Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol. 28, No. 1, 1999

Human Agency, Capable Guardians, andStructural Constraints: A Lifestyle Approachto the Study of Violent Victimization

Thoroddur Bjarnason,1 Thordis J. Sigurdardottir,2 andThorolfur Thorlindsson3

Received December 12, 1997; accepted My 8 1998

The lifestyle/routine activities perspective can be developed to conceptualize vio-lent victimization as the outcome of structural factors, interpersonal relations,patterns of behavior, and plain bad luck. Structural factors may affect the rateof violence in society, the social and cultural resources available to individuals,and the lifestyles that they choose to adopt. The social and cultural resources ofparents can be expected to diminish adolescents' risk of victimization. Further-more, the strength of parental relations can be expected to determine the impor-tance of parents as capable guardians in the general life situation of their children.Within this context, adolescents who engage in delinquent or violent behavior canbe expected to be disproportionately victimized. Studies conducted in the UnitedStates and Britain suggest that violent behavior is the major risk factor for violentvictimization, and the present analysis indicates that despite structural and culturaldifferences on the societal level, this also holds true in Iceland. Parental support,educational achievement, and delinquent lifestyles are also found to be moderatelyrelated to violent victimization, but that effect appears to be largely mediatedthrough violent lifestyles. Although both violent behavior and violent victimizationare far less common among females than males, we find the victimization of bothgroups to be related in the same way, and to the same extent, to structural con-straints, capable guardianship, and delinquent and violent lifestyles.

1Department of Sociology, University of Notre Dame. Received M.A. from University ofEssex. Research interests: social theory, delinquency, social support. To whomcorrespondence should be addressed at Department of Sociology, University of Notre Dame,Notre Dame, Indiana 46556.

2Icelandic Institute for Educational Research. Received M.A. from University of Iceland.Research interests: youth unemployment, alcohol and drug use, family violence.

3Department of Sociology, University of Iceland, and East Carolina University. Received Ph.D. fromUniversity of Iowa. Research interests: social theory, science and knowledge, social problems.

105

0047-2891/99/0200-0105$16.00/0 © 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation

INTRODUCTION

A comprehensive theoretical framework for the study of violent vic-timization must account for a wide range of conditions and processes thatcontribute to the risk of violence. On the ecological level conditions rang-ing from social disorganization to spatial layout and environmental designmake some areas and neighborhoods inherently more dangerous than oth-ers (Gottfredson et al., 1991; Reiss, 1986; Sampson and Groves, 1989; Shawand McKay, 1942; Taylor and Gottfredson, 1986). This ecological risk ofviolent victimization is in general beyond the immediate control of any par-ticular individual, but their exposure to this risk is heavily influenced bytheir patterns of behavior (Cohen and Felson, 1979; Hindelang et al., 1978;Jensen and Brownfield, 1986; Lauritsen et al., 1991), Vital daily routines,such as going to work or shopping for groceries, may entail a certain passiverisk of victimization. However, in some cases the victim may also activelyprecipitate violence by his or her delinquent or violent behavior. In betweenthese extremes lies a range of intermediate patterns of behavior that mayincrease the risk of violent victimization.

Any attempt to account simultaneously for ecological risk factors andindividual exposure to such risks must pay close attention to the interper-sonal context of individual behavior. The values and role expectations pro-moted by different social groups are central to the negotiation of acceptablelevels of risk. More directly, the risk of victimization is realized in a con-crete interaction between the victim and the offender. In many cases, theoffender is a friend, acquaintance, or a member of the victim's family, andthe incident is firmly rooted in their relations. In other cases, there is noprior relationship between offender and victim, but the incidence is nev-ertheless preceded by some dispute or conflict that leads to violence. Evenin the case of random, unprovoked acts of violence, the potential victimmay have a brief opportunity to attempt to defuse the situation. Conversely,victimization can be prevented by the intervention of family members,friends, acquaintances, or even complete strangers. This may take the formof discouraging individuals from exposing themselves to risks, or direct in-tervention in a potentially violent situation.

