Exploring the overlap between victimization and offending among Hong Kong adolescents

Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Criminal Justice journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jcrimjus

Exploring the overlap between victimization and offending among Hong Kong adolescents H.C.O. Chan

⁎

Teaching Laboratory for Forensics and Criminology, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Victim-offender overlap Victimization Offending Adolescent Hong Kong

Purpose: Claims of a victim-offender overlap have been substantiated in the literature. However, little is known about the joint occurrence of victimization and offending in the Asian context. Methods: Using a sample of 892 secondary school students, this study aims to explore the phenomenon of overlap between offending and victimization among Hong Kong adolescents. Grounded by theoretical propositions of criminological theories (i.e., social learning, self-control, social control, general strain, and routine activity), the adolescents' prevalence of general, violent, and nonviolent offending perpetration and victimization are examined. Results: Findings reveal that different types of offending perpetration and victimization are positively correlated, and multivariate analyses confirmed the link between these two experiences. Logistic regressions indicate that offending perpetration significantly predicted victimization, regardless of the type of offending behavior (general, violent, and nonviolent), with an increase likelihood between 337% and 792%. Bivariate probit models demonstrate a considerable degree of overlap between different types of offending perpetration and victimization. The rho correlations from the unadjusted bivariate probit models suggest the significant overlapping categories of general (80%), violent (75%), and nonviolent (85%) offending. Conclusions: Having high levels of pro-violence attitudes and of a deviant peer influence are found to be a general risk of engaging in offending behavior and of falling prey to victimization. Specifically, deviant peer influence is the only significant risk factor for the joint occurrence of violent offending and violent victimization, while social bonding and deviant peer influence are significant risk factors for the joint occurrence of nonviolent offending and nonviolent victimization. Implications for practice are discussed.

1. Introduction Research on juvenile delinquency has traditionally examined offenders and victims as two distinct groups. However, in recent decades empirical studies have demonstrated that there are many commonalities, ranging from personal characteristics to experience with criminal events, that are shared by both offenders and victims (Jennings, Piquero, & Reingle, 2012). Some scholars have even argued that it is impossible to comprehensively understand juvenile offending without understanding victimization, and vice versa (Lauritsen, Sampson, & Laub, 1991). Therefore, a plethora of recent literature on the victimoffender overlap has emerged. Some of those studies have examined the general (violent) trends of offending and victimization (e.g., Averdijk, van Gelder, Eisner, & Ribeaud, 2016; Berg, 2012; De Camp, Zaykowski, & Lunn, 2018; Jennings, Higgins, & Piquero, 2010; Maldonado-Molina,

⁎

Jennings, Tobler, Piquero, & Canino, 2010; Pizarro, Zgoba, & Jennings, 2011; Schreck, Berg, Ousey, Stewart, & Miller, 2017; Schreck, Stewart, & Osgood, 2008; van Gelder, Averdijk, Eisner, & Ribeaud, 2015), while others have taken an offense-specific focus, such as of bullying behavior, sexual offending, theft, and intimate-partner violence (bullying research, e.g., Chan & Wong, 2015; sexual offending, e.g., De Lisi, Kosloski, Vaughn, Caudill, and Trulson, 2014; Farrell, 2017; Jennings, Zgoba, Maschi, & Reingle, 2014; theft, e.g., Posick, 2013; intimate partner violence, e.g., Muftić, Finn, & Marsh, 2015; Richards, Tomsich, Gover, & Jennings, 2016; Tillyer & Wright, 2014). With a few exceptions, research on victimization and offending supports the notion that victims and offenders are not necessarily different groups of individuals, but rather that a large majority of those who experience victimization are also offenders themselves, and vice versa (see Jennings et al., 2012 for details). Importantly, most cross-

Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.03.003 Received 11 March 2019; Received in revised form 28 March 2019; Accepted 29 March 2019 0047-2352/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: H.C.O. Chan, Journal of Criminal Justice, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2019.03.003

Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

H.C.O. Chan

cultural studies have affirmed those findings. Nevertheless, the vast majority of victim-offender overlap data were collected in North America, primarily the U.S., and many of the studies analyzed data that were not originally collected for the purposes of studying the victimoffender overlap. Thus, the depth and richness of the insights that such studies provide on victimization and offending are limited (Jennings et al., 2012). To date, only three published studies have investigated Asian populations, having recruited participants from South Korea, Hong Kong, and Mainland China (Chan & Wong, 2015; Jennings, Tomisich, Gover, & Akers, 2011; Wang, Cheon, & Beckman, 2019). Each of those studies focused on a specific offending behavior (i.e., school bullying, cyberbullying, or dating violence). Arguably the first empirical study of the victim-offender overlap in the Asian context, Jennings et al. (2011) sampled 1399 South Korean college students to examine the overlap in dating violence victimization and offending, under the theoretical framework of social learning theory and selfcontrol theory. Findings from a series of bivariate probit models suggested a strong degree of overlap between dating violence perpetration and victimization. Although varying levels of support for the influence of social learning and self-control theories in explaining the perpetration and victimization of physical and psychological dating violence were found, these theoretical framework were still unable to jointly explain away the correlation of the error terms between the two phenomena. Grounded by the social control theoretical propositions, Chan and Wong (2015) recruited 1880 Hong Kong secondary school adolescents to investigate the overlap between school bullying perpetration and victimization. Adopting the bivariate probit approach, findings of this study found support for the social control theory's familial and school bonding propositions in explaining the overlap between bullying perpetration and victimization. Specifically, the adolescents' levels of family attachment, perception of a harmonious school, sense of school belonging, and positive school experience and involvement were significantly predicting the involvement of both bullying perpetration and victimization. More recently, Wang et al. (2019) explored the overlap between violent offending and violent victimization in China by using a sample of 2116 Chinese youth and young adults. Testing the constructs of self-control, routine activity, and general strain theories, findings generated from the multilevel IRT modeling approach found a nontrivial overlap between offending and victimization, and differential tendencies toward offending versus victimization. Most of the theoretical constructs were correlated with the overall violent encounters, but only moral beliefs, peer delinquency, drinking, and gender were associated with the role differentiation. Even though a strong overlap between offending and victimization was noted in these specific offending behaviors, a more general trend (e.g., violent versus nonviolent behavior) using a more representative sample is necessary if we are to understand the overlap between victimization and offending in Asian youth, and particularly in Hong Kong adolescents. Compared with the U.S., the youth offending rate in Hong Kong is relatively low. Therefore, it will be worthwhile to test the existence of an overlap between victimization and offending behaviors among Hong Kong adolescents.

