Prevalence of Victimization and Exposure to Violence in a Sample of Hispanic Americans

Abstract

Research on the growing U.S. Hispanic population has increased in recent years, although much of this work has examined differences between the foreign- and native-born or between Hispanics and non-Hispanics. Fewer studies have explored within-group differences (Mexican vs. Puerto Rican vs. Cuban, etc.) and none have assessed variability in the prevalence of victimization across these diverse groups. Unfortunately, the available evidence is somewhat inconclusive regarding the prevalence of victimization among Hispanics and relative to other demographic groups such as Whites and Blacks. This study first aims to provide clarification as to the prevalence of Hispanic victimization relative to non-Hispanic Whites (NHW) and non-Hispanic Blacks (NHB). Then, we assess within-group differences for the Hispanic subsample for each of the victimization measures. Using Wave IV of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), we estimate the prevalence of various forms of criminal victimization and exposure to violence for Hispanics, NHW, and NHB. Results suggest that significant differences exist between Hispanics and both NHW and NHB. More specifically, Hispanics were less likely to report most of the victimization outcomes than either group. Significant differences in victimization were also observed between Hispanic subgroups. Generally, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans were most likely to report victimization whereas Cubans and Chicanos (with the exception of property crime) were least likely to report victimization.

Keywords

victimization exposure to violence Hispanics Latinos

Introduction and Background

The interrelated topics of Hispanic immigration, ethnicity, and crime have received increased attention from social scientists in recent years as numerous studies have examined the links between these variables. Much of this prior work has explored differences between native and foreign-born Hispanics relative to various criminological outcomes, such as crime and delinquency (Buriel, Calzada, & Vasquez, 1982; Lopez & Miller, 2011), drug use (Amaro, Whitaker, Coffman, & Heeren, 1990; Chappin & Brook, 2001; Gilbert, 1987), crime rates (Hagan & Palloni, 1998; Martinez, 1996, 2000, 2002), and victimization (H. V. Miller, 2012; Gibson & Miller, 2010). In general, these past studies indicate that (a) the foreign-born are less likely to engage in crime, delinquency, or drug use (Amaro et al., 1990; Buriel et al., 1982; Chappin & Brook, 2001; Gibson & Miller, 2010); (b) at the macro level, the presence of immigrants does not necessarily result in higher rates of crime and victimization (Hagan & Palloni, 1998; Martinez, 1996, 2000, 2002); and (c) in some cases, immigrant concentration is predictive of lower rates of crime (Morenoff & Astor, 2006; Stowell & Martinez, 2009; Velez, 2009).

Prior studies of Hispanic populations offer mixed results on their risk of criminal victimization, however, relative to other demographic groups (Brown, 2009). Criminal victimization encompasses both property crime (i.e., theft) and violent victimization, such as assault and robbery. National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) findings from the early 1990s indicated Hispanics were more vulnerable to criminal victimization, while research conducted later in the decade suggested Hispanics were equally or less likely to be victimized compared with non-Hispanics (Catalano, 2004, 2006; Rennison, 2000, 2002). For the most part, these studies have treated the Hispanic population as monolithic. This is due primarily to the nature of the data being analyzed. In particular, the NCVS, a source from which much information regarding ethnicity and victimization is drawn, does not delineate between Hispanic subgroups. In addition, many other large data sets do not specify the particular subgroup to which the respondent identifies. In other instances, missing data or small sample sizes have prohibited these analyses.

This may prove problematic, however, as the Hispanic population in the United States is a diverse group from a range of North, Central, and South American and Caribbean nations and territories whose experiences are not necessarily uniform. In fact, data from the American Community Survey (Macartney, Bishaw, & Fontenot, 2013) and the U.S. Census Bureau (2005) reveal many social and cultural differences between various Hispanic groups that correlate with criminal involvement and victimization including age, marital status, fertility, household type, employment, and educational attainment. As a result, the prevalence of crime and victimization is likely to vary between these groups. There is some evidence that suggests delinquent behavior is not evenly distributed across Hispanic subgroups. For example, Lopez and Miller (2011) examined delinquency within a sample of Hispanic adolescents in Chicago and found that Puerto Rican youth were more likely to report delinquent behavior than were their Mexican or other Hispanic counterparts.

