Gendered Opportunity and School-Based Victimization

Abstract

Opportunity theory suggests that adolescents’ risks for school-based theft and assault victimization are related to low self-control and school-based routine activities, such as playing sports, joining extracurricular clubs, and engaging in unsupervised activities. Peer research indicates that friends’ characteristics may also create opportunities for victimization. Additional research supports that gender moderates the effects that lifestyles and friends have on victimization. We integrate these lines of inquiry by exploring how gender moderates the relationship among low self-control, routine activities, friends’ characteristics, and school-based victimization using a sample of 10th-grade public school students who participated in the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002. Using structural equation models, our results suggest that friends’ characteristics tend to matter more for females across both types of victimization. Other gendered effects exist—indicating that the effects of certain friends’ characteristics vary by gender according to the extent to which they influence participation in school misconduct.

Keywords

victimization gender opportunity routine activities peers

Adolescents are exposed to unique opportunities for school-based property and violent victimization. Garofalo, Siegel, and Laub (1987) were among the first to examine opportunities for victimization within the school context, finding that more than half of all reported adolescent victimizations occurred at some point during the process of attending school. Decades of research have supported this finding, showing that adolescent victimization risk is greater while inside school than outside of school (e.g., Augustine, Wilcox, Ousey, & Clayton, 2002; Wilcox, Tillyer, & Fisher, 2009). The 2014 Indicators of School Crime and Safety, for example, reported that adolescents aged 12–18 experienced a rate of 55 per 1,000 nonfatal victimizations in school during 2013, which included rates of 18 per 1,000 thefts and 37 per 1,000 assaults (Robers, Zhang, Morgan, & Musu-Gillette, 2015). These rates of in-school theft and assault victimization were higher than rates of theft and assault outside school for this age range (16 and 15 per 1,000, respectively); this trend has been documented since the late 1990s (Robers et al., 2015). Moreover, male students consistently experienced a greater rate of both types of victimization compared to females. For instance, in 2013, males experienced a rate of 62 per 1,000 nonfatal victimizations, compared to the female rate of 47 per 1,000 (Robers et al., 2015).

Three parallel, but distinct, bodies of research have developed to explain opportunities for adolescent school-based victimization focusing on the effects of (1) lifestyles and routine activities, (2) low self-control, and (3) friends’ characteristics. First, researchers working within the lifestyle–routine activity approach have well established that school-based opportunities for victimization are related to adolescents’ lifestyles and routine activities, such as playing sports, joining clubs, or taking part in unstructured and/or delinquent activities (e.g., Peguero, 2008). Additionally, low self-control likely plays an antecedent or concurrent role to the lifestyles and routine activities predicting victimization (for a recent review, see Wilcox, Fisher, & Lasky, 2015). Finally, other researchers have reported that friends’ characteristics, such as associating with opposite-sex friends, can increase adolescents’ risks for both delinquency and victimization (Haynie & Soller, 2015; McGloin & DiPietro, 2013). Importantly, researchers using each of these three approaches have considered the interplay of gender, examining the extent to which gender moderates the effects of lifestyles and routine activities, low self-control, or friends’ characteristics on property and violent victimization.

Despite the theoretical contributions of such research, no published study to date has considered, simultaneously, the interrelationships among all three key constructs—lifestyles and routine activities, low self-control, and friends’ characteristics—in estimating pathways to victimization. This study takes the logical next step to explain adolescent school-based victimization by integrating these distinct bodies of research. Specifically, we present a multiple-group structural equation model (SEM) analysis of a large, national sample of 10th-grade high school students drawn from the 2002 Education Longitudinal Study (ELS: 2002). We test whether and how lifestyles and routine activities mediate the relationship between low self-control and friends’ characteristics to create different victimization opportunities for male and female adolescents. To that end, in the next section, we review the victimization research concerning the effects of school-based and delinquent lifestyles and routine activities, low self-control, and friends’ characteristics and highlight relevant findings about the moderating role of gender within each section. Next, we integrate these three lines of research into one conceptual model explaining school-based victimization, and then, we present the methods and data used in the current study.

Literature Review

Lifestyle–Routine Activity Theory, Gender, and Victimization

Researchers have well established that criminal victimization is partly a function of lifestyles and routine activities, which results in the convergence of motivated offenders and suitable targets in the absence of capable guardianship (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Cohen, Kleugal, & Land, 1981). According to this perspective, certain lifestyles and routines affect exposure and/or proximity to motivated offenders, increase perceived target suitability, and decrease levels of capable guardianship, thereby influencing victimization risk.

School-based activities

In line with the idea that crime opportunity emerges from legitimate, everyday activity (Cohen & Felson, 1979), a number of studies have found that even structured activities among adolescents seem to provide opportunity for victimization. For example, participating in school sports has been associated with increased experiences of sexual harassment, sexual assault, theft, and general victimization (Peguero & Popp, 2012; Tillyer, Wilcox, & Gialopsos, 2010; Wilcox et al., 2009). Additionally, participation in other school activities, such as school clubs, has been associated with increased experiences of property and violent victimization (Popp & Peguero, 2011).

There is also evidence that gender moderates the effects of school-based routine activities. Using the 2002 ELS data, Popp and Peguero (2011) found that females who participated in school clubs and interscholastic sports had a lower likelihood of experiencing violent victimization than did male adolescents. Yet, they also found that females who participated in intramural sports had a higher likelihood of experiencing violent victimization than did males. Wilcox, Tillyer, and Fisher’s (2009) analysis of theft and assault victimization also revealed that specific routine activities can influence victimization risk differently across gender. Their findings show that male involvement in school sports was associated with decreased risk of school-based assault victimization, while female involvement in school sports was associated with increased risk.

