Self-Protective Behavior and Violent Victimization (Criminal Justice)

Criminal Justice Recent Scholarship Edited by Marilyn McShane and Frank P. Williams III A Series from LFB Scholarly ...

Author: Shannon A. Santana

16 downloads 457 Views 440KB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Criminal Justice Recent Scholarship

Edited by Marilyn McShane and Frank P. Williams III

A Series from LFB Scholarly

This page intentionally left blank

Self-Protective Behavior and Violent Victimization

Shannon A. Santana

LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC New York 2007

Copyright © 2007 by LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Santana, Shannon A., 1973Self-protective behavior and violent victimization / Shannon A. Santana. p. cm. -- (Criminal justice : recent scholarship) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-1-59332-202-1 (alk. paper) 1. Crime prevention--Research. 2. Self-protective behavior-Research. 3. Victims of crimes--United States--Statistics. 4. National crime victimization survey report. I. Title. HV7436.S25 2007 613.6'6--dc22 2007009914

ISBN 9781593322021 Printed on acid-free 250-year-life paper. Manufactured in the United States of America.

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: The Importance of Studying Self-Protective Behaviors

1

CHAPTER 2: Prior Research on Self-Protective Behaviors

13

CHAPTER 3: Using the National Crime Victimization Survey

71

CHAPTER 4: The Effectiveness of Self-Protective Behavior

97

CHAPTER 5: Past, Present and Future Research

141

REFERENCES

165

APPENDIX

175

INDEX

179

v


LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table 2.1 Likelihood of Sexual Victimization by Type of Self-Protective Behavior

28

Table 2.2 Likelihood of Robbery Victimization by Type of Self-Protective Behavior

48

Table 2.3 Likelihood of Physical Assault Victimization by Type of Self-Protective Behavior

61

Table 2.4 Hypotheses for the Relationship between Self-Protective Behaviors and the Outcome of Violent Victimizations and the Influence of the Victim/Offender Relationship

63

Table 3.1 Sample Statistics for Independent Variables

84

Table 3.2 Sample Statistics for Control Variables

88

Table 4.1 Type of Victimization by Type of Self-Protective Behavior Against a Single Offender

99

Table 4.2 Type of Victimization Outcome by Type of Self-Protective Behaviors Against a Single Offender

vii

102

viii

List of Tables and Figures

Table 4.3 Logit Coefficients and Robust Standard Errors for Rape Outcome Model

113

Table 4.4 Logit Coefficients and Robust Standard Errors for Sexual Assault Outcome Model

115

Table 4.5 Logit Coefficients and Robust Standard Errors for Robbery Outcome Model

117

Table 4.6 Logit Coefficients and Standard Errors for Physical Assault Outcome Model

119

Figure 4.1 Probability of Completed Rape by Victim/Offender Relationship and Type of Self-Protective Behavior

123

Table 4.7 Probability of a Completed Rape with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender

124

Table 4.8 Change in Probability of a Completed Rape with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender

125

List of Tables and Figures Figure 4.2 Probability of a More Severe Sexual Assault by Victim/Offender Relationship and Type of Self-Protective Behavior Table 4.9 Probability of a More Severe Sexual Assault with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender Table 4.10 Change in Probability of a More Severe Sexual Assault with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender

ix

127

128

129

Figure 4.3 Probability of a Completed Robbery by Victim/Offender Relationship and Type of Self-Protective Behavior

131

Table 4.11 Probability of a Completed Robbery with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender

132

Table 4.12 Change in Probability of a Completed Robbery with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender

133

x

List of Tables and Figures

Figure 4.4 Probability of Aggravated Physical Assault by Victim/Offender Relationship and Type of Self-Protective Behavior

135

Table 4.13 Probability of an Aggravated Assault with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender

136

Table 4.14 Change in Probability of an Aggravated Assault with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender

137

Table 5.1 Summary of Results

143

Table A.1 Sample Characteristics for the Independent Variables by Type of Victimization

175

Table A.2 Classification of Self-Protective Behaviors

178

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all of the people who helped me with this research, throughout my graduate career, and during my first years as an assistant professor at Florida International University. First of all, thank you to Dr. Bonnie Fisher and Dr. Francis Cullen. Dr. Fisher, you mentored me in so many areas including research, teaching, publishing, graduate school life, and life as a professor. For this, I will forever be grateful. Dr. Cullen, you provided support and mentorship before I even began at UC. I have been fortunate to be able to work with both of you and have learned much from each of you. Thanks to Dr. Brandon Applegate for encouraging me to attend the University of Cincinnati and for motivating me with your yearly pep talks on the golf course. I appreciate all the support and advice you have given me over the years. Thank you to Dr. Callie Rennison and Dr. Laura Dugan for their help in navigating through the NCVS. I appreciate the time and effort you both spent in helping me. Thank you to Kristie Blevins for helping me whenever I had a stats question (no matter what state she was in!) and for being my cheerleader when I needed one. Thank you to the faculty and staff in the Division of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati including Dr. Edward Latessa who served on my dissertation committee. Thanks also to Violet Hall and Janice Miller who made my life at UC so much easier and more pleasant. In addition, I would like to thank Lisa Growette Bostaph, Cynthia Hamilton, Mark Macauley, Luahna Winningham Carter, and Sharon Levrant Miceli who made the transition to life in Cincinnati so much easier (and more fun!). I am thankful for your continued friendship. xi

xii

Acknowledgments

Last, but not least, thank you to my family for supporting and assisting me along the way. Thank you, Mom, Dad, and Chris, for never giving up on me even when I wanted to give up myself. Mom and Dad, you constantly amaze me with the lengths you will to go to help me. You are the best! Most of all, thank you to my husband, Marcos, who was willing to move from sunny Florida to Cincinnati (and back to Florida!) and who supported me every step of the way. Finally, thank you to my son, Nathaniel. I love you.

CHAPTER 1

The Importance of Studying Self-Protective Behaviors

INTRODUCTION For over a century, criminologists have been researching the causes of crime and attempting to develop theories of criminal behavior. Relatively new to the field of criminology and criminal justice is research that focuses on victims (see Mendelsohn, 1956; Schafer, 1968; von Hentig, 1941, 1948). The early research on victims focused on how victims of crime contributed to their own victimization and why people become victims (see Doerner and Lab, 1998). More recent research has explored, among other things, the extent and nature of criminal victimization. This interest in the prevalence and incidence of victimization is reflected in the development of victimization surveys in the late 1960s, most notably the National Crime Survey (NCS) (Cantor and Lynch, 2000). The NCS reveals that many men and women are the victims of violent and/or property crimes. In fact, the NCS indicates that there are many more incidents of victimization – and thus a larger percentage of the population is victimized – than the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) suggest. In other words, many crimes are not reported to the police and hence are not captured in the Uniform Crime Reports (Doerner and Lab, 1998). Thus, victimization surveys can be seen as better measures of the amount of victimization that occurs in the United States 1

2


compared to measures that rely solely on victims reporting incidents to the police. Victimization surveys, such as the NCS, which was renamed the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 1992 after its redesign, generally ask respondents about a variety of possible crimes which they may have experienced (Bachman and Taylor, 1994). These crimes can be classified into two general categories: violent crimes and property crimes. Violent crimes include rape, robbery, and simple and aggravated assault while property crimes include household burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft. Individuals may be the victim of one, or more, of these crimes during their lifetime or even within the same incident. Data from the NCVS indicate that a substantial number of victimization incidents occur annually. For instance, in examining violent crimes, data from the 2002 NCVS reveal a rate of 1.1 for rape/sexual assault, 2.2 for robbery, and 19.8 for assault per 1,000 persons age 12 and over.1 Data from the 2002 NCVS for property crimes reveal a rate of 27.7 for household burglaries, 9.0 for motor vehicle thefts, and 122.3 for thefts per 1,000 persons or households2 (Maguire and Pastore, 2003). Besides the distinction between the specific type of crime a victim experiences (e.g., a rape versus a robbery), there is another important distinction: whether an incident is an attempted act or a completed act. For instance, a victim may experience a completed rape or he/she may experience an attempted rape. With a completed rape, a victim experiences forced sexual intercourse by an offender. With an attempted rape, the offender is not successful in penetrating the victim. Data from the 2002 NCVS indicate a rate of .3 for attempted rape versus .4 for completed rape per 1,000 persons age 12 and over. As with rape, a robbery victim may experience a completed or attempted incident. Data from the 2002 NCVS indicate that 1.7 out of every 1,000 persons age 12 and over were the victim of an completed robbery, while .5 out of every 1,000 persons were the victim of an attempted robbery.


3

While assaults cannot be broken down into attempted and completed incidents, they can be categorized as aggravated or simple assaults. Assaults are classified as aggravated when either 1) a weapon is used or 2) the victim suffers a serious injury. Assaults are classified as simple when no weapon is used and the assault results in either no injury, minor injury, or “undetermined injury” which requires less than two days of hospitalization. Data from the 2002 NCVS indicate a rate of 19.8 for aggravated assaults and 15.5 for simple assaults per 1,000 persons age 12 and over (Maguire and Pastore, 2003). The distinction between attempted and completed incidents is the focus of this study. Specifically, I wish to explore one factor that may influence whether violent criminal victimizations are completed or attempted: the use of self-protective behaviors by the victims. In other words, the goal of this book is to examine the relationship between self-protective behaviors and incident outcome to determine if self-protective behaviors are effective in preventing violent crimes from being completed. However, because the outcomes of sexual and physical assaults, as coded by the NCVS, cannot be categorized as completed versus attempted,3 the outcomes that will be used for sexual assault are more severe and less severe and the outcomes for physical assaults will be aggravated and simple. These outcomes are consistent with the use of completed versus attempted as the outcomes for rape and robbery since they represent a more severe versus less severe category. In recent years, a number of researchers have examined whether self-protective behaviors are effective in preventing violent crimes from being completed (e.g., Bart and O’Brien, 1984, 1985; Kleck and Sayles, 1990; ZouchaJensen and Coyne, 1993). Their work has primarily focused on whether different types of self-protective behaviors, namely, forceful physical, nonforceful physical, forceful verbal, and nonforceful verbal behaviors, are effective in reducing the likelihood of completed rape. Because the majority of past research has focused only on

4


rape, this study can be considered an extension of the research in this area because it focuses not only on rapes but also on sexual assaults,4 robberies, and physical assaults.5 It is important to examine crimes other than rape since the NCVS indicates that the most common type of violent victimization is not rape but assault, followed by robbery. In 2002, the rate of assault was 19.8 per 1,000 persons age 12 or over compared to a rate of 2.2 for robbery, .7 for rape, and .3 for sexual assault (Maguire and Pastore, 2003). In sum, because physical assaults and robberies occur more frequently than rapes and robberies, it is important to examine these violent crimes in addition to rapes and sexual assaults. This is an area in which prior research is lacking. Thus, the examination of the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors on the outcome of these four different types of victimizations (physical assault, robbery, rape, and sexual assault) is the focus of this book. IMPORTANCE OF EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SELF-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIORS AND INCIDENT OUTCOME One of the goals of those who study victims is to prevent or reduce the number of victimizations that occur. To prevent victimization, we must first understand the factors that are associated with the completion of criminal acts. Thus, we must examine whether the use of self-protective behaviors is related to the avoidance of completed sexual victimization, aggravated assault, and robbery. If we find that specific types of self-protective behaviors are effective in preventing the completion of these violent crimes, we can educate the public on what to do, or not do, when faced with these types of situations. Given that a substantial number of people experience these violent victimizations, the knowledge of what to do in these situations could have a substantial effect in terms of reducing incidents of completed victimizations. For instance, statistics show that approximately one in five women in the United States will


5

be raped at some point in their life (Koss, 1993). If women were equipped with the knowledge of which type(s) of selfprotective behaviors are most effective in reducing the likelihood of a completed rape, it is possible that the percentage of women who are raped in their lifetime would decrease. Similarly, if the public was educated on whether to employ self-protective behaviors (and if so, which particular types) in physical assaults and robberies, it is probable that these respective completed incidents would decrease. In understanding why it is important to reduce the number of completed victimizations that occur, we must consider the physical, psychological, and financial consequences of completed victimizations. One theme that is apparent in the victimization research is that victims of attempted incidents may suffer less severe consequences than victims of completed incidents (e.g., McDermott, 1979). In the case of rape, research suggests that victims of completed rapes may suffer more psychological and physical health problems than victims of attempted rapes. These problems may include anger, fear, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, and suicidal thoughts and attempts and may continue for several years after the rape (Kilpatrick et al., 1985; Koss et al., 1994; Siegel et al., 1990). In addition, victims of completed rapes are at a greater risk of receiving a sexually transmitted disease and becoming pregnant than victims of attempted rapes (Koss et al., 1994). Further, Brener et al. (1999) found that females who were raped were more likely than females who had not been raped6 to engage in “health-risk behaviors” such as smoking cigarettes, considering suicide, having multiple sexual partners during the 3 months prior to the survey, using alcohol or drugs the last time they had sexual intercourse, and driving after drinking in the 30 days prior to the survey. Finally, McDermott (1979) found that 54% of the injured completed rape victims in her sample of 26 cities needed medical attention compared to 28% of the injured attempted rape victims. Apart from these physical

6


and psychological injuries, rape victims also often suffer from financial losses resulting from trips to the emergency room and missed days of work. In 1992, over 68,000 rape victims received medical care (Klaus, 1994) and in 2004, 10.6% of rapes/sexual assaults resulted in lost time from work (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005). For robberies, victims of attempted incidents suffer no direct financial loss while victims of completed incidents suffer some degree of financial loss depending on the amount of money that was taken from them. Data from the NCVS reveal that at least $250 was taken from victims in about one-fourth of all robbery incidents in 1992. In addition, 876,800 robberies involving economic loss occurred. The total economic cost of robberies to victims in 1992 was $680 million (Klaus, 1994). Thus, the economic impact of completed robbery incidents is substantial. Victims of completed robberies also often suffer from another type of financial loss: loss of time from work. In 2003, 15% of completed robbery victimizations resulted in the victim missing work compared to 13.9% of attempted robbery incidents (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005). In the case of physical assaults, victims also often suffer from physical and financial injuries. These injuries appear more serious for victims of aggravated versus simple assault. First, victims who experience simple assaults are often, by definition, less likely to suffer severe physical trauma than victims who experience aggravated assaults.7 Second, statistics from 2003 reveal that victims of aggravated assaults are more likely to miss time from work than victims of simple assaults (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005). Third, data from 2005 indicate that victims of aggravated assault are more likely to suffer from economic loss than victims of simple assault (U.S. Department of Justice, 2006). Overall, then, the consequences of aggravated assaults are often more severe than the consequences of simple assaults. In sum, it is important to examine the relationship between self-protective behaviors and the outcome of


7

rapes, sexual assaults, robberies, and physical assaults to better understand which self-protective behaviors may prevent completed incidents from occurring. By reducing the number of completed incidents that occur, we could have a substantial impact on society by lessening the physical and psychological problems, and financial consequences that victims suffer. LIMITATIONS OF PREVIOUS RESEARCH While a considerable amount of research has examined the relationship between self-protective behaviors and outcome (e.g., Atkeson et al., 1989; Bachman and Carmody, 1994; Bart, 1981; Bart and O’Brien, 1984, Block and Skogan, 1986; Cohen, 1984; Galliano et al., 1993; Queen’s Bench Foundation, 1976; Ullman and Knight, 1992; Ullman and Knight, 1993; Ullman and Knight, 1995; Ullman, 1998; Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne, 1993), there are three major limitations with these studies. These limitations will be discussed below. First, most studies of self-protective behaviors have limited their focus to only one type of victimization: sexual victimization, namely rape. There is little empirical research on the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors in preventing robberies and physical assaults from being completed (for exceptions see Bachman and Carmody, 1994; Bachman et al., 2002; Block and Skogan, 1984; Block and Skogan, 1986; Conklin, 1972; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Macdonald, 1975; Hindelang, 1976; Skogan and Block, 1983; Tark and Kleck, 2004; Thompson et al., 1999; Wolfgang, 1982). In addition, while some studies have looked at the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors in sexual victimization, robbery, and physical assault cases, few studies have examined the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors across these different types of crimes using national-level data (for an exception, see Block and Skogan, 1984). Further, none of the previous studies of robbery and physical assault have explored the

8


specific effectiveness of each of the four types of selfprotective behaviors. For instance, is forceful physical resistance more effective than nonforceful physical resistance in robberies? This research will take into account these gaps in the research by examining the effectiveness of the four different types of self-protective behaviors on the outcome of rape, sexual assault, robbery, and physical assault incidents using a national-level dataset: the National Crime Victimization Survey. Second, most studies fail to take into account the temporal ordering of self-protective behaviors (for exceptions, see Bachman et al., 2002; Quinsey and Upfold, 1985; Tark and Kleck, 2004; Thompson et al., 1999; Ullman and Knight, 1992). In other words, does the victim employ self-protective behaviors before, during, or after the incident? While the idea of self-protective action implies that victims use self-protective behaviors before a crime is completed or before an injury occurs, most studies simply examine whether some type of self-protective behavior was used by the victim at any time during the victimization (Bachman et al., 2002). Thus, the victim’s use of selfprotective behaviors may have occurred after the incident was completed or after injury occurred. Tark and Kleck (2004) examined the influence of self-protective behaviors on injuries that occurred only after self-protective behaviors were used. They found that victims who used self-protective behaviors in sexual assaults, robberies, assaults, and confrontational burglaries were infrequently injured, and rarely seriously injured, after using selfprotective behaviors. Further research is needed to explore the effect that temporal ordering has on the relationship between self-protective behaviors and outcome (e.g., completed versus attempted rape, completed versus attempted robbery). Unfortunately, this study is unable to address this limitation due to the way the NCVS surveys respondents: in order for the respondent to have been asked when he/she used self-protective behaviors, the respondent had to have been injured during the incident. Overall, 43% of the incidents in the sample involved victims who were


9

not injured. Thus, including only cases in which the victim was injured would have resulted in the exclusion of a large number of incidents. Third, many studies do not consider the impact of the victim/offender relationship on the effectiveness of selfprotective behaviors in preventing victimization completion (however, see Bachman et al., 2002; Fisher et al., 2007). It may be that certain self-protective behaviors are more or less effective depending on the nature of the victim/offender relationship (e.g., see Bachman et al., 2002). This is an important issue to study since data reveal that many violent crimes are committed by people known to the victim (e.g., family, friends, acquaintances, boyfriends/girlfriends, ex-boyfriends/ex-girlfriends) (Fisher et al., 2000; Ullman, 1997). If we know which selfprotective behaviors (if any) are most effective with certain types of offenders (e.g., intimates, strangers, etc.), then we can educate potential victims accordingly. This study will thus explore the effects the victim/offender relationship has on the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors in preventing victimization completion. In summary, this research study attempts to extend the current body of research on self-protective behaviors by taking into account two of the aforementioned limitations of prior research. First, this research will expand upon past research by examining the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors not only in sexual victimization incidents but also in physical assault and robbery incidents. Second, this research will examine whether the effectiveness of selfprotective behaviors varies depending on the nature of the victim/offender relationship. The remainder of this book is divided into four chapters. Chapter 2 discusses the current literature on sexual victimizations, robberies, and physical assaults with a focus on the use and effectiveness of self-protective behaviors during these types of incidents. Chapter 3 presents the methods that are used for this study. It includes a discussion of the survey used for this study, the

10


NCVS, including the survey’s strengths and weaknesses. Chapter 3 also discusses the independent and dependent variables used in this study and the statistical methods that will be used. In Chapter 4, the results from the data analysis are presented. This book concludes, in Chapter 5, with a discussion of the findings. Policy implications and recommendations for future research are also discussed in this chapter.


11

NOTES 1

These figures include both attempted and completed incidents of rape/sexual assault and robbery and both simple and aggravated incidents of assaults. 2 These figures include both attempted and completed incidents of household burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft. 3 The NCVS categories the outcomes for physical assault as completed aggravated assault with injury, attempted aggravated assault with weapon, threatened assault with weapon, simple assault completed with injury, and assault without weapon without injury. The NCVS categories the outcomes for sexual assaults as sexual attach with serious assault, sexual attack with minor assault, sexual assault without injury, and unwanted sexual contact without force. 4 Unlike other datasets, the NCVS categories sexual victimizations into rapes and sexual assaults. In this study, the outcome variable for sexual assaults is not attempted versus completed but rather more severe versus less severe sexual assaults. 5 In this study, the outcome variable for physical assaults is not attempted versus completed but rather aggravated versus simple assault. 6 Note that Brener et al. did not compare women who were the victims of attempted rape with victims of completed rape. Instead, they compared women who answered yes to the question “During your life, have you ever been forced to have sexual intercourse against your will” to women who answered no to this question. 7 The NCVS defines aggravated assault as “an attack or attempted attack with a weapon, regardless of whether or not an injury occurred and attack without a weapon when serious injury results.” An assault is defined as “an unlawful physical attack or threat of attack.”


CHAPTER 2

Prior Research on Self-Protective Behaviors

INTRODUCTION Beginning in the 1960s, researchers began to explore the importance of victims’ actions during violent victimizations. While initial studies focused on the prevalence of the use of self-protective behaviors in violent victimizations (e.g., Amir, 1971; Normandeau, 1968; Conklin, 1972; Macdonald, 1975), later studies also examined the correlates of the use of self-protective behaviors (e.g., Hindelang, 1976; Block and Skogan, 1984; Siegel et al., 1989). In addition, researchers interested in preventing violent victimization have examined the type and use of self-protective behaviors to determine if such actions and specific types distinguish between completed and attempted crimes. This chapter will discuss the findings of these studies. It will begin with a discussion of the research on sexual victimizations since the majority of the research on selfprotective behaviors1 has focused on this type of victimization. The following section will examine the literature on robberies. The third, and final, section of this chapter will examine the research that has been conducted on physical assaults. Within each of these three sections, there will be three subsections that discuss: 1) the prevalence of the use of self-protective behaviors; 2) the factors associated with the use of self-protective behaviors; and 3) the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors. 13

14


SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION Prevalence of the Use of Self-Protective Behaviors in Sexual Victimizations Before examining the current literature on the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors in preventing rape and sexual assault completion, it is important to understand the prevalence of the use of self-protective behaviors. In other words, what percentage of victims typically utilize selfprotective behaviors during a sexual victimization? Research in this area dates back to the early 1970s with the work of Amir (1971). Based on information derived from police records in Philadelphia, Amir found that 45% of the rape victims in his sample (n = 646) resisted the attack by screaming, attempting to escape, or putting up a fight. Future studies have found even higher rates of resistance. For instance, Medea and Thompson (1974) found that 82% of the victims in their sample used some type of resistance. Atkeson et al. (1989) found that 86% of their sample of 116 female rape victims who were surveyed after visiting a rape crisis center in Atlanta used either verbal or physical resistance. One possible explanation for the difference between Amir’s early findings and more current research is in the way that resistance was defined. For instance, Amir categorized “verbal protest” and “expressions of reluctance” as indicators of submissive behaviors while more current studies have labeled these actions as verbal resistance. When breaking down type of self-protective behaviors, most studies have found that a larger proportion of victims use verbal self-protective behaviors than physical selfprotective behaviors (Cohen, 1984; Quinsey and Upfold, 1985; Ullman, 1998; cf. Amick and Calhoun, 1987). For instance, Cohen (1984) found that 59% of the victims in her sample who believed the offender’s intent was to rape them used verbal resistance while 31% used physical resistance.


15

Factors Associated with the Use of Self-Protective Behaviors in Sexual Victimizations Another common line of inquiry in the self-protection literature is the characteristics associated with victims who use self-protective behaviors. In other words, what characteristics predict whether a victim is likely to employ self-protective behaviors during an attack? Studies in this area have generally looked at pre-assault characteristics (e.g., characteristics of the victim such as age, race, sex; offender alcohol use; victim/offender relationship) and characteristics of the victimization situation (i.e., situational variables such as environmental interventions, location of the incident, presence of a weapon, and time of day). In general, the research suggests that characteristics of the assault are more important in predicting victim’s use of self-protective behaviors than characteristics of the victim (Atkeson et al., 1989). The research on these variables is discussed below. Pre-Assault Characteristics Age of Victim. The age of the victim is a variable that has been examined in terms of its relationship to the use of selfprotective behaviors in sexual victimizations. In other words, are older victims more or less likely to employ selfprotective behaviors in sexual victimizations than younger victims? The research that has been conducted suggests that the age of the victim does not influence the use of selfprotective behaviors by women during sexual victimizations. For instance, Siegel et al. (1989), in their analysis of 365 men and women who had been sexually assaulted, found that the victim’s age at the time of the interview was not related to the use of resistance.2 Similarly, Atkeson et al. (1989), in their survey of 116 female rape victims, found that age did not discriminate between whether victims used no resistance, verbal resistance, or physical resistance. In addition, Clay-Warner

16


(2003) found that the victim’s age did not differentiate between victims who used verbal self-protective actions versus physical self-protective actions or between victims who used no self-protective actions versus physical selfprotective actions. However, contrary to these studies, McDermott (1979) found that older victims were less likely to use self-protective measures. Overall, though, the majority of the evidence suggests that victim’s age is not a significant predictor of victims’ use of self-protective behaviors. Alcohol/Drug Use. Alcohol and drug use by offenders is another variable that has been examined in terms of its relationship to the use of self-protective behaviors. This variable is important to look at because studies indicate that many offenders are under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of the assault (Koss et al., 1988; Tewksbury and Pedro, 2003). There is some research suggesting that victims who perceive that the offender is under the influence of alcohol or drugs are more likely to employ self-protective behaviors. For instance, Atkeson et al. (1989) found that 63% of the victims who used physical resistance perceived their assailant as being under the influence of drugs or alcohol while 37% of the victims who used no resistance did. Similarly, Clay-Warner (2003) found that victims who perceived the offender to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol were more likely to use physical self-protection than no self-protection. Finally, Brecklin and Ullman (2001) found that offender alcohol use was associated with greater resistance on the part of the victim. Ullman et al. (1999, p. 605) argue that the relationship between offender alcohol use and greater resistance on the part of the victim is expected because “victims resist more strongly when attacked more violently (Ullman, 1997) and more violence is expected by drinking offenders.” Race/Ethnicity. The evidence on the impact of race and ethnicity on the use of self-protective behaviors is mixed.