In this paper, we argue that the closely related lifestyle (Hindelang etal., 1978) and routine activities (Cohen and Felson, 1979) perspectives onpersonal victimization can provide the rudimentary elements of a compre-hensive, multilevel framework that balances human agency and lifestylechoices against social determination, and social control against social at-tachment. Although the lifestyle and routine activities perspectives haveemphasized individual patterns of behavior leading to concrete situationsof victimization, they have an underdeveloped potential for encompassing

106 Bjarnason et al.

both the structural and the interpersonal context of lifestyles, as well asthe potentially active role of victims in violent encounters.

Previous studies of lifestyles and violent victimization have primarilybeen based on data collected in the United States and Britain. Despite themethodological sophistication of many of these studies, the cross-culturalapplicability of key concepts and empirical findings remains unclear. Thepresent study thus broadens the empirical base of the current literature byapplying the relevant theoretical constructs in the significantly different so-cial context of Icelandic adolescents, which is characterized by the ethnichomogeneity of the population, high levels of social and educational mo-bility, and relativity unclear sociocultural patterning (see Gunnlaugsson andBjarnason, 1994; Thorlindsson, 1988).

STRUCTURAL CONSTRAINTS

Hindelang et al. (1978; Garofalo, 1987) argue that personal victimiza-tion can be conceptualized as the result of individual and subcultural life-styles, which are formed within the context of role expectations and variousstructural constraints. Although studies in this tradition have not empha-sized the concept of structural constraints, we argue that it can fruitfullybe used to integrate lifestyle theory with the long traditions of both socialdisorganization theory (Sampson, 1987; Sampson and Groves, 1989; Shawand McKay, 1942, 1969) and social strain theory (Agnew, 1992; Clowardand Ohlin, 1960; Cohen, 1955; Merton, 1938, 1957). In this formulation,the structural constraints are conceived of as the whole range of conditionsand processes that influence both the ecological risk of violence and theformation of lifestyles that determine exposure to such risks.

Adolescents are subjected to a variety of structural constraints thatthey have little possibilities of circumventing. The social and economic po-sition of their family is generally beyond their control, and in most casesthey have no independent avenues of actual social or geographical mobility.Indeed, the risk of adolescent victimization has been found to be higherin neighborhoods characterized by low socioeconomic status and brokenfamilies in general, and for those of low socioeconomic status and livingin broken families in particular (Figueira-McDonough, 1992; Gottfredsonet al., 1991; Reiss, 1986). The position of a particular household within thesocial and cultural structure may thus influence both adolescent proximityto violence, the existence of delinquent peer groups, peer pressures to en-gage in potentially dangerous activities, and available resources of the fam-ily to protect adolescents from exposure to violence.

Violent Victimization 107

The school system is the major institutionalized sphere for adolescentinteraction, social recognition, and future social mobility. However, as anarena of intense social interaction, the school is also a breeding groundfor both delinquent and subcultural peer groups, and for hostilities betweenindividuals or groups. As adolescents typically have little choice over theschools they must attend, the school culture itself represents a variety ofstructural constraints that they must adapt to. Furthermore, academic abili-ties may severely constraint individual aspirations, Hirschi (1996) has ar-gued that commitment to school and other conventional activities is oneof the key elements to the social control of adolescents. Doing poorly inschool will undermine this commitment, and hence increase individual pro-pensity to deviance. Indeed, Felson et al. (1994) have found that studentssuffer from comparison and become more likely to participate in delinquentactivities when they are academically less successful than their schoolmates.

Neighborhood characteristics, family status, family structure, and theschool environment represent some of the more salient structural con-straints to which adolescents must adapt. However, individual strategies ofadapting to these constraints are chosen and implemented in the contextof interpersonal relations. To adequately account for individual victimiza-tion, it is thus necessary to focus on these intervening processes.

