Writing Exercise: Review of a Peer-Reviewed Journal Article
Good research helps us understand various issues and holds important implications for our society. Bad research, on the other hand, leads to inaccurate conclusions and could have detrimental effects on our society. We have seen the negative effects bad research has had on our society, starting with Andrew Wakefield’s 1998 publication stating that vaccines were linked to autism (Rao & Andrade, 2011). Parents stopped vaccinating their children and measles outbreaks were reported throughout the following years (Rao & Andrade, 2011). In the criminology field, Goddard’s theory led to the unnecessary sterilization of males and females for several years (Tibbetts & Hemmens, 2014). Therefore, being able to identify good research from bad research is a crucial skill to have in order to prevent the negative effects bad research could have on our society. In order to enhance my skills, I have chosen to review, summarize, and critique a research article written by Egbert Zavala and Ryan E. Spohn (2012).
Traditionally the four most used theories to explain the victim-offender overlap are; routine activities theory, social learning theory, deviant lifestyle theory, and the general theory of crime (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). This specific study I have chosen to review uses Robert Agnew’s general strain theory to examine the victim-offender overlap for the first time. General strain is a theory that suggests that emotions such as anger, stress, and strain leads to criminal behavior (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). Basically, the more negative emotions an individual is feeling the more likely that the individual will commit a crime. General strain theory suggests three types of strain will lead to criminal behavior. These three strains are experienced, anticipated, and vicarious strain (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). This specific study focuses on vicarious and anticipated strain. Vicarious strain is strain caused by witnessing the negative experiences of the people the individual has a bond or tie to (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). For example, an individual might feel vicarious strain by seeing a friend be physically abused by a parent. Anticipated strain is defined as a type of stress created by an individual’s negative expectations in the future (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). The individual might feel that they will experience something negative in their future such having to go to prison.
The authors formulated their hypotheses focusing on vicarious and anticipated strain. The authors predicted, “ Greater levels of vicarious strain will increase the odds of both victimization and offending” and “Greater levels of anticipated strain will increase the odds of both victimization and offending” (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). In order to test their hypothesis the authors used data from the National Survey of Weapon-Related Experiences, Behaviors, and Concerns of High School Youth (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). The data consisted of a survey that had been distributed to 734 males from 53 schools and consisted of high school sophomores and juniors (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). Each individual was mailed a self-report survey with several questions about their personal victimization, weapon use, gang activities, drug use, demographics, family living conditions, educational situations, and their aspirations (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). This survey made it easy to measure the specific variables being focused on in the current study.
Victimization and Perpetration were the two dependent variables being examined in the study by Zavala and Spohn (2012). Victimization was measured in the study by asking the participants two questions, “ How often have the following things happened to you while you were on school property in the last 12 months?” and “ How often have the following things happened to you while you were off school grounds in the last 12 months?” (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). Underneath the question about school property victimization the participants were then asked if they have “ever been 1) threatened with a gun, 2) actually been shot at, 3) been threatened with a knife or other sharp object, 4) actually been stabbed with a knife or other sharp object, and 5) been beaten or hit with a bat, board, other such weapon” (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). In regards to victimization off of school property the participants were asked if they have “ever been 1) threatened with a gun, but not shot at, 2) been shot at, but not wounded, 3) actually been shot, 4) been threatened with a knife or other sharp object but not stabbed, 5) actually been stabbed with a knife or other sharp object, and 6) been beaten or hit with a bat, board, or other such weapon” (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). The participants were then given 5 response categories that they could chose from in order to answer each question. The response categories included: “1) never, 2) just once, 3) a few times, and 4) many times” (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). Perpetration was measured by asking the participants if they have “Shown a gun to someone and threatened to shoot them,” “Shown a knife or sharp object to someone and threatened to stab them,” “Actually shot at someone with a gun,” “Actually stabbed someone with a knife or sharp object,” “Used a weapon to stick up a store or person,” and “Hit or tried to injure someone with a bat, board, brick, rock or other object” all during the past 12 months (Zavala & Spohn, 2012).
The two independent variables in the study were vicarious strain and anticipated strain. In order to measure vicarious strain the participants were asked if “1) members of their immediate families have been attacked by someone with a gun, 2) whether their friends have been attacked by someone with a gun, 3) whether they have any close friends that have been shot at, 4) whether they have been to parties or other social gatherings where guests were carrying guns, 5) whether they have been to parties or other social gatherings where shots were fired, 6) whether the respondent had seen someone severely wounded or killed by a gun, knife, or other weapon” (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). Meanwhile, anticipated strain was measured by asking participants how likely they would be “shot with a gun,” “stabbed with a knife,” and “no longer be alive” by the time they reached 25 years of age (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). The participants were asked to answer these questions with responses ranging from very unlikely to very likely. There were also several control variables such as age, social economic status, race/ethnicity, parental attachment, delinquency, and aggressive beliefs that also have an impact on the victim-offender overlap (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). All of these variables were measured throughout the survey as well with several response categories pertaining to each individual factor.
