Download Life Style Exposure Model of Personal Victimisation and more Lecture notes Socialization and the Life Course in PDF only on Docsity!
3. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE
The wealth of data collected mainly through victimisation surveys has led to the formulation of a number of victimology theories. These theories have been developed to offer explanations for the variations in victimisation risks as well as the clustering of victimisation in certain areas and among certain groups (Williams & McShane, 1994:223). In order to advance a better understanding of sexual harassment and rape of female students in tertiary institutions, a critical overview of relevant models and approaches namely, the lifestyle exposure model, the routine activity approach as well as the male peer support model is given in this chapter to guide the study in an exploratory way (De Vos 2001:268). Based on this an integrated model of sexual harassment and rape of female students on campus will be formulated, to serve as theoretical background for the current study.
3.1 THE LIFESTYLE EXPOSURE MODEL OF PERSONAL
VICTIMISATION
One of the first and foremost models explaining differential risks of victimisation is the lifestyle exposure model developed by Hindelang, Gottfredson and Garofalo in 1978. The formulation of this model was based on data gathered during victimisation surveys conducted in eight cities, namely Atlanta, Baltimore, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Newark, Portland and St. Louis (Schurink, Snyman, Krugel & Slabbert, 1992:44).
3.1.1 EXPOSITION OF THE LIFESTYLE EXPOSURE MODEL
The point of departure of the lifestyle exposure model of personal victimisation is that the likelihood that an individual will be victimised depends to a great extent on the lifestyle of the person. In general, lifestyle may be defined as “patterned ways in which individuals channel their time and energy by engaging in a number of activities” (Fattah, 1991:319). Hindelang, Gottfredson and Garofalo (1978:241) however, define lifestyle as the “routine
daily activities, both vocational (work, school, keeping house) and leisure activities”.
In order to function well as a member of the society, an individual must adapt to certain role expectations and social structures. These role expectations and structural constraints differ according to the demographic characteristics of individuals. These demographic variables vary over the course of an individual’s lifetime and carry with them expectations of appropriate and inappropriate behaviours (Hindelang et al., 1978:242, Williams & McShane, 1994:224). Once these role expectations and structural constraints in the lives of individuals are learned, individuals incorporate them into their routine activities. For example, in terms of role expectations, there are certain behaviours that society deems to be appropriate for children, but not for adults. Similarly, structural constraints such as economic circumstances can change as a person gets promoted to a better-paying job.
3.1.1.1 Demographic characteristics
Although demographic characteristics are directly related to an individual’s lifestyle, they are also related to different probabilities of victimisation. This is due to the association between demographic characteristics and structural constraints ascribed to groups whose members share those characteristics. In so far as people share the characteristics with potential offenders, they face increased risk of victimisation. From an offender’s perspective, personal characteristics and lifestyles contribute to determine target suitability and desirability (Hindelang et al., 1978:242). The personal characteristics which are relevant in the current study comprise age, gender, marital status, family income and race.
3.1.1.1.1 Age
Age influences a person’s lifestyle in terms of association with others outside of the immediate family. As a child, for example, most time is spent in the home or at school, but “by late adolescence, the activities of the child are by
3.1.1.1.3 Marital status
Marital status in conjunction with family ties of both men and women also result in more time spent at home. As the number of responsibilities increase, married persons can be expected to spend more time within the home than single persons do, especially if they have children (Hindelang et al., 1978:249). Furthermore, leisure activities outside the home are more likely to take place with both partners present or within the company of other married couples. Finally, because marriage creates a larger extended family, more time is likely to be spent with other family members (Hindelang et al., 1978:249). As a consequence of these factors, married persons are less likely to be alone in public and thus can be expected to have lower victimisation rates than non-married individuals.
3.1.1.1.4 Family income
According to Hindelang et al. (1978:249) patterns of association can also be linked to income as it reflects an individual’s position in the economic structure. Family income is an important constraint on behavioural options. This is due to the fact that the flexibility to adjust one’s life as one wishes, including the ability to choose where one lives, the mode of transportation used and the nature of leisure activities, are related to one’s income. Thus, for the low income group there could be greater victimisation risks as these individuals are for example, dependent on public transport and staying in areas with high crime rates.
