Victimization in Cyberspace: Is It How Long We Spend Online, What We Do Online, or What We Post Online?

• Author: Alex R. Piquero,Jennifer LaPrade,Bao Duong,Fawn T. Ngo
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016820934175
• Published date: 01 December 2020
• Date: 01 December 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Victimization in Cyberspace:

Is It How Long We Spend

Online, What We Do Online,

or What We Post Online?

Fawn T. Ngo

1

, Alex R. Piquero

2,3

,

Jennifer LaPrade

4,5

, and Bao Duong

6

Abstract

Prior research on cybercrime victimization has generally emphasized the linkage between the fre-

quency or actual length of time individuals spend online engaging in certain activities and the risk of

being victimized in cyberspace but has paid much less attention to what persons actually share or post

online that increases the risk of online victimization. To address this gap, we appeal to the integrated

lifestyle–routine activities theory in order to examine the relationships between the length of time

one spends online (online frequency), specific activities or tasks one engages in while online (online

activity), specific types of information one shares online (online posting), and seven specific forms of

cybercrime victimization using a convenience sample of students. Results showed that one online

frequency variable (internet hours), six online activity variables (banking, reading news, shopping,

planning travel, socializing, and communicating with stranger), and three online posting variables

(phone number, home address, and other info) were significantly related to five of the seven forms of

cybercrime victimization (computer virus, harassment by nonstranger unwanted porn, sex solicita-

tion, and phishing). Implications for our findings and directions for future research are discussed.

Keywords

cybercrime, victimization, integrated lifestyle/routine activities

1

Department of Criminology, College of Behavioral and Community Sciences, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA

2

Department of Sociology, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

3

Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

4

Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Missouri State University, Springfield, MO, USA

5

School of Economic Political and Policy Sciences, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA

6

Department of Computer Information Systems, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Fawn T. Ngo, Department of Criminology, College of Behavioral and Community Sciences, University of South Florida,

Tampa, FL 33620, USA.

Email: fawnngo@usf.edu

Criminal Justice Review

2020, Vol. 45(4) 430-451

ª2020 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0734016820934175

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

It is indisputable that we are living in a technologically interconnected world. We rely on computers

for many aspects of our lives, from banking to education to purchasing household goods and so on.

The World Wide Web has enabled us to connect with other individuals around the globe, share and

disseminate information, collaborate on projects, and stay in touch. Unfortunately, the very tech-

nologies and infrastructure that empower people to connect, build, and innovate are also the same

tools and mechanisms that criminals employ to victimize ordinary citizens. According to the Federal

Bureau of Investigation’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3, 2019), from 2015 to 2019, almost 2

million individuals have filed a consumer internet crime complaint with the agency. Undoubtedly,

many more were victimized but may not have reported it and/or may not yet have realized that they

had been victimized. As criminals become more sophisticated and invent new ways to commit crime

in cyberspace, the number of cybercrime victims is expected to increase in the coming years

(National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2018).

To thwart the commission of cybercrime, knowledge about factors that may heighten the risks of

victimization is crucial. Notably, there is a dearth of research examining the relationships between

what computer users post or share online (e.g., personal information, pictures, videos) and their

likelihood of becoming a victim in cyberspace. It is believed that information one posts or shares

online could help cybercriminals plot their crimes such as verifying the victim’s identity, locating

the victim’s home address, confirming that the victim is on vacation and hence, their house is

unoccupied, and so on (Windle, 2017). There is also evidence that individuals who disclose personal

information while online face greater risks of falling victim to cybercrime because scammers appear

to select targets according to the information disclosed in the virtual world (Mersh & Dodel, 2018;

Van Wilsem, 2013a). Hence, determining the linkage between the types of information individuals

post or share online and their risks of becoming victims of cybercrime is pertinent and warranted.

To address this gap in the current literature, we explore the associations between online frequency

(the length of time one spends online), online activity (the activities or tasks one engages in while

online), online posting (the information that one posts or shares online), and seven specific forms of

cybercrime: (1) getting a computer virus, (2) exposing to unwanted porn, (3) being solicited for sex,

(4) receiving phishing emails, (5) being harassed by a stranger, (6) being harassed by a nonstranger,

and (7) experiencing defamation. Our study further extends prior research on cybercrime victimiza-

tion by employing a more expansive list of online frequency, online activity, and online posting

variables, all of which have been drawn from integrated lifestyles–routine activities theory (LRAT).

The remainder of our article is organized as follows. First, we present the integrated lifestyle–routine

activities theoretical framework and then we review prior literature on the linkage between online

frequency, online activity, online posting, and cybercrime victimization. Next, we describe our data

and methods, and finally, we report and discuss our findings.

Theoretical Framework

In recent decades, a large proportion of the work on cybercrime victimization has drawn on the

lifestyle–routine activities perspective (LRAT). Lifestyle theory, as originally posited by Hindelang

et al. (1978), states that certain personal characteristics (such as age, sex, or marital status) are

related to certain routine behavioral patterns or lifestyles. Some lifestyles will place people in higher

risk situations more often (such as frequent bars at night), increasing their chance of victimization.

Relatedly, routine activities theory (Cohen & Felson, 1979) contends that crime victimization

happens when three things converge in time and space: a motivated offender, a suitable target, and

absence of capable guardian; and some people increase their risk of victimization because their

routine activities place them in these situations more often (such as walking home from work at night

5 days a week). Taken together, LRAT can provide a more comprehensive theoretical framework

when examining criminal victimization. This integrated lifestyle–routine activities approach posits

Ngo et al. 431