The Influence of Direct and Indirect Juvenile Victimization Experiences on Adult Victimization and Fear of Crime

Abstract

Research has identified that juvenile victimization can play a detrimental role for individuals later in life. While this literature has focused on direct and indirect forms of victimization at different stages of life, the influence of juvenile victimization on fear of crime and violent victimization as an adult has been limited. To expand this body of literature, the present research examines the effects of direct (sexual victimization) and indirect (witnessing parental intimate partner violence) juvenile victimization on fear of crime as well as the prevalence of victimization as an adult. Using telephone survey data collected from randomly selected Texas adults, this study demonstrates that both juvenile sexual victimization and indirect victimization increase the likelihood of adult victimization, whereas juvenile sexual victimization increases the likelihood of adult sexual victimization. In contrast, fear of crime as an adult was not significantly influenced by either juvenile sexual victimization or indirect victimization. A discussion of how these findings relate to previous research, limitations, and implications are also provided.

Keywords

sexual victimization indirect victimization revictimization fear of crime

Understanding victimization patterns among juveniles has become increasingly important, with research having explored multiple types of victimization (e.g., Turner, Finkelhor, & Ormrod, 2006), as well as revictimization (e.g., Arata, 2000; Widom, Czaja, & Dutton, 2008). Of significant interest are findings that juveniles with multiple forms of victimization experiences¹ have been the most likely to experience physical and sexual victimization and also report the greatest frequency of victimization (Widom et al., 2008). While direct victimization experiences have been identified as having a particularly detrimental impact, indirect victimization² may also play an important role. Finkelhor, Ormrod, and Turner (2007) identified that the majority of juveniles who have witnessed someone being victimized (i.e., indirect victimization) had also personally experienced multiple types of victimizations. Furthermore, research has highlighted that juvenile victimization provides a backdrop for understanding victimization during adulthood (e.g., Fagan, 2003; Gidycz, Coble, Latham, & Layman, 1993; Menard, 2002), with a portion focusing on sexual victimization (e.g., Classen, Palesh, & Aggarwal, 2005) and indirect victimization (e.g., Kerley, Xu, Sirisunyaluck, & Alley, 2010) prior to and during adulthood.

To build on the previously mentioned literature, the present study examines how sexual victimization (direct) and witnessing intimate partner violence (IPV; indirect) as a juvenile might shape victimization experiences as well as fear of crime as an adult. Contributions to the extant literature provided by the current research relate to providing further examination of the influence that adverse childhood experiences, notably the impact of multiple forms of juvenile victimization, have on experiences and perceptions later in life.

Juvenile Victimization

Findings from recent research in the United States have established that juvenile victimization³ is associated with a range of outcomes, including the prevalence and frequency of offending (e.g., Chang, Chen, & Brownson, 2003; Fagan, 2003; Menard, 2002), association with deviant peers (e.g., Ousey, Wilcox, & Fisher, 2011), substance use (e.g., Chang et al., 2003; Fagan, 2003; Menard, 2002), and mental health concerns (e.g., Gidycz et al., 1993). In addition, various types of victimization experiences have routinely been found to cluster together with one another (e.g., Finkelhor et al., 2007; Finkelhor, Ormrod, Turner, & Hamby, 2005).

Of specific interest for juvenile victimization research are revictimization and the clustering of different types of victimization experiences. Within the context of violent and property victimization, repeat juvenile victimizations are not out of the norm. Research by Chang and colleagues (2003), using high school seniors from the Monitoring the Future Project, determined that more than half of students reported more than one property or violent victimization experience within the course of 1 year. In addition, research by Esbensen, Huizinga, and Menard (1999) from the Denver Youth Survey demonstrated that prior victimization served as one of the strongest predictors for future victimization. The researchers found that for both victimization in general and for specific types of victimization (theft, minor assault, felony assault), prior victimization was a significant predictor for the prevalence and frequency for each of the previously mentioned types of victimization.

With respect to specific forms of victimization, sexual victimization experiences among juveniles have been linked to a range of concerns, including delinquency (e.g., McGrath, Nilsen, & Kerley, 2011), substance abuse (e.g., Champion et al., 2004), sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., Fergusson, Horwood, & Lynskey, 1997), and mental health issues (e.g., Berliner & Saunders, 1996; Turner et al., 2006). Findings also confirm that juvenile sexual victimization is likely to be repetitive in nature as well as to co-occur with other forms of victimization (e.g., Chu & Dill, 1990; Classen et al., 2005; Finkelhor et al., 2007).

Indirect Juvenile Victimization

Experiences of indirect victimization have been increasingly incorporated into research in this area to understand the influence of witnessing victimization. As with direct victimization, estimates of the prevalence of indirect victimization fluctuate by study (Finkelhor et al., 2005; Sullivan, Farrell, Kliewer, Vulin-Reynolds, & Valois, 2007; Widom et al., 2008). Studies focusing on school and community contexts have detailed that witnessing victimization in these settings is not a rare event. In a sample of rural middle school students in the south, Sullivan and colleagues (2007) discovered that at least one instance of violent victimization of a stranger was witnessed by more than half of the respondents and multiple instances were reported by nearly one third of students. In addition, direct and indirect victimization within these contexts may significantly overlap. In a sample of juveniles residing in public housing neighborhoods, Howard, Feigelman, Li, Cross, and Rachuba (2002) found that although 23% of juveniles were only exposed indirectly to violence, 69% had experienced both direct and indirect victimization.