Delinquent activities and school misconduct

Another well-established finding within the lifestyle–routine activity tradition is that adolescents who engage in delinquent activities, such as alcohol and/or drug use, vandalism, or gang-related activities, are at greater risk of experiencing personal and property victimization (Jensen & Brownfield, 1986; Lauritsen, Sampson, & Laub, 1991; Osgood, Wilson, O’Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 1996; Schreck, Wright, & Miller, 2002). Similarly, indicators of school misconduct and responses to school misconduct (e.g., suspensions) are associated with increased victimization risk as well (Nofziger, 2009; Peguero, 2013). Moreover, as explained by Schreck, Wright, and Miller (2002), associating with delinquent peer groups increases victimization risk because potential offenders do not have to deviate from their routine activities to locate suitable targets. This indicates that friends of delinquent peers make up the most suitable pool of victims. However, the authors also state that simply spending time with peers in unstructured, unsupervised leisure activities is related to increased victimization risk, whether or not the peers themselves are delinquent.

Research has also suggested that the relationship between delinquent activities and victimization is moderated by gender. For example, Menard and Covey’s (2015) analysis of the 11th and 12th waves of the National Youth Survey Family Study indicated that the positive relationship between specific types of victimization and offending is present primarily or solely for males. Similarly, Felson and Burchfield (2004) found that drinking enhances the risk of physical and sexual assault victimization more so for males than for females. In contrast, research predicting in-school victimization specifically has reported that a delinquent lifestyle was more strongly related to victimization for females as opposed to males (Fineran & Bolen, 2006; Tillyer et al., 2010; Wilcox et al., 2009). Other studies report no significant gender differences or inconsistent gender differences in the effect of delinquent lifestyle on violent victimization (e.g., Henson, Wilcox, Reyns, & Cullen, 2010; Zaykowski & Gunter, 2013).

Low Self-Control, Gender, and Victimization

Much evidence has accumulated to indicate that having low self-control substantially increases the likelihood of experiencing adolescent victimization (Pratt, Turanovic, Fox, & Wright, 2014; Schreck, 1999; Schreck et al., 2002). Several studies have explored the ways in which low self-control’s effect on victimization is potentially mediated by lifestyles and routine activities, such that low self-control affects many of the lifestyle choices individuals make, including those related to delinquency and misconduct (Baron, Forde, & Kay, 2007; Schreck, 1999). However, research is divided as to whether or not the effects of low self-control are fully mediated by risky behaviors as Schreck (1999) originally implied (cf., Pratt et al., 2014; Schreck et al., 2002; Turanovic & Pratt, 2014; Turanovic, Reisig, & Pratt, 2014). Past research also suggests that gender may moderate the relationship between low self-control and victimization (Flexon, Meldrum, & Piquero, 2016), although the evidence for this moderation is mixed (Turanovic et al., 2014). Overall, the existing research suggests that low self-control is an important explanatory construct for adolescent victimization that is likely connected to other important explanatory constructs, such as gender and routine activities through potential moderating and mediating processes, respectively.

Friends’ Characteristics, Gender, and Victimization

The influence of friends’ characteristics has been the focus in social network literature on offending (Haynie, Doogan, & Soller, 2014; McGloin & DiPietro, 2013), yet very few researchers have integrated such influences into their models of victimization. In agreement with Flexon, Meldrum, and Piquero (2016), we argue that friends’ characteristics constitute another set of opportunity variables that (1) affect victimization directly, (2) affect victimization indirectly through lifestyles and routine activities, and (3) are intertwined with gender and victimization (see also Schreck, Fisher, & Miller, 2004).

The gender composition of one’s friendships affects adolescents’ risks of both delinquency and victimization. This is largely because females tend toward more prosocial behavior, and males are more likely to engage in risky activities (Haynie & Soller, 2015). In light of these differences, males who are friends with females may be less inclined to engage in delinquency, making friendship with females a possible protective factor against victimization for males (Haynie & Piquero, 2006). That said, Swartz, Reyns, Wilcox, and Dunham’s (2012) descriptive analysis of the friendships within one high school social network found that rates of victimization characterizing the various friendship groups within the network were not clearly linked to the gender composition of the groups. For example, the high-victimization groups within the network varied dramatically in terms of percentages of female members—some high-risk groups did not include female members, yet another of the highest risk groups within the network was 88% female.

Having male peers, including romantic partners, is typically considered a primary pathway toward delinquency and victimization for female adolescents (Haynie, Steffensmeier, & Bell, 2007; Haynie & Soller, 2015; McGloin & DiPietro, 2013). Because males are more likely to be deviant, they are more likely to expose females to attitudes favorable to delinquency and to social environments that not only permit, but support risky behavior and that lack adult supervision (Haynie et al., 2007). Thus, socializing with males, as compared to socializing with females, creates more opportunity for females to engage in delinquency and to experience victimization (Haynie & Soller, 2015; McGloin & DiPietro, 2013).

Consistent with the work examining the effects of friendships with females versus males, past research suggests that whether opposite-sex friendships are a protective or a risk factor depends on the respondent’s own gender as well as the sex ratio of the friendship group. According to McGloin and DiPietro (2013), a group’s makeup has the potential to perpetuate or to inhibit delinquency since female-dominated groups engage in less risky behavior, while male-dominated groups normalize such behavior. Haynie, Steffensmeier, and Bell (2007) explained that the negative influence of peers on females increases as the proportion of opposite-sex friends increases, but that this is not the case for the positive influence of larger proportions of female friends for males.

Research also suggests that popularity and prosocial peer groups may affect delinquent behavior and victimization. In adolescence, popularity is likely associated with status-seeking behaviors that may increase the likelihood of delinquency and victimization (Stogner, Miller, Fisher, Stewart, & Schreck, 2014). Prosocial peer groups, however, are assumed to reduce delinquency and, consequently, victimization (Costello, 2010). From an opportunity perspective, prosocial friends might act as guardians or may promote routine activities in which guardians are present (see, e.g., Felson, 1995).

Overall, past research on the role of friends in victimization risk indicates that risk is increased for female adolescents by having male friends, while that for male adolescents is likely unaffected by having female friends. From this, we can conclude that the effect of friends on victimization is gendered. Additionally, there is some evidence that other friend characteristics, such as popularity and prosocial behavior, may affect victimization risk as well. All of the above findings highlight the important, gendered, role of friends in victimization, warranting a closer examination of how friends’ characteristics are related to the other important constructs identified in the victimization literature of lifestyles and routine activities and low self-control.