PARENTAL GUARDIANS

Cohen and Felson's (1979) original presentation of the routine activi-ties perspective emphasizes the specific situation where routine activitiesbring individuals into contact with motivated offenders in the absence ofcapable guardians. In this formulation, capable guardianship is limited tophysical intervention in a concrete situation. However, this would appearto capture only one possible form of capable guardianship. Indeed, the no-tion that role expectations influence lifestyle choices (Hindelang et al.,1978) suggests that capable guardians may more generally prevent victimi-zation by discouraging or prohibiting dangerous routine activities. The con-cept of capable guardians can thus be generalized from physical presencein concrete situations to the role of social relations in the general life situ-ation of the potential victim.

This more inclusive definition of capable guardians meshes neatly withthe growing literature on both social support (Dean and Lin, 1977; Houseet al., 1988) and social control (Hirschi, 1969). Research in such diversesocial and cultural settings as Iceland, the United States, and the Philippineshave consistently found an inverse relation between strong bonds with par-ents and adolescent problem ranging from depression and suicidality to al-

108 Bjarnason et al.

cohol, tobacco, and drug use (Bjarnason, 1994; Gove and Crutchfield, 1982;Shoemaker, 1994; Thorlindsson and Vilhjalmsson, 1991; Thorlindsson andBjarnason, 1998). Both social support and social control can be taken to beinstances of parental guardianship in the general life situation of adolescents.The capacity of parents as guardians against victimization does then notmerely lie in their physical characteristics or their physical presence, but inthe relationship that exists between parent and adolescent.

In this formulation, exposure to a potentially endless supply of moti-vated offenders can be regulated by parents under certain conditions. First,an emotional bond between parent and adolescent is the prerequisite ofparental moral and functional authority. Without such a bond, adolescentswill neither confide in their parent, nor take the parent's attempt at guidanceto heart. Second, parents may only be able to provide guidance if they be-come aware of specific or recurrent dangers facing their children. This re-quires monitoring that is largely dependent on the emotional bond, sinceadolescent capacities for stealth will under normal circumstances far surpassthe scope of parental surveillance. Finally, parents can attempt to preventtheir children from getting into trouble by setting clear rules of conduct,although prior research suggests that parental rule setting is ineffective inthe absence of family integration (Thorlindsson and Bjarnason, 1998).

DELINQUENT AND VIOLENT LIFESTYLES

Studies based on the lifestyle and routine activities perspectives fre-quently emphasize the element of passive victimization, or "being in thewrong place with the wrong people at the wrong time." However, adoles-cent pursuit of excitement and fun frequently involves exposure to danger-ous situations, and the element of danger is often an integral part of thethrill they are seeking (Jensen and Brownfield, 1986). In particular, alcoholand drug use may contribute to violent victimization in several ways (New-comb and McGee, 1989). Intoxication diminishes both mental and physicalcapacities to avoid dangerous situations and to defuse them should theyarise. Furthermore, intoxicated peers are less capable guardians, and maythemselves become violent offenders. Similarly, intoxicated individuals aremore likely to engage in delinquent and violent behavior, which in turnmay lead to their own victimization.

Engaging in vandalism or property crimes may both directly and indi-rectly increase one's risk of violent victimization. As Jensen and Brownfield(1986) point out, deviant behavior normally takes place in the absence ofcapable guardians, bringing the perpetrators themselves into a situationwhere nobody can prevent them from becoming victims of violence. Delin-

Violent Victimization 109

quent lifestyles may thus actively contribute to the violent victimization ofadolescents by drawing them into a rough, unguarded environment. In ad-dition, vandalism and property crimes may of course more directly lead thevictim of property crimes to retaliate by physically attacking the perpetrator.

Sampson and Lauritsen (1990) have argued that violent behavior ispart of a more general delinquent lifestyle. Indeed, values normally asso-ciated with violence have also been found to be related to various othertypes of delinquency (Felson et al., 1994), and violent individuals have beenfound to engage in other types of delinquency as well (Newcomb andMcGee, 1989). Nevertheless, violent behavior has consistently been foundto be particularly related to violent victimization (Esbensen and Huizinga,1991; Jensen and Brownfield, 1986; Lauritsen et al., 1991; Sampson andLauritsen, 1990). When a fight breaks out, the designation of an initiatormay be inherently arbitrary, and the outcome of the fight may be the onlycriterion to distinguish between victim and perpetrator. The conceptual dis-tinction between victims and perpetrators of violence is thus not necessarilyvalid in the concrete situation of violence.