Another more specific avenue of indirect victimization research has been witnessing family violence, specifically exposure to IPV as a juvenile. Literature has proclaimed that juveniles indirectly victimized by IPV have also experienced a range of negative outcomes. Data analyzed by Finkelhor and colleagues (2007) indicated that 60% of juveniles who witnessed IPV experienced four or more different types of victimization. Hamby, Finkelhor, Turner, and Ormrod (2010) have produced similar estimates, specifically reporting that more than half of the juveniles who had witnessed IPV had also experienced maltreatment themselves.

Reoccurrence of Victimization in Adulthood

Aside from the relatively static conceptualization of victimization addressed in the previous section, the influence of juvenile victimization may not be limited to one period of life (Fagan, 2003; Gidycz et al., 1993; Menard, 2002; Tillyer, 2014). In fact, juvenile victimization is one of the strongest predictors of victimization during adulthood. Using data from the National Youth Survey, Menard (2002) reported that juveniles who were victims of violent and property crime were 125% and 94% more likely to experience violent or property victimization as an adult compared with persons who did not experience these types of victimization as a juvenile. Research has also identified that juvenile sexual victimization is significantly linked to sexual victimization as an adult (e.g., Arata, 2000; Chu & Dill, 1990; Classen et al., 2005; Reid & Sullivan, 2009). In a sample of college women, Humphrey and White (2000) found that females sexually victimized during adolescence (above 14 years old) were roughly 360% more likely than females not victimized to be sexually victimized during their first year of college. In addition, juvenile sexual victimization has been linked to general violent victimization as an adult. Research by Desai, Arias, Thompson, and Basile (2002), examining victimization experiences of individuals while at different stages of life, highlights that persons who experienced juvenile sexual victimization were 120% more likely than those not experiencing this type of victimization to be physically victimized as adults. Indirect victimization in the form of witnessing IPV while a minor has also been associated with negative outcomes as an adult, specifically an increased likelihood of victimization (e.g., Bassuk, Dawson, & Huntington, 2006; Kerley et al., 2010).

Fear of Crime

Fear of crime has been regularly incorporated into research within and outside of criminology, amassing a significant body of work over the past few decades (e.g., Cook & Fox, 2011; Hale, 1996; Rader, May, & Goodrum, 2007; Rountree, 1998; Skogan, 1987). A critical position of this literature has been identifying whether victimization influences fear of crime, for which Hale (1996), in a comprehensive literature review, highlighted that findings are not unidirectional. On one hand, data have indicated that victimization in general significantly increases fear of crime (e.g., Skogan, 1987) as well as in certain instances when disaggregated into specific types of victimization (e.g., Rader et al., 2007; Rountree, 1998; Skogan, 1987). On the other hand, research has also illustrated that under certain circumstances victimization may have an insignificant influence on fear of crime (e.g., Cook & Fox, 2011). Research conducted by Cook and Fox (2011) questioning college students about fear of property crime demonstrated that prior victimization for six forms of property crime did not significantly influence fear of crime. In short, the totality of findings for victimization on fear of crime may vary, partially based on the type of victimization under study.

Although research on the influence of victimization on fear of crime is relatively broad, a significant position of this research has focused on property and violent crimes. However, recognizing the influence of juvenile sexual victimization on fear has been identified as a significant concern (Berliner & Saunders, 1996; Ulloa, Baerresen, & Hokoda, 2009). Research by Ulloa and colleagues (2009) on testing the effect of juvenile sexual victimization on relationship violence victimization during college discovered that previous fearful dating experiences played a significant mediating role for this relationship. However, Fisher and Sloan (2003) have highlighted that previous direct and indirect sexual victimization in a sample of college females was not a significant predictor of fear of being raped at night on campus. Aside from college-based samples, a survey of the general population by Rader and colleagues (2007) indicated a positive relationship between sexual victimization and fear of crime. Findings from randomly telephoned Kentucky respondents uncovered that persons who had experienced sexual victimization at any point during their life (17.6% of their sample) had significantly higher levels for fear of victimization and perceived risk than persons who had not experienced sexual victimization.

Indirect victimization has also been identified in certain cases to exhibit a greater influence on fear of crime than direct victimization (Hale, 1996). Research by Russo and Roccato (2010) showcases that differences in types of fear of crime may be based on variations in indirect victimization. Specifically, the researchers found that concrete fears were significantly predicted by indirect victimization; however, abstract fears were not. Furthermore, although recent indirect victimization was a significant predictor for concrete fears, continued indirect victimization was a stronger predictor. In contrast, indirect victimization may not significantly impact fear of crime at all. Similar to their findings regarding direct victimization, Cook and Fox (2011) discovered that fear of crime did not significantly vary for respondents reporting indirect victimization.

Data and Method

The present study is guided by three research questions derived from existing research.

Research Question 1: Are individuals who are victimized as juveniles, either directly or indirectly (i.e., witnessing IPV), more likely to be violently victimized as adults?

While prior research has suggested that violent victimization as an adult has been influenced by juvenile sexual victimization and indirect victimization (e.g., Bassuk et al., 2006; Desai et al., 2002; Kerley et al., 2010), the current inquiry focuses more on violent victimization in general during adulthood rather than on IPV victimization during this time period (e.g., Bassuk et al., 2006; Kerley et al., 2010).

Research Question 2: Are individuals who are indirectly or sexually victimized as a juvenile more likely to be sexually victimized as adults?

Although research has indicated that sexual victimization is likely to reoccur in adulthood if experienced while a juvenile (e.g., Arata, 2000; Chu & Dill, 1990; Classen et al., 2005; Reid & Sullivan, 2009), the influence of indirect victimization as a juvenile on sexual victimization later in life has been ignored.

Research Question 3: Are individuals who are indirectly (witness IPV) and sexually victimized as juveniles more fearful of violent victimization as adults than persons who did not experience these forms of victimization as children?

