Interpersonal and property victimization: An exploratory study of criminogenic risk factors of Hong Kong adolescents

Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104475

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Interpersonal and property victimization: An exploratory study of criminogenic risk factors of Hong Kong adolescents

T

Heng Choon (Oliver) Chan Teaching Laboratory for Forensics and Criminology, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Keywords: Victimization Interpersonal victimization Property victimization Criminogenic risk factor Adolescent Hong Kong

Little is known about victims of crime in Hong Kong, particularly from a theoretical standpoint. Using a sample of 1306 secondary school students, this study aims to explore the criminogenic risk factors of victimization in Hong Kong adolescents. Grounded in the theoretical propositions of mainstream criminological theories (i.e., self-control, social control, social learning, general strain, and routine activity), the adolescents' types of victimization (i.e., overall, interpersonal, and property) are examined. The findings indicate that male adolescents reported significantly more overall and interpersonal victimization than female adolescents. Relative to female adolescents, male adolescents had significantly higher levels of pro-violence attitudes, alcohol and drug use, and perception of neighborhood disorganization, but lower levels of self-control, social bonds, and deviant peer influence. Multivariate analyses indicate that deviant peer influence and perception of neighborhood disorganization are significant risk factors of overall and interpersonal victimization, while self-control and alcohol and drug use are significantly associated with adolescents' experience with property victimization. Implications of the findings are suggested to address adolescents' criminogenic risk factors in order to reduce their probability of falling prey to victimization.

1. Introduction Criminal victimization has long been regarded as an important global public health problem. According to the latest Hong Kong Thematic Household Survey on crime and its victims, the estimated number of criminal victimizations in 2005 was 358,800, which indicates an increase of 1.9% when compared to the 352,200 criminal victimizations reported in the 1998 survey (Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department, 2007). The victimization rate for personal offenses (i.e., crimes of violence [e.g., wounding and assault, robbery, and indecent assault] and personal crimes of theft [e.g., snatching, pickpocketing, and other personal theft]) in 2005 was 35.3 per 1000 persons aged 12 and over, while that for household offenses (e.g., burglary, theft of and from vehicle, and other household theft) was 65.7 per 1000 households. Among different age groups, individuals aged 12 to 19 years had the highest overall victimization rate of 46.7 per 1000 persons. Regarding gender difference, the victimization rate of females was 37.0 per 1000 persons aged 12 and over, which was higher than that of males at 33.4 per 1000 persons. Victimization is likely to lead to adverse consequences and can be long-lasting. Victims of crime are at risk of experiencing a range of psychological problems, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Hapke, Schumann, Rumpf, John, & Meyer, 2006) and substance abuse

(Gutierres & Van Puymbroeck, 2006). Moreover, criminal victimization is a common cause of injury and health-related problems among adult males and females (Brickman, Davis, Rabinovich, Cantor, & Shapiro, 2002). The adverse condition is arguably more serious for individuals who experience prolonged or multiple forms of traumatic victimizations (i.e., poly-victimization) who may at heightened risk for continuing to experience repeated victimization throughout their lifetimes (see Musicaro et al., 2019 for a review). It should also be noted that negative effects of victimization are in part due to coping approaches employed by victims (Chan & Wong, 2017). Indeed, Völlink, Bolman, Dehue, and Jacobs (2013) found that ineffective coping seems to yield depression and other health issues. Gender is a commonly studied construct in victimization. Past research demonstrates that male and female differed in their frequency and intensity of victimization, and their subsequent outcomes (e.g., Fox, Nobles, & Piquero, 2009; Gershon, Minor, & Hayward, 2008; Pimlott-Kubiak & Cortina, 2003). In general, males are more likely than females to be victims of crimes (Jennings, Gover, & Pudrzynska, 2007). However, on specific offenses such interpersonal violence, serious sexual assault, and stalking, females were found to have experienced a higher risk of victimization than males (Chan, 2015, 2019a; Chan & Sheridan, 2017; Chan, Li, Liu, Lu, & Jia, 2019; Gover, Kaukinen, & Fox, 2008). Moreover, Armstrong, Cain, Wylie, Muftić, and Bouffard (2018)

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104475 Received 14 August 2019; Received in revised form 22 August 2019; Accepted 22 August 2019 Available online 23 August 2019 0190-7409/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104475

H.C.O. Chan

found that female youth reported significantly and sometimes extensively more direct victimization and poly-victimization than male youth, especially with respect to forced sex and sexual abuse. Although there is a plethora of literature on topics related to victims of crime, little is known about the nature and prevalence of criminal victimization in Hong Kong, particularly among adolescents. Therefore, it is worthwhile to try to understand this phenomenon in Hong Kong. It is especially important to explore the potential effects of criminogenic risk factors in determining adolescents' risk of victimization. The findings of this study will certainly add to our knowledge in this area and contribute to the repertoire of literature on this topic.