Although past research indicates that foreign-born Hispanics are less likely to report crime or victimization compared with the native-born (Gibson & Miller, 2010; Lopez & Miller, 2011; H. V. Miller, 2012), no studies to date have examined the prevalence of victimization across Hispanic subgroups. This is unfortunate because failure to account for nation of origin masks important differences between Hispanic groups and prevents clear understanding of this diverse demographic, particularly as it relates to criminological outcomes, such as delinquency and victimization. In an effort to remedy this shortcoming in the extant literature, this study estimates the prevalence of criminal victimization and exposure to violence in a sample of Hispanics drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health; Harris, 2009). Using the Hispanic subsample of the Add Health, we examine the prevalence of various forms of victimization, including both violent (e.g., getting shot, stabbed, or beaten up) and property (e.g., theft of personal property), as well as exposure to violence, such as witnessing others being shot, stabbed, or beaten up. We also compare the prevalence of victimization and exposure to violence between Hispanics, non-Hispanic Whites (NHW), and non-Hispanic Blacks (NHB). Finally, we explore whether differences exist in the prevalence of victimization between Hispanic subgroups (i.e., Mexican, Cuban, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Central/South American, and Other).

Prior Research on Race, Ethnicity, and Victimization

One of the most robust findings in the criminological literature is the unequal distribution of crime and victimization across race and ethnicity (Walker, Spohn, & DeLone, 1996). Differences in risk of victimization across races and ethnicities have been evident in self-report studies and official data for decades (Catalano, 2006; Like-Haislip & Warren, 2011; Rennison, 2002). Overall, prior research suggests that racial and ethnic minorities, especially Blacks, are more likely to be victimized relative to Whites. However, when it comes to past studies of Hispanics, the empirical evidence is less consistent. Empirical analyses have suggested Hispanics are victimized more (Fitzpatrick, 1999; Hill & Drolet, 1999; Tillyer, Tillyer, Miller, & Pangrac, 2011), less (Hanish & Guerra, 2000; Peskin, Tortolero, & Markham, 2006), or equal to (Truman, 2011; Truman & Planty, 2012) non-Hispanics. For example, NCVS data from the early 1990s indicated Hispanics were at greater risk of violent crimes such as aggravated assault and robbery (Catalano, 2004; Perkins, Klaus, Bastian, & Cohen, 1996; Ringel, 1997). Using non-official data sources, other research has also found that Hispanics were more likely to be victimized than non-Hispanics (Crouch, Hanson, Saunders, Kilpatrick, & Resnick, 2000; Fitzpatrick, 1999; Hill & Drolet, 1999; Tillyer et al., 2011). Crouch et al. (2000) reported Hispanic youth were more likely to be victimized than White youth even after controlling for socioeconomic status (SES). Using data from the first wave of the Add Health, Tillyer et al. (2011) found that Hispanics were more than twice as likely to be violently victimized compared with non-Hispanics.

NCVS numbers from the late 1990s, however, revealed an overall decrease in Hispanic victimization (Rennison, 2002). The 1999 NCVS showed no significant differentiation between Hispanics and non-Hispanics for violent crime, rape, or sexual assault (Brown, 2009; Rennison, 2000). By 2000, NCVS data suggested that significant differences in the rate of victimization between Hispanics and non-Hispanics had diminished. There were, however, minimal differences found in rates of violent victimization in the 2003 NCVS data, with higher rates reported by Hispanics for rape and sexual assault (Catalano, 2004). Data from the mid-2000s indicated Hispanics had higher rates of victimization for aggravated assault and robbery, but not for simple assault, sexual assault, or theft (Catalano, 2006).

More recently, according to the NCVS, Hispanics did not report overall higher levels of victimization for all crimes (Truman, 2011). These data revealed NHB reported more violent victimization than Hispanics for crimes such as rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. Although their rates were lower than NHB, Hispanics were still victimized more than NHW except in the aggravated assault crime category. Between 2010 and 2011, both Hispanic and NHW rates of violent victimization increased whereas NHB maintained consistent rates (Truman & Planty, 2012). Specifically, Hispanics experienced a 7% increase in serious violent victimization rates from 2010 to 2011. While NHB maintained stable rates of victimization, this group still reported higher rates of violent victimization (10.8%) compared with Hispanics (7.2%) and NHW (6.5%; Truman & Planty, 2012). These data also show that Hispanics still remain, minimally, at higher risk of violent victimization than NHW.

Some prior research has also shown that Hispanic women are less likely to experience domestic violence than other groups (Ingram, 2007) whereas other work suggests that domestic abuse and interpersonal violence vary by generational status or acculturation level (Garcia, Hurwitz, & Kraus, 2004). However, these studies have also produced inconsistent results. For example, Garcia et al. (2004) found that highly acculturated Latinas were more likely to report interpersonal violence, but Decker, Raj, and Silverman (2007) found no effect for language acculturation (i.e., use of English more than Spanish) on exposure to sexual violence and a negative effect for generational status (i.e., first generation Latinas were more likely to report sexual violence). Still, others report no effect for acculturation or generational status on interpersonal violence (Ramirez, 2007). Firestone, Lambert, and Vega (1999), using data from the Mexican American Prevention and Services Survey, also found that higher acculturated Latinas were more likely to experience intimate partner violence. Other prior work in the area of childhood abuse and neglect has also produced varying results. Some research suggests rates of childhood abuse among Hispanics are similar to those of other demographic groups (see, for example, Arroyo, Simpson, & Aragon, 1997; Lau et al., 2003), whereas others report that Hispanics are at greater risk of childhood abuse and neglect relative to Blacks and Whites (Kercher & McShane, 1984). While the current study focuses on property and violent victimization generally, many of the items in the Add Health are consistent with those measured in the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus, 1979), such as the questions asking whether the respondent had been slapped, hit, choked, or beaten up.