Bringing Together Lifestyles and Routine Activities, Low Self-Control, and Friends’ Characteristics: An Integrated Approach

Altogether, the three bodies of research reviewed above illustrate several key aspects regarding the relationships among lifestyles and routine activities, low self-control, friends’ characteristics, and victimization, including how these interrelationships are potentially conditioned by gender. First, opportunity for criminal victimization arises through routine legitimate activities that promote the convergence of motivated offenders, suitable targets, and a lack of capable guardianship, and gender has been shown to moderate the effects of some school-based routine activities on victimization risk. Relatedly, past research shows that delinquent activities and school misconduct increase risk of experiencing victimization and that gender potentially moderates this relationship as well. Third, low self-control has been associated with victimization directly as well as with forms of risky behavior that can increase the likelihood of experiencing victimization, and there is some evidence that these effects might also vary by gender. Finally, opportunity for victimization is related to the extent to which adolescents’ friends exhibit prosocial tendencies, value popularity, and are of the opposite sex. For females in particular, both victimization risk and the likelihood of engaging in delinquency increase as the sex ratio of friendship groups becomes more male oriented. Popularity and the prosocial tendencies of friends likely affect victimization either directly or indirectly by affecting delinquency.

To bring together these three bodies of research, we propose an integrated conceptual model (see Figure 1) that incorporates school-based activities, school misconduct, low self-control, and friends’ characteristics as key determinants of the opportunity structure for adolescent victimization. Furthermore, we suggest that all of the interrelationships among these factors are potentially moderated by gender. As displayed in Figure 1, we propose that low self-control and friends’ characteristics have direct effects on school-based victimization, as well as indirect effects through adolescents’ routine activities. We also posit that adolescents’ routine activities affect school-based victimization directly. The routine activities indicators are separated into school-based activities and school misconduct since these constructs likely have different relationships with other variables in the model. To control for the possibility that low self-control is associated with having friends with certain characteristics, we model correlations among low self-control and friends’ characteristics. Lastly, and not explicitly pictured in Figure 1, we explore the extent to which gender moderates these proposed relationships—we thus propose testing this conceptual model separately for males and females. While researchers have examined each of the pathways represented in Figure 1 separately or have examined a combination of a few of them, this is the first study, to our knowledge, that integrates all of these concepts into an integrated gendered model of school-based victimization.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model for the effects of lifestyle–routine activities, low self-control, and friends’ characteristics on school-based victimization.

Method

Data

To explore the pathways to victimization represented in Figure 1, the present study used data from the first wave of the ELS of 2002. The 2002 ELS survey was administered by the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) for the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) of the U.S. Department of Education to examine the progress and experiences of a national sample of 10th graders as they advance through high school to postsecondary education and/or work (2004). The sample was obtained through a multistage design. First, high schools were stratified by U.S. Census divisions, metropolitan status, and private school status. Second, 1,268 schools were selected via a probability proportional to size technique. Of the sampled schools, the 752 participating schools provided a list of currently enrolled 10th graders, and approximately 26 students were selected from a stratified systematic sampling process using race/ethnicity as the stratifying criterion.¹ The full sample contained 15,360 students across the United States. We restricted the sample to 12,040 public school students due to high rates of missing data for key variables in private schools. Due to other missing data at the student level, the final analytic sample size was 11,094 10th graders enrolled in 579 public schools.

Variables

Descriptive statistics for all variables in our model are shown in Table 1. Appendix Table A1 provides detailed information regarding the survey items used for measurement, variable coding, and, where applicable, reliability, and exploratory principal components analysis (PCA) results.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

		Total			Male			Female			Significance of M–F Diff.
Variables	Range	N	Mean	SD	N	Mean	SD	N	Mean	SD	t
School-based victimization
Violent victimization	0–1	11,094	0.34	0.47	5,391	0.42	0.49	5,703	0.27	0.44	***
Property victimization	0–1	11,094	0.44	0.50	5,391	0.49	0.50	5,703	0.40	0.49	***
Lifestyles and routine activities
Intramural sports	0–8	10,920	0.69	1.25	5,288	0.79	1.33	5,632	0.60	1.16	***
Interscholastic sports	0–8	10,903	0.98	1.32	5,286	1.08	1.39	5,617	0.89	1.26	***
Nonsport activities	0–9	10,905	0.94	1.28	5,286	0.72	1.18	5,619	1.15	1.34	***
School misconduct	0–4	11,089	0.72	0.58	5,389	0.77	0.63	5,700	0.69	0.54	***
Low self-control	0–3	8,747	1.28	0.71	4,062	1.33	0.72	4,685	1.24	0.70	***
Friends’ characteristics
Prosocial friends	0–2	8,267	1.45	0.48	3,825	1.38	0.50	4,442	1.52	0.46	***
Popular friends	0–2	8,153	1.13	0.47	3,769	1.19	0.48	4,384	1.08	0.46	***
Opposite-sex friend ratio	0–1	11,094	0.18	0.24	5,391	0.18	0.25	5,703	0.18	0.23	—
Control variables
Non-White or Hispanic	0–1	11,094	0.47	0.50	5,391	0.47	0.50	5,703	0.47	0.50	—
Socioeconomic status	–1.0 -1.8	9,880	0.07	0.61	4,847	0.07	0.61	5,033	0.06	0.62	—
Educational achievement	21.5–79.9	11,094	49.60	9.94	5,391	49.43	10.23	5,703	49.77	9.67	—

***p < .001.

School-based victimization

Student school-based victimization is operationalized into two types: violent and property. Students were asked how many times (Never, Once or twice, or More than twice) they experienced various types of victimization in the first semester or term of the current school year. Violent victimization was recoded to a dichotomous measure (0 = never; 1 = once or more) constructed from three items: (1) Someone threatened to hurt me at school, (2) someone hit me, and (3) someone used strong-arm or forceful methods to get money or things from me. As shown in Table 1, 34 percent of the overall sample reported experiencing at least one form of violent victimization, which was reported by 42 percent of male students compared to 27 percent of female students (t = 17.32, df = 11,092, p < .05). Property victimization was recoded into a dichotomous measure (0 = never; 1 = once or more) constructed from 2 items: (1) I had something stolen from me at school and (2) Someone purposely damaged or destroyed my belongings.² Here, 44 percent of the sample experienced at least one form of property victimization, with significantly more males experiencing property victimization compared to females (49% and 40%, respectively; t = 9.74, df = 11,091, p < .001).