17

Block and Skogan (1984) found that black women were less likely to resist rapes than white women: 71% versus 85%. However, they point out that part (if not all) of this difference was related to the fact that black women had a greater likelihood of being confronted with a gun. Similar to Block and Skogan (1984), McDermott (1979) also found that black women used self-protective measures less often than white women. However, Siegel et al. (1989), in their sample of 365 male and female sexual assault victims, found that ethnicity (Hispanic or other White) was not related to the use of resistance strategy. Similarly, Atkeson et al. (1989) found that race (black or white) did not discriminate between whether victims used no resistance, verbal resistance, or physical resistance. Sex of Victim. Because there is little research on the use of self-protective behaviors by male victims of rape and sexual assault, the impact of sex of the victim on the use of self-protective behaviors is largely unknown. However, there is at least one study that suggests that the sex of the victim influences whether self-protective behaviors are employed and the specific types that are used. Specifically, Siegel et al. (1989) found that gender was a significant variable: female sexual assault victims were more likely to use physical (or a combination of) resistance strategies than male sexual assault victims. Males, on the other hand, were more likely than females to use verbal strategies. Victim/Offender Relationship. The victim/offender relationship may influence the type of self-protective behaviors that victims use. For instance, victims who know their offender may be reluctant to use certain types of selfprotective behaviors (e.g., physical) or to use any selfprotective behaviors at all. In general, the research suggests that women who are assaulted by people they know are less likely to employ self-protective behaviors and use less effective forms of protective actions (Amick and Calhoun, 1987; Clay-Warner, 2003; Ullman and

18


Siegel, 1993; Ullman, 1997). Specifically, many studies have found that women who are sexually assaulted by intimates or people they know are more likely to use verbal strategies than physical strategies. For instance, Atkeson et al. (1989) found that victims assaulted by acquaintances were more likely to use verbal resistance than physical resistance: 62% versus 21% respectively.3 Similarly, ClayWarner (2003) found that victims who were assaulted by a former or current romantic partner were 66% more likely to employ verbal resistance than physical resistance and 68% more likely to offer no resistance than physical resistance. Koss et al. (1988), on the other hand, found few differences in the extent and types of resistance strategies used by victims of stranger versus acquaintance rape with the exception of screaming: victims of stranger rape were less likely to report that they had screamed for help compared to victims of acquaintance rape. Victims of acquaintance and stranger rape were equally likely to use physical resistance, a finding that is in contrast to other studies that have found that women are less likely to use physical resistance in incidents involving intimate offenders or acquaintances (Bart and O’Brien, 1985; Ullman and Siegel, 1993). Ullman (1997, p. 185) suggests that “women may be less able to recognize and effectively resist rape by known offenders, particularly with the forceful strategies known to be effective against strangers.” Situational Characteristics Environmental Interventions. Environmental interventions are another factor that may influence whether or not a victim uses self-protective behaviors and if so, what type. Ullman (1997, p. 191) defines environmental interventions as “persons, events, or noises that interrupt assaults in progress and are believed to facilitate rape avoidance by giving victims an opportunity to escape.” Clay-Warner (2003) included a “bystander” variable in her multivariate analysis of NCVS data and found that the presence of a bystander did not significantly differentiate


19

between victims who used physical self-protective action and victims who used verbal self-protective action. The presence of a bystander also did not significantly differentiate between victims who used no self-protective actions and physical protective actions (Clay-Warner, 2003). Location of Incident. It is plausible that victims may react differently when they are attacked in an isolated location compared to a more public place. Thus the location of an attack is another characteristic of the victimization experience that may influence whether or not victims employ self-protective behaviors and the specific type(s) of self-protective behavior(s) they use. Research on the impact of location of the incident on the use of selfprotective behaviors has been mixed. For instance, Atkeson et al. (1989) found that location of the assault affected the degree of resistance. By categorizing victims into three groups depending on the type of resistance they used (no resistance, verbal resistance, or physical resistance), Atkeson et al. found that approximately the same percentage (two-thirds) of victims in each of the three groups was assaulted outside their own homes. Like Atkeson et al., Clay-Warner (2003) also found no relationship between the location of the victimization4 and whether a victim used physical self-protective actions or not. However, Block and Skogan (1986) found that the location of the incident was related to resistance in rape incidents. Specifically, women who were attacked in their homes were somewhat less likely to resist. Thus, the research on the impact of location on the use of selfprotective behaviors is mixed. Presence of a Weapon. The presence of a weapon is another factor that has been found to influence the use of self-protective actions. Studies have generally shown that if the assailant has a weapon, victims are less likely to resist physically (Atkeson et al., 1989; Block and Skogan, 1986;

20


Clay-Warner, 2003). Instead victims may be more likely to use no resistance or another form of resistance (e.g., verbal). Clay-Warner (2003), for instance, found that the offender’s possession of a weapon almost doubled the likelihood that the victim would employ verbal selfprotective actions instead of physical self-protective actions while McDermott (1979) found that the proportion of victims who used self-protective measures was more than two times greater in unarmed versus armed rape attacks. Time of Day. Time of day is another variable that may influence whether or not a victim employs self-protective behaviors and what type of self-protective behavior a victim uses. Using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) for 1992 – 2001, ClayWarner (2003) examined the factors that differentiate between victims who used physical resistance and victims who used verbal resistance. She found that victims who were assaulted at night (6 pm – 6 am) were over twice as likely to employ verbal self-protective actions than physical self-protective actions. In addition, she found that 21% of the victims who were attacked at night used verbal resistance compared to 10% of those attacked during the day. Atkeson et al. (1989), on the other hand, found that the time of the assault did not affect the degree of resistance used by victims: approximately the same percentage (three-fourths) of the victims who used no resistance, verbal resistance, or physical resistance was assaulted when it was dark outside. The Influence of Pre-Assault and Situational Characteristics on the Outcome of Sexual Victimizations The next section focuses on the influence of the aforementioned pre-assault and situational characteristics on the outcome of sexual victimizations. Specifically, each of the pre-assault characteristics (age of victim, alcohol/drug use, race/ethnicity, sex of victim, and


21

victim/offender relationship) and situational characteristics (environmental interventions, location of incident, presence of a weapon, and time of day) will be discussed in terms of their relationship to the outcome of sexual victimizations. Pre-Assault Characteristics Age of Victim. Little research has examined the influence of age on sexual victimization outcome. Part of the reason may be due to the fact that a large number of sexual victimization studies are composed of college students who tend to be similar in age. The studies that have included age as a variable suggest that there are no significant differences in age between attempted and completed rape victims. For instance, research conducted by the Queen’s Bench Foundation (1976) found that most demographic differences, including age, between women who were raped and women who avoided rape were not statistically significant.5 Becker et al. (1982) also found no significant differences in age between attempted and completed rape victims. Alcohol/Drug Use. The prevalence of alcohol use by victims and/or offenders prior to assaults has been widely established. Research suggests that alcohol use is present in one-half to two-thirds of sexual assaults (Pernanen, 1991). Some research has found that both victim and offender alcohol use is associated with rape completion (Ullman and Knight, 1993; Ullman et al., 1999; cf. Brecklin and Ullman, 2001). For instance, Ullman and Knight (1993) found that victims’ alcohol or drug use (either prior to or during the incident) was positively related to more severe sexual abuse in stranger rapes.6 Similarly, using a national sample of female college students, Ullman et al. (1999) found that pre-assault alcohol use by both victims and offenders was related to more severe sexual victimization. One possible theory for the link between offender alcohol use and more severe sexual

22


abuse is that alcohol consumption reduces the offender’s inhibitions against committing sexual crimes, resulting in increased aggression toward the victim. One possible explanation for the link between victims’ alcohol use and more severe sexual abuse is that victims who have been drinking may be less likely to resist (Harrington and Leitenberg, 1994). In addition, alcohol use on the part of the victim may be associated with “riskier situational contexts, such as unplanned or spontaneous social situations (e.g., parties, bars) that are related to higher risk of completed rape” (Ullman et al., 1999, p. 605). Thus, alcohol use is not necessarily a causal factor in rapes or in the injuries that victims may sustain (Ullman, 2002). Instead, alcohol may play a factor because it is associated with other factors that are related to rape such as “social situations in which victim and offender are only slightly acquainted with each other (e.g., parties, bars.) It may be that these risky social contexts, not drinking itself, that confers sexual assault risk” (Ullman, 2002, p. 143). Race of Victim. Several studies have examined the impact of the race of the victim on the outcome of sexual victimizations. For example, in their analysis of NCS data for 1973-1982, Marchbanks et al. (1990) found that completed rape victims were more likely to be black. Similarly, in her analysis of 124 female sexual victims, Cohen (1984) found that victims who were black were significantly more likely to have suffered a completed rape. However, Becker et al. (1982) found no statistically significant differences in race between victims who were raped and victims who avoided rape. Thus the evidence on the impact of race on the outcome of sexual victimizations is mixed. Sex of Victim. The impact of the sex of the victim on the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors remains unknown largely because most sexual victimization studies focus only on female victims. Future research exploring the impact of the sex of the victim is needed.


23

Victim/Offender Relationship. It is important to study the impact of the victim/offender relationship on the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors since many rapes are committed by people known to the victim (e.g., relatives, boyfriends, ex-boyfriends, husbands, acquaintances, dates) (Fisher et al., 2000; Kilpatrick et al., 1992; Koss et al., 1987). Research on the impact of the victim/offender relationship on rape avoidance has been mixed. Generally, though, most studies have found that victims are more likely to avoid rape completion when the offender is a stranger as opposed to an acquaintance (Amick and Calhoun, 1987; Bart and O’Brien, 1985; Fisher et al., 2007; Marchbanks et al., 1990; Quinsey and Upfold, 1985; Ruback and Ivie, 1988; Ullman and Knight, 1991). For instance, Martin and Bachman (1998) and Brecklin and Ullman (2001) found that women who were attacked by strangers were more likely to avoid rape. Ruback and Ivie (1988) and Furby and Fischhoff (1992), in their review of 22 studies, found that physical resistance was more effective in situations involving strangers than in situations involving nonstrangers. Amick and Calhoun (1987) found that victims who unsuccessfully used resistance were more likely to have a steady dating relationship with the offender. However, Clay-Warner (2002) found that the victim/offender relationship had no significant impact on rape completion. According to Ullman (1997, p. 186), “the victimoffender relationship may affect assault outcomes indirectly through the differential use of different types of victim resistance strategies.” Both Amick and Calhoun (1987) and Ullman and Siegel (1993) found that women who were sexually assaulted by intimates were less likely to resist. In addition, it may be that women who are assaulted by intimates use less effective forms of resistance than women who are assaulted by acquaintances (Ullman, 1997). It is also possible that victims attacked by strangers are more likely to avoid rape because of the types of locations where stranger versus non-stranger rapes tend to occur.

24


Data indicate that stranger rapes are more likely to occur in outdoor locations than non-stranger rapes. For instance, Bachman (1994), using data from the 1987-1991 NCVS, found that 43% of stranger rapes occurred in open or public areas compared to only 5% of non-stranger rapes. On the other hand, 52% of non-stranger rapes occurred at or near the victim’s home compared to only 25% of stranger rapes. Because stranger rapes are more likely to occur outside where environmental interventions (e.g., bystanders) are more likely to be present, completed acts may be more likely to be avoided. Situational Characteristics Research has consistently shown that some situational characteristics of sexual victimization incidents are associated with the outcome of these incidents (i.e., attempted versus completed rape) (Amick and Calhoun, 1987; Bart and O’Brien, 1985; Becker et al., 1982; ClayWarner, 2002; Lizotte, 1986; Queen’s Bench Foundation, 1976; Quinsey and Upfold, 1985; Ullman and Knight, 1991, 1993; Ullman, 1997). Situational characteristics include environmental interventions, location of the incident, presence of a weapon, and time of day. A discussion of the influence of each of these situational characteristics on rape outcome is below. Environmental Interventions. Ullman (1997, p. 191) defines environmental interventions as “persons, events, or noises that interrupt assaults in progress and are believed to facilitate rape avoidance by giving victims an opportunity to escape.” Two studies have found a positive relationship between environmental interventions and rape avoidance. The first study, conducted by Bart and O’Brien (1985), found that while only 5% of raped women experienced an environmental intervention, 20% of women who avoided rape experienced such an intervention. The second study, by Ullman and Knight (1991), found an association between environmental interventions7 and less severe


25

sexual abuse. Tark and Kleck (2004), however, found that neither the presence of a family member nor the presence of another person (someone other than a family member) was significantly related to whether or not a victim was injured during a sexual assault. Location of Incident. The evidence on the impact of the location of the attack on sexual assault/rape completion is mixed. Researchers who have not found a significant relationship between location and rape completion include Clay-Warner (2002), Ullman and Knight (1991), and Martin and Bachman (1998).8 On the other hand, some studies have found that the location of the incident affects the victimization outcome with women being more likely to avoid rape when the incident occurs in a less isolated spot or when the incident occurs outside rather than inside (Bart and O’Brien, 1985; Ullman and Knight, 1993). For instance, using a sample of 206 female college students enrolled in psychology courses, Amick and Calhoun (1987) found that unsuccessful resistance was more common among assaults that occurred in isolated sites. Consistent with the finding that women are less likely to avoid rape when the incident occurs in a less isolated place, Ullman and Knight (1993) found that women who were attacked on the street were less likely to suffer severe sexual abuse than women who were attacked in other locations (e.g., victim’s home, offender’s home, woods, bar, victim’s bedroom, offender’s car, or victim’s car). Similarly, Quinsey and Upfold (1985) found that rapes were more likely to be completed when the attack occurred in an indoor location. Finally, the Queen’s Bench Foundation (1976) found that a higher percentage of completed rape victims were attacked in homes that were not their own, while a larger percentage of attempted rape victims were attacked in businesses or schools (i.e., less isolated places). There is thus some evidence that the location of the attack may affect whether a rape will be attempted versus completed: women are

26


more likely to avoid rape when the incident occurs in an outside, or public, place. Presence of a Weapon. There is some evidence that an offender’s possession of a weapon during an attack is associated with rape completion. For instance, when comparing women who were raped with women who avoided rape, Bart and O’Brien (1984) found that 63% of the women who were attacked by an unarmed assailant avoided rape compared to 44% of the women who were attacked by an armed assailant. Becker et al. (1982) found that 30% of the completed rape victims reported that their assailant used a weapon compared to 5% of the attempted rape victims. Similarly, Quinsey and Upfold (1985) found that rapes were more likely to be completed when the assailant had a weapon. Thus, there is evidence that the presence of a weapon is related to rape completion (Bart and O’Brien, 1984; Becker et al., 1982; Clay-Warner, 2002; Lizotte, 1986; Quinsey and Upfold, 1985; Queen’s Bench Foundation, 1976). Furby and Fischhoff (1992) argue that this common finding may be the result of few women resisting when offenders have weapons. They say that when women do resist in situations involving weapons, the resistance is often effective. Time of Day. Research suggests that women are more likely to be attacked at night than during the day (Ullman and Knight, 1991). In addition, a couple of studies have found that victims who are assaulted at night are less likely to avoid rape (Bart and O’Brien, 1985; Block and Skogan, 1984). Ullman (1997) suggests that this may be due to the characteristics of night attacks such as less likelihood for environmental intervention or increased weapon use. Further research is needed to explore the impact of time of day on rape outcome.


27

Self-Protective Behaviors Number of Self-Protective Behaviors Used. Studies have indicated that the use of multiple self-protective behaviors is associated with rape avoidance (e.g., Bart and O’Brien, 1985; Cohen, 1984; Furby and Fischhoff, 1992; Queen’s Bench Foundation, 1976). For instance, Bart and O’Brien (1984), in their sample of 94 women who had either been raped or avoided rape, found that women who avoided rape used a greater number of resistance strategies than women who were raped.9 Similarly, Cohen (1984) found that victims who used two types of verbal resistance strategies (screamed and/or called for help and argued with and/or pleaded with and/or verbally threatened the offender) were significantly less likely to be raped. Cohen (p. 127) thus concluded that “penetration can best be avoided if the victim uses a dual verbal defense, i.e. she somehow calls out for help and also reasons, pleads with or verbally threatens the man.” Ullman (1997) notes the need for studies that examine the effectiveness of various combinations of resistance strategies and also analyses of individual resistance strategies while controlling for the influence of other strategies so as not overestimate the influence of a particular strategy. Type of Self-Protective Behaviors Used. A significant amount of resistance research has focused on the types of self-protective behaviors that are most effective in preventing sexual victimization. Self-protective behaviors can be divided into four categories: forceful physical, nonforceful physical, forceful verbal, and nonforceful verbal. This section will focus on the studies that have examined the effectiveness of these four types of selfprotective behaviors. Table 2.1 provides a summary of the studies on rape while Table 2.2 provides a summary of the studies on sexual abuse. A negative sign indicates that the use of the respective type of self-protective behavior was associated with a decreased chance of a rape being

28


completed or a sexual abuse from being more severe.10 A positive sign indicates that the use of the respective type of self-protective behavior was associated with an increased chance of a rape being completed or sexual abuse from being more severe. The authors’ names and the year of publication for each study are listed in parentheses. Table 2.1: Likelihood of Sexual Victimization by Type of Self-Protective Behavior11 Completed Rape Forceful Physical SelfProtective Behaviors Are Used

Nonforceful Physical Self-Protective Behaviors Are Used

Forceful Verbal SelfProtective Behaviors Are Used

-

(Atkeson et al., 1989) (Bart and O’Brien, 1984, 1985) (Becker et al., 1982) (Kleck and Sayles, 1990) (Lizotte, 1986) (Queen’s Bench Foundation, 1976) (Quinsey and Upfold, 1985) (Ruback and Ivie, 1988) (Ullman, 1997, 1998) (Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne, 1993) (Bart & O’Brien, 1984) (Block and Skogan, 1986) (Kleck and Sayles, 1990) (Koss et al., 1988) (Levine-MacCombie and Koss, 1986) (Marchbanks et al., 1990) (Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne) (Bart and O’Brien, 1984) (Cohen, 1984) (Kleck and Sayles, 1990) (Koss et al., 1988) (Queen’s Bench Foundation, 1976) (Quinsey and Upfold, 1985) (Ruback and Ivie, 1988) (Siegel et al., 1989) (Ullman, 1998) (Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne, 1993)

Prior Research on Self-Protective Behaviors Table 2.1: Likelihood Protective Behavior12 Completed Rape Nonforceful Verbal Self-Protective Behaviors Are Used

29

of Sexual Victimization by Type of Self-

+ (Bart and O’Brien, 1984) + (Furby and Fischhoff, 1992) + (Levine-MacCombie and Koss, 1986)

Table 2.1: Likelihood of Sexual Victimization by Type of Self-Protective Behavior13 More Severe Sexual Abuse Forceful Physical Self- (Ullman and Knight, 1991) Protective Behaviors Are Used

Nonforceful Physical Self-Protective Behaviors Are Used

No relationship (Ullman and Knight, 1991)

Forceful Verbal SelfProtective Behaviors Are Used

- (Ullman and Knight, 1991, 1992)

Nonforceful Verbal SelfProtective Behaviors Are Used

+ (Ullman and Knight, 1991, 1992)

30


Forceful Physical Self-Protective Behaviors. Forceful physical resistance refers to “active aggressive behaviors (e.g., wrestling, punching, biting, scratching, kicking, using a weapon, executing martial arts techniques) enacted by the victim directly against the offender to stop an attack” (Ullman, 1997, p. 193). In general, the majority of studies have found that forceful physical self-protective behaviors are effective in avoiding rape completion (Atkeson et al., 1989; Bart and O’Brien, 1985; Becker et al., 1982; Kleck and Sayles, 1990; Lizotte, 1986; Queen’s Bench Foundation, 1976; Quinsey and Upfold, 1985; Ruback and Ivie, 1988; Ullman and Knight, 1991, 1992, 1993; Ullman, 1997, 1998; Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne, 1993). For instance, Ullman and Knight (1991), in their analysis of 274 female victims, found that victims’ use of forceful physical resistance strategies was associated with a lower severity of sexual abuse “even when situational danger and the level of offender aggression were partialed out” (p. 730). In accordance with previous studies, Bart and O’Brien (1984) also found that women who used physical force were more likely to avoid rape. In addition, Kleck and Sayles (1990), using probit in their analysis of NCS data from 1979 to 1985,14 found that victims who used both weaponless physical force and physical force with weapons were more likely to avoid rape.15 Quinsey and Upfold (1985), on the other hand, found that physical resistance strategies were not effective in reducing the probability of rape completion. However, further analysis of their data revealed that of the victims who used some form of physical resistance, 49% only grappled or wrestled with the offender; none of the victims “kicked, kneed, used eye gouges, or weapons” against an offender and very few victims stuck the offender. Of the three victims who stuck the offender, all successfully avoided rape completion. These data indicate the importance of examining the effectiveness of not just categories of resistance strategies but particular strategies within categories: on the surface, Quinsey and Upfold’s data appeared to indicate that physical resistance strategies are ineffective in rape


31

avoidance while instead the data can better be interpreted as revealing that wrestling, one type of physical resistance, is ineffective in avoiding rape. The results of Tark and Kleck’s (2004) study also suggest the importance of looking at particular strategies: they found that the victim’s attacking the offender without a weapon was significantly related to the victim being injured during a sexual assault. Nonforceful Physical Self-Protective Behaviors. Nonforceful physical resistance refers to “passive physical resistance techniques used by the victim to evade the offender’s attack” (Ullman, 1997, p. 194). Examples include trying to avoid the offender, removing the offender’s hands, pulling away from the offender, and running away from the offender. Research on the relationship between the use of nonforceful physical force and rape completion has generally been positive (Bart and O’Brien, 1984; Block and Skogan, 1986; Kleck and Sayles, 1990; Koss et al., 1988; Levine-MacCombie and Koss, 1986; Marchbanks et al., 1990; Ullman and Knight, 1991; Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne, 1993). For instance, Bart and O’Brien (1984), in their comparison of women who were raped with women who avoided rape, found that women who avoided rape were more likely to flee or try to flee. Similarly, Kleck and Sayles (1990) found several types of resistance to be statistically significant: trying to get help, attract attention or scare the offender away and using evasive actions such as running away, hiding, or locking a door. These types of resistance were associated with rape avoidance. Levine-MacCombie and Koss (1986), in their sample of victims of attacks by acquaintances, also found running away to be helpful in avoiding rape: rape avoiders were more likely to have run away than rape victims. Ullman and Knight (1991), on the other hand, found two types of nonforceful physical resistance (fleeing and pushing the offender away) to be unrelated to the severity of sexual abuse.

32


Forceful Verbal Self-Protective Behaviors. Forceful verbal resistance refers to “active verbal strategies aimed at scaring the offender and/or attracting outside help” (Ullman, 1997, p. 194). Examples include screaming or yelling to scare the offender or to attract outside help and threatening the offender. Several studies have found forceful verbal self-protective behaviors to be effective in rape avoidance (Bart and O’Brien, 1984; Cohen, 1984; Kleck and Sayles, 1990; Koss et al., 1988; Queen’s Bench Foundation, 1976; Quinsey and Upfold, 1985; Ruback and Ivie, 1988; Siegel et al., 1989; Ullman and Knight, 1992; Ullman, 1998; Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne, 1993). For instance, the Queen’s Bench Foundation (1976), Bart and O’Brien (1984), Levine-MacCombie and Koss (1986), Quinsey and Upfold (1985), and Ullman (1998) found that screaming, a form of forceful verbal resistance, was associated with rape avoidance. Similarly, Ullman and Knight (1991, 1992) found that screaming was associated with a lower severity of sexual abuse. Nonforceful Verbal Self-Protective Behaviors. Nonforceful verbal resistance refers to the victim using nonaggressive verbal responses such as trying to reason with the offender, pleading, begging or crying (Ullman, 1997). Nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors have generally been found to be ineffective in avoiding rape (Bart and O’Brien, 1984; Furby and Fischhoff, 1992; Levine-MacCombie and Koss, 1986; Ullman and Knight, 1991, 1992; Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne, 1993). For instance, Ullman and Knight (1991, 1992) found a significant relationship between pleading, begging, and reasoning with the offender and a greater severity of sexual abuse. Similarly, Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne (1993) found nonforceful verbal resistance to be ineffective in preventing rape completion. In addition, Bart and O’Brien (1984) found that women who were raped were more likely to plead. Further, Levine-MacCombie and Koss (1986), in their analysis of 82 victims of attempted or completed acquaintance rape, found that quarreling with the offender was a significant predictor of


33

completed rape. Finally, Furby and Fischhoff (1992), in their review of 22 studies, found that talking to an offender in a nonforceful way (e.g., pleading, making a moral appeal, or reasoning with the offender) may actually be harmful to the victim. In an attempt to explain why nonforceful verbal actions do not appear effective in preventing rape completion, Ullman and Knight (1992, p. 33) suggest that nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors (e.g., pleading, begging) might actually coincide with how rapists want women to act since rapists often want to feel “power and control over a weaker person.” In contrast to the general finding that the use of nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors is ineffective in avoiding rape, Levine-MacCombie and Koss (1986) found that two types of nonforceful verbal actions (crying and reasoning with the offender) contributed to the prediction of rape avoidance. This divergent finding may be due to one of the characteristics of their sample: all of the women in their sample were victims of acquaintance rape.16 Levine-MacCombie and Koss offer two possible explanations for their finding that crying and reasoning were effective in rape avoidance: 1) men who attack acquaintances may be more sensitive to crying and reasoning than men who attack strangers or 2) men who have a preexisting relationship with a victim may be more responsive to crying and reasoning. Despite the significance of crying and reasoning, Levine-MacCombie and Koss point out that as in situations involving strangers, these self-protective behaviors are less powerful predictors of rape avoidance than more active strategies such as running away and screaming for help. No Self-Protective Behaviors. Most studies that have examined the effectiveness of not using any self-protective behaviors have found the use of no strategies to be associated with rape completion (Bart and O’Brien, 1985; Block and Skogan, 1986; Ullman and Knight, 1992; Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne, 1993). In fact, Block and

34


Skogan (1986) found that victims who did not resist were the most likely to be raped and to spend the night in the hospital. SUMMARY OF THE SEXUAL VICTIMIZATION/ SELF-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR RESEARCH We know from past research that forceful physical selfprotective behaviors are effective in preventing sexual victimization completion. There is also evidence to suggest that nonforceful physical and forceful verbal self-protective behaviors are effective while nonforceful verbal selfprotective behaviors are ineffective in preventing rapes from being completed. Thus, based on the prior research, a plausible hypothesis for this study is that forceful physical, nonforceful physical, and forceful verbal self-protective behaviors will be effective in preventing rapes from being completed and sexual assaults from being more severe while nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors will be ineffective. Based on past research, the expectation is that forceful physical self-protective behaviors will be the most effective. The next section will discuss the research on robberies including a discussion of the prevalence of the use of selfprotective behaviors, the factors associated with the use of self-protective behaviors, and the effectiveness of selfprotective behaviors in robberies. ROBBERY The few studies that have examined the effects of victims’ use of self-protective behaviors on the outcome of robberies are quite limited in scope. The studies that have been conducted to date will be discussed in this section. The first part of this section will discuss research on the prevalence of self-protective behaviors in robberies. The second part will discuss the factors associated with the use of self-protective behaviors. The third, and final, part of


35

this section will offer an examination of the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors on robbery avoidance. Prevalence of the Use of Self-Protective Behaviors in Robberies Research on the use of self-protective behaviors in robberies dates back to the 1960s and 1970s and the work of Normandeau (1968), Conklin (1972), Macdonald (1975), Hindelang (1976), and Wolfgang (1982). In general, their research indicates that the majority of robbery victims do not employ self-protective behaviors. For instance, Normandeau (1968), in his study of 1,722 robberies in Philadelphia, found that only a minority of robbery victims resisted: 23.7% resisted, 21.1% fought, and 55.2% were submissive. However, it is important to note that Normandeau defined submissiveness as “verbal protest, expression of reluctance only, or the victim is intoxicated and does not react.” Current classification schemes, such as those of Ullman (1997), would categorize verbal protest and expressions of reluctance as nonforceful verbal resistance, not as submissiveness. Thus, Normandeau’s findings that the majority of robbery victims are submissive is called into question. However, besides Normandeau (1968), other researchers have found that the minority of robbery victims use self-protective behaviors. For instance, Wolfgang (1982) found that resistance was used in only 40% of the 1,027 robberies in his study of Philadelphia. Whether the victim resisted appeared to be partly a function of the nature of the intimidation used by the offender. For instance, victims were more likely to resist when they were threatened with a blunt instrument (e.g., beer bottle, rock), a handgun, physical force, restraint, threatening gestures, or verbal threats than when they were threatened with a knife. Similar to Wolfgang’s findings on the somewhat limited use of resistance strategies in robbery incidents, Macdonald (1975) found that 73.8% of the victims in his

36


study of 500 robberies in Denver did not resist. The fact that his finding of the percentage of victims who did not resist is even higher than Wolfgang’s may be due in part to the fact that Macdonald focused on armed robbery. It is possible that victims are less likely to employ selfprotective behaviors when the offender has a gun because they fear being shot and killed. The most prevalent form of resistance in Macdonald’s study was to argue (8.0%), followed by fight without weapon (6.8%), flight (4.4%), appeal for help (e.g., scream, set off silent alarms) (2.2%), fight with firearm (1.8%), and follow suspect (1.8%). Almost three-fourths of the victims in Macdonald’s study used no resistance. Further research on the prevalence of self-protective behaviors in robberies was conducted by Hindelang (1976). Using LEAA/Census National Crime Panel (NCP) data from 8 cities (Atlanta, Baltimore, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Newark, Portland (Oregon), and St. Louis), Hindelang explored the nature of thefts and assaults.17 He found that the extent of the use of self-protective measures varied by the specific type of victimization: victims of assaults (“assaultive violence with theft” and “assaultive violence without theft”) were more likely to use selfprotective measures than were victims who were trying to retain their property in the absence of physical injury (robbery without injury and personal larceny). Like the prevalence of self-protective measures, the nature of selfprotective measures also varied by the type of victimization. Victims of robberies were more likely to use weapons, hit the offender, reason with the offender, or leave the scene/run away than victims of larcenies. On the other hand, victims of larcenies were more likely to yell for help or hold on to their property than robbery victims. In sum, the majority of the research suggests that most robbery victims do not utilize self-protective behaviors. When robbery victims do use self-protective behaviors, the type of self-protective behaviors they use seems to depend on whether the offender has a weapon and if so, what type of weapon.


