Article

Gendered Opportunity and

School-Based Victimization:
An Integrated Approach

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

1-19
The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1541204016680402
journals.sagepub.com/home/yvj

Samuel Peterson1, Nicole V. Lasky2, Bonnie S. Fisher1,

and Pamela Wilcox1

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

Adolescents are exposed to unique opportunities for school-based property and violent victimization. Garofalo, Siegel, and Laub (1987) were among the first to examine opportunities for victimization within the school context, finding that more than half of all reported adolescent victimizations
occurred at some point during the process of attending school. Decades of research have supported
this finding, showing that adolescent victimization risk is greater while inside school than outside of
school (e.g., Augustine, Wilcox, Ousey, & Clayton, 2002; Wilcox, Tillyer, & Fisher, 2009). The
2014 Indicators of School Crime and Safety, for example, reported that adolescents aged 1218
experienced a rate of 55 per 1,000 nonfatal victimizations in school during 2013, which included
1
2

University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, OK, USA

Corresponding Author:
Samuel Peterson, School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, 550 Dyer Hall, Box 210389, Cincinnati, OH 45221,
USA.
Email: peters5@mail.uc.edu

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

rates of 18 per 1,000 thefts and 37 per 1,000 assaults (Robers, Zhang, Morgan, & Musu-Gillette,
2015). These rates of in-school theft and assault victimization were higher than rates of theft and
assault outside school for this age range (16 and 15 per 1,000, respectively); this trend has been
documented since the late 1990s (Robers et al., 2015). Moreover, male students consistently experienced a greater rate of both types of victimization compared to females. For instance, in 2013,
males experienced a rate of 62 per 1,000 nonfatal victimizations, compared to the female rate of 47
per 1,000 (Robers et al., 2015).
Three parallel, but distinct, bodies of research have developed to explain opportunities for
adolescent school-based victimization focusing on the effects of (1) lifestyles and routine activities, (2) low self-control, and (3) friends characteristics. First, researchers working within the
lifestyleroutine activity approach have well established that school-based opportunities for victimization are related to adolescents lifestyles and routine activities, such as playing sports,
joining clubs, or taking part in unstructured and/or delinquent activities (e.g., Peguero, 2008).
Additionally, low self-control likely plays an antecedent or concurrent role to the lifestyles and
routine activities predicting victimization (for a recent review, see Wilcox, Fisher, & Lasky,
2015). Finally, other researchers have reported that friends characteristics, such as associating
with opposite-sex friends, can increase adolescents risks for both delinquency and victimization
(Haynie & Soller, 2015; McGloin & DiPietro, 2013). Importantly, researchers using each of these
three approaches have considered the interplay of gender, examining the extent to which gender
moderates the effects of lifestyles and routine activities, low self-control, or friends characteristics on property and violent victimization.
Despite the theoretical contributions of such research, no published study to date has considered,
simultaneously, the interrelationships among all three key constructslifestyles and routine activities, low self-control, and friends characteristicsin estimating pathways to victimization. This
study takes the logical next step to explain adolescent school-based victimization by integrating
these distinct bodies of research. Specifically, we present a multiple-group structural equation model
(SEM) analysis of a large, national sample of 10th-grade high school students drawn from the 2002
Education Longitudinal Study (ELS: 2002). We test whether and how lifestyles and routine activities mediate the relationship between low self-control and friends characteristics to create different
victimization opportunities for male and female adolescents. To that end, in the next section, we
review the victimization research concerning the effects of school-based and delinquent lifestyles
and routine activities, low self-control, and friends characteristics and highlight relevant findings
about the moderating role of gender within each section. Next, we integrate these three lines of
research into one conceptual model explaining school-based victimization, and then, we present the
methods and data used in the current study.

Literature Review
LifestyleRoutine Activity Theory, Gender, and Victimization
Researchers have well established that criminal victimization is partly a function of lifestyles and
routine activities, which results in the convergence of motivated offenders and suitable targets in the
absence of capable guardianship (Cohen & Felson, 1979; Cohen, Kleugal, & Land, 1981). According to this perspective, certain lifestyles and routines affect exposure and/or proximity to motivated
offenders, increase perceived target suitability, and decrease levels of capable guardianship, thereby
influencing victimization risk.
School-based activities. In line with the idea that crime opportunity emerges from legitimate, everyday
activity (Cohen & Felson, 1979), a number of studies have found that even structured activities

Peterson et al.

among adolescents seem to provide opportunity for victimization. For example, participating in
school sports has been associated with increased experiences of sexual harassment, sexual assault,
theft, and general victimization (Peguero & Popp, 2012; Tillyer, Wilcox, & Gialopsos, 2010;
Wilcox et al., 2009). Additionally, participation in other school activities, such as school clubs,
has been associated with increased experiences of property and violent victimization (Popp &
Peguero, 2011).
There is also evidence that gender moderates the effects of school-based routine activities. Using
the 2002 ELS data, Popp and Peguero (2011) found that females who participated in school clubs
and interscholastic sports had a lower likelihood of experiencing violent victimization than did male
adolescents. Yet, they also found that females who participated in intramural sports had a higher
likelihood of experiencing violent victimization than did males. Wilcox, Tillyer, and Fishers (2009)
analysis of theft and assault victimization also revealed that specific routine activities can influence
victimization risk differently across gender. Their findings show that male involvement in school
sports was associated with decreased risk of school-based assault victimization, while female
involvement in school sports was associated with increased risk.
Delinquent activities and school misconduct. Another well-established finding within the lifestyle
routine activity tradition is that adolescents who engage in delinquent activities, such as alcohol
and/or drug use, vandalism, or gang-related activities, are at greater risk of experiencing personal
and property victimization (Jensen & Brownfield, 1986; Lauritsen, Sampson, & Laub, 1991;
Osgood, Wilson, OMalley, Bachman, & Johnston, 1996; Schreck, Wright, & Miller, 2002). Similarly, indicators of school misconduct and responses to school misconduct (e.g., suspensions) are
associated with increased victimization risk as well (Nofziger, 2009; Peguero, 2013). Moreover, as
explained by Schreck, Wright, and Miller (2002), associating with delinquent peer groups increases
victimization risk because potential offenders do not have to deviate from their routine activities to
locate suitable targets. This indicates that friends of delinquent peers make up the most suitable pool
of victims. However, the authors also state that simply spending time with peers in unstructured,
unsupervised leisure activities is related to increased victimization risk, whether or not the peers
themselves are delinquent.
Research has also suggested that the relationship between delinquent activities and victimization
is moderated by gender. For example, Menard and Coveys (2015) analysis of the 11th and 12th
waves of the National Youth Survey Family Study indicated that the positive relationship between
specific types of victimization and offending is present primarily or solely for males. Similarly,
Felson and Burchfield (2004) found that drinking enhances the risk of physical and sexual assault
victimization more so for males than for females. In contrast, research predicting in-school victimization specifically has reported that a delinquent lifestyle was more strongly related to victimization for females as opposed to males (Fineran & Bolen, 2006; Tillyer et al., 2010; Wilcox et al.,
2009). Other studies report no significant gender differences or inconsistent gender differences in the
effect of delinquent lifestyle on violent victimization (e.g., Henson, Wilcox, Reyns, & Cullen, 2010;
Zaykowski & Gunter, 2013).