the strength and weakness of social bonds, it has been adopted recently to explain victimization (Jennings, Higgins, Tewksbury, Gover, & Piquero, 2010; Posick, 2013). According to this model, individuals with strong social bonds with their parents, prosocial peers, and schools are less likely to engage in delinquent/criminal activities. Hence, they tend to experience a lower risk of victimization in part due to their reduced exposure to deviant peers and to risky routine activities and lifestyle choices, and also due to greater exposure to effective guardianship (Felson, 1986; Schreck, Fisher, & Miller, 2004). Conversely, individuals without strong supervision are more likely than others to engage in risky activities, which in turn expose them to victimization risk. Meanwhile, the general strain theory (Agnew, 2002) posits that strain or stressful events trigger negative affective states or emotions such as anger and depression, and that these emotions in turn create pressure for corrective action (e.g., delinquency, maladaptive coping strategy). Such strains violate justice norms, are high in magnitude, have associations with low social control, and create incentives or pressures for individuals to engage in maladaptive behaviors (Heerde et al., 2019; Turanovic & Pratt, 2013). These coping strategies may ultimately have implications for the attitudes, beliefs, and actions that, in turn, shape life-course trajectories (Macmillan, 2001). For victims of violence in particular, these trajectories may include both substance use and offending (Baron, 2009; Hay & Meldrum, 2010). For instance, criminal victimization often provides a justification for deviance in the eyes of the victim, and can foster the social learning of offending by exposing victims to criminal others as well as others' techniques and rationalizations for delinquency. Hence, individuals' experiencing stressors (i.e., strains) interacts with individuals' characteristics and is likely to heighten their risk of being victimized. Besides, traits such as impulsivity and disagreeableness may strain social relationships. Peers and family members of individuals with these traits may lash out at them, making them victims of abuse or bullying (Grubb & Posick, 2018). Felson's (1992) social interactionist approach postulates that the victim's resentment, aggression, and desire for revenge may lead to a cycle of violence and retaliation. Retaliation in particular may cause an escalation in violence (Silver, Piquero, Jennings, Piquero, & Leiber, 2011). The learning approach, exemplified by Sutherland's (1947) differential association theory and Akers (1985) social learning theory, hypothesizes that delinquency/criminal behavior is learned through close social interaction with family and peers in the forms of reinforcement and reward/punishment. Specifically, the imitation of observed behavior is a key process of behavioral learning (Bandura, 1973). Simply put, when an individual anticipates incentives, his/her likelihood of learning the observed behavior increases. The impact of such exposure, nonetheless, varies greatly according to the frequency, duration, intensity, and priority of different associations (Akers, 1998). Although the primary social groups (e.g., family and peers) tend to have a strong influence on the behavioral learning process, secondary and reference groups (e.g., the school system, colleagues and work groups, the mass media, the Internet, and computer and mobile games) can be equally pertinent to normative definitions (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, values, and norms) in the learning process (Warr, 2002). Despite the fact that this theoretical model was originally developed to explain offending behavior, the learning approach has recently been extended to explain victimization in terms of deviant peer association, and this has received much empirical support (e.g., Haynie, 2001; Schreck et al., 2004; Taylor, Peterson, Esbensen, & Freng, 2007). Specifically, Taylor et al. (2007) found that delinquent lifestyle factors (e.g., unsupervised leisure time, availability of alcohol and/or drugs, negative peer commitment, and delinquent peer involvement) mediate the direct relationship of gang membership on rates of violent victimization. Gang members were more likely than non-gang members to engage in unsupervised hanging out with peers, to hang out where drugs and/or alcohol were available, and to engage in a substantially greater amount of delinquent behavior, which in turn resulted in a greater amount of violent victimization.

2. Theoretical background Various theoretical approaches have been adopted in the past halfcentury to explain juvenile delinquency and adult offending behavior. A number of mainstream criminological theories have been widely applied to understand such the specific phenomenon of victimization. Among others, self-control theory (a.k.a. general theory of crime) is arguably one of the most tested and influential criminological theories (see Pratt & Cullen, 2000). This theory hypothesizes that individuals with less self-control are more likely to engage in delinquent/criminal activities in pursuit of immediate gratification, without considering potential consequences (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). Adolescents with low self-control are postulated to manifest six core characteristics: they are impulsive, self-centered, short-tempered, risk-seekers, and they prefer simple over complex tasks and physical over mental activities (Muraven, Pogarsky, & Shmueli, 2006). Schreck (1999) posited that individuals with low self-control (e.g., exhibiting irritability, disagreeability, and an inability to recognize the long-term effects of actions) are associated with the risk of being victimized. Although this theoretical framework was initially developed to explain offending behavior, the low self-control explanation of victimization has also received much empirical support (e.g., Flexon, Meldrum, & Piquero, 2016; Higgins, Jennings, Tewksbury, & Gibson, 2009), particularly with regard to lethal victimization (Piquero, MacDonald, Dobrin, Daigle, & Cullen, 2005) and cyber victimization (Reisig, Pratt, & Holtfreter, 2009). Schreck (1999) postulated that self-centered individuals are also likely to engage in victim-precipitating behaviors simply by being insensitive to others, which then may increase their vulnerability by possibly inciting confrontation. Similarly, being quick to anger may exaggerate and incite interpersonal conflicts by provoking an assault or counter measures. This assertion was supported by recent research that demonstrated the significance of the individual's self-control and temperament in relation to offending and victimization (DeLisi & Vaughn, 2014). Those who lack self-control are less likely to be cautious and take precautions, which may increase their vulnerability to victimization. In addition, a preference for physicality and risk is likely to place individuals in situations where an increased risk for victimization is highly possible (i.e., failing to conduct a careful assessment of risk before any actions; e.g., hitch-hiking). The control theories, especially the social control theory (also commonly known as the social bonding theory), also offer another theoretical explanation that attempts to explicate the reasons why adolescents are victimized. Hirschi (1969) hypothesized that there are four key elements of social bonds: (1) attachment (i.e., the affective and emotional ties toward parents, peers, and school), (2) commitment (i.e., an individual's investment in conventional [prosocial] behavior, including a willingness to do what is promised and respecting the expectations of others regarding carrying out one's promises), (3) involvement (i.e., active participation in prosocial activities such as sports, religious practices, and community service), and (4) belief (i.e., respect for the moral validity of societal norms and regulations). These elements are strongly correlated, and their combined effect is likely to be stronger than their individual effect. Although this theory was initially developed to explain delinquent/criminal behavior in terms of 2

Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104475

H.C.O. Chan

Simply put, individuals who often socialize with violent peers (e.g., learning of pro-violence attitudes, alcohol and/or drug use) are likely to heighten their risk of victimization, whereas low-risk youth primarily avoid such violent persons. According to Haynie (2001), popularity in a peer network may compel individuals to go along with criminal activities of the group to maintain their popularity, thereby risking victimization through retaliation. Situational mechanisms, such as routine activities and lifestyle choices, are also commonly adopted to explain victimization. The routine activity theory, proffered by Cohen and Felson (1979), describes victimization as the outcome of legitimate, routine daily activities that expose poorly guarded targets to potential offenders in close proximity. Specifically, this theory postulates that the possibility of an offense occurring is generally influenced by the convergence in space and time of three key elements in the daily routines of individuals: (1) a motivated or potential offender, (2) an attractive and suitable target, and (3) an ineffective or absent guardian for protecting against a violation. The lack of any one of these elements diminishes the likelihood of a potential offense occurring (Felson & Cohen, 1980). This theoretical model addresses the differential risk of victimization based on individuals' daily lifestyles. Wittebrood and Nieuwbeerta (2000) hypothesized that: (1) a criminal-opportunity structure is created from patterns of routine activities and lifestyles through contact between a potential offender and target and (2) the selection of a particular crime victim is determined by the offender's subjective value of the target and its level of guardianship. Thus, an individual's vulnerability to becoming a victim is greatly associated with their specific daily activities (e.g., prosocial or deviant peer association), lifestyle (e.g., living environment), and status (e.g., personal characteristics) (Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002; Tewksbury & Mustaine, 2001). Nonetheless, those who engage in delinquency may also be exposed to victimization as delinquent/criminal peers are rarely an effective source of protection from aggressors (Cho & Lee, 2018; Schreck et al., 2004).