37

Factors Associated with the Use of Self-Protective Behaviors in Robberies There are several factors that have been examined in terms of their association with the use of resistance in robberies. These factors can be divided into two categories: preassault characteristics (e.g., age, race, and sex of victim; victim/offender relationship) and situational characteristics. Pre-Assault Characteristics Age of Victim. Several studies have found that older victims are less likely to employ self-protective behaviors than younger victims (e.g., Hindelang, 1976; Block and Skogan, 1984). For instance, Hindelang (1976), using NCP data for 8 cities, found a strong relationship between the age of the victim and the extent of self-protective measures used by victims (with younger victims being more likely to employ self-protective measures than older victims). For instance, for assaultive violence with theft, 64% of the 12 19 year olds and 61% of the 20 – 34 year olds utilized selfprotective measures compared to 49% of the 35 – 49 year olds, 44% of the 50 – 64 year olds, and 38% of the 65 and older age group. This pattern was not as strong for all types of victimizations, however. For instance, for robberies without injury, there were few differences in the percentage of victims in each age group who used selfprotective measures: 44% of the 12 – 19 year olds; 45% of the 20 – 34 year olds, 43% of the 35 – 49 year olds, 37% of the 50 – 64 year olds, and 32% of the 65 and older age group used self-protective measures. Like Hindelang (1976), Block and Skogan (1984) found that younger victims were more likely to resist than older victims. Specifically, when comparing younger victims to older victims, they found that the percentage of victims who resisted declined steadily from 63 percent for teenagers to 32 percent for those aged 60 and older.

38


Hindelang (1976) and Block and Skogan (1984) also found that the victim’s age influenced what type of selfprotective behaviors victims used. For instance, Hindelang found that older robbery victims were less likely to use physical strategies (e.g., run away or hit the offender) and more likely to yell for help. Similarly, Block and Skogan (1984) found that older victims were less likely to use forceful resistance than younger victims. Thus it appears that the age of the victim may influence not only whether or not victims use self-protective measures, but also the type of self-protective behaviors that are used. Alcohol/Drug Use. Whether victims of robbery are more or less likely to use self-protective behaviors when they perceive the offender as being under the influence of drugs or alcohol is an issue that has not yet been examined. Future research needs to explore this issue. Race. Research on the effects of race on the likelihood of using self-protective behaviors in robberies is mixed. Some studies have found that blacks are less likely than whites to employ self-protective behaviors in robberies (Block and Skogan, 1986; Hindelang, 1976). For instance, in his examination of assaultive violence with theft and robberies without injury in 8 cities, Hindelang (1976) found slight differences in the percentage of whites who used self-protective measures compared to blacks/others with whites being more likely to use self-protective measures. Specifically, 57% of white victims of assaultive violence with theft used self-protective measures compared to 50% of black/other victims. Similarly, 49% of white victims of robberies without injury used self-protective measures compared to 34% of black/other victims. In terms of specific self-protective measures used, whites and blacks/others used specific measures in very similar percentages. Supportive of Hindelang’s findings, Block and Skogan (1986) also found that blacks were less likely to use resistance in robberies than whites: 58% of blacks used no


39

resistance compared to 42% of whites. However, closer analysis revealed that blacks were more likely to face robbers armed with guns than were whites. Because victims of armed robbers are less likely to resist, Block and Skogan decided to hold constant the offender’s weapon. This analysis revealed that blacks were only slightly less likely to use resistance strategies than whites. Contrary to Block and Skogan (1986) and Hindelang (1976), Macdonald’s (1975) analysis of armed robberies revealed that blacks resisted more often. Overall, then, the evidence on the impact of race on the use of self-protective behaviors is mixed. The research suggests the importance of looking at whether or not the robber was armed. Sex of Victim. Research suggests that although men and women are about equally likely to employ self-protective behaviors in robberies,18 they tend to use different types of self-protective behaviors (Block and Skogan, 1986; Hindelang, 1976). For instance, Hindelang (1976) found that although male and female robbery victims were about equally likely to use self-protective measures, women were more likely to yell for help or hold onto their property while men were more likely to use weapons, hit the offender, or run away/leave the scene. Similarly, Block and Skogan (1986) found that women were more likely to use nonforceful resistance while men were more likely to use forceful resistance. According to Hindelang (1976, p. 234), “these results suggest that females were more likely than males to have taken defensive self-protective measures while males were more likely than females to have taken offensive self-protective measures.” Victim/Offender Relationship. In robberies without injuries, Hindelang (1976) found that victims were less likely to use self-protective behaviors in incidents involving strangers (41%) than in incidents involving nonstrangers (55%). This finding is contrary to the results often found in the sexual victimization-resistance literature

40


(e.g., Clay-Warner, 2003). Hindelang also found that the prior victim/offender relationship had an effect on the type or nature of self-protective behaviors used. Victims of robberies without injury were more likely to reason with the offender when the offender was a non-stranger versus a stranger. Situational Characteristics Location of Incident. The location of robberies is one variable that has not been fully explored in terms of its relationship with whether or not victims employ selfprotective behaviors. One possibility for this absence in research is that the majority of robberies occur outside. For instance, in Block and Skogan’s (1984) national-level study, approximately 70% of the robberies occurred outside. Block and Skogan did examine the influence of location, though, and found that robbery victims resisted, and did not resist, in similar percentages regardless of whether the incident occurred inside or outside. For instance, 29% of the victims of robberies that occurred inside used nonforceful resistance compared to 30% of the victims of robberies that occurred outside. Similarly, 49% of the victims of robberies that occurred inside did not use resistance compared to 44% of the victims of robberies that occurred outside. Thus, Block and Skogan’s research suggests that victims resist in similar percentages and in similar manners regardless of whether the robbery attempt occurred inside or outside. Presence of a Weapon. Another factor that may affect whether or not a robbery victim uses self-protective actions is whether or not the robber has a weapon. Conklin (1972) compared situations in which the robber had no weapon, the robber had a knife, and the robber had a firearm. He found no significant differences among the three categories in the likelihood of victim resistance. In fact, Conklin found that resistance was not very common in any of these situations. Interviews with the victims revealed that many


41

victims (one-third) did not resist because they feared that the offender might harm them either through the use of a weapon or through physical force. Contrary to Conklin (1972), Block and Skogan (1986) found that the presence of a weapon was related to the use of resistance with victims facing unarmed robbers being more likely to resist. Specifically, Block and Skogan found that 33% of the victims of gun confrontations resisted, 58% of the victims of knife confrontations resisted, and 71% of the victims who faced unarmed robbers or robbers with “other weapons” resisted. The Influence of Pre-Assault and Situational Characteristics on the Outcome of Robberies The previous section focused on the factors that were associated with the use of self-protective behaviors in robberies. This section focuses on the influence of these same factors on the outcome of robberies. Specifically, each of the aforementioned pre-assault and situational characteristics will be discussed in terms of their relationship to the outcome of robberies. Pre-Assault Characteristics Age of Victim. There is some evidence indicating that the age of the victim may have an indirect effect on robbery completion. For instance, Block and Skogan (1984) found that older people are less likely resist and that resistance is associated with robbery avoidance. Thus, since older people are less likely to resist, they are more likely to suffer completed robberies. Tark and Kleck (2004), however, found that whether or not a victim was 65 or older was not a significant predictor of whether property was lost during a robbery. Thus, future research needs to further examine the influence of age on robbery completion.

42


Alcohol/Drug Use. Very few studies have examined whether there is a link between alcohol/drug use and the outcome of robberies. One study that did examine the influence of the offender’s alcohol/drug use was conducted by Tark and Kleck (2004). They found no significant relationship between whether the offender was under the influence of alcohol or drugs and robbery outcome. Further research is needed to examine the influence of the offender’s alcohol/drug use on the outcome of robberies. Race/Ethnicity. As with age, there is some evidence suggesting that the race of the victim may indirectly affect the outcome of robberies. Specifically, Block and Skogan (1984) found that blacks were less likely to employ resistance during robbery attempts. Because resistance (both forceful and nonforceful) was associated with attempted robberies rather than completed robberies, blacks may be more likely to be the victims of completed robberies. In fact, Block and Skogan point out that when resistance is not used, something is stolen in 85–90% of robbery incidents. Thus, not using resistance makes blacks extremely likely to be the victims of completed robberies. Tark and Kleck (2004) also examined the influence of the victim’s race/ethnicity in robberies. They found none of their race/ethnicity variables (black, Asian, and Hispanic) to be significantly related to whether a robbery attempt resulted in property loss. Sex of Victim. The research on the impact of the sex of the victim on the outcome of robberies has been limited. One study that was conducted, by Block and Skogan (1984), found that the sex of the victim did not seem to play a role in the outcome of robberies. Specifically, they found that while men and women were equally likely to use resistance in robberies, women were more likely than men to resist nonforcefully. However, their research revealed that both forceful and nonforceful resistance were associated with robbery avoidance.


43

Victim/Offender Relationship. In a recent study examining the effectiveness of self protection actions on property loss, Tark and Kleck (2004) considered the influence of the victim/offender relationship. They considered five victim/offender relationships: 1) the offender was a family member, 2) the offender was a sexual intimate, 3) the offender was the victim’s parents or supervisor, 4) the offender was an acquaintance, and 5) the offender was a work acquaintance. None of these variables was significantly related to whether the victim of a robbery attempt experienced property loss. Future research should explore the possibility that some types of resistance (e.g., forceful, nonforceful) are more effective in situations involving strangers than in situations involving nonstrangers. Situational Characteristics Environmental Interventions. Until recently, the effect of the presence of environmental interventions on robbery outcome had not been studied. However, in their 2004 study, Tark and Kleck examined the influence of the presence of a bystander. They measured the presence of bystanders in two ways: 1) whether a family member was present or not and 2) whether another person was present or not. They found that the presence of another person during a robbery attempt was significantly related to a property loss being less likely to occur. However, the presence of a family member was not significantly related to whether a property loss occurred. Location of Incident. As mentioned in the last section, little research has examined the relationship between the location of the incident and the use of self-protective behaviors in robbery situations. However, one study that did examine the influence of location on whether or not a robbery attempt resulted in property being lost was conducted by Tark and Kleck (2004). They found that

44


none of their three location variables (whether the incident occurred in the victim’s home, whether the incident occurred in the immediate area around the victim’s home, and whether the incident occurred in a secure public place such as a bank, office or school) was significantly related to whether the robbery attempt resulted in lost property. More research is needed on the impact of the location of the incident on the outcome of robberies. Presence of a Weapon. Using multivariate analysis, Block and Skogan (1984) found that the presence of a gun was positively related to robbery completion. Similarly, Tark and Kleck (2004) found that the offender having a gun was positively related to property loss. These findings may be due to the fact that when faced with a gun, few victims resist. Tark and Kleck (2004) also examined the influence of the offender having a knife and the offender having a sharp object. They found neither of these variables to be significantly related to the outcome of robbery. Time of Day. Research has yet to examine the impact of time of day on the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors in robberies. Future research is needed to explore this issue. Self-Protective Behaviors Several studies have examined the effectiveness of employing self-protective behaviors in robberies. (The results of the few studies that have been conducted are summarized in Table 2.2.) For instance, Wolfgang’s (1982) analysis of 1,027 robberies revealed that lack of resistance was associated with completed robbery. Specifically, Wolfgang found that in two-thirds of the attempted robbery incidents, victims employed resistance while less than one-third of the victims resisted in completed robbery incidents. Thus, there was a correlation between the use of resistance and robbery avoidance.


45

Block and Skogan (1984) also found an association between the use of resistance and robbery avoidance. Of the robbery victims who did not resist, 85% had something stolen from them. Of the robbery victims who resisted nonforcefully and forcefully, 41% and 35%, respectively, had something stolen from them. Thus, both nonforceful and forceful resistance seemed effective in preventing robberies from being competed. Block and Skogan’s (1984) multivariate analysis supports their bivariate findings: both forceful and nonforceful resistance were negatively related to experiencing a completed robbery (i.e., a financial loss). In other words, victims who resisted – either forcefully or nonforcefully – were less likely to have their property stolen. Kleck and DeLone (1993) found similar results concerning the efficacy of resistance strategies in preventing robbery completion. Using data from the National Crime Survey from 1979-1985, they examined the impact of victim resistance and whether the offender had a weapon on 1) robbery completion and 2) injury to the victim. They looked at eight different forms of resistance: 1) victim used a gun; 2) victim used a knife; 3) victim used another weapon; 4) victim used weaponless physical force; 5) victim threatened, argued, or reasoned with the offender; 6) victim tried to get help, attract attention, or scare offender away; 7) victim resisted without force; and 8) victim used some other form of self-protection.19 Their results indicated that while robberies were less likely to be completed when victims used any of the eight types of resistance strategies, some types of resistance strategies were more effective than others. For instance, resistance with a gun was the most frequently successful type of resistance and armed resistance was more frequently successful than unarmed resistance. Not only was the victims’ possession of a gun important, so too was the offenders’: robberies were more likely to be completed if the offender had a gun. Somewhat surprisingly, however,

46


armed robbers were actually less likely to injure their victims than unarmed robbers. One problem with Kleck and DeLone’s analysis is that they were unable to take into account the temporal ordering of the self-protective behavior. As Cook (1986) points out, the National Crime Survey does not provide any information on the sequencing of events in one incident. Cook (p. 414) thus concludes that “Since we cannot distinguish between the influence of the robber’s actions [i.e., threatened or attacked the victim] on the victim’s response [i.e., resisted or did not resist] and the influence of the victim’s actions [i.e., resisted or did not resist] on the robber’s response [i.e., attack or no attack], we are left simply not knowing how to interpret the statistical patterns of association between resistance and injury” in robbery cases. However, in 1992, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) began to record information on the sequencing of events within victimization incidents. Tark and Kleck (2004) were thus able to take into account the sequencing of events in their analysis of data from the 1992-2001 National Crime Victimization Surveys. Rather than grouping each of the 16 self-protection actions that are measured by the NCVS into categories as many researchers have done (e.g., Block and Skogan, 1984), Tark and Kleck analyzed the individual influence of each of these 16 protective measures on four dependent variables: 1) whether the victim was injured any time during the incident regardless of when it occurred, 2) whether the victim was injured after taking some self-protective action, and 3) whether the victim suffered a serious injury after taking self-protective actions, and 4) whether the victim suffered property loss. Five out of the 16 self-protection actions were significantly related to whether the victim was injured regardless of when it occurred. Specifically, attack without a weapon, struggled, and screamed from pain or fear were all positively related to injury while stalled/pretended to cooperate and threat with gun were negatively related to injury. However, after taking into account the temporal


47

ordering of events by focusing on whether the victim was injured only after taking protective action, only three variables were found to be significantly related to injury: attack without weapon, struggled and “other” self protective actions. All three of these variables were positively associated with an injury occurring. Three out of the 16 self-protection actions were significantly related to the victim suffering a serious injury after taking selfprotection actions: attack without a weapon, screamed from pain or fear, and “other” self- protection actions. Thirteen out of the 16 self-protective behaviors were significantly related to the victim suffering property loss: attack with gun; attack with nongun weapon; attack without weapon; threat with nongun weapon; threat without weapon; struggled; yelled or turned on lights; stalled or pretended to cooperate; ran away or hid; called police or guard; tried to attract attention; screamed from pain or fear; and “other” protective measures. With the exception of stalled/pretended to cooperate and screamed from pain or fear, all of these variables were associated with property loss not occurring. Thus it appears that the use of the majority of the self- protection actions were not associated with serious injury or property loss occurring. SUMMARY OF THE ROBBERY/ SELF-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR RESEARCH The prior research on the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors in preventing robbery completion suggests that both forceful and nonforceful self-protective behaviors are effective. While the previous research did not separate forceful and nonforceful self-protective behaviors into physical and verbal categories, Block and Skogan (1984), Kleck and DeLone (1993), and Tark and Kleck’s (2004) findings suggest that both physical and verbal types of behaviors may be effective in preventing robberies from being completed. Thus, a plausible hypothesis for this study is that all four types of self-protective behaviors

48


(forceful physical, forceful verbal, nonforceful physical, nonforceful verbal) will be effective in terms of preventing incidents of robberies from being completed. The next section summarizes the research on selfprotective behaviors and physical assaults. It includes a discussion of the prevalence of the use of self-protective behaviors in assaults, the factors associated with the use of self-protective behaviors in assaults, and the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors in assaults. It concludes with a summary of the physical assault/self-protective behavior research. Table 2.2: Likelihood of Robbery Victimization by Type of SelfProtective Behavior20 Completed Robbery Self-Protective - (Wolfgang, 1982) Behaviors Are Used - (Kleck and DeLone, 1993) Nonforceful Self- (Block and Skogan, 1984) Protective Behaviors - (Tark and Kleck, 2004)21 Are Used + (Tark and Kleck, 2004)22 Forceful Self- (Block and Skogan, 1984) Protective Behaviors - (Kleck and DeLone, 1993) Are Used - (Tark and Kleck, 2004)23

PHYSICAL ASSAULT Prevalence of the Use of Self-Protective Behaviors in Physical Assaults Research suggests that victims are likely to use selfprotective behaviors when physically attacked. For instance, Bachman and Carmody (1994) found that 78% of the female victims in their sample who were assaulted by an intimate, and 69% of those who were assaulted by strangers, used self-protective behaviors. Skogan and Block (1983) also found that a large percentage of assault victims employed resistance strategies: 73% of the victims


49

in their sample used at least one form of resistance while 15% of all the victims used two or more strategies.24 Thompson et al. (1999) found similar results: using data from the 1992-1995 NCVS, they found that 74% of the incidents involved self-protective behaviors by the female victim.25 Research also suggests that victims may be more likely to use certain types of self-protective behaviors than others in physical assault incidents. For instance, Skogan and Block (1983) found that victims were more likely to engage in nonforceful resistance (e.g., running away, leaving the scene, arguing or reasoning with the offender, screaming or yelling) than forceful resistance (e.g., hitting, scratching): 55% versus 23%, respectively. Bachman and Carmody (1994), on the other hand, found that female victims were more likely to use physical resistance compared to verbal resistance regardless of the nature of the victim/offender relationship: 60% of the victims of intimate assaults and 70% of the victims of stranger assaults used physical resistance while only 39% of the intimate assault victims and 29% of the stranger assault victims used verbal resistance. A very small percentage of victims used weapons regardless of the nature of the victim/offender relationship: 1% of intimate assault victims and 1% of stranger assault victims. Factors Associated with the Use of Self-Protective Behaviors in Physical Assaults Little research has been conducted on the factors that are associated with the use of self-protective behaviors in physical assaults. The limited research that has been conducted will be discussed below. Pre-Assault Characteristics Age of Victim. It is possible that the age of the victim may impact whether or not victims use self-protective behaviors

50


in physical assaults. Descriptive data from the 2002 NCVS reveals that older people (ages 65 and over) are slightly more likely to use self-protective measures than younger people. Specifically, 78.6% of the assault victims age 65 and over used self-protective measures compared to 68.8% of the assault victims between the ages of 12 and 19. The percentage of victims in the age groups of 20-34, 35-49, and 50-64 who used self-protective behaviors were 68.3%, 76.3%., and 68.2%, respectively (U.S. Department of Justice, 2003). Block and Skogan (1984) examined the influence of age on the type of resistance used in physical assaults. They found that victims who used forceful resistance were more likely to be young while older victims (especially those aged 60 and over) were less likely to use this type of resistance. Alcohol/Drug Use. Alcohol and drug use by physical assault offenders may affect whether or not victims employ self-protective behaviors. However, no published research has explored the impact of the use of alcohol or drugs by offenders on victims’ decisions to use self-protective behaviors. Race/Ethnicity. Research on the impact of the victim’s race/ethnicity on the use of self-protective behaviors is also limited. Data from the 2002 NCVS suggest that blacks may be slightly more likely to use self-protective measures than whites. For instance, 75.5% of blacks used selfprotective measures compared to 71.8% of whites in aggravated assaults. Similarly, 74.1% of blacks used selfprotective measures in simple assaults compared to 69.4% of whites (Maguire and Pastore, 2003). Further research is needed to explore the relationship between race and the use of self-protective behaviors while holding other factors (e.g., age, gender, etc.) constant. Sex of Victim. Sex of the victim is another variable that may influence the use of self-protective behaviors in


51

assaults. For instance, it may be that females are less likely to use self-protective behaviors than males because they have been socialized to be demure and polite. It is also possible that males are more likely to use a certain form of self-protective behavior (e.g., physical). Block and Skogan (1984) found some support for this idea: while male and female assault victims were equally likely to resist, males were twice as likely as females to use forceful resistance. Victim/Offender Relationship. Data from the 2002 NCVS indicate that over half (55%) of physical assaults are committed by someone known to the offender (Rennison and Rand, 2003). Despite these national-level statistics indicating that many assaults are committed by people known to victims, very little research has explored whether the relationship between victims and offenders of physical assaults affects the use of self-protective behaviors. In other words, are victims of assaults by strangers more or less likely to employ self-protective behaviors than victims of assaults by intimates? Bachman and Carmody26 (1994) found that a greater proportion of victims of intimate assaults used some type of self-protection (78%) than victims of stranger assaults (69%). Situational Characteristics Location of Incident. Whether or not a victim uses selfprotective behaviors, and the type of self-protective behaviors he/she uses, may depend on the location of the assault. Block and Skogan (1984) found that forceful resistance was used more frequently when an assault occurred in an inside rather than an outside location while nonforceful resistance was more common in outside locations. They also found that victims who were assaulted at home used the least resistance. It is possible that victims who were assaulted in their homes believed that the use of nonphysical forms of resistance (e.g., yelling or screaming) would be useless because it is likely that no one would be

52


able to hear them if they were home alone. Indeed, Block and Skogan did find that nonforceful resistance was more frequent in situations in which the “the potential for intervention by others should have been the highest” (p. 47) (e.g., in outdoor locations, during the day, and when other targets were involved). There are a couple of other possible explanations for why victims who are assaulted at home may use the least amount of resistance. First, it may be that victims who are assaulted at home are more likely to be attacked by someone they know and thus less likely to employ self-protective behaviors. Second, it may be that victims who are assaulted at home may fear that the use of physical self-protective behaviors (e.g., hitting, kicking) will cause the offender to escalate his level of violence perhaps even resulting in the death of the victim. This is one of the limitations of the dataset that Block and Skogan used, the NCS: incidents in which the victims dies are not measured. According to Block and Skogan, though, these incidents probably make up less than .5% of all incidents of stranger violence. In addition, Block and Skogan (1984) argue that the statistical findings of their report would not have changed dramatically had homicides been measured by the NCS because they represent such a small percentage of the violent crimes considered in their analysis. Presence of a Weapon. The presence of a weapon is another variable that may influence whether or not a victim employs self-protective behaviors during an assault. In addition, the specific type of weapon the offender possesses may influence whether the victim uses self-protective behaviors. Block and Skogan (1984) found support for this idea: while the presence of a gun seemed to discourage forceful resistance, knives and other less deadly weapons were associated with greater resistance. Specifically, 32% of the assault victims who were confronted with a knife or less deadly weapon kicked or hit the offender while only 11% of the assault victims who were confronted with a gun employed physical resistance. The most common forms of resistance used by victims facing offenders armed with


53

guns were trying to run away, reasoning with or yelling at the offender. Very infrequently did victims facing guns attempt to fight back physically. The Influence of Pre-Assault and Situational Characteristics on the Outcome of Physical Assaults Pre-Assault Characteristics Age of Victim. In order to examine the influence of a series of independent variables (including age) on whether a victim was injured or not during a physical assault, Bachman et al. (2002) conducted four logistic regression analyses: one each for incidents in which the offender was an intimate, incidents in which the offender was an “other relative,” incidents in which the offender was an acquaintance/friend, and incidents in which the offender was a stranger. The age of the victim was only significant in the model for “other relative.” Age was related to a decreased risk of injury in assaults by other relatives. Tark and Kleck (2004) also included age of the victim in their analysis of 1992-2001 NCVS data. They used a dichotomous variable to measure age: age 65 and over or under age 65. They found that age was not significantly related to whether the victim suffered an injury after using self-protective actions. However, further research is needed to explore the influence of age, and its interaction with other variables, on physical assaults. If we find that some types of self-protective behaviors are more effective for younger rather than older victims (or vice versa), we can educate the public accordingly. Alcohol/Drug Use. Using logistic regression, Bachman and Carmody (1994) found offender alcohol/drug use to be an insignificant predictor of whether a victim sustained an injury during an assault by a stranger. Tark and Kleck (2004), however, found that offender alcohol/drug use was significantly related to the victim being injured, though not

54


seriously, after using self-protective actions. Further research on the influence of offenders’ alcohol/drug use on the outcome of assaults is needed. Race/Ethnicity. Block and Skogan (1984) found that neither the race of the offender nor the race of the victim was strongly related to the risk of injury in assault cases. In addition, the risk of injury was no greater in interracial incidents. Tark and Kleck (2004) also found that neither the offender’s race nor the victim’s race was significantly related to whether the victim was injured or not. However, Tark and Kleck found that being Hispanic was positively related to the victim suffering a serious injury when the temporal ordering of the self- protection actions was taken into account. Sex of Victim. Research has yet to explore the influence of the victim’s sex on the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors in physical assaults. For instance, Bachman et al. (2002), Thompson et al. (1999), and Bachman and Carmody (1994) only examined females in their studies of the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors in physical assaults. It is important to examine the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors for male victims as well since data indicate that many physical assault incidents involve male victims. For instance, data from the NCVS for 1992–2001 indicate that approximately 54% of the physical assault victims were male. Future research should examine the sex of the victim as it interacts with the victim/offender relationship as it is likely that many male and female victims of physical assaults know their assailant (e.g., wives/husbands, girlfriends/boyfriends). In other words, research should explore whether self-protective behaviors are effective in situations in which victims know their offenders. Victim/Offender Relationship. Bachman et al. (2002) found that the risk of a female victim being injured varied by the nature of the victim/offender relationship. The


55

greatest risk of injury occurred in incidents involving intimates while the lowest risk of injury occurred in incidents involving strangers. Similarly, Tark and Kleck (2004) found that the offender being a sexual intimate of the victim was positively related to the victim being injured when the temporal ordering of the self-protection actions was taken into account. However, none of the other victim/offender relationship variables that were used in Tark and Kleck’s analysis (i.e., offender was a family member, offender was a parent or supervisor, offender was an acquaintance, offender was a work acquaintance) were significantly related to whether the victim was injured when the temporal ordering of the self-protection actions were taken into account. Situational Characteristics Environmental Interventions. A couple of studies have found environmental interventions to be associated with rape avoidance and less severe sexual assault (Bart and O’Brien, 1985; Ullman and Knight, 1991). Tark and Kleck (2004) considered the impact of environmental interventions on whether victims were injured and whether victims were seriously injured in physical assaults. After taking into account the temporal ordering of self-protection actions, Tark and Kleck found that the presence of a family member and the presence of others (not family members) were both significantly related to being injured. However, neither of these variables was significantly related to the victim being seriously injured. This preliminary evidence suggests that, in contrast to rapes and sexual assaults, environmental interventions may actually make physical assaults more likely to be more severe. Location of Incident. Studies exploring the impact of the location of physical assaults on the effectiveness of selfprotective behaviors is generally lacking. However, Tark and Kleck (2004) recently examined the influence of the

56


location of a physical assault on whether the victim was injured and seriously injured after taking into account the temporal ordering of self-protection actions. The three measures they used for location were 1) whether the incident occurred near the victim’s home, 2) whether the incident occurred near the victim’s home, and 3) whether the incident occurred in a public place which may have security. They found none of these variables to be significantly related to whether a victim was injured or whether a victim was seriously injured. Further research exploring the influence of the location of the assault on the outcome of physical assaults is needed. Presence of a Weapon. Using multivariate analysis, Block and Skogan (1984) found that assaults involving the presence of a gun were less likely to lead to an actual attack than incidents where a gun was not present. This may be due to the fact that the presence of a gun seemed to discourage forceful resistance which seemed to co-occur with actual attack (Block and Skogan, 1984). Bachman and Carmody (1994), on the other hand, found that if the offender of a stranger assault had a weapon, victims were twice as likely to sustain injuries than in incidents where the offender was unarmed. Tark and Kleck (2004) also examined the influence of the presence of a weapon on the outcome of physical assaults. They found none of the three weapon variables (whether the offender had a gun, whether the offender had a knife, and whether the offender had a sharp object) to be significantly related to whether the victim suffered an injury or a serious injury when the temporal ordering of the self-protection actions were taken into account. Time of Day. At least one study has examined the influence of time of day on the outcome of physical assaults. While Block and Skogan (1984) did not look at the influence of time of day on whether or not a physical assault was completed, their multivariate analysis revealed