Low Self-Control, Gender, and Victimization

Much evidence has accumulated to indicate that having low self-control substantially increases the
likelihood of experiencing adolescent victimization (Pratt, Turanovic, Fox, & Wright, 2014;
Schreck, 1999; Schreck et al., 2002). Several studies have explored the ways in which low selfcontrols effect on victimization is potentially mediated by lifestyles and routine activities, such that
low self-control affects many of the lifestyle choices individuals make, including those related to
delinquency and misconduct (Baron, Forde, & Kay, 2007; Schreck, 1999). However, research is

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

divided as to whether or not the effects of low self-control are fully mediated by risky behaviors as
Schreck (1999) originally implied (cf., Pratt et al., 2014; Schreck et al., 2002; Turanovic & Pratt,
2014; Turanovic, Reisig, & Pratt, 2014). Past research also suggests that gender may moderate the
relationship between low self-control and victimization (Flexon, Meldrum, & Piquero, 2015),
although the evidence for this moderation is mixed (Turanovic et al., 2014). Overall, the existing
research suggests that low self-control is an important explanatory construct for adolescent victimization that is likely connected to other important explanatory constructs, such as gender and
routine activities through potential moderating and mediating processes, respectively.

Friends Characteristics, Gender, and Victimization

The influence of friends characteristics has been the focus in social network literature on offending
(Haynie, Doogan, & Soller, 2014; McGloin & DiPietro, 2013), yet very few researchers have
integrated such influences into their models of victimization. In agreement with Flexon, Meldrum,
and Piquero (2015), we argue that friends characteristics constitute another set of opportunity
variables that (1) affect victimization directly, (2) affect victimization indirectly through lifestyles
and routine activities, and (3) are intertwined with gender and victimization (see also Schreck,
Fisher, & Miller, 2004).
The gender composition of ones friendships affects adolescents risks of both delinquency and
victimization. This is largely because females tend toward more prosocial behavior, and males are
more likely to engage in risky activities (Haynie & Soller, 2015). In light of these differences, males
who are friends with females may be less inclined to engage in delinquency, making friendship with
females a possible protective factor against victimization for males (Haynie & Piquero, 2006). That
said, Swartz, Reyns, Wilcox, and Dunhams (2012) descriptive analysis of the friendships within one
high school social network found that rates of victimization characterizing the various friendship
groups within the network were not clearly linked to the gender composition of the groups. For
example, the high-victimization groups within the network varied dramatically in terms of percentages of female memberssome high-risk groups did not include female members, yet another of
the highest risk groups within the network was 88% female.
Having male peers, including romantic partners, is typically considered a primary pathway
toward delinquency and victimization for female adolescents (Haynie, Steffensmeier, & Bell,
2007; Haynie & Soller, 2015; McGloin & DiPietro, 2013). Because males are more likely to be
deviant, they are more likely to expose females to attitudes favorable to delinquency and to social
environments that not only permit, but support risky behavior and that lack adult supervision
(Haynie et al., 2007). Thus, socializing with males, as compared to socializing with females, creates
more opportunity for females to engage in delinquency and to experience victimization (Haynie &
Soller, 2015; McGloin & DiPietro, 2013).
Consistent with the work examining the effects of friendships with females versus males, past
research suggests that whether opposite-sex friendships are a protective or a risk factor depends on
the respondents own gender as well as the sex ratio of the friendship group. According to McGloin
and DiPietro (2013), a groups makeup has the potential to perpetuate or to inhibit delinquency since
female-dominated groups engage in less risky behavior, while male-dominated groups normalize
such behavior. Haynie, Steffensmeier, and Bell (2007) explained that the negative influence of peers
on females increases as the proportion of opposite-sex friends increases, but that this is not the case
for the positive influence of larger proportions of female friends for males.
Research also suggests that popularity and prosocial peer groups may affect delinquent behavior
and victimization. In adolescence, popularity is likely associated with status-seeking behaviors that
may increase the likelihood of delinquency and victimization (Stogner, Miller, Fisher, Stewart, &
Schreck, 2014). Prosocial peer groups, however, are assumed to reduce delinquency and,

Peterson et al.

consequently, victimization (Costello, 2010). From an opportunity perspective, prosocial friends

might act as guardians or may promote routine activities in which guardians are present (see, e.g.,
Felson, 1995).
Overall, past research on the role of friends in victimization risk indicates that risk is
increased for female adolescents by having male friends, while that for male adolescents is
likely unaffected by having female friends. From this, we can conclude that the effect of
friends on victimization is gendered. Additionally, there is some evidence that other friend
characteristics, such as popularity and prosocial behavior, may affect victimization risk as
well. All of the above findings highlight the important, gendered, role of friends in victimization, warranting a closer examination of how friends characteristics are related to the other
important constructs identified in the victimization literature of lifestyles and routine activities and low self-control.