4. Methods 4.1. Participants and procedure Geographically located in the Asia Pacific region, Hong Kong has been a special administrative region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) since July 1997. With approximately 95% of its population of Chinese descent, Hong Kong is a modernized Chinese society and is one of the major financial hubs in the Asia Pacific region. Hong Kong was a British colony for more than 150 years before its return to the PRC. Hence, substantial Western influences on the daily life of Hong Kongers are anticipated. Particularly, younger people in Hong Kong largely balance their Western modernized lifestyle with traditional Chinese cultural values and practices.1 The participants recruited for this study were adolescents between 13 and 18 years of age who attended one of 12 selected secondary schools in Hong Kong. These schools were stratified according to their geographic region (i.e., Hong Kong Island, the Kowloon Peninsula, and the New Territories). Ethical approval was obtained from the university's institutional review board (IRB) and various school administrators. The participants' informed consent was subsequently acquired before the administration of the paper-pencil questionnaires. Their participation in this study was completely voluntary, with no monetary incentive offered. They were reassured that their responses would be kept confidential and used only for research purposes. On average, the participants used 25 min to complete the questionnaire. The response and cooperation rate for this questionnaire survey was approximately 90%. In this study, a total of 1306 participants were recruited, 57.9% of whom were male (N = 756) and the remaining 42.1% of whom were female (N = 550) (please see Table 1). The participants' average age was 16.74 years old (SD = 1.89), with a slight age difference between males (M = 16.87, SD = 1.85) and females (M = 16.56, SD = 1.92). This difference was significant (t = 2.96, p = .003). Three quarters (76%) of the participants were local Hong Kongers, with the remainder being from either Mainland China (22.5%) or other Asian countries (1.5%; e.g., Macau, Malaysia, and Taiwan). Most participants reported that they had no affiliation with any religious belief (72.4%) and that their family was not on any social welfare assistance (77%). A large majority of the participants reported that they had had no victimization experience (90.7%) during the past 12 months, with 91.6% and 97.7% referring specifically to interpersonal and property victimization, respectively.

3. The present study Through testing several mainstream theoretical concepts, this study aims to explore the criminogenic risk factors that are associated with overall, interpersonal, and property victimization in Hong Kong male and female adolescents. This study is important not only because it examines different types of victimization through testing a number of mainstream criminological theories, but also because it explores the potential gender differences in different types of victimization in a sample of Hong Kong adolescents. Besides, this study is particularly interested to explore the applicability of these theoretical constructs in explaining the victimization in a sample of Chinese adolescents. More importantly, not only does this study fills the theoretical gap by testing the criminological concepts in a Chinese society, findings of this study can inform practice (e.g., preventive measures) by identifying significant criminogenic risk factors for different types of victimization. Strategic interventions could potentially help to reduce adolescents' likelihood of falling prey to victimization. Drawing from the extant literature, the following research hypotheses are proposed.

4.2. Measures A collection of self-reported measures were utilized to explore (a) the participants' prevalence of self-reported overall, interpersonal, and property victimization; (b) the gender differences in these three types of victimization and criminogenic risk factors; and (c) the effect of 1

Traditional Chinese culture, shaped by a tradition of four thousand years of history and maintained by the same language, provides Chinese Mainlanders their basic identity. This cultural value system distinguishes it from other cultures, particularly Western cultures. Traditional Chinese culture consists of diverse and sometimes competing schools of thought, including Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. For instance, Confucianism largely forms the foundation of Chinese cultural tradition, which emphasizes human relationships, social structures, virtuous behavior, and work ethics (Pye, 1972). The basic teaching of Confucius stresses the Five Constant Virtues (i.e., humanity, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faithfulness), which further define the five basic human relations and principles for each relation (i.e., loyalty and duty, love and obedience, obligation and submission, seniority and modeling subject, and trust; Ch'en, 1986). Thus, relationships are structured to ensure a harmonious society, with emphasis on filial piety and loyalty as the most important virtues.

Hypothesis 1. There are gender differences at the mean levels of different types of victimization (i.e., overall, interpersonal, and property offense) and criminogenic risk factor (i.e., self-control, social bonds, pro-violence attitudes, negative temperament, deviant peer influence, alcohol and drug use, and perceived neighborhood disorganization). Hypothesis 2. Criminogenic risk factors are anticipated to be associated with different types of victimization, even after controlling for adolescents' demographic characteristics (i.e., age, sex, and religiosity). 3

Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104475

H.C.O. Chan

in this study. The LSCS is measured on a four-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree), with a higher score indicating greater self-control. A total score ranges from 23 to 92. Sample items were, “I lose my temper pretty easily,” “I often act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think,” and “Sometimes I will take a risk just for the fun of it.” The alpha coefficient of this measure was 0.89. This measure has also been widely used in Chinese samples with acceptable range of internal consistency (i.e., 0.76–0.86; e.g., Chan & Chui, 2017; Chui & Chan, 2013, 2015, 2016).

Table 1 Sample demographic characteristics (N = 1306). Variable

N

Percentage

Sex (N = 1306) Male 756 57.9% Female 550 42.1% Age M = 16.74, SD = 1.89, range = 13–18 Male (M = 16.87, SD = 1.85), Female (M = 16.56, SD = 1.92); t = 2.96, p = .003 Country of origin (N = 1292) Hong Kong 982 76.0% Mainland China 291 22.5% Others (e.g., Macau, Malaysia, & 19 1.5% Taiwan) Religious belief (N = 1292) Without a religious belief 935 72.4% With a religious belief (e.g., Catholic, 357 27.6% Buddhism, Christianity, Muslim) Family as recipient of social welfare (N = 1242) assistance Yes 286 23.0% No 956 77.0% Self-reported victimization (overall) (N = 1306) Yes 122 90.7% No 1184 9.3% Self-reported victimization (interpersonal (N = 1306) offense) Yes 110 91.6% No 1196 8.4% Self-reported victimization (property (N = 1306) offense) Yes 30 97.7% No 1276 2.3%