School-based activities and school misconduct

The 2002 ELS data contain measures of school-based activities, such as whether students participated in intramural sports, interscholastic sports, or nonsport activities. Students were asked to report whether they participated in any of these activities during the current school year. The number of activities students participated in within each category was combined to form count variables (see Appendix Table A1 for list of activities). As shown in Table 1, male students were significantly more involved in intramural (male x¯ = 0.79; female x¯ = 0.60; t = 8.28, df = 10,918, p < .001) and interscholastic sports (male x¯ = 1.08; female x¯ = 0.89; t = 7.37, df = 10,901, p < .001) than females. However, female students reported more engagement in nonsport activities than males (male x¯ = 0.72; female x¯ = 1.15; t = 17.90, df = 10,903, p < .001).

In line with the research reviewed earlier suggesting that delinquent behavior is an important lifestyle activity related to victimization, we also include in our analysis a latent variable, school misconduct. This variable is derived from six items measuring how many times students—during the first semester or term of current school year—had engaged in misconduct (e.g., skipping school) or were punished for violating school rules (e.g., suspended). While not directly comparable to measures of delinquency used in some studies due to limitations of these data, we expect this measure to function similarly to delinquency in our study. Comparable measures have been used in other research as indicators of a deviant lifestyle (e.g., Peguero, 2013).

Low self-control

The 2002 ELS survey does not contain items that directly measure low self-control (e.g., Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993). However, one survey question contains relevant items that were used to construct a latent proxy measure that we label low self-control. These items asked respondents how often their attitudes and behaviors coincided with various statements concerning academic self-efficacy, academic effort, and considerations of long-term outcomes related to education and study habits. Indeed, many of these items appear to fall under the “impulsivity” or “simple tasks” categories identified in Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklev’s (1993) low self-control scale³ (see Appendix Table A1 for the full list of items included in this measure and each item’s proposed low self-control dimension). Similar to Grasmick et al.’s (1993) findings, all of the items loaded on a single factor. Higher scores indicate lower self-control.

Friends’ characteristics

The 2002 ELS survey also asked respondents to provide an assessment of their friends’ characteristics. These items asked respondents to report how important certain school-based and social pursuits (e.g., good grades, being popular/well-liked) were to their close friends. The results of a PCA factor analysis revealed two distinct factors from ten items (see Appendix Table A1). The latent variable, prosocial friends, was constructed from five items that asked students to rate how important various school achievement and positive school-based behaviors were to their closest friends. Additionally, the latent variable, popular friends, was constructed from five items, measuring the extent to which students reported that their friends value various social status-based activities.

Lastly, we constructed an opposite-sex friends ratio variable from a prompt asking students to provide demographic (e.g., gender) information for up to three best friends at their school. Scores represent the proportion of friends who are the opposite sex of the respondent.

Control variables

Due to their established effects, other demographic characteristics are important to control for in any model predicting student victimization (Peguero, 2009; Peguero & Popp, 2012; Wilcox et al., 2015). Student race is coded as a dichotomous measure distinguishing White, Non-Hispanic students from Nonwhite or Hispanic students, with 53 percent of the sample identifying as White, non-Hispanic.⁴ Socioeconomic status is a standardized composite measure constructed by the NCES that combines father’s education, mother’s education, family income, father’s occupational prestige, and mother’s occupational prestige. Educational achievement is another standardized composite measure constructed by RTI and NCES based on standardized math and English scores developed by the educational testing service. This score is an average of the student’s math and reading standardized scores (Ingels et al., 2007).

Analytic Strategy

The first step in our analysis was to build a measurement model. We began with a multiple group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the suitability of four latent constructs (school misconduct, low self-control, prosocial friends, and popular friends). We then assessed configural and metric invariance⁵ across males and females (Chen, 2007).

Next, to test our conceptual model, we estimated a SEM, including both property and violent victimization. To explore the potential moderation by gender, parameter differences between males and females were assessed using the Wald test. Model fit was assessed using the χ² test, comparative fit index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis index (TLI), and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), and all significance tests were set at α of .05. Finally, we estimated both the measurement and structural models in Mplus version 6.11 (Muthén & Muthén, 2010). The nonrandom clustering of students in schools is accounted for by using a sandwich estimator that follows the Huber–White procedure to correct standard errors accordingly (see Asparouhov, 2005).

Results

A multigroup CFA revealed that the measurement model adequately fit the data (χ² = 9,467.34, p < .05; CFI = .958; TLI = .958; RMSEA = .049), and metric invariance across males and females was established. Next, we estimated our structural model of the effects of friends’ characteristics, low self-control, school misconduct, and school-based routine activities on violent victimization and property victimization. With the exception of the χ² test, the fit indices indicated the model fit the data well (χ² = 12,323.76, p < .05; CFI = .946; TLI = .940; RMSEA = .044). Additionally, a χ² difference test revealed that, overall, the structural models were significantly different for males and females (χ² = 71.69, p < .001, df = 32). Having established a general gender difference in the pathways to victimization, we report below the specific gender differences where they occur. We begin our discussion of the structural model with an examination of the various direct effects on victimization as represented in our conceptual model, shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Standardized Coefficients for Direct Effects of Structural Parameters.