Bringing Together Lifestyles and Routine Activities, Low Self-Control, and Friends
Characteristics: An Integrated Approach
Altogether, the three bodies of research reviewed above illustrate several key aspects regarding the
relationships among lifestyles and routine activities, low self-control, friends characteristics, and
victimization, including how these interrelationships are potentially conditioned by gender. First,
opportunity for criminal victimization arises through routine legitimate activities that promote the
convergence of motivated offenders, suitable targets, and a lack of capable guardianship, and gender
has been shown to moderate the effects of some school-based routine activities on victimization risk.
Relatedly, past research shows that delinquent activities and school misconduct increase risk of
experiencing victimization and that gender potentially moderates this relationship as well. Third,
low self-control has been associated with victimization directly as well as with forms of risky
behavior that can increase the likelihood of experiencing victimization, and there is some evidence
that these effects might also vary by gender. Finally, opportunity for victimization is related to the
extent to which adolescents friends exhibit prosocial tendencies, value popularity, and are of the
opposite sex. For females in particular, both victimization risk and the likelihood of engaging in
delinquency increase as the sex ratio of friendship groups becomes more male oriented. Popularity
and the prosocial tendencies of friends likely affect victimization either directly or indirectly by
affecting delinquency.
To bring together these three bodies of research, we propose an integrated conceptual model (see
Figure 1) that incorporates school-based activities, school misconduct, low self-control, and friends
characteristics as key determinants of the opportunity structure for adolescent victimization.
Furthermore, we suggest that all of the interrelationships among these factors are potentially moderated by gender. As displayed in Figure 1, we propose that low self-control and friends characteristics have direct effects on school-based victimization, as well as indirect effects through
adolescents routine activities. We also posit that adolescents routine activities affect schoolbased victimization directly. The routine activities indicators are separated into school-based activities and school misconduct since these constructs likely have different relationships with other
variables in the model. To control for the possibility that low self-control is associated with having
friends with certain characteristics, we model correlations among low self-control and friends
characteristics. Lastly, and not explicitly pictured in Figure 1, we explore the extent to which gender
moderates these proposed relationshipswe thus propose testing this conceptual model separately
for males and females. While researchers have examined each of the pathways represented in Figure
1 separately or have examined a combination of a few of them, this is the first study, to our
knowledge, that integrates all of these concepts into an integrated gendered model of schoolbased victimization.

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

Friends Characteristics
Prosocial Friends
Popular Friends
Opposite Sex Friends

Lifestyles and Routine

Activities
School-based Activities

School-based

Intramural Sports
Interscholastic Sports
Non-Sport Activities

Victimization

School Misconduct
Low Self-Control

Figure 1. Conceptual model for the effects of lifestyleroutine activities, low self-control, and friends
characteristics on school-based victimization.

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

Variables
Descriptive statistics for all variables in our model are shown in Table 1. Appendix Table A1
provides detailed information regarding the survey items used for measurement, variable coding,
and, where applicable, reliability, and exploratory principal components analysis (PCA) results.
School-based victimization. Student school-based victimization is operationalized into two types:
violent and property. Students were asked how many times (Never, Once or twice, or More than
twice) they experienced various types of victimization in the first semester or term of the current
school year. Violent victimization was recoded to a dichotomous measure (0 never; 1 once or
more) constructed from three items: (1) Someone threatened to hurt me at school, (2) someone hit
me, and (3) someone used strong-arm or forceful methods to get money or things from me. As shown

Peterson et al.

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.

Total
Variables

Range

Male

Mean SD

School-based victimization
Violent victimization
01
11,094 0.34
Property
01
11,094 0.44
victimization
Lifestyles and routine activities
Intramural sports
08
10,920 0.69
Interscholastic
08
10,903 0.98
sports
Nonsport activities
09
10,905 0.94
School misconduct
04
11,089 0.72
Low self-control
03
8,747 1.28
Friends characteristics
Prosocial friends
02
8,267 1.45
Popular friends
02
8,153 1.13
Opposite-sex
01
11,094 0.18
friend ratio
Control variables
Non-White or
01
11,094 0.47
Hispanic
Socioeconomic
1.0 -1.8 9,880 0.07
status
Educational
21.579.9 11,094 49.60
achievement