57

that being attacked after dark was related to more serious injury. Self-Protective Behaviors Most of the physical assault resistance literature has explored the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors in terms of the injuries sustained by the victim. In other words, are victims more or less likely to sustain injuries if they resist during a physical assault? In what can be considered an extension of the research in this area, Thompson et al. (1999) distinguished between selfprotective behaviors that were used before the injury occurred and self-protective behaviors that were used only after the injury occurred. They found that women who used self-protective behaviors before being injured were less likely to be injured than women who did not use resistance strategies or who used resistance strategies only after being injured. In addition, they found that this inverse relationship between the use of self-protective behaviors and risk of injury did not vary by the nature of the victim/offender relationship. However, consistent with prior research (Bachman and Saltzman, 1995; Craven, 1996; Rand, 1997) female victims of assaults by intimate partners were at a greater risk of injury than female victims of assaults by nonintimate partners. One limitation of Thompson et al.’s study is that they did not distinguish between types of self-protective behaviors (e.g., physical vs. verbal; forceful vs. nonforceful). Thus, one cannot conclude from their research whether certain types of selfprotective behaviors are more effective than others. They did, however, examine offender weapon use and found that victims who were assaulted by offenders with weapons were half as likely to be injured than victims assaulted by offenders without weapons. Since Skogan and Block (1983) did distinguish between two types of resistance (forceful and nonforceful) their study allows an examination of whether one type of

58


resistance is more effective than another. Specifically, Skogan and Block (1983) examined stranger assaults using data from the National Crime Survey (NCS) from 1973 to 1979. It should be noted that Skogan and Block’s study differs from most other studies on resistance to physical assaults in two ways: 1) they include both male and female victims in their analysis and 2) in addition to using injury as a dependent variable, they also include the actual assault (i.e., the completion of the assault) as a dependent variable. Their results indicate that nonforceful resistance (e.g., running away, leaving the scene, reasoning or arguing with the offender, screaming, yelling, or otherwise trying to attract the attention of others or scare the attacker away) was effective in preventing injury and warding off attack while forceful resistance (e.g., hitting, scratching, or otherwise physically resisting attack or using or brandishing a weapon) seemed to exacerbate the situation, resulting in a greater likelihood of injury and completion of the assault. Unlike Skogan and Block (1983) who categorized the various types of self-protective behaviors into different categories, Tark and Kleck (2004) examined the influence of each of the 16 self-protective behaviors measured by the NCVS individually. After taking into account the temporal ordering of the self-protection actions by focusing only on injuries that occurred after a victim used self-protection, they found three specific self-protection actions to be significantly related to being injured: attacking the offender without a weapon, struggling, and stalling and/or pretending to cooperate. Only one of these three selfprotection actions was significantly related to the victim being seriously injured: struggling. Like Skogan and Block (1983) and Tark and Kleck (2004), Bachman and Carmody (1994) also examined the effectiveness of physical and verbal resistance strategies on injuries sustained by victims. Although they limited their analysis to incidents involving male offenders and female victims, their work can be considered an extension of the literature in this area because they examined the nature of


59

the victim/offender relationship. Using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) for 19871990, they found that the odds of a victim sustaining an injury in an intimate assault nearly doubled if the victim used either physical or verbal resistance strategies. However, for stranger-perpetrated assaults, using physical or verbal resistance did not increase the likelihood of sustaining injury. The only contextual variable they found to be significantly related to an increased risk of injury in stranger-perpetrated assaults was the presence of a weapon by the offender. Continuing in this line of research, Bachman and her colleagues (2002) attempted to address the temporal ordering problem in their analysis of NCVS data for 1992– 1994. The NCVS permits this type of analysis since it asks victims who report using self-protective behaviors and who were injured during the attack if their self-protective behaviors occurred before, during, or after the injury. If the victim reported that she used self-protective behaviors before and/or during the injury, Bachman et al. classified the victims as having used self-protective measures. A methodological issue arose in deciding whether to count victims who used self-protective behaviors only after the injury as having used self-protective behaviors. Bachman et al. estimated separate models, including incidents in which victims used self-protective behaviors only after being injured in one model and excluding these incidents in the other. Supportive of Skogan and Block’s (1983) results, Bachman et al. (2002) found that victims who used nonphysical forms of resistance (e.g., stalling, arguing or reasoning with the offender, trying to get the attention of others, calling or threatening to call the police, yelling at the offender, or screaming) were less likely to be injured during the physical assault compared to victims who used physical resistance or no resistance. This was true for all victim/offender relationships. For instance, in incidents involving intimates, 30% of the victims who used non-

60


physical action were injured compared to 52% of the victims who used no resistance and 67% of the victims who used physical resistance.27 For incidents involving strangers, 4% of the victims who used non-physical resistance were injured compared to 23% of the victims who used no resistance and 29% of the victims who used physical resistance.28 Thus, non-physical resistance appears more effective in preventing injury than does physical resistance or no resistance regardless of the victim/offender relationship. Table 2.3 summarizes the results of the studies that have explored the use of self-protective behaviors on the likelihood of a physical assault being completed and the likelihood of suffering an injury. SUMMARY OF THE PHYSICAL ASSAULT/ SELF-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR RESEARCH Overall, the research on physical assaults suggests that nonphysical self-protective behaviors are effective in preventing aggravated assaults from occurring (e.g., assaults involving injuries) (Skogan and Block, 1983; Bachman et al., 2002). For this study, then, a plausible hypothesis is that verbal forms of resistance (e.g., forceful and nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors) will be effective in preventing aggravated assaults from occurring (i.e., assaults with injuries or assaults involving weapons) while physical forms of resistance (i.e., forceful physical and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors) will be not be effective in preventing aggravated assault from occurring.. A second plausible hypothesis, based on the research of Bachman and Carmody (1994) and Bachman et al. (1999), is that the victim/offender relationship will mediate the relationship between self-protective behaviors and the outcome of physical assaults.


61

Table 2.3: Likelihood of Physical Assault Victimization by Type of Self-Protective Behavior29 Physical Assault Completion Self-Protective Behaviors N/A Are Used Nonforceful Self-Protective - (Skogan and Block, 1983) Behaviors Are Used Forceful Self-Protective + (Skogan and Block, 1983) Behaviors Are Used Physical Self-Protective N/A Behaviors Are Used Verbal Self-Protective N/A Behaviors Are Used Sustained Injury Self-Protective Behaviors Are Used Nonforceful Self-Protective Behaviors Are Used Forceful Self-Protective Behaviors Are Used Physical Self-Protective Behaviors Are Used Verbal Self-Protective Behaviors Are Used

- (Thompson et al., 1999) N/A N/A + (Bachman and Carmody, 1994)30 + (Bachman et al., 2002) + (Bachman and Carmody, 1994)31 - (Bachman et al., 2002)

OVERALL SUMMARY OF THE SELF-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR RESEARCH In sum, the self-protective behavior research suggests that some types of self-protective behaviors are effective in preventing completed victimizations (or in the case of sexual assaults and physical assaults, more severe victimizations) from occurring. Studies of sexual victimization suggest that forceful physical, nonforceful physical, and forceful verbal self-protective behaviors are

62


effective in preventing sexual victimization completion. Studies of robbery suggest that both forceful and nonforceful self-protective behaviors are effective in preventing completed robberies from occurring. Finally, studies of physical assaults suggest that non-physical selfprotective behaviors are effective in preventing aggravated assaults from occurring. These research findings lead to the following hypotheses concerning the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors in the current study (see Table 2.4). First, the use of forceful physical, nonforceful physical, and forceful verbal self-protective behaviors in rapes will reduce the likelihood of a rape being completed. Forceful physical self-protective behaviors are expected to be the most effective in reducing the probability of a completed rape from occurring. Second, the use of forceful physical, nonforceful physical, and forceful verbal self-protective behaviors in sexual assaults will reduce the likelihood of a more severe sexual assault from occurring. Forceful verbal and forceful physical self-protective behaviors are hypothesized to be the most effective self-protective behaviors in terms of reducing the probability of a more severe sexual assault occurring. Third, all four types of self-protective behaviors (forceful physical, nonforceful physical, forceful verbal, and nonforceful verbal) will reduce the likelihood of a robbery being completed. Based on past research, forceful physical self-protective behaviors are expected to be the most effective in reducing the probability of a robbery being completed. Fourth, forceful verbal and nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors will reduce the likelihood of an aggravated physical assault from occurring while forceful physical and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors will not reduce this likelihood. Nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors are hypothesized to be the most effective type of selfprotective behavior in assaults. The victim/offender relationship is also hypothesized to influence the outcome of the four dependent variables. In accordance with past research on the effect of the


63

victim/offender relationship on sexual victimization completion (Amick and Calhoun, 1987; Bart and O’Brien, 1985; Fisher et al., 2007; Marchbanks et al., 1990; Quinsey and Upfold, 1985; Ruback and Ivie, 1988; Ullman and Knight, 1991), it is hypothesized that victims will be more likely to avoid rape and more severe sexual victimization when the offender is someone not known to them. Second, due to a lack of research in this area, it is hypothesized that the victim/offender relationship will not affect the outcome of robberies. Third, based on Bachman et al.’s (2002) findings, it is hypothesized that the victim/offender relationship will not influence the outcome of physical assaults. In other words, it is expected that the outcome of physical assaults (i.e., aggravated versus simple assault) will be the same regardless of whether the offender is someone known to the victim or a stranger. Table 2.4: Hypotheses for the Relationship between Self-Protective Behaviors and the Outcome of Violent Victimizations and the Influence of the Victim/Offender Relationship Independent Dependent Hypothesis: Variable: Variable: Self-Protective Rape 1. The use of forceful physical, Behaviors nonforceful physical, and forceful verbal self-protective behaviors will reduce the likelihood of a rape being completed. Victim/Offender Rape 2. The victim/offender Relationship relationship will mediate the relationship between the use of self-protective behaviors and the outcome of rape.

64


Table 2.4: Hypotheses for the Relationship between Self-Protective Behaviors and the Outcome of Violent Victimizations and the Influence of the Victim/Offender Relationship Independent Dependent Hypothesis: Variable: Variable: Self-Protective Sexual 3. The use of forceful physical, Behaviors Assault nonforceful physical, and forceful verbal self-protective behaviors in sexual assaults will reduce the likelihood of a sexual assault from being more severe. Victim/Offender Relationship

Sexual Assault

4. The victim/offender relationship will mediate the relationship between the use of self-protective behaviors and the outcome of sexual assault.

Self-Protective Behaviors

Robbery

5. The use of forceful physical, nonforceful physical, forceful verbal, and nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors will reduce the likelihood of a robbery being completed.

Victim/Offender Relationship

Robbery

6. The victim/offender relationship will mediate the relationship between the use of self-protective behaviors and the outcome of robbery.


65

Table 2.4: Hypotheses for the Relationship between Self-Protective Behaviors and the Outcome of Violent Victimizations and the Influence of the Victim/Offender Relationship Independent Dependent Hypothesis: Variable: Variable: Self-Protective Physical 7. The use of forceful verbal and Behaviors Assault nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors will reduce the likelihood of an aggravated assault from occurring. Victim/Offender Relationship

Physical Assault

8. The victim/offender relationship will mediate the relationship between the use of self-protective behaviors and the outcome of physical assault.

66


NOTES 1

These terms “resistance,” “avoidance strategies,” “protective actions”, and “self-protective behaviors” are used interchangeably in the research. The term “self-protective behaviors” will be used throughout this book except when a different term is used by the author(s) whose work is being cited. 2 Sexual assault was measured by asking respondents “In your lifetime, has anyone ever tried to pressure or force you to have sexual contact? By sexual contact I mean their touching your sexual parts, your touching their sexual parts, or sexual intercourse?” 3 On the other hand, Atkeson et al. (1989) found that victims who were sexually assaulted by friends or relatives were more likely to use physical resistance (78%) than verbal resistance (22%) or no resistance (0%). 4 Dichotomized as private residence or not; private residence included the home of the victim, offender, or acquaintance, and hotels and vacation homes. 5 The other variables included in the Queen’s Bench Foundation’s (1976) study were marital status, religion, education, occupation, income, and area of residence. In comparing women who were raped and women who avoided rape, most of these variables were not statistically significant. The only demographic difference that was statistically significant was the victim’s type of residence: a larger percentage (43%) of completed rape victims lived in houses compared to attempted rape victims (18%). 6 Severity of sexual abuse was coded on a 6-point scale: 0 = none; 1 = fondle or kiss; 2 = digital penetration; 3 = cunnilingus; 4 = vaginal intercourse or fellatio; 5 = sadistic assault of sexual areas. 7 Environmental intervention was defined as “occurrence of an outside intrusion on the assault scene” (Ullman and Knight, 1991, p. 726). 8 Clay-Warner (2002) and Martin and Bachman (1998) used a dichotomous variable for location: at or near a private residence versus public place. Ullman and Knight (1991), on the other hand, dichotomized location of the attack as either indoors or outside. 9 The resistance strategies included in their analysis were fleeing or trying to flee; screaming, yelling, or talking loudly; affective verbal techniques (e.g., begging or pleading); cognitive verbal techniques (e.g., attempting to reason with the attacker, “conning” him, stalling); taking advantage of an environmental intervention (e.g., someone intruded during the assault); and responding with physical force.

Prior Research on Self-Protective Behaviors 10

67

Ullman and Knight (1991, 1992) coded severity of sexual abuse on a 6-point scale: 0 = none; 1 = fondle or kiss; 2 = digital penetration; 3 = cunnilingus; 4 = vaginal intercourse or fellatio; 5 = sadistic assault of sexual areas. 11 A negative sign indicates that the use of the respective type of selfprotective behavior was associated with a decreased chance of a rape being completed. A positive sign indicates that the use of the respective type of self-protective behavior was associated with an increased chance of a rape being completed. 12 A negative sign indicates that the use of the respective type of selfprotective behavior was associated with a decreased chance of a rape being completed. A positive sign indicates that the use of the respective type of self-protective behavior was associated with an increased chance of a rape being completed. 13 A negative sign indicates that the use of the respective type of selfprotective behavior was associated with a decreased chance of a sexual assault being more severe. A positive sign indicates that the use of the respective type of self-protective behavior was associated with an increased chance of a sexual assault being more severe. 14 Kleck and Sayles included both male and female victims in their sample (although 90% of the incidents involved female victims). 15 They found that the most effective form of resistance for preventing rape completion was resistance with a gun or knife. 16 Most studies of the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors examine incidents by strangers or have such small samples that no comparisons can be made between stranger and nonstranger incidents (Ruback and Ivie, 1988). 17 His specific dependent variables were assaultive violence with theft, assaultive violence without theft, robbery without injury and personal larceny. 18 Macdonald (1975) found that men were more likely to resist robbers than women. This finding may differ from that of Block and Skogan (1986) and Hindelang (1976) because of Macdonald’s focus on armed robberies. 19 Each of these eight variables was a dummy variable coded as 1 if the particular type of resistance was used and 0 if the particular type of resistance was not used.

68 20


A negative sign indicates that the use of the respective type of selfprotective behavior was associated with a decreased chance of a robbery being completed. 21 Tark and Kleck (2004) found a significant relationship between three forms of non-forceful self-protective behaviors and a robbery not being completed: struggling; arguing, reasoning, or pleading with the offender; and running away or hiding. 22 Tark and Kleck (2004) found a significant relationship between one form of non-forceful self-protective behavior and a robbery being completed: stalling, pretending to cooperate with the offender. They found no significant relationship between one form of non-forceful self-protective behavior and the outcome of robberies: chasing or holding the offender. 23 Tark and Kleck (2004) found a significant relationship between five forms of forceful self-protective behaviors and a robbery not being completed: attack with a weapon other than a gun; attack without a weapon; threaten without a weapon; yelled, turned on lights; and tried to attract attention. They found no significant relationship between five forms of forceful self-protective behaviors and the outcome of robberies: attack with a gun; threaten with a gun; threaten with a weapon other than a gun; called police or guard; and screamed from pain or fear. 24 Skogan and Block (1983) included both males and females in their analysis. 25 However, in 6% of the incidents, the victim used resistance only after being injured. Thus, the percentage of victims using self-protective behaviors before being injured was 68%. 26 Their analysis was limited to female victims. 27 Physical resistance strategies included using or threatening to use a gun or other weapon, physically attacking or threatening to injure the offender, chasing the attacker away, or running away. 28 These figures are for when resistance after injury was treated as no self-protection. 29 A negative sign indicates that the use of the respective type of selfprotective behavior was associated with a decreased chance of a physical assault being completed. A positive sign indicates that the use of the respective type of self-protective behavior was associated with an increased chance of a physical assault being completed.

Prior Research on Self-Protective Behaviors 30

69

The likelihood of suffering an injury when physical self-protective measures are used only increased in assaults by intimates not in assaults by strangers. 31 The likelihood of suffering an injury when verbal self-protective measures are used only increased in assaults by intimates not in assaults by strangers.


CHAPTER 3

Using the National Crime Victimization Survey

INTRODUCTION This chapter provides a description of the dataset used for this study: the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). The strengths and weaknesses of this dataset will be described. The next section will discuss the variables that are included in the analysis. The following section will provide a short discussion of the types of analysis that will be conducted. THE NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY (NCVS) The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), previously called the National Crime Survey (NCS), is considered the United States’ primary source of information on patterns of criminal victimization (Skogan, 1981; U.S. Department of Justice, 2004c). The NCVS collects data from a nationally representative sample of approximately 49,000 households across the United States (National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, 2006). The survey is sponsored by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau (Skogan, 1981). It began in 1973 and was designed with four main goals. The first goal was to collect information about the victims and consequences of crime. The second goal was to allow for 71

72


estimates of the number and types of crimes reported and not reported to the police (National Archive of Criminal Justice Data). This is one of the biggest advantages of the NCVS. While other measures of the amount of crime, such as the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), only capture those crimes that are reported to the police, the NCVS is able to capture crimes not reported to the police since it asks individuals whether they have been the victim of a crime regardless of whether or not they reported the incident to the police. This is important because researchers estimate that only about 10% of rape assaults are reported to the police (Russell, 1982). Indeed, the NCVS routinely shows higher victimization levels than the UCR (U.S. Department of Justice, 1994). The third and fourth goals of the NCVS were to provide uniform measures of certain types of crimes, and to allow for comparisons over time and areas (National Archive of Criminal Justice Data). The NCVS groups crimes into two categories: personal or property. Personal crimes include rape and sexual assault, robbery, simple and aggravated assault, and pursesnatching/pocket-picking. Property crimes include burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft (U.S. Department of Justice, 1994). The focus of this study is on five of the personal crimes: rape, sexual assault, robbery, and simple and aggravated assault. The goal of the NCVS is not only to estimate the number of criminal incidents that occur, but also to collect information on the details of victimizations. For instance, the NCVS asks questions about the month, time, and location of the crime; the nature of the victim/offender relationship; characteristics of the offender (e.g., age, sex, drug and alcohol use, weapon use); characteristics of the victim (e.g., age, sex, race); the consequences of the victimization (e.g., injuries or property loss); whether the crime was reported to the police and why/why not; and, most importantly for the current study, if self-protective behaviors are used during a crime and if so, what type of self-protective behaviors and the results of these actions (U.S. Department of Justice, 1994).

Using the National Victimization Survey

73

The NCVS was redesigned in the early 1990s. Among the changes to the survey was the addition of questions on crimes committed by people known to the respondent (e.g., family members, intimates, and acquaintances). In addition, the redesigned survey also encourages respondents to report incidents even if they are not sure that a crime has actually been committed. These reported incidents are then reviewed by the staff to see if they fall within the standardized definitions of crimes. The purpose of these changes was to try to capture more accurately crimes committed by people the victims knew (U.S. Department of Justice, 1994). Other changes to the NCVS included asking questions not only about rape and attempted rape but also sexual assault (other than rape)1, verbal threats of rape or sexual assault, and “unwanted sexual contact without force but involving threats or other harm to the victim” (U.S. Department of Justice, 1994, p. 1). According to a report by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (1994), the changes in the survey related to sexual victimizations result in a more accurate reporting of the number and nature of victimizations. Strengths of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) The NCVS has several strengths that make it a particularly good dataset to use for this research study. These strengths can be divided into three categories: the design of the survey, sample, and survey questions. Design of Survey As mentioned before, the NCVS has the ability to capture crimes that are not reported to the police. Using data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that, in 2000, only about half of the violent crimes (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and simple

74


and aggravated assault) committed against people ages 12 and older were reported to the police. From 1992–2000, on average, only 57% of robberies, 55% of aggravated assaults, and 31% of rapes/sexual assaults were reported to the police (Hart and Rennison, 2003). Thus, studies of resistance that rely on police reports may be biased because they are based on the limited number of crimes that are reported to the police. In addition, it may be that crimes that are reported to the police are characteristically different from crimes not reported to the police. For instance, research suggests that victims who suffer physical injuries are more likely to report crimes to the police (Hart and Rennison). In addition, some research indicates that victims are less likely to report victimizations to the police if the offender is someone they knew (e.g., a friend or an intimate). For instance, Hart and Rennison, using data for 1992–2000, found that sexual victimizations were less likely to be reported to the police when they were committed by someone the victim knew rather than by a stranger. In sum, for the purposes of this study, the NCVS provides a more adequate dataset than police records because it includes crimes that are often not reported to the police such as victimizations involving known others. In addition, the NCVS is a better dataset to use because studies of self-protective behaviors based on police reports may lead to inaccurate conclusions regarding the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors since police reports underreport instances of successful resistance (Block and Skogan, 1986; Furby and Fischhoff, 1992). The reason for this is simple: victims of attempted crimes often do not report these incidents to the police. In addition, it may be that the police are less likely to record instances of attempted crimes than completed crimes. Furthermore, in the case of rapes, victims may be reluctant to report the crime to the police even if the incident was completed. Estimates of the percentage of rapes/sexual assaults that are reported to the police indicate that the majority of rapes go unreported (Russell, 1982; Hart and Rennison, 2003.) The NCVS, on the other hand, has the ability to capture more


75

instances of attempted crimes and rapes in general. According to Block and Skogan (1986), citizens interviewed in the NCVS typically describe more instances of attempted or unsuccessful crimes than are recorded by the police. Another advantage of the NCVS for the purposes of this study is that it measures the sexual victimization of both males and females, something which the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) do not do (Rand and Rennison, 2002). Sample One of the main advantages of the NCVS is that it is a national-level survey. Specifically, it is a probability sample of approximately 49,000 households (comprising about 100,000 people) in the United States (National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, 2006) and has an average response rate of 96% (Bachman and Taylor, 1994). Many of the prior studies of the effects of self-protective behaviors on victimization have used data from one city’s police reports (e.g., Macdonald, 1975; Ullman, 1998; Wolfgang, 1982; Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne, 1993), data from treatment centers (e.g., Ullman and Knight, 1995), data from small samples of women who have been raped (e.g., Jordan, 2005) or data from surveys of college women (e.g., Koss et al., 1988). The benefit of using a nationallevel dataset such as the NCVS is that the results are more generalizable to the entire U.S. population than a local or state-level survey or a survey of college students. Survey Questions Another strength of the NCVS for this study is the type of questions that is asks. First, the NCVS asks victims if they used any self-protective behaviors. Specifically, victims who report that they have been victimized are asked “Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident

76


while it was going on?” Respondents who answer yes are then asked about the particular self-protective behaviors they used (e.g., attacked or threatened the offender with a gun or other weapon, chased the offender, yelled, cooperated with the offender, ran away, etc).2 Following these questions on the types of self-protective behaviors used, victims are asked whether they were injured in the incident. Victims who report that they were injured are then asked about the sequencing of their use of selfprotective actions. In other words, did they employ selfprotective actions before, during, or after they were injured. Victims can report using one or more self-protective behaviors at any of the three times (i.e., before, during, or after). This question on the sequencing of events represents another strength of the NCVS: it allows researchers to examine the temporal ordering of events. In other words, through the victim’s answer to this question, researchers can determine if the victim employed self-protective behaviors before, during, or after being injured. This represents a major advantage over previous studies of selfprotective behaviors. For instance, some studies have reported that victims who employ self-protective behaviors are more likely to be injured yet they have not taken into account the temporal ordering of events (e.g., Ruback and Ivie, 1988). It could be that the victim employed selfprotective behaviors only after being injured. Thus, it is important to examine the temporal ordering of events (i.e., when the victim used self-protective behaviors) in order to fully understand the relationship between self-protective behaviors and outcomes (i.e., completed versus attempted rape; completed versus attempted robbery; and more severe versus less severe sexual and physical assaults). Unfortunately, this study was unable to examine the temporal ordering issue due to the fact that in the National Crime Victimization Survey, only respondents who are injured are asked when they used self-protective behaviors. Therefore in order to examine the temporal ordering issue, all incidents in which the victim was not injured would have had to be excluded. Overall, victims were uninjured


77

in 43% of the incidents in the sample (n=16,926). Thus, excluding the incidents where victims were not injured would have resulted in a significant decrease in the number of incidents included in the sample. There was a second reason for not focusing on the temporal ordering issue: all of the completed rape victims were injured and all but two (98%) of the more severe sexual assault victims were injured. If only victims who were injured had been included in the sample, there would have been no variation in the outcome of rapes and very little variation in the outcome of sexual assaults. A second strength of the NCVS is that it asks questions on a variety of factors that have been found to be associated with the use and effectiveness of self-protective behaviors. For instance, there are questions on demographic factors such as the victim’s age and race. There are also questions on situational variables that have been found to be associated with the use and effectiveness of resistance such as the time and location of the attack, whether bystanders were present, whether the offender was under the influence of alcohol or drugs, whether the offender had a weapon, and the nature of the victim/offender relationship. Weaknesses of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) Despite the many strengths of the NCVS for this study, it does have several limitations or weaknesses. First, the NCVS does not measure victimization of certain groups of people such as transients and runaways (Block and Block, 1984; Furby and Fischhoff, 1992). Second, respondents may have recall problems (Rand and Rennison, 2002). As mentioned earlier, the NCVS uses a 6-month reference period. However, it is possible for victims to forget when an event actually occurred. For instance, when a victim is asked if he/she has been a victim of a robbery within the past 6 months, the victim may answer yes when in actuality the incident occurred 9 months ago. Or, on the other hand,

78


a victim may forget that he/she was the victim of a crime (e.g., a theft) within the past 6 months. Third, respondents may fail to report a victimization to the interviewer for a variety of reasons. For instance, a rape victim may be too embarrassed to report the incident. Fourth, respondents may not report incidents committed by people they know (e.g., relatives, intimates) (Rand and Rennison). It may be that the victim does not consider the incident to be a crime (e.g., when a husband rapes his wife) or perhaps the victim is too embarrassed to report the incident. Fifth, the NCVS does not include victims who may have been killed during a violent incident (Block and Skogan, 1984). For instance, it is possible for victims who use self-protective behaviors in violent victimizations to be killed. Failing to take into account the deaths that might occur when victims use selfprotective behaviors may thus overestimate the benefits of using self-protective behaviors. Despite the aforementioned limitations, the NCVS is the best dataset to use for this study due to the numerous advantages discussed above. SAMPLE As mentioned earlier, the NCVS began in the early 1970s and was redesigned in 1992. The changes to the survey that began in 1992 allow researchers to determine with more accuracy whether a victim used self-protective behaviors before he/she was injured and the specific types of self-protective behaviors a victim used (Bachman et al., 2002). Thus, this study will only include data from 1992 onward. Specifically, data from the 1992–2001 NCVS will be used (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004b). The current study includes only incidents involving a single offender. Incidents involving multiple offenders are excluded since there is some evidence that these incidents may be characteristically different than incidents involving lone offenders. For instance, Ullman (2002) points out that gang rapes often seem to be more violent and more difficult for women to avoid than incidents involving single


79

offenders. Thus, incidents involving multiple offenders should be examined separately and are excluded from this analysis. In addition, since the dependent variables for this study are rape, sexual assault, robbery, and physical assault, only these types of victimizations are included in this analysis. Thus, the total number of incidents is 16,926. Four percent of the incidents in the sample are rapes, 2.3% are sexual assaults, 11.4% are robberies, and 82.3% are physical assaults. DEPENDENT VARIABLES Rape The NCVS defines rape as “forced sexual intercourse and includes both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal, or oral penetration by the offender(s)” or penetration by a foreign object such as a bottle. For this study, rape was coded dichotomously. Completed incidents were coded as a 1, whereas attempted incidents were coded as a 0.3 Sixtyfour percent of the rape incidents were completed while 36% were attempted. Sexual Assault The NCVS defines sexual assaults separately from rape or attempted rape. Specifically, sexual assaults include “attacks or attempted attacks generally involving (unwanted) sexual contact between victim and offender.” They may or may not involve force (e.g., grabbing, fondling) and also may include threats. For this study, sexual assaults were classified into two categories: “more severe sexual assaults” and “less severe sexual assaults.” Sexual attacks with serious assault and sexual attacks with minor assault were classified as severe sexual assaults and coded as 1. Sexual assaults without injury and unwanted

80


sexual contacts without force were classified as less severe sexual assaults and coded as 0.4 Of the 382 sexual assaults that were committed by a lone offender between 1992 and 2001, 27% of the sexual assaults were severe sexual assaults while 73% were less severe sexual assaults. Robbery The NCVS defines robbery as “a completed or attempted theft, directly from a person, of property or cash by force or threat of force, with or without a weapon.” Completed robbery incidents were coded as a 1 while attempted robbery incidents were coded as a 0. Sixty-one percent of the robbery incidents were completed while 39% were attempted. Physical Assault The NCVS defines assault as “an unlawful physical attack, whether aggravated or simple, upon a person.” For this study, assaults were categorized into two categories: aggravated and simple assaults. Aggravated assaults included completed aggravated assaults with injury, attempted aggravated assaults with weapons, and threatened assaults with weapon. Simple assaults included completed simple assault with injury and assaults without weapons and without injury. Aggravated assaults were coded as 1 whereas simple assaults were coded as 0.5 Onethird of the assaults were aggravated assaults while twothirds were simple assaults. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES This research will focus on the effects of 1) self-protective behaviors and 2) the victim/offender relationship. These variables will be discussed in more detail in the section below. The sample statistics for the independent variables are reported in Table 3.1.