criminal behavior increases. This theoretical framework has more recently been extended to explain victimization in terms of deviant peer association (Warr, 2002), and has received empirical support from Schreck, Fisher, and Miller (2004) and Taylor, Peterson, Esbensen, and Freng (2007). Past research on the sexual victim-offender overlap (e.g., Chan, 2015; Chan, Heide, & Beauregard, 2011; Jennings et al., 2014) has indicated that past sexual victimization increases an individual's likelihood of inflicting future deviant sexual acts on others. This notion partly explains the cycle of violence and maltreatment whereby previous victimization increases the risk of future offending (Widom & Maxfield, 2001; Zuravin, McMillen, DePanfilis, & Risley-Curtiss, 1996). More specifically, Seto's (2008) sexually abused/sexual abuser hypothesis suggests that those who have experienced sexual victimization during childhood or adolescence are more likely to sexually abuse children in the future (see Jesperson, Lalumière, & Seto, 2009; Seto & Lalumière, 2010 for support). Self-control theory is arguably one of the most tested and wellsupported explanations of delinquent/criminal behavior (Gottfredson, 2009; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990). This theory posits that individuals with less self-control are more likely to engage in delinquent/criminal activities in pursuit of immediate gratification, without considering the potential consequences. Schreck (1999) later extended that theoretical model to associate the risk of victimization with the characteristics of low self-control (e.g., irritability, disagreeability, and the inability to recognize the long-term effects of actions). The low self-control explanation of victimization has received support from researchers (e.g., Flexon, Meldrum, & Piquero, 2016; Higgins, Jennings, Tewksbury, & Gibson, 2009), especially with regard to lethal victimization (Piquero, MacDonald, Dobrin, Daigle, and Cullen, 2005) and cyber victimization (Reisig, Pratt, & Holtfreter, 2009). The control theories –– especially the social control theory (also commonly known as the social bonding theory) –– offer another theoretical explanation that attempts to elucidate the victim-offender overlap. Although the social control theory (Hirschi, 1969) was originally developed to explain delinquent/criminal behavior in terms of the strength or weakness of social bonds, it has been used recently to explain victimization (Jennings et al., 2010; Posick, 2013). According to this theory, individuals with strong social bonds with their parents, prosocial peers and schools are unlikely to engage in delinquent/ criminal activities. Thus, they enjoy a lower risk of victimization because they have a reduced exposure to antisocial peers and to risky lifestyle choices and routine activities and a greater exposure to effective guardianship (Felson, 1992; Schreck et al., 2004). Meanwhile, the general strain theory (Agnew, 2002) hypothesizes that certain types of strain (e.g., negative affects) that are associated with victimization are likely to lead to offending/delinquent behavior. For example, negative emotions attributable to prior victimization (e.g., anger, depression) may result in future offending, and vicarious and anticipated victimization may also be related to offending/delinquent behavior (Eitle & Turner, 2002; Manasse & Ganem, 2009). According to Felson's (1992) social integrationist approach, victims' resentment, aggression, and desire for revenge may lead to a cycle of violence and retaliation. Specifically, retaliation is likely to cause an escalation in violence (Silver, Piquero, Jennings, Piquero, & Leiber, 2011). Situational mechanisms, such as routine activities and lifestyle choices, have also been used to explain the overlap between victimization and offending (e.g., Jennings et al., 2012; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2000; Schreck et al., 2008). The routine activity theory, which originally described victimization as the outcome of legitimate, routine daily activities that expose poorly guarded targets to potential offenders in close proximity (Cohen & Felson, 1979), has since been extended to offending/delinquent behavior. An example of this theory would be that individuals who spend substantial time in “unstructured socializing” with delinquent peers and without adult supervision may be at an elevated risk of engaging in delinquent behavior, irrespective of their own criminal tendencies (Hoeben, Meldrum, Walker, & Young,

2. Theoretical background In response to recent robust evidence of a victim-offender overlap, many theoretical approaches that were previously recruited to explain either victimization or offending have been adopted to describe the overlap phenomenon. For instance, learning theories of offending, such as Sutherland's (1947) differential association theory and Akers's (1985) social learning model, hypothesize that delinquency/criminal behavior is learned through close social interaction with family and peers in the forms of reinforcement and reward/punishment. According to Bandura (1973), the imitation of observed behavior is a key process of behavioral learning. Put differently, when someone expects incentives, his/her probability of learning the observed delinquent/ 2

Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

H.C.O. Chan

2016; Osgood, Wilson, O'Malley, Bachman, & Johnston, 1996). Tangible and/or intangible rewards (e.g., reputation or status within a group) may also encourage participation in delinquent/criminal activities (e.g., group sexual offending, as discussed by ‘t Hart-Kerkhoffs, Vermeirenm, Jansen, & Doreleijers, 2011) and persistent offending. Nonetheless, the largely rational decision to participate in delinquent/ criminal activities is often bounded by limited information and time constraints (Beauregard, Leclerc, & Lussier, 2012; Cornish & Clarke, 1986). Finally, those who commit offenses may also be exposed to victimization because delinquent/criminal peers are rarely an effective source of protection from aggressors (Schreck et al., 2004).

Table 1 Sample demographic characteristics (N = 892) Variable

N

Percentage

Sex (N = 892) Male 519 58.2% Female 373 41.8% Age M = 16.44, SD = 1.87, range = 13–18 Male (M = 16.64, SD = 1.86), Female (M = 16.16, SD = 1.83); t = 3.82, p < .001 Country of origin (N = 888) Hong Kong 641 72.2% Mainland China 235 26.5% Others 12 1.4% (e.g., Macau, Malaysia, & Taiwan) Religious belief (N = 885) Without a religious belief 642 72.5% With a religious belief 243 27.5% (e.g., Catholic, Buddhism, Christianity, Muslim) Family as recipient of social welfare (N = 885) assistance Yes 227 25.6% No 658 74.4%

3. The present study Overall, claims of a victim-offender overlap have been substantiated in the literature (Jennings et al., 2012). However, most studies on that topic have sampled non-Asian populations –– predominantly having sampled populations in the North America. Therefore, the present study was particularly important in advancing knowledge about the overlap between victimization and offending in an Asian population, and specifically in Hong Kong's Chinese adolescents. On the basis of the extant literature, the following research hypotheses were put forward in this study.

4.2. Measures In this study, a collection of self-reported measures was used to explore (a) the adolescents' prevalence rates of offending perpetration and of victimization, (b) the joint occurrences of offending and victimization in general (overall), in violent situations, and in nonviolent situations, and (c) the effects of criminogenic risk factors in predicting joint offending and victimization in general, in violent situations, and in nonviolent situations. The questionnaire with these measures was printed in both English and Chinese versions for participants with different language needs. In order to accommodate the local Chinese populations, the English-written scales were first translated into Chinese by an experienced and academically qualified English-to-Chinese translator. Next, the Chinese-version scales were back-translated into English to ensure their face validity and to compare them with the original measures developed in English, in order to determine their content similarity.

