Disputatiousness and the Offender–Victim Overlap

• Published date: 01 May 2018
• Author: Mark T. Berg,Ethan M. Rogers,Andrew Krajewski,Richard B. Felson
• DOI: 10.1177/0022427817744594
• Date: 01 May 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Disputatiousness

and the Offender–

Victim Overlap

Richard B. Felson

1

, Mark T. Berg

2

,

Ethan M. Rogers

2

, and Andrew Krajewski

1

Abstract

Objectives: We examine whether offenders are at greater risk of violent

victimization than non-offenders because of their disputatiousness; that is,

their tendency to become involved in verbal conflicts. We also examine

whether offenders are more disputatious because of their low self-control,

alcohol use, and honor-based attitudes and whether disputatiousness can

explain the effects of these individual differences on violent victimization.

Method: A series of regression models examine self-reported data from 503

male inmates and 220 men (N¼723) they know from the community who

have never been arrested. Results: Disputatiousness accounts for a substan-

tial portion of the relationship between victimization and offending (i.e.,

inmate status). Disputatiousness also mediates the relationships between

victimization and frequent intoxication, low self-control, and honor-based

attitudes. Low self-control and heavy alcohol use account for a substantial

portion of the relationship between offending and disputatiousness. Dispu-

tatiousness and victimiza tion are associated with a h istory of assaultive

1

Department of Sociology and Criminology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park,

PA, USA

2

Department of Sociology, University of Iowa Public Policy Center, University of Iowa, Iowa

City, IA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Mark T. Berg, University of Iowa, W126 Seashore Hall, Iowa City, IA 52240, USA.

Email: mark-berg@uiowa.edu

Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency

2018, Vol. 55(3) 351-389

ªThe Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0022427817744594

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc

offenses but not a history of robbery. Conclusions: The tendency to become

involved in verbal conflicts can partly explain high victimization rates among

male offenders, and among men who lack self-control, are frequently intoxi-

cated, and have strong concerns about protecting their honor.

Keywords

violence, victim–offender overlap, street code, victimization, social

interactionist theory

Research has shown that offenders tend to have higher rates of victimization

than nonoffenders. The strong association between offending and victimiza-

tion—known as the offender–victim overlap—is among the most consistent

findingsin the criminological literature (Schreck, Stewart,and Osgood 2008).

The relationship has been attributed to low self-control, social bonds, honor-

based attitudes, and the routine activities and peer associations of offenders.

Most research focuses on these and other processes that increase the risk of

victimization by bringing offenders into contact with others involved in crim-

inal behavior. Researchsuggests, however,that these processes donot explain

a large portion of the association between offending and victimization. As a

result, Lauritsen and Laub (2007) have suggested that researchers should

consider alternative explanations for the overlap (see also Berg 2012).

In response to this call, Berg and Felson (2016) proposed a social psy-

chological explanation of the offender–victim overlap that emphasizes

social interaction between adversaries and the importance of interpersonal

conflict and escalation. They hypothesize that offenders are more likely to

become victims because of their tendency to become involved in verbal

disputes and to behave in ways that cause their disputes to escalate. Since

assaultive violence typically occurs during verbal disputes, individuals who

are frequently involved in disputes are more likely to become victims and

offenders in violent encounters.

In this research, we draw on Berg and Felson’s (2016) social interac-

tionist approach to examine whether offenders are at greater risk of violent

victimization than nonoffenders because of their tendency to be involved in

verbal disputes. We use the word “disputatiousness” as a shorthand, general

descriptor of that tendency.

1

Our main interest is in determining the extent

to which disputatiousness explains the offender–victim overlap. We also

examine why offenders tend to be disputatious, focusing on three individual

characteristics with well-established relationships to violent offending: self-

352 Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 55(3)

control, alcohol use, and honor-based attitudes. These characteristics may

have an indirect effect on victimization if they affect disputatiousness. In

addition, disputatiousness may mediate the effect of these characteristics on

victimization. Finally, we examine whether the offender–victim overlap is

stronger among respondents who have committed dispute-related violence

(i.e., most homicides and assaults) than for those who have committed

predatory violence (i.e., most robberies). If the former is stronger, this will

provide additional evidence that disputatiousness is an important source of

the overlap. We also examine whether offending, generally, is related to

victimization.

To examine these issues, we use data we collected from a sample of male

inmates and men they knew from the community who had never been

arrested. The respondent’s status as an inmate or community contact serves

as our main measure of offending. Our comparison of inmates and their

social contacts addresses Lauritsen and Laub’s (2007) concern that most

studies of the overlap are based on data from self-report surveys of the

general population. They claim that these surveys capture an insufficient

number of serious violent incidents making it difficult to identify the

mechanisms responsible for the overlap. In a supplementary analysis, we

substitute a measure of self-reported violence for inmate status as a measure

of offending.

Verbal Disputes and the Overlap

Berg and Felson (2016) maintain that individual differences in involvement

in interpersonal conflicts are important for explaining why offenders have

higher rates of victimization than nonoffenders. This assumption is based

on the fact that most homicides and assaults stem from verbal disputes (e.g.,

Berg 2012; Felson and Steadman 1983; Luckenbill and Doyle 1989). These

disputes usually begin when an ind ividual expresses a grievance to th e

insulting party. The grievance is followed by a verbal conflict in which

insults and threats are exchanged (e.g., Luckenbill 1977). The conflict

escalates, culminating in a physical attack by one or both antagonists. This

general pattern of escalation is observed regardless of whether the provoca-

tion underlying the conflict is trivial or imagined and regardless of whether

or not there is a clear offender and victim.

Situations that increase the likelihood of verbal disputes therefore

increase the risk of both violent offending and victimization. For example,

marital problems, conflicting economic interests, and poor role perfor-

mance are conducive to interpersonal violence because they often lead to

Felson et al. 353