In what follows, we distinguish between intoxication, property crimes,and violent behavior as three analytically distinct forms of routine activitiesthat may increase the risk of violent victimization. Although structural con-straints and parental guardians may have some direct effect on violent vic-timization, we hypothesize that they will primarily operate through themechanisms of delinquent and violent lifestyles.

MODELING VIOLENT VICTIMIZATION: THE CASE OFICELANDIC ADOLESCENTS

The data used in this study were collected in connection with the Euro-pean School Survey Project on Alcohol and Drug Use (Hibell et al., 1997).Anonymous questionnaires were administered to all Icelandic 10th graders(15-16-years-old) present in class on the day of administration (January16-21, 1995). No follow-up attempt was made to reach absentees. Sinceschooling in Iceland is obligatory through the 10th grade, the school cohortrepresents nearly all of the population cohort. Valid questionnaires wereobtained from 1879 females and 1931 males, which represents 87% of allIcelanders in this age group.4

4Therefore, the study can be regarded as population-based rather than based on a sample inthe conventional sense. Tests of statistical significance should thus not be interpreted as prob-abilities of results obtained, being true for the empirical population of Iceland youth. How-ever, the tests can be easily interpreted if the empirical population is taken to be randomrealization of the infinite hypothetical population of possible Icelandic 10th graders.

110 Bjarnason et al.

An analysis of cases brought to the Reykjavik City Hospital's Emer-gency Ward suggests that interpersonal violence in Iceland is most oftenpreceded by a dispute between victim and offender, who are in most cases15-24-years-old. Although serious injuries are often sustained, weapons arenot often involved, and gunshot wounds are rare (Gudjonsson, 1993). AsTable I shows, about 37% of all females and 55% of all males in the presentstudy indicated that they had been victims of violence during the pasttwelve months (0: No; 1: Yes). This dichotomous variable thus capturesthe prevalence of violent victimization among Icelandic adolescents, butdoes not address the additional issues of the seriousness or frequency ofindividual victimization.

The results from the logistic regression model employed are presentedin terms of the R coefficient, which has substantively the same interpreta-tion as the standardized beta coefficient in multiple regression analysis(Norusis, 1990). The population levels of victimization are used as cutoffpoints to generate classification tables of predicted and actual victimization.An indication of the classificatory power of each model can be gauged bycomparing the percentage of the sample correctly predicted to have beenvictimized (true positives) and to have not been victimized (true negatives)with the percentage that could have been expected by chance alone. Toexamine the extent to which the same factors are equally related to theviolent nonsexual victimization of males and females, we separately analyzethe data for each sex.

The rate of violence in a given community constitutes the commonrisk of victimization in that community, which can be viewed as the outcomeof complex, macrolevel processes beyond the control of any particular in-dividual. The victimization risk in school for each respondent is measuredas the average number of self-reported victims in the school, excluding therespondent himself or herself (Table I). As the Icelandic school system isbased on neighborhood schools, this measure serves as a proxy for bothschool and neighborhood levels of risk. It should be noted that in contrastto more heterogeneous and stratified societies, self-contained pockets oflow education, poverty, broken families, and crime are not visible in Ice-landic communities.

Family structure and family status are clearly rooted in social structure,but they also directly represent some of the social and cultural resourcesavailable to parents. Family structure is measured by two dichotomous vari-ables; living with a single parent, and living with one parent and a step-parent (0: No; 1: Yes). Living with both biological parents serves as thereference category. Parents' educational attainment is the only indicator ofsocial status of the family available in this data set, for the purposes ofthis study combined for both parent (2: Both parents have completed corn-

violent Victimization 111

112 Bjarnason et al.

pulsory school or less; 10: Both parents have completed college). The respon-dents' own relative educational achievement is measured by the item "Howgood do you think you are at school work, compared to other people yourage?" (1: Poor, I am probably one of the worst; 7: Excellent, I am probablyone of the very best).