Hypothesis 1. Victimization is associated with later offending perpetration, and vice versa, irrespective of the types of offending behavior (i.e., general, violent, and nonviolent offending). Hypothesis 2. The relationship between victimization and offending perpetration holds, even after controlling for demographic characteristics (e.g., age and sex) and criminogenic factors (e.g., selfcontrol, social bonds, pro-violence attitudes, negative temperament, deviant peer influence, and perceptions of neighborhood disorganization), and irrespective of the types of offending behavior (i.e., general, violent, and nonviolent offending).

4. Methods 4.1. Participants and procedure

4.2.1. Self-reported delinquency scale Adolescents were asked about their experience in violent and nonviolent delinquency during the previous 12 months. A 30-item delinquency scale, developed by Elliott, Huizinga, and Ageton (1985), on a count measure, was used. This measure has been widely employed, especially in studies related to the victim-offender overlap (e.g., Maldonado-Molina et al., 2010). Sample items asked whether the respondent had “Gone or tried to go into building to steal something,” “Attacked someone with a weapon,” and/or “Tried to have sexual relations with someone against his/her will.”

The participants recruited for this study were adolescents who were between 13 and 18 years old and who attended one of 12 secondary schools in Hong Kong. The schools were stratified according to their geographic region (i.e., Hong Kong Island, Kowloon Peninsula, and the New Territories). Upon approval from the university's institutional review board (IRB) and different school administrators, the participants' informed consent was obtained, and then they were administered a paper-pencil questionnaire. They were reassured that their responses would be kept confidential and used only for research purposes. Their participation in this study was completely voluntary, with no monetary incentive provided. The participants took an average of 25 min to complete the questionnaire. The response and cooperation rate for this questionnaire survey was approximately 90%. A total of 892 participants were recruited, 58.2% of whom were males (N = 519) and the remaining 41.8% of whom were females (N = 373). On average, the participants were 16.44 years old (SD = 1.87), with a slight gender difference (the mean age of the males was 16.64 years [SD = 1.86], and that of the females was 16.16 years [SD = 1.83]; t = 3.82, p < .001). Nearly three quarters of the participants were local Hong Kongers (72.2%), with the remainder being from either Mainland China (26.5%) or other Asian countries (1.4%; e.g., Macau, Malaysia, and Taiwan). A large majority of the participants reported that they had no affiliation with any religious belief (72.5%) and that their family was not on any social welfare assistance (74.4%) (see Table 1).

4.2.2. Self-reported victimization scale To measure the prevalence of violent and nonviolent victimization of the participants during the previous 12 months, 12 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. A total of 33 items were included. This measure was based on studies conducted by Maldonado-Molina et al. (2010) and Posick (2013). Sample items asked if the person had been “Beaten up or mugged,” “Had something stolen,” and/or “Sexually assaulted, molested, or raped.” The victimization and offending scales adopted in this study both measure similar behaviors. 4.2.3. Self-control Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990) original six elements of self-control (i.e., impulsivity, preference for simple tasks, risk-seeking, preference 3

Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

H.C.O. Chan

type scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree), with a total score ranging from 5 to 20. Sample items were, “There is a lot of crime in my neighborhood,” “There is a lot of drug selling,” and “There is a lot of fighting.” These items were then reverse-coded so that higher scores would indicate higher levels of perceived neighborhood disorganization. The Cronbach's α value of this measure was 0.93.

for physical activities, self-centeredness, and volatile temper) are also commonly known as low self-control indicators. To measure the participants' level of self-control, the widely used 23-item Low Self-Control Scale (LSCS) (Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993) was adopted in this study. The LSCS is measured on a four-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree), with a higher score denoting greater self-control. A total score ranges from 23 to 92. Sample items were, “I often act on the spur of the moment without stopping to think,” “Sometimes I will take a risk just for the fun of it,” and “I lose my temper pretty easily.” The Cronbach's α value of this measure was 0.89.

5. Analytic strategy In this study, Pearson correlations were performed to explore the interrelationships of general, violent, and nonviolent offending perpetration and victimization. Subsequently, the logistic regression approach was adopted to identify the effects of victimization as an explanation for offending perpetration in regard to general offending, violent offending, and nonviolent offending. The regression models incorporated both offending and victimization as independent variables, along with control variables (i.e., age and sex), to predict one another. The relationship between offending perpetration and victimization would be revealed, after controlling for the control variables. If there was a victim-offender overlap, the relationship between the two behaviors should hold even after controlling for the control variables. As evidenced in this study and will be explained below, offending perpetration and victimization are likely to be the outcome of the same underlying processes and hence are considered to be joint outcomes. To further investigate the overlap phenomenon, the bivariate probit approach was used because it permits a joint estimation of regression coefficients, using offending perpetration and victimization as dependent variables. According to Greene (1997), the bivariate probit is a variation of the standard probit, but with two exceptions: (1) it requires more than one equation, and (2) the error terms from the equations are estimated simultaneously. Notably, rho (the overlap coefficient) is regarded to be the estimate of the correlation between the error terms in two outcomes (i.e., offending and victimization). Three separate models were computed: one each for general, violent, and nonviolent offending. For these multivariate analyses, the offending perpetration and victimization were dichotomized (0 = no experience in the past 12 months, 1 = at least one experience in the past 12 months). This analytical approach was useful and frequently used to examine the victim-offender overlap (e.g., Chan & Wong, 2015; Jennings et al., 2011, 2014; Posick, 2013).

4.2.4. Social bonding scale Based on Hirschi's (1969) social control theory, the 18-item Social Bonding Scale (SBC) (Chapple, McQuillan, & Berdahl, 2005) was used to assess the adolescents' 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 measured 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 38. A higher score denoted a greater social bond. Sample items were, “I share my thoughts and feelings with my mother,” “I would like to be the kind of person my best friend is,” and “I have lots of respect for the police.” The alpha coefficient of this measure was 0.73. 4.2.5. Pro-violence attitudes scale To assess the adolescents' attitudes in support of violence, a sevenitem measure was used. The items were extracted from Pyrooz, Moule Jr., and Decker' (2014) study on the subculture code of the street in the involvement of gang activities, and they were measured using a fourpoint Likert response format (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, “When someone disrespects you, it is important that you use physical force or aggression to teach him/her not to disrespect you,” “People tend to respect a person who is tough and aggressive,” and “People do not respect a person who is afraid to fight physically for his/her rights.” The internal consistency of this measure was 0.90.