The study found that from the 734 males that had participated only 151 had claimed being victimized, while 138 reported being the perpetrators (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). Only 75 participants reported being both the offender and the victim (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). Zavala and Spohn (2012), found significant correlations between the independent variables and victimization and perpetration. Vicarious strain was positively correlated to victimization and perpetration (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). Anticipated strain also showed a positive relationship with victimization and perpetration (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). Individuals who reported vicarious strain and anticipated strain were more likely to report victimization (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). From the control variables delinquency was also positively correlated to victimization (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). Regarding perpetration, vicarious strain was significant in determining how likely an individual would be a perpetrator (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). Overall, the data supported the hypothesis that “greater vicarious strain would increase the odds of both victimization and offending,” the second hypothesis however wasn't fully supported. Anticipated strain will only increase the chances of victimization and offending when predicting victimization, but not perpetration (Zavala & Spohn, 2012).
The study had several limitations, which were addressed constantly throughout the study and within the discussion section as well. In regards to problems with the data, there were hardly any. One limitation was that only males were allowed to participate due to financial issues (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). The data was also “cross-sectional in nature and didn’t allow for a casual relationship between the independent and dependent variables to be determined” (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). There was also the possibility of a “good boy bias” but the researchers concluded there wasn't any variation regarding victimization after administering the study to a sample of three schools (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). Overall, I believe the data source used was appropriate for the study because it helped to measure every single one of the variables that the study was focused on and prevent spurious relationships.
Identifying alternative conclusions is challenging due to the fact that everything in the study seems to be very well correlated. The study supports previous research that suggests victimization is linked to offending. Since the study used the general strain theory as the theoretical framework, the authors (Zavala & Spohn, 2012), claimed an increase in vicarious and anticipated strain leads to offending and victimization. Delinquency also was positively correlated, so one could argue that various factors influence the victim-offender overlap, but in regards to this study I think the relationships that were determined to exist were not spurious.
I feel that this research is important due to the fact that it helps us examine the victim-offender overlap with a new theory, instead of constantly doing research on this overlap by using the same theories. The victim-offender overlap is complex and needs to be examined by using several theories, just like several crimes have been examined. The theory suggests that vicarious strain can help explain why an individual might become a victim and a perpetrator which is different as to what another theory might suggest causes this link. Since the victim-offender overlap is complex just like crime in general, there is not one specific theory that can be used to examine this theory. By using a new theory, it helps us to understand it in a different way, which can then lead to policy implications in the future to reduce the likelihood of victimization and perpetration.
Overall, I truly believe this research article was a perfect example of what good research should be. I believe this study helps us further understand the victim-offender overlap and how vicarious strain plays a role in it. The links made between vicarious strain to victimization and perpetration weren’t spurious, and very logical. The article supports previous research that has used the same data source and made very logical conclusions based on their results. With that being said there are several changes that can be made in regards to the methodology of the study.
Since there were several limitations such as not including females, not having a measure of self- control, the cross-sectional nature of the data, and the possibility of over and under reporting of crime in the surveys, further research should be done to eliminate these limitations (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). Further research should include the use of a male and female sample, the more people the theory can be applied to the more importance the theory holds. A measure of self-control should also be issued into the survey. A perfect example of a measure of self-control is the 10-Item Self-Scoring Self- Control Scale (2013). The survey includes statements such as “ I have a hard time breaking bad habits” or “ Im good at resisting temptation” where the participant in the study will be able to respond by choosing from a range starting at not like me-very much like me (10-Item Self-Scoring Self- Control Scale, 2013). Agnew’s general strain theory states that individuals with low self control are more likely to commit crimes so including a measure of self-control will lead to determining whether it plays a role in the victim-offender overlap (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). Further research should also include the other forms of vicarious strain and anticipated strain that youth can experience (Zavala & Spohn, 2012). For example, negative maltreatment of a mentor or teacher might lead to increase in vicarious strain. In regards to anticipated strain, the authors (Zavala & Spohn, 2012) suggested peer rejection, termination of an intimate relationship, and forecasting future imprisonment to be included as well.
The goal of this study was to use general strain theory in order to examine the link between victimization and perpetration. Therefore, policy implications weren’t included in the discussion section. With that being said, I do believe that this research has policy implications. When one hears about victim help centers, it is not usually tailored towards an individual that was also an offender. Therefore, I feel that the understanding of the victim-offender overlap can lead to proper treatment such as therapy for individuals whom have been a victim but also a perpetrator. The survey also asked questions about victimization on school property. I believe that if there are a high number of respondents reporting that they have been victimized on school grounds it can lead to schools putting policies into place to make the school safer. For example, there can be an increase of security guards so no victimization occurs in hidden stairways, bathrooms, etc. The use of metal detectors to reduce the likelihood of a weapon to be brought onto school grounds can be implemented. Further research using general strain theory along with other theories will lead to a better understanding of the victim-offender overlap and thus lead to policy implications in order to address the observations made.