4.2.3. Social bonding scale Based on Hirschi's (1969) social control theory, an 18-item Social Bonding Scale (SBC) (Chapple, McQuillan, & Berdahl, 2005) was utilized to measure the participants' conventional ties with and attachments to their parents, peers, school, and society as a whole. The attachment to parents in the SBC was extracted into two separate latent variables (i.e., parental bonding and parental dependence). These items were assessed using a four-point Likert scale (1 = never, 4 = many times; two items) and a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; 16 items), with a total score ranging from 18 to 88. A higher score denoted a greater social bond. Sample items were, “I would like to be the kind of person my best friend is,” “I share my thoughts and feelings with my mother,” and “I have lots of respect for the police.” The Cronbach's α value of this measure was 0.73. A good range of inter-item reliability (i.e., 0.68–0.77) was also found in previous studies that recruited Chinese adolescents (e.g., Chan & Chui, 2012, 2013, 2015; Chui & Chan, 2012, Chui & Chan, 2013). 4.2.4. Pro-violence attitudes scale A seven-item measure was utilized to evaluate the participants' attitudes in support of violence. These items were extracted from Pyrooz, Moule Jr., and Decker's (2014) study on the subculture of street code in the involvement of gang activities. This measure adopted a four-point Likert scale (0 = strongly disagree, 3 = strongly agree), with a total score ranging from 0 to 21. A higher score indicated a more supportive level of pro-violence attitudes. Sample items were, “People tend to respect a person who is tough and aggressive,” “People do not respect a person who is afraid to fight physically for his/her rights,” and “When someone disrespects you, it is important that you use physical force or aggression to teach him/her not to disrespect you.” The internal consistency of this measure was 0.90. A high level of Cronbach α value was also obtained in Chan (2019a) study of 892 Hong Kong adolescents.

criminogenic risk factors in predicting overall, interpersonal, and property victimization. The questionnaires were printed in both English and Chinese versions to accommodate the participants' different language abilities. To accommodate the local Chinese population, the English-written scales were first translated by an experienced and academically qualified English-to-Chinese translator. Subsequently, the Chinese version of the scales were back translated to English to ensure their face validity and to compare them with the original measures developed in English to determine their content similarity. 4.2.1. Self-reported victimization scale To assess the prevalence of interpersonal and property victimization among the participants during the previous 12 months, 11 questions were used to explore whether they had (a) experienced victimization themselves, (b) witnessed victimization happen to others, and/or (c) heard about victimization experienced by someone they knew. In this measure, nine items were identified as interpersonal victimization and two items as property victimization. With each item asked in three different ways, a total of 33 items were included in this measure. This measure was based on studies conducted by Maldonado-Molina, Jennings, Tobler, Piquero, and Canino (2010) and Posick (2013). Sample items included asking if the person had been “Sexually assaulted, molested, or raped” (interpersonal victimization) and “Had something stolen” (property victimization). The composite overall, interpersonal, and property victimization variables were highly skewed (most participants had never experienced any victimization); therefore, logged overall, interpersonal, and property victimization variables were generated to more closely approximate a normal distribution.

4.2.5. Negative temperament scale The participants' level of negative emotions was measured with an eight-item scale using a four-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree), with a total score ranging from 8 to 32 (Tillyer & Wright, 2014). A higher score denoted a more strongly negative temperament. Sample items were, “I lose my temper easily,” “I get angry easily,” and “I frequently have mood swings.” The Cronbach's α value of this measure was 0.70. An acceptable level of internal consistency of this scale was also reported in Chan (2019b) study. 4.2.6. Deviant peer influence scale To assess peer delinquency and its potential influences, a five-item measure was used. The participants were asked about the delinquent activities of their peers in dichotomized items (0 = no, 1 = yes), with a total score ranging from 0 to 5 (Posick, 2013). A higher score indicated a greater number of delinquent acts by peers. Sample items were, “I have friends who entered a building with the purpose of stealing something,” “I have friends who stole something from a shop or department store,” and “I have friends who beat someone up or hurt someone badly with something like a stick or a knife.” The internal consistency of this measure was 0.69. An acceptable level of alpha coefficient of this measure was also found in Chan (2019b) study.

4.2.2. Self-control scale Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) original six elements of self-control (i.e., impulsivity, risk-seeking, self-centeredness, volatile temper, preference for simple tasks, and preference for physical activities) are also widely known as indicators of low self-control. To assess the participants' levels of self-control, the widely adopted 23-item Low Self-Control Scale (LSCS) (Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993) was used 4

Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104475

H.C.O. Chan

Table 2 Gender differences of the prevalence of self-reported overall, interpersonal, and property victimization; and criminogenic risk factors. Variable

All sample

Male

Female

(N = 1306)

(N = 756)

(N = 550)

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

t value

Types of victimization Overall victimization Personal victimization Property victimization

0.09 0.08 0.02

0.29 0.28 0.15

0.11 0.11 0.03

0.32 0.31 0.16

0.07 0.05 0.02

0.25 0.22 0.14

3.09 3.69 0.61

Criminogenic risk factors Self-control Social bonding Pro-violence attitudes Negative temperament Deviant peer influence Alcohol and drug use Disorganized neighborhood

60.26 55.45 15.07 19.47 9.71 11.04 9.16

10.17 9.03 4.51 4.04 0.82 5.57 3.33

59.25 54.01 15.74 19.35 9.65 11.60 9.36

10.45 8.99 4.70 4.01 0.91 6.31 3.44

61.65 57.44 14.17 19.63 9.79 10.27 8.88

9.62 8.71 4.09 4.09 0.66 4.27 3.16

−4.28 ⁎⁎⁎ −6.89 ⁎⁎⁎ 6.17 ⁎⁎⁎ −1.21 −3.27 ⁎⁎ 4.40 ⁎⁎⁎ 2.48 ⁎

⁎⁎ ⁎⁎⁎

p < .05. p < .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001. ⁎

⁎⁎

4.3. Analytic strategy

Table 3 Pearson correlations of self-reported overall, interpersonal, and property victimization. Type of delinquency

OV

All sample (N = 1306) Overall victimization (OV) Interpersonal victimization (IV) Property victimization (PV)

1.00 0.95 0.48

⁎⁎⁎

Male (N = 756) Overall victimization (OV) Interpersonal victimization (IV) Property victimization (PV)

1.00 0.97 0.45

⁎⁎⁎

Female (N = 550) Overall victimization (OV) Interpersonal victimization (IV) Property victimization (PV)

1.00 0.89 0.54

⁎⁎⁎

⁎⁎⁎

IV

⁎⁎⁎

⁎⁎⁎

⁎⁎⁎

1.00 0.29

1.00 0.33

1.00 0.20

In this study, independent sample t-tests were performed to examine the gender differences in different types of victimization (i.e., overall, interpersonal, and property) and criminogenic risk factors (i.e., selfcontrol, social bonding, pro-violence attitudes, negative temperament, deviant peer influence, alcohol and drug use, and perceived neighborhood disorganization). Pearson correlations were also computed to explore the interrelatedness of overall, interpersonal, and property victimization. Next, the ordinary least square (OLS) regression approach was used to investigate the effects of different criminogenic risk factors on self-reported overall, interpersonal, and property victimization, while controlling for the participants' demographic characteristics (i.e., age, sex, and religiosity). The significance level was set at 0.05. Pearson correlations of the tested variables were computed. No correlation at or above 0.70 was found, indicating no collinearity.