	Violent Victimization		Property Victimization		Intramural Sports		Interscholastic Sports		Nonsport Activities		School Misconduct
Variables	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F	M	F
Intramural sports	.04*	.08*	.04*	.08*
Interscholastic sports	–0.02	–.04*	.05*	.03
Nonsport activities	.09*	.10*	.06*	.08*
School misconduct	.28*	.24*	.23*	.22*
Low self-control	.09*	.04*	.02	–.03	–.03	–.05*	–.06*	–.04*	–.11*	–.13*	.09*	.14*
Prosocial friends	–.02	–.11*	–.05	–.08*	.05*	.03	.03	.00	.10*	.11*	–.43*	–.37*
Popular friends	.05	.06*	.07*	.07*	.07*	.09*	.09*	.09*	–.08*	.00	.28*	.17*
Opposite-sex friend ratio	.06*	.08*	.01	.06*	–.02*	.02	–.02*	.01	.10*	.03*	.03	.04*

*p < .05.

Direct Effects on Violent Victimization

Consistent with previous research (Popp & Peguero, 2011; Schreck et al., 2002; Wilcox et al., 2009), Table 2 shows that both school-based routine activities and school misconduct directly increased the likelihood of violent and property victimization, although it should be noted that participation in school misconduct had stronger effects. There was one exception to this, however, whereby interscholastic sports participation reduced the likelihood of experiencing violent victimization for females.

Low self-control directly increased the likelihood of experiencing violent victimization, which is consistent with other literature (Schreck, 1999; Schreck et al., 2002; Wilcox et al., 2009). Furthermore, the direct, indirect, and total effects of low self-control were general rather than gendered, which has been a subject of some discussion in the literature (cf. Flexon et al., 2015; Turanovic et al., 2014). Next, friends’ characteristics seemed to influence victimization risks more so for females than males. For females, having more prosocial friends significantly lowered the likelihood of having experienced violent victimization, while having popular friends increased the likelihood of experiencing violent victimization. Having more opposite-sex friends increased the likelihood of experiencing violent victimization regardless of gender.

Direct Effects on Property Victimization

Concerning direct effects on property victimization, Table 2 shows that the patterns of these effects for school-based property victimization are similar to the findings for violent victimization, although there are some notable differences. As with violent victimization, both school-based activities and school misconduct generally increased property victimization. The lone observed gender difference indicates that participation in interscholastic sports increased property victimization for males only.

In contrast to the findings for violent victimization, low self-control did not have direct effects on property victimization. Similar to violent victimization, having prosocial friends significantly decreased the likelihood of property victimization for females only. Also, friends’ popularity was positively related to property victimization for both males and females. Lastly, the opposite-sex friend ratio was positively related to property victimization for females, but not for males; this is in contrast to its positive effect on violent victimization for both genders.

Direct Effects on Lifestyles and Routine Activities

Table 2 also shows the effects of low self-control and friends’ characteristics on school-based activities and school misconduct. Low self-control generally reduced participation in school-based activities and increased participation in school misconduct for both genders. Next, having prosocial friends significantly increased participation in intramural sports for males, increased participation in nonsport activities for both males and females, and reduced school misconduct for both genders. Having popular friends increased participation in intramural and interscholastic sports for both males and females and reduced participation in nonsport activities for males. Friend popularity increased participation in school misconduct for both genders. Having a higher opposite-sex friend ratio also affected routine activities by reducing participation in intramural and interscholastic sports for males, increasing participation in nonsport activities for males and females, and increasing school misconduct for females.

Indirect Effects on Victimization via Lifestyles and Routine Activities

Table 3 presents the total, direct, and indirect effects (via school-based activities and school misconduct) of low self-control and friends’ characteristics on violent and property victimization. The results are summarized here for both types of victimization since the patterns of indirect effects are remarkably similar across type of victimization. First, low self-control, having popular friends, and having a higher opposite-sex friend ratio (for females only) increased school misconduct, which, in turn, increased the likelihood of experiencing both types of victimization. These findings are consistent with other work exploring the effects of low self-control (Schreck et al., 2002) and the composition of friend groups on delinquency (Haynie et al., 2007; McGloin & DiPietro, 2013). In contrast, having prosocial friends exhibited negative indirect effects on victimization by reducing school misconduct for both males and females.

Table 3.

Standardized Coefficients for Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Structural Parameters.

					Indirect Effects
	Total		Direct		Intramural Sports		Interscholastic Sports		Nonsport Activities		School Misconduct
Variables	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female
Violent victimization
Low self-control	.110*	.074*	.086*	.043*	–.002	–.004*	.002	.002	–.009*	–.012*	.027*	.034*
Prosocial friends	–.178*	–.172*	–.017	–.114*	.003	.002	–.001	.000	.008*	.010*	–.116*	–.086*
Popular friends	.124*	.107*	.045	.059*	.003	.007*	–.003	–.004*	–.006*	.000	.076*	.039*
Opposite-sex friend ratio	.073*	.118*	.064*	.083*	–.001	.001	.001	.000	.008*	.003*	.008	.011*
Property victimization
Low self-control	.031	–.013	.016	–.030	–.001	–.004*	–.003*	–.001	–.006*	–.026 *	.022*	.032*
Prosocial friends	–.142*	–.143*	–.045	–.082*	.002	.002	.002	.000	.006*	.012*	–.096*	–.079*
Popular friends	.139*	.116*	.071*	.071*	.003	.007*	.005*	.003	–.005*	.000	.063*	.036*
Opposite-sex friend ratio	.016	.086*	.010	.058*	–.001	.001	–.001	.000	.006*	.003*	.007	.010*

Note. Underlined coefficients indicate significant moderation effect by gender.

*p < .05.

