Elsevier

Journal of Criminal Justice

Volume 38, Issue 5, September–October 2010, Pages 1071-1081
Journal of Criminal Justice

Adolescent school-based sexual victimization: Exploring the role of opportunity in a gender-specific multilevel analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.07.010Get rights and content

Abstract

Purpose

Most research on school-based adolescent sexual victimization has lacked an explicit theoretical focus. This study examined whether an opportunity framework is appropriate for understanding adolescent school-based sexual harassment and sexual assault victimization using gender-specific multilevel analysis.

Methods

Using a sample of middle and high school adolescents, we examined the effects of individual-level indicators of opportunity on school-based sexual harassment and sexual assault victimization. In addition, we explored the relative influence of school factors on student sexual victimization, including the potential moderating influence the school environment may have on the effects of individual-level indicators of opportunity. Finally, we examined the potential differences in the correlates of sexual victimization across male and female adolescents.

Results

Several individual-level indicators of opportunity were associated with school-based sexual harassment and sexual assault for both males and females, though several important gender differences were observed. In addition, school factors directly and indirectly influenced sexual victimization.

Conclusions

Findings suggest that an opportunity framework is appropriate for understanding school-based sexual harassment and sexual assault victimization, and that important gender differences do exist. The implications of these results and directions for future research are discussed.

Research Highlights

►Individual-level indicators of opportunity are correlated with adolescent school-based sexual harassment and sexual assault victimization. ►Not only do school factors influence school-based victimization risk directly, they also indirectly influence it by moderating the effects of individual-level indicators of opportunity. ►Though opportunity variables are correlated with sexual victimization risk for both male and female adolescents, there are several important gender differences, indicating that perceived opportunity for victimization does not operate uniformly across gender.

Introduction

Adolescents in the United States are at greater risk for criminal victimization compared to most other age groups (Rand, 2009), with a substantial amount of this victimization occurring in school. For instance, recent data show that students are actually at a greater risk of theft victimization inside of school than away from school and that “no measurable difference” exists in adolescent rates of violent victimization at school versus away from school (Dinkes, Kemp, & Baum, 2009, p. 10). In light of such findings, a good deal of research over the past several decades has been devoted to understanding the correlates of adolescent school-based victimization risk. An especially promising framework in this endeavor is one that emphasizes the variation across adolescents in opportunities for victimization while at school. Such opportunities for victimization are thought to be a function of an individual's exposure/proximity to motivated offenders at school, perceived “suitability” as a target of crime at school, and ineffectiveness of guardianship at school (e.g., see Campbell Augustine et al., 2002, Garofalo et al., 1987, Schreck et al., 2003).

Despite general support for an opportunity-based approach to understanding adolescent school-based victimization, this framework is rarely applied to school-based sexual victimization. Most studies, instead, emphasize non-sexual violent victimization and/or property crime victimization (e.g., Campbell Augustine et al., 2002, Schreck et al., 2003, Wilcox et al., 2009). Yet, limited work on sexual harassment and sexual assault among secondary school students has shown them to be prevalent, especially in the school context. For example, the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, 1993, American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, 2001. Thus, further etiological work on school-based sexual victimization specifically – including work from an opportunity perspective – is warranted. Is it distinct etiologically from other forms of school-based victimization of youth, or is it, too, correlated with indicators of opportunity? We believe this is an important empirical question. Studies of college students suggest that an opportunity framework holds considerable promise for understanding both sexual and non-sexual victimization of young adults in the campus environment (e.g., Fisher et al., 1998, Mustaine and Tewksbury, 2002, Schwartz and Pitts, 1995, Ullman et al., 1999). Despite the evidence based on college-aged individuals, an opportunity perspective has received scant attention in relation to sexual victimization of secondary school students. It is the latter group, secondary school adolescents, to which we refer and upon which we focus our research efforts throughout this study.

In short, we address the question of whether opportunity is a relevant paradigm for understanding sexual victimization of middle and high school students. We do so through a gender-specific, multilevel analysis of sexual victimization among a large sample of middle and high school students drawn from public schools in Kentucky. More specifically, among this sample, we examine the relative influence and possible interdependency of individual-level and school-level indicators of opportunity for in-school sexual harassment and sexual assault victimization.1 In the course of this analysis, we explore possible differences in multilevel influences on in-school sexual victimization across male and female students.