On the interpersonal level, parents may draw on the functional andmoral authority of parenthood to protect their children from violent vic-timization. This authority is rooted in the emotional bond between parentsand children, and it is manifested in part in the ability to monitor children'sbehavior and set them clear rules. The three dimensions of parental rela-tions are measured by two items each (Thorlindsson and Bjarnason, 1998).Parental support is measured by asking if it is easy for them to get warmth,caring, and mental support from mother and/or father. Parental monitoringis measured by two items regarding parents knowing where their childrenare, and whom they are with in the evenings. Parental rule-setting is meas-

Table I. Items, Response Categories, and Descriptive Statistics

Structural constraintsVictimization rate in schoolLiving with one parent and a stepparentLiving with a single parentParents' educational attainment

(a f:.65, m:.66)

Capable guardiansParental mental support (a f:.86, m:.85)Parental monitoring (a f:.81, m:.70)Parental rule-setting (a f:.70, m:.70)Comparative educational achievement

Delinquent lifestylesHow often drunk during last 12 monthHow often have you tried cannabisTheft or vandalism last 12 months

(a f:.56, m:,74)

Violent lifestylesThreatened someone with a weapon

last 12 monthsViolent behavior last 12 months

(a f:.78, m:.85)

Violent victimizationVictim of violence during last 12 months

Meanfemales

46.10.120.104.72

6.394.762.843.47

2.791.164.68

1.02

5.01

.37

St. dev.females

10.0

2.64

2.022.432.041.15

1.81.69

1.60

.24

2.21

Meanmales

46.10.130.114.72

6.073.602.903.38

2.621.285.98

1.09

6.56

.55

St. dev.males

10.0

2.63

1.992.331.881.24

1.84.95

3.28

.50

3.99

Range

0-1000-10-12-10

2-102-102-101-7

1-71-74-28

1-7

4-28

0-1

ured by two items regarding parents setting definite rules of behavior athome and outside the home (for all three dimensions the range of theresponse categories is 1: Almost never; 5: Nearly always).

The lifestyle adopted within this context determines the level of expo-sure to violence. Delinquent lifestyles in general, and violent lifestyles inparticular, can be expected to place adolescents in close proximity to violentoffenders, diminish their capacities for violence prevention, and in somecases to directly precipitate their own victimization. The measures of theft,vandalism, and alcohol use during the last 12 months, as well as lifetimeuse of cannabis, were developed by the European School Survey Projecton Alcohol and Drug Use (Hibell et al., 1997). Frequency of getting drunkduring the last 12 months and lifetime use of cannabis are measured withone item each (1: Never; 7: 40 times or more). Theft or vandalism duringthe last 12 months includes four items: stolen something worth less than5000 kronur (approx. $75); stolen something worth more than 5000 kronur;broken into a place to steal; and vandalizing property (1: Never; 7: 18 timesor more). Violent behavior is measured with a summary scale of havingpunched, kicked, hit, or head-butted someone (1: Never; 7: 40 times ormore) during the past 12 months (Thorlindsson and Bernburg, 1996).

RESULTS

Table II presents the results of logistic regression analyses, examiningthe net relations between the measure of violent victimization and the setof covariates.5

The first two columns of Table II show bivariate R coefficients of allcovariates with victimization. Engaging in theft or vandalism, or committingacts of violence during the past 12 months, are the strongest covariateswith violent victimization, along with frequency of getting drunk. Compara-tively moderate bivariate covariates with violent victimization include stu-dents' comparative educational achievement, parental mental support andfrequency of trying cannabis.

The first model in Table II includes the proposed measures of socialconstraints to violent victimization. The risk of victimization in schoolslightly increases the risk of violent victimization for both sexes. In addition,males raised by a single parent and by parents of low educational attain-

5Causality is of course a sensitive issue in non-experimental research in general, and in cross-sectional research designs in particular. Such research calls for heavy reliance on theoreticalarguments, and weak claims of having demonstrated causal priority. The possibility of anall-powerful, but unknown, causal factor is constantly lurking in the wings, and rival theo-retical arguments provide the amusement of spinning causal arrows around.