81

Self-Protective Behaviors As mentioned before, the NCVS asks respondents who have indicated that they had been a victim of a crime “Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?” Respondents who answer “yes” to this question are then asked a series of closed-ended questions to ascertain what specific self-protective behaviors they employed. For instance, respondents are asked if they used physical force toward the offender, if they chased the offender, if they threatened to injure the offender, etc. (See Appendix for a complete list of the items.) These actions are not mutually exclusive. In other words, respondents may have used more than one type of protective action. Consistent with previous research (Ullman, 1997), the self-protective actions contained in the questions used in the NVCS are categorized into four different categories for this analysis: forceful physical, nonforceful physical, forceful verbal, and nonforceful verbal. Forceful Physical Self-Protective Behaviors Respondents who indicated that they had 1) attacked the offender with a gun or fired a gun, 2) attacked the offender with “other weapon”, or 3) attacked without a weapon (hit, kicked, etc) were considered to have used forceful physical self-protective behaviors which was coded as a 1. This variable was coded as a 0 in incidents in which forceful physical self-protective behaviors were not used. Overall, 14% of the rape, sexual assault, robbery, and physical assault incidents involved the use of forceful physical selfprotective behaviors by the victim.

82


Forceful Verbal Self-Protective Behaviors Respondents who indicated that they had used one or more of the following strategies were coded as having used forceful verbal self-protective behaviors: 1) threatened to injure the offender with a gun; 2) threatened to injure the offender with a weapon other than a gun; 3) threatened to injure the offender without a weapon; 4) yelled at the offender, turned on lights,6 threatened to call police; 5) called police or guard; 6) tried to attract attention or help or warn others (e.g., cried out for help, called children inside), or 7) screamed. This variable was coded as 1 if the incident involved the use of forceful verbal self-protective actions by the victim and 0 if the victim did not use this type of self-protective behavior. Overall, 21% of the rape, sexual assault, robbery, and physical assault incidents involved the use of forceful verbal self-protective behaviors by the victim. Nonforceful Physical Self-Protective Behaviors Respondents who replied that they had 1) defended self or property (e.g., struggled, ducked, blocked blows, held onto property), 2) chased, tried to catch or held the offender or 3) ran or drove away, hid, or locked the door were considered to have used nonforceful physical selfprotective behaviors. This variable was coded as a 1 if the victim used nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors and 0 if the offender did not use this type of self-protective behavior. Overall, victims used nonforceful physical selfprotective behaviors in 39.5% of the rape, sexual assault, robbery, and physical assault incidents. Nonforceful Verbal Self-Protective Behaviors Respondents who indicated that they had used either of the following strategies were coded as having used nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors: 1) cooperated or pretended to cooperate with the offender (e.g., stalled, did what the


83

offender asked)7 or 2) argued, reasoned, pleaded, bargained, etc. This variable was coded as a 1 if the victim used one or both of these forms of nonforceful verbal selfprotective behaviors and 0 if the victim used neither of these forms of nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors. Overall, victims used nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors in 11% of the rape, sexual assault, robbery, and physical assault incidents. Victim/Offender Relationship Within the incident report, the NCVS asks respondents if the offender was someone they knew or a stranger. If respondents answer that they knew or had seen the offender before, they are then asked about the specific nature of the relationship. Responses to these questions were recoded into four categories: 1) intimate: spouse, ex-spouse, boyfriend/girlfriend, and ex-boyfriend/ex-girlfriend; 2) other relative: parent/step-parent, child/step-child, brother/sister, and other relative; 3) friend or acquaintance: friend/ex-friend, roommate or boarder, schoolmate, neighbor, customer/client, patient, other nonrelative, and former or current supervisor, employer, or co-worker; 4) stranger: someone the offender had not seen before. A series of dummy variables were used to code these variables. Friend/acquaintance was used as the reference group. Overall, 18% of the rape, sexual assault, robbery, and physical assault incidents were committed by an offender who was an intimate, 7% were committed by an “other relative,” 39% were committed by a friend/acquaintance, and 35% were committed by a stranger. The sample characteristics for each of the independent variables are presented in Table 3.1. The appendix contains the sample characteristics for each of the independent variables by type of victimization.

84


Table 3.1: Sample Statistics for Independent Variables Independent Variables Percent Used Forceful Physical 14.3 Yes Self-Protective 85.7 No Behaviors Used Nonforceful 39.5 Yes Physical 60.5 No Self-Protective Behaviors Used Forceful Verbal 20.7 Yes Self-Protective 79.3 No Behaviors Used Nonforceful 10.9 Yes Verbal 89.1 No Self-Protective Behaviors Victim/Offender 35.4 Relationship Stranger 18.3 Intimate 7.3 Other Relative 38.9 Friend/Acquaintance* * Reference group

Number 2,422 14,504 6,692 10,234

3,500 13,426 1,851 15,075

5,261 2,722 1,088 5,770

Control Variables Based on the research presented in Chapter 2, it is apparent that there are numerous variables that need to be controlled for in this analysis. This section will discuss how these control variables will be measured and coded as well as the sample characteristics for each (see Table 3.2). Pre-Assault Characteristics Age of Victim. The NCVS asks victims for the month, day, and year of birth. Based on this information, respondents’ ages at the time of the interview can be calculated. The mean age of rape victims was 27, the mean age of sexual assault victims was 27, the mean age of


85

robbery victims was 32, and the mean age of physical assault victims was 29. Offender Alcohol/Drug Use. Within the NCVS incident report, victims are asked if the offender was drinking or on drugs. Two variables were used to capture whether or not victims perceived the offender to be under the influence of alcohol/drugs at the time of the incident. The first variable, offender used alcohol/drugs, was coded dichotomously with a 1 indicating that the victim believed the offender was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the incident and 0 indicating that the victim answered that he/she did not know if the offender was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The second variable, offender did not use alcohol/drugs, was coded dichotomously with a 1 indicating that the victim believed that the offender was not under the influence of drugs/alcohol at the time of the incident and 0 indicating that the victim did not know if the offender was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Overall, victims perceived the offender to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol in one-third of the incidents. Victims perceived the offender to not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol in 32% of the incidents. In 35% of the incidents, the victim answered that he/she did not know if the offender was under the influence of drug or alcohol at the time of the incident. The percentage of victims who believed that the offender was under the influence of drugs or alcohol was even larger in rape and sexual assault incidents: 50% and 38%, respectively. In the majority of robbery incidents (53%), the victim answered that he/she did not know if the offender was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In physical assaults, onethird of the victims believed that the offender was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, one-third believed that the offender was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and one-third answered did not know.

86


Race of Victim. Respondents were classified into two categories based on their race: white and nonwhite. White was coded as 0, whereas nonwhite was coded as 1. Overall, 84% of the victims in the sample were white. Examining the race of the victims for each of the four types of crimes reveals that 80% of the rape, sexual assault, and physical assault victims were white while slightly over three-fourths of the robbery victims were white. Sex of Offender/Victim. Three dichotomous variables were created to measure the sex of the offender and victim: 1) female offender/female victim, 2) male offender/female victim, and 3) female offender/male victim. Male offender/male victim served as the reference group. Fortysix percent of the overall incidents fell into the male offender/male victim category. Almost 38% of the incidents involved male offenders and female victims, while almost 12% of the overall incidents involved female offenders and female victims. The smallest category involved female offenders and male victims. Only 4% of the incidents fell into this category. Examining this variable by type of crime showed a very different pattern: the vast majority of the rape and sexual assault incidents involved a male offender/female victim while the majority of robberies involved a male offender/male victim. For physical assaults, the largest percentage of incidents (49%) fell into the male offender/male victim category. Situational Characteristics Environmental Interventions. Bystanders are one type of environmental intervention that may affect the likelihood of an incident being completed (Bart and O’Brien, 1985). NCVS respondents are asked if anyone aged 12 or over was present during the incident besides them and the offender. This variable was coded as 1 if one or more bystanders (i.e., someone other than the victim and offender) were present during the incident and 0 if no bystander was present. Overall, bystanders were present in the majority of


87

incidents: 65%. However, while bystanders were present in the majority of robbery and physical assault incidents, they were only present in 34% of the sexual assault and 18% of the rape incidents. Location of Incident. Consistent with previous research, location of the incident was classified into two categories: public and private (Bachman et al., 2002). Incidents occurring in a commercial place (e.g., restaurant, bank, gas station), in a parking lot or public garage or another public place were coded as 0. Incidents that occurred in a respondent’s private residence (e.g., the victim’s home or vacation home, in a hotel where the victim was staying), near their home (e.g., on their own yard, sidewalk, or street immediately adjacent to their own) or at, in, or near a friend’s/relative’s/neighbor’s home were coded as 1. Overall, the majority of incidents occurred in public places. However, when examining each type of crime separately, the statistics reveal that the majority of rape and sexual assault incidents (84% and 60%, respectively) occurred in private locations while the majority of robbery and physical assault incidents occurred in public locations (59% and 56%, respectively). Presence of a Weapon. Within the incident report of the NCVS, respondents are asked “Did the offender have a weapon such as a gun or knife, or something to use as a weapon, such as a bottle or wrench?” This variable was coded dichotomously: presence of a weapon was coded as 1 if the victim responded yes to this question and 0 if the respondent answered no or don’t know. Overall, weapons were present in a minority of incidents (33%). The type of crime that involved the most frequent use of weapons by the offender was robbery: weapons were present in 47% of the robberies. Time of Day. The NCVS asks victims about the time the incident occurred. This variable was coded dichotomously:

88


incidents that occurred at night (between 6 pm and 6 am) were coded as 1 while incidents occurring during the day (between 6 am and 6 pm) were coded as 0. Three-quarters of the rapes, three-fifths of the sexual assaults, and half of the robberies occurred at night. However, the majority of physical assaults occurred during the day (54.2%). Table 3.2: Sample Statistics for Control Variables Pre-Assault Characteristics Offender Alcohol/Drug Use:

Overall Rape Sexual Assault Robbery

Physical Assault

Yes

No

Percent

33.5

31.7

Don’t know 34.8

Number

5,650

5,341

5,861

Percent

49.8

28.1

22.1

Number

320

181

142

Percent

38

36.9

25.1

Number

132

128

87

Percent

29.2

18

52.8

Number

563

348

1018

Percent

33.3

33.6

33.1

Number

4,635

4,684

4,614


89

Table 3.2: Sample Statistics for Control Variables Pre-Assault Characteristics Race of Victim: White Non White Overall Percent 84.1 15.9 Rape Sexual Assault Robbery Physical Assault

Overall Rape Sexual Assault Robbery Physical Assault

Number

14,232

2,694

Percent

81.4

18.6

Number

555

127

Percent

84.6

15.4

Number

323

59

Percent

76.2

23.8

Number

1,469

460

Percent

85.3

14.7

Number

11,885

2,048

Sex of Offender/Victim: Female/ Male/ Female/ Female Female Male 11.6 37.7 4.2

Percent

Male/ Male* 46.4

Number

7,811

1,953

6,351

714

Percent

4.1

.3

93.8

1.8

Number

28

2

639

12

Percent

6.8

.8

89.8

2.6

Number

26

3

342

10

Percent

51.4

6.7

38.7

3.2

Number

983

128

741

61

Percent

48.9

13.1

33.4

4.6

Number

6,774

1,820

4,629

631

90


Table 3.2: Sample Statistics for Control Variables Pre-Assault Characteristics Mean Age Overall Rape

28.85

Age of Victim Standard Minimum Deviation Age 13.48 12

Maximum Age 90

26.92

10.53

12

90

27.08

12.55

12

80

31.69 Physical 28.60 Assault * Reference Group

15.14

12

90

13.34

12

90

Sexual Assault Robbery

Overall Rape Sexual Assault Robbery Physical Assault

Percent

Situational Characteristics Bystanders Present: Yes No 65.3 34.7

Number

10,904

5,799

Percent

18.4

81.6

Number

123

547

Percent

34.6

65.4

Number

129

244

Percent

50.3

49.7

Number

954

944

Percent

70.5

29.5

Number

9,698

4,064


91

Table 3.2: Sample Statistics for Control Variables Situational Characteristics Location of Incident: Public Private Overall Percent 54.3 45.7 Rape Sexual Assault Robbery Physical Assault

Overall

Number

8,388

7,054

Percent

16.0

84.0

Number

101

532

Percent

39.5

60.5

Number

133

204

Percent

58.7

41.3

Number

1,061

746

Percent

56.0

44.0

Number

7,093

5,572

Percent Number

Rape

Percent Number

Sexual Assault

Percent Number

Robbery

Percent Number

Physical Assault

Percent Number

Situational Characteristics Presence of a Weapon: Yes No 32.5 67.5 5,241

10,861

12.3

87.7

80

570

3.6

96.4

13

353

47.1

52.9

806

905

32.5

67.5

4,342

9,033

92


Table 3.2: Sample Statistics for Control Variables Situational Characteristics Time of Day: Day Night Overall Percent 52.2 47.8 Rape

Sexual Assault

Robbery

Physical Assault

Number

8,726

7,997

Percent

25.0

75.0

Number

168

504

Percent

40.1

59.9

Number

148

221

Percent

49.3

50.7

Number

940

966

Percent

54.2

45.8

Number

7,470

6,306

STATISTICAL TECHNIQUES For this study, several types of analysis will be conducted including bivariate and multivariate analysis. Each of these types will be discussed below. Bivariate Analyses Bivariate analyses will be conducted to explore the relationship between the use of each of the four types of self-protective behaviors and each dependent variable. These bivariate analyses will reveal the percentage of rape, sexual assault, robbery, and physical assault incidents which were attempted versus completed when each of the four types of self-protective behaviors were used by victims. In addition, bivariate analyses will be conducted to explore what percentage of incidents of attempted versus completed crimes involved at least one type of self-


93

protective behavior and the percentage that involved multiple types of self-protective behavior. These analyses will provide an introductory look at the relationship between self-protective behaviors and the outcome of violent crimes. Multivariate Analyses Multivariate analyses will be conducted to examine the influence of the independent variables, the four types of self-protective behaviors, on the outcome of the four types of violent crimes. As the victim/offender relationship is hypothesized to mediate the relationship between selfprotective behaviors and outcome, the victim/offender relationship will also be included as an independent variable in these analyses. The control variables for this analysis are age of the victim, offender used alcohol/drugs, offender did not use alcohol/drugs, race of victim, sex of victim, environmental interventions, location of incident, presence of a weapon, and time of day. Since the four dependent variables are dichotomous variables, the specific type of analysis that is appropriate and will be conducted is logistic regression. In order to better understand how the victim/offender relationship mediates the relationship between the use of self-protective behaviors and the outcomes of violent victimizations, the probability of an act being completed (or in the case of physical assault and sexual assault, being more severe) will be examined for each of the four categories of victim/offender relationships: intimate, relative, known other, and stranger. The Design Effect In order to correctly estimate the effectiveness of selfprotective behaviors on the outcome of violent crimes, the design effect of the NCVS should be accounted for. The design effect results from the fact that the Census Bureau

94


collects data for the NCVS in clusters. Thus, three or four adjacent households are interviewed throughout the sample. It is likely that the responses of those within these clusters are correlated with each other. Because of this, the true standard errors for the estimate coefficients may be deflated. Thus, Bachman et al. (2002, p. 147) argue that “variance estimates must be adjusted upward to account for any correlation which may exist between respondents in any given cluster area.” In order to correct for the design effect, svylogit (a command in Stata) will be used. These commands allow for setting the probability weight equal to the incident weight of the NCVS, thus readjusting each observation so the sample “goes back to what it should be.”8 However, the svylogit command was only used for physical assaults because the use of the command in rapes, sexual assaults, and robberies would have resulted in the exclusion of a large number of observations. Dugan9 argues that it is not essential to control for the design effect when dealing with victimization incidents because “it is a lot less likely that you will get victims from the same cluster in the sample.” SUMMARY This chapter provided a description of the dataset used for this study: the NCVS. It also included a discussion of the strengths and the weaknesses of the NCVS. The reasons why this dataset is suitable for the purposes of this study were also discussed. The next section included a description of the independent and dependent variables that are included in this study. The final section provided an overview of the statistical techniques that will be used in this study. The next chapter will provide the results of this study while Chapter 5 will include a discussion of the results. Chapter 5 will also include policy recommendations and suggestions for future research.


95

NOTES 1

The NCVS defines sexual assault as “a wide range of victimizations, separate from rape or attempted rape. These crimes include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving (unwanted) sexual contact between victim and offender. Sexual assaults may or may not involve force, such as grabbing or fondling, for example and may also include verbal threats.” 2 The use of these behaviorally specific questions is important as research by Applegate et al. (1996) suggests that the use of specific questions tends to elicit more accurate responses than global questions. 3 Verbal threats of rape were excluded from the analysis. 4 Verbal threats of sexual assault were excluded from the analysis. 5 Verbal threats of assault were excluded from the analysis. 6 Although turning on the lights could be considered a form of nonforceful physical self-protective behavior, it was included in the forceful verbal self-protective behavior category since the other two actions (yelling at the offender and calling the police) best fit into this category. 7 Cooperation with the offender was considered a type of selfprotective behavior because in order for victims to be asked if they cooperated with the offender, victims first had to respond “yes” to one of the following questions: “Did you do anything with the idea of protecting yourself or your property while the incident was going on?” or “Was there anything you did or tried to do about the incident while it was going on?” Thus, victims who answered that they had cooperated with the offender apparently considered cooperation a means of protecting themselves. Therefore, cooperation was coded as a selfprotective behavior. 8 Laura Dugan, e-mail message to author, December 7, 2004. 9 Laura Dugan, e-mail message to author, December 7, 2004.


CHAPTER 4

The Effectiveness of Self-Protective Behaviors

INTRODUCTION This chapter begins with the presentation of the bivariate analyses. The first section examines the percentage of rape, sexual assault, robbery, and physical assault incidents that involved self-protective behaviors on the part of the victim. The first section further explores this issue by dividing each of the four types of victimization into attempted or completed incidents (or, in the case of sexual and physical assault, more severe or less severe incidents) to see whether self-protective behaviors are more prevalent in attempted or completed incidents. This first section will begin with a discussion of the overall results (i.e., the results for the four victimizations combined) followed by sections on the results for each of the four individual victimizations: rape, sexual assault, robbery, and physical assaults. The second part of the chapter presents the results of the logit models for each of the four types of victimization. The chapter ends with the presentation of the probabilities that were calculated in order to understand the influence of the victim/offender relationship on the probability of a violent crime being completed when each of the four types of self-protective behaviors are used individually and all together.

97

98


BIVARIATE RESULTS Overall: Type of Victimization and Self-Protective Behavior Usage Table 4.1 shows the percentage of incidents that involved the use of self-protective behaviors by type of victimization. The results indicate that victims were more likely to use self-protective behaviors in incidents of a sexual nature (i.e., rape and sexual assault) than in incidents of a non-sexual nature (i.e., robbery and physical assault). Specifically, victims were most likely to use at least one type of self-protective behavior in sexual assault incidents, followed by rapes, physical assaults, and robberies, respectively. In addition, the percentage of incidents involving multiple types of self-protective behaviors was largest for rapes, followed by sexual assaults, robberies, and physical assaults. Thus, the results from Table 4.1 indicate that the prevalence of the use of self-protective behaviors is highest among victims of sexual victimizations. The results from Table 4.1 also indicate that one particular type of self-protective behavior was the most common across all four types of victimization incidents: nonforceful verbal. However, the second, third, and fourth most-used type of self-protective behavior varied by type of victimization. For instance, while nonforceful verbal selfprotective behavior was the second most commonly used type of self-protective behavior in rapes (used in 28% of the rapes), nonforceful verbal self-protective behavior was the fourth most commonly used type of self-protective behavior in physical assaults, used in only 10% of the physical assault incidents. Thus, the findings from Table 4.1 suggest that victims’ choices of self-protective behaviors vary by the type of victimization they experience.

The Effectiveness of Self Protective Behaviors

99

Table 4.1: Type of Victimization by Type of Self-Protective Behavior Against a Single Offender

% Incidents Involving At Least 1 Type of Self-Protective Behavior Forceful Physical

Type Of Victimization Rape Sexual Assault n n % (682) (382)

70.8

483

72.8

278

13.2

90

9.4

36

26.2

179

29.6

113

44.3

302

43.7

167

27.6

188

18.8

72

30.1

205

23.0

88

Forceful Verbal

Nonforceful Physical Nonforceful Verbal

Incidents Involving Multiple SelfProtective Behaviors

Type Of Victimization Robbery Physical Assault n n % % (1,929) (13,933) Incidents Involving At Least 1 Type of Self-Protective Behavior Forceful Physical

60.0

1,158

66.5

9,250

12.2

235

14.8

2,061

100


Table 4.1: Type of Victimization by Type of Self-Protective Behavior Against a Single Offender Type Of Victimization Robbery Physical Assault n n % % (1,929) (13,933) Forceful Verbal 22.0 425 20.0 2,783 Nonforceful Physical

33.9

654

40.0

5,569

11.0

212

9.9

1,379

15.2

294

15.1

2,107

Nonforceful Verbal


Type Of Victimization Totals n % (16,926) Incidents Involving At Least 1 Type of Self-Protective Behavior Forceful Physical

66.0

11,169

14.3

2,422

20.7

3,500

39.5

6,692

10.9

1,851

15.9

2,694

Forceful Verbal

Nonforceful Physical

Nonforceful Verbal

Incidents Involving Multiple Self-Protective Behaviors


101

One of the goals of this study is to understand if the self-protective behaviors that are used in rapes, sexual assaults, robberies, and physical assaults are effective. Table 4.2 provides a preliminary look into this question. Specifically, Table 4.2 presents the outcomes for each of the four victimizations by the type of self-protective behavior that was utilized. The results from this table indicate that overall, in the majority of rape, sexual assault, physical assault, and robbery incidents victims used at least one type of self-protective behavior. Specifically, in 66% of the incidents victims used at least one type of selfprotective behavior. The percentage of victims who used specific types of self-protective behaviors varied considerably: almost 40% of the victims used nonforceful physical, 21% used forceful verbal, 14% used forceful physical, and 11% used nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors. The overall percentage of incidents in which victims used multiple types of self-protective behaviors was 16%. Thus, these findings indicate that the use of at least one type of self-protective behavior in violent victimizations was fairly common (occurring in almost two-thirds of the incidents) while the use of multiple forms of self-protective behaviors occurred in less than one-fifth (16%) of the incidents. Because Table 4.2 divides each type of victimization into attempted versus completed incidents (or in the case of sexual and physical assaults, more and less severe incidents), it provides a preliminary look at whether the use of certain types of self-protective behaviors are associated with the outcome of violent victimizations. In order to more fully explore this issue, a two-sample test of proportions was calculated to examine whether the difference between the proportions of completed (or more severe) incidents in which victims used the respective selfprotective behavior was statistically different from the proportion of attempted (or less severe) incidents in which victims used the respective self-protective behavior

102


(StataCorp, 2001). The following four subsections will discuss the results of these two-sample tests of proportions. Table 4.2: Type of Victimization Outcome by Type of Self-Protective Behavior Against a Single Offender Type Of Victimization Outcome Completed Rape Attempted Rape %

n

%

n

63.8

435

36.2

247

59.8*

260

90.3

223

9.2*

40

20.2

50

20.9*

91

35.6

88

35.2*

153

60.3

149

30.6*

133

22.3

55

25.7*

112

37.7

93

Incidents

Incidents Involving At Least 1 Type of Self-Protective Behavior Forceful Physical

Forceful Verbal




103

Table 4.2: Type of Victimization Outcome by Type of Self-Protective Behavior Against a Single Offender Type Of Victimization Outcome Severe Sexual Less Severe Sexual Assault Assault %

n

%

n

27.2

104

72.8

278

79.8

83

70.1

195

8.7

9

9.7

27

42.3*

44

24.8

69


56.7*

59

38.8

108


56.7*

59

38.8

108

21.2

22

18.0

50

Incidents


Forceful Verbal

Nonforceful Verbal

Incidents Involving 40 17.3 Multiple Self38.5* Protective Behaviors * Two-sample test of proportions is significant at the p≤ .05

48

104


Table 4.2: Type of Victimization Outcome by Type of Self-Protective Behavior Against a Single Offender Type Of Victimization Outcome Completed Robbery Attempted Robbery %

n

%

n

61.1

1,178

38.9

751

49.2*

580

77.0

578

8.1*

95

18.6

140

18.8*

221

27.2

204

27.2*

321

44.3

333

11.4

134

10.4

78

Incidents


Forceful Verbal


Incidents Involving 13.2* 155 18.5 Multiple SelfProtective Behaviors * Two-sample test of proportions is significant at the p≤ .05

139


105

Table 4.2: Type of Victimization Outcome by Type of Self-Protective Behavior Against a Single Offender Type Of Victimization Outcome Aggravated Physical Simple Physical Assault Assault % n % n Incidents 33.1 4,611 66.9 9,322 Incidents Involving At Least 1 Type of Self-Protective Behavior Forceful Physical

63.6*

2,934

67.8

6,316

10.7*

493

16.8

1.568

21.6*

996

19.2

1,787

37.0*

1,708

41.4

3,861

11.2*

516

9.3

863

Forceful Verbal


Incidents Involving 13.8* 636 15.8 Multiple SelfProtective Behaviors * Two-sample test of proportions is significant at the p≤ .05

1,471

106


Table 4.2: Type of Victimization Outcome by Type of Self-Protective Behavior Against a Single Offender Type Of Victimization Totals %

n

100

16,926

66.0

11,169

14.3

2,422

20.7

3,500

39.5

6,692

10.9

1,851

15.9

2,694

Incidents


Forceful Verbal


Nonforceful Verbal

Incidents Involving Multiple Self-Protective Behaviors


107

Rape The results presented in Table 4.2 indicate that victims used at least one type of self-protective behavior in a significantly larger percentage of attempted rapes than in completed rapes. Specifically, victims used at least one type of self-protective behavior in 90% of the attempted rapes compared to in 60% of the completed rapes. The results from Table 4.2 also indicate that victims used physical forms of self-protective behaviors (both forceful and nonforceful) in a significantly larger percentage of attempted rapes than in completed rapes. This pattern also held true for forceful verbal self-protective behaviors: approximately 36% of the attempted rape incidents involved forceful verbal self-protective behaviors on the part of the victim compared to 21% of the completed rape incidents. One type of self-protective behavior did not fit this pattern: nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors were actually used in a significantly larger percentage of completed rape incidents than in attempted rape incidents. The final noteworthy result for rapes that emerged from Table 4.2 is that a significantly larger percentage of attempted rapes compared to completed rapes involved the use of multiple types of self-protective behaviors: 38% compared to 26%. Sexual Assault Based on the results presented in Table 4.2, three findings for sexual assault are worth mentioning. The first concerns the use of at least one type of self-protective behavior. While self-protective behaviors were commonly used by both victims of severe sexual assaults and victims of less severe sexual assaults, a significantly larger percentage of severe sexual assaults involved the use of at least one type of self-protective behavior compared to less severe assaults. This pattern differs from that of physical assaults, robberies, and rapes where a significantly larger percentage

108


of victims used self-protective behaviors in the attempted or less severe incidents (i.e., attempted robbery, attempted rape and simple physical assaults) compared to in the completed or more severe incidents. The second noteworthy finding for sexual assault concerns the specific types of self-protective behaviors that were used by the victims in the sample and the outcome of the sexual victimization. A slightly larger percentage of less severe sexual assault incidents involved the use of forceful physical self-protective behaviors compared to more severe sexual assault incidents. However, this difference was not statistically significant. In addition, a different pattern than that for physical assaults, robberies, and rapes emerged for the relationship between nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors and sexual assault outcome: a significantly larger percentage of more severe sexual assaults involved the use of nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors. This preliminary finding suggests that the types of self-protective behaviors that are associated with less severe outcomes for one type of victimization may not be the same for other types of victimizations. Further support for this idea is provided when looking at the use of forceful verbal self-protective behaviors and sexual assault outcome. In contrast to the results for rape and robbery (but consistent with the findings for physical assault), a significantly larger percentage of more severe sexual assaults involved the use of forceful verbal self-protective behaviors by the victim. Thus it seems that the effectiveness of different types of self-protective behaviors may vary depending upon the type of victimization (e.g., rape versus sexual assault). Third, victims used multiple types of self-protective behaviors in a significantly larger percentage of severe sexual assaults compared to less severe sexual assaults. This is in contrast to the findings for rapes, robberies, and physical assaults where multiple types of self-protective behaviors were utilized in a significantly larger percentage of the less severe outcome (i.e., attempted rape, attempted robbery, and simple physical assault).


