NCJ Number
86197
Date Published
1982
Length
9 pages
Annotation
Victimology is empirically based, primarily through case studies and victim surveys, but lacks a pluralism of competing theories that are the focus of testing for explanatory power; however, steps can be taken to correct this deficiency.
Abstract
The greatest part of criminal-victimization research consists of case studies, but data are presented without attempts at systematization or theory development. This is why information from case studies has little value for generalization. This is all the more true because the studies are confined to sensational offenses that have a relatively low frequency. The other predominant technique applied by victimologists is the victim survey. The large volume of victim-related data generated by this method, however, has not been accompanied by interpretive theories. The aforementioned problems culminate in studies that use the victim-precipitation concept. This concept supposes that the victim is the ultimate initiator of his/her own victimization. Researchers who use this simplistic concept can be blamed for a number of inadequate suppositions, reasonings, and methods. It is advisable to abandon the idea that criminal victimization can be explained exclusively through victim behavior. Further, given the necessity of testing theories, victimologists should use control groups more often. Also, victimologists should use the perspective of the offender in their studies more systematically. Finally, reporting victimization to the police should be explained in terms of the theory of cognitive dissonance or another balance theory. Twelve notes and 24 references are provided.