PV

⁎⁎⁎

1.00

⁎⁎⁎

1.00

⁎⁎⁎

1.00

p < .001.

5. Results

4.2.7. Alcohol and drug use scale An eight-item measure using a six-point Likert scale (0 = never, 5 = 20 or more times) was adopted to assess the participants' alcohol and drug use over the previous 30 days. With a total score ranging from 0 to 40, a higher score signified a higher frequency of alcohol and drug use (Espelage, Low, Rao, Hong, & Little, 2014). Sample items were, “Used inhalants (like gasoline, sprays, glue),” “Used marijuana (like pot, hash, reefer),” and “Drunk liquor (like whiskey or gin).” The alpha coefficient of this measure was 0.89.

5.1. Mean differences between types of victimization and criminogenic risk factor Table 2 presents the mean scores for different types of victimization and criminogenic risk factors of male and female adolescents. Relative to females, males reported significantly higher levels of overall (t = 3.09, p = .002) and personal (t = 3.69, p < .001) victimization. Concerning the criminogenic risk factors, males scored significantly higher than females in their pro-violence attitudes (t = 6.17, p < .001), alcohol and drug use (t = 4.40, p < .001), and perceived neighborhood disorganization (t = 2.48, p = .013). On the other hand, females reported higher levels of self-control (t = −4.28, p < .001), social bonding (t = −6.89, p < .001), and deviant peer influence (t = −3.27, p = .001).

4.2.8. Perception of neighborhood disorganization scale The participants' living environment was measured with a five-item scale assessing their perception of neighborhood disorganization (Posick, 2013). These items were assessed using a four-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree), with a total score ranging from 5 to 20. Sample items were, “There is a lot of fighting,” “There is a lot of crime in my neighborhood,” and “There is a lot of drug selling.” These items were subsequently reverse-coded so that higher scores would denote higher levels of perceived neighborhood disorganization. The internal consistency of this measure was 0.93. A high level of inter-item reliability of this scale was also attained in another study of Hong Kong adolescents (Chan, 2019b).

5.2. Pearson correlations of overall, interpersonal, and property victimization Pearson correlations were adopted to examine the relationships among different types of victimization (i.e., overall, interpersonal, and property). As denoted in Table 3, all three types of victimization were found to be significantly and positively correlated with one another. The correlation coefficients for overall, interpersonal, and property victimization for the entire sample were ranged between 0.29 and 0.95. 5

Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104475

H.C.O. Chan

alcohol and drug use, and perceived neighborhood disorganization), and (2) to investigate whether the relationships between different types of victimization and criminogenic risk factors hold after controlling for demographic characteristics (i.e., age, sex, and religiosity). In general, male adolescents reported significantly more overall and interpersonal victimization than female adolescents. Relative to their female counterparts, male adolescents had significantly higher levels of pro-violence attitudes, alcohol and drug use, and perception of neighborhood disorganization, but lower levels of self-control, social bonds, and deviant peer influence. Put differently, male adolescents were generally found to possess an overall higher probability than female adolescents of falling prey to victimization. Generally, the criminogenic risk factors examined in this study were significantly associated with different types of victimization, and therefore our findings lend support to the various concepts of mainstream criminological theories. The findings denote that the approaches adopted to identify the influence exerted by learning (i.e., deviant peer influence) and routine activity and lifestyle (i.e., deviant peer influence and perception of neighborhood disorganization) were useful in explaining the overall, and specifically the interpersonal, victimization of Hong Kong adolescents. Property victimization, however, was found to be significantly explained by the self-control (i.e., low self-control) and routine activity and lifestyle (i.e., alcohol and drug use) approaches. Put differently, associating with delinquent peers and having a perception of neighborhood disorganization (e.g., living in a crime-prone environment) were found to be correlated with the tendency to fall prey to interpersonal victimization. According to the routine activity and lifestyle approach, adolescents are likely to have an increased risk of victimization if they spend considerable time in “unstructured socializing” with their delinquent peers, as these peers are hardly an effective source of protection for the adolescents (Schreck et al., 2004). Consistent with the notion that a deviant lifestyle may lead to a higher risk of victimization, alcohol and drug use among adolescents was also found to be a particularly important factor associated with property victimization. It is reasonable to argue that peer deviance and inherently maladaptive lifestyles are likely to contribute to a platform through which adolescents learn maladaptive behaviors (e.g., alcohol and drug use). For instance, gang members who spend substantial unsupervised time with delinquent peers are likely to become involved in delinquent activities (e.g., group fighting, property vandalism), which in turn leads them to risk being victimized by their rivals through retaliation (Haynie, 2001). Individuals who are exposed to deviant lifestyles are more likely to absorb deviant norms and values, which in turn make them more prone to both offending and victimization (Mills, 2003). In addition to the consumption of alcohol and drugs as a predictor of property victimization, adolescents' low self-control was also noted to be a significant risk factor of this type of victimization. The low selfcontrol explanation of victimization has consistently received much empirical support (e.g., Chan, 2019b; Flexon et al., 2016; Higgins et al., 2009; Piquero et al., 2005; Reisig et al., 2009). According to Schreck (1999), “It is not in anyone's self-interest to be a victim of crime, but low self-control behavior produces vulnerability as a by-product” (p. 635). As individuals who are low in self-control fail to appreciate longterm consequences of their actions, they are at a heightened risk of victimization through impulsive behavior, because they lack the capacity to appreciate future danger to themselves or their property. Several limitations of this study must be acknowledged. First, this study was limited by the use of self-reported data. Biases, such as memory recall and social desirability, are likely, which may subsequently lead to an underreporting of victimization experiences. In future, studies may consider incorporating a measure of response bias. Given the cross-sectional nature of this study, it failed to assess the causal relationship between the adolescents' criminogenic risk factors and their self-reported victimization experiences. Thus, future studies should consider adopting a longitudinal research model to better

Table 4 OLS regression models of self-reported overall, interpersonal, and property victimization. Predictors

Overall (logged)

Interpersonal (logged)

Property (logged)

B (SE)

B (SE)

B (SE)

0.00 (0.01) −0.01 (0.05)

0.02 (0.02) 0.10 (0.05)

−0.10 (0.06)