109

Robbery Three noteworthy findings regarding robberies emerge from the results presented in Table 4.2. First, victims used at least one type of self-protective behavior in a significantly larger percentage of attempted robberies than in completed robberies. Second, a significantly larger percentage of attempted robberies, compared to completed robberies, involved the use of physical types of selfprotective behaviors by victims. Specifically, while only 8% of the completed robberies involved the use of forceful physical self-protective behaviors by victims, almost 19% of the attempted robberies involved this type of selfprotective behavior. The pattern for nonforceful physical resistance was similar: victims used this type of selfprotective behavior in a significantly larger percentage of attempted robberies compared to completed robberies: 44% versus 27%, respectively. The pattern for forceful verbal self-protective behaviors is similar: victims used this type of self-protective behavior in a significantly larger percentage of attempted robberies compared to completed robberies: 27% compared to 19%, respectively. However, the pattern for nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors was actually the opposite: nonforceful verbal selfprotective behaviors were used in a larger percentage of completed robberies. This difference was not statistically significant, however. The third noteworthy finding for robberies is that victims of attempted robberies were significantly more likely to use multiple types of self-protective actions than were victims of completed robberies. This finding is consistent with that of rapes and physical assaults but contrary to that of sexual assaults.

110


Physical Assault Four notable findings regarding physical assaults emerge from the results presented in Table 4.2. First, in physical assault incidents, victims used at least one type of selfprotective behavior in a significantly larger percentage of simple physical assault incidents than in aggravated physical assault incidents. Specifically, in almost 68% of the simple physical assaults victims used at least one type of self-protective behavior compared to in 64% of aggravated physical assaults. Second, a significantly larger percentage of simple assault incidents, compared to aggravated assault incidents, involved the use of physical forms of self-protective behaviors, both forceful and nonforceful, by the victim. Specifically, in 17% of the simple physical assault incidents victims used forceful physical self-protective behaviors compared to in 11% of aggravated physical assault incidents. Similarly, approximately 41% of the simple physical assault incidents involved the use of nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors by the victim compared to 37% of aggravated physical assault incidents. Third, contrary to the finding of physical self-protective behaviors being utilized significantly more often in simple assault incidents, a significantly larger percentage of aggravated physical assaults involved the use of verbal self-protective behaviors by victims. Specifically, almost 22% of the aggravated physical assault incidents involved the use of forceful verbal self-protective behaviors by the victim compared to 19% of the simple physical assault incidents. In addition, victims utilized nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors in 11% of the aggravated physical assault incidents compared to in 9% of the simple physical assaults incidents. Fourth, a significantly larger percentage of simple assault victims used multiple types of self-protective behaviors compared to aggravated assault victims: 16% and 14%, respectively. This finding is consistent with that of rapes and robberies.


111

SUMMARY OF THE BIVARIATE FINDINGS In sum, the findings from Table 4.2 reveal that a significantly larger percentage of less severe outcomes1 involved the use of at least one type of self-protective behavior with the exception of sexual assault. The results were the same for incidents involving multiple types of self-protective behaviors: with the exception of sexual assault, a significantly larger percentage of less severe outcomes involved the use of multiple self-protective behaviors. Sexual assaults were also the exception for another finding: both forceful and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors were utilized by victims in a significantly larger percentage of less severe outcomes with the exception of sexual assault.2 The pattern for verbal self-protective behaviors also differed by type of victimization. While forceful verbal self-protective behaviors were utilized in a significantly larger percentage of completed robberies and completed rapes, this same type of self-protective behavior was utilized in a significantly larger percentage of aggravated physical assaults and more severe sexual assaults. Similarly, nonforceful verbal selfprotective behaviors were found to be utilized in a significantly larger percentage of completed rapes and aggravated physical assaults. These preliminary findings suggest the importance of looking at the influence of selfprotective behaviors on different types of victimizations separately since the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors seems to vary by the specific type of victimization. In other words, while the use of one type of self-protective behavior (e.g., forceful verbal) may be associated with a less severe outcome in one type of victimization (e.g., rape), in another type of victimization (e.g., physical assault) the same type of self-protective behavior may be associated with a more severe outcome (e.g., aggravated physical assault).

112


MULTIVARIATE RESULTS To determine which variables predicted successful avoidance of rape, robbery, and more severe sexual and physical assaults, multivariate logistic regression models were computed. Multivariate logistic regression analysis allows for the examination of the effect of one independent variable on the dependent variable while holding the other independent variables constant (Bachman and Paternoster, 1997). One of the assumptions of logit regression models is that the observations are independent (Bachman and Paternoster). This assumption was violated because individual respondents of the NCVS could be the victims of multiple incidents. In order to correct for this violation in the assumption of independence, robust standard errors were calculated.3 The results from each of the four logit models are presented below. Rape The variables included in the rape logit model were the relationship of the offender to the victim (intimate or stranger),4 age of victim, victim perceived that the offender used alcohol/drugs, victim perceived that the offender did not use alcohol/drugs, race of victim, sex of victim and offender (male offender/female victim),5 the presence of a bystander, location, presence of a weapon, time of day, and each of the four types of self-protective behaviors. The results of the logistic regression model are shown in Table 4.3. Only one of the pre-assault characteristics was significant at the .05 level: race of the victim. Nonwhite victims were more likely to experience a completed rape than white victims. Two of the situational characteristics were significant: the presence of a bystander and location. The presence of a bystander was significantly related to a rape not being completed. This finding is consistent with that of Bart and O’Brien (1985) who found that victims of attempted rape were more likely to


113

Table 4.3: Logit Coefficients and Robust Standard Errors for Rape Outcome Model ______________________________________________________________ Rape Completion Variable

B

Robust Sig Standard Error ______________________________________________________________ Pre-Assault Characteristics: Offender: Intimate .22 .24 .361 Stranger -.26 .33 .437 Age of Victim .00 .01 .702 Offender Offender Used Alcohol/Drugs -.23 .29 .418 Offender Did Not Use Alcohol/Drugs .07 .30 .817 Race of Victim (Non-white) .53 .27 .049 Sex of Victim and Offender: Male Offender/Female Victim -.39 .64 .535 Situational Characteristics: Presence of a Bystander Location (Private) Presence of a Weapon Time of Day (Night)

-.77 .72 .24 .46

.26 .30 .38 .24

.003 .016 .519 .059

Types of Self-Protective Behaviors: Forceful Physical Forceful Verbal Nonforceful Physical Nonforceful Verbal

-.92 -.55 -.99 .41

.32 .25 .22 .26

.004 .026 .000 .105

Constant

1.03

.78

.189

Log Likelihood

-282.16

Wald Chi-square 64.11 .000 ______________________________________________________________

114


experience an environmental intervention than victims of completed rape. In addition, the results of the logit model indicate that incidents that occurred in private were more likely to be completed than incidents that occurred in public locations. This finding is consistent with that of Quinsey and Upfold (1985) who found that rapes were more likely to be completed when the attack occurred in an indoor location. Three out of the four types of self-protective behaviors were significant: forceful physical, forceful verbal, and nonforceful physical. The use of each of these three types of self-protective behaviors was associated with a rape being attempted rather than completed. The fourth type of self-protective behavior, nonforceful verbal, was not significantly related to the outcome of rape. The overall model was significant at the .05 level, as indicated by the significance level of the Wald statistic. The value of pseudo R² was .13 indicating that the model explains 13% of the variation in whether a rape is completed or attempted. Sexual Assault As with rape, a logistic regression model was computed for sexual assault. The same variables that were included in the rape model were also included in the sexual assault model with one exception: the presence of a weapon variable was excluded from the sexual assault model because the presence of a weapon was a perfect predictor of a more severe sexual assault. The results for the sexual assault logit model are displayed in Table 4.4. Only one of the pre-assault characteristics in the sexual assault model was significant: intimate offender. The coefficient was positive indicating that victims who were assaulted by an intimate offender were more likely to experience a more severe sexual assault. None of the situational characteristics were significantly related to the outcome of sexual assault.


115

Table 4.4: Logit Coefficients and Robust Standard Errors for Sexual Assault Outcome Model ________________________________________________________ More Severe Sexual Assault Variable

B

Robust Sig Standard Error ________________________________________________________ Pre-Assault Characteristics: Offender: Intimate 1.19 Stranger .00 Age of Victim .01 Offender Used Alcohol/Drugs .62 Offender Did Not Use Alcohol/Drugs -.29 Race of Victim (Non-white) .44 Sex of Victim and Offender: Male Offender/Female Victim -1.43

.44 .46 .01 .42 .43 .40

.007 .998 .467 .141 .491 .265

.76

.060

Situational Characteristics: Presence of a Bystander Location (Private) Time of Day (Night)

.16 -.11 .13

.36 .39 .36

.654 .782 .719


-.18 .75 .97 -.20

.60 .34 .32 .43

.770 .028 .002 .639

-1.06

.94

.258

Constant Log Likelihood

-129.82

Wald Chi-square 30.68 .0061 _______________________________________________________________

116


Two types of self-protective behaviors were significantly related to the outcome of sexual assaults: forceful verbal and nonforceful physical. The coefficients for each of these variables were positive indicating that the use of forceful verbal and nonforceful physical selfprotective behaviors was associated with a sexual assault being more severe. The overall model was significant at the .05 level and the pseudo R² was .13. Thus, the overall model explained 13% of the variation in sexual assaults being more likely to be more severe. Robbery The variables included in the robbery logit model were the relationship of the offender to the victim (intimate, other relative, or stranger), age of victim, victim perceived that the offender used alcohol/drugs, victim perceived that the offender did not use alcohol/drugs, race of victim, sex of victim and offender (female offender/male victim, female offender/female victim, and male offender/female victim), the presence of a bystander, location, the presence of a weapon, time of day, and each of the four types of selfprotective behaviors. The results from the robbery logit model are presented in Table 4.5. Four of the pre-assault characteristics were significant at the .05 level: stranger, race of victim, female offender/female victim, and male offender/female victim. The coefficient for the stranger variable was negative indicating that victims of robberies by strangers were less likely to experience a completed robbery. In terms of race, non-white offenders were more likely to experience a completed robbery. Finally, in terms of the sex of the victim and offender, female victims of robberies committed by male offenders and female victims of robberies committed by female offenders were more likely to experience a completed robbery.


117

Table 4.5: Logit Coefficients and Robust Standard Errors for Robbery Outcome Model ________________________________________________________ Completed Robbery Variable

Robust Sig Standard Error ________________________________________________________ Pre-Assault Characteristics: Offender: Intimate Other relative Stranger Age of Victim Offender Used Alcohol/Drugs Offender Did Not Use Alcohol/Drugs Race of Victim (Non-white) Sex of Victim and Offender: Female Offender/Male Victim Female Offender/Female Victim Male Offender/Female Victim

B

.02 .13 -.38 .00 -.06 .00 .41

.24 .31 .187 .00 .15 .17 .15

.928 .677 .042 .703 .700 .991 .007

.44 .77 .54

.34 .28 .15

.200 .007 .000

Situational Characteristics: Presence of a Bystander Location (Private) Presence of a Weapon Time of Day (Night)

-.17 .42 .37 .22

.12 .15 .13 .12

.154 .006 .004 .076


-.85 -.64 -.78 .00

.17 .15 .13 .19

.000 .000 .000 .992

.44

.26

.091

Constant Log Likelihood

862.48

Wald Chi-square 137.24 .000 ______________________________________________________________

118


Two of the situational characteristics were significantly related to robbery outcome: location and presence of a weapon. Incidents which occurred in private, rather than public, locations were associated with robbery completion. In addition, incidents in which the offender had a weapon were associated with robbery completion. This finding is consistent with that of Block and Skogan (1984) and Tark and Kleck (2004) who found that the presence of a gun was positively related to robbery completion. Three of the four types of self-protective behaviors were significantly related to the outcome of robbery: forceful physical, forceful verbal, and nonforceful physical. The use of each of these types of self-protective behaviors was associated with a robbery being attempted rather than completed. Nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors was not significant at the .05 level. The overall model was significant at the .05 level and the pseudo R² was .06. Thus, the overall model explained 6% of the variation in robbery outcome. Physical Assault The variables included in the physical assault logit model were the relationship of the offender to the victim (intimate, other relative, or stranger), age of victim, victim perceived that the offender used alcohol/drugs, victim perceived that the offender did not use alcohol/drugs, race of victim, sex of victim and offender (female offender/male victim, female offender/female victim, and male offender/female victim), the presence of a bystander, location, time of day, and each of the four types of self-protective behaviors. The presence of a weapon variable was excluded from the analysis because the presence of a weapon was a perfect predictor of aggravated physical assault. Table 4.6 presents the logit coefficients for the physical assault model. Eight of the pre-assault characteristics were significant at the .05 level: intimate, stranger, age of victim, victim used alcohol/drugs, victim did not use alcohol/drugs,


119

Table 4.6: Logit Coefficients and Robust Standard Errors for Physical Assault Outcome Model ________________________________________________________ Aggravated Assault Variable

Robust Sig Standard Error ________________________________________________________ Pre-Assault Characteristics: Offender: Intimate Other relative Stranger Age of Victim Offender Used Alcohol/Drugs Offender Did Not Use Alcohol/Drugs Race of Victim (Non-white) Sex of Victim and Offender: Female Offender/Male Victim Female Offender/Female Victim Male Offender/Female Victim

B

-.47 -.14 .39 .01 -.18 -.43 .50

.09 .12 .05 .00 .06 .07 .08

.000 .276 .000 .000 .006 .000 .000

.12 -.61 -.35

.12 .09 .07

.332 .000 .000

Situational Characteristics: Presence of a Bystander Location (Private) Time of Day (Night)

-.11 .38 .20

.06 .07 .06

.044 .000 .001


-.60 .13 -.17 .10

.07 .06 .05 .08

.000 .047 .001 .183

Constant

-.82

.10

.000

F 25.34 .000 ______________________________________________________________

120


race of victim, female offender/female victim, and male offender/female victim. Specifically, in incidents involving intimate offenders, the assault was less likely to be aggravated. On the other hand, incidents involving strangers were more likely to be aggravated. In terms of the drug/alcohol use of the offender, compared to offenders whose drug/alcohol use at the time of the incident was unknown, offenders who were perceived by the victim to be under the influence of drugs/alcohol were more likely to suffer a simple rather than aggravated assault. In addition, offenders who were perceived by the victim to not be under the influence of drugs/alcohol at the time of the incident, compared to offenders whose drug/alcohol use was unknown, were more likely to experience a simple rather than aggravated assault. In terms of age and race, victims who were older and victims who were nonwhite were more likely to experience an aggravated, rather than simple, assault. In addition, there was a significant negative relationship between the female offender/female victim variable and aggravated physical assault and between the male offender/female victim variable and aggravated assault. In other words, female victims of physical assaults by both males and females were less likely to experience an aggravated physical assault. Two of the situational characteristics were significantly related to the outcome of physical assaults: location and time of day. Physical assaults that occurred in private were more likely to be aggravated. In addition, physical assaults that occurred at night were more likely to be aggravated. This is consistent with Block and Skogan’s (1984) finding that being attacked after dark was related to more serious injury. Three of the four types of self-protective behaviors were significantly related to the outcome of physical assaults: forceful physical, forceful verbal, and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors. The use of forceful physical and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors was associated with a simple, rather than aggravated, physical assault while the use of forceful verbal self-


121

protective behaviors was associated with aggravated assault. The overall model was significant at the .05 level.6 PROBABILITY OF A COMPLETED VICTIMIZATION BY TYPE OF SELF-PROTECTIVE BEHAVIOR AND VICTIM/ OFFENDER RELATIONSHIP The probability that y = 1 was estimated for each of the four types of victimizations by using the following equation: P (y = 1) = eXB/1 + eXB. P (y = 1) represents the probability that a completed (or in the case of physical and sexual assault, a more severe) outcome occurs. For each of the four types of victimization, the values of each of the independent variables were set to represent a “typical” value for that particular type of victimization. For instance, if the “typical” rape occurred in a private location, then the location variable was set to the value of 1 since location was coded as 1 if the incident occurred in private and 0 if the incident occurred in public. The value of age was set to the mean. The probabilities for each of the four models are presented below. Rape Figure 4.1 presents the probabilities that a rape is completed for each of the three offender types (intimate, friend/acquaintance, and stranger). Table 4.8 indicates the “change in probability” which represents the difference between the change in the probability of using the respective self-protective behavior and the probability of using no self-protective behaviors. Four noteworthy findings emerge from these results. First, for all three types of victim/offender relationships, in incidents in which victims used forceful physical self-protective behaviors, the probability of a rape being completed was reduced relative to using no self-protective behaviors. For example, for a rape committed by a stranger when the victim used no self-

122


protective behaviors, the probability that the rape is completed is .77. However, when the victim of a rape by a stranger used forceful physical self-protective behaviors, the probability of a completed rape was reduced to .57, a .20 decrease in the probability of completion. Second, the use of forceful verbal self-protective behaviors also reduced the probability of a completed rape across all three offender types but less so than when victims used forceful physical self-protective behaviors. For example, for rapes committed by strangers, the probability of a completed rape is .57 when victims used forceful physical self-protective behaviors but .66 when victims used forceful verbal selfprotective behaviors. Third, the use of nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors also reduced the probability of a rape being completed relative to when no self-protective behaviors were used. This reduction in the probability of completion is even larger than when victims used forceful physical self-protective behaviors. Thus, the hypothesis that the use of forceful physical self-protective behaviors would be the most effective type of self-protective behavior was not supported. Instead, nonforceful physical selfprotective behaviors were the most effective because their use resulted in the largest decrease in the probability of a rape being completed relative to when no self-protective behaviors were used. Fourth, using all four types of selfprotective behaviors resulted in the greatest decrease in the probability of rape completion: a .47 decrease for rapes committed by strangers, a .46 decrease for rapes committed by friends/acquaintances, and a .44 decrease for rapes committed by intimates.


123

Figure 4.1: Probability of Completed Rape by Victim/Offender Relationship and Type of Self-Protective Behavior

Probability of Completed Rape by Victim /Offender Relationship & Type of Self-Protective Behavior

1 0.9 0.8 Probability

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Intimate

Friend/

Acquaint

Stranger

0.84

0.81

0.77

Forceful Phy sical*

0.68

0.63

0.57

Forceful Verbal*

0.76

0.71

0.66

Nonforceful Phy sical*

0.67

0.61

0.55

Nonforceful Verbal

0.89

0.87

0.83

All Ty pes of Self-

0.41

0.36

0.3

No Self-Protectiv e Behav iors

Protectiv e Behav iors

*Indicates self-protective behavior significant at the .05 level

124


Table 4.7: Probability of a Completed Rape with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender1

Probability Type of Offender Type of Self-Protective Behavior Used No Self-Protective Behaviors Forceful Physical * Forceful Verbal * Nonforceful Physical * Nonforceful Verbal All Types of SelfProtective Behaviors

1

Intimate

Friend/ Acquaint

Stranger

.84

.81

.77

.68

.63

.57

.76

.71

.66

.67

.61

.55

.89

.87

.83

.41

.36

.30

To calculate the reported probabilities, the independent variables were set to the following values: offender used alcohol/drugs = 1, offender did not use alcohol/drugs = 0, race of victim = 0, presence of a bystander = 0, location = 1, presence of a weapon = 0, time of day = 1, and age = 26.9.


125

Table 4.8: Change in Probability of a Completed Rape with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender

Change in Probability1 Type of Offender Type of Self-Protective Behavior Used No Self-Protective Behaviors Forceful Physical * Forceful Verbal * Nonforceful Physical * Nonforceful Verbal All Types of SelfProtective Behaviors

Friend/ Acquaint

Stranger

-.16

-.18

-.20

-.09

-.10

-.11

-.18

-.20

-.22

.05

.06

.07

-.44

-.46

-.47

Intimate

* Indicates the self-protective behavior is significant at the .05 level.

1

The change in the respective probability represents the difference between the change in the probability of using the respective selfprotective behavior and the probability of using no self-protective behaviors.

126


Sexual Assault Figure 4.2 presents the probabilities that a sexual assault is more severe for each of the three offender types. Table 4.10 specifies the change in probability. Two results are worth noting. First, as evidenced by the figures in Table 4.10, using forceful verbal and nonforceful physical selfprotective behaviors in sexual assault incidents increases the probability of a sexual assault being more severe. For instance, relative to using no self-protective behaviors, using forceful verbal self-protective behaviors increases the probability of a sexual assault by an intimate being more severe by .15. Similarly, using nonforceful physical selfprotective behaviors increases the likelihood of a sexual assault being more severe by .20 for intimates. Second, using all four types of self-protective behaviors in combination also results in an increase in the probability of a sexual assault being more severe. For instance, relative to using no self-protective behaviors, using all four types of self-protective behaviors increases the probability of a sexual assault by an intimate being more severe by .30. These findings are in contrast to the results for rape where the use of forceful verbal and nonforceful physical selfprotective behaviors individually and all four types of selfprotective behaviors in combination resulted in a decrease in the probability of rape completion.


127

Figure 4.2: Probability of a More Severe Sexual Assault by Victim/Offender Relationship and Type of Self-Protective Behavior

Probability of More Severe Sexual Assault by Victim/Offender Relationship & Type of Self Protective Behavior

0.6

Probability

0.4

0.2

0

Intimate

Friend/ Acquaint

Stranger

0.21

0.08

0.08

Forceful Phy sical*

0.18

0.06

0.06

Forceful Verbal

0.36

0.15

0.15

Nonforceful Phy sical*

0.42

0.18

0.18

Nonforceful Verbal

0.18

0.06

0.06

All Ty pes of Self-

0.51

0.24

0.24

No Self-Protectiv e Behav ior

Protectiv e Behav iors


128


Table 4.9: Probability of a More Severe Sexual Assault with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender1

Probability Type of Offender Type of Self-Protective Behavior Used No Self-Protective Behavior

Intimate

Friend/ Acquaint

Stranger

.21

.08

.08

.18

.06

.06

.36

.15

.15

.42

.18

.18

.18

.06

.06

Forceful Physical * Forceful Verbal Nonforceful Physical * Nonforceful Verbal All Types of Self-Protective Behaviors

.51 .24 .24 * Indicates the self-protective behavior is significant at the .05 level.

1

To calculate the reported probabilities, the independent variables were set to the following values: offender used alcohol/drugs = 0, offender did not use alcohol/drugs = 1, race of victim = 0, presence of a bystander = 0, location = 1, time of day = 1, and age = 27.6.


129

Table 4.10: Change in Probability of a More Severe Sexual Assault with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender

Change in Probability1 Type of Offender Type of Self-Protective Behavior Used No Self-Protective Behavior Forceful Physical * Forceful Verbal Nonforceful Physical * Nonforceful Verbal All Types of SelfProtective Behaviors

Intimate

Friend/ Acquaint

Stranger

-.03

-.01

-.01

.15

.07

.07

.20

.10

.10

-.03

-.01

-.01

.30

.16

.16


1


130


Robbery Figure 4.3 presents the probabilities that a robbery is completed for each of the four offender types. Table 4.12 specifies the change in probability. Several noteworthy findings emerge from the results. First, relative to using no self-protective behaviors, the largest reductions in the probability of a completed robbery occurring are when forceful physical self-protective behaviors are used. For instance, relative to using no self-protective behaviors, using forceful physical self-protective behaviors decreases the probability of a robbery by an intimate being completed by .21. Second, the use of forceful verbal and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors also produced reductions in the probability of a robbery being completed relative to when no self-protective behaviors were used. For instance, relative to using no self-protective behaviors, using forceful verbal self-protective behaviors in incidents involving intimates reduced the probability of a robbery being completed by .15 while using nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors reduced the probability by .19. Third, the use of all four types of self-protective behaviors produced the largest decrease in the probability of a completed robbery occurring relative to when no selfprotective behaviors were used: .51 for relatives, .50 for intimates and friends/acquaintances, and .46 for strangers.


131

Figure 4.3: Probability of a Completed Robbery by Victim/Offender Relationship and Type of Self-Protective Behavior

Probability of Completed Robbery by Victim /Offender Relationship & Type of Self-Protective Behavior (SPB)

0.5

Probability

0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 Intimate Relative

Friend/ Stranger Acquaint

No SPB

0.18

0.23

0.27

0.35

Force Phys*

0.11

0.14

0.17

0.23

Force Verbal*

0.2

0.26

0.3

0.39

Nonforce Phys*

0.15

0.2

0.24

0.31

Nonforce Verbal

0.2

0.26

0.3

0.39

All Types SPB

0.18

0.19

0.17

0.12


132


Table 4.11: Probability of a Completed Robbery with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender 1 Probability Type of Offender Type of Self-Protective Friend/ Intimate Relative Stranger Behavior Used Acquaint No Self-Protective .67 .70 .67 .58 Behaviors Forceful Physical * Forceful Verbal * Nonforceful Physical * Nonforceful Verbal All Types of SelfProtective Behaviors

1

.47

.50

.46

.37

.52

.55

.52

.42

.49

.51

.48

.39

.67

.70

.67

.58

.18

.19

.17

.12

To calculate the reported probabilities, the independent variables were set to the following values: offender used alcohol/drugs = 0, offender did not use alcohol/drugs = 0, race of victim = 0, presence of a bystander = 0, location = 0, presence of a weapon = 0, time of day = 1, and age = 31.1.


133

Table 4.12: Change in Probability of a Completed Robbery with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender

Type of Self-Protective Behavior Used No Self-Protective Behaviors Forceful Physical * Forceful Verbal * Nonforceful Physical * Nonforceful Verbal All Types of SelfProtective Behaviors

Intimate

Change in Probability1 Type of Offender Friend/ Relative Acquaint

Stranger

-.21

-.20

-.21

-.21

-.15

-.15

-.15

-.16

-.19

-.18

-.19

-.19

.00

.00

.00

.00

-.50

-.51

-.50

-.46


1


134


Physical Assault Figure 4.4 presents the probability of an aggravated physical assault occurring for each of the four offender types. Table 4.14 specifies the change in probability. Three findings are worth noting. First, only two of the four types of self-protective behaviors reduced the probability of an aggravated assault occurring relative to the probability of an aggravated assault occurring when no self-protective behaviors were utilized: forceful physical and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors. For instance, relative to using no self-protective behaviors, using forceful physical self-protective behaviors decreased the probability of an assault being aggravated by .12 for strangers, .10 for friends/acquaintances, .09 for relatives, and .07 for intimates. Second, the use of forceful verbal self-protective behaviors actually increased the likelihood of an assault being aggravated compared to when no self-protective behaviors were used. For instance, the probability of an assault by a relative being aggravated is .23 when no selfprotective behaviors are used but .26 when forceful verbal self-protective behaviors are used. Third, in contrast to the findings for rape and robbery, the use of all four types of self-protective behaviors did not produce the largest decrease in the probability of an aggravated assault occurring relative to incidents in which victims used no self-protective behaviors. Instead, the largest reduction occurred when forceful physical self-protective behaviors were used.