The Current Study

Collectively, past research offers somewhat inconsistent evidence on the prevalence of victimization for Hispanics compared with other demographic groups or across subgroups of Hispanics (i.e., Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban). Official data have provided conflicting statistics for the past two decades, from reports of higher risk in the early 1990s to roughly equal risk of late. This study seeks to provide some clarification as to the prevalence of victimization and exposure to violence for Hispanics, NHW, and NHB. We also compare the prevalence of victimization and exposure to violence between various Hispanic subgroups. Using data from the Add Health, we assess the prevalence of victimization for each of these demographics toward the goal of comparison between groups.

These analyses are intended to contribute to the extant literature in three important ways. First, this study analyzes a longitudinal, nationally representative sample when respondents are in young adulthood to clarify the prevalence and exposure to violence for three major racial/ethnic groups. To date, research has reported inconsistent results across samples and studies. Second, we explore possible differences in rates of victimization across Hispanic subgroups, which have not been examined previously. Finally, we consider both victimization and exposure to violence among these groups, which has also yet to be assessed.

Method

Data and Sample

The current analysis utilizes data drawn from the Add Health (Harris, 2009), a longitudinal, nationally representative sample of youth enrolled in American middle and high schools during the 1994-1995 academic year. Approximately 90,000 students in Grades 7 to 12 completed the Wave 1 in-school self-report survey, which queried respondents on a wide variety of topics, including their families, behavior, and peer relationships. During 1995, a subsample of the original cohort was selected for the in-home interview (n = 20,745). Since this original wave of the survey, three additional rounds of data have been collected; Wave 2 in 1996 (n = 14,738), Wave 3 in 2001-2002 (n = 15,197), and Wave 4 in 2007-2008 (n = 15,701). The data used for this study are derived primarily from Wave 4 when respondents were in their mid- to late-20s. This analysis uses the publicly available Wave 4 data that consist of 6,504 young adults, 743 of whom self-identified as Hispanic during the initial wave of data collection. If respondents identified themselves as Hispanic, they were asked to identify the specific subgroup to which they identified. These choices included Mexican, Chicano, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Central/South American, and Other Hispanic.

Variables

Victimization

Six variables from Wave 4 were used to measure the prevalence of victimization and exposure to violence within the sample. Five of the six questions addressed violence whereas the sixth queried respondents about property victimization. All six items were measured dichotomously and indicated whether the respondents had experienced that type of victimization or were exposed to that form of violence within the past year. Specifically, the questions asked (a) whether the respondents had their property stolen (i.e., property victimization), (b) whether he or she had seen someone being hit or shot (i.e., exposure to violence), (c) whether someone had pulled a knife or gun on them (i.e., violent victimization), (d) whether they had been shot or stabbed (i.e., violent victimization), (e) whether they had been slapped, hit, or choked (i.e., violent victimization), and (f) whether they had been beaten up (i.e., violent victimization).¹

Race/ethnicity

Several dichotomous variables were used to denote the sample’s racial and ethnic background. First, we looked to the Wave 1 demographic variables where respondents initially reported their racial and ethnic background. From this, we were able to identify the 743 youth who self-identified as Hispanic (11.4% of the publicly available sample). In addition, for those who identified as Hispanic, they were asked to identify the specific subgroup to which they identified. Options included Mexican (n = 415), Chicano (n = 41), Cuban (n = 45), Puerto Rican (n = 99), Central/South American (n = 95), and Other Hispanic (n = 87). These variables are used when making comparisons between the various subgroups comprising the overall Hispanic sample. We also utilize variables denoting “Non-Hispanic White” (NHW; n = 3,929) and “Non-Hispanic Black” (NHB; n = 1,583), which are featured in the comparative analyses across racial/ethnic groups.² We also use sample weights that help to correct for design effects in the publicly available sample. All analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 22.