3.1.1.1.5 Race
Similar to income, race is also linked to an individual’s lifestyle. Although Hindelang et al. (1978:250) note that “some of the importance of race as an indicator of lifestyle derives from its association with family income,” they also admit that “whites and blacks of the same socio-economic stratum live in quite different worlds”. These differences are most notable in housing patterns and educational as well as recreational opportunities. For example, whites are more likely to attend private schools, belong to private clubs and live in more
economically homogeneous areas than people of color. Consequently the life opportunities and experiences of these two groups are markedly different and so are their chances of victimisation.
From the above discussion, one can infer that while lifestyle affects one’s exposure to personal victimisation, the effects of demographic and socio- economic characteristics through socialisation cannot be ignored. In addition to these demographic characteristics, Hindelang et al. (1978:250) list several conditions, which must be met before personal victimisation can occur. First, the victim and offender must intersect in time and space. Second, a dispute/claim must arise between the victim and offender. In this case, the offender should view the victim as a suitable target. Third, the perpetrator must be willing and able to use force or stealth to accomplish the desired goal. Last, the offender must view the situation as beneficial to use or threaten force in order to accomplish the goal. The probability of all of these circumstances being met is associated with the routine activities of the individuals. Differences in lifestyles, in turn, result in varying probabilities among individuals of being in “particular places at particular times and coming into contact with persons who have particular characteristics” (Hindelang et al., 1978:245). This implies that there are certain people, places and times that will have higher victimisation risks than others. In this regard, Hindelang et al. (1978:253) formulated the following propositions:
Proposition 1: The more time individuals spend in public places (especially at night and weekends) the more likely it is that they will be victimised
According to research conducted by Gottfredson (1984:9) as well as Hayt, Ryan and Cauce (1999:376) individuals who are more likely to be at risk of personal victimisation are those who frequent public places at night and on weekends. However, Gottfredson (1984:10) suggests that not all individuals who fit in this category will be victimised.
Proposition 5: The proportion of time one spends in public places where there is a large number of non-family members varies according to lifestyle
As mentioned in proposition 4, young, unmarried people are more likely to spend their time outside the home attending social events with other youngsters. It follows from this then that parents or guardians are more likely to be home during such activities. Due to the absence of individuals who could prevent or deter victimisation events from occuring, the likelihood of victimisation among young and unmarried persons increases (Gottfredson, 1984:12).
Proposition 6: The chances that individuals will be victims of crime, increase as a function of the proportion of time that an individual spends among non-family members.
This may be attributed to the fact that young motivated potential offenders are more likely to frequent places where offending behaviours are more likely to take place. In contrast an elderly person who is likely to associate with people of the same age group is less likely to be victimised (Sasco & Kennedy, 1994:97). The likelihood of sexual victimisation tends to increase among young people as they tend to spend most of their time among non-family members.
Proposition 7: Differences in lifestyle relate to individuals’ ability to isolate themselves from those with offender characteristics
Individuals’ routine activities and lifestyle are structured in a way that will either minimise or maximise their chances of interacting with potential offenders. For example, going to work or attending school may increase the exposure of individuals to people with offender characteristics (Hindelang et al., 1978:253).
Proposition 8: Variations in lifestyle influence the convenience, desirability and ease of victimising individuals
Hindelang et al. (1978:272) state that for any victimisation event to occur there must be a convergence of a number of factors. First, there must be a meeting place between the victim and the offender. In this regard, the victim’s lifestyle must be such that he or she will interact with potential offenders. At the same time, a potentially motivated offender must also deem the place suitable for the commission of an offence. This means that a selected target area deemed convenient for the offence must exhibit a relatively low chance of apprehension.
Secondly, potential offenders select individuals whom they consider suitable for the offence. The offender may weigh, for example the chances of the suitable victim reporting the offence. Victims of stranger rape for example are more likely to report rape than victims of acquaintance or date rape (Hindelang et al., 1978:272), thus resulting in more convictions. The suitability of a target also varies by the type of offence. For example, females may be suitable targets for rape, males for assault and banks for robbery. Females walking alone at night may be seen as desirable’ accessible and easy targets for sexual victimisation.
In summary, the lifestyle model hypothesises that some individuals are more vulnerable to personal victimisation than others. This is attributed to demographic characteristics such as age, gender, marital status, education and race. Furthermore, it is postulated that following certain lifestyles such as going out at night, especially during weekends also contributes to the risk of personal victimisation.
