked whether the following items described them: “Affectionate,” “Compassionate,” “Eager to soothe hurt feelings,” “Gentle,” “Loves children,” “Sensitive to the needs of others,” “Sympathetic,” “Tender,” “Understanding,” and “Warm.” Participants recorded their responses using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never or almost never true) to 5 (always or almost always true). These 10 questions were summed into an index, with higher scores indicating higher traits of femininity (α = .87). Similarly, 10 questions were used to capture the respondent’s masculine traits. Participants were asked whether the following items described them: “Aggressive,” “Assertive,” “Defends own beliefs,” “Dominant,” “Forceful,” “Has leadership abilities,” “Independent,” “Strong personality,” “Willing to take a stand,” and “Willing to take risks.” Again, participants recorded their responses using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never or almost never true) to 5 (always or almost always true). These 10 questions were summed into an index, with higher scores indicating higher traits of masculinity (α = .81).

Target antagonism

Finally, target antagonism is the concept that reflects qualities of victims that make them appealing or desirable to potential offenders because it elicits negative emotional reactions from the offender. Two measures are used to measure this concept. Anger was captured by nine questions also obtained from the TSI. Participants were asked how often they experienced the following feelings: “Irritability,” “Becoming angry for little or no reason,” “Being easily annoyed by other people,” “Staring arguments or picking fights to get your anger out,” “Getting angry when you didn’t want to,” “Yelling or telling people off when you felt you shouldn’t have,” “Feeling mad or angry inside,” and “Trouble controlling your temper.” Participants recorded their responses using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 4 (often). These nine questions were summed into an index, with higher scores indicating higher levels of anger (α = .89). The respondent’s country of birth and legal status were used to capture their immigration status. Respondents who were born in the United States or Puerto Rico or held legal status (naturalized citizen, permanent U.S. residency, current visa, or refugee/asylum status) were coded as 1 and 0 if respondents were born outside the United States and held no legal status (undocumented).

Control Variables

To control for the potential influence of a respondent’s age, education, and income, these variables are included in this study. Age is measured in years. Education is a dichotomous variable, where 1 represented a college degree (e.g., an associate degree or higher) and 0 indicating otherwise (e.g., less than high school, high school graduate, or some college). Income was captured by a single question. Participants were asked what was their yearly household income in 2007 before taxes. Participants recorded their responses using a 9-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (below US$9,999) to 9 (US$80,000 or more). Higher scores indicated higher income.

Analytical Plan

The analysis was conducted in two steps. First, given the dichotomous nature of the dependent variable, logistic regression models are produced to determine which independent variables are correlates of the dependent variable (Weisburd & Britt, 2014). In total, four regression models are estimated. Model 1 will contain the variables for target vulnerability and the control variables. Model 2 will contain the variables for target gratifiability, plus the control variables. Model 3 will contain the variables for target antagonism, in addition to the control variables. This method will demonstrate the unique effect each theoretical variable has on the dependent variable without being influenced by the other variables. Second, one final regression model will be estimated (Model 4), which will contain all of the theoretical variables to fully test target congruence theory.

As with any regression procedure, multicollinearity may be a problem. To determine whether multicollinearity is a problem in these data, tolerance and variance inflation factors (VIFs) were calculated. The results of the diagnostic tests are presented in Table 1. The VIF statistics are all below 6.0 (Keith, 2015) and all tolerances are above 0.25 (Walker & Maddan, 2020), providing evidence that collinearity is not a problem in the regression models. As these data are designed as a cluster sample in which regions are sampled with unequal probability, and then respondents are nested within these regions, this method violates the assumption of independent observations. To account for this cluster design, this study incorporated the “robust” and “cluster” options in STATA Version 13.0 to create logistic regression models with standard errors that are adjusted for the clustering of respondents in regions.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (n = 505).

Variable	Coded	N	M (%)	SD	Minimum/maximum	Tolerance/VIF
Dependent variables
Victimization	0 = no,	316	(62.6)
Victimization	1 = yes	189	(37.4)
Independent variables
Target vulnerability
Depression	8 items	505	15.3	5.9	8/32	0.32/3.12
Anxiety	8 items	505	16.7	6.0	8/32	0.30/2.26
PTSD	17 items	505	32.6	15.0	17/81	0.36/2.76
Latino orientation	6 items	505	22.9	6.5	6/30	0.62/1.60
Target gratifiability
Feminine	10 items	505	43.3	6.2	10/50	0.90/1.10
Masculine	10 items	505	36.2	7.2	11/50	0.81/1.22
Target antagonism
Anger	9 items	505	17.5	6.8	9/36	0.34/2.88
Immigration status	0 = Undocumented	19	(3.8)			0.62/1.59
Immigration status	1 = Legal Status	486	(96.2)
Control variables
Age	In years	505	43.4	13.2	18/85	0.88/1.13
Education	0 = Otherwise,	324	(64.2)			0.74/1.35
Education	1 = College degree	181	(35.8)
Income	One item	505	3.8	2.6	1/9	0.66/1.50

Note. VIF = variance inflation factor; PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder.