Participation in school-based routine activities had consistently positive direct effects on victimization, but indirect effects through school-based activities depended on the relationship between the exogenous variables and school-based activities. In general, low self-control reduced participation in school-based activities, which led to negative indirect effects. In contrast, having prosocial friends was positively related to school-based activities, which resulted in positive indirect effects. The indirect effects of having popular friends were mixed since having popular friends increased sports participation but reduced participation in nonsport activities. Likewise, having more opposite-sex friends produced mixed indirect effects, as it was associated with reduced participation in sports, but higher participation in nonsport activities.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study integrated several lines of inquiry in the victimization literature regarding the gendered nature of school-based victimization. Specifically, using a broadened perspective of victimization opportunity, we combined low self-control, routine activities, and friends’ characteristics into a single model and explored how these variables affect adolescents’ personal and property victimization. From an opportunity perspective, our first research question concerned whether there were direct effects of lifestyles–routine activities, low self-control, and friends’ characteristics on violent and property victimization. With the exception of the null direct effect of low self-control on property victimization, there were significant direct effects on both types of victimization for each variable associated with these concepts.

Our remaining research questions concerned the under-researched questions of whether and how friends’ characteristics affect routine activities, and whether these relationships have implications for victimization risk. First, having prosocial friends is associated with strong negative effects on school misconduct, contributing to reductions in the likelihood of both violent and property victimization for adolescents. Having popular friends had weaker, albeit positive and significant effects, in addition to the positive effects females with a higher ratio of male to female friends. Importantly, the direct effects from friends’ characteristics through routine activities had consistent implications for both violent and property victimization (i.e., indirect effects). Two of these indirect effects were gendered, whereby the effect of having popular friends increased victimization risk for males through school misconduct more so than for females, while the effect of opposite-sex friends on victimization through school misconduct was only significant for females. Several other important interconnections between friends’ characteristics and routine activities were significant as well, highlighting the importance of including measures of both sets of concepts when exploring victimization risk from an opportunity perspective.

While this study illuminates findings of previous research, it also builds upon them by integrating parallel lines of victimization research. By integrating friend and routine activities concepts, we acknowledge and begin to understand the empirical reality that these concepts are not isolated from one another. Although individuals’ routine activities are a critical component for explaining victimization, they do not exist in a vacuum. Moreover, the specific friends’ characteristics used here highlight the importance of other friend characteristics beyond delinquency, which is often the only characteristic measured in studies examining peer effects on victimization. While the explanatory power of delinquent friends has been long recognized, the traditional notion of delinquent friends ignores the other dimensions of friends’ characteristics (e.g., prosociality, popularity) that also affect routine activities and victimization.

Our approach also shows that traditional ways of analyzing relationships among these concepts omits considerations of important, complex gendered pathways. For example, previous approaches have found evidence of a negative direct effect of prosocial friends on victimization for females only, leading to the conclusion that having prosocial friends has no effect on victimization for males. However, this integrated approach shows that by considering the interconnected nature of friends’ characteristics and activities, we found that having prosocial friends has a stronger negative effect on participation in school misconduct for males than for females, resulting in similar total effects of having prosocial friends across gender. Thus, our study moves victimization research forward to further elaborate upon the interconnections among low self-control, friends, routine activities, and victimization and to consider how and why these interconnections might be gendered.

Limitations

While we believe our integrated approach is a meaningful contribution to the literature on opportunity theory and adolescent victimization, it is not without limitations. First, since these data are cross-sectional, we were unable to make strong assertions about the temporal ordering of these relationships. Second, this study used respondent reports of friends’ attitudinal and behavioral characteristics, making it possible that these reports were biased toward the respondent’s own attitudes and behaviors. This may skew the findings in favor of a “friend effect,” which could have been accounted for had social network data been available. However, we suspect that this issue is much less problematic in our study of friends’ characteristics and victimization than it is for studies exploring analogous behaviors of respondents and friends, such as whether friend delinquency is related to respondent delinquent behavior. Third, since we were limited to the questions asked on the survey, other measures used in this study were potentially limited in scope. The study did not use all possible types of victimization available in the 2002 ELS data (e.g., bullying). In addition, the 2002 ELS survey did not ask about other potentially important activities that could affect victimization risk. For example, our measures of school misconduct and school-based routine activities were limited to the school context and therefore likely did not include a variety of activities students engage in outside of school (e.g., other and more serious types of delinquency). Finally, since the survey was administered at school, it may not include students with frequent absences, who are often most likely to engage in misconduct and other forms of risky behavior (Gottfredson, 1986).

Future Research

Three suggestions for future research are evident from our analysis of the 2002 ELS data. First, future researchers could examine the extent to which the patterns found are consistent across different schools. While we accounted for the clustering of students within schools, there may be insights from between-school analyses that could reveal important factors influencing students’ routine activities and victimization. Second, school-based victimization research could benefit from more detailed incident-level measures, such as the contexts within which adolescent victimization occurred. For example, since we found significant effects indicating that nonsport activities increased the likelihood of experiencing victimization, the next logical question concerns examining the circumstances surrounding victimization. Does victimization occur during adolescents’ engagement in nonsport activities? Does it instead occur on their routes to or from nonsport activities? Or, rather, are opportunities for victimization based on students’ statuses as members of nonsport activities (e.g., band or chorus), and if so, does that explain this observed relationship? Third, questions remain about the role friends play in influencing opportunities for victimization. Are friends more likely to perpetrate victimization against their peers? Or, do they simply expose peers to increased opportunities for victimization by others through risky activities?

Policy Considerations

Since we recognize this study is a first step in understanding the role of these interconnections for victimization risk, policy recommendations based on these findings will be better informed by future research that focuses on the specific context of the victimization incident and the victim–offender relationship. Such information would more fully inform the existing juvenile justice research regarding school safety planning, which often emphasizes school-level factors, such as security, conflict resolution, and school culture without accounting for the actual individual-level opportunity structures that are behind victimization.

That said, the findings from this study suggest that attempts to reduce school misconduct might also reduce the risk of victimization. Administrators are likely aware of individuals who are chronically tardy or absent from school and/or receive disciplinary action, and focusing on these individuals for intervention might work to reduce both problem behavior and victimization. However, note that tardiness or absence from school or acting out in other ways could also be a consequence, rather than a cause, of victimization (e.g., similar to the effects of victimization on the social bond to school; Popp & Peguero, 2012). Other research has shown that having more male friends increases violence perpetration for females (Haynie et al., 2007; McGloin & DiPeitro, 2013). While we do not measure violent behavior in the current study, our results suggest that having more male friends increase female misconduct, which in turn increase their risk of violent victimization. Thus, school administrators might consider whether the ways in which they punish school misconduct (e.g., detention or suspensions) potentially promote delinquent affiliation and especially delinquent affiliation across gender.