0.17 (0.06)⁎

0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) −0.05 (0.02)⁎⁎ 0.01 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01)⁎⁎

0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) 0.01 (0.01) −0.04 (0.02)⁎

−0.01 (0.01)⁎⁎ 0.01 (0.01) −0.02 (0.01) −0.02 (0.01) 0.03 (0.03)

0.01 (0.01) 0.02 (0.01)⁎⁎

0.01 (0.01)⁎ −0.01 (0.01)

−0.16 (0.44) 0.35 6.71⁎⁎⁎

−0.34 (0.42)

0.33 (0.63)

0.40 7.51⁎⁎⁎

0.50 3.39⁎

Demographic characteristics Age 0.01 (0.01) Religiosity (yes = 1) −0.01 (0.05) Sex (female = 1) −0.06 (0.06) Criminogenic risk factors Self-control Social bonding Pro-violence attitudes Negative temperament Deviant peer influence Alcohol and drug use Disorganized neighborhood Constant Adjusted R2 F

Notes: Unstandardized beta (B) and standard error (SE). ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001.

The correlation coefficients for male adolescents ranged from 0.33 to 0.97, and the range for female adolescents was between 0.20 and 0.89. 5.3. Effects of criminogenic risk factors on overall, interpersonal, and property victimization OLS regressions were used to explore the effects of criminogenic risk factors on self-reported overall, interpersonal, and property victimization, while controlling for the adolescents' demographic characteristics (i.e., age, sex, and religiosity). Table 4 illustrates that all regression models were significant. In general, the Hong Kong adolescents' levels of deviant peer influence (B = −0.05, SE = 0.02, p = .009) and perceived neighborhood disorganization (B = 0.02, SE = 0.01, p = .004) were significantly associated with their overall victimization. Specifically, the adolescents' levels of deviant peer influence (B = −0.04, SE = 0.02, p = .015) and perceived neighborhood disorganization (B = 0.02, SE = 0.01, p = .001) were significantly correlated with their interpersonal victimization, while their levels of self-control (B = −0.01, SE = 0.01, p = .003) and alcohol and drug use (B = 0.01, SE = 0.01, p = .017) were associated with their likelihood of falling prey to property victimization. Female adolescents were also more likely to experience property victimization (B = 0.17, SE = 0.06, p = .015). 6. Discussion This study is important not only for its contribution to the repertoire of knowledge regarding victims of crime, but also and more particularly for its advancement of such knowledge using an under-researched population – that of Hong Kong's Chinese adolescents. Using a large sample of school-age adolescents in Hong Kong, the aim of this study was twofold: (1) to explore gender differences at the mean levels of different types of victimization (i.e., overall, interpersonal, and property) and criminogenic risk factors (i.e., self-control, social bonds, proviolence attitudes, negative temperament, deviant peer influence, 6

Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104475

H.C.O. Chan

understand the victimization dynamics in this population. Finally, the measures adopted in this study were translated into Chinese in order to accommodate the language needs of the sample population. Although the measures were cautiously translated to minimize errors, the true meaning of the measurement items might still have been distorted as they were not presented in the language in which they were originally developed. As noted by Sechrest, Fay, and Hafeez Zaidi (1972), a major translation problem in research is that of acquiring conceptual equivalence because a concept that is well understood and regularly used in one culture might not be comparable in another culture. For future research, a systematic English-Chinese translation approach should be considered.

effective if all relevant parties (e.g., adolescents, parents, caregivers, school administrators, teachers, and social service providers) closely collaborate in a collective manner. Individual efforts (i.e., school interventions without parental support or vice versa) may not be as effective in protecting adolescents from being at risk of victimization. Regardless of the noted limitations, the findings of this study have advanced our knowledge, giving us a better understanding the significant criminogenic risk factors of Hong Kong adolescents regarding different types of victimization. Declaration of Competing Interest None.

6.1. Implications of the findings

Acknowledgment

Implications for practice in the area of crime prevention can be derived from this study's findings. It is crucial to note that peer deviance was found to be an important factor determining the adolescents' vulnerability to victimization, particularly to interpersonal victimization. Adolescents, with increasing age, become more oriented toward their peers and spend more time outside the home (Sullivan, 2014). Peer influence operates in a way consistent with the learning approach. According to Brauer and De Coster (2015), the behavioral learning that occurs in groups of unconventional (i.e., delinquent) peers is more salient in offending decisions among those who feel close to their peers. As such, increased strength of deviant peer influence is likely to increase the probability of adolescents falling prey to victimization. Even though adolescents are likely to gain more freedom and independence from their parents, parents remain important for the continuing socialization of adolescents (Halgunseth, Perkins, Lippold, & Nix, 2013). Indeed, research has demonstrated the importance of parental involvement and overall family functioning in the life of adolescents in influencing their future well-being (e.g., Craig, 2015; Crumé, Nurius, & Fleming, 2019; Hoeve et al., 2012; Piko, 2000; Shek & Lin, 2016a, 2016b). This assertion is consistent with the social learning and control perspectives whereby, besides adolescents' peers, parents and primary caregivers also possess tremendous influence on adolescents' behavioral learning processes. Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) once emphasized that in order to foster positive well-being in children and adolescents in the long run, parent-child rearing practices should be enhanced. Therefore, parents and primary caregivers ought to employ a healthy parenting style that is responsive to and supportive of their children, and ensure their children know that they are there when their children need them. Additionally, parents should also be encouraged to work closely with schools to optimize adolescents' self-control development (Chan & Chui, 2017). Personal development training that focuses on the psychological features of delaying gratification, unselfishness, anger management, and resiliency are likely to enhance adolescents' level of self-control. That being said, these developmental practices should be performed as early in life as possible, as some have argued that self-control is relatively stable after reaching adulthood (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). The role of social service providers (e.g., school and youth social workers) should not be overlooked, as they can become effective agents for building bridges between adolescents and parents/primary caregivers, particularly when there is a potential for tension between the two parties (Chan & Chui, 2017). Social service personnel could provide relevant information and training to parents and caregivers, such as information on the potential warning signs of victimization and effective management skills in responding to their children's victimization experience. Besides, these findings may help to educate social service personnel by recognizing the risk factors for victimization and the need for tailored social services. It is pivotal for constructing adequate and timely intervention strategies to reduce the probability of the victims to be re-victimized again. It is noteworthy that the suggested implications can only be