135

Figure 4.4: Probability of Aggravated Physical Assault by Victim/Offender Relationship and Type of Self-Protective Behavior

Probability of Aggravated Physical Assault by Victim /Offender Relationship & Type of Self-Protective Behavior (SPB)

0.45

Probability

0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Intimate Relative

Friend/ Stranger Acquaint

No SPB

0.18

0.23

0.27

0.35

Force Phys*

0.11

0.14

0.17

0.23

Force Verbal*

0.2

0.26

0.3

0.39

Nonforce Phys*

0.15

0.2

0.24

0.31

Nonforce Verbal

0.2

0.26

0.3

0.39

All Types SPB

0.12

0.16

0.19

0.25


136


Table 4.13: Probability of an Aggravated Assault with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender 1 Probability Type of Offender Type of Self-Protective Friend/ Behavior Used Intimate Relative Acquaint Stranger No Self-Protective .18 .23 .27 .35 Behaviors Forceful Physical * Forceful Verbal * Nonforceful Physical * Nonforceful Verbal All Types of SelfProtective Behaviors

1

.11

.14

.17

.23

.20

.26

.30

.39

.15

.20

.24

.31

.20

.26

.30

.39

.12

.16

.19

.25

To calculate the reported probabilities, the independent variables were set to the following values: offender used alcohol/drugs=0, offender did not use alcohol/drugs = 1, race of victim = 0, presence of a bystander = 0, location = 0, time of day = 0, and age = 28.3.


137

Table 4.14: Change in Probability of an Aggravated Assault with “Typical” Contextual Characteristics by Type of Self-Protective Behavior and Type of Offender Change in Probability1 Type of Offender Type of Self-Protective Friend/ Behavior Used Intimate Relative Acquaint Stranger No Self-Protective Behaviors Forceful Physical * Forceful Verbal * Nonforceful Physical * Nonforceful Verbal All Types of SelfProtective Behaviors

-.07

-.09

-.10

-.12

.02

.03

.03

.03

-.02

-.03

-.03

-.04

.02

.03

.03

.03

-.06

-.07

-.08

-.10


1


138


SUMMARY This chapter provided the results multivariate analyses. The next discussion of these results. The discuss policy implications and research.

from the bivariate and chapter will provide a next chapter will also suggestions for future


139

NOTES 1

Less severe outcomes include simple physical assaults, attempted robberies, and attempted rapes. 2 Forceful physical self-protective behaviors were used in a larger percentage of less severe sexual assault incidents. However, this difference was not statistically significant. 3 Robust standard errors were not calculated for the physical assault model because the robust command cannot be used with svylogit, the type of analysis that was used for the physical assault model. 4 The variable “other relative” was dropped from the analysis because there were too few cases in which relatives were the victims of attempted rapes. 5 The variable “female victim/female offender” was dropped from the analysis because it was a perfect predictor of rape completion. In addition, the “female offender/male victim” variable was excluded from the analysis because there were too few cases where females attempted to rape males. 6 The type of statistical analysis that was used for the physical assault model, svylogit, does not provide the value of R².


CHAPTER 5

Past, Present, and Future Research

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this research has been twofold: 1) to examine the efficacy of the use of self-protective behaviors on violent victimization outcomes and 2) to explore how the effectiveness of each of the four types of self-protective behaviors varies depending on the victim/offender relationship. Chapter 1 contained a description of the history of victimization research and highlighted the importance of examining the influence of self-protective behaviors on violent victimization outcomes. Chapter 2 provided a review of the literature concerning the prevalence, use, and effectiveness of self-protective behaviors in sexual victimizations, robberies, and physical assaults. Chapter 3 included a description of the NCVS, the dataset that is used for this study Chapter 3 also detailed the variables and statistical methods that would be utilized in the analysis of the data. Chapter 4 presented the results of the analyses. This final chapter includes a summary of the results (see Table 5.1), a discussion of these results, policy implications, and suggestions for future research. The remainder of this chapter is divided into five main sections. The first four sections include a discussion of the findings for the rape, sexual assault, robbery and physical assault models. Each of these four sections will be broken down into two subsections, the first focusing on the prevalence of the use of self-protective behaviors and the 141

142


second focusing on the effectiveness of the four types of self-protective behaviors. The concluding section includes a summary of the main findings, policy implications, and recommendations for future research. RAPE Prevalence of the Use of Self-Protective Behaviors Prior research has shown that the majority of rape victims use at least one type of self-protective behavior (Atkeson et al., 1989; Medea and Thompson, 1974). The results of this study are consistent with this: victims used at least one type of self-protective behavior in 71% of the rape incidents. However, the results of this study are somewhat inconsistent with those of past studies regarding the specific types of self-protective behaviors that are most commonly used in rapes. While prior research has found that a larger proportion of rape victims use verbal selfprotective behaviors compared to physical self-protective behaviors (Cohen, 1984; Quinsey and Upfold, 1985; Ullman, 1998; cf. Amick and Calhoun, 1987), the results from the bivariate analyses presented in Chapter 4 reveal that approximately 58% of the incidents involved physical self-protective behaviors while approximately 54% involved verbal self-protective behaviors. The Effectiveness of Self-Protective Behaviors As discussed in Chapter 2, research on the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors in rapes has generally found forceful physical, nonforceful physical and forceful verbal self-protective behaviors to be effective in preventing rapes from being completed (Atkeson et al., 1989; Bart and O’Brien, 1984, 1985; Becker et al., 1982; Block and Skogan, 1986; Kleck and Sayles, 1990; Koss et al., 1988; Levine-MacCombie and Koss, 1986; Lizotte, 1986; Marchbanks et al., 1990; Queen’s Bench Foundation, 1976;

The Past, Present, and Future

143

Table 5.1: Summary of Results Likelihood of Victimization When:

Forceful Physical SelfProtective Behaviors Are Used Nonforceful Physical SelfProtective Behaviors Are Used Forceful Verbal Self-Protective Behaviors Are Used

Nonforceful Verbal Self-Protective Behaviors Are Used

Completed Rape

More Severe Sexual Assault

Completed Robbery

Aggravated Physical Assault

Decreased

No Effect

Decreased

Decreased

Decreased

Increased

Decreased

Decreased

Decreased

Increased

Decreased

Decreased

No Effect

No Effect

No Effect

No Effect

144


Quinsey and Upfold, 1985; Ruback and Ivie, 1988; Ullman and Knight, 1991, 1992, 1993; Ullman, 1997, 1998; Zoucha-Jensen and Coyne, 1993) and nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors to be ineffective (Bart and O’Brien, 1984; Furby and Fischhoff, 1992; LevineMacCombie and Koss, 1986). Because of these findings, it was hypothesized that forceful physical, nonforceful physical, and forceful verbal self-protective behaviors would be effective in preventing rapes from being completed while nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors would be ineffective. The results of the bivariate and multivariate analyses are consistent with this hypothesis: the use of forceful physical, nonforceful physical and forceful verbal self-protective behaviors were found to be associated with attempted, rather than completed, rape. Consistent with the findings of Fisher et al. (2007), the use of nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors was actually positively related to rape completion, although it was not significant. Clay-Warner (2002) raises a possible explanation for the lack of effectiveness of nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors. This explanation, based on the feminist view that rape is a crime of power, suggests that nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors (e.g., pleading and begging) may not be effective in warding off a rape because these behaviors are consistent with offenders’ desire to have control over women. In other words, by begging and pleading, victims are behaving exactly as offenders want (i.e., in a submissive manner), leading offenders to “complete their act of domination” (ClayWarner, 2002, p. 700). It is also possible that when victims cooperate with offenders (another form of nonforceful verbal self-protective behavior), offenders may interpret the victims’ cooperation as consent when instead the victim may merely be cooperating with the offender to prevent herself from being injured. On the other hand, again from the feminist perspective that rape is a crime of power, the use of forceful physical, forceful verbal, or nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors may challenge the


145

offender’s notion of having control over the victim thus leading the offender to give up his attack. Another possible explanation for the effectiveness of forceful physical, forceful verbal, and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors is that these behaviors may deter offenders from completing a rape because they increase the “costs” of the rape (Kleck and Sayles, 1990). For instance, the use of these types of self-protective behaviors may require the offender to put more effort into the attack or may prolong the length of the attack leading to an increased risk of the offender being detected by others or captured by the police. In addition, forceful physical self-protective behaviors may cause the offender injury and pain, thus deterring the offender from completing the rape (Kleck and Sayles). Figure 4.1 presented the probability of a completed rape occurring for each of the three victim/offender categories (intimate, friend/acquaintance, and stranger). Table 4.8 indicated the “change in probability” (i.e., the difference between the change in the probability of using the respective self-protective behavior and the probability of using no self-protective behaviors). Based on the results presented in this table, nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors were the most effective type of self-protective behavior because their use resulted in the largest decrease in a completed rape occurring relative to using no selfprotective behaviors. This is contrary to the hypothesis that forceful physical self-protective behaviors would be the most effective type of self-protective behavior in rapes. Also contrary to one of the hypotheses of this study is the finding that the victim/offender relationship does not appear to mediate the relationship between self-protective behaviors and the outcome of rape. In other words, the effectiveness of the various forms of self-protective behaviors does not vary considerably depending upon the nature of the victim/offender relationship. This finding is consistent with the results of the logit model (see Table 4.3) which indicated that none of the victim/offender

146


relationship variables was significant. In addition, this finding is consistent with that of Clay-Warner (2002) who found that the victim/offender relationship had no significant impact on rape completion. Instead, the variables that were significant and positively related to rape completion in this study were private location and race (nonwhite) while the presence of bystanders and the use of forceful physical, forceful verbal, and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors were negatively related to rape completion. SEXUAL ASSAULT Prevalence of the Use of Self-Protective Behaviors The results displayed in Table 4.1 indicated that in the majority of sexual assault incidents, victims used at least one type of self-protective behavior. In contrast to the results for rape, robbery, and physical assault, though, a significantly larger proportion of more severe sexual assault incidents involved the use of at least one type of self-protective behavior. In addition, a significantly larger proportion of more severe incidents involved the use of forceful verbal, nonforceful physical, and nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors. Finally, a significantly greater proportion of more severe sexual assaults involved the use of multiple types of self-protective behaviors. These bivariate results suggest that self-protective behaviors, while prevalent in sexual assault incidents, may not be effective in terms of reducing the likelihood of a more severe sexual assault occurring. The next section deals with this issue.


147

The Effectiveness of Self-Protective Behaviors As was the case with rapes, it was hypothesized, based on the limited past research that has been conducted specifically on sexual assault, that forceful physical, nonforceful physical and forceful verbal self-protective behaviors would be effective in preventing sexual assaults from being more severe. This hypothesis was not supported. In fact, as evidenced by the findings shown in Table 4.4, nonforceful physical and forceful verbal selfprotective behaviors were significantly related to a sexual assault being more severe. This is contrary to Ullman and Knight’s (1991) finding that two types of nonforceful physical resistance (fleeing and pushing the offender away) were unrelated to the severity of sexual abuse. It is unclear why the use of nonforceful physical and forceful verbal self-protective behaviors was associated with a sexual assault being more severe while these same two types of self protective-behaviors were helpful in rape situations, making completion less likely. Several possible explanations emerge for the divergent findings. First, it may be that offenders’ motivations differ in rape versus sexual assault situations. For instance, in a rape situation, the goal of an offender may be to dominate a victim (ClayWarner, 2002). Thus, when the victim uses nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors (e.g., struggling or running away) or forceful verbal self-protective behaviors (e.g., threatening the offender with a gun), the offender may feel he does not have control over the victim and may thus discontinue the rape attempt. On the other hand, in a sexual assault situation, the initial goal of an offender may be consensual sexual relations or simply to touch the victim. However, if the victim resists the offender’s advances through the use of nonforceful physical or forceful verbal self-protective behaviors, the offender could get angry and thus complete a more severe sexual assault. A second possible explanation for the relationship between nonforceful physical or forceful verbal self-

148


protective behaviors and more severe sexual assaults is based on the idea of deterrence: an offender who completes a more severe sexual assault may initially set out to rape a woman but may be deterred or prohibited from doing so because of the victim’s use of nonforceful physical or verbal self-protective behaviors. Thus, a severe sexual assault rather than a rape may occur. These incidents would be better classified as attempted rapes but it may be difficult or even impossible for respondents to know what the true intent of the offender was (i.e., rape or sexual assault). It is important to note that both of these explanations are speculative. Future research is needed first to corroborate the finding that nonforceful physical and forceful verbal self-protective behaviors are associated with an increased likelihood of a more severe sexual assault occurring and second, to understand why. Figure 4.2 presented the probability of a more severe sexual assault occurring for each of the three victim/offender categories (intimate, friend/acquaintance, and stranger). Table 4.10 indicated the “change in probability” (i.e., the difference between the change in the probability of using the respective self-protective behavior and the probability of using no self-protective behaviors). Contrary to the results for rape, the results from Table 4.10 indicated that the use of forceful verbal or nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors increases the probability of a sexual assault being more severe. Thus, the hypothesis that the use of forceful verbal and forceful physical selfprotective behaviors would be the most effective in terms of reducing the probability of a more severe sexual assault occurring was not supported as neither of these selfprotective behaviors reduced the probability of a sexual assault being more severe. In fact, the results from the logit model (see Table 4.4) indicate that forceful verbal and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors were significantly related to a sexual assault being more severe. It is important to note that the effect of the use of selfprotective behaviors is not consistent across offender types. The effectiveness differs for incidents involving intimate


149

offenders. For instance, the use of forceful verbal selfprotective behaviors increases the likelihood of a sexual assault being more severe by .15 for intimates compared to .07 for friends/acquaintances and strangers. Similarly, the use of nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors increases the probability of a sexual assault being more severe by .20 for intimates compared to .10 for friends/relatives and strangers. Thus, consistent with one of the hypotheses of this study, one of the victim/offender relationship variables (intimate offenders) appears to mediate the relationship between the effectiveness of selfprotective behaviors and the outcome of sexual assaults. In other words, the effectiveness of the use of each of the selfprotective behaviors varies depending upon the nature of the victim/offender relationship. ROBBERY Prevalence of the Use of Self-Protective Behaviors Most of the prior studies that have examined the use of self-protective behaviors in robberies have found that the minority of robbery victims use these types of strategies (Macdonald, 1975; Normandeau, 1968; Wolfgang, 1982). In contrast, the results of this study (presented in Table 4.1) indicated that in the majority of robbery incidents (60%), victims used at least one type of self-protective behavior. The most common type of self-protective behavior used was nonforceful physical, followed by forceful verbal, forceful physical, and nonforceful verbal, respectively. When examining the prevalence of the use of selfprotective behaviors by the outcome of robbery (i.e., attempted versus completed), the results from Table 4.2 indicated that a significantly larger proportion of attempted robberies, compared to completed robberies, involved the use of at least one type of self-protective behavior. This was also the case for forceful physical, nonforceful physical, and forceful verbal self-protective behaviors. The

150


only type of self-protective behavior that was not used in a larger proportion of attempted incidents was nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors. The Effectiveness of Self-Protective Behaviors Based on the past research that has been conducted on the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors in robberies, albeit limited, it was hypothesized that all four types of self-protective behaviors would be effective. The results from the logit model (see Table 4.5) revealed that only two of the four types of self-protective behaviors were significantly related to attempted, rather than completed, robbery: forceful verbal and nonforceful physical selfprotective behaviors. These results are consistent with those of Tark and Kleck (2004) who analyzed the effectiveness of specific self-protective behaviors and found that three specific forms of forceful verbal selfprotective behaviors were significantly related to a robbery not being completed: threatening the offender without a weapon; yelling at the offender, turning on the lights, threatening to call the police, etc; and trying to attract outside attention or help. The results of this study are also consistent with Tark and Kleck’s finding that both forms of nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors (struggling and running away or hiding) were significantly related to a robbery not being completed. However, the results of this study are only partially consistent with those of Block and Skogan (1984) who found both forceful and nonforceful resistance to be negatively related to experiencing a completed robbery1 and Kleck and DeLone (1993) who found that robberies were less likely to be completed when victims used any type of resistance strategy. As with rape, it is possible that the use of forceful physical, forceful verbal, and nonforceful physical selfprotective behaviors are effective in warding off completed incidents because these behaviors may deter offenders. For instance, physically attacking an offender, chasing an offender, or calling the police may increase the likelihood


151

of an offender getting caught thus deterring the offender from completing the robbery. In addition, it may be that offenders may simply move on to an “easier target,” one that does not put up a fight (i.e., use forceful physical, nonforceful physical, or forceful verbal self-protective behaviors). On the other hand, nonforceful verbal selfprotective behaviors may be ineffective because they have no deterrent value. For instance, cooperating with the offender or reasoning, pleading and begging with the offender do not increase the chances of an offender getting caught nor do these behaviors present much of a difficulty for the offender in terms of being able to complete a robbery. This is one possible explanation for the lack of a significant relationship between the use of nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors and robbery completion. Figure 4.3 presented the probability of a robbery being completed when each of the four types of self-protective behaviors were used by victim/offender relationship while Table 4.12 presented the “change in probability” which reflects the difference between the change in the probability of using a respective self-protective behavior and the probability of using no self-protective behaviors. Consistent with the results from the logit model, the results from Table 4.12 indicated that forceful physical, forceful verbal, and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors led to a decrease in the likelihood of robbery completion. Across all four types of victim/offender relationships, the largest decrease in the probability of a robbery being completed, relative to when no self-protective behaviors were used, occurred when all four types of self-protective behaviors were used by a victim. It was hypothesized that forceful physical selfprotective behaviors would be the most effective type of self-protective behavior in terms of producing the greatest decrease in the probability of a robbery being completed relative to when no self-protective behaviors were used. The results of the analysis support this hypothesis. As evidenced by Table 4.12, the largest decrease in the

152


probability of a robbery being completed, across all four victim/offender categories, was when forceful physical self-protective behaviors were used. Finally, it was hypothesized that the victim/offender relationship would mediate the relationship between the use of self-protective behaviors and the outcome of robbery. In other words, the expectation was that the nature of the victim/offender relationship would influence the efficacy of self-protective behaviors. While the results of the logit model indicate that victims of robberies by strangers are less likely to experience a completed robbery, it does not appear that the victim/offender relationship mediates the relationship between self-protective behaviors and the outcome of robbery. Instead, it appears that the victim/offender relationship, specifically the stranger variable, is directly related to the outcome of robbery. In other words, victims of robberies by strangers are less likely to experience a completed robbery regardless of the type of self-protective behavior that they use. PHYSICAL ASSAULT Prevalence of the Use of Self-Protective Behaviors Research suggests that the majority of victims use selfprotective behaviors when physically attacked (Bachman and Carmody, 1994; Skogan and Block, 1983; Thompson et al., 1999). The results of this study are consistent with this prior finding: victims used at least one type of selfprotective behavior in 67% of the incidents (see Table 4.1). The bivariate results presented in Chapter 4 also indicated that physical assault victims are more likely to use certain types of self-protective behaviors than others. The selfprotective behavior that was most commonly used was nonforceful physical, followed by forceful verbal, forceful physical, and nonforceful verbal, respectively. This is somewhat inconsistent with Skogan and Block’s (1983) finding that victims were more likely to engage in nonforceful resistance (e.g., running away, leaving the


153

scene, arguing or reasoning with the offender, screaming or yelling) than forceful resistance (e.g., hitting, scratching). Table 4.2 examined the use of self-protective behaviors by the outcome of the victimization (i.e., aggravated versus simple physical assault). The results revealed that a significantly larger proportion of simple physical assaults involved forceful physical and nonforceful physical selfprotective behaviors while a significantly larger proportion of aggravated physical assaults involved forceful verbal and nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors. Thus, the preliminary evidence suggests that verbal self-protective behaviors may not be very effective in preventing an aggravated assault from occurring. The Effectiveness of Self-Protective Behaviors Based on prior research, it was hypothesized that forceful physical and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors would be effective in preventing aggravated assaults from occurring (i.e., assaults with injuries or assaults involving weapons). The results of the logit model (see Table 4.6) are consistent with this: the use of both forceful physical and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors were significantly related to a simple, rather than aggravated, assault occurring. Unexpectedly, however, the use of forceful verbal self-protective behaviors was found to be positively associated with aggravated assault. It is possible that the use of forceful verbal self-protective behaviors (e.g.,. screaming, threatening to injure the offender) merely serves to aggravate, rather than deter, the offender since no physical threat to the offender may be present. On the other hand, nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors (e.g., struggling, chasing the offender) and forceful physical self-protective behaviors (e.g., attacking the offender with a gun, hitting the offender) may deter the offender from committing an aggravated assault since a physical threat is present. Future research is needed to further understand the dynamics of why some particular

154


self-protective behaviors are helpful to physical assault victims while other types of self-protective behaviors are harmful. Figure 4.4 presented the probability of an aggravated physical assault occurring when each of the four types of self-protective behaviors was used by victim/offender relationship. Table 4.14 presented the “change in probability” column which reflects the difference between the change in the probability of using a respective selfprotective behavior and the probability of using no selfprotective behaviors. Table 4.14 indicates that only two of the four types of self-protective behaviors led to a decrease in the likelihood of an aggravated assault occurring: forceful physical and nonforceful physical. Thus, the hypothesis that nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors would be the most effective type of self-protective behavior in physical assaults was not supported. Instead, forceful physical self-protective behaviors were the most effective type of self-protective behavior in preventing an assault from being aggravated. Based on past research (e.g., Bachman and Carmody, 1994; Bachman et al., 2002), I also hypothesized that the victim/offender relationship would mediate the relationship between the use of self-protective behaviors and the outcome of physical assaults. The results of Table 4.14 support this hypothesis: the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors varied depending on the nature of the victim/offender relationship. For instance, using forceful physical self-protective behaviors when the offender was a stranger produced the greatest decrease in the likelihood of an assault being aggravated compared to incidents involving friends/acquaintances, relatives, and intimates. In contrast, the use of forceful physical self-protective behaviors when the offender was an intimate produced the smallest decrease in the likelihood of an assault being aggravated compared to incidents involving friends/acquaintances, relatives, and intimates. It is also important to note that the change in the probability of an aggravated assault occurring varied very little across the


155

different victim/offender relationships when forceful verbal self-protective behaviors were used. Thus, it appears that the likelihood of an aggravated physical assault occurring depends upon both the type of self-protective behavior that is used and the nature of the victim/offender relationship. CONCLUSIONS Data from victimization surveys indicate that a substantial proportion of the U.S. population is a victim of a violent crime each year. For instance, data from the 2002 - 2003 NCVS reveal a rate of 0.9 for rape/sexual assault, 2.4 for robbery, and 19.5 for assault per 1,000 persons age 12 and over (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004a). In light of these statistics, researchers have noted the need to explore what factors, if any, reduce the likelihood of a person becoming the victim of a violent crime. One factor that has received attention is the use of self-protective behaviors. In other words, if a victim uses some type(s) of self-protective behavior, will his/her chance of experiencing a completed victimization be reduced? Most of the prior research on the efficacy of self-protective behaviors has focused on sexual victimizations. One of the goals of this study was to examine other types of victimizations that, although frequent, have not been studied much in terms of the influence of self-protective behaviors on the outcome. Thus, in addition to rapes and sexual assaults, physical assaults and robberies were also included in this analysis. The main goal of this study was to explore the influence of four types of self-protective behaviors (forceful physical, forceful verbal, nonforceful physical, and nonforceful verbal) on rape and robbery completion and on the severity of sexual and physical assaults. A second goal of this study was to explore the influence of the victim/offender relationship on the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors. Logistic regression models were run for each of the four dependent variables (rape, sexual assault, robbery, and

156


physical assault). (See Table 5.1 for a summary of the results from the logit models.) The results of the logit models revealed that while no one type of self-protective behavior was effective across all four types of victimization, nonforceful verbal self-protective behaviors were ineffective across all four types of victimization. Thus, there was some consistency among the findings. In addition, with the exception of sexual assault, another consistent finding was the effectiveness of forceful physical and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors. The use of both of these types of self-protective behaviors in rapes, robberies, and physical assaults was associated with a decreased likelihood of a completed, or more severe, outcome occurring. The findings for sexual assault differed vastly from the results for rape, robbery, and physical assault: none of the four types of self-protective behaviors was found to be effective in reducing the likelihood of a more severe sexual assault occurring. Two types of self-protective behaviors actually increased the likelihood of a more severe sexual assault occurring: forceful verbal and nonforceful physical. Interestingly, these same two types of self-protective behaviors, nonforceful physical and forceful verbal, were significantly related to attempted, rather than completed, rape and robbery. However, like in sexual assaults, the use of forceful verbal self-protective behaviors was related to an aggravated, rather than simple, assault. In sum, then, forceful physical, forceful verbal, and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors were associated with attempted rape and robbery while forceful verbal and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors were associated with a more severe sexual assault. Forceful physical and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors were significantly related to simple assault while forceful verbal self-protective behaviors were significantly related to aggravated assault. The probability of a completed, or more severe, victimization occurring when each of the four types of selfprotective behaviors was used was also calculated for each


157

of the four dependent variables. Supportive of the results from the logit models, these probabilities revealed that nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors were the most effective in terms of producing the greatest decrease in the likelihood of a rape being completed while forceful physical self-protective behaviors were the most effective in preventing a robbery from being completed. In addition, in sexual assaults, all four types of self-protective behaviors were ineffective in reducing the probability of a sexual assault being more severe. Based on these findings, it is clear that the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors varies by type of victimization. In other words, the types of self-protective behavior that are effective in rapes are not the same types of self-protective behaviors that are effective in sexual assaults and physical assaults. The results of this study indicate that the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors varies not only by type of victimization (i.e., rape, sexual assault, robbery, or physical assault) but in sexual and physical assaults, also by the nature of the victim/offender relationship. In other words, the likelihood that an incident is more severe depends upon the type of self-protective behavior used and the victim/offender relationship. For instance, in the case of physical assaults, the use of forceful physical selfprotective behaviors in incidents involving strangers produced the largest decrease in the likelihood of an aggravated assault occurring compared to incidents in which the offender was a friend/acquaintance, relative, or intimate. In contrast, the use of forceful physical selfprotective behaviors in incidents involving intimates produced the smallest decrease in the likelihood of an aggravated assault occurring compared to incidents in which the offender was a relative, friend/acquaintance, or stranger. In sexual assaults, the use of forceful verbal and nonforceful physical self-protective behaviors in incidents involving intimate offenders produced the largest increases in the likelihood of a sexual assault being more severe

158


compared to incidents in which the offender was a friend/acquaintance or stranger. Thus, in the case of physical and sexual assaults, the effectiveness of the selfprotective behavior varies by the nature of the victim/offender relationship. Policy Implications Because the findings reveal that the same types of selfprotective behaviors are not effective across all four types of victimizations, potential victims should not be advised to use the same type of self-protective behavior no matter what type of victimization they experience. Instead, the type of self-protective behavior they use should depend upon the particular type of victimization they are experiencing (i.e., a rape, sexual assault, robbery or physical assault). It is understandable that when faced with a violent offender, victims may not have the time or ability to remember which specific types of self-protective behaviors have been found to be effective in the particular type of victimization they are experiencing. Thus, education efforts may want to inform potential victims that the use of all four types of self-protective behaviors has been found to lead to the largest decrease in the probability of a rape and robbery being completed compared to using no self-protective behaviors. In other words, victims of rapes and robberies should be encouraged to use a combination of all four types of self-protective behaviors as this may aid in the prevention of a completed victimization. However, before this type of information is disseminated to the public, further research on the efficacy of multiple selfprotective behaviors is needed. In sum, the findings suggest the need to educate potential victims about the use of self-protective behaviors. Specifically, they should be informed about which types of self-protective behaviors may aid in the avoidance of rape, robbery, and physical assault completion and which types of self-protective behaviors may result in an increased likelihood of a sexual assault occurring. Potential victims


159

should also be aware that while the overall result of using a particular self-protective behavior in each of the four types of victimizations is the same no matter what the relationship is between the victim and offender (e.g., forceful physical self-protective behaviors decrease the probability of a rape occurring across all three victim/offender categories), the influence of the selfprotective behavior, in terms of magnitude, may not be as substantial for one type of offender as another. For instance, in physical assaults, the decrease in the probability of a physical assault being aggravated when forceful physical self-protective behaviors are used (relative to when no self-protective behaviors are used) is greater in incidents involving strangers than in incidents involving intimates, relatives, and friends/acquaintances. It is important for crime prevention and education efforts to inform victims of the aforementioned findings as it is possible that completed and more severe victimizations can be reduced if potential victims understand which types of self-protective behaviors to employ in what types of situations. Implications for Future Research As with all research endeavors, this study suffered from some limitations. Based on these limitations and the findings of this study, six recommendations for future research will be discussed below. First, future researchers should try to take into account the temporal ordering of self-protective behaviors. Due to the nature of the National Crime Victimization Survey questions, the temporal ordering of self-protective behaviors was not taken into account in this study. Ideally, victims would only be counted as having used selfprotective behaviors if they used these strategies before or during a violent incident, not after. Unfortunately, due to the way the NCVS surveys respondents, only respondents who are injured are asked when they used self-protective

160


behaviors. Thus, this study was unable to examine the temporal ordering issue because all of the incidents where victims were not injured would have had to be excluded. Future research examining the impact of when victims use particular self-protective behaviors is needed so as to exclude incidents where victims used self-protective behaviors only after the incident was actually completed. As Fisher et al. (2007) suggest, qualitative data obtained from victims may be more helpful in understanding the sequencing of events than quantitative data. Future researchers may thus want to consider interviewing victims of violent crimes in order to better understand the temporal ordering of victims’ use of self-protective behaviors. Second, future research should examine the efficacy of multiple self-protective behaviors as it is possible that certain combinations of self-protective behaviors (e.g., forceful physical and nonforceful verbal or forceful physical, forceful verbal, and nonforceful verbal) are more effective in reducing the probability of a particular type of victimization from being completed or from being more severe than individual types of self-protective behaviors. Thus, future research should explore the effectiveness of the various combinations of self-protective behaviors on rape, sexual assault, robbery, and physical assault outcomes. Third, future researchers should keep in mind that victims who use self-protective behaviors may be killed. Because of the nature of the dataset that was used for this study, victims who may have been killed after using selfprotective behaviors were not included in the analysis. However, in their analysis of NCS data, Block and Skogan (1984) argued that the number of rapes, robberies, and physical assaults far outnumbered homicides and thus the exclusion of incidents resulting in homicide would not have dramatically changed their statistical findings. Despite this claim, researchers must be aware of the possibility that the use of self-protective behaviors may result in the death of the victim.