Sample Characteristics

Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics for all the variables used in the analysis. While 2,000 Latinas participated in the survey, only respondents who reported some form of victimization were told to answer the questions pertaining to PTSD (n = 732). However, after further eliminating cases with missing data on all the variables of interest, the final sample size for the current study is 505 respondents. Looking at the dependent variable, about 38% of respondents reported victimization. Turning our attention to the independent variables, depression had an average score of 15.3 on a scale ranging from 8 to 32, indicating that the majority of respondents reported medium levels of depression, while the average score of anxiety was 16.7 on a scale ranging from 8 to 32. PTSD had an average score of 32.4 on a scale ranging from 17 to 81, while Latino orientation had an average score of 22.9 on a scale ranging from 6 to 30. Feminine had an average score of 43.3 on a scale ranging from 10 to 50, while masculine had an average score of 36.2. Anger had an average score of 17.5, while the average age of respondents is 43 years. Only 36% of respondents had a college degree, while the majority were born outside the United States. (54%). The median in terms of income was between US$30,000 and US$39,000.

The results of the logistic regression analyses are presented in Table 2. Model 1 of Table 2 examined variables from target vulnerability and the control variables. Model 1 shows that only one out of four variables was found to be significant in predicting the dependent variable. Respondents who reported higher levels of Latino orientation were less likely to report physical victimization (odds ratio [OR] = 0.94. 6% decrease). Put differently, respondents who adhere to Latino culture were less likely to report victimization than respondents who assimilated to the Anglo culture. The other remaining concepts used to measure target vulnerability were not found to be significant. Turning our attention to the control variables, Model 1 shows that education and income were found to be significant. Respondents with higher levels of education are less likely to report victimization (OR = 0.74, 26% decrease), as well as those with higher incomes (OR = 0.88, 12% decrease). No other variable was found to be significant.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Analysis Predicting Victimization Experienced by Latinas (n = 505).

Variables	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3		Model 4
Variables	SE	Odds ratio	SE	Odds ratio	SE	Odds ratio	SE	Odds ratio
Control variables
Age	0.00	0.99	0.01	0.99	0.01	0.99	0.00	0.99
Education	0.10	0.74*	0.03	0.72**	0.04	0.75**	0.07	0.70**
Income	0.02	0.88**	0.02	0.91**	0.02	0.93**	0.01	0.87**
Target vulnerability
Depression	0.04	1.01	—	—	—	—	0.03	1.02
Anxiety	0.02	1.01	—	—	—	—	0.02	1.01
PTSD	0.02	1.00	—	—	—	—	0.02	1.00
Latino orientation	0.01	0.94**	—	—	—	—	0.00	0.94**
Target gratifiability
Feminine	—	—	0.02	0.99**	—	—	0.02	0.99**
Masculine	—	—	0.04	1.04**	—	—	0.02	1.05**
Target antagonism
Anger	—	—	—	—	0.01	1.02**	0.01	0.99**
Immigration status	—	—	—	—	0.03	2.31**	0.09	2.16**
Constant	1.82	2.86**	0.04	0.20**	0.17	0.31*	0.25	0.53
χ=	34.35		27.46		64.62		38.52
−2 log likelihood	723.56		682.66		1,093.82		628.33
Cox and Snell R ²	.05		.05		.04		.07
Nagelkerke R ²	.07		.06		.08		.10

Note. PTSD = posttraumatic stress disorder.

*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

Model 2 of Table 2 examined variables derived from target gratifiability and the control variables. Model 2 indicates that both measures used to capture this concept were found to be significant in predicting physical victimization. Respondents who reported higher levels of femininity were less likely to report victimization (OR = 0.99, 1% decrease), while respondents who reported higher levels of masculinity were more likely to report victimization (OR = 1.04, 4% increase). The same two control variables found to be significant in Model 1 were also significant in Model 2. Model 3 of Table 2 tested variables from target antagonism and the control variables. Model 3 demonstrates that two out of two concepts were found to be significant. Respondents who reported higher levels of anger were more likely to report victimization than respondents with lower levels (OR = 1.02, 2% increase). In addition, immigration status was found to be significant. Respondents born in the United States, or held legal status, were more likely to report victimization than respondents born outside the United States and undocumented (OR = 2.31, 131% increase). The same two control variables found to be significant in Models 1 and 2 were also significant in Model 3.