This final question is included to better understand the influence of victimization on fear of crime, specifically the extent that direct or indirect juvenile victimization is associated with increased fear of crime levels as an adult. As research in this area is mixed (Hale, 1996) and literature examining the impact of direct and indirect victimization on fear of crime is limited to a time frame of approximately 1 year (e.g., Russo & Roccato, 2010), the current research focuses on a more temporally expansive analysis of the relationship between multiple forms of juvenile victimization and adult fear of crime.

To answer these questions, this study uses cross-sectional data from the fourth annual adult victimization survey collected by the Crime Victims’ Institute in 2007 (see Kercher, Johnson, & Yun, 2008). The survey was conducted using a computer-assisted telephone system (iCATI), which obtained a random sample of 700 Texas residents above 18 years of age in a substantial proportion of counties (respondents were obtained from 53% of all Texas counties) to examine victimization experiences at different stages of life. Overall, the compliance rate was 12.1%,⁴ with interviewers taking steps to achieve the highest compliance rates by attempting to contact households on five separate occasions, with four of these attempts occurring during hours when respondents were most likely to be home (during the evenings and on weekends). While the survey primarily inquired into experiences of IPV as adults, items also tap into both witnessing IPV and experiencing sexual victimization as a juvenile. Furthermore, additional variables identified violent and sexual victimization experiences during adulthood. Aside from questions addressing victimization, measures for current (i.e., adult) fear of crime were included to investigate respondents’ fear for multiple forms of violent victimization. The sample for the current study includes 669 male and female respondents.

Measures

Dependent variables

Three dependent variables are examined to gain a better understanding of the influence of juvenile victimization on experiences during adulthood. First, adult violent victimization was constructed as a dichotomous measure (reported no violent victimization = 0, reported violent victimization = 1), contained within an altered version of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), derived from eight indicators reflecting whether someone had committed the following forms of violent victimization against the respondent while they were an adult, including being (a) pushed, grabbed, or shoved; (b) slapped; (c) kicked, bit, or hit with a fist; (d) hit or tried to hit with something; (e) beat up; (f) choked; (g) threatened with a knife or gun; and (h) used a knife or fired a gun. Among respondents in this study, 47.4% experienced some form of adult violent victimization (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Respondent Characteristics (N = 669).

	Percentage	M	SD	Minimum–Maximum
Dependent variables
Adult violent victimization
Yes	47.4
No	52.6
Adult sexual victimization
Yes	12.6
No	87.4
Fear of crime		37.29	22.49	0-70
Independent variables
Indirect juvenile victimization
Yes	31.5
No	68.5
Juvenile sexual victimization
Yes	24.1
No	75.9
Control variables
Age		47.96	15.94	18-92
Gender
Male	32.7
Female	67.3
Ethnicity
White	59.8
Hispanic	26.5
Other	13.8
Education
College graduate	35.7
Not a college graduate	64.3
Employment
Employed	60.4
Unemployed	39.6
Marital status
Married	57.6
Not married	42.4
Religious involvement
Yes	81.7
No	18.3

Note. With rounding, some variables may add to more than 100%.

Second, adult sexual victimization is included to investigate nonconsensual, sexual experiences occurring during adulthood. Specifically, this question asked, “As an adult, has anyone, male or female, ever done sexual things (other than kissing and fondling) to you to which you did not give your consent?” From this question, sexual victimization during adulthood was classified as a dichotomous response (no sexual victimization = 0, sexual victimization experienced = 1). Data reveal that 12.6% of respondents had experienced some form of completed sexual victimization as an adult.

The third adult outcome, fear of crime, was measured with 10 indicators, including fear of (a) murder, (b) gang violence, (c) robbery, (d) sexual assault of a child, (e) physical abuse of a child, (f) sexual assault of an adult, (g) spousal abuse, (h) stalking, (i) car theft, and (j) burglary. For each indicator, a Likert-type scale measured fear between 0 (no fear) and 7 (highest level of fear). These 10 items were summed to form a fear of crime scale with a high level of reliability (α = .947), ranging between 0 (no fear of any type of crime) and 70 (maximum fear for all types of crime), with a mean value of 37.29.

Independent variables

To understand the influence of direct and indirect juvenile victimization on fear of crime and victimization as an adult, two independent variables are included. First, juvenile sexual victimization is included to capture unwanted sexual experiences occurring between the ages of 3 and 17 years. Similar to the measurement of adult sexual victimization, juvenile sexual victimization is a dichotomous variable (no sexual victimization = 0, sexual victimization experienced = 1). Specifically, the question asked, “When you were a child (<17 years of age), did anyone, male or female, ever do anything sexual to you that you did not want to happen.” Data show that 24.1% of respondents had experienced some form of sexual victimization as a minor (see Table 1). Second, indirect juvenile victimization is conceptualized as a measure of witnessing parental IPV as a juvenile perpetrated by either parent. Specifically, this type of victimization asked whether the respondent witnessed their father/stepfather hitting or throwing something at their mother/stepmother, as well as whether they witnessed their mother/stepmother hitting or throwing something at their father/stepfather. Both variables utilized three response categories to classify the amount of violence witnessed (no violence witnessed = 0, violence witnessed a few times = 1, violence witnessed often = 2). These variables were combined to create a dichotomous measure of whether the respondent had witnessed any violence between their parents (31.5% of the sample reported having witnessed IPV perpetrated by either of their parents/step-parents while a juvenile).⁵