Mean

Female
SD

Mean SD

Significance
of MF Diff.
t

0.47 5,391
0.50 5,391

0.42
0.49

0.49 5,703
0.50 5,703

0.27 0.44
0.40 0.49

***
***

1.25 5,288
1.32 5,286

0.79
1.08

1.33 5,632
1.39 5,617

0.60 1.16
0.89 1.26

***
***

1.28 5,286
0.58 5,389
0.71 4,062

0.72
0.77
1.33

1.18 5,619
0.63 5,700
0.72 4,685

1.15 1.34
0.69 0.54
1.24 0.70

***
***
***

0.48 3,825
0.47 3,769
0.24 5,391

1.38
1.19
0.18

0.50 4,442
0.48 4,384
0.25 5,703

1.52 0.46
1.08 0.46
0.18 0.23

***
***

0.50 5,391

0.47

0.50 5,703

0.47 0.50

0.61 4,847

0.07

0.61 5,033

0.06 0.62

9.94 5,391 49.43 10.23 5,703 49.77 9.67

***p < .001.

in Table 1, 34 percent of the overall sample reported experiencing at least one form of violent victimization, which was reported by 42 percent of male students compared to 27 percent of female students (t
17.32, df 11,092, p < .05). Property victimization was recoded into a dichotomous measure (0 never;
1 once or more) constructed from 2 items: (1) I had something stolen from me at school and
(2) Someone purposely damaged or destroyed my belongings.2 Here, 44 percent of the sample experienced at least one form of property victimization, with significantly more males experiencing property
victimization compared to females (49% and 40%, respectively; t 9.74, df 11,091, p < .001).
School-based activities and school misconduct. The 2002 ELS data contain measures of school-based
activities, such as whether students participated in intramural sports, interscholastic sports, or
nonsport activities. Students were asked to report whether they participated in any of these activities
during the current school year. The number of activities students participated in within each category
was combined to form count variables (see Appendix Table A1 for list of activities). As shown in
Table 1, male students were significantly more involved in intramural (male x 0.79; female
x 0.60; t 8.28, df 10,918, p < .001) and interscholastic sports (male x 1.08; female
x 0.89; t 7.37, df 10,901, p < .001) than females. However, female students reported
more engagement in nonsport activities than males (male x 0.72; female x 1.15; t 17.90,
df 10,903, p < .001).
In line with the research reviewed earlier suggesting that delinquent behavior is an important
lifestyle activity related to victimization, we also include in our analysis a latent variable, school

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

misconduct. This variable is derived from six items measuring how many times studentsduring the
first semester or term of current school yearhad engaged in misconduct (e.g., skipping school) or
were punished for violating school rules (e.g., suspended). While not directly comparable to measures of delinquency used in some studies due to limitations of these data, we expect this measure to
function similarly to delinquency in our study. Comparable measures have been used in other
research as indicators of a deviant lifestyle (e.g., Peguero, 2013).
Low self-control. The 2002 ELS survey does not contain items that directly measure low self-control
(e.g., Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, & Arneklev, 1993). However, one survey question contains relevant
items that were used to construct a latent proxy measure that we label low self-control. These items
asked respondents how often their attitudes and behaviors coincided with various statements concerning academic self-efficacy, academic effort, and considerations of long-term outcomes related
to education and study habits. Indeed, many of these items appear to fall under the impulsivity or
simple tasks categories identified in Grasmick, Tittle, Bursik, and Arneklevs (1993) low selfcontrol scale3 (see Appendix Table A1 for the full list of items included in this measure and each
items proposed low self-control dimension). Similar to Grasmick et al.s (1993) findings, all of the
items loaded on a single factor. Higher scores indicate lower self-control.
Friends characteristics. The 2002 ELS survey also asked respondents to provide an assessment of their
friends characteristics. These items asked respondents to report how important certain school-based
and social pursuits (e.g., good grades, being popular/well-liked) were to their close friends. The results
of a PCA factor analysis revealed two distinct factors from ten items (see Appendix Table A1). The
latent variable, prosocial friends, was constructed from five items that asked students to rate how
important various school achievement and positive school-based behaviors were to their closest
friends. Additionally, the latent variable, popular friends, was constructed from five items, measuring
the extent to which students reported that their friends value various social status-based activities.
Lastly, we constructed an opposite-sex friends ratio variable from a prompt asking students to
provide demographic (e.g., gender) information for up to three best friends at their school. Scores
represent the proportion of friends who are the opposite sex of the respondent.
Control variables. Due to their established effects, other demographic characteristics are important to
control for in any model predicting student victimization (Peguero, 2009; Peguero & Popp, 2012;
Wilcox et al., 2015). Student race is coded as a dichotomous measure distinguishing White, NonHispanic students from Nonwhite or Hispanic students, with 53 percent of the sample identifying as
White, non-Hispanic.4 Socioeconomic status is a standardized composite measure constructed by the
NCES that combines fathers education, mothers education, family income, fathers occupational
prestige, and mothers occupational prestige. Educational achievement is another standardized
composite measure constructed by RTI and NCES based on standardized math and English scores
developed by the educational testing service. This score is an average of the students math and
reading standardized scores (Ingels et al., 2007).

Analytic Strategy
The first step in our analysis was to build a measurement model. We began with a multiple group
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the suitability of four latent constructs (school misconduct, low self-control, prosocial friends, and popular friends). We then assessed configural and
metric invariance5 across males and females (Chen, 2007).
Next, to test our conceptual model, we estimated a SEM, including both property and violent
victimization. To explore the potential moderation by gender, parameter differences between males

Peterson et al.

Table 2. Standardized Coefficients for Direct Effects of Structural Parameters.

Violent
Property
Victimization Victimization
Variables

Intramural
Sports
M

Interscholastic
Sports
M

Intramural sports
.04* .08* .04* .08*
Interscholastic sports 0.02 .04* .05* .03
Nonsport activities
.09* .10* .06* .08*
School misconduct
.28* .24* .23* .22*
Low self-control
.09* .04* .02 .03 .03 .05* .06*
Prosocial friends
.02 .11* .05 .08* .05* .03
.03
Popular friends
.05
.06* .07* .07* .07* .09* .09*
Opposite-sex friend
.06* .08* .01
.06* .02* .02 .02*
ratio

Nonsport
Activities
M

School
Misconduct
M

.04* .11* .13* .09* .14*

.00
.10* .11* .43* .37*
.09* .08* .00
.28* .17*
.01
.10* .03* .03
.04*

*p < .05.

and females were assessed using the Wald test. Model fit was assessed using the w2 test, comparative
fit index (CFI), TuckerLewis index (TLI), and the root mean squared error of approximation
(RMSEA), and all significance tests were set at a of .05. Finally, we estimated both the measurement
and structural models in Mplus version 6.11 (Muthen & Muthen, 2010). The nonrandom clustering
of students in schools is accounted for by using a sandwich estimator that follows the HuberWhite
procedure to correct standard errors accordingly (see Asparouhov, 2005).