Section snippets

Opportunity and victimization

Beginning with their seminal piece in 1979, Cohen and Felson focused on the circumstances surrounding criminal events rather than the motivation of offenders. In doing so, they argued that crime is a function of opportunity. For a crime to occur there must be a convergence in time and space of motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of capable guardians (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Although initially developed as a macro-level theory to explain crime rate trends (e.g., Cohen et al.,

Sexual victimization at school

According to the AAUW, school-based sexual harassment is a pervasive issue, as four out of five students experience some form of sexual harassment during their school career (American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, 2001, Lee et al., 1996). Pinpointing precise prevalence rates has proven tricky, however, as many studies have utilized lifetime or annual prevalence estimates. Some, however, have relied on a much shorter reference period in order to gain more accurate

The present study

The present study contributes to the existing literature on sexual victimization by exploring three lines of inquiry in gender-specific multilevel analyses. First, we estimate the effects of individual indicators of opportunity on school-based sexual harassment and sexual assault victimization for a sample of middle and high school adolescents. Second, we explore the relative influence of environmental factors on sexual victimization, including whether they moderate the effects of individual

Sexual harassment: males

Results for the gender-specific sexual harassment victimization final models are presented in Table 2.11 The variance component for the unconditional model of sexual harassment victimization for males was significant (u0j = 0.09; s.d. = 0.31; χ2 = 203.30; p < 0.01), suggesting that there is cross-school variation in the mean risk of sexual harassment victimization for male

Discussion and conclusions

Several studies of school-based victimization have been grounded in an opportunity perspective (Cohen & Felson, 1979), though such a framework has not been applied to sexual victimization specifically. In the present study, we explored whether an opportunity perspective was appropriate for explaining school-based sexual victimization among a sample of middle and high school students, and if indicators of opportunity influence male and female students similarly. Our gender-specific multilevel

References (52)

  • J.L. Petersen et al.

    A longitudinal investigation of peer sexual harassment victimization in adolescence

    Journal of Adolescence

    (2009)
  • Hostile hallways: The AAUW survey on sexual harassment in America's schools

    (1993)
  • Hostile hallways: Bullying, teasing, and sexual harassment in school

    (2001)
  • E.A. Anderman et al.

    Victimization and safety in schools serving adolescents

    Journal of Early Adolescence

    (1997)
  • L.P. Ashbaugh et al.

    Sexual harassment and bullying behaviors in sixth- graders

    Journal of School Violence

    (2008)
  • R.A. Astor et al.

    Unowned places and times: Maps and interviews about violence in high schools

    American Educational Research Journal

    (1999)
  • C. Bagley et al.

    Sexual assault in school, mental health, and suicidal behaviors in adolescent women in Canada

    Adolescence

    (1997)
  • L. Bauer et al.

    Student victimization in U.S. schools: Results from the 2005 School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey

    (2008)
  • R. Benbenishty et al.

    School violence in context: Culture, neighborhood, family, school, and gender

    (2005)
  • J. Burrow et al.

    Youth behavior, school structure, and student risk of victimization

    Justice Quarterly

    (2008)
  • M. Campbell Augustine et al.

    Opportunity theory and adolescent school-based victimization

    Violence and Victims

    (2002)
  • L.E. Cohen et al.

    Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach

    American Sociological Review

    (1979)
  • L.E. Cohen et al.

    Property crime rates in the United States: A macrodynamic analysis, 1947-1977; with ex ante forecasts for the mid-1980s

    The American Journal of Sociology

    (1980)
  • L.E. Cohen et al.

    Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory

    American Sociological Review

    (1981)
  • R. Dinkes et al.

    Indicators of school crime and safety: 2008

    (2009)
  • S. Fineran et al.

    Gender and power issues of peer sexual harassment among teenagers

    Journal of Interpersonal Violence

    (1999)
  • S. Fineran et al.

    Risk factors for peer sexual harassment in schools

    Journal of Interpersonal Violence

    (2006)
  • D. Finkelhor et al.

    Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a lifestyles/routine activities theory approach

    Violence and Victims

    (1996)
  • B.S. Fisher et al.

    Crime in the ivory tower: Level and sources of student victimization

    Criminology

    (1998)
  • D.R. Forde et al.

    Risky lifestyles, routine activities, and the general theory of crime

    Justice Quarterly

    (1997)
  • J. Garofalo et al.

    School-related victimizations among adolescents: An analysis of National Crime Survey (NCS) narratives

    Journal of Quantitative Criminology

    (1987)
  • R. George et al.

    Victimization among middle and high school students: A multilevel analysis

    High School Journal

    (2000)
  • A.R. Gover et al.

    Adolescent male and female gang members’ experiences with violent victimization, dating violence, and sexual assault

    American Journal of Criminal Justice

    (2009)
  • M.J. Hindelang et al.

    Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization

    (1978)
  • C. Jenny

    Adolescent risk-taking behavior and the occurrence of sexual assault

    American Journal of Diseases of Children

    (1988)
  • V.E. Lee et al.

    The culture of sexual harassment in secondary schools

    American Educational Research Journal

    (1996)
  • Cited by (0)

    Authors’ Note: This research was sponsored in part by grant DA-11317 (Richard R. Clayton, principal investigator) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. We thank Richard R. Clayton, Graham C. Ousey, Scott A. Hunt, Michelle Campbell Augustine, Shayne Jones, Kimberly Reeder, Staci Roberts, and Jon Paul Bryan for their contributions to the Rural Substance Abuse and Violence Project, which provided the data analyzed here.

    View full text