Control variables

Multiple control variables were included to better understand fear of crime and adult victimization. Respondents specified demographic information, including age, gender, ethnicity, education, employment, marital status, and involvement in religious activities. Age was constructed as a continuous variable measuring the respondent’s age in years. Gender was coded dichotomously (male = 0, female = 1). Ethnicity was coded as White, Hispanic, and Other. All non-White, non-Hispanic respondents were included in the “Other” ethnic category as they made up only a small portion of the sample. Education was dichotomously coded to reflect whether the respondent had obtained a 4-year college degree or not (not a college graduate = 0, college graduate = 1). Employment was classified as either not employed (coded as 0) or employed full or part-time (coded as 1). Marital status was classified as either being single or in a nonmarital relationship (coded as 0) or married (coded as 1). The final control variable was religious involvement, which was dichotomized based on yearly involvement (attends religious activities less than once a year = 0, attends religious activities more than once a year = 1). Demographic characteristics in Table 1 reveal that respondents are approximately 48 years old (47.96), female (67.3%), White (59.8%), not college graduates (64.3%), employed (60.4%), married (57.6%), and involved in religious activities at least once a year (81.7%).⁶

Results

Adult Violent Victimization

Results showcase a variety of significant findings related to adult violent victimization. Cross-tabulations addressing the prevalence of violent victimization during adulthood are presented in Table 2. Bivariate results display a greater prevalence of victimization during adulthood for persons who were exposed to indirect victimization as a juvenile versus individuals not exposed (64.5% and 39.4%; χ² = 35.344, p < .001), as well as for respondents sexually victimized as juveniles compared to those who were not (69.4% and 40.5%; χ² = 40.676, p < .001).

Table 2.

Bivariate Results for Adult Victimization and Fear of Crime.

	Adult Violent Victimization	Adult Sexual Victimization	Fear of Crime
Indirect juvenile victimization
Yes	64.5%	17.7%	39.13 (21.27)
No	39.4%	10.6%	36.01 (22.95)
	χ² = 35.344***	χ² = 6.255*	t = 1.642
Juvenile sexual victimization
Yes	69.4%	24.4%	37.96 (21.87)
No	40.5%	8.7%	37.04 (22.76)
	χ² = 40.676***	χ² = 27.177***	t = 0.453

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Logistic regression for adult violent victimization identifies multiple demographic and independent variables that significantly predict adult violent victimization (see Table 3). The baseline model (Model 1; significant at p < .001) indicates that the majority of demographic factors reviewed were negatively associated with the likelihood of being violently victimized as an adult (being female, married, and attending religious services), while being employed was positively associated with the likelihood of experiencing violent victimization during adulthood.

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Results for Adult Victimization.

	Adult Violent Victimization				Adult Sexual Victimization
	Model 1		Model 2		Model 1		Model 2
Variables	b (SE)	Exp(B)	b (SE)	Exp(B)	b (SE)	Exp(B)	b (SE)	Exp(B)
Age	−0.004 (0.006)	0.996	0.004 (0.006)	1.004	−0.006 (0.009)	0.994	−0.002 (0.009)	0.998
Female	−0.412 (0.178)	0.662*	−0.747 (0.197)	0.474***	1.494 (0.361)	4.456***	1.249 (0.370)	3.487**
Race^a
Hispanic	−0.415 (0.215)	0.661^†	−0.511 (0.232)	0.600*	−0.467 (0.346)	0.627	−0.436 (0.352)	0.647
Other	0.307 (0.257)	1.359	0.184 (0.281)	1.202	0.452 (0.350)	1.571	0.521 (0.364)	1.684
College graduate	0.061 (0.182)	1.063	0.141 (0.195)	1.151	0.037 (0.275)	1.038	0.017 (0.285)	1.017
Employed	0.542 (0.185)	1.720**	0.408 (0.200)	1.504*	0.159 (0.277)	1.172	0.096 (0.286)	1.101
Married	−0.574 (0.173)	0.563**	−0.537 (0.187)	0.584**	−0.473 (0.255)	0.623^†	−0.373 (0.264)	0.689
Religious involvement	−0.655 (0.218)	0.519**	−0.549 (0.238)	0.578*	−0.916 (0.284)	0.400**	−0.905 (0.299)	0.404**
Juvenile sexual victimization	—	—	1.215 (0.225)	3.369***	—	—	0.827 (0.276)	2.287**
Indirect juvenile victimization	—	—	0.900 (0.202)	2.459***	—	—	0.256 (0.280)	1.292
Constant	0.943 (0.433)	2.567*	0.203 (0.471)	1.225	−1.962 (0.654)	0.141**	−2.333 (0.693)	0.097**
R ²	.073***		.161***		.060***		.081***

“White, non-Hispanic” is the excluded category.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The full model (Model 2; significant at p < .001), which added the indicators of juvenile direct and indirect victimization experiences,⁷ produced similar findings. In the full model, the Hispanic variable achieved a level of significance, indicating that Hispanic respondents were 40% less likely to be violently victimized compared with non-Hispanic respondents (p = .028). Pertaining to the variables of interest, persons who were sexually victimized as juveniles were 236.9% more likely to be victims of violence as adults compared to persons not sexually victimized while a juvenile (p < .001). Moreover, respondents who were indirectly victimized as minors were 145.9% more likely to experience violent victimization as adults than persons not experiencing this type of victimization (p < .001).⁸

Adult Sexual Victimization

Analysis of adult sexual victimization suggests multiple significant findings. Similar to bivariate findings for adult violent victimization, cross-tabulations (see Table 2) highlight that adult sexual victimization was more prevalent for respondents who had been exposed to indirect victimization compared with persons not exposed to this type of victimization (17.7% and 10.6%; χ² = 6.255, p < .05) as well as for victims of juvenile sexual victimization compared to those persons who were not victims of juvenile sexual victimization (24.4% and 8.7%; χ² = 27.177, p < .001).

