Doing Things Differently

• Author: Bonnie S. Fisher,Suzanne C. Swan,Nicole V. Lasky
• Published date: 01 March 2018
• Date: 01 March 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734016817741939
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Doing Things Differently:

Exploring Drugging Victims’

Behavioral Changes and Risk

of Recurring Victimization

Nicole V. Lasky

1

, Bonnie S. Fisher

2

, and Suzanne C. Swan

3

Abstract

Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garafalo offered the “once bitten, twice shy” hypothesis, which posits

that, after experiencing victimization, individuals will make changes to their lifestyles to prevent

subsequent victimization. Despite the apparent logic of this hypothesis, empirical tests have pro-

vided mixed or weak support. The current study uses qualitative data from in-depth interviews with

51 drugging victims to explore the types of behavioral changes described by victims, as well as the

relationship between types of behavioral changes and subsequent drugging victimization. In doing so,

we begin teasing out the often subtle, yet substantively meaningful, effects of different types of

behavioral changes on subsequent drugging victimization risk. Alongside contributing to the

emerging body of drugging research, our findings have implications for the refinement of measures

designed to empirically test the “once bitten, twice shy” hypothesis.

Keywords

drugging victimization, recurring victimization, lifestyle-exposure theory, routine activities theory,

once bitten twice shy hypothesis, qualitative methods

A well-developed body of research has consistently demonstrated that risk for all forms of criminal

victimization is closely correlated with individuals’ risky lifestyles and routine activities (see

Madero-Hernandez & Fisher, 2013, for an overview). Lifestyles are conceived of as individuals’

behaviors within the context of structural constraints (e.g., age, gender, and marital status), and the

behaviors that comprise lifestyles differentially expose individuals to risk of criminal victimization

(Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garafalo, 1978). Routine activities, however, are patterns in individuals’

daily routines and affect risk of criminal victimization to the extent to which they facilitate or inhibit

the convergence of motivated offenders and suitable targets in the absence of capable guardianship

1

Department of Criminology, Criminal Justice & Global Security, Northeastern State University, Tahlequah, OK, USA

2

School of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

3

Department of Psychology and Women’s & Gender Studies Program, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA

Corresponding Author:

Nicole V. Lasky, Northeastern State University, Seminary Hall 340, Tahlequah, OK 74464, USA.

Email: lasky@nsuok.edu

Criminal Justice Review

2018, Vol. 43(1) 75-96

ª2017 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016817741939

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

(Cohen & Felson, 1979). As such, according to lifestyle routine activities theory, individuals’

behavioral choices can place them at an increased risk of criminal victimization.

The college context, in particular, has been shown to perpetuate risky lifestyles and routine

activities that can create opportunities for specific forms of victimization (Hamby & Grych,

2013; Peralta, Steele, Nofziger, & Rickles, 2010; Schwartz & Pitts, 1995), including sexual assault,

physical assault, property crimes (Weiss, 2013; Weiss & Dilks, 2016), and drugging (Lasky, Fisher,

Henriksen, & Swan, 2017). Several studies have revealed that college students are at risk of drugging

victimization, defined as being administered a drug or alcohol without their consent. Coker, Fol-

lingstad, Bush, and Fisher (2016) estimated that 1 in 13 college women had ever experienced at least

one incident in which they knew or suspected that someone put a drug into their drink without their

knowledge. Swan et al. (2016) also reported an estimated 1 in 13 prevalence of drugging victims in

their study of male and female college students at three universities. Lasky, Fisher, Henriksen, and

Swan (2017) found that college students who binge drink, are Greek life members, and are first-year

undergraduates have higher rates of drugging victimization compared to other groups of college

students. Furthermore, drugging was not always an isolated incident; nearly 20%(n¼85) of their

sample experienced more than one incident of drugging victimization since the start of that aca-

demic school year.

The link between lifestyles and routine activities and recurring victimization has been a topic

of much interest in the field of victimology (see, e.g., Farrell, Phillips, & Pease, 1995; Tillyer,

Gialopsos, & Wilcox, 2016). Previous research findings underscore that the best predictor of future

victimization is past victimization and that the same factors associated with elevated risk for a first

victimization incident, including risky lifestyles and routine activities, likely continue to influence

risk of subsequent victimizations (Pease, 1998; Tseloni & Pease, 2004; for an exception, see Fisher,

Daigle, & Cullen, 2010). In fact, scholars have shown that victims are systematically different from

nonvictims in that victims possess riskier lifestyles than nonvictims, which could put them at greater

risk of subsequent victimization (Bunch, Clay-Warner, & McMahon-Howard, 2014).

Prior research has demonstrated that criminal victimization has a range of effects on physical

health, psychological well-being, and practical concerns, such as the inability to work due to injuries

(Averdijk, 2011; Shapland & Hall, 2007). These effects appear especially pronounced for individ-

uals who experience recurring victimization (Culatta, Clay-Warner, Boyle, & Oshri, 2017; Dudfield,

Angel, Sherman, & Torrence, 2017). One consequence frequently reported by victims is constrained

behavior; that is, victims’ unwillingness to participate in certain activities due to fear of subsequent

victimization, with the underlying assumption that such constraints will mitigate this risk (Jennings,

Gover, & Pudrzynska, 2007; Wilcox, Jordan, & Pritchard, 2007). Behavioral constraints as a con-

sequence of victimization fit directly into Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garafalo’s (1978) “once

bitten, twice shy” hypothesis, which postulates that victims will make conscious changes to their

lifestyles in the hopes of avoiding subsequent victimization.

Despite the logical connection between constrained behavior as a consequence of criminal

victimization and Hindelang et al.’s (1978) “once bitten, twice shy” hypothesis, studies explicitly

testing the hypothesis have produced mixed or weak results (see, e.g., Bunch et al., 2014; Ferraro,

1995; Skogan & Maxfield, 1981). As such, there are no definitive answers to the two important

questions raised by the hypothesis: first, whether victims are likely to make behavioral changes to

reduce risk of subsequent victimization and, second, whether such changes reduce subsequent

victimization risk (Averdijk, 2011). Attempting to account for the face validity of the “once bitten,

twice shy” hypothesis in spite of the lack of conclusive support produced by empirical tests, scholars

have drawn attention to the various methodological issues inherent in studies of lifestyle routine

activities theory and recurring victimization. These include lack of attention to the perceived ser-

iousness of the crime (Averdijk, 2011) or to the context of routine activities (Bunch et al., 2014;

Mustaine & Tewksbury, 1998), and limited measures of genuinely “risky” activities (Bunch et al.,

76 Criminal Justice Review 43(1)