6. Results

4.2.6. Negative temperament scale The adolescents' level of negative emotions was assessed with an eight-item measurement using a four-point scale (1 = strongly agree, 4 = strongly disagree), with a total score ranging from 8 to 32 (Tillyer & Wright, 2014). A higher score signified a more strongly negative temperament. Sample items were, “I get angry easily,” “I frequently have mood swings,” and “I lose my temper easily.” The Cronbach's alpha value of this measure was 0.70.

6.1. Prevalence of offending perpetration and victimization On the basis of the total sample of 892 adolescents, nearly twothirds of the respondents (63.2%; 60.3% males and 67.3% females) reported having no involvement in any offending perpetration or victimization. In general, slightly more than one-quarter of them (26.9%; 27.2% males and 26.5% females) reported having engaged in an offending perpetration at least once in their lifetime, whereas only 3.3% of the adolescents (3.1% males and 3.5% females) had experienced prior victimization. Interestingly, 6.6% of them reported having experienced both offending perpetration and victimization, with more males than females (9.4% versus 2.7%) reporting such experiences. When looking only at violent behavior, approximately three-quarters of the adolescents (72.5%; 67.8% males and 78.8% females) had no prior involvement in violent offending or victimization, whereas nearly one-fifth (18.6%; 20% males and 16.6% females) reporting having engaged in violent offending and 3.4% (4.2% males and 2.4% females) reporting having experienced violent victimization. Adolescents who had experienced both violent offending and victimization were found to be 5.5% of the sample, with more males than females in that category (7.9% versus 2.1%). The results for involvement in a nonviolent situation were in keeping with the trend for involvement in a violent situation, with

4.2.7. Deviant peer influence scale To measure peer delinquency and its potential influences, the adolescents were asked, in five items, about the delinquent activities of their peers. These items were dichotomized (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 did steal something from a shop or department store,” “I have friends who did beat someone up or hurt someone badly with something like a stick or a knife,” and “I have friends that entered a building with the purpose to steal something.” The alpha coefficient of this measure was 0.69. 4.2.8. Perceptions of neighborhood disorganization scale The adolescents' living environment was measured with a five-item scale evaluating their perceptions of neighborhood disorganization (Posick, 2013). The five items were measured using a four-point Likert4

Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

H.C.O. Chan

Table 2 Prevalence of offending perpetration and victimization (N = 892; male = 519, female = 373) Item

No involvement Victims only Offenders only Victim-offenders

Overall

Violence only

Nonviolence only

All

Male

Female

All

Male

Female

All

Male

Female

564 (63.2%) 29 (3.3%) 240 (26.9%) 59 (6.6%)

313 (60.3%) 16 (3.1%) 141 (27.2%) 49 (9.4%)

251 (67.3%) 13 (3.5%) 99 (26.5%) 10 (2.7%)

647 (72.5%) 30 (3.4%) 166 (18.6%) 49 (5.5%)

353 (67.8%) 21 (4.2%) 104 (20.0%) 41 (7.9%)

294 (78.8%) 9 (2.4%) 62 (16.6%) 8 (2.1%)

676 (75.8%) 6 (0.7%) 193 (21.6%) 17 (1.9%)

381 (73.4%) 2 (0.4%) 124 (23.9%) 12 (2.3%)

295 (79.1%) 4 (1.1%) 69 (18.5%) 5 (1.3%)

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

nonviolent offending behavior increased by 792% when he or she had been a victim, and the odds increased by 787% that a nonviolent offender would be victimized in a nonviolent situation.

75.8% of the adolescents (73.4% males and 79.1% females) having been free from any involvement in either nonviolent offending or victimization. Nonviolent offending perpetration was much more prevalent in that sample (21.6%; 23.9% males and 18.5% females) than nonviolent victimization was (0.7%; 0.4% males and 1.1% females). Compared with those who had reported violent involvement, a smaller number (only 1.9%) of the adolescents had prior experience in both nonviolent offending perpetration and nonviolent victimization, with more males than females (2.3% versus 1.3%) in that category (see Table 2).

6.4. Bivariate probit models of general, violent, and nonviolent offending and victimization In order to examine whether the error terms between the dependent variables are correlated, Table 5 presents the bivariate relationships between offending and victimization in relation to general, violent, and nonviolent offending behaviors. The unadjusted bivariate probit models (e.g., models without risk factors and control variables) denote that the estimate of rho was found to be significant for the overlapping categories of general offending (b = 0.80, SE = 0.24, p < .001), violent offending (b = 0.75, SE = 0.25, p < .001), and nonviolent offending (b = 0.85, SE = 0.48, p < .001). These significant findings indicate that the error terms are correlated and a more complex statistical model is necessary. As a result, the fully adjusted bivariate probit models (e.g., models with risk factors and control variables) were computed to identify the criminogenic risk factors for general, violent, and nonviolent offending and victimization, respectively. Table 6 details three models that jointly estimate the victim-offender overlap in general offending behavior, in violent offending behavior, and in nonviolent offending behavior. The sample was further reduced to 766 (violent offending) and 767 (general and nonviolent offending) for analysis due to listwise deletion based on missing data for study variables. Pertaining to general offending, having a high level of pro-violence attitudes (b = 0.09, SE = 0.03, p < .01), of a negative temperament (b = 0.07, SE = 0.03, p < .01), and of a deviant peer influence (b = 1.19, SE = 0.24, p < .001), and a low level of social bonding (b = −0.03, SE = 0.01, p < .01) were significantly associated with general offending behavior. In comparison, being a male (b = 0.69, SE = 0.31, p < .05) and having a high level of pro-violence attitudes (b = 0.09, SE = 0.04, p < .01) and of a deviant peer influence (b = 0.71, SE = 0.16, p < .001) emerged to be significant risk factors for experiencing victimization in general. Specifically in regard to the overlap between violent offending and violent victimization, having a high level of pro-violence attitudes (b = 0.13, SE = 0.03, p < .001), of a negative temperament (b = 0.08, SE = 0.03, p < .01), and of a deviant peer influence (b = 0.80, SE = 0.18, p < .001) were significant risk factors for being a violent offender. Conversely, being a male (b = 0.95, SE = 0.35, p < .01) and having a high level of deviant peer influence (b = 0.71, SE = 0.16, p < .001) were significantly associated with the likelihood of falling prey to violent victimization. Interestingly, the fully adjusted bivariate probit model assessing the overlap between nonviolent offending and victimization revealed that overlap had more significant risk factors than the victim-offender overlap for violent offending and victimization did. Specifically, having a low level of self-control (b = −0.05, SE = 0.01, p < .001) and of social bonding (b = −0.06, SE = 0.01, p < .001), and a high level of pro-violence attitudes (b = 0.06, SE = 0.03, p < .05), of a negative temperament (b = 0.06, SE = 0.03, p < .05), and of a deviant peer influence (b = 1.02, SE = 0.19, p < .001) all emerged as significant risk factors for nonviolent

