Abstract
Multi-level research has shown that individual and community factors are important predictors of the risk for violent victimization. However, previous analyses have drawn different conclusions about the role of any given factor. These differences likely are related to variations in how violence is measured and to the fact that the data are drawn from different locales. The research presented here uses the 1995 National Crime Victimization Survey and tract-level census data to examine (1) how the risk of violence is distributed across persons and places in the United States and (2) whether empirical findings are sensitive to the operationalization of violence. Results show that some individual-level predictors (e.g., gender and race) are sensitive to the operationalization of violence, whereas others (e.g., age and marital status) are not. In addition, the impact of community characteristics on violence depends on central-city residence. In central cities, persons most at risk are in disadvantaged tracts, with lower proportions of immigrants. Outside central cities, the proportion of immigrants in an area increases risk, while community disadvantage has no independent influence. The importance of an empirical foundation for the development of theories of risk is discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Aldrich, J., and Nelson, F. (1984). Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Bachman, R. (1992). Crime Victimization in City, Suburban, and Rural Areas: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington DC.
Bachman, R., and Saltzman, L. (1995). Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.
Craven, D. (1997). Sex Differences in Violent Victimization, 1994, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.
Gottfredson, M. (1986). Substantive contributions of victimization surveys.In Tonry, M., and Morris, N. (eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 7, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., and Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.
Kennedy, L., and Forde, D. (1999). When Push Comes to Shove: A Routine Conflict Approach to Violence. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.
Kindermann, C., Lynch, J., and Cantor, D (1997). Effects of the Redesign on Violence Estimates, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC.
Lehnen, R., and Skogan, W. (1984). The National Crime Survey: Working Papers, Vol. II: Methodological Studies, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C.
Liska, A. (1990). The significance of aggregates for testing and conceptually linking macro and micro theories. Soc. Psychol. Q. 53: 292–301.
Meier, R., and Miethe, T. (1993). Understanding theories of criminal victimization. In Tonry, M., and Morris, N. (eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Vol. 17, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Miethe, T., and McDowall, D. (1993). Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization. Soc. Forces 71: 741–749.
Miethe, T. and Meier, R. (1994). Crime and Its Social Context: Toward an Integrated Theory of Offenders, Victims, and Situations, State University of New York Press, Albany.
O'Brien, R. M. (1985). Crime and Victimization Data, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Rountree, P. W., Land, K., and Miethe, T. (1994). Macro-micro integration in the study of victimization: a hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods. Criminology 32: 387–414.
Sampson, R. J., and Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: testing social disorganization theory. Am. J. Sociol. 94: 774–802.
Sampson, R. J., and Lauritsen, J. L. (1990). Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime, and the offender-victim link in personal violence. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 27: 110–139.
Sampson, R. J., and Wooldredge, J. (1987). Linking the micro-and macro-dimensions of lifestyle-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization. J. Quant. Criminol. 3: 371–393.
Sampson, R., and Lauritsen, J. L. (1994). Violent victimization and offending: individual-, situational-, and community-level risk factors. In Understanding and Preventing Violence, Vol. 3, Social Influences, National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp. 1–114.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S., and Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277: 918–924.
StataCorp (1997). Stata Statistical Software: Release 5.0, StataCorp, College Station, TX.
Wiersema, B. (1999). Area-identified national crime victimization survey data: a resource available through the national consortium on violence research. NCOVR Working Paper Series, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lauritsen, J.L. The Social Ecology of Violent Victimization: Individual and Contextual Effects in the NCVS. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 17, 3–32 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007574114380
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007574114380