3.1.2 EVALUATION OF THE MODEL
Various researchers such as Gottfredson (1984), Sampson and Lauristen (1990) as well as Sampson and Wooldredge (1987) have attempted to apply the lifestyle exposure model in order to account for individuals’ risk of personal
will be more prone to victimisation may be as a result of exposure as well as lack of protection from potentially motivated offenders. The modified model of the lifestyle exposure model and the next approach to be discussed namely, the routine activity approach, addresses the aspect of exposure and guardianship respectively.
Walklate (1989:13) also offers two sets of criticism against the lifestyle exposure model. The first shortcoming is based on the proposition that the number of nights spent outside the home, with non-family members and particularly on weekends increases the probability of victimisation. In this regard, Walklate (1989:13) is of the opinion that various forms of sexual harassment and rape are more likely to be committed in homes. Research conducted by Bechhofer and Parrot (1993:251) as well as Dekeseredy and Schwartz (1997:100) on acquaintance and date rape as well as sexual harassment, has revealed that this type of rape is more likely to be committed in the home, dormitories and offices. Walklate (1989:95) also criticises the lifestyle exposure model for its underrating of the relationship between leisure time and personal victimisation. He states that Hindelang and his colleagues place more emphasis on the role played by routine activities such as school and work as indicators of personal victimisation. In this regard he states that very few cases of rape, for example are committed during work or school hours. Sexual harassment related cases on the other hand may be perpetrated at work or school. Walklate (1989:96) thus, asserts that the way individuals spend their leisure time is an important indicator and also maximises the chances of victimisation. In this regard, most individuals spend their leisure time in public places of entertainment such as nightclubs, parties and movie theatres. Violent episodes may erupt caused by frustrations about failed relationships, extra-marital affairs or disagreements over the use of alcohol. As stated by Sampson and Lauristein (1990:119) in most of these activities or events alcohol and drugs are likely to be consumed. The implication is that individuals who drink alcohol excessively are more likely to engage in violent behaviour, which may result in their own victimisation (Bjarnason et al., 1999:108).
A number of researchers (Sampson & Lauristein, 1990:120; Sparks, 1982:143) also state that the factors that place victims at risk of victimisation are also the same factors that place the offenders at risk for victimisation. This aspect has also been left unexplained by the model. Sparks (1982:143) indicates that offenders may be victimised after they have committed a crime. In cases of vandalism, stranger rape and theft, for example, the possibility exists that once members of the community catch an individual at the crime scene, he or she might run a high risk of victimisation. In such an instance, offenders may be viewed by other potential offenders as vulnerable. Their situation may also be exacerbated by the fact that reporting a crime to the police, for example, might lead them to implicating themselves in criminal behaviour. This therefore means that individuals whose lifestyles are characterised by criminal behaviour are more likely to be victimised.
Kennedy and Ford (1990:208) as well as Sampson and Wooldredge (1987:381) state that the exposure model also failed to account for the role played by neighbourhood characteristics such as poor security, camera surveillance as well as the density of street activity. Potentially motivated offenders, for example may be influenced by these factors and thus make use of an opportunity to commit crime. These factors cannot be explained by an individual’s demographic characteristics.
Last, Garofalo (1987:149) states that the lifestyle model does not specify or suggest ways in which individuals can protect themselves from victimisation. For example, students who attend classes at night or workers such as nurses or waitresses are not given guidance on how to adjust their lifestyles so as to minimise the risk of victimisation.
Despite the criticisms leveled against this model, it also has some merit. It can be used as a tool for a primary crime prevention strategy. If adolescents, for example, change the way they spend their leisure time they could decrease their risk of victimisation.
attributed to the fact that in most of these events it is difficult to identify people with offender characteristics (Garofalo, 1987:40).
3.1.3.2 Attractiveness of victims
Depending on the crime that is being contemplated, potentially motivated offenders in search of targets also consider the exhibited characteristics of potential victims. In crimes against the person, for example sexual harass- ment and rape, the offender may look for attractive women or females wearing revealing clothes (Steinmetz, 1989:10). These women are believed to be provoking rape or sexual harassment because of the clothes they wear.