6.2. Pearson correlations of general, violent, and nonviolent offending and victimization Pearson correlations were used to measure the relationships among the different types of offending and victimization (i.e., general, violent, and nonviolent). As is indicated in Table 3, all three types of offending and victimization were found to be significantly and positively correlated with one another. The correlation coefficients for general, violent, and nonviolent offending were in the range of 0.70 to 0.96, whereas the general, violent, and nonviolent victimization coefficients were between 0.57 and 0.98. 6.3. Logistic regressions of general, violent, and nonviolent offending and victimization To explore the relationship between offending and victimization in different types of offending behavior (i.e., general, violent, and nonviolent), Table 4 presents three sets of logistic regressions models, with each model controlling for the adolescents' age and sex. In general, offending perpetration significantly predicted victimization, regardless of the type of offending behavior. In other words, the odds of an adolescent perpetrating a general offending behavior increased by 338% when he or she had been the victim of a general offending behavior, and the odds increased by 337% that a general offender would fall prey to general victimization. When the type of behavior was violent in nature, the odds of an adolescent perpetrating violent behavior increased by 466% when he or she had been a victim of violence, whereas the odds increased by 464% that a violent offender would experience violent victimization. Finally, the odds of an adolescent committing a Table 3 Pearson correlations of general, violent, and nonviolent offending and victimization Offending and victimization

GO

GV

VO

VV

NO

NV

General offending (GO) General victimization (GV) Violent offending (VO) Violent victimization (VV) Nonviolent offending (NO) Nonviolent victimization (NV)

1.00 0.63⁎⁎ 0.86⁎⁎ 0.62⁎⁎ 0.96⁎⁎ 0.45⁎⁎

1.00 0.60⁎⁎ 0.98⁎⁎ 0.58⁎⁎ 0.72⁎⁎

1.00 0.59⁎⁎ 0.70⁎⁎ 0.39⁎⁎

1.00 0.56⁎⁎ 0.57⁎⁎

1.00 0.43⁎⁎

1.00

⁎⁎

p < .01. 5

Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

H.C.O. Chan

Table 4 Logistic regression models of general, violent, and nonviolent offending and victimization

Predictors Age Sex (0 = female, 1 = male) General victimization General offending Violent victimization Violent offending Nonviolent victimization Nonviolent offending Constant Model χ2 Nagelkerke R2 Hosmer-Lemeshow test

General offending

General victimization

Violent offending

Violent victimization

Nonviolent offending

Nonviolent victimization

B (SE) OR 0.13 (0.04) 1.14⁎⁎ 0.20 (0.15) 1.22 1.48 (0.24) 4.38⁎⁎⁎

B (SE) OR 0.12 (0.06) 1.12 0.63 (0.26) 1.89⁎

B (SE) OR 0.09 (0.04) 1.10⁎ 0.33 (0.17) 1.40⁎

B (SE) OR 0.14 (0.07) 1.15⁎ 0.82 (0.29) 2.27⁎⁎

B (SE) OR 0.17 (0.04) 1.19⁎⁎⁎ 0.31 (0.17) 1.36

B (SE) OR 0.21 (0.12) 1.23 −0.18 (0.45) 0.84

1.48 (0.24) 4.37⁎⁎⁎ 1.73 (0.25) 5.66⁎⁎⁎ 1.73 (0.25) 5.64⁎⁎⁎ 2.19 (0.49) 8.92⁎⁎⁎ −3.16 (0.67) 0.04⁎⁎⁎ 60.13⁎⁎⁎ 0.09 4.90

−5.26 (1.06) 0.01⁎⁎⁎ 57.08⁎⁎⁎ 0.13 15.12

−3.05 (0.74) 0.05⁎⁎⁎ 66.14⁎⁎⁎ 0.11 7.96

−5.840 (1.14) 0.01⁎⁎⁎

−4.29 (0.74) 0.01⁎⁎⁎

2.18 (0.49) 8.87⁎⁎⁎ −8.07 (2.04) 0.00⁎⁎⁎

71.70⁎⁎⁎ 0.17 5.26

47.46⁎⁎⁎ 0.08 5.67

30.12⁎⁎⁎ 0.16 9.08

Notes: Beta weights (B), standard error (SE), odds ratio (OR). ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001.

of explanatory power in the models, they did not completely account for the overlap between offending and victimization in any of the three categories of offending behavior: general, violent, and nonviolent. This is because the criminogenic risk factors and control variables were unable to reduce the overlap coefficient (rho) to a nonsignificant value for all three models.

Table 5 Bivariate probit estimates of the joint occurrence of general, violent, and nonviolent offending and victimization General

Violent

Nonviolent

B (SE)

B (SE)

B (SE)

0.75 (0.25) 57.25⁎⁎⁎ −476.34 891

0.85 (0.48) 26.87⁎⁎⁎ −186.80 892

The overlap between offending and victimization Rho (ρ) 0.80 (0.24) Likelihood-ratio test of Rho (ρ) 46.05⁎⁎⁎ -2 log likelihood −528.61 N 892 ⁎⁎⁎

7. Discussion This study is important not only in its contribution to the repertoire of knowledge of the offender-victim overlap, but also specifically for its advancement of such knowledge through an under-researched population – that of Hong Kong's Chinese adolescents. Using a large sample of school-age adolescents in Hong Kong, the purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to explore the relationship between victimization and subsequent offending perpetration in association with different types of offending behaviors (i.e., in general, violent, and nonviolent offending), and (2) to examine whether such a relationship holds after controlling for demographic characteristics and criminogenic factors. The overall prevalence of overlap between victimization and offending in this study was 6.6%, with a higher prevalence rate in male adolescents than in female adolescents (9.4% versus 2.7%). With regard to the type of offending behavior, a much higher prevalence rate of victim-offender overlap was found in association with violent offending, with 5.5% of

p < .001.

offending. Comparatively, having a high level of social bonding (b = 0.08, SE = 0.03, p < .05), of a deviant peer influence (b = 0.83, SE = 0.25, p < .01), and of neighborhood disorganization (b = 0.17, SE = 0.08, p < .05) were significantly associated with having experienced nonviolent victimization. Overall, the strongest predictive factor for all three types of offending behavior – for general, violent, and nonviolent offending and victimization – related to the adolescents' deviant peer influence. However, we should also note that although the criminogenic risk factors and control variables indicated significant and varying degrees

Table 6 Bivariate probit model for the joint occurrence of general, violent, and nonviolent offending and victimization Model I (general)

Correlates Age Sex (0 = female, 1 = male) Self-control Pro-violence attitudes Negative temperament Social bonding Deviant peer influence Neighborhood disorganization Rho (ρ) Likelihood-ratio test of Rho (ρ) −2 log likelihood N