161

Fourth, while this study examined the influence of selfprotective behaviors on victimization completion, future research should explore the influence of self-protective behaviors on whether a victim is injured or not since it is possible that the use of self-protective behaviors may aid in the prevention of a completed incident but increase the victim’s likelihood of sustaining an injury. Tark and Kleck (2004) recently examined this issue in sexual assaults, robberies, assaults, and confrontational burglaries. After taking into account the temporal ordering of self-protective behaviors by measuring their dependent variables as whether or not a victim was injured, and seriously injured, after using self-protective behaviors, they concluded that “while there are exceptional situations, victim resistance is usually either successful or inconsequential, and on the rare occasions that it is harmful, it is rarely seriously so” (Tark and Kleck, 2004, p. 902). Researchers should continue to explore the issue of whether the use of self-protective behaviors results in the victim being more likely to be injured. Fifth, future researchers should consider the impact of the sex of the offender and victim on the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors especially in the types of victimization for which there has been little research on the influence of the sex of the victim and offender such as physical assaults and rapes.2 Researchers may also want to consider the influence of the racial combination of the victim and offender on the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors (e.g., black offender/white victim, white offender/white victim). It may be that offenders who victimize a person of a different race respond differently to the victim’s use of self-protective behaviors than offenders who victimize a person of the same race. Future research is needed to explore this issue. Sixth, future research should continue to explore the influence of the victim/offender relationship on the effectiveness of self-protective behaviors. The results of this study indicated that the effectiveness of self-protective

162


behaviors in sexual and physical assaults varied depending on the nature of the victim/offender relationship. Future research should continue to explore this issue in order to try to understand why the victim/offender relationship appears to mediate the relationship between the use of selfprotective behaviors and the outcome of violent crimes in some types of victimizations but not in others. In sum, future research should continue to explore the research questions raised in this study. By better understanding which types of self-protective behaviors are most effective across different types of victim/offender relationships, potential victims can be informed of the types of self-protective behaviors that may decrease their chances of being the victim of a completed, or more severe, incident. Should victims heed this advice, it is possible that the number of completed or more severe incidents that occur in the United States each year could be dramatically reduced.


163

NOTES 1

Block and Skogan (1984) only looked at forceful and nonforceful resistance; they did not separate these two types of resistance into physical and verbal categories. 2 The sex of the victim and offender were taken into account in this by creating four “sex of the offender/victim” categories (male offender/male victim, male offender/female victim, female offender/female victim, and female offender/male victim). However, the female offender/female victim variable was excluded from the rape and sexual assault models because it was a perfect predictor of completion and more severe sexual assault, respectively. In addition, the female offender/male victim variable was excluded from the rape and sexual assault model because there were too few cases in some of the cells.


REFERENCES Amick, A. E. and K. S. Calhoun. (1987). Resistance to Sexual Aggression: Personality, Attitudinal, and Situational Factors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16(2), 153-163. Amir, M. (1971). Patterns in Forcible Rape. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Applegate, B. K., F. T. Cullen, M. G. Turner, and J. L. Sundt. (1996). Assessing Public Support for Three-Strikes-and-You’re-Out Laws: Global versus Specific Attitudes. Crime and Delinquency, 42(4), 517534. Atkeson, B. M., K. S. Calhoun, and K. T. Morris. (1989). Victim Resistance to Rape: The Relationship of Previous Victimization, Demographics, and Situational Factors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 18(6), 497-507. Bachman, R. (1994). Violence Against Women: A National Crime Victimization Survey Report. U.S. Department of Justice. Bachman, R. and D. C. Carmody. (1994). Fighting Fire with Fire: The Effects of Victim Resistance in Intimate Versus Stranger Perpetrated Assaults Against Females. Journal of Family Violence, 9(4), 317-331. Bachman, R. and R. Paternoster. (1997). Statistical Methods for Criminology and Criminal Justice. New York: McGraw-Hill. Bachman, R. and L. E. Saltzman. (1995). Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey. Washington, DC: Department of Justice. Bachman, R., L. E. Saltzman, M. P. Thompson, and D. C. Carmody. (2002). Disentangling the Effects of Self-Protective Behaviors on the Risk of Injury in Assaults Against Women.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 18(2), 135-157.

165

166

References

Bachman, R. and B. M. Taylor. (1994). The Measurement of Family Violence and Rape by the Redesigned National Crime Victimization Survey. Justice Quarterly, 11(3), 499-512. Bart, P. B. (1981). A Study of Women Who Both Were Raped and Avoided Rape. Journal of Social Issues, 37(4), 123-137. Bart, P. B. and P. H. O’Brien. (1984). Stopping Rape: Effective Avoidance Strategies. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 10(1), 83-101. Bart, P. B. and P. H. O’Brien. (1985). Stopping Rape: Successful Survival Strategies. New York: Pergamon Press. Becker, J. V., L. J. Skinner, G. G. Abel, J. Howell, and K. Bruce. (1982). The Effects of Sexual Assault on Rape and Attempted Rape Victims. Victimology, 7, 106-113. Block, C. R. and R. I. Block. (1984). Crime Definition, Crime Measurement, and Victim Surveys. Journal of Social Issues, 40(1), 137-160. Block, R. and W. G. Skogan. (1984). The Dynamics of Violence Between Strangers: Victim Resistance and Outcomes in Rape, Assault, and Robbery: Final Report. Northwestern University, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research. Block, R. and W. G. Skogan. (1986). Resistance and Nonfatal Outcomes in Stranger-to-Stranger Predatory Crime. Violence and Victims, 1(4), 241-253. Brecklin, L. R. and S. E. Ullman. (2001). The Role of Offender Alcohol Use in Rape Attacks: An Analysis of National Crime Victimization Survey Data. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(1), 3-21.

References

167

Brener, N. D., P. M. McMahon, C. W. Warren, and K. A. Douglas. (1999). Forced Sexual Intercourse and Associated Health-Risk Behaviors Among Female College Students in the United States. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(2), 252-259. Cantor, D. and J. P. Lynch. (2000). Self-Report Surveys as Measures of Crime and Criminal Victimization. Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, Criminal Justice 2000, 4, 85-138. Clay-Warner, J. (2002). Avoiding Rape: The Effects of Protective Actions and Situational Factors on Rape Outcome. Violence and Victims, 17(6), 691-705. Clay-Warner, J. (2003). The Context of Sexual Violence: Situational Predictors of Self-Protective Actions. Violence and Victims, 18(5), 543-556. Cohen, P. B. (1984). Resistance During Sexual Assaults: Avoiding Rape and Injury. Victimology, 9(1), 120-129. Conklin, J. (1972). Robbery and the Criminal Justice System. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company. Cook, P. J. (1986). The Relationship Between Victim Resistance and Injury in Noncommercial Robbery. Journal of Legal Studies, 15, 405416. Craven, D. (1996). Female Victims of Violent Crime. U.S. Department of Justice. Doerner, W. G. and S. P. Lab. (1998). Victimology. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co. Fisher, B. S., F. T. Cullen, and M. G. Turner. (2000). The Sexual Victimization of College Women. U.S. Department of Justice.

168

References

Fisher, B. S., L. E. Daigle, F. T. Cullen, and S. A. Santana. (2007). Assessing the Efficacy of the Protective Action-Completion Nexus for Sexual Victimizations. Violence and Victims, 22(1), 17-41. Furby, L. and B. Fischhoff. (1992). Rape Self-Defense Strategies: A Review of Their Effectiveness. Unpublished manuscript. Galliano, G., L. M. Noble, L. A. Travis, and C. Puechl. (1993). Victim Reactions During Rape/Sexual Assault: A Study of the Immobility Response and Its Correlates. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(1), 109-114. Harrington, N. T. and H. Leitenberg. (1994). Relationship between Alcohol Consumption and Victim Behaviors Immediately Preceding Sexual Aggression by an Acquaintance. Violence and Victims, 9(4), 315-324. Hart, T. C. and C. Rennison. (2003). Reporting Crime to the Police, 1992-2000. U.S. Department of Justice. Hindelang, M. J. (1976). Criminal Victimization in Eight American Cities : A Descriptive Analysis of Common Theft and Assault. Cambridge: Ballinger Publishing Company. Jordan, J. (2005). What Would MacGyver Do? The Meaning(s) of Resistance and Survival. Violence Against Women, 11(4), 531-559. Kilpatrick, D. G., C. L. Best, L. J. Veronen, A. E. Amick, L. A. Villeponteaux, and G. A. Ruff. (1985). Mental Heath Correlates of Criminal Victimization. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53(6), 866-873. Kilpatrick, D.G., C. N. Edmunds, and A. K. Seymour. (1992). Rape in America: A Report to the Nation. Arlington, VA: National Victim Center. Klaus, P. A. (1994). Costs of Crimes to Victims. U.S. Department of Justice.

References

169

Kleck, G. and M. A. DeLone. (1993). Victim Resistance and Offender Weapon Effects in Robbery. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 9(1), 55-81. Kleck, G. and S. Sayles. (1990). Rape and Resistance. Social Problems, 37(2), 149-162. Koss, M. P. (1993). Detecting the Scope of Rape: A Review of Prevalence Research Methods. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(2), 198-222. Koss, M. P., T. E. Dinero, C. A. Seibel, and S. L. Cox. (1988). Stranger and Acquaintance Rape: Are There Differences in the Victim’s Experience? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 1-24. Koss, M. P., C. A. Gidycz, and N. Wisniewski. (1987). The Scope of Rape: Incidence and Prevalence of Sexual Aggression and Victimization in a National Sample of Higher Education Students. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 162-170. Koss, M. P., L. Heise, and N. F. Russo. (1994). The Global Heath Burden of Rape. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 509-537. Levine-MacCombie, J. and M. P. Koss. (1986). Acquaintance Rape: Effective Avoidance Strategies. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 311-320. Lizotte, A. J. (1986). Determinants of Completing Rape and Assault. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 2(3), 203-217. Macdonald, J. M. (1975). Armed Robbery: Offenders and Their Victims. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. Maguire, K. and A. L. Pastore (Eds). (2003). Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 2002. U.S. Department of Justice.

170

References

Marchbanks, P. A., K. Lui, and J. A. Mercy. (1990). Risk of Injury From Resisting Rape. American Journal of Epidemiology, 132, 540549. Martin, S. E. and R. Bachman. (1998). The Contribution of Alcohol to the Likelihood of Completion and Severity of Injury in Rape Incidents. Violence Against Women, 4, 694-712. McDermott, M. J. (1979). Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities: Applications of the National Crime Survey Victimization and Attitude Data. U.S. Department of Justice. Medea, A. and K. Thompson. (1974). Against Rape. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Mendelsohn, B. (1956). The Victimology. Etudes Internationale de Psycho-sociologie Criminelle July 23-26. National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. (2006). National Crime Victimization Survey Resource Guide. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/NCVS/#About_NCVS (accessed January 7, 2007). Normandeau, A. (1968). Trends and Patterns in Crimes of Robbery. Philadelphia. Pernanen, K. (1991). Alcohol in Human Violence. New York: Guilford. Queen’s Bench Foundation. (1976). Rape: Prevention and Resistance. San Francisco: Author. Quinsey, V. L. and D. Upfold. (1985). Rape Completion and Victim Injury as a Function of Female Resistance Strategy. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 17(1), 40–50. Rand, M. R. (1997). Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.

References

171

Rand, M. R. and C. M. Rennison. (2002). True Crime Stories? Accounting for Differences in Our National Crime Indicators. Chance, 15(1), 47-51. Rennison, C. M. and M. R. Rand. (2003). Criminal Victimization, 2002. Washington, DC: Department of Justice. Ruback, R. B. and D. L. Ivie. (1988). Prior Relationship, Resistance, and Injury in Rapes: An Analysis of Crisis Center Records. Violence and Victims, 3(2), 99-111. Russell, D. E. H. (1982). Rape in Marriage. Riverside, NJ: Macmillan Publishing Co. Schafer, S. (1968). The Victim and His Criminal: A Study in Functional Responsibility. New York: Random House. Siegel, J. M., J. M. Golding, J. A. Stein, M. A. Burnam, and S. B. Sorenson. (1990). Reactions to Sexual Assault: A Community Study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5(2), 229-246. Siegel, J. M., S. B. Sorenson, J. M. Golding, M. A. Burnam, and J. A. Stein. (1989). Resistance to Sexual Assault: Who Resists and What Happens? American Journal of Public Heath, 79(1), 27-31. Skogan, W. G. (1981). Issues in the Measurement of Victimization. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Skogan, W. G. and R. Block. (1983). Resistance and Injury in NonFatal Assaultive Violence. Victimology, 8(3-4), 215-226. StataCorp. (2001). User’s guide: Release 7.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation. Tark, J. and G. Kleck. (2004). Resisting Crime: The Effects of Victim Action on the Outcomes of Crimes. Criminology, 42(4), 861-909.

172

References

Tewksbury, R. and D. Pedro. (2003). The Role of Alcohol in Victimization. Controversies in Victimology. Edited by Laura J. Moriarty. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co. Thompson, M. P., T. R. Simon, L. E. Saltzman, and J. A. Mercy. (1999). Epidemiology of Injuries among Women after Physical Assaults: The Role of Self-protective Behaviors. American Journal of Epidemiology, 150(3), 235-244. Ullman, S. E. (1997). Review and Critique of Empirical Studies of Rape Avoidance. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24(2), 177-204. Ullman, S. E. (1998). Does Offender Violence Escalate When Rape Victims Fight Back? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 13(2), 179192. Ullman, S. E. (2002). Rape Avoidance: Self-Protection Strategies for Women. Preventing Violence in Relationships: Interventions Across the Life Span. Edited by P. A. Schewe. Washington, DC. Ullman, S. E., G. Karabatsos, and M. P. Koss. (1999). Alcohol and Sexual Assault in a National Sample of College Women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(6), 603-625. Ullman, S. E. and R. A. Knight. (1991). A Multivariate Model for Predicting Rape and Physical Injury Outcomes During Sexual Assaults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(5), 724-731. Ullman, S. E. and R. A. Knight. (1992). Fighting Back: Women’s Resistance to Rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(1), 31-43. Ullman, S. E. and R. A. Knight. (1993). The Efficacy of Women’s Resistance Strategies in Rape Situations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 23-38. Ullman, S. E. and R. A. Knight. (1995). Women’s Resistance Strategies to Different Rapist Types. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22(3), 263-283.

References

173

Ullman, S. E. and J. M. Siegel. (1993). Victim-Offender Relationship and Sexual Assault. Violence and Victims, 8(2), 121-134. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1994). National Crime Victimization Survey: Questions and Answers about the Redesign. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ncsrqa.pdf (accessed January 7, 2007). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2003) Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2002 Statistical Tables. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus0204.pdf (accessed January 7, 2007). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004a). Criminal Victimization, 2003. http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t31.pdf (accessed January 7, 2007). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004b). National Crime Victimization Survey, 1992-2001 [Computer file]. Conducted by U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor]. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004c). The Nation’s Two Crime Measures. Retrieved from the World Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/ntcm.htm (accessed January 7, 2007). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2005). Percent of Victimizations Resulting in Loss of Time from Work, by Type of Crime. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/previous/cvus87.pdf (accessed January 7, 2007).

174

References

U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Percent of Victimizations Resulting in Economic Loss, by Type of Crime and Type of Loss. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cvus/current/cv0581.pdf (accessed January 7, 2007). von Hentig, H. (1941). Remarks on the Interaction of Perpetrator and Victim. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 31, 303-309. von Hentig, H. (1948). The Criminal and His Victim: Studies in the Sociobiology of Crime. New Haven: Yale University Press. Wolfgang, M. E. (1982). Victim Intimidation, Resistance and Injury: A Study of Robbery. U.S. Department of Justice. Zoucha-Jensen, J. M. and A. Coyne (1993). The Effects of Resistance Strategies on Rape. American Journal of Public Health, 83(11), 16331634.

APPENDIX Table A.1: Sample Characteristics for the Independent Variables by Type of Victimization Rape Sexual Assault Percent Number Percent Number Self-Protective Behaviors: Used Forceful Physical Yes 13.2 90 9.4 36 No 86.8 592 90.6 346 Used Nonforceful Physical Yes 44.3 302 43.7 167 No 55.7 380 56.3 215 Used Forceful Verbal Yes 26.2 179 29.6 113 No 73.8 503 70.4 269 Used Nonforceful Verbal Yes 27.6 188 18.8 72 No 72.4 494 81.2 310 Victim/Offender Relationship Intimate 33.9 211 13.3 44 Other Relative 4.0 25 6.9 23 Friend/Acquaintance* 45.8 285 57.5 191 Stranger 16.2 101 22.3 74 * Reference group

175

176

Appendix

Table A.1: Sample Characteristics for the Independent Variables by Type of Victimization Robbery Physical Assault Percent Number Percent Number Self-Protective Behaviors: Used Forceful Physical Yes No Used Nonforceful Physical Yes No Used Forceful Verbal Yes No Used Nonforceful Verbal Yes No Victim/Offender Relationship Intimate Other Relative Friend/Acquaintance* Stranger * Reference group

12.2 87.8

235 1,694

14.8 85.2

2,061 11,872

33.9 66.1

654 1,275

40.0 60.0

5,569 8,364

22.0 78.0

425 1,504

20.0 80.0

2,783 11,150

11.0 89.0

212 1,717

9.9 90.1

1,379 12,554

13.5 5.7 19.8 61.1

235 99 345 1,067

18.4 7.8 40.8 33.1

2,232 941 4,949 4,019

Appendix

177

Table A.1: Sample Characteristics for the Independent Variables by Type of Victimization Overall Percent Number Self-Protective Behaviors: Used Forceful Physical Yes No Used Nonforceful Physical Yes No Used Forceful Verbal: Yes No Used Nonforceful Verbal: Yes No Victim/Offender Relationship: Intimate Other Relative Friend/Acquaintance* Stranger * Reference group

14.3 85.7

2,422 14,504

39.5 60.5

6,692 10,234

20.7 79.3

3,500 13,426

10.9 89.1

1,851 15,075

18.3 7.3 38.9 35.4

2,722 1,088 5,770 5,261

178

Appendix

Table A.2: Classification of Self-Protective Behaviors Action Classification Attacked offender with gun; fired gun Forceful physical Attacked with other weapon Forceful physical Attacked without weapon (hit, kicked, Forceful physical etc.) Threatened offender with gun Forceful verbal Threatened offender with other weapon Forceful verbal Threatened to injure, no weapon Forceful verbal Yelled at offender, turned on lights, Forceful verbal threatened to call police, etc. Called police or guard Forceful verbal Tried to attract attention or help, warn Forceful verbal others (cried out for help, called children inside) Screamed from pain or fear Forceful verbal Defended self or property (struggled, Nonforceful physical ducked, blocked blows, held onto property) Chased, tried to catch or hold offender Nonforceful physical Ran or drove away, or tried; hid, locked Nonforceful physical door Cooperated, or pretended to (stalled, did Nonforceful verbal what they asked) Argued, reasoned, pleaded, bargained, Nonforceful verbal etc.

INDEX Bystander, 18-19, 24, 43, 77, 86-87, 90, 112, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 146 Clay-Warner, J., 15-16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 40, 144, 146, 147 Control variables, 84-92 Cook, P. J., 46 Dependent variables current study, 10, 63, 64, 65, 79-80, 92, 93, 94, 112, 155, 157 previous research, 46, 58, 68, 161 Design effect, 93-94 Environmental interventions as a control variable, 8687, 90, 93 in physical assaults, 5556 in robberies, 43 in sexual victimizations, 18-19, 24, 25 Fisher, B. S., 9, 23, 63, 144, 160 Furby, L., 23, 26, 27, 29, 32, 33, 74, 77, 146 Hindelang, M. J., 7, 13, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 Hypotheses, 62-65 Independent variables, 8084 Koss, M. P., 5, 16, 18, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 75, 142, 144

Age of victim, as a control variable, 84-85, 90, 93, 121 in physical assaults, 50, 53, 118, 119, 120 in robberies, 37-38, 4142, 116, 117 in sexual victimizations, 15-16, 20, 21, 112, 113, 115 NCVS, 72, 77 Alcohol/drug use, as a control variable, 85, 88, 93 in physical assaults, 50, 54, 118, 119, 120 in robberies, 38, 42, 116, 117, 119, 135 in sexual victimizations, 15, 16, 21-22, 112, 113, 115, 126, 131 NCVS, 85 Amir, M., 13, 14 Bachman, R., 2, 7, 8, 9, 23, 24, 25, 48, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 5960, 61, 63, 75, 78, 87, 93, 112, 152, 154 Bivariate analyses, 92-93, 98-111 Block, R. and Skogan, W. G., 7, 13, 17, 19, 26, 28, 31, 33-34, 37-38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51-53, 54, 56, 57, 74, 75, 78, 118, 120, 142, 150, 160

179

180 Location of incident as a control variable, 87, 91, 93, 121 in physical assaults, 51-52, 56, 118, 119, 120, 122 in robberies, 40, 43-44, 116, 117, 118 in sexual victimizations, 19, 23, 24, 25, 112, 113, 114, 115, 123, 146 NCVS, 72 Macdonald, J. M., 7, 13, 35, 36, 39, 75, 149 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 18, 20, 24, 46, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 58, 59, 71-81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 93, 94, 112, 141, 155, 159 design of, 73-75 goals of, 71-72 redesign, 73, 78 sample, 75 strengths, 73-77 survey questions, 75-77 weaknesses, 77-78 Normandeau, A., 13, 35, 149 Race of victim as a control variable, 86, 89, 93 future research, 161 in physical assaults, 5051, 54, 118, 119, 120 in robberies, 37, 38-39, 42, 116, 117

Index in sexual victimizations, 15, 16-17, 20, 22, 112, 113, 115, 146 NCVS, 72, 77 Sex of victim as a control variable, 86, 89, 93 future research, 161 in physical assaults, 51, 54, 118, 119 in robberies, 37, 39, 42, 116, 117 in sexual victimizations, 15, 17, 20, 22, 112, 113, 115 Tark, J. and Kleck, G., 7, 8, 31, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 118, 150, 161 Temporal ordering, 8, 4647, 54, 55, 56, 58, 59, 76-77, 159-160, 161 Thompson, M. P., 7, 8, 49, 54, 57, 61, 152 Time of incident as a control variable, 87-88, 92, 93 in physical assaults, 57, 118, 119, 120 in robberies, 44, 113, 115 in sexual victimizations, 20, 26, 112, 114, 116 NCVS, 72, 77 Ullman, S. E., 7, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 55,

Index 63, 75, 78-79, 81, 142, 144, 147 Uniform Crime Reports, 1, 72, 75 Victim/offender relationship, 9, 159 as an independent variable, 80, 83, 84, 93, 97, 141, 155, 157 future research, 161-162 in physical assaults, 51, 54, 55, 57, 59, 60, 63, 65, 135, 154, 155, 158 in robberies, 37, 39-40, 43, 63, 64, 131, 151, 152 in sexual victimizations, 15, 17, 21, 23, 63, 64, 121, 123, 125, 127, 145-146, 149, 158 NCVS, 72, 77

181 Victimization research, history of, 1 Weapon, presence of as a control variable, 87, 91, 93 in physical assaults, 5253, 56, 57-58, 59, 118 in robberies, 40-41, 44, 45, 116, 117, 118 in sexual victimizations, 15, 19-20, 26, 112, 113, 114, 115, 126 NCVS, 72, 76, 77 Wolfgang, M. E., 7, 35, 36, 44, 48, 75, 149

Self-Protective Behavior and Violent Victimization (Criminal Justice)

Violent and Non-Violent Disputes Involving Gang Youth (Criminal Justice)

Adolescent Victimization and Delinquent Behavior

Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice and Neoliberalism

Criminal and Social Justice

Criminal Justice and Political Cultures

Policy Transfer and Criminal Justice

Crime and Criminals (Criminal Justice)

Criminal Justice in America

Essentials of Criminal Justice

Statistics in Criminal Justice

The Law (Criminal Justice)

Introduction to Criminal Justice

Racist Victimization

Criminal Law & Criminal Justice: An Introduction

Biological Influences on Criminal Behavior

The Criminal Law of Genocide (International and Comparative Criminal Justice)

Criminal Attempts (Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice)

Criminal Justice (SAGE Course Companions)

Drug Interventions in Criminal Justice

Understanding Criminal Justice: Sociological Perspectives

Criminal Justice (SAGE Course Companions)

Criminal Justice (SAGE Course Companions)

Criminal Justice (Cliffs Quick Review)

Prison and the Penal System (Criminal Justice)

The Victim in Criminal Law and Justice

International Criminal Tribunals: Justice and Politics

Race, Crime and Criminal Justice: International Perspectives

Self-Protective Behavior and Violent Victimization (Criminal Justice)

Violent and Non-Violent Disputes Involving Gang Youth (Criminal Justice)

Adolescent Victimization and Delinquent Behavior

Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice and Neoliberalism

Criminal and Social Justice

Criminal Justice and Political Cultures

Policy Transfer and Criminal Justice

Crime and Criminals (Criminal Justice)

Criminal Justice in America

Essentials of Criminal Justice

Statistics in Criminal Justice

The Law (Criminal Justice)

Introduction to Criminal Justice

Racist Victimization

Criminal Law & Criminal Justice: An Introduction

Biological Influences on Criminal Behavior

The Criminal Law of Genocide (International and Comparative Criminal Justice)

Criminal Attempts (Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice)

Criminal Justice (SAGE Course Companions)

Drug Interventions in Criminal Justice

Understanding Criminal Justice: Sociological Perspectives

Criminal Justice (SAGE Course Companions)

Criminal Justice (SAGE Course Companions)

Criminal Justice (Cliffs Quick Review)

Prison and the Penal System (Criminal Justice)

The Victim in Criminal Law and Justice

International Criminal Tribunals: Justice and Politics

Race, Crime and Criminal Justice: International Perspectives

Recommend Documents