Model 4 of Table 2 included all of the variables of interest, along with the control variables. As this model demonstrated, five out of eight theoretical variables were found to be significant in predicting victimization. First, Latino orientation remained negative and significant. Respondents who reported higher levels of Latino orientation were less likely to report victimization. Second, having masculine and feminine traits was found to be significant. Respondents with higher levels masculinity traits are more likely to report victimization, while respondents with more femininity traits were less likely to report victimization. Third, a respondent’s level of anger and their immigration status remained significant. However, anger becomes negative and significant in this model when it was positive and significant in Model 3 of Table 2. In this model, respondents with higher levels of anger reported less victimization. Finally, two control variables were found to be significant in this model. Those with higher income and more education were less likely to report victimization. No other control variable was found to be significant.

Discussion

The purpose of the current study is to test target congruence theory and its ability to explain victimization among Latinas. Data obtained from the SALAS study were analyzed to determine the applicability, if at all, of the theory to uncover new correlates for victimization in a population traditionally ignored in past research. The results of these analyses produced some significant findings.

Hypothesis 1 stated that target vulnerability (e.g., depression, anxiety, PTSD, and Latino orientation) would be significant in predicting victimization. This hypothesis was derived from past studies that have found that Latinas report high levels of these negative states. Results from the logistic regression analyses showed that Hypothesis 1 is partially supported. In the partial model (Model 1 of Table 2) only one out of the four target vulnerability variables was found to be significant in predicting victimization. This result was replicated in the full model (Model 4 of Table 2). These findings are consistent with prior studies testing target congruence theory in that not all variables used to capture target vulnerability are found to be significant (e.g., Augustine et al., 2002; Elvey et al., 2018; Sween & Reyns, 2017; Waldner & Berg, 2008). There is one possible explanation for this finding. A review of the descriptive statistics showed that the majority of respondents in this sample did not report high levels of depression, anxiety, and PTSD symptomatology, rendering them nonsignificant in predicting the dependent variable. These variables would perhaps be significant if more respondents reported higher levels of these negative emotions. However, Latino orientation was found to be negative and significant, suggesting that Latinas who adhered to the Latino culture were less likely to report victimization. It has been argued that Latino orientation, or cultural retention to the country-of-origin, serves as a protective factor against crime, and presumably victimization as well. This is because it may minimize the stressors (e.g., acculturative stress) that are associated with criminal behavior/victimization by holding on to cultural traditions, providing continuity and familiarity during the process of adapting to a different culture. This notion has found support in the immigration/crime link (e.g., Morenoff & Astor, 2006).

Hypothesis 2 declared that target gratifiability (e.g., femininity and masculinity) would be significant in predicting victimization. Hypothesis 2 is partially supported. While both variables were found to be significant in the partial model (Model 2 of Table 2), femininity drops from being significant in the full model (Model 4 of Table 2). Having masculinity traits was found to be predictive of victimization across all models. Perhaps this finding is not surprising. I argued that Latinas with this characteristic may be victimized for not adhering to what has been historically looked at as traditional gender roles in the Latino cultural. In addition, traits such as being aggressive, forceful, and dominating may escalate situations where victimization may occur. While some individuals may handle disputes by simply walking away from the situation, those with higher masculinity traits may perhaps invade a person’s personal space or raise their voice to established dominance. Such events may increase victimization and prior studies have supported this notion (e.g., Stewart et al., 2006). This result is consistent with this literature.

Finally, Hypothesis 3 specified that target antagonism (e.g., anger and immigration status) would be significant in predicting victimization. While anger was found to be positive and significant in Model 3 of Table 2, this variable became negative and significant in the full model (Model 4 of Table 2). In addition, contrary to our expectations, Latinas born in the United States were more likely to report victimization than those born outside the United States. There are at least four explanations for why Latinas born outside the United States may be less likely to report victimization. First, it is possible that those born outside the United States may have strong social support from friends, family, and members of the immigrant community, which increases their guardianship and ultimately decreases their odds of victimization. Second, immigrants may also be shielded from risk factors known to increase victimization, such as criminal activities. Third, they may be less willing to report or disclose their victimization, including in surveys. Finally, immigrants may adhere strongly to the concept of familismo, or a strong sense of commitment, dedication, and service to their family. These bonds may protect them from victimization. Clearly, studies are needed to determine whether this is in fact what is occurring.