Model II (violent)

Model III (nonviolent)

Offending

Victimization

Offending

Victimization

Offending

Victimization

B (SE) 0.04 (0.05) −0.06 (0.19) −0.02 (0.02) 0.09 (0.03)⁎⁎ 0.07 (0.03)⁎⁎ −0.03 (0.01)⁎⁎ 1.19 (0.24)⁎⁎⁎ 0.05 (0.03) 0.88 (0.31)⁎⁎ 206.66⁎⁎⁎ −783.46 767

B (SE) 0.01 (0.07) 0.69 (0.31)⁎ 0.01 (0.02) 0.09 (0.04)⁎ −0.03 (0.04) 0.02 (0.02) 0.71 (0.16)⁎⁎⁎ 0.05 (0.04)

B (SE) 0.01 (0.05) 0.14 (0.21) −0.01 (0.01) 0.13 (0.03)⁎⁎⁎ 0.08 (0.03)⁎⁎ −0.01 (0.01) 0.80 (0.18)⁎⁎⁎ 0.03 (0.03) 1.08 (0.31)⁎⁎⁎ 169.70⁎⁎⁎ −697.25 766

B (SE) 0.03 (0.08) 0.95 (0.35)⁎⁎ 0.01 (0.02) 0.07 (0.04) −0.02 (0.04) 0.01 (0.02) 0.71 (0.16)⁎⁎⁎ 0.04 (0.05)

B (SE) 0.06 (0.06) −0.14 (0.22) −0.05 (0.01)⁎⁎⁎ 0.06 (0.03)⁎ 0.06 (0.03)⁎ −0.06 (0.01)⁎⁎⁎ 1.02 (0.19)⁎⁎⁎ 0.04 (0.03) 1.59 (0.76)⁎ 219.72⁎⁎⁎ −625.45 767

B (SE) 0.03 (0.14) −0.63 (0.57) 0.01 (0.03) 0.10 (0.09) −0.13 (0.08) 0.08 (0.03)⁎ 0.83 (0.25)⁎⁎ 0.17 (0.08)⁎

⁎

p < .05. p < .01. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .001. ⁎⁎

6

Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

H.C.O. Chan

and specifically in family bonds and school bonds, may expose an individual to victimization (Popp & Peguero, 2012; Posick, 2013). A possible reason for such a finding is that some items that measure social bonding do not explicitly take into account the type of bonding (e.g., prosocial, or antisocial) that is shared with the sources (e.g., parents, and peers). For instance, an intergenerational transmission of deviance is not impossible, because parental deviance is likely to lead to children learning deviant behaviors from their parents (Kobayashi, Sales, Becker, Figueredo, & Kaplan, 1995). Parents are undoubtedly a strong behavioral model for their offspring, particularly if they share a strong attachment. Furthermore, delinquent adolescents may have increased exposure to antisocial peers and risky lifestyle choices, and that in turn may put them at a higher risk of victimization. Nevertheless, this finding was counterintuitive to a certain extent and demands further exploratory research. Several limitations of this study must be acknowledged. First, the findings in this study should be interpreted cautiously because they were limited by the use of self-reported data. Biases, such as social desirability and memory recall, may be present and may in turn result in an underreporting of delinquent behaviors. Future research should consider incorporating a measure of response bias. Second, because of the cross-sectional nature of this study, it failed to investigate the causal relationships between the adolescents' criminogenic characteristics and their self-reported delinquency and victimization, and to explore the temporal nature of the victim-offender overlap (i.e., victimization precedes offending, or vice versa). Thus, future research on this population should be based on a longitudinal model in order to attain a better understanding of the victim-offender overlap phenomenon. Finally, the measures adopted in this study were translated into the Chinese language. Although these measures were carefully translated to minimize errors, the true meaning of these measurement items might still be distorted because they were not presented in the language in which they were originally developed. A major translation problem in research is that of obtaining conceptual equivalence, because a concept that is well understood and regularly used in one culture might not be comparable in another culture (Sechrest, Fay, & Hafeez Zaidi, 1972). For future research, a systematic English-Chinese translation approach should be considered.

the respondents reporting such an overlap (at a prevalence rate of 7.9% in male adolescents and 2.1% in female adolescents) than was found in association with nonviolent offending, with only 1.9% overall reporting an overlap (at a prevalence rate of 2.3% in male adolescents and 1.3% in female adolescents). In general, this study found that victimization and offending were related, and thus, our data lend support for the phenomenon of an overlap. The findings indicate that the approaches used to identify the influence exerted by learning (e.g., pro-violence attitudes, a deviant peer influence), control (e.g., social bonding), and routine activity and lifestyle (e.g., a deviant peer influence) were useful in explaining both the offending phenomenon and the victimization phenomenon. In accord with previous reports in the victim-offender overlap literature (e.g., Hoeben et al., 2016; Osgood et al., 1996; Schreck et al., 2004; Taylor et al., 2007), our results demonstrated that the learning of proviolence attitudes through associating with deviant peers had a significant predictive effect (in the same direction) on the phenomena both of general offending and of general victimization. In other words, adolescents with high levels of pro-violence attitudes and of a deviant peer influence were similarly likely to be at a general risk of engaging in offending behavior and of falling prey to victimization. Associating with delinquent peers has been noted to be a strong correlate of an adolescent's involvement in delinquent activities, both as the perpetrator and as the victim (Schreck et al., 2004; Thornberry, 1996). Hence, it is reasonable to argue that peer deviance is likely to contribute to a platform wherein adolescents learn pro-offending and/or pro-violence attitudes from their peers. Pertaining to violent behavior, only a deviant peer influence jointly predicted (in the same direction) violent offending and violent victimization. On the contrary, social bonding and a deviant peer influence were found to be significant predictors of nonviolent offending and of nonviolent victimization. Put differently, adolescents with a high level of deviant peer influence were equally likely to be at risk of engaging in perpetrating and of falling prey to victimization in both violent and nonviolent situations. The routine activity and lifestyle approach hypothesizes that adolescents are likely to have a heightened risk of engaging in delinquent activities if they are spending substantial time in “unstructured socializing” with their delinquent peers; in turn, such adolescents are also likely to have an increased probability of being victimized, because their delinquent peers are rarely an effective source of protection to them (Schreck et al., 2004). Similarly, social bonding was found to be an important factor associated with both nonviolent offending and victimization. In simple terms, adolescents with a low level of social bonding had an increased likelihood of being involved in nonviolent delinquency, while those with a high level of social bonding had a decreased likelihood of being subjected to nonviolent victimization. Having a high level of social bonding with their parents, prosocial peers, school, and society as a whole insulated the adolescents from being involved in delinquent activities. Specifically, the influence that a strongly bonded relationship with parents or primary caregivers has on adolescents' behavior is universal. A healthy and secure parent-child bond is a factor that protects adolescents from engaging in delinquency (Chan & Chui, 2013, 2015; Chan & Wong, 2019). Similarly important to adolescents is a strong attachment to their prosocial peers, their school (e.g., via a commitment to education), and society (e.g., via their belief in the criminal justice system). For instance, Sprott, Jenkins, and Doob (2005) acknowledged the important role that school plays in protecting at-risk adolescents from involvement in delinquency, by mitigating risk factors such as early aggression, cumulative risks, and peer deviance. Chui and Chan (2011), on the other hand, noted that adolescents who perceived the criminal justice system as unjust were more likely to become involved in delinquent activities. However, the positive relationship between an adolescent's social bonds and his or her victimization is largely inconsistent throughout the literature. Past studies have indicated that a breakdown in social bonds,