Plan of Analysis

The analysis proceeded in three steps. First, descriptive statistics were generated for the Hispanic subsample of the Add Health to ascertain the prevalence of victimization across all six types. These prevalence rates were also estimated for each of the six Hispanic subgroups. Next, victimization prevalence rates were generated for NHW and NHB in an effort to compare prevalence of victimization between Hispanics and each of these two demographics. To assess variation in the prevalence of victimization between racial/ethnic groups, chi-square analyses were used. Chi-square tests are used to explore differences in proportions; in this case, the chi-square was used to identify significant differences in the prevalence of victimization between the main demographic groups (i.e., Hispanic vs. NHW, Hispanic vs. NHW). Due to potential issues that may arise from collapsing all non-Hispanic subjects together, the analysis splits non-Hispanic respondents into NHW and NHB categories. This is necessary due to significant differences in rates of victimization between Whites and Blacks. Generally, Blacks have reported the highest level of victimization, particularly violent victimization, followed by Hispanics, and then Whites (Walker et al., 1996). As a result, combining Black and White respondents in the sample has the potential to obscure important differences between Hispanics and other demographic groups, raising issues about the validity of any analyses that fail to do so. Finally, a series of chi-square analyses were utilized to examine differences in victimization between Hispanic subgroups (i.e., Mexican vs. non-Mexicans, Puerto Ricans vs. non-Puerto Ricans).

Findings

Table 1 presents the results from the victimization and exposure to violence prevalence estimates for Hispanic, NHW, and NHB respondents. The table also presents the findings of the chi-square analyses utilized to assess the presence of significant differences in prevalence of victimization between Hispanics and NHW and Hispanics and NHB. Slightly more than one quarter of Hispanics (25.7%) reported that their property had been stolen in the past year, significantly less than NHW (26.2%, χ² = 253.318, p < .0001), and NHB (26.6%, χ² = 656.654, p < .0001). Affirmative responses to the next five queries dropped off precipitously, with 6.8% of Hispanics reporting they had seen someone being shot or stabbed, significantly less than both NHW (8.3%, χ² = 5,627.362, p < .0001) and NHB (7.1%, χ² = 228.035, p < .0001). Seven percent of Hispanics indicated someone had pulled a gun or knife on them personally, which was significantly less than NHW (7.1%, χ² = 24.365, p < .0001) and significantly more than NHB (6.3%, χ² = 1,213.993, p < .0001). Only 2.4% of Hispanics reported being either shot or stabbed, which was also significantly lower than both NHW (3.5%, χ² = 6,496.529, p < .0001) and NHB (3.5%, χ² = 5,281.522, p < .0001). Hispanics were also the least likely to report being slapped, hit, or choked, with a significantly lower percentage (9.8%) than either NHW (10.6%, χ² = 1,299.440, p < .0001) or NHB (12.9%, χ² = 13,608.964, p < .0001). Finally, Hispanics were more likely to report being beaten up in the past year (3.8%) than NHW (3.5%, χ² = 532.577, p < .0001) and equally likely as NHB (3.8%).

Table 1.

Sample Descriptive Characteristics: Prevalence of Victimization/Exposure to Violence among Hispanics, NHW, and NHB.

Victimization/Exposure to Violence Type	% Hispanics (n = 743)	% NHW (n = 3,929)	% NHB (n = 1,583)
In the past 12 months . . . (yes/no)
Your property was stolen	25.7	26.2*	26.6*
You saw someone shoot/stab a person	6.8	8.3*	7.1*
Someone pulled a gun/knife on you	7.0	7.1*	6.3*
Someone shot/stabbed you	2.4	3.5*	3.5*
Someone slapped/hit/choked you	9.8	10.6*	12.9*
You were beaten up	3.8	3.5*	3.8

Note. Values reflect the use of sample weights to correct for design effects. NHW = non-Hispanic Whites; NHB = non-Hispanic Blacks.

Significant chi-square, p < .0001.

Table 2 presents the findings from the Hispanic subgroup analysis, which compared the rates of victimization between self-identified Mexican, Chicano, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Central/South American, and other Hispanic respondents. Each group was compared against the rest of the Hispanics in the sample such that the analyses examined Mexicans versus non-Mexicans, Chicanos versus non-Chicanos, Cubans versus non-Cubans, and so on. Considerable differences were revealed across these subgroups. More specifically, 26.3% of Mexicans (χ² = 505.143, p < .0001), 41.3% of Chicanos (χ² = 13,925.245, p < .0001), 19.6% of Cubans (χ² = 2,231.759, p < .0001), 24.1% of Puerto Ricans (χ² = 567.439, p < .0001), 20.7% of Central/South Americans (χ² = 4,276.322, p < .0001), and 29.1% of other Hispanics (χ² = 1,684.388, p < .0001) reported that their property had been stolen in the past 12 months. In terms of witnessing violence, 6.9% of Mexicans (χ² = 155.010, p < .0001), 0% of Chicanos (χ² = 8,018.962, p < .0001), 0% of Cubans (χ² = 9,159.908, p < .0001), 8.5% of Puerto Ricans (χ² = 1,901.277, p < .0001), 3.7% of Central/South Americans (χ² = 4,652.603, p < .0001), and 18% of other Hispanics (χ² = 58,059.927, p < .0001) reported that they had seen someone else being shot or stabbed. Fewer respondents indicated that they themselves had been shot or stabbed with 1.6% of Mexicans (χ² = 10,431.597, p < .0001), 0% of Chicanos (χ² = 2,795.346, p < .0001), 0% of Cubans (χ² = 3,193.070, p < .0001), 5.8% of Puerto Ricans (χ² = 18,901.441, p < .0001), 0% of Central/South Americans (χ² = 7,927.056, p < .0001), and 5.8% of other Hispanics (χ² = 13,668.151, p < .0001) reporting being the victim of this type of assault.