This study now turns to the control variables. Across all models, education and income were found to be negative and significant. Respondents who reported higher levels of education and income were less likely to report victimization. There are several explanations for this finding. One possible explanation is that those with higher education and income are more likely to protect themselves by staying away from places or events that are likely to have motivated offenders or by not living in a high crime neighborhood, both risk factors that increases victimization. Another explanation may be due to the respondent’s job. A respondent with higher education may have a job that pays a high income. These respondents will have a strong attachment to their jobs and their commitment to their work can reduce the opportunity for victimization.

Limitations

The results of this study should be viewed with several limitations in mind. First, the cross-sectional nature of the data does not allow for a clear determination of the causal relationship between the study variables and victimization. In other words, the temporal ordering of events may be called into question. It is possible, for example, that a respondent’s victimization can lead to increase in levels of one’s anger, depression, or anxiety. Therefore, there should be an effort to collect longitudinal data with these study variables of interest in mind. Second, some respondents may have been reluctant to disclose their victimization due to social desirability, thus creating the possibility of underreporting. Third, due to data limitations, other variables found to influence victimization were not included in the study. For example, measures of low self-control were not available in the data. Such inclusion may have altered the results of the study. Fourth, the actual reason for why the respondent was victimized is unknown. That is, it cannot be determined whether violence toward the victim was due to something specific about that victim (e.g., gender-role violation). Finally, respondents were contacted through their home’s telephone landlines, which may not have captured certain populations (e.g., younger Latinas).

Implications

The results of the current study also highlight several implications. First, the results of this study somewhat supported the claim made by Finkelhor and Asdigian (1996) that understanding how an offender judges a person to be “suitable” can predict who is more likely to be victimized. As such, this theory goes beyond the routine activities theory in that it explicitly states the types of suitability that may lead to victimization, an element that is not clear in the routine activities theory. Given that, to a certain degree, target vulnerability, gratifiability, and antagonism predicted victimization, scholars are encouraged to continue to test this theory further to better understand the correlates of victimization among a range of study populations. Second, data on perpetrating violence toward others should be collected from the offender as target congruence theory argues that the victim’s vulnerability, gratifiability, and antagonism motivated them to use violence toward the victim (Sween & Reyns, 2017). Third, respondents in our study were more likely to report victimization when they lean more toward Anglo assimilation. Scholars should continue to comprehend what about acculturation that increases the risk for victimization and explore ways to mediate those risks.

Conclusion

In conclusion, target congruence theory seems to predict victimization experienced by Latinas. However, several limitations precluded the study from clearly stating a causal relationship between the variables in this study. It is recommended that future researchers attempt to address these limitations and replicate these findings in the hopes of creating preventive and treatment programs that will help reduce victimization of one of the most vulnerable populations in the United States.

Footnotes

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Arciniega

G. M.

Tovar-Blank

Z. G.

Tracey

T. J. G.

Anderson

T. C.

(2008). Toward a fuller conception of machismo: Development of a traditional Machismo and Caballerismo scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 19–33.

Augustine

M. C.

Wilcox

Ousey

G. C.

Clayton

R. R.

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

Bem

S. L.

(1981). A manual for the Bem Sex role Inventory. Consulting Psychologist Press.

Briere

(1995). Trauma Symptom Inventory professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.

Castillo

L. G.

Perez

F. V.

Castillo

Ghosheh

M. R.

(2010). Construction and initial validation of the Marianismo Beliefs Scale. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 23, 163–175.

Cohen

Felson

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

Cuellar

Arnold

Maldonado

(1995). Acculturation rating scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275–304.

Cuevas

C. A.

Sabina

(2008). Sexual Assault Among Latinas (SALAS) study, May–September 2008 [United States]. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [Distributor]. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR28142.v1

Cuevas

C. A.

Sabina

(2010). Final report: Sexual Assault Among Latinas (SALAS) study (NCJ 230445). United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

10.

Edelson

M. G.

Hokoda

Ramos-Lira

(2007). Differences in effects of domestic violence between Latina and non-Latina women. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 1–10.

11.

Elvey

McNeeley

(2018). Target congruence as a means of understanding risk of intimate partner violence: A comparison of male and female college students in the United States. Crime & Delinquency, 65, 1823–1849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128718770686

12.

Elvey

Reyns

B. W.

McNeeley

(2018). Stalking on campus: A gendered perspective on target congruence and opportunity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45, 1308–1327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818773792

13.

Finkelhor

Asdigian

N. L.

(1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyles/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 11, 3–19.

14.

Fox

J. A.

Kim-Godwin

Y. S.

(2011). Stress and depression among Latina women in rural southeastern North Carolina. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 28, 223–232.

15.