Results
A multigroup CFA revealed that the measurement model adequately fit the data (w2 9,467.34,
p < .05; CFI .958; TLI .958; RMSEA .049), and metric invariance across males and females
was established. Next, we estimated our structural model of the effects of friends characteristics,
low self-control, school misconduct, and school-based routine activities on violent victimization and
property victimization. With the exception of the w2 test, the fit indices indicated the model fit the
data well (w2 12,323.76, p < .05; CFI .946; TLI .940; RMSEA .044). Additionally, a
w2 difference test revealed that, overall, the structural models were significantly different for males
and females (w2 71.69, p < .001, df 32). Having established a general gender difference in the
pathways to victimization, we report below the specific gender differences where they occur. We
begin our discussion of the structural model with an examination of the various direct effects on
victimization as represented in our conceptual model, shown in Table 2.

Direct Effects on Violent Victimization

Consistent with previous research (Popp & Peguero, 2011; Schreck et al., 2002; Wilcox et al.,
2009), Table 2 shows that both school-based routine activities and school misconduct directly
increased the likelihood of violent and property victimization, although it should be noted that
participation in school misconduct had stronger effects. There was one exception to this, however,
whereby interscholastic sports participation reduced the likelihood of experiencing violent victimization for females.
Low self-control directly increased the likelihood of experiencing violent victimization, which is
consistent with other literature (Schreck, 1999; Schreck et al., 2002; Wilcox et al., 2009). Furthermore, the direct, indirect, and total effects of low self-control were general rather than gendered,
which has been a subject of some discussion in the literature (cf. Flexon et al., 2015; Turanovic et al.,

10

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

2014). Next, friends characteristics seemed to influence victimization risks more so for females
than males. For females, having more prosocial friends significantly lowered the likelihood of
having experienced violent victimization, while having popular friends increased the likelihood
of experiencing violent victimization. Having more opposite-sex friends increased the likelihood
of experiencing violent victimization regardless of gender.

Direct Effects on Property Victimization

Concerning direct effects on property victimization, Table 2 shows that the patterns of these effects
for school-based property victimization are similar to the findings for violent victimization, although
there are some notable differences. As with violent victimization, both school-based activities and
school misconduct generally increased property victimization. The lone observed gender difference
indicates that participation in interscholastic sports increased property victimization for males only.
In contrast to the findings for violent victimization, low self-control did not have direct effects on
property victimization. Similar to violent victimization, having prosocial friends significantly
decreased the likelihood of property victimization for females only. Also, friends popularity was
positively related to property victimization for both males and females. Lastly, the opposite-sex
friend ratio was positively related to property victimization for females, but not for males; this is in
contrast to its positive effect on violent victimization for both genders.

Direct Effects on Lifestyles and Routine Activities

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

Indirect Effects on Victimization via Lifestyles and Routine Activities

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

11

.074*
.172*
.107*
.118*

.013
.143*
.116*
.086*

.031
.142*
.139*
.016

Female

.110*
.178*
.124*
.073*

Male

.016
.045
.071*
.010

.086*
.017
.045
.064*

Male

.030
.082*
.071*
.058*

.043*
.114*
.059*
.083*

Female

Direct

Note. Underlined coefficients indicate significant moderation effect by gender.

*p < .05.

Violent victimization
Low self-control
Prosocial friends
Popular friends
Opposite-sex friend ratio
Property victimization
Low self-control
Prosocial friends
Popular friends
Opposite-sex friend ratio

Variables

Total

.001
.002
.003
.001

.002
.003
.003
.001

Male

.004*
.002
.007*
.001

.004*
.002
.007*
.001

Female

Intramural Sports

.003*
.002
.005*
.001

.002
.001
.003
.001

Male

.001
.000
.003
.000

.002
.000
.004*
.000

Female

.006*
.006*
.005*
.006*

.009*
.008*
.006*
.008*

Male

.026 *
.012*
.000
.003*

.012*
.010*
.000
.003*

Female

Nonsport Activities

Indirect Effects
Interscholastic Sports

Table 3. Standardized Coefficients for Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Structural Parameters.

.022*
.096*
.063*
.007

.027*
.116*
.076*
.008

Male

.032*
.079*
.036*
.010*

.034*
.086*
.039*
.011*

Female

School Misconduct

12

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

participation in school-based activities, which led to negative indirect effects. In contrast, having
prosocial friends was positively related to school-based activities, which resulted in positive indirect
effects. The indirect effects of having popular friends were mixed since having popular friends
increased sports participation but reduced participation in nonsport activities. Likewise, having more
opposite-sex friends produced mixed indirect effects, as it was associated with reduced participation
in sports, but higher participation in nonsport activities.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study integrated several lines of inquiry in the victimization literature regarding the gendered
nature of school-based victimization. Specifically, using a broadened perspective of victimization
opportunity, we combined low self-control, routine activities, and friends characteristics into a
single model and explored how these variables affect adolescents personal and property victimization. From an opportunity perspective, our first research question concerned whether there were
direct effects of lifestylesroutine activities, low self-control, and friends characteristics on violent
and property victimization. With the exception of the null direct effect of low self-control on
property victimization, there were significant direct effects on both types of victimization for each
variable associated with these concepts.
Our remaining research questions concerned the under-researched questions of whether and how
friends characteristics affect routine activities, and whether these relationships have implications
for victimization risk. First, having prosocial friends is associated with strong negative effects on
school misconduct, contributing to reductions in the likelihood of both violent and property victimization for adolescents. Having popular friends had weaker, albeit positive and significant effects,
in addition to the positive effects females with a higher ratio of male to female friends. Importantly,
the direct effects from friends characteristics through routine activities had consistent implications
for both violent and property victimization (i.e., indirect effects). Two of these indirect effects were
gendered, whereby the effect of having popular friends increased victimization risk for males
through school misconduct more so than for females, while the effect of opposite-sex friends on
victimization through school misconduct was only significant for females. Several other important
interconnections between friends characteristics and routine activities were significant as well,
highlighting the importance of including measures of both sets of concepts when exploring victimization risk from an opportunity perspective.
While this study illuminates findings of previous research, it also builds upon them by integrating
parallel lines of victimization research. By integrating friend and routine activities concepts, we
acknowledge and begin to understand the empirical reality that these concepts are not isolated from
one another. Although individuals routine activities are a critical component for explaining victimization, they do not exist in a vacuum. Moreover, the specific friends characteristics used here
highlight the importance of other friend characteristics beyond delinquency, which is often the only
characteristic measured in studies examining peer effects on victimization. While the explanatory
power of delinquent friends has been long recognized, the traditional notion of delinquent friends
ignores the other dimensions of friends characteristics (e.g., prosociality, popularity) that also affect
routine activities and victimization.
Our approach also shows that traditional ways of analyzing relationships among these concepts
omits considerations of important, complex gendered pathways. For example, previous approaches
have found evidence of a negative direct effect of prosocial friends on victimization for females
only, leading to the conclusion that having prosocial friends has no effect on victimization for males.
However, this integrated approach shows that by considering the interconnected nature of friends
characteristics and activities, we found that having prosocial friends has a stronger negative effect on
participation in school misconduct for males than for females, resulting in similar total effects of