A logistic regression model predicting adult sexual victimization identified a limited number of significant predictors (see Table 3). Model 1 (which is significant at p < .001) indicates that while females were 345.6% more likely to be sexually victimized as adults compared with males (p < .001), persons who attended religious services were 60% less likely to be sexually victimized as an adult compared to persons who did not attend these services (p = .001).

The full model incorporating juvenile victimization experiences (Model 2; significant at p < .001) presents similar findings to the baseline model, but also showcases the influence of juvenile sexual victimization and lack thereof for indirect victimization. While the two previously mentioned significant variables retained significance, the magnitude of these effects decreased. Of specific interest was that individuals who were sexually victimized as juveniles were 128.7% more likely to be sexually victimized as adults compared with persons not sexually victimized early in life (p = .003).

Fear of Crime

Bivariate results for fear of crime are reported in Table 2. Independent samples t tests signal a greater difference in fear of crime between juveniles who were or were not indirectly victimized (t = 1.642) compared with those who were and were not sexually victimized (t = 0.453). However, a level of significance was not observed between victims and nonvictims for either type of victimization experience as a juvenile.

Table 4 presents findings for ordinary least squares regression for fear of crime. Results for Model 1 suggest that the most influential factors for predicting higher levels for fear of crime were evident for variations in ethnicity (being Hispanic, being classified in the other ethnic group). Conversely, reductions in fear of crime were related to being a college graduate (B = −0.147, p < .001) and being married (B = −0.072, p = .044). These findings retain their respective levels of significance when a model including juvenile sexual victimization and indirect juvenile victimization were included (Model 2) as well as when only adult violent victimization was added (Model 3). One important note is the nonsignificance of juvenile sexual victimization (B = −0.035, p = .364) and indirect juvenile victimization (B = −0.003, p = .939) in Model 2 and adult violent victimization (B = 0.005, p = .894) in Model 3 on fear of crime.⁹

Table 4.

Ordinary Least Squares Regression Results for Fear of Crime.

	Model 1		Model 2		Model 3
Variables	B	b (SE)	B	b (SE)	B	b (SE)
Age	−0.066^†	−0.093 (0.056)	−0.072^†	−0.100 (0.057)	−0.066^†	−0.093 (0.056)
Female	0.038	1.819 (1.673)	0.048	2.257 (1.770)	0.039	1.840 (1.682)
Race^a
Hispanic	0.404***	20.302 (1.994)	0.398***	20.006 (2.046)	0.404***	20.322 (2.001)
Other	0.162***	10.638 (2.409)	0.151***	10.006 (2.529)	0.162***	10.623 (2.414)
College graduate	−0.147***	−6.827 (1.707)	−0.137***	−6.341 (1.757)	−0.147***	−6.830 (1.708)
Employed	−0.013	−0.605 (1.174)	−0.007	−0.314 (1.776)	−0.014	−0.632 (1.727)
Married	−0.072*	−3.255 (1.615)	−0.074*	−3.339 (1.675)	−0.071*	−3.227 (1.630)
Religious involvement	−0.030	−1.709 (2.025)	−0.018	−1.056 (2.217)	−0.029	−1.676 (2.041)
Juvenile sexual victimization	—	—	−0.035	−1.785 (1.967)	—	—
Indirect juvenile victimization	—	—	−0.003	−0.139 (1.821)	—	—
Adult violent victimization	—	—	—	—	0.005	0.214 (1.601)
Constant	—	39.844*** (4.026)	—	39.423*** (4.237)	—	39.690*** (4.191)
R ²	.248***		.237***		.248***

“White, non-Hispanic” is the excluded category.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

In regard to the research questions posed, the findings presented here are largely expected. As it pertains to the first research question, bivariate and multivariate results pinpoint that persons indirectly experiencing victimization while juveniles are significantly more likely to be violently victimized as adults compared with persons not witnessing IPV as juveniles. It may be that the violent adult victimization experiences identified here are indicative of IPV victimization during adulthood. Thus, the relationship between witnessing IPV as a juvenile and experiencing violence as an adult is not entirely unexpected (e.g., Bassuk et al., 2006; Kerley et al., 2010).

Similar to the impact of indirect victimization, both bivariate and multivariate models point out that persons who had experienced sexual victimization as a juvenile were significantly more likely to experience violent victimization as an adult. This finding is in line with previous literature that suggests not only the increased odds of physical victimization for persons experiencing sexual victimization (e.g., Widom et al., 2008) but also that maltreatment while a juvenile (e.g., Parks, Kim, Day, Garza, & Larkby, 2011), as well as more specifically sexual victimization (e.g., Desai et al., 2002), may be associated with an increased likelihood of violent victimization as an adult. In sum, the current findings are similar to previous studies proposing that juvenile sexual victimization is likely to influence violent victimization as an adult.

As expected, juvenile sexual victimization also significantly increased the likelihood of experiencing sexual victimization as an adult, thus supporting the existing body of research suggesting this to be the case (e.g., Arata, 2000; Chu & Dill, 1990; Classen et al., 2005; Gidycz et al., 1993; Humphrey & White, 2000; Reid & Sullivan, 2009). While findings in the current research indicate that compared with females, males who had been sexually victimized as juveniles were significantly more likely to be sexually victimized as adults (gender specific models were conducted but not included as part of the previous tables), cautious interpretation of such a result is warranted based on the extremely limited number of sexually victimized males. Although this is a significant problem for gender specific findings, previous research has produced similar findings. Data analyzed by Desai and colleagues (2002) reveal that males who had experienced juvenile sexual victimization were 450% more likely to experience adult sexual victimization than males who had not experienced juvenile sexual victimization; however, females were only 80% more likely under the same conditions. While the current findings are not out of the norm, they do imply that a more nuanced look is necessary for recognizing gender based differences in sexual victimization prior to and during adulthood.