This work was supported by the Early Career Scheme (ECS) funded by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (CityU 21400114). References Hong Kong Census and Statistics Department (2007). Thematic household survey report no. 31: Crime and its victims in Hong Kong in 2005. Retrieved from https://www. censtatd.gov.hk/hkstat/. Agnew, R. (2002). Experienced, vicarious, and anticipated strain: An exploratory study on physical victimization and delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 19(4), 603–632. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07418820200095371. Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press. Armstrong, G. S., Cain, C. M., Wylie, L. E., Muftić, L. R., & Bouffard, L. A. (2018). Risk factor profile of youth incarcerated for child to parent violence: A nationally representative sample. Journal of Criminal Justice, 58, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jcrimjus.2018.06.002. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Baron, S. W. (2009). Street youths' violent responses to violent personal, vicarious, and anticipated strain. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(5), 442–451. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.07.004. Brauer, J. R., & De Coster, S. (2015). Social relationships and delinquency: Revisiting parent and peer influence during adolescence. Youth & Society, 47(3), 374–394 10.1177.0044118X12467655. Brickman, E., Davis, R., Rabinovich, B., Cantor, D., & Shapiro, G. (2002). Report to the National Institute of Justice: Victim needs and victim assistance. New York: Safe Horizon. Ch'en, C. (1986). Neo-Confucian terms explained. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Chan, H. C. O. (2015). Understanding sexual homicide offenders: An integrated approach. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan978-1-137-45371-6. Chan, H. C. O. (2019a). A global casebook of sexual homicide. Singapore: Springer Nature978-981-13-8858-3. Chan, H. C. O. (2019b). Exploring the overlap between victimization and offending among Hong Kong adolescents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 61, 72–80. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.03.003. Chan, H. C. O., & Chui, W. H. (2012). Psychological correlates of violent and nonviolent Hong Kong juvenile probationers. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 30(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2003. Chan, H. C. O., & Chui, W. H. (2013). Social bonds and school bullying: A study of Macanese male adolescents on bullying perpetration and peer victimization. Child & Youth Care Forum, 42(6), 599–616. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-013-9221-2. Chan, H. C. O., & Chui, W. H. (2015). Social bonds and self-reported nonviolent and violent delinquency: A study of traditional low risk, at-risk and adjudicated male Chinese adolescents. Child & Youth Care Forum, 44(5), 711–730. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10566-015-9303-4. Chan, H. C. O., & Chui, W. H. (2017). The influence of low self-control on violent and nonviolent delinquencies: A study of male adolescents from two Chinese societies. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 28(5), 599–619. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14789949.2015.1012534. Chan, H. C. O., & Sheridan, L. (2017). Is this stalking? Perceptions of stalking behavior among young male and female adults in Hong Kong and Mainland China. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517711180 Advance online publication. Chan, H. C. O., & Wong, D. S. W. (2017). Coping with cyberbullying victimization: An exploratory study of Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 50, 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2017.04.003. Chan, H. C. O., Li, F., Liu, S., Lu, X., & Jia, H. (2019). Sexual homicides in China: Exploring the offender, victim, and offense characteristics. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(9), 1517–1537. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0306624X17746293.

7

Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104475

H.C.O. Chan Chapple, C. L., McQuillan, J. A., & Berdahl, T. A. (2005). Gender, social bonds, and delinquency: A comparison of boys' and girls' models. Social Science Research, 34(2), 357–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.04.003. Cho, S., & Lee, J. M. (2018). Explaining physical, verbal, and social bullying among bullies, victims of bullying, and bully-victims: Assessing the integrated approach between social control and lifestyles-routine activities theories. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.06.018. Chui, W. H., & Chan, H. C. O. (2012). An empirical investigation of social bonds and juvenile delinquency in Hong Kong. Child & Youth Care Forum, 41(4), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10566-012-9172-z. Chui, W. H., & Chan, H. C. O. (2013). Association between self-control and school bullying behaviors among Macanese adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37(4), 237–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.012.003. Chui, W. H., & Chan, H. C. O. (2015). Self-control, school bullying perpetration, and victimization among Macanese adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(6), 1751–1761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-014-9979-3. Chui, W. H., & Chan, H. C. O. (2016). The gendered analysis of self-control on theft and violent delinquency: An examination of Hong Kong adolescent population. Crime & Delinquency, 62(12), 1648–1677. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128712470992. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 2094589. Craig, J. M. (2015). Which bond matters more? Assessing the differential strengths of parental bonding measures on adolescent delinquency over time. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 14(3), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204014565670. Crumé, H. J., Nurius, P. S., & Fleming, C. M. (2019). Cumulative adversity profiles among youth experiencing housing and parental care instability. Children and Youth Services Review, 100, 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.02.042. DeLisi, M., & Vaughn, M. G. (2014). Foundation for a temperament-based theory of antisocial behavior and criminal justice system involvement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2013.11.001. Espelage, D. L., Low, S., Rao, M. A., Hong, J. S., & Little, T. D. (2014). Family violence, bullying, fighting, and substance use among adolescents: A longitudinal mediational model. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 24(2), 337–349. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jora.12060. Felson, M. (1986). Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control and criminal outcomes. In D. B. Cornish, & R. V. Clarke (Eds.). The reasoning criminal (pp. 119–128). New York: Springer-Verlag. Felson, R. B. (1992). Kick ‘em when they're down: Explanations of the relationship between stress and interpersonal aggression and violence. Sociological Quarterly, 33(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-8525.1992.tb00360.x. Felson, M., & Cohen, L. (1980). Human ecology and crime: A routine activities approach. Human Ecology, 8(4), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01561001. Flexon, J. L., Meldrum, R. C., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). Low self-control and the victimoffender overlap: A gendered analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(11), 2052–2076. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515572471. Fox, K. A., Nobles, M. R., & Piquero, A. R. (2009). Gender, crime victimization and fear of crime. Security Journal, 22(1), 24–39. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2008.13. Gershon, A., Minor, K., & Hayward, C. (2008). Gender, victimization, and psychiatric outcomes. Psychological Medicine, 38(10), 1377–1391. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0033291708003000. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Standford, CA: Standford University Press. Gover, A. R., Kaukinen, C., & Fox, K. A. (2008). The relationship between violence in the family of origin and dating violence among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23(12), 1667–1693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508314330. Grasmick, H. G., Tittle, C. R., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core implications of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022427893030001002. Grubb, J. A., & Posick, C. (2018). Applying Agnew's integrated theory of crime and delinquency to victimization risk: A contemporaneous and longitudinal examination. Criminal Justice Review, 43(3), 289–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0734016818756487. Gutierres, S. E., & Van Puymbroeck, C. (2006). Childhood and adult violence in the lives of women who misuse substances. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(5), 497–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.01.010. Halgunseth, L. C., Perkins, D. F., Lippold, M. A., & Nix, R. L. (2013). Delinquent-oriented attitudes mediate the relation between parental inconsistent discipline and early adolescent behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(2), 293–302. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/a0031962. Hapke, U., Schumann, A., Rumpf, H. J., John, U., & Meyer, C. (2006). Post-traumatic stress disorder: The role of trauma, pre-existing psychiatric disorder, and gender. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 256(5), 299–306. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00406-006-0654-6. Hay, C., & Meldrum, R. (2010). Bullying victimization and adolescent self-harm: Testing hypotheses from general strain theory. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39(5), 446–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9502-0. Haynie, D. L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? American Journal of Sociology, 106(4), 1013–1057. https://doi.org/10.1086/320298. Heerde, J. A., Curtis, A., Bailey, J. A., Smith, R., Hemphill, S. A., & Toumbourou, J. W. (2019). Reciprocal associations between early adolescent antisocial behavior and depressive symptoms: A longitudinal study in Victoria, Australia and Washington State, United States. Journal of Criminal Justice, 62, 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jcrimjus.2018.09.003. Higgins, G. E., Jennings, W. G., Tewksbury, R., & Gibson, C. L. (2009). Exploring the link