Peterson et al.

13

having prosocial friends across gender. Thus, our study moves victimization research forward to
further elaborate upon the interconnections among low self-control, friends, routine activities, and
victimization and to consider how and why these interconnections might be gendered.

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

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

Policy Considerations
Since we recognize this study is a first step in understanding the role of these interconnections for
victimization risk, policy recommendations based on these findings will be better informed by future
research that focuses on the specific context of the victimization incident and the victimoffender
relationship. Such information would more fully inform the existing juvenile justice research

14

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

regarding school safety planning, which often emphasizes school-level factors, such as security,
conflict resolution, and school culture without accounting for the actual individual-level opportunity
structures that are behind victimization.
That said, the findings from this study suggest that attempts to reduce school misconduct might
also reduce the risk of victimization. Administrators are likely aware of individuals who are chronically tardy or absent from school and/or receive disciplinary action, and focusing on these individuals for intervention might work to reduce both problem behavior and victimization. However, note
that tardiness or absence from school or acting out in other ways could also be a consequence, rather
than a cause, of victimization (e.g., similar to the effects of victimization on the social bond to
school; Popp & Peguero, 2012). Other research has shown that having more male friends increases
violence perpetration for females (Haynie et al., 2007; McGloin & DiPeitro, 2013). While we do not
measure violent behavior in the current study, our results suggest that having more male friends
increase female misconduct, which in turn increase their risk of violent victimization. Thus, school
administrators might consider whether the ways in which they punish school misconduct (e.g.,
detention or suspensions) potentially promote delinquent affiliation and especially delinquent
affiliation across gender.
Additionally, given our findings regarding involvement in school activities and victimization,
parents and school administrators may consider the supervision afforded to students before, during,
and after extracurricular activities to ensure students are adequately supervised. To the extent that
sport and nonsport activities are supervised to varying degrees for male-only, female-only, or mixed
activities, gender differences in supervision may contribute to gender differences in victimization.
The above discussion suggests that transitioning from an offender-oriented to a victim-centered or
problem-oriented approach for addressing school victimization may be warranted. This shift in focus
will help researchers and policy makers alike to understand and lower the risk factors associated with
school victimization. These ideas are open questions and deserving of further scientific scrutiny so
that hopefully, school-centered policies can be developed and implemented to effectively reduce
victimization risks among both male and female adolescents.

Appendix
Table A1. Survey Items and Coding for Endogenous and Exogenous Variables.
Construct

Survey Items, Coding, Cronbachs a, principal components analysis results

Violent victimization In the first semester or term of this school year, how many times did any of the following happen?
(Responses coded as dichotomous measure: 0 never; 1 once or more)
Someone threatened to hurt me at school
Someone hit me
Someone used strong-arm methods or force to get something from me
Property
In the first semester or term of this school year, how many times did any of the following happen?
victimization
(Responses coded as dichotomous measure: 0 never; 1 once or more)
I had something stolen from me at school
Someone purposely damaged or destroyed my belongings
Intramural sports
For the following items, intramural means competition between teams or students within the
same school. For each sport listed below, indicate whether you participated on an intramural
team in this sport during this school year.
(Count of participation in the following sports)
Baseball; Softball; Basketball; Football; Soccer; Other team sport; An individual sport;
Cheerleading, Pompon (Pompom), or Drill team
(continued)

Peterson et al.

15

Table A1. (continued)

Construct

Survey Items, Coding, Cronbachs a, principal components analysis results

Interscholastic
sports

For the following items, interscholastic means competition between teams from different schools.
For each sport listed below, indicate whether you have participated on an interscholastic team
during this school year
(Count of participation in the following sports)
Baseball; Softball; Basketball; Football; Soccer; Other team sport; An individual sport;
Cheerleading, Pompon (Pompom), or Drill team
Have you participated in the following school-sponsored activities this school year?
(Count of participation in the following activities)
Band, orchestra, chorus, choir; School play or musical; Student government; National
Honor Society or other academic honor society; School yearbook, newspaper,
literary magazine; Service club; Academic club; Hobby club; Vocational education club,
vocational student organization
How many times did the following things happen to you in the first semester or term of this
school year?
(Responses coded as: 0 never; 1 12 times; 2 36 times; 3 79 times; 4 10 or
more times)
I was late for school. I cut or skipped classes
I was absent from school. I got in trouble for not following rules
I was put on in-school suspension. I was suspended or put on probation
Cronbachs a 0.72 (factor loadings range from 0.54 to 0.76; 45.29% of variance
explained)
How often do these things apply to you?
(Coded: 0 Almost always; 1 often; 2 sometimes; 3 almost never)
Impulsivity
I study to increase my job opportunities
I study to ensure that my future will be financially secure.
Simple Tasks
When I sit myself down to learn something really hard, I can learn it
When studying, I try to work as hard as possible
When studying, I put forth my best effort
If I decide not to get any bad grades, I can really do it.
When studying, I keep working even if the material is difficult
If I decide not to get any problems wrong, I can really do it
When studying, I try to do my best to acquire the knowledge and skills taught
If I want to learn something well, I can
Cronbachs a .92 (factor loadings range from 0.71 to 0.83; 58.30% of variance
explained)
Among your close friends, how important is it to them that they (Coded: 0 Not important;
1 somewhat important; 2 very important)
Attend classes regularly; Study; Get good grades; Finish high school; Continue their
education past high school
Cronbachs a 0.84 (factor loadings range from 0.71 to 0.81; 60.62% of variance
explained)
Among your close friends, how important is it to them that they (Coded: 0 Not important;
1 somewhat important; 2 very important)
Play sports; Be popular/well-liked by others; Have a steady boyfriend/girlfriend; Get
together with friends; Go to parties
Cronbachs a 0.69 (factor loadings range from 0.58 to 0.73; 44.86% of variance
explained)