Table 2.

Prevalence of Victimization/Exposure to Violence by Hispanic Subgroup.

Victimization/Exposure to Violence Type	% Mexican (n = 415)	% Chicano (n = 41)	% Cuban (n = 45)	% Puerto Rican (n = 99)	% Central/South American (n = 95)	Other (n = 87)
In the past 12 months . . . (yes/no)
Your property was stolen	26.3*	41.3*	19.1*	24.1*	20.7*	29.1*
You saw someone shoot/stab a person	6.9*	0*	0*	8.5*	3.7*	18.0*
Someone pulled a gun/knife on you	6.8*	0*	0*	7.5*	4.6*	12.3*
Someone shot/stabbed you	1.6*	0*	0*	5.8*	0*	5.8*
Someone slapped/hit/choked you	8.4*	6.3*	6.3*	9.0*	5.0*	19.9*
You were beaten up	2.4*	6.3*	6.3*	4.5*	1.1*	7.8*

Note. Values reflect the use of sample weights to correct for design effects.

Significant chi-square, p < .0001.

Although few Hispanic respondents reported actually being shot or stabbed, a larger number indicated they had a weapon (i.e., gun or knife) pulled on them at some point in the previous 12 months. Results indicated that 6.8% of Mexicans (χ² = 310.246, p < .0001), 0% of Chicanos (χ² = 2,795.346, p < .0001), 0% of Cubans (χ² = 9,610.654, p < .0001), 7.5% of Puerto Ricans (χ² = 140.577, p < .0001), 4.6% of Central/South Americans (χ² = 2,859.496, p < .0001), and 12.3% of other Hispanics (χ² = 11,858.108, p < .0001) reported being victimized in this manner. Similarly, a larger number of respondents reported being slapped, hit, or choked with 8.4% of Mexicans (χ² = 8,269.741, p < .0001), 19% of Chicanos (χ² = 10,131.977, p < .0001), 6.3% of Cubans (χ² = 1,907.704, p < .0001), 9% of Puerto Ricans (χ² = 421.665, p < .0001), 5% of Central/South Americans (χ² = 8,662.094, p < .0001), and 17.9% of other Hispanics (χ² = 20,122.374, p < .0001) indicating they had experienced this form of victimization. When asked whether they had been beaten up in the past year, 2.4% of Mexicans (χ² = 16,992.300, p < .0001), 8.7% of Chicanos (χ² = 7,018.931, p < .0001), 6.3% of Cubans (χ² = 1,984.871, p < .0001), 4.5% of Puerto Ricans (χ² = 440.464, p < .0001), 1.1% of Central/South Americans (χ² = 6,522.424, p < .0001), and 7.8% of other Hispanics (χ² = 11,907.273, p < .0001) responded in the affirmative.

Discussion

Prior research on the prevalence of victimization among Hispanics has produced inconsistent results over the past two decades. Furthermore, few studies have examined differences between the diverse range of groups comprising the Hispanic demographic in the United States. Important socioeconomic differences between these groups, however, make treatment of Hispanics as a monolith potentially problematic for empirical studies of this population. By not delineating between Hispanic subgroups, we may obscure important differences in social, health, and behavioral outcomes.

In an effort to fill this gap in the extant literature, this descriptive study sought to clarify past inconsistencies regarding the prevalence of victimization among Hispanics compared with non-Hispanics and to explore possible differences in victimization across Hispanic subgroups. More specifically, we estimated the prevalence rates for Hispanics, NHW, NHB, and six Hispanic subgroups represented in the Add Health data set.

Findings indicated that Hispanics were significantly less likely to be victimized or exposed to violence than were either NHW or NHB. The only exception across the six outcomes examined here was the “beaten up” variable, where Hispanics were significantly more likely than NHW and equally likely as NHB to respond in the affirmative. These analyses also revealed considerable variation between the Hispanic subgroups as well as across the six outcomes. Mexicans, Chicanos, Puerto Ricans, and “other” Hispanics were the most likely to report property crime victimization whereas Cubans and Central/South Americans were the least likely. In terms of exposure to violence, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and “other” Hispanics were significantly more likely to report witnessing violence, whereas Chicanos, Cubans, and Central/South Americans were less likely. Similar results were also produced for the “someone pulled a gun/knife on you,” the “shot/stabbed you,” and the “slapped/hit/choked” measures. Conversely, Chicanos, Cubans, and “other” Hispanics were most likely to report having been beaten up in the past year.

