Victim Injury and Social Distance: A National Test of a General Principle of Conflict

2016 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 726-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Callie Marie Rennison ◽  
Scott Jacques ◽  
Andrea Allen

Our inquiry focuses on why some violent offenses but not others result in injury to the victim. Building on existing theory nested in the paradigm of pure sociology, we propose and test a general principle of conflict: Victim injury varies directly with social distance. This principle predicts that offenders are more likely to harm victims with whom they are less well acquainted and less similar culturally. We test three hypotheses derived from this principle with data from the National Crime Victimization Survey and find little support for the theory. Rather, findings suggest exactly the opposite of that predicted: As social distance between offender and victim increases, the odds of victim injury decreases. Recommendations of additional research are made.

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Jacques ◽  
Callie Marie Rennison

During the course of being victimized, why do people sometimes fight back with their fists; in other cases, with a knife or blunt object; and at other times, with a firearm? One theory is that the weapons involved in self-defense, also known as reflexive retaliation, become less lethal as offenders and victims become more intimate and alike culturally. Using National Crime Victimization Survey data, we test hypotheses derived from this theory and primarily find support. This article concludes by discussing implications for future work.


2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 288-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen G. Weiss

An investigation of narratives from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) finds that one in three teenagers—12–18 years old—who experience an unwanted sexual incident perpetrated by another teen trivialize their incidents as minor, unimportant, or normal kid stuff. This study contextualizes these responses within a framework of ambivalence that highlights separately teens’ ambiguity of definitions, or uncertainty that incidents perpetrated by other teens (especially dating partners and schoolmates) are “real” crimes or offenses worth reporting, and adaptive indifference, a more tactical response to conflicting norms and allegiances that discourage teens from reporting their peers’ sexual misconduct to authorities. The context and consequences of teens’ ambivalence are discussed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document