Violent Victimization 113

114 Bjarnason et al.

ment are also slightly more likely to be victimized. The strongest structuralcovariate for both sexes is, however, their comparative educational achieve-ment.

The second model shows the results of adding measures of parentalguardianship to the constraint model. The covariates found significant inthe first model remain essentially unchanged. For both sexes, parental men-tal support is negatively related to victimization. Parental monitoring alsohas a slight negative relation to males' violent victimization, but parentalrule-setting actually has a small positive relation, once other aspects of pa-rental relations have been controlled for.

In the third model, measures of delinquent lifestyles have been addedto the model. Again, the indicators found significant in the earlier two mod-els continue to be significantly related to victimization. Victimization hasno independent relation to cannabis use of either sex, but comparativelymoderate relations persist with frequency of getting drunk for females, andengaging in theft or vandalism for males.

In the final model, indicators of violent lifestyles have been added tothe equations. For both sexes, violent behavior has by far the largest posi-tive relation to violent victimization, while frequency of getting drunk hasa smaller positive relation. Interestingly, both parental mental support andthreatening others with a weapon have a slight negative relation to victimi-zation. In addition, living with a single parent and engaging in theft orvandalism continue to have a small positive effect for males, as does com-parative educational achievement for females.

Table II also shows the classificatory power of each of these four mod-els. The number of victims correctly classified as such (true positives) re-mains stable, but the number of respondents incorrectly classified as victims(false positives) decreases with each model. Thus, structural constraintsidentify a portion of victims only marginally higher then expected bychance. Successive additions to the model retain these victims, but includefewer and fewer false positives. In the first model, 20-30% of the sampleis incorrectly classified as victims, but in the final model this is true of only7-8%. However, 15-25% of the population are actual victims not identifiedby the initial model, and the more complex models do not reduce this pro-portion.

DISCUSSION

In general, our results support the theoretical framework outlinedabove. The statistical model employed correctly identifies about 60% of allfemale and male victims. This identified group of victims includes around

Violent Victimization 115

one-fifth of all female 10th graders and more than one-third of all male10th graders. In other words, the concentration of victims in the predictedgroup is two to three times higher than would be expected by chance alone.

Consistent with findings of studies in the United States and the UnitedKingdom (Esbensen and Huizinga, 1991; Jensen and Brownfield, 1986;Sampson and Lauritsen, 1990), we find violent offenders to have the highestrisk of violent victimization, and that risk increases with higher rates ofviolent offending. The use of violence is related to higher rates of alcoholuse, and to higher rates of theft and vandalism, supporting Sampson andLauritsen's (1990) argument that violent lifestyles are embedded withinmore general delinquent lifestyles. Also in line with earlier research (e.g.,Esbensen and Huizinga, 1991; Gottfredson, 1986; Miethe et al., 1987), wefind females to be less violent, and that they are also less likely to be vic-timized by nonsexual violence. However, when comparing female victimsto male victims, we find the victimization of both groups to be related inthe same way, and to the same extent, to behavior and interpersonal rela-tions. These results are consistent with Jensen and Brownfield's (1986) ar-gument that the observed gender differences in victimization can be tracedto gender differences in exposure, delinquency and guardianship.

The overall finding that violent behavior is the primary predictor ofviolent victimization must be interpreted with some caution. Althoughmany victims of violence are also violent offenders, about 40% of all victimsin the sample are not identified by our model. Some individual, interper-sonal, or ecological factors excluded from the present study may accountfor this group, but others may simply be the victims of bad luck. Further-more, using violent behavior as a statistical predictor of violent victimiza-tion does not imply a unidirectional causal relationship. Although violentbehavior may in many cases precipitate the victimization of the offender,victims of violence may also become more prone to violence as a result oftheir victimization. More generally, violent behavior and violent victimiza-tion may cluster together without any clear causal structure. The findingthat when violent lifestyles are controlled for, males who threaten otherswith a weapon decrease their risk of violent victimization, is both unex-pected and has somewhat troubling implications. This suggests that whenother factors have been controlled for, carrying a weapon may in fact pro-vide some measure of protection within violent subcultures. However,knives are the primary weapons of violence in Iceland, and handguns arevirtually nonexistent. This tentative conclusion thus needs to be extensivelyclarified and cross-culturally validated in future research.