Nonsport activities

School misconduct

Low self-control

Prosocial friends

Popular friends

(continued)

16

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

Table A1. (continued)

Construct

Survey Items, Coding, Cronbachs a, principal components analysis results

Opposite-sex friend Please write down the names of your best friends at your present school. Please fill in up to three
ratio
names. If you have fewer close friends, provide less than three names . . . Is this friend . . . ?
(0 male; 1 female)
Variable is the number of friends who are of the opposite sex from the respondent
divided by the total number of friends listed
Race
Are you Hispanic or Latino/a? Please select one or more of the following choices to best describe
your race.(Coded: 0 White, non-Hispanic; 1 nonwhite or Hispanic)
White; Black/African American; Asian; Hispanic or Latino/a; Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander; American Indian or Alaska Native
Socioeconomic
SES is based on five equally weighted, standardized components: fathers/guardians
Status
education, mothers/guardians education, family income, fathers/guardians
occupation, and mothers/guardians occupation
Educational
This is the average of the math and reading standardized scores, re-standardized to a
achievement
national mean of 50.0 and standard deviation of 10.0. For students with one score, the
composite is based on the available score

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

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

Notes
1. For more details regarding the instrument development and sampling procedures, see the Education Longitudinal Study (ELS) of 2002: Base Year Data File Users Manual (U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics, 2004).
2. Both school-based victimization measures include items that do not specify whether the victimization occurred
in school. However, the prompt references the current school year, and that section of the questionnaire is
labeled School Experiences and Activities, making it likely that students considered these items to be school
based. Also, the ELS did not dichotomize the responses. However, the responses to these variables were fairly
skewed. Also, the original responses were set up, so Once or twice was combined into a single response
category. As such, we were not able to separate out single from multiple victimizations.
3. For instance, the ELS item I study to ensure that my future will be financially secure is roughly the reverse
of Grasmick et al.s (1993) indicator of impulsivity I dont devote much thought and effort to preparing for
the future. Additionally, the ELS item When I sit myself down to learn something really hard, I can learn
it is similar to Grasmick et al.s item When things get complicated, I tend to quit or withdraw.
4. This coding was chosen for the sake of parsimony since the majority of the sample is White, non-Hispanic
(53.50%), and since race is not a key variable of interest. While we do not focus on the effects of race on
victimization in this article, interested readers could direct their attention to research in this area that also
used the 2002 ELS dataset (see, e.g., Peguero & Popp, 2012).
5. We examined but did not rely on the w2 difference test. As discussed in Chen (2007), changes of less than .01
between models in indices, such as the CFI and the TLI, and changes less than .015 in the RMSEA are
considered evidence in favor of the restricted model.

Peterson et al.

17

References
Asparouhov, T. (2005). Sampling weights in latent variable modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12,
411434.
Augustine, M. C., Wilcox, P., Ousey, G. C., & Clayton, R. R. (2002). Opportunity theory and adolescent schoolbased victimization. Violence and Victims, 17, 233253.
Baron, S. W., Forde, D. R., & Kay, F. M. (2007). Self-control, risky lifestyles, and situation: The role of
opportunity and context in the general theory. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 119136.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural
Equation Modeling, 14, 464504.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American
Sociological Review, 4, 588608.
Cohen, L. E., Kluegel, J. R., & Land, K. C. (1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An
exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review, 46, 505524.
Costello, B. J. (2010). Peer influence toward conformity. Journal of Crime and Justice, 33, 97116.
Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. Crime and Place, 4, 5366.
Felson, R. B., & Burchfield, K. B. (2004). Alcohol and the risk of physical and sexual assault victimization.
Criminology, 42, 837860.
Fineran, S., & Bolen, R. M. (2006). Risk factors for peer sexual harassment in schools. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 21, 11691190.
Flexon, J. L., Meldrum, R. C., & Piquero, A. R. (2015). Low self-control and the victimoffender overlap:
A gendered analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. doi:10.1177/0886260515572471
Garofalo, J., Siegel, L., & Laub, J. (1987). School-related victimizations among adolescents: An analysis of
National Crime Survey (NCS) narratives. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 321338.
Gottfredson, D. C. (1986). Empirical test of school-based environmental and individual interventions to reduce
the risk of delinquent behavior. Criminology, 24, 705732.
Grasmick, C. R., Tittle, R., Bursik, R. J., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Testing the core empirical implications of Gottfredson and Hirschis general theory of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 30, 529.
Haynie, D. L., Doogan, N. J., & Soller, B. (2014). Gender, friendship networks, and delinquency: A dynamic
network approach. Criminology, 52, 688722.
Haynie, D. L., & Piquero, A. R. (2006). Pubertal development and physical victimization in adolescence.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 335.
Haynie, D. L., & Soller, B. (2015). A social network perspective of gender and crime. In F. T. Cullen, P.
Wilcox, J. L. Lux & C. Lero Johnson (Eds.), Sisters in crime revisited (pp. 149172). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Haynie, D. L., Steffensmeier, D., & Bell, K. E. (2007). Gender and serious violence: Untangling the role of
friendship sex composition and peer violence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 5, 235253.
Henson, B., Wilcox, P., Reyns, B. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2010). Gender, adolescent lifestyles, and violent
victimization: Implications for routine activity theory. Victims & Offenders, 5, 303328.
Ingels, S. J., Pratt, D. J., Wilson, D., Burns, L. J., Currivan, D., & Rogers, J. E. (2007). Education longitudinal
study of 2002: Base-year to second follow-up data file documentation (NCES 2008347). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Jensen, G. F., & Brownfield, D. (1986). Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: Beyond routine activity. Violence
and Victims, 30, 8599.
Lauritsen, J. L., Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). The link between offending and victimization among
adolescents. Criminology, 29, 265292.
McGloin, J. M., & DiPietro, S. (2013). Girls, friends, and delinquency. In F. T. Cullen & P. Wilcox (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of criminological theory (pp. 294312). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