3.1.3.3 Accessibility of victims
The accessibility of victims refers to victims facilitating their own victimisation (Garofalo, 1987:43). Potentially motivated offenders will in this case commit crime if they come into contact with attractive targets. Steinmetz (1989:10) distinguishes between social and technical accessibility. Social accessibility in this context is described as the carelessness of victims such as failure to lock doors, leaving a party or a bar at night alone or walking in dark public areas such as parks at night. In such cases victims are said to be good targets as there is no one present who could prevent the crime.
Technical accessibility on the other hand, refers to the presence of preventive measures such as the police, security personnel, proper lighting or security cameras in certain areas. These are seen as examples of guardianship which if not present, may facilitate victimisation.
3.1.3.4 Reactions to crime
Fattah (1986:149) states that people react differently to crime. This may for instance include altering their lifestyles through avoiding certain crime hot spots, installing proper surveillance measures or avoiding dimly lit areas when walking at night. These responses to crime are as a result of either their own victimisation or those who are close to them. This means that the way people
react to crime might lead to certain lifestyle changes which could minimise a person’s exposure to victimisation.
Garofalo (1987:43) hypothesises that opportunities of criminal victimisation are closely associated with the characteristics as well as behaviour of potential targets. This means that individuals who exhibit good qualities for a particular crime, such as attractiveness of women in rape related cases, will be deemed suitable. The absence of a guardian such as parents, security personnel or poor lighting in such areas also increases the risk of victimisation. However, if individuals change their lifestyles by for example, not going out alone at night, the risk or exposure to criminal victimisation may be, to some degree lessened.
3.1.4 APPLICATION OF THE LIFESTYLE EXPOSURE MODEL OF PERSONAL VICTIMISATION
The literature reviewed in respect of sexual harassment and rape in tertiary institutions revealed that most victims are young, single, female students. In this regard the relationship between the demographic variables and personal victimisation as discussed in the lifestyle model comes into effect. Most stu- dents in tertiary institutions are in their late adolescent stage since they have just graduated from high school or secondary education. The combination of age, being single and female places them at higher risk of sexual harassment and rape. The reason for this is the lifestyle changes which begin when they enter university and the new associations they make with various individuals. Such associations could be in the form of dating or socialising with friends and strangers. In this regard dating could lead to rape or sexual harassment particularly if the date is motivated to have sexual intercourse.
The lifestyle of university students is further characterised by out of the home activities. Most female students are however subjected to sexual victimisation because they are away from their parents or guardians. The fact that they
Due to the fact that the lifestyles of female students include attending classes, going to the library, attending social events as well as sharing the same residences with male students, it therefore becomes difficult for them to isolate themselves from potentially motivated offenders. When such female students come out of the class, library or bar unaccompanied at night with inadequate security personnel or adequate lighting to prevent victimisation, they might be seen as suitable targets.
However, sexual victimisation of female students may not only occur when a student comes out of the library or classes walking alone at night. A female student, for example, who goes out on a date with a partner could also be subjected to sexual victimisation. A partner who spends money on a date and decides where the couple should go, could feel shortchanged when a female refuses to have sexual intercourse and may take advantage of the situation and see her attractive and accessible target for sexual victimisation. The same could also be applicable to a female student who wears revealing clothing on a date, which the partner could misinterpret as inviting sexual intercourse by a partner. Due to the fact that these incidents occur between people who are acquainted with each other, the victims often do not report them. In sexual harassment incidents, female students who work closely with their lecturers especially postgraduate students could be vulnerable to sexual harassment by lecturers who have power over them.
Most female students do not report incidents of sexual victimisation which increases the incidents of these crimes as perpetrators usually judge the reactions of victims after a crime. Furthermore, perpetrators do not travel to commit offences instead they choose to prey on areas they know well and on victims who are closer to them. Thus, the fact that female students interact with male students on a daily basis makes them to be subjected to sexual victimisation as a result of this close proximity in terms of residence.
It is ironic that the very factors which increase the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of life may also increase the opportunity for predatory violations. For
example, attending university, working or any other activities which can be carried out of the home provide the opportunity to escape the confines of the household while it increases the risk of predatory victimisation at the same time. Rather than assuming that crime is as a result of the social breakdown one might take it as a byproduct of freedom and prosperity as they manifest themselves in the routine activities of everyday life.