Additionally, given our findings regarding involvement in school activities and victimization, parents and school administrators may consider the supervision afforded to students before, during, and after extracurricular activities to ensure students are adequately supervised. To the extent that sport and nonsport activities are supervised to varying degrees for male-only, female-only, or mixed activities, gender differences in supervision may contribute to gender differences in victimization. The above discussion suggests that transitioning from an offender-oriented to a victim-centered or problem-oriented approach for addressing school victimization may be warranted. This shift in focus will help researchers and policy makers alike to understand and lower the risk factors associated with school victimization. These ideas are open questions and deserving of further scientific scrutiny so that hopefully, school-centered policies can be developed and implemented to effectively reduce victimization risks among both male and female adolescents.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A1.

Survey Items and Coding for Endogenous and Exogenous Variables.

Construct	Survey Items, Coding, Cronbach’s α, principal components analysis results
Violent victimization	In the first semester or term of this school year, how many times did any of the following happen? (Responses coded as dichotomous measure: 0 = never; 1 = once or more) Someone threatened to hurt me at school Someone hit me Someone used strong-arm methods or force to get something from me
Property victimization	In the first semester or term of this school year, how many times did any of the following happen? (Responses coded as dichotomous measure: 0 = never; 1 = once or more) I had something stolen from me at school Someone purposely damaged or destroyed my belongings
Intramural sports	For the following items, intramural means competition between teams or students within the same school. For each sport listed below, indicate whether you participated on an intramural team in this sport during this school year. (Count of participation in the following sports) Baseball; Softball; Basketball; Football; Soccer; Other team sport; An individual sport; Cheerleading, Pompon (Pompom), or Drill team
Interscholastic sports	For the following items, interscholastic means competition between teams from different schools. For each sport listed below, indicate whether you have participated on an interscholastic team during this school year (Count of participation in the following sports) Baseball; Softball; Basketball; Football; Soccer; Other team sport; An individual sport; Cheerleading, Pompon (Pompom), or Drill team
Nonsport activities	Have you participated in the following school-sponsored activities this school year? (Count of participation in the following activities) Band, orchestra, chorus, choir; School play or musical; Student government; National Honor Society or other academic honor society; School yearbook, newspaper, literary magazine; Service club; Academic club; Hobby club; Vocational education club, vocational student organization
School misconduct	How many times did the following things happen to you in the first semester or term of this school year? (Responses coded as: 0 = never; 1 = 1–2 times; 2 = 3–6 times; 3 = 7–9 times; 4 = 10 or more times) I was late for school. I cut or skipped classes I was absent from school. I got in trouble for not following rules I was put on in-school suspension. I was suspended or put on probation Cronbach’s α = 0.72 (factor loadings range from 0.54 to 0.76; 45.29% of variance explained)
Low self-control	How often do these things apply to you? (Coded: 0 = Almost always; 1 = often; 2 = sometimes; 3 = almost never) Impulsivity I study to increase my job opportunities I study to ensure that my future will be financially secure. Simple Tasks When I sit myself down to learn something really hard, I can learn it When studying, I try to work as hard as possible When studying, I put forth my best effort If I decide not to get any bad grades, I can really do it. When studying, I keep working even if the material is difficult If I decide not to get any problems wrong, I can really do it When studying, I try to do my best to acquire the knowledge and skills taught If I want to learn something well, I can Cronbach’s α = .92 (factor loadings range from 0.71 to 0.83; 58.30% of variance explained)
Prosocial friends	Among your close friends, how important is it to them that they (Coded: 0 = Not important; 1 = somewhat important; 2 = very important) Attend classes regularly; Study; Get good grades; Finish high school; Continue their education past high school
	Cronbach’s α =0.84 (factor loadings range from 0.71 to 0.81; 60.62% of variance explained)
Popular friends	Among your close friends, how important is it to them that they (Coded: 0 = Not important; 1 = somewhat important; 2 = very important) Play sports; Be popular/well-liked by others; Have a steady boyfriend/girlfriend; Get together with friends; Go to parties
	Cronbach’s α =0.69 (factor loadings range from 0.58 to 0.73; 44.86% of variance explained)
Opposite-sex friend ratio	Please write down the names of your best friends at your present school. Please fill in up to three names. If you have fewer close friends, provide less than three names…Is this friend…? (0 = male; 1 = female) Variable is the number of friends who are of the opposite sex from the respondent divided by the total number of friends listed
Race	Are you Hispanic or Latino/a? Please select one or more of the following choices to best describe your race.(Coded: 0 = White, non-Hispanic; 1 = nonwhite or Hispanic) White; Black/African American; Asian; Hispanic or Latino/a; Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander; American Indian or Alaska Native
Socioeconomic Status	SES is based on five equally weighted, standardized components: father’s/guardian’s education, mother’s/guardian’s education, family income, father’s/guardian’s occupation, and mother’s/guardian’s occupation
Educational achievement	This is the average of the math and reading standardized scores, re-standardized to a national mean of 50.0 and standard deviation of 10.0. For students with one score, the composite is based on the available score

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

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

Notes

References

Asparouhov

(2005). Sampling weights in latent variable modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 411–434.

Augustine

M. C.

Wilcox

Ousey

G. C.

Clayton

R. R.

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

Baron

S. W.

Forde

D. R.

Kay

F. M.

(2007). Self-control, risky lifestyles, and situation: The role of opportunity and context in the general theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 119–136.

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504.

Cohen

L. E.

Felson

(1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 4, 588–608.

Cohen

L. E.

Kluegel

J. R.

Land

K. C.

(1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review, 46, 505–524.

Costello

B. J.

(2010). Peer influence toward conformity. Journal of Crime and Justice, 33, 97–116.

Felson

(1995). Those who discourage crime. Crime and Place, 4, 53–66.