Our results indicate that the structural constraints of lifestyles play amuch smaller role in the victimization of adolescents in Iceland than inBritain or the United States. Similarly, individual risk of victimization does

116 Bjarnason et al.

not appear to be related to the rate of violent victimization in the com-munity. Furthermore, contrary to the results obtained by several scholarsin the United States (e.g., Esbensen and Huizinga, 1991; Gottfredson,1986; Miethe et al., 1987), we do not find any substantive effects of familystructure on violent victimization. On the other hand, comparative edu-cational achievement does have a moderate, negative effect on violent vic-timization. This effect is considerably diminished when indicators ofdeviant and violent lifestyles have been added to the model, lending somesupport to Hirschi's (1969) insistence that commitment to conventionalactivities is an important aspect of adolescent social control. It can thustentatively be argued that in a relatively homogeneous society such as Ice-land, the relative risk of victimization is determined on the interpersonallevel, rather than by neighborhood characteristics or other ecological riskfactors.

The negative, bivariate effect of parental support on violent victimi-zation lends some support to the argument that social support (Dean andLin, 1977; House et al., 1988) can be conceptualized as a form of capableguardianship (Cohen and Felson, 1979; Felson, 1986). This rather low bi-variate effect is further diminished when indicators of deviant and violentlifestyles have been added to the model, supporting Hirschi's (1969) argu-ment that the lack of attachment to parents influences victimization indi-rectly by increasing the probability of adopting a delinquent or violentlifestyle. Further conceptual development of this apparent convergence be-tween theories of routine activities, social support, and social control wouldcontribute to a more parsimonious framework for the study of adolescentdelinquency and victimization.

The findings of this study have implications far beyond the concretelife situation of Icelandic 10th graders. They underline the importance ofa comprehensive synthesis of delinquency and victimization theories, whichcould specify the complex relations between human agency and structuralconstraints. Any exposure to human society does to a certain degree implya risk of violent victimization, and violent offenders are frequently to befound among the victim's group of significant others, including parents, sib-lings, children, relatives, spouses, and friends. At the same time, the mostcapable of guardians are also drawn from this group. They can be expectedto be highly motivated to prevent victimization, not least by providing asecure environment, as well as guidance and restraint on behavior outsidethat environment. However, individuals encounter and adapt to these dif-ferent factors in the course of their daily lives, and the resulting patternsof behaviors appear to constitute the major and immediate link to violentvictimization.

Violent Victimization 117

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Michael R. Welch, David L. Brunsma,Elizabeth Schaefer Caniglia, Michael Davern, and Jon G. Bernburg for per-ceptive comments on an earlier version of this paper.

REFERENCES

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundations for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Crimi-nology 30: 47-87.

Bjarnason, T. (1994). The influence of social support, suggestion and depression on suicidalbehavior among Icelandic youth. Acta Sociol. 37: 195-206.

Cloward, R. A., and Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and Opportunity. Free Press, New York.Cohen, A. (1955). Delinquent Boys. Free Press, New York.Cohen, L. E., and Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities

approach. Am. Sociol. Rev. 44: 588-608.Dean, A., and Lin, N. (1977). The stress-buffering role of social support: Problems and pros-

pects for systematic investigation. J. Nerv. Mental Dis. 165: 403-417.Esbensen, F.-A., and Huizinga, D. (1991). Juvenile victimization and delinquency. Youth So-

ciety 23: 202-228.Felson, R. B., Liska, A. E., South, S. J., and McNulty, T. L. (1994). The subculture of violence

and delinquency: Individual vs. school context effects. Social Forces 73, 155-173.Figueira-McDonough, J. (1992). Community structure and female delinquency rates: A heu-

ristic discussion. Youth Society 24: 3-30.Garofalo, J. (1987). Reassessing the lifestyle model of criminal victimization. In Hirschi, T.,

and Gottfredson, M. (eds.), Positive Criminology. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.Gottfredson, M. R. (1986). Substantive contributions of victimization surveys. In Tonry, M.,

and Morris, N. (eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Vol. 7). University ofChicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Gottfredson, D. C, McNeil, R. J., and Gottfredson, G. D. (1991). Social area and influenceson delinquency: A multilevel approach. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 28: 197-226.

