Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Lifestyle and routine activity theories both view victimization through the lens of the convergence of a motivated offender, an attractive target/victim, and the absence of capable guardianship. These theories differ, however, in how they view the behaviors that put people at “risk” for victimization. Where lifestyle theory conceives of risk in probabilistic terms (e.g., certain behaviors elevate one’s odds of being victimized), routine activity theory simply describes the victimization event itself (e.g., if the three key elements converge, victimization happens, yet if one of the elements is missing, victimization is avoided). We argue that this difference is meaningful and that its disappearance over time has been consequential to the study of victimization. Our purpose here is to outline the implications of this difference in the conception of risk for victimization theory, research, and policy. Our broader goal is to reignite a theoretical debate that we feel is long overdue.
Pratt et al. (Thu,) studied this question.