Of note here are also the differences found between Chicanos and Mexicans. On most of the six victimization measures, Mexicans had higher prevalence rates, including 6.9% to 0% on witnessing a shooting or stabbing, 6.8% to 0% on having a gun or knife pulled on them, 1.6% to 0% on being shot or stabbed, and 8.4% to 6.3% on being slapped, hit, or choked. Conversely, Chicanos were significantly more likely to report property victimization (41.3% vs. 26.3%) and getting beaten up (2.4% vs. 6.3%). This is particularly noteworthy because Chicanos and Mexicans are typically used to represent the same group—those individuals of Mexican descent.

The source of this discrepancy may lie in the history of the labels. A cursory review of the academic literature suggests that the terms Mexican American and Chicano have been used interchangeably even by scholars of Hispanic/Latino studies. However, closer examination of the denotative and connotative meanings of the terms reveals subtler differences. The root of the term “Chicano” is somewhat debated in the literature (see M. V. Miller, 1976), but most agree its roots lie in the Spanish conquest of what is now Mexico. Spaniards referred to the native peoples as Mexicano that was pronounced Meh-shee-cano. Chicano, then, is thought to represent the shortened phonetically consistent version of this original term. Irrespective of its origin, Chicano became a popular form of self-identification in the 1960s and 1970s for some individuals of Mexican descent. This label, as opposed to Hispanic, Latino, or Mexican, carried with it connotations of ethnic militancy and self-determination (M. V. Miller, 1976). Unlike some labels afforded to Hispanic groups (e.g., Mexican American, Latino, Spanish surnamed), Chicano is notable because it accentuates ethnicity rather than minimizing it. Empirical research, much of which was conducted in the 1970s, found that certain sociodemographic characteristics were associated with use of the Chicano self-identity including low SES, migrant worker status, sex (male), and place of residence (Malott, 2009; M. V. Miller, 1976). It is possible, then, that respondents who self-identified as Chicano were significantly different from those who chose Mexican as an identity with respect to the factors that affect the likelihood of victimization (e.g., gender, place of residence, routine activities).

Overall, Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and “other” Hispanics were most likely to report either victimization or exposure to violence whereas Chicanos and Cubans were the least likely (with the exception of property crime and getting beaten up). This is consistent with demographic research which finds that Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, especially, are more likely to possess sociodemographic characteristics that are associated with a number of criminological outcomes, including victimization (Amaro et al., 1990; Macartney et al., 2013; U.S. Census Bureau, 2005). It is plausible, then, that low SES, neighborhood characteristics, and family factors may account for the differences observed here.

Although this study did not assess the variables predictive of victimization, prior work has suggested that certain situational and daily routines increase the odds of victimization for Hispanics. For example, Like-Haislip and Warren (2011) applied a routine activities approach and found Latina and White women who spent time shopping outside the home had a greater risk of victimization. This study also indicated that minority females who utilized public transportation have a greater risk of violent victimization compared with White females. Minority women were also found to be more prone to violent victimization compared with White females when they resided in neighborhoods populated with homeless and transient groups. The obvious next step for the current study is to explore the factors that can account for variation in victimization both between Hispanics and non-Hispanics and within Hispanic subgroups.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study utilized data from the Add Health project, a school-based sample of American adolescents originally collected during the 1994-1995 academic year. As a result, there are a few limitations worth discussing. First, this analysis used a nationally representative sample of Americans who were in high school during the mid-1990s. Therefore, we cannot generalize these findings beyond the United States, or even for Hispanics outside this age group. Second, because this sample was first drawn nearly 20 years ago, it is no longer representative of the current U.S. population, generally, and with respect to Hispanics, specifically. Hispanic population growth has outpaced that of both Whites and Blacks in the United States over the past two decades, and the number of children under the age of 18 who are Hispanic has increased significantly. While fewer than 12% of the Add Health sample is Hispanic, more than 20% of children under 18 are now Hispanic. In addition, although we attempt to clarify within-group differences for the Hispanic subsample, it should be noted that even these labels, especially those such as “Central/South American” and “Other,” also suffer from similar problems of broad categorizations. Similarly, it should be noted that collapsing diverse groups into NHW and NHB also carries with it some of the same concerns with respect to Hispanics. Finally, the data analyzed here were drawn from the fourth wave of the Add Health and as a result, sample attrition may be a factor.