8. Implications of the findings Implications for practice can be derived from these findings. It is important to note that many social service agencies tend to structure their programs to be “client-specific,” serving either victims or offenders (Jennings et al., 2010). Many victim-assistance social service programs target their service recipients by the “most” deserving or “true” victims (Karmen, 2007). In fact, this practice is particularly true in Hong Kong, where most social service shelters cater to “true” victims (e.g., battered women, neglected children). The need to provide treatment for both victimization and offending is often overlooked, perhaps because agencies lack knowledge that this phenomenon exists. Offenders are often perceived to be blameworthy for their victimization because of their involvement as offenders. The public health importance of this study is clear, as there is a strong potential for escalation from minor victimization (e.g., school bullying) to serious offending (e.g., physical assault resulting in death). Only with adequate intervention strategies aimed at this specific population can such escalations be averted. Similarly, many offender treatment and rehabilitation programs tend to emphasize the offenders' risk of recidivism, without considering their victimization experiences. Previous studies have suggested that intervention policies and procedures that recognize the overlap between victims and offenders could facilitate more comprehensive rehabilitation regimens (Maldonado-Molina et al., 2010). Acknowledging that many offenders are victims themselves could lead to better and more effective treatment modalities that address the totality of the 7

Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

H.C.O. Chan

treatment subject's specific needs. From the perspective of social service providers, these findings will help to educate social service personnel that there is a large degree of overlap between victimization and offending among the clients whom they serve. The need for tailored social services (i.e., for a combination of offender rehabilitation and victim assistance) should be considered, and the significance of this overlap should not be neglected (Jennings et al., 2010). More importantly, recognizing the shared risk factors for both victimization and offending (i.e., deviant peer influence, social bonding, and pro-violence attitudes) is pivotal for constructing adequate intervention strategies to reduce the propensity to offend in the future and to be revictimized. Family bonding, especially that of secure parent-child attachments, is key to nurturing adolescents' prosocial attitudes and behaviors (e.g., high self-control and self-efficacy, victim empathy, and anger management). Specifically, the issue of individual's self-control and temperament should not be overlooked as they have been consistently found to be significantly related to offending and victimization (Baglivio, Wolff, De Lisi, Vaughn, & Piquero, 2016; Chan & Chui, 2017; De Lisi & Vaughn, 2011, 2014; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990; Vazsonyi, Mikuška, & Kelley, 2017; Wolff, Baglivio, Piquero, Vaughn, & DeLisi, 2016). A positive family atmosphere, effective communication within the family, and adequate parental monitoring and supervision are utterly important. Studies have consistently demonstrated that the tendency to engage in delinquent activities is likely to be reduced if the adolescents in question possess a healthy psychosocial well-being (Chan & Chui, 2013, 2015; Chan & Wong, 2019). In addition, a commitment to educational values is essential for reducing an adolescent's likelihood of dropping out of school and of being exposed to deviant influences and temptations (e.g., of associating with delinquent peers, and of becoming involved in youth gang activities). Needless to say, an overall emphasis on the importance of adolescents' social competence (e.g., by fostering a healthy parent-child relationship, encouraging prosocial peer interaction, and developing prosocial skills) and also their emotional competence (e.g., by fostering their feelings of social belonging in the mainstream culture) should be prioritized to effectively and strategically address the issue of overlapping victimization and offending.

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., Heide, K. M., & Beauregard, E. (2011). What propels sexual murderers: A proposed integrated theory of social learning and routine activities theories. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(2), 228–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10361317. Chan, H. C. O., & Wong, D. S. W. (2015). The overlap between school bullying perpetration and victimization: Assessing the psychological, familial, and school factors of Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(11), 3224–3234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0125-7. Chan, H. C. O., & Wong, D. S. W. (2019). Traditional school bullying and cyberbullying perpetration: Examining the psychosocial characteristics of Hong Kong male and female adolescents. Youth & Society, 51(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0044118X16658053. 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. Chui, W. H., & Chan, H. C. O. (2011). Social bonds and male juvenile delinquency while on probation: An exploratory test in Hong Kong. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(11), 2329–2334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.003. 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. Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1986). Introduction. In D. Cornish, & R. V. Clarke (Eds.). The reasoning criminal (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. De Camp, W., Zaykowski, H., & Lunn, B. (2018). Victim-offender trajectories: Explaining propensity differences from childhood to adulthood through risk and protective factors. British Journal of Criminology, 58(3), 667–688. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/ azx052. De Lisi, M., Kosloski, A. E., Vaughn, M. G., Caudill, J. W., & Trulson, C. R. (2014). Does childhood sexual abuse victimization translate into juvenile sexual offending? New evidence. Violence and Victims, 29(4), 620–635. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708. VV-D-13-00003. De Lisi, M., & Vaughn, M. G. (2011). The importance of neuropsychological deficits relating to self-control and temperament to the prevention of serious antisocial behavior. International Journal of Child, Youth & Family Studies, 2(1/2), 12–35. https://doi. org/10.18357/ijcyfs21/220115425. De Lisi, 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. Eitle, D., & Turner, R. J. (2002). Exposure to community violence and young adult crime: The effects of witnessing violence, traumatic victimization, and other stressful life events. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(2), 214–237. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/002242780203900204. Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. (1985). Explaining delinquency and drug use. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Farrell, C. (2017). Exploring the overlap between sexual victimization and offending among young women across neighborhoods: Does the type of force and type of offending matter? Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260516689778 Advance online publication. 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. 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. van Gelder, J., Averdijk, M., Eisner, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2015). Unpacking the victimoffender overlap: On the role of differentiation and socio-psychological characteristics. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(4), 653–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10940-014-9244-3. Gottfredson, M. R. (2009). The empirical status of control theory in criminology. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Vol. Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory. Vol. 15. Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 77–100). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Standford, CA: Standford University Press. 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. Greene, W. (1997). Econometric analysis (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 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. Hoeben, E. M., Meldrum, R. C., Walker, D., & Young, J. T. (2016). The role of peer delinquency and unstructured socializing in explaining delinquency and substance use: A state-of-the-art review. Journal of Criminal Justice, 47, 108–122. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.08.001. Jennings, W. G., Higgins, G. E., Tewksbury, Gover, A., & Piquero, A. R. (2010). A