From a theoretical standpoint, the aforementioned results generally conform to expectations within life-course literature pertaining to the notion of continuity and a recent emphasis on “victim careers” (see Tillyer, 2014). More specifically, the likelihood of continuity in the current findings might be attributable to what Nagin and Paternoster (1991, 2000) term state dependence (a contagious effect whereby prior behavior influences future behavior) and population heterogeneity (specific characteristics predictive of behavior are present in certain persons). A prime example of how both of these theoretical concepts have been applied to victimization is present in the work of Lauritsen and Quinet (1995), who examined the relationship between multiple forms of victimization occurring in adolescence and adulthood using five waves of data from the National Youth Survey. Findings from their research have indicated support for both population heterogeneity (which focused on demographic characteristics, family and neighborhood conditions, prior delinquency, as well as peer delinquency) and state-dependent (prior victimization) explanations of victimization, suggesting that both prior victimization as well as specific characteristics are important for understanding subsequent victimization. On a theoretical basis, the present study discovered support for a state-dependent explanation of victimization, while adequate measures to examine population heterogeneity were unavailable.

In contrast to the significant findings for adult violent and sexual victimization, results pertaining to fear of crime did not conform to expectations. However, the nonsignificance of juvenile victimization measures on adult fear of crime is partially to be expected based on research demonstrating length of time since either direct or indirect victimization is crucial for understanding fear of crime (e.g., Russo & Roccato, 2010). As the present study cannot control for time since victimization (either as a juvenile or adult), there is the possibility that fear of crime may be influenced by recent victimization. Given the average age of this sample (about 48 years), the gap between juvenile victimization experiences and the adult measures of fear of crime is sizable. Furthermore, research has revealed that although individual direct victimization may not influence fear of crime, individuals living in neighborhoods with higher rates of crime have greater fear (e.g., Covington & Taylor, 1991), for which the present study could not control.

Demographic characteristics seem to be more influential for understanding fear of crime than victimization in the current sample. Specifically, being a minority was significantly associated with higher levels of fear of crime for Hispanic respondents as well as for individuals in other minority groups. These findings are in line with prior literature that has underscored elevated fear of crime levels not only for minorities in general (e.g., Fox, Nobles, & Piquero, 2009; Parker, 1988) but more specifically for Hispanics (e.g., Parker, McMorris, Smith, & Murty, 1993). Overall, the effects of direct and indirect juvenile victimization seem to play a nonsignificant role in predicting fear of crime compared to demographic characteristics of respondents.

Limitations

Although a number of significant findings were discovered, results should be tempered by a few limitations. The first, and possibly the most significant, limitation is the cross-sectional nature of the data, which is inherently problematic compared to longitudinal data for recognizing victimization over different stages of life. While a memory bias may be present based on the retrospective nature of these data (as similarly described by Fergusson et al., 1997), the more significant issue is that it is impossible to recognize how far apart victimization experiences occurred from one another. Thus, without being able to control for time between victimization experiences (as well as the ages at which the victimization experiences occurred), the difference between juvenile and adult victimization could be anywhere from between a few months apart to a few decades, reducing the influence that these experiences while a juvenile (or as an adult) have on fear of crime later in life.

The second limitation is that the type and frequency of sexual victimization was not able to be specifically identified. Although the lack of specific types of sexual victimization might seem problematic, findings from the present study suggest, even without disaggregating sexual victimization, that juvenile sexual victimization was a robust predictor for the prevalence of sexual and violent victimization as adult. Nevertheless, future research could benefit by recognizing the influence of specific types of sexual victimization as well as the frequency when examining the relationship between victimization as a juvenile and as an adult.

The third limitation is that contextual factors could not be controlled for in this study, notably the relationship between neighborhood factors, including neighborhood disorder and safety as well as collective efficacy, and victimization. Literature has indicated that neighborhood conditions are significant for understanding victimization (e.g., Sampson, 1985; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Moreover, the investigation of victimization has also benefited from examining macro and micro factors (e.g., Lauritsen, 2001; Rountree, Land, & Miethe, 1994), suggesting the importance of individual and neighborhood conditions. Overall, neighborhood-level conditions have previously been found to significantly account for variations in victimization.

Future studies would build on the existing literature by incorporating a number of different methodological strategies. First, use of longitudinal data would allow for the recognition of temporal variations in victimization throughout different stages of life. In addition, the ability to measure and control for the age at which victimization occurred would be important, allowing for a better understanding of how long victimization experiences may foster fear of crime. Second, the inclusion of contextual factors such as neighborhood characteristics would be beneficial for understanding either the continuity or desistence of victimization between different stages of life. For example, as individuals age, some may have the ability to move to neighborhoods where they are less likely to be victimized. Third, research should incorporate a more diverse array of routine activities, both protective and criminogenic, to test whether they mediate the relationship between juvenile and adult victimization. Finally, the inclusion of an offending measure is necessary when conducting this type of research, specifically since research has argued not only that a correlation exists between victimization and offending during one stage in life but also that juvenile violent victimization and violent offending increase the likelihood for specific types of victimization and offending as an adult (e.g., IPV; Menard, 2002).