A number of avenues for future research are available to other scholars. First, the differences revealed here between Hispanic subgroups reveal contrasting realities that are dependent, in part, upon nation of origin. Clearly, Hispanics are not monolithic and cannot be treated as such, particularly from an analytic standpoint. Future research should try when possible to delineate between these groups and not collapse all Hispanics together under one umbrella category. Relatedly, in an effort to understand these contextual differences between groups, qualitative or mixed methods (i.e., quantitative and qualitative) designs may be better suited to answer these types of research questions. Although the quantitative analyses that dominate the literature are useful, there does remain a gap in this area in terms of qualitative studies of this diverse population. For scholars of immigration or ethnic studies, the richest data may lie in face to face interaction and observation of these groups in their everyday lives.

Future studies may also wish to examine victimization outcomes other than those explored here. For example, this type of analysis can be extended to domestic violence using the Add Health data. Additional research may also be directed toward identification of the factors most predictive of victimization for Hispanics and how these vary by immigration status, nation of origin, and life course stage. For example, future research should assess the relative effects of routine activities and lifestyle variables on victimization and how these vary by generational status, ethnic origin, or age. There remains much work to be done on the interrelated areas of ethnicity, immigration, crime, and victimization. This study aimed to provide clarification on a few of these issues, in particular, the prevalence of victimization and exposure to violence among Hispanics relative to NHW and NHB, and between Hispanic subgroups. This study revealed that Hispanics were actually less likely than either NHW or NHB to report most forms of victimization and exposure to violence (with the exception of the beaten up variable) and that significant differences are found between Hispanic subgroups.

Footnotes

Appendix

Sample Demographic Characteristics.

	Hispanics (n = 743)			NHW (n = 3,929)			NHB (n = 1,583)
	M	SD	Range	M	SD	Range	M	SD	Range
Age	28.95	1.78	25-34	29.03	1.77	25.34	28.97	1.78	25-33
Sex (1 = male)	46.1%			46.7%			43.5%
Foreign-born	30.2%			4.2%			3.1%
High school diploma/GED	64.6%			77.3%			71.3%
College graduate	20.9%			35.3%			28.9%

Note. NHW = non-Hispanic Whites; NHB = non-Hispanic Blacks; GED = General Education Development.

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

Author Biographies

Holly Ventura Miller is an Associate Professor of Criminology & Criminal Justice at the University of North Florida. Her primary research interests include immigration and crime, juvenile delinquency, substance abuse treatment, and program evaluation. Her work has recently appeared in Criminal Justice & Behavior, Crime & Delinquency, and Justice Quarterly.

Kristina M. Lopez is currently a Postdoctoral Scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles with the university’s Integrated Substance Abuse Programs (ISAP). Her research interests include immigration and crime, addictions treatment in correctional settings, and program evaluation. Her work has appeared in The Open Family Studies Journal, Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, and Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

References

Amaro

Whitaker

Coffman

Heeren

(1990). Acculturation and marijuana and cocaine use: Findings from HHANES 1982-84. American Journal of Public Health, 80(Suppl.), 54-60.

Arroyo

J. A.

Simpson

T. L.

Aragon

A. S.

(1997). Childhood sexual abuse among Hispanic and non-Hispanic college women. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Science, 19, 57-69.

Brown

(2009). Assessing the anomalous research on Hispanic victimization: A methodological critique of a victimological enigma. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1931-1963.

Buriel

Calzada

Vasquez

(1982). The relationship of traditional Mexican American culture to adjustment and delinquency among three generations of Mexican American adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 4, 41-55.

Catalano

(2004). Criminal victimization, 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Catalano

(2006). Criminal victimization, 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Chappin

S. R.

Brook

J. S.

(2001). The influence of generational status and psychosocial variables on marijuana use among black and Puerto Rican adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 23, 22-36.

Crouch

J. L.

Hanson

R. F.

Saunders

B. E.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Resnick

H. S.

(2000). Income, race/ethnicity, and exposure to violence in youth: Results from the national survey of adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 625-641.

Decker

M. R.

Raj

Silverman

J. G.

(2007). Sexual violence against adolescent girls: Influences of immigration and acculturation. Violence Against Women, 13, 498-513.

10.

Firestone

J. M.

Lambert

L. C.

Vega

W. A.

(1999). Intimate violence among Mexican origin women: Correlates of abuse. Journal of Gender, Culture, and Health, 4, 119-134.

11.

Fitzpatrick

K. M.

(1999). Violent victimization among America’s school children. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1055-1069.

12.

Garcia

Hurwitz

E. L.

Kraus

J. F.

(2004). Acculturation and reported intimate partner violence among Latinas in Los Angeles. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20, 569-590.

13.

Gibson

C. L.

Miller

H. V.

(2010). Crime and victimization among Hispanic adolescents: A multilevel longitudinal study of acculturation and segmented assimilation (NCJ 232278). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

14.