Garcia

Hurwitz

E. L.

Kraus

J. F.

(2005). Acculturation and reported intimate partner violence among Latinas in Los Angeles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 569–590.

16.

Gil

R. M.

Vazquez

C. I.

(1996). The Maria paradox: How Latinas can merge old world traditions with new world self-esteem. G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

17.

Hawdon

Costello

Ratliff

Hall

Middleton

(2017). Conflict management styles and cybervictimization: Extending routine activity theory. Sociological Spectrum, 37, 250–266.

18.

Hovey

J. D.

(2000). Latino orientation stress, depression, and suicidal ideation in Mexican immigrants. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 6, 134–151.

19.

Kaltman

Green

B. L.

Mete

Shara

Miranda

(2010). Trauma, depression, and comorbid PTSD/depression in a community sample of Latina immigrants. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 2, 31–39.

20.

Keith

T. Z.

(2015). Multiple regression and beyond: An introduction to multiple regression and structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Routledge.

21.

Moradi

Risco

(2006). Perceived discrimination experiences and mental health of Latina/o American persons. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53, 411–421.

22.

Morenoff

J. D.

Astor

(2006). Immigrant assimilation and crime: Generational differences in youth violence in Chicago. In Martinez

Jr Valenzuela

(Eds.), Immigration and crime: Race, ethnicity, and violence (pp. 36–63). New York University Press.

23.

O, S. H., & Wilcox, P. (2017). Routine activity theory, target congruence, and school context: A multilevel analysis of teacher victimization. Victims and Offender, 13, 349–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2017.1329174

24.

Parrot

D. J.

Zeichner

(2003). Effects of hypermasculinity on physical aggression against women. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4, 70–78.

25.

Potochnick

S. R.

Perreira

K. M.

(2010). Depression and anxiety among first-generation immigrant Latino youth: Key correlates and implications for future research. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 198, 470–477.

26.

Sáenz

Morales

M. C.

(2015). Latinos in the United States: Diversity and change. John Wiley.

27.

Sanchez

D. T.

Fetterolf

J. C.

Rudman

L. A.

(2012). Eroticizing inequality in the United States: The consequences and determinants of traditional gender roles adherence in intimate relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 168–183.

28.

Stewart

E. A.

Schreck

C. J.

Simons

R. L.

(2006). I ain’t gonna let now one disrespect me: Does the code of the street reduce or increase violence victimization among African American adolescents? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 427–458.

29.

Sween

Reyns

B. W.

(2017). An empirical test of target congruence theory on intimate partner violence. Deviant Behavior, 38, 61–73.

30.

Terrazas-Carrillo

Sabina

(2019). Dating violence attitudes among Latino college students: An examination of gender, machismo, and marianismo . Violence and Victims, 34, 194–210.

31.

Torres

(2010). Predicting levels of Latino depression: Latino orientation, acculturative stress, and coping. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 256–263.

32.

Ulloa

E. O.

Jaycox

L. H.

Marshall

G. N.

Collins

R. L.

(2004). Latino orientation, gender stereotypes, and attitudes about dating violence among Latino youth. Violence and Victims, 19, 273–287.

33.

Vandello

J. A.

Cohen

(2003). Male honor and female fidelity: Implicit cultural scripts that perpetuate domestic violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 997–1010.

34.

Vandello

J. A.

Cohen

Grandon

Franiuk

(2009). Stand by your man: Indirect prescriptions for honorable violence and feminine loyalty in Canada, Chile, and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 81–104.

35.

Waldner

L. K.

Berg

(2008). Explaining antigay violence using target congruence: An application of revised routine activities theory. Violence and Victims, 23, 267–287.

36.

Walker

J. T.

Maddan

(2020). Statistics in criminology and criminal justice (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

37.

Weathers

F. W.

Litz

B. T.

Herman

D. S.

Huska

J. A.

Keane

T. M.

(1993, October). The PTSD checklist: Reliability, validity, & diagnostic utility [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, San Antonio, TX, USA.

38.

Weisburd

Britt

(2014). Statistics in criminal justice (4th ed.). Springer.

39.

Zavala

(2017). When the cop is the victim: A test of target congruence theory on intimate partner violence victimization experienced by police officers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517709801

40.

Zavala

(2018). Target congruence theory and the victim-offender overlap among male youths. Victims and Offenders, 13, 1013–1032.

41.

Zavala

Guadalupe-Diaz

(2018). Testing target congruence theory on emotional abuse victimization experienced by heterosexual and LGBQ college students. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28, 1069–1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2018.1430641

42.

Zavala

Whitney

(2019). Target congruence theory and Latino youth victimization. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 17, 169–185.