Implications

Despite the noted limitations, these results are largely consistent with the overall body of research linking victimization early in life to similar experiences later in the life course. Although novel results were not identified here, the results lend confidence to the conclusion that victimization experiences are connected across the life course, and multiple implications are still evident for policy and practice, specifically utilizing both preventive and reactive methods. As victimization, whether direct or indirect as a juvenile, significantly increases the likelihood of adult violent and sexual victimization, preventive efforts aimed at reducing the occurrence of witnessing IPV and experiencing sexual victimization for juveniles would have an added benefit of reducing the long-term chances of victimization in adulthood. In relation to IPV, there are two possibilities for consideration. The first involves IPV prevention programming to reduce the odds of parents being involved in IPV. In an evaluation of an IPV prevention program for adjudicated adolescents, Salazar and Cook (2006) found an increase in knowledge regarding IPV as well as a significant difference in the concept that wife beating is justified following the intervention effects for an IPV prevention treatment group when compared with a control group. Thus, training youth who are at an elevated risk of having a child early in life about IPV may reduce this type of violence later in life. The second option focuses specifically on persons who have already witnessed IPV, with efforts centered on reduction of behavioral issues and provision of services to them as juveniles and adults. In relation to this second position, research by Dube, Anda, Felitti, Edwards, and Williamson (2002) explains that individuals who have witnessed IPV as juveniles have likely experienced a range of serious problems as adults, notably substance abuse and mental health issues. The researchers go on to explain that persons who witnessed IPV early in life may require specific health-related services spanning multiple stages of life, indicating a need for the continuity of services over time. Thus, identifying this type of victimization early on can possibly help reduce issues such as substance use and mental health issues later in life, as well as reducing chances of subsequent victimization.

Similarly, the prevention of juvenile sexual victimization has focused on educational and situational awareness, specifically ensuring the safety of juveniles in public locations as well as the use and reinforcement of safety announcements and telephone help lines (Elliott, Brown, & Kilcoyne, 1995). For assisting persons who have experienced sexual victimization (e.g., if the perpetrator is a relative and prevention techniques and programming are aimed at identifying strangers), practitioners should focus on understanding the nature of repeat sexual victimization, specifically how this can significantly impact mental and physical health while also constructing individualized services for victims (Kennedy et al., 2012).

This research indicates that although direct and indirect juvenile victimization significantly increases the likelihood of adult violent and sexual victimization, both forms of juvenile victimization do not significantly influence fear of crime as an adult. As it pertains to the significant findings of juvenile victimization on adult victimization, both preventive and reactive programming are necessary to provide the most appropriate methods of reducing victimization while increasing the availability of treatment for victimized persons. Specifically, preventive efforts should promote community awareness and use of telephone help lines through educational programs for both direct and indirect forms of juvenile victimization. Furthermore, reactive programming must ensure that adequate mental and physical health care services are available for victims while also taking into account the totality of victimization experiences to provide personalized forms of assistance.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University for providing the first author a summer fellowship, which allowed him time to be able to work on the manuscript. We would also like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback.

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

Jonathan A. Grubb entered into Sam Houston State University’s criminal justice doctoral program in the fall of 2011. He started his collegiate career at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga working on a BS in sociology, which he completed in 2009. In 2011, he completed his master’s in criminal justice (MSCJ) degree at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.

Leana A. Bouffard is an associate professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology and the director of the Crime Victims’ Institute at Sam Houston State University. Her research interests include criminological theory, gender, violence against women, and the consequences of victimization. Her work has appeared in Criminology, Justice Quarterly, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and Crime and Delinquency, among others.

References

Arata

(2000). From child victim to adult victim: A model for predicting sexual revictimization. Child Maltreatment, 5, 28-38.

Bassuk

Dawson

Huntington

(2006). Intimate partner violence in extremely poor women: Longitudinal patterns and risk markers. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 387-399.

Berliner

Saunders

(1996). Treating fear and anxiety in sexually abused children: Results of a controlled 2-year follow-up study. Child Maltreatment, 1, 294-309.

Champion

H. L. O.

Foley

K. L.

Durant

R. H.

Hensberry

Altman

Wolfson

(2004). Adolescent sexual victimization, use of alcohol and other substances, and other health risk behaviors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35, 321-328.

Chang

Chen

Brownson

(2003). The role of repeat victimization in adolescent delinquent behaviors and recidivism. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 272-280.

Chu

J. A.

Dill

D. L.

(1990). Dissociative symptoms in relation to childhood physical and sexual abuse. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 887-892.

Classen

Palesh

Aggarwal

(2005). Sexual revictimization: A review of the empirical literature. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 6, 103-129.

Cook

C. L.

Fox

K. A.

(2011). Fear of property crime: Examining the effects of victimization, vicarious victimization, and perceived risk. Violence and Victims, 26, 684-700.

Covington

Taylor

R. B.

(1991). Fear of crime in urban residential neighborhoods: Implications of between- and within-neighborhood sources for current models. Sociological Quarterly, 32, 231-249.

10.

Desai

Arias

Thompson

M. P.

Basile

K. C.

(2002). Childhood victimization and subsequent adult revictimization assessed in a nationally representative sample of women and men. Violence and Victims, 17, 639-653.

11.

Dube

S. R.

Anda

R. F.

Felitti

V. J.

Edwards

V. J.

Williamson

D. F.

(2002). Exposure to abuse, neglect and household dysfunction among adults who witnessed intimate partner violence as children: Implications for health and social services. Violence and Victims, 17, 3-18.

12.

Elliott

Brown

Kilcoyne

(1995). Child sexual abuse prevention: What offenders tell us. Child Abuse & Neglect: The International Journal, 19, 579-594.

13.

Esbensen

Huizinga

Menard

(1999). Family context and criminal victimization in adolescence. Youth & Society, 31, 168-198.

14.

Fagan

A. A.

(2003). The short- and long-term effects of adolescent violent victimization experienced within the family and community. Violence and Victims, 18, 445-459.

15.

Fergusson

D. M.

Horwood

Lynskey

M. T.

(1997). Childhood sexual abuse, adolescent sexual behaviors and sexual revictimization. Child Abuse & Neglect: The International Journal, 21, 789-803.