An inference can thus be drawn from the above application that the lifestyle model may be used to explain some forms of sexual harassment and rape in tertiary institutions. However, the lifestyle theory explains victimisation in terms of the exposure of victims in terms of their lifestyle. However, it does not recognise the role played by the absence of guardians in victimisation. The routine activity approach, which is discussed next, addresses this aspect.
3.2 THE ROUTINE ACTIVITY APPROACH
The routine activity approach was developed by Cohen and Marcus in 1979. Kennedy and Silverman (1988:1) state that this approach was inspired by the work of Hawley (1950) on human ecology and Shaw and McKay’s work on juvenile delinquency in urban areas (1942). The routine activity approach uses regularities in behavioural routine to predict criminal victimisation. The routine activity approach is a relatively recent approach that is related to the rational choice perspective. This means that this model is based on freedom of choice and action which yield a more complete picture or model of crime (Williams & McShane, 1994:250).
3.2.1 EXPOSITION OF THE ROUTINE ACTIVITY APPROACH
Routine activities can be defined as “recurrent and prevalent” activities which provide for basic population and individual needs, whatever their biological or cultural origins (Cohen & Felson, 1979:593, Felson, 1997:913, Miethe, Stafford & Long, 1987:184). These include formalised work as well as the provision of standard food, shelter, sexual outlet, leisure, social interaction, learning and childrearing. These activities may occur at home, in jobs far
offer any explanation of what motivates individuals to commit crime. These explanations, according to Cohen and Felson (1979:590) have already been provided for by other criminological theories such as Merton’s anomie theory, Sutherland’s differential association theory as well as Cohen’s sub cultural theory of delinquency.
- Suitability of the target
According to Mannon (1997:15) the questions most likely asked here are: Who are the most likely victims? and What makes these targets (victims) most suitable?. Four components, namely value, physical visibility, accessibility and inertia contribute to a target being regarded as appropriate for a crime. Value refers to the financial and symbolic desirability of the item while visibility applies to the perceptibility and/or the risk of being noticed by potential offenders. Accessibility implies the availability and the ease with which a criminal can approach the target without drawing any attention. Lastly, inertia refers to the ease with which the target can be obtained such as factors which makes it difficult to overpower a target as well as the victim’s ability to offer forceful resistance. In this regard, Cohen and Felson (1979:560) are of the view that for any crime to occur there must be something worth stealing, or an appearance of wealth. These researchers assert that routine activities have an effect on the suitability of the target in that a routine pattern of behaviour may increase the possibility of a convergence of individuals in particular places at specific times.
Target or victim suitability is directly linked to the third condition in the routine activity approach namely, absence of capable guardians.
- Absence of a capable guardian
Williams and McShane (1994:222) state that for any crime to occur the circumstances must be such that nobody or nothing should or must distract the motivated offender. Cohen and Felson (1979:560) refer to capable
guardians as ordinary citizens going about their daily routines as well as mechanical devices such as locks, alarms and security cameras. In other words, it involves ordinary people enacting informal social control through watching and sanctioning.
It is hypothesised that with the convergence in space and time of motivated offenders, suitable targets and the absence of capable guardians, the probability of being a victim increases. Cohen and Felson (1979:561) further argue that the lack of any of these elements is enough to stop a crime from occuring. For example, if a motivated offender encounters a uniformed police officer with a great deal of cash, then the third element would be missing and the likelihood of crime would be reduced if not eliminated altogether. Alternatively, if a motivated offender such as a caregiver finds cash hidden in an elderly person’s nightstand and there is nobody to catch the offender stealing the cash, then all three elements are present and the likelihood of the crime occurring increases (Wooldredge, Cullen & Latessa, 1992:326). It is argued in this approach that the success in the fight against crime requires an understanding of how routine activities promote this convergence (Cohen & Felson, 1979:593). This approach states that daily routine movements of people explain victimisation patterns. Thus, the most effective way to control crime is to manage the ebb and flow of human traffic so that offenders and targets seldom converge in the absence of guardians (Felson, 1987:913).
Since the Second World War and the liberation of women there has been a shift of routine activities away from the confines of the home. More individuals were offered employment in places which were further away from the home such as the mines. This shift increased the probability that motivated offenders would converge in space and time with suitable targets. Because most individuals commuted to and from work and the homes were left unattended to, there were increases in crime rates (Felson, 1987:913, Payne, 2000:171; Vito & Holmes, 1994:144).