between low self-control and violent victimization trajectories in adolescents. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(10), 1070–1084. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0093854809344046. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Hoeve, M., Stams, G. J. J. M., van der Put, C. E., Dubas, J. S., van der Laan, P. H., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2012). A meta-analysis of attachment to parents and delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40(5), 771–785. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-0119608-1. Jennings, W. G., Gover, A. R., & Pudrzynska, D. (2007). Are institutions of higher learning safe? A descriptive study of campus safety issues and self-reported campus victimization among male and female college students. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 18(2), 191–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250701383327. Jennings, W. G., Higgins, G. E., Tewksbury, R., Gover, A., & Piquero, A. R. (2010). A longitudinal assessment of the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(12), 2147–2174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354888. Macmillan, R. (2001). Violence and the life course: The consequences of victimization for personal and social development. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 1–22. https:// doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.1. Maldonado-Molina, M., Jennings, W. G., Tobler, A., Piquero, A. R., & Canino, G. (2010). Assessing the victim-offender overlap among Hispanic youth. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(6), 1191–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.09.008. Mills, L. G. (2003). Insult to injury: Rethinking our responses to intimate abuse. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Pyrooz, D. C., Moule, R. K., Jr., & Decker, S. H. (2014). The contribution of gang membership to the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51(3), 315–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427813516128. Muraven, M., Pogarsky, G., & Shmueli, D. (2006). Self-control depletion and the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22(3), 263–277. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10940-006-9011-1. Musicaro, R. M., Spinazzola, J., Arvidson, J., Swaroop, S. R., Grance, L. G., Yarrow, A., et al. (2019). The complexity of adaptation to childhood polyvictimization in youth and young adults: Recommendations for multidisciplinary responders. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 20(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838017692365. Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2002). Sexual assault of college women: A feminist interpretation of a routine activities analysis. Criminal Justice Review, 27(1), 89–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/073401680202700106. Piko, B. (2000). Perceived social support from parents and peers: Which is the stronger predictor of adolescent substance use? Substance Use & Misuse, 35(4), 617–630. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826080009147475. Pimlott-Kubiak, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2003). Gender, victimization, and outcomes: Reconceptualizing risk. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(3), 528–539. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.71.3.528. Piquero, A. R., MacDonald, J., Dobrin, A., Daigle, J. E., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Selfcontrol, violent offending, and homicide victimization: Assessing the general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10940-004-1787-2. Posick, C. (2013). The overlap between offending and victimization among adolescents: Results from the second international self-report delinquency study. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29(1), 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1043986212471250. Pratt, T. C., & Cullen, F. T. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38(3), 931–964. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00911.x. Pye, L. W. (1972). China: An introduction. Boston, MA: Little Brown. Reisig, M. D., Pratt, T. C., & Holtfreter, K. (2009). Perceived risk of internet theft victimization: Examining the effects of social vulnerability and financial impulsivity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36(4), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0093854808329405. Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16(3), 633–654. https://doi.org/10. 1080/07418829900094291. Schreck, C. J., Fisher, B. S., & Miller, J. M. (2004). The social context of violent victimization: A study of delinquent peer effect. Justice Quarterly, 21(1), 23–48. https:// doi.org/10.1080/07418820400095731. Sechrest, L., Fay, T. L., & Hafeez Zaidi, S. M. (1972). Problems of translation in crosscultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/002202217200300103. Shek, D. T. L., & Lin, L. (2016a). What predicts adolescent delinquent behavior in Hong Kong? A longitudinal study of personal and family factors. Social Indicators Research, 129(3), 1291–1318. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1170-8. Shek, D. T. L., & Lin, L. (2016b). Delinquent behavior in high school students in Hong Kong: Sociodemographic, personal, and family determinants. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 29(1S), S61–S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpag.2015.10. 009. Silver, E., Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Piquero, N. L., & Leiber, M. (2011). Assessing the violent offending and violent victimization overlap among discharged psychiatric patients. Law and Human Behavior, 35(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979009-9206-8. Sullivan, C. J. (2014). Individual, social, and neighborhood influences on the launch of adolescent antisocial behavior. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12(2), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204013483779. Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott. Taylor, T. J., Peterson, D., Esbensen, F. A., & Freng, A. (2007). Gang membership as a risk factor for adolescent violent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(4), 351–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427807305845. Tewksbury, R., & Mustaine, E. E. (2001). Lifestyle factors associated with the sexual

8

Children and Youth Services Review 106 (2019) 104475

H.C.O. Chan assault of men: A routine activity theory analysis. The Journal of Men's Studies, 9(2), 153–182. https://doi.org/10.3149/jms.0902.153. Tillyer, M. S., & Wright, E. M. (2014). Intimate partner violence and the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51(1), 29–55. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0022427813484315. Turanovic, J. J., & Pratt, T. C. (2013). The consequences of maladaptive coping: Integrating general strain and self-control theories to specific a causal pathway between victimization and offending. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(3), 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-012-9180-z. Völlink, T., Bolman, C. A. W., Dehue, F., & Jacobs, N. C. L. (2013). Coping with

cyberbullying: Differences between victims, bully-victims, and children not involved in bullying. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 23(1), 7–24. https:// doi.org/10.1002/casp.2142. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Wittebrood, K., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2000). Criminal victimization during one's life course: The effects of previous victimization and patterns of routine activities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(1), 91–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0022427800037001004.

9