Funding This work was supported by the Early Career Scheme (ECS) funded by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong (CityU 21400114). References 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. Averdijk, M., van Gelder, J., Eisner, M., & Ribeaud, D. (2016). Violence begets violence… but how? A decision-making perspective on the victim-offender overlap. Criminology, 54(2), 282–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12102. Baglivio, M. T., Wolff, K. T., De Lisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., & Piquero, A. R. (2016). Effortful control, negative emotionality, and juvenile recidivism: An empirical test of DeLisi and Vaughn's temperament-based theory of antisocial behavior. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 27(3), 376–403. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14789949.2016.1145720. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Beauregard, E., Leclerc, B., & Lussier, P. (2012). Decision making in the crime commission process: Comparing rapists, child molesters, and victim-crossover sex offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(10), 1275–1295. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0093854812453120. Berg, M. T. (2012). The overlap of violent offending and violent victimization: Assessing the evidence and explanations. In M. DeLisi, & P. J. Conis (Eds.). Violent offenders: Theory, research, policy, and practice (pp. 17–38). Burlington, VA: Jones & Bartlett. Chan, H. C. O. (2015). Understanding sexual homicide offenders: An integrated approach. Basingstoke. UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 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

8

Journal of Criminal Justice xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

H.C.O. Chan

revisited: Distinguishing intimate partner violence offenders only, victims only, and victim-offenders. Violence and Victims, 31(4), 573–590. https://doi.org/10.1891/ 0886-6708.VV-D-15-00056. 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., Berg, M. T., Ousey, G. C., Stewart, E. A., & Miller, J. M. (2017). Does the nature of the victimization–offending association fluctuate over the life course? An examination of adolescence and early adulthood. Crime & Delinquency, 63(7), 786–813. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128715619736. 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. Schreck, C. J., Stewart, E. A., & Osgood, D. W. (2008). A reappraisal of the overlap of violent offenders and victims. Criminology, 46(4), 871–906. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1745-9125.2008.00127.x. 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. Seto, M. C. (2008). Pedophilia and sexual offending against children: Theory, assessment, and intervention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Seto, M. C., & Lalumière, M. L. (2010). What is so special about male adolescent sexual offending? A review and test of explanations through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 526–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019700. 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. Sprott, J. B., Jenkins, J. M., & Doob, A. N. (2005). The importance of school: Protecting at- risk youth from early offending. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 3(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204004270943. Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott. t Hart-Kerkhoffs, L. A., Vermeirenm, R. R. J. M., Jansen, L. M. C., & Doreleijers, T. A. H. (2011). Juvenile group sex offenders: A comparison of group leaders and followers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260510362882. 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. Thornberry, T. (1996). Empirical support for interactional theory: A review of the literature. In J. D. Hawkins (Ed.). Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 198–235). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 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. Vazsonyi, A. T., Mikuška, J., & Kelley, E. L. (2017). It's time: A meta-analysis on the selfcontrol-deviance link. Journal of Criminal Justice, 48, 48–63. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.10.001. Wang, X., Cheon, H., & Beckman, L. (2019). Assessing the violent offending and violent victimization overlap among a sample of Chinese youth and young adults. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(3), 374–394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818806024. Warr, M. (2002). Companions in crime: The social aspects of criminal conduct. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Widom, C. S., & Maxfield, M. G. (2001). An update on the cycle of violence. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Program, National Institute of Justice. Wolff, K. T., Baglivio, M. T., Piquero, A. R., Vaughn, M. G., & DeLisi, M. (2016). The triple crown of antisocial behavior: Effortful control, negative emotionality, and community disadvantage. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 14(4), 350–366. https://doi. org/10.1177/1541204015599042. Zuravin, S., McMillen, C., DePanfilis, D., & Risley-Curtiss, C. (1996). The intergenerational cycle of maltreatment: Continuity versus discontinuity. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11(3), 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626096011003001.

longitudinal assessment of the victim-offender overlap. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25(12), 2147–2174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260509354888. Jennings, W. G., Piquero, A. R., & Reingle, J. M. (2012). On the overlap between victimization and offending: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17(1), 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.09.003. Jennings, W. G., Tomisich, E. A., Gover, A. R., & Akers, R. L. (2011). Assessing the overlap in dating violence perpetration and victimization among South Korean college students: The influence of social learning and self-control. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(2), 188–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-011-9110-x. Jennings, W. G., Zgoba, K. M., Maschi, T., & Reingle, J. M. (2014). An empirical assessment of the overlap between sexual victimization and sex offending. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 58(12), 1466–1480. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0306624X13496544. Jesperson, A. F., Lalumière, M. L., & Seto, M. C. (2009). Sexual abuse history among adult sex offenders and non-sex offenders: A meta-analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 33(3), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.07.004. Karmen, A. (2007). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Kobayashi, J., Sales, B. D., Becker, J. V., Figueredo, A. J., & Kaplan, M. S. (1995). Perceived parental deviance, parent-child bonding, child abuse, and child sexual aggression. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 7(1), 25–44. https:// doi.org/10.1007/BF022548. Lauritsen, J. L., Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). The link between offending and victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29(2), 265–292. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1745-9125.1991.tb01067.x. 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. Manasse, M. E., & Ganem, N. M. (2009). Victimization as a cause of delinquency: The role of depression and gender. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(4), 371–378. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.06.004. Muftić, L. R., Finn, M. A., & Marsh, E. A. (2015). The victim-offender overlap, intimate partner violence, and sex: Assessing differences among victims, offenders, & victimoffenders. Crime & Delinquency, 61(7), 899–926. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0011128712453677. Mustaine, E. E., & Tewksbury, R. (2000). Comparing the lifestyles of victims, offenders, and victim-offenders: A routine activity theory assessment of similarities and differences for criminal incident participants. Sociological Focus, 33(3), 339–362. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00380237.2000.10571174. 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(4), 635–655. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096397. 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. Pizarro, J., Zgoba, K., & Jennings, W. G. (2011). Assessing the interaction of offender and victim lifestyle characteristics for differentiating homicide incidents. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(5), 367–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.05.002. Popp, A. M., & Peguero, A. A. (2012). Social bonds and the role of school-based victimization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(17), 3366–3388. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0886260512445386. 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. 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. 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. Richards, T. N., Tomsich, E., Gover, A. R., & Jennings, W. G. (2016). The cycle of violence

9