18

Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice

Menard, S., & Covey, H. C. (2015). Age and gender variations in the victimization-offending relationship in a
national sample, ages 1188. Victims & Offenders, 10, 118.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2010). Mplus: Statistical analysis with latent variables. Los Angeles, CA:
Muthen & Muthen.
Nofziger, S. (2009). Deviant lifestyles and violent victimization at school. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
24, 14941517.
Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., OMalley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Routine activities
and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61, 635655.
Peguero, A. A. (2008). Bullying victimization and extracurricular activity. Journal of School Violence, 7,
7185.
Peguero, A. A. (2009). Opportunity, involvement, and student exposure to school violence. Youth Violence and
Juvenile Justice, 7, 299312.
Peguero, A. A. (2013). An adolescent victimization immigrant paradox? School-based routines, lifestyles, and
victimization across immigration generations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 17591773.
Peguero, A. A., & Popp, A. M. (2012). Youth violence at school and the intersection of gender, race, and
ethnicity. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 19.
Popp, A. M., & Peguero, A. A. (2011). Routine activities and victimization at school: The significance of
gender. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 24132436.
Popp, A. M., & Peguero, A. A. (2012). Social bonds and the role of school-based victimization. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 27, 33663388.
Pratt, T. C., Turanovic, J. J., Fox, K. A., & Wright, K. A. (2014). Self-control and victimization: A metaanalysis. Criminology, 52, 87116.
Robers, S., Zhang, A., Morgan, R. E., & Musu-Gillette, L. (2015). Indicators of school crime and safety:
2014 (NCES 2015-072/NCJ 248036). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of a general theory of
crime. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633654.
Schreck, C. J., Fisher, B. S., & Miller, J. M. (2004). The social context of violent victimization: A study of the
delinquent peer effect. Justice Quarterly, 21, 2347.
Schreck, C. J., Wright, R. A., & Miller, J. M. (2002). A study of individual and situational antecedents of violent
victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19, 159180.
Stogner, J., Miller, J. M., Fisher, B. S., Stewart, E. A., & Schreck, C. J. (2014). Peer group delinquency and
sexual victimization: Does popularity matter? Women & Criminal Justice, 24, 6281.
Swartz, K., Reyns, B. W., Wilcox, P., & Dunham, J. R. (2012). Patterns of victimization between and within
peer clusters in a high school social network. Violence and Victims, 27, 710729.
Tillyer, M. S., Wilcox, P., & Gialopsos, B. M. (2010). Adolescent school-based sexual victimization: Exploring
the role of opportunity in a gender-specific multilevel analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 10711081.
Turanovic, J. C., & Pratt, T. C. (2014). Cant stop, wont stop: Self-control, risky lifestyles, and repeat
victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 2956.
Turanovic, J. J., Reisig, M. D., & Pratt, T. C. (2014). Risky lifestyles, low self-control, and violent victimization
across gendered pathways to crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31, 183206.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Education Longitudinal
Study of 2002: Base Year Data File Users Manual, NCES 2004.405. In Steven J. Ingels, Daniel J.
Pratt, James E. Rogers, Peter H. Siegel & Ellen S. Stutts (Eds.), Project Officer: Jeffrey A. Owings.
Washington, DC.
Wilcox, P., Fisher, B. S., & Lasky, N. V. (2015). Gendered opportunity and victimization. In F. T. Cullen, P.
Wilcox, J. L. Lux & C. Lero Johnson (Eds.), Sisters in crime revisited (pp. 189208). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.

Peterson et al.

19

Wilcox, P., Tillyer, M. S., & Fisher, B. S. (2009). Gendered opportunity? School-based adolescent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46, 245269.
Zaykowski, H., & Gunter, W. D. (2013). Gender differences in victimization risk: Exploring the role of deviant
lifestyles. Violence and Victims, 28, 341356.

Author Biographies
Samuel Peterson is a doctoral candidate in the School of Criminal Justice at the University of
Cincinnati. Sams research interests include situational crime prevention, delinquency and peer
social networks, and life-course criminology.
Nicole V. Lasky, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology, Justice Studies,
and Global Security at Northeastern State University. Her research interests include victimology,
situational crime prevention, and qualitative research.
Bonnie S. Fisher is a professor at the University of Cincinnati in the School of Criminal Justice. Her
research agenda spans victim-centered issues from estimating the extent of different types of interpersonal victimization to identifying their predictors to evaluating the effectiveness of bystander
intervention programs to reduce victimization and perpetration among high school and college
student populations. Her work has been published in Justice Quarterly, Violence Against Women,
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Psychology of Violence and Community and Crime Prevention.
Pamela Wilcox is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. Her
research focuses on understanding the opportunity for crime and victimization in school and community contexts.