Felson

R. B.

Burchfield

K. B.

(2004). Alcohol and the risk of physical and sexual assault victimization. Criminology, 42, 837–860.

10.

Fineran

Bolen

R. M.

(2006). Risk factors for peer sexual harassment in schools. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1169–1190.

11.

Flexon

J. L.

Meldrum

R. C.

Piquero

A. R.

(2016). Low self-control and the victim–offender overlap: A gendered analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 2052–2076.

12.

Garofalo

Siegel

Laub

(1987). School-related victimizations among adolescents: An analysis of National Crime Survey (NCS) narratives. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 321–338.

13.

Gottfredson

D. C.

(1986). Empirical test of school-based environmental and individual interventions to reduce the risk of delinquent behavior. Criminology, 24, 705–732.

14.

Grasmick

C. R.

Tittle

Bursik

R. J.

Arneklev

B. J.

(1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 5–29.

15.

Haynie

D. L.

Doogan

N. J.

Soller

(2014). Gender, friendship networks, and delinquency: A dynamic network approach. Criminology, 52, 688–722.

16.

Haynie

D. L.

Piquero

A. R.

(2006). Pubertal development and physical victimization in adolescence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 3–35.

17.

Haynie

D. L.

Soller

(2015). A social network perspective of gender and crime. In Cullen

F. T.

Wilcox

Lux

J. L.

Lero Johnson

(Eds.), Sisters in crime revisited (pp. 149–172). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

18.

Haynie

D. L.

Steffensmeier

Bell

K. E.

(2007). Gender and serious violence: Untangling the role of friendship sex composition and peer violence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 235–253.

19.

Henson

Wilcox

Reyns

B. W.

Cullen

F. T.

(2010). Gender, adolescent lifestyles, and violent victimization: Implications for routine activity theory. Victims & Offenders, 5, 303–328.

20.

Ingels

S. J.

Pratt

D. J.

Wilson

Burns

L. J.

Currivan

Rogers

J. E.

(2007). Education longitudinal study of 2002: Base-year to second follow-up data file documentation (NCES 2008–347). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

21.

Jensen

G. F.

Brownfield

(1986). Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: Beyond routine activity. Violence and Victims, 30, 85–99.

22.

Lauritsen

J. L.

Sampson

R. J.

Laub

J. H.

(1991). The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265–292.

23.

McGloin

J. M.

DiPietro

(2013). Girls, friends, and delinquency. In Cullen

F. T.

Wilcox

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminological theory (pp. 294–312). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

24.

Menard

Covey

H. C.

(2015). Age and gender variations in the victimization-offending relationship in a national sample, ages 11–88. Victims & Offenders, 10, 1–18.

25.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(2010). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

26.

Nofziger

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

27.

Osgood

D. W.

Wilson

J. K.

O’Malley

P. M.

Bachman

J. G.

Johnston

L. D.

(1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61, 635–655.

28.

Peguero

A. A.

(2008). Bullying victimization and extracurricular activity. Journal of School Violence, 7, 71–85.

29.

Peguero

A. A.

(2009). Opportunity, involvement, and student exposure to school violence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7, 299–312.

30.

Peguero

A. A.

(2013). An adolescent victimization immigrant paradox? School-based routines, lifestyles, and victimization across immigration generations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 1759–1773.

31.

Peguero

A. A.

Popp

A. M.

(2012). Youth violence at school and the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 1–9.

32.

Popp

A. M.

Peguero

A. A.

(2011). Routine activities and victimization at school: The significance of gender. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2413–2436.

33.

Popp

A. M.

Peguero

A. A.

(2012). Social bonds and the role of school-based victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 3366–3388.

34.

Pratt

T. C.

Turanovic

J. J.

Fox

K. A.

Wright

K. A.

(2014). Self-control and victimization: A metaanalysis. Criminology, 52, 87–116.

35.

Robers

Zhang

Morgan

R. E.

Musu-Gillette

(2015). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2014 (NCES 2015-072/NCJ 248036). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

36.

Schreck

C. J.

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

37.

Schreck

C. J.

Fisher

B. S.

Miller

J. M.

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

38.

Schreck

C. J.

Wright

R. A.

Miller

J. M.

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

39.

Stogner

Miller

J. M.

Fisher

B. S.

Stewart

E. A.

Schreck

C. J.

(2014). Peer group delinquency and sexual victimization: Does popularity matter? Women & Criminal Justice, 24, 62–81.

40.

Swartz

Reyns

B. W.

Wilcox

Dunham

J. R.

(2012). Patterns of victimization between and within peer clusters in a high school social network. Violence and Victims, 27, 710–729.

41.

Tillyer

M. S.

Wilcox

Gialopsos

B. M.

(2010). Adolescent school-based sexual victimization: Exploring the role of opportunity in a gender-specific multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1071–1081.

42.

Turanovic

J. C.

Pratt

T. C.

(2014). “Can’t stop, won’t stop”: Self-control, risky lifestyles, and repeat victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 29–56.

43.

Turanovic

J. J.

Reisig

M. D.

Pratt

T. C.

(2014). Risky lifestyles, low self-control, and violent victimization across gendered pathways to crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 183–206.

44.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Education Longitudinal Study of 2002: Base Year Data File User’s Manual, NCES 2004.405. In Ingels

Steven J.

Pratt

Daniel J.

Rogers

James E.

Siegel

Peter H.

Stutts

Ellen S.

(Eds.), Project Officer: Jeffrey A. Owings. Washington, DC.

45.

Wilcox

Fisher

B. S.

Lasky

N. V.

(2015). Gendered opportunity and victimization. In Cullen

F. T.

Wilcox

Lux

J. L.

Lero Johnson

(Eds.), Sisters in crime revisited (pp. 189–208). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

46.

Wilcox

Tillyer

M. S.

Fisher

B. S.

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

47.

Zaykowski

Gunter

W. D.

(2013). Gender differences in victimization risk: Exploring the role of deviant lifestyles. Violence and Victims, 28, 341–356.