16.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

R. K.

Turner

H. A.

(2007). Poly-victimization: A neglected component in child victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect: The International Journal, 31, 7-26.

17.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

Turner

Hamby

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

18.

Fisher

B. S.

Sloan

J. J.

III . (2003). Unraveling the fear of victimization among college women: Is the “shadow of sexual assault hypothesis” supported? Justice Quarterly, 20, 633-659.

19.

Fox

K. A.

Nobles

M. R.

Piquero

A. R.

(2009). Gender, crime victimization and fear of crime. Security Journal, 22, 24-39.

20.

Gidycz

Coble

C. N.

Latham

Layman

M. J.

(1993). Sexual assault experience in adulthood and prior victimization experiences: A prospective analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 151-168.

21.

Hale

C. C.

(1996). Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of Victimology, 4, 79-150.

22.

Hamby

Finkelhor

Turner

Ormrod

(2010). The overlap of witnessing partner violence with child maltreatment and other victimizations in a nationally representative survey of youth. Child Abuse & Neglect: The International Journal, 34, 734-741.

23.

Howard

Feigelman

Cross

Rachuba

(2002). The relationship among violence victimization, witnessing violence, and youth distress. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 455-462.

24.

Humphrey

White

(2000). Women’s vulnerability to sexual assault from adolescence to young adulthood. The Journal of Adolescent Health, 27, 419-424.

25.

Kennedy

Adams

Bybee

Campbell

Kubiak

Sullivan

(2012). A model of sexually and physically victimized women’s process of attaining effective formal help over time: The role of social location, context, and intervention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 217-228.

26.

Kercher

G. A.

Johnson

M. C.

Yun

(2008). Intimate partner violence. Huntsville, TX: Crime Victims’ Institute, College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State University.

27.

Kerley

K. R.

Sirisunyaluck

Alley

(2010). Exposure to family violence in childhood and intimate partner perpetration or victimization in adulthood: Exploring intergenerational transmission in urban Thailand. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 337-347.

28.

Lauritsen

J. L.

(2001). The social ecology of violent victimization: Individual and contextual effects in the NCVS. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 3-32.

29.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Quinet

K. F. D.

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

30.

McGrath

S. A.

Nilsen

Kerley

K. R.

(2011). Sexual victimization in childhood and the propensity for juvenile delinquency and adult criminal behavior: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 485-492.

31.

Menard

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

32.

Nagin

Paternoster

(1991). On the relationship of past to future participation in delinquency. Criminology, 29, 163-189.

33.

Nagin

Paternoster

(2000). Population heterogeneity and state dependence: State of the evidence and directions for future research. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 117-144.

34.

Ousey

Wilcox

Fisher

(2011). Something old, something new: Revisiting competing hypotheses of the victimization-offending relationship among adolescents. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27, 53-84.

35.

Parker

K. D.

(1988). Black-white differences in perceptions of fear of crime. The Journal of Social Psychology, 128, 487-494.

36.

Parker

K. D.

McMorris

B. J.

Smith

Murty

K. S.

(1993). Fear of crime and the likelihood of victimization: A bi-ethnic comparison. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 723-732.

37.

Parks

S. E.

Kim

K. H.

Day

N. L.

Garza

M. A.

Larkby

C. A.

(2011). Lifetime self-reported victimization among low-income, urban women: The relationship between childhood maltreatment and adult violent victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1111-1128.

38.

Rader

N. E.

May

D. C.

Goodrum

(2007). An empirical assessment of the “threat of victimization:” Considering fear of crime, perceived risk, avoidance, and defensive behaviors. Sociological Spectrum, 27, 475-505.

39.

Reid

J. A.

Sullivan

C. J.

(2009). A model of vulnerability for adult sexual victimization: The impact of attachment, child maltreatment, and scarred sexuality. Violence and Victims, 24, 485-501.

40.

Rountree

P. W.

(1998). A reexamination of the crime-fear linkage. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 35, 341-372.

41.

Rountree

P. W.

Land

K. C.

Miethe

T. D.

(1994). Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: A hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods. Criminology, 32, 387-414.

42.

Russo

Roccato

(2010). How long does victimization foster fear of crime? A longitudinal study. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 960-974.

43.

Salazar

L. F.

Cook

S. L.

(2006). Preliminary findings from an outcome evaluation of an intimate partner violence prevention program for adjudicated, African American, adolescent males. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 368-385.

44.

Sampson

R. J.

(1985). Neighborhood and crime: The structural determinants of personal victimization. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 22, 7-40.

45.

Sampson

R. J.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Earls

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

46.

Skogan

W. G.

(1987). The impact of victimization on fear. Crime & Delinquency, 33, 135-154.

47.

Straus

M. A.

Hamby

S. L.

Boney-McCoy

Sugarman

D. B.

(1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283-316.

48.

Sullivan

T. N.

Farrell

A. D.

Kliewer

Vulin-Reynolds

Valois

R. F.

(2007). Exposure to violence in early adolescence: The impact of self-restraint, witnessing violence, and victimization on aggression and drug use. Journal of Early Adolescence, 27, 296-323.

49.

Tillyer

M. S.

(2014). Violent victimization across the life course: Moving a “victim careers” agenda forward. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 593-612.

50.

Turner

H. A.

Finkelhor

Ormrod

(2006). The effect of lifetime victimization on the mental health of children and adolescents. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 13-27.

51.

Ulloa

E. C.

Baerresen

Hokoda

(2009). Fear as a mediator for the relationship between child sexual abuse and victimization of relationship violence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 872-885.

52.

Widom

Czaja

S. J.

Dutton

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