Gove, W. R. and Crutchfield, R. D. (1982). The family and juvenile delinquency. Sociol. Quart.23: 301-319.

Gudjonsson, G. (1993). Violent crime in Iceland. FBI National Academy.Gunnlaugsson, H., and Bjarnason, T. (1994). Establishing a discipline: The impact of society

on the development of Iceland sociology. Acta Sociol. 37: 303-312.Hibell, B., Andersson, B., Bjarnason, T., Kokkevi, A., Morgan, M., and Narusk, A. (1997).

Alcohol and Drug Use Among Students in 23 European Countries in 1995. CAN, Stockholm.Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., and Garofalo, J. (1978), Victims of Personal Crime: An

Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA.Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. University of California Press, Berkeley.House, J. S., Umberson, D., and Landis, K. R. (1988). Structures and processes of social

support. Ann. Rev. Sochi. 14: 293-318.Jensen, G. F., and Brownfield, D. (1986). Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: Beyond routine

activity. Violence Victims 1: 85-99.Lauritsen, J. L, Sampson, R. J., and Laub, J. H. (1991). The link between offending and

victimization among adolescents. Criminology 29: 265-291.Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. Am. Sociol. Rev. 3: 672-682.Merton, R. K. (1957). Social Theory and Social Structure. Free Press, Glencoe, IL.Miethe, T. D., Stafford, M. C., and Long, S. J. (1987). Social differentiation in criminal vic-

timization: A test of routine activities/lifestyle theories. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52: 184-194.

118 Bjarnason et al.

Newcomb, M. D., and McGee, L. (1989). Adolescent alcohol use and other delinquent be-haviors. Crim. Just. Behav. 16: 345-369.

Norusis, M. J. (1990). SPSS Advanced Statistics User's Guide. SPSS, Chicago, IL.Reiss, A. J. (1986). Why are communities important in understanding crime? In Reiss, A. J.,

and Tonry, M. (eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Vol. 8). University ofChicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Sampson, R. J. (1987). Urban black violence: The effect of male joblessness and family dis-ruption. Am. J. Sociol. 93: 348-382.

Sampson, R. J., and Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. Am. J. Sociol. 94: 774-802.

Sampson, R. J., and Lauritsen, J. L. (1990). Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime, and theoffender-victim link in personal violence. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 27: 110-139.

Shaw, C., and McKay, H. (1942). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago, IL.

Shaw, C., and McKay, H. (1969). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas (rev. ed.). Universityof Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Shoemaker, D. J. (1994). Male-female delinquency in the Philippines: A comparative analysis.Youth Society 25: 299-329.

Taylor, R. B., and Gottfredson, S. (1986). Environmental design, crime and prevention: Anexamination of community dynamics. In Reiss, A. J., and Tonry, M. (eds.), Crime andJustice: A Review of Research (Vol. 8). University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Thorlindsson, T. (1988). Equality and educational opportunity in Iceland. Scand. J. Educat.Res. 32: 9-22.

Thorlindsson, T., and Bernburg, J. G. (1996). Ofbeldi medal Islenskra Ungmenna [Violenceamong Icelandic Youth]. Icelandic Institute for Educational Research, Reykjavik.

Thorlindsson, T., and Bjarnason, T. (1998). Modeling Durkheim on the micro level: A studyof youth suicidality. Am. Sociol. Rev. 63: 94-110.

Thorlindsson, T., and Vilhjalmsson, R. (1991). Factors related to cigarette smoking and alcoholuse among adolescents. Adolescence 26: 399-418.

Violent Victimization 119