Gilbert

M. J.

(1987). Alcohol consumption patterns in immigrant and later generation Mexican American women. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9, 299-313.

15.

Hagan

Palloni

(1998). Immigration and crime in the United States. In Smith

J. P.

Edmonston

(Eds.), The immigration debate: Studies on the economic, demographic, and fiscal effects of immigration (pp. 367-387). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

16.

Hanish

L. D.

Guerra

N. G.

(2000). The roles of ethnicity and school context in predicting children’s victimization by peers. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 201-223.

17.

Harris

K. M.

(2009). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), Waves I & II, 1994-1996; Wave III, 2001-2002; Wave IV, 2007-2009 [Machine-readable data file and documentation]. Chapel Hill: Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

18.

Hill

S. C.

Drolet

J. C.

(1999). School-related violence among high school students in the United States, 1993-1995. Journal of School Health, 69, 264-272.

19.

Ingram

E. M.

(2007). A comparison of help seeking between Latino and non-Latino victims of intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women, 13, 159-171.

20.

Kercher

McShane

(1984). Characterizing child sexual abuse on the basis of a multi-agency sample. Victimology: An International Journal, 9, 364-382.

21.

Lau

McCabe

K. M.

Yeh

Garland

A. F.

Hough

R. L.

Landsverk

(2003). Race/ethnicity and rates of self-reported maltreatment among high-risk youth in public sectors of care. Child Maltreatment, 8, 183-194.

22.

Like-Haislip

T. Z.

Warren

P. Y.

(2011). Routine inequality: Violent victimization at the intersection of race and ethnicity among females. Violence and Victims, 26, 88-102.

23.

Lopez

K. M.

Miller

H. V.

(2011). Ethnicity, acculturation, and offending: Findings from a sample of Hispanic adolescents. Open Family Studies Journal, 4, 27-37.

24.

Macartney

Bishaw

Fontenot

(2013). Poverty rates for selected detailed race and Hispanic groups by state and place: 2007-2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau.

25.

Malott

K. M.

(2009). Investigation of ethnic self-labeling in the Latina population: Implications for counselors and counselor educators. Journal of Counseling & Development, 87, 179-185.

26.

Martinez

(1996). Latinos and lethal violence: The impact of poverty and inequality. Social Problems, 43, 131-146.

27.

Martinez

(2000). Immigration and urban violence: The link between immigrant Latinos and types of homicide. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 363-374.

28.

Martinez

(2002). Latino homicide: Immigration, violence, and community. New York, NY: Routledge.

29.

Miller

H. V.

(2012). Correlates of delinquency and victimization in a sample of Hispanic youth. International Criminal Justice Review, 22, 153-170.

30.

Miller

M. V.

(1976). Mexican-Americans, Chicanos, and others: Ethnic self-identification and selected social attributes of rural Texas youth. Rural Sociology, 41, 234-247.

31.

Morenoff

J. D.

Astor

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

Valenzuela

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

32.

Perkins

C. A.

Klaus

P. A.

Bastian

L. D.

Cohen

R. L.

(1996). Criminal victimization in the United States, 1993. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

33.

Peskin

M. F.

Tortolero

S. R.

Markham

C. M.

(2006). Bullying and victimization among Black and Hispanic adolescents. Adolescence, 41, 467-484.

34.

Ramirez

I. L.

(2007). The relationship of acculturation and social integration to assaults on intimate partners among Mexican American and non-Mexican white students. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 533-542.

35.

Rennison

C. M.

(2000). Criminal victimization 1999: Changes 1998-1999 with trends 1993-1999. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

36.

Rennison

C. M.

(2002). Hispanic victims of violent crime, 1993-2000 (NCJ 191208). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

37.

Ringel

(1997). Criminal victimization 1996: Changes 1995-96 with trends 1993-96. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

38.

Stowell

J. I.

Martinez

(2009). Incorporating ethnic-specific measures of immigration in the study of lethal violence. Homicide Studies, 13, 315-324.

39.

Straus

M. A.

(1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 75-88.

40.

Tillyer

M. S.

Tillyer

Miller

H. V.

Pangrac

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

41.

Truman

J. L.

(2011). Criminal victimization, 2010 (NCJ 235508). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

42.

Truman

J. L.

Planty

(2012). Criminal victimization, 2011 (NCJ 239437). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

43.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). Hispanic population passes 40 million. U.S. Census Bureau News. Washington, DC: Author.

44.

Velez

M. B.

(2009). Contextualizing the immigration and crime effect: An analysis of homicide in Chicago neighborhoods. Homicide Studies, 13, 325-335.

45.

Walker

Spohn

DeLone

(1996). The color of justice: Race, ethnicity, and crime in America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.