. IuIIIIIHqIIH-In I .I I NONI ~ I» .~ I - :stst , .314.“ “ 1? 33:15 I I A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY INTO THE EFFECTS OF CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION BY ROBBERY ON COGNITIVE DIMENSIONALITY Dissertation for the Degree Of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DONALD L. BLAZICEK 1976 IIIIIIII :IIIIIII‘ I I This is to certify that the thesis entitled A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY INTO THE EFFECTS OF CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION BY ROBBERY ON COGNITIVE DIMENSIONALITY presented by Donald L. Blazicek has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph . D. degree in Sociology Major progssor Date" May 21, 1976 0-7639 .n'll'lll.) ‘IIIFNII ABSTRACT A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY INTO THE EFFECTS OF CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION BY ROBBERY ON COGNITIVE DIMENSIONALITY By Donald L. Blazicek This study investigated the relationship between on variable of cognitive complexity (cognitive dimensionality) and the parti- cipants (both offenders and victims) in the criminal offense of robbery. A total of 26 victims and 26 offenders selected from the records of the Detroit Recorder's Court and the Southern Michigan State Prison respectively were included in the analysis. The rela- tionship was studied by comparing victim and offender responses which represented the victimization experience in cognitive space, as well as making within group comparisons. Also investigated was the relationship of the degree of cognitive dimensionality to select sociological background variables (age, race, sex, edu- cation, religion, income, and marital status). Statistical analysis strongly supported the prediction that victims would be less dimensional then robbery offenders in repre- senting the victimization experience in cognitive space. All sixteen measures of dimensionality confirmed victims to be Donald L. Blazicek significantly less dimensional. Analysis of variance interaction effects were, however, found to be significant only on the ALPHA 55% factor analytic measure of dimensionality. These effects sup- ported the hypothesis that victims would show a regression (i.e., react in a more cognitively simple manner) in representing the victimization experience in cognitive space when compared to a neutral cognitive domain of occupations. Within group differences for both victims and offenders were not found to be statistically significant. Victims were categorized in terms of the robbery experience being perceived as a threat or crisis on three variables--crisis perception (CP), im- mediate psychophysical reaction (IPR), and post victimization emotion (PVE). The predicted inverse relationship of high threat or crisis perception and low cognitive dimensionality was not } substantiated for each of these variables. Although not signifi- cant, the results did indicate trends supportive of previous research. The relationship of cognitive dimensionality to the offender's commitment to criminal behavior (CCB) and commitment to specific offense patterns (050) was found to be statistically non-significant. Lapsed time since the victimization occurrence and the measure of cognitive dimensionality showed no significant effects for either victims or offenders. Furthermore, no regression effects in the victimization domain were found among victims, nor were offenders significantly more dimensional in that domain as a result of time. Donald L. Blazicek Sociological background characteristics were shown to be generally unrelated to cognitive dimensionality. Sex of the victim was the only variable that showed consistent differences with females being more dimensional in both cognitive domains. The data provided significant regression effects in the victim- ization domain for victims' marital status. Offenders did not prove to be significantly more dimensional in that domain as compared to the neutral domain of occupations when classified by various background factors. A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY INTO THE EFFECTS OF CRIMINAL VICTIMIZATION BY ROBBERY ON COGNITIVE DIMENSIONALITY By Donald L? Blazicek A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1976 Copyright by DONALD L. BLAZICEK 1976 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. Peter K. Manning, the chairperson of my graduate committee, for his comments, criticisms, editorial skills, and scholarly suggestions in the preparation of this dissertation. I would also like to thank Dr. John H. McNamara for his methodological insight and critical reading of the manuscript. His inspiration throughout my graduate -career made unrealizable goals reachable. Gratitude is also extended to Dr. Frederick B. Haisnen forhis timely suggestions prior to the final writing of the dissertation and his influence on my professionalization earlier in my graduate training. I am also indebted to Dr. James L. Phillips who provided constant encouragement from the proposal stage to the final draft. He freely gave of his time and ideas, without which this project could not have been completed. Special thanks are also due to Ms. Anne Nieberding of the Computer Institute for Social Science Research who provided computer technical assistance. Thanks are also extended to my long-time friends Donald C. Frank and Maurice Cartier who have brought me through many cloudy days, and who have shown me horizons I might not have realized. A special acknowledgment to Susan, a patient and under- standing wife, whose tolerence during my entire professional prepa- ration made it all possible. ii The material in this project was prepared under a research grant from Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society of North America, and under Grant No. 75-NI—99-0044 from the Office of Education and Manpower Assistance, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice. Researchers engaging in such projects under Government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their professional judgment. Therefore, points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily repre- sent the official position or policy of the U.S. Department of Justice. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Background of the Research Problem Theoretical Orientation of the Study Statement of the Research Problem II. OVERVIEW OF VICTIMOLOGICAL RESEARCH Violent Personal Crimes . Property Crimes Victim Surveys . . . Victim Precipitation . The Nonreporting Victim . . . The Focus of the Present Investigation . III. ACTORS AND ACTION: AN OVERVIEW OF THE ROBBERY EVENT . Extent and Trend of Robbery . . Legal and Behavioral Classification of Robbery Perception of Opportunity . Victim Confrontation . Forced Compliance of the Victim Violence Potential . . Characteristics of Robbery Victims . . Age, Race, and Sex Characteristics of Robbery Victims . Additional Social Characteristics of Robbery Victims . . . Characteristics of Robbery Offenders . Age, Race, and Sex Characteristics of Robbery Victims . . iv Page vii xi xii Chapter ‘ Page Victim Perception of Robbers . . . . . . . 83 Past Arrest Histories of Robbers . . . . . . 85 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 IV. ROBBERY AND COGNITIVE DIMENSIONALITY . . . . . . 89 Theoretical Foundations . . . . 89 Conceptualization of Cognitive Dimensionality . . 91 Cognitive Dimensionality and the Robbery Event . . 97 The Robbery Victim . . . . . . . . . . . 97 The Robbery Offender . . . . . . 99 The Measure of Cognitive Dimensionality. . . . . 101 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 V. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGICAL ORIENTATION . . . 112 The Victim Sample . . . . . . . . 112 Locating the Contacting Victims . . . . . . 115 The Offender Sample . . . . . . .' . . . . 118 Data Collection . . . . . 120 Specification of Variable Relationships . . 121 Operationalization of Variables and Statements of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . 123 Immediate Psychophysical Reaction . ., . . . . 124 Post Victimization Emotion . . . . . . . . 124 The Robbery Offender . . . . . . . . 125 Commitment to Criminal Behavior . . . . . . 126 Commitment to Specific Offense Behavior . . . . 126 Supplemental Relationships . . . . . . . . . 127 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 VI. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 Introduction . . . . . . 132 Victim--Victimizer Role Relationships . . . . . 135 Victims. Crisis Perception and Victimization . . 141 Offenders: Commitment to Criminal Behavior and Specific Offense Behavior . . 144 Time Factors, Victimization, and Dimensionality. . 148 Supplemental Hypotheses . . . . . . . . 152 Sex and Cognitive Dimensionality . . . . . . 152 Race and Cognitive Dimensionality. . . . . . .155 Age and Cognitive Dimensionality . . 157 Educational Level and Cognitive Dimensionality . 163 Religion and Cognitive Dimensionality . . . . 168 Income and Cognitive Dimensionality . . . . 171 Marital Status and Cognitive Dimensionality . . 175 Summary . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 178 Chapter VII. DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS Overview . Limitations . Discussion Victims: Crisis Perception and Victimization . Offenders. Commitment to Criminal Behavior Background Factors . . Contributions of the Present Research Implications for Victimology . Implications for Social Psychology Methodological Considerations . Strategic Considerations for Future Research. Conclusion APPENDICES BIBLIOGRAPHY vi Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Summary of Major Findings on Sex, Race, and Age of Offenders and Victims for Four Major Crimes The Interpersonal Relationship between Victim and Offender, by Type of Crime, in Percent of Total The Place of Occurrence by Type of Crime in Percent of Total' . . . . . . . . . Motive of the Offender by Type of Crime in Percent of Total . . . Means of Inflecting Injury by Type of Crime in Percent of Total Victims of Robbery, by Age, Race, and Sex, Detroit Study . . . . Victims of Robbery, by Race, as Noted in Different Studies . Victims of Robbery, by Marital Status and Sex, as Noted in the Detroit Study and Syvrud Victims of Robbery, by Religion and Sex, as Noted in the Detroit Study and Syvrud . . Robbery Offenders, by Race and Age, Jackson Study Robbery Offenders, by Race, as Noted in Different Studies . . . . Intercorrelation Matrix of Cognitive Dimensionality Measures for Victims in the Victimization Domain . Intercorrelation Matrix of Cognitive Dimensionality Measures for Victims in the Domain of Occupations Intercorrelation Matrix of Cognitive Dimensionality Measures for Offenders in the Victimization Domain vii Page 14 15 17 19 20 63 69 73 75 78 80 107 108 109 Table 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. Intercorrelation Matrix of Cognitive Dimensionality Measures for Offenders in the Domain of Occupations . Attrition Distribution of Detroit Robbery Victim Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . Attrition Distribution of Jackson Robbery Offender Sample . . . Means and Standard Deviations for Victims and Offenders in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Sixteen Dimensionality Measures . . . . . . Summary Results of the Two-Nay Analysis of Variance for the Sixteen Measures of Cognitive Dimensionality Means, Standard Deviations, and t-test Results for Crisis Perception (CP), Immediate Psychophysical Reaction (IPR), and Post Victimization Emotion (PVE) Variables for Victims in the Victimization Domain . . Intercorrelation Matrix of Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures with Immediate Psychophysical Reaction (IPR), Post Victimization Emotion (PVE), and Crisis Perception (CP) Variables for Victims in the Victimization Domain . . . . . . Means, Standard Deviations, and t-test Results for Commitment to Criminal Behavior (CCB) for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures for Offenders in the Victimization Domain . . . . Means and Standard Deviations for Commitment to Specific Offenses (CSO) for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures for Offenders in the Victimization Domain . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance Summary for Commitment to Specific Offenses (CSO) for Offenders in the Victimization Domain for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures . . . . . Intercorrelation Matrix of Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures with Commitment to Criminal Behavior (CCB) and Commitment to Specific Offenses (CSO) Variables for Offenders in the Victimization Domain viii Page 110 116 119 136 137 142 143 145 145 146 146 Table Page 26. Means and Standard Deviations for Victims by Lapsed Time for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations . 149 27. Analysis of Variance Summary for Victims by Lapsed Time in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures . 149 28. Means and Standard Deviations for Offenders by Lapsed Time for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations . 150 29. Analysis of Variance Summary for Offenders by Lapsed Time in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures . 150 30. Means, Standard Deviations, and t-test Results for Victims by Sex for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations . . . . . . ‘. . . . . . . . 154 31. Means, Standard Deviations, and t-test Results for Victims and Offenders by Race for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations . . . . . . . . . 156 32. Means and Standard Deviations for Victims by Age for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations . . . . . . 158 33. Means and Standard Deviations for Offenders by Age for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victim- ization Domain and the Domain of Occupations . . . 159 34. Analysis of Variance Summary for Victims by Age in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures . . . . . 160 35. Analysis of Variance Summary for Offenders by Age in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures . 161 36. Means and Standard Deviations for Victims by Edu- cational Level for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations . . . . . . . . . . 164 37. Means and Standard Deviations for Offenders by Edu- cational Level for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures ix Table Page in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 38. Analysis of Variance Summary for Victims by Edu- cational Level in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures . . . . . . . . . . . 166 39. Analysis of Variance Summary for Offenders by Edu- cational Level in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures . . . . . . 167 40. Means and Standard Deviations for Victims by Religious Preference for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 41. Analysis of Variance Summary for Victims by Religion in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures . 170 42. Means and Standard Deviations for Victims by Income for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victim- ization Domain and the Domain of Occupations . . . 172 43. Analysis of Variance Summary for Victims by Income in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures . 173 44. Means and Standard Deviations for Victims by Marital Status for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations . 176 45. Analysis of Variance Summary for Victims by Marital Status in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures . 177 46. Intercorrelation Matrix of Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures with Sociological Background Variables for Victims in the Victimization Domain (V.D.) and the Domain of Occupations (O.D.) . . . . . . . . 180 47. Intercorrelation Matrix of Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures with Sociological Background Variables for Offenders in the Victimization Domain (V. D. ) and the Domain of Occupations (O. D. ) . . . . . . . 181 48. Summary Table of Statistical Tests for Victims and Offenders on Sociological Background Factors . . . 182 X LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Developmental Base of Current Victimology 2. Two Dimensional Representation of a Portion of a Cognitive Space . 3. Mean Dimensionality Scores for Robbery Victims and Offenders for the Scott ALPHA, BETA, and Factor Analytic 55% ALPHA Measures . . . xi Page 30 93 139 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Conceptual Elements and Attributes within the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations . 210 B. Attribute Scale Groupings Used in Computing ALPHA and BETA Dimensionality Scores . . . . 212 C. Letter of Request for Victim Interview . . . . . . 214 D. Letter of Request for Offender Interview . . . . . 216 E. Victim Interview Schedule . . . . . . . . . . 218 F. Offender Interview Schedule . . . . . . . . . 222 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Background of the Research Problem Criminological research has been characterized by a myopic focus on a single aspect of the total crime event, that is the crimi- nal. Major attention has been given to theories of causation, classification of offenders, correctional institutions, and the rehabilitation process. In this sense, "criminology is mainly the study of doers, and the prevention, control, and treatment of their behavior" (Reckless, 1967: 137). Despite the voluminous literature on crime and delinquency, few studies have been exclusively con- cerned with the victims of crime. The school of thought has developed, however, which main- tains that the victim is not only an essential element in the crimi- nal act, but often plays an important role in the commission of that act (Amir, 1967; Chapman, 1968: 153-166; Hentig, 1940; 1948; Wolfgang, 1957). While this conception has been advocated for over three decades, very little has been accomplished in terms of research design, theory construction, and the accumulation of substantive knowledge. This concern with the victim's participation in the crime event has led to a new branch of learning in criminology. This branch has been labeled ”Victimology," and one important focus of this orientation is the examination of the criminal-victim relation- ship. In the present study, victimology will refer to the study of criminal-victim relationships (Nagel, 1963; Schafer, 1968: 54-55) as opposed to the more general connotation of Victimology as a sepa- rate and distinct discipline from criminology (Mendelsohn, 1963). Furthermore, the expansion of criminological thought to include specific analyses of the victim may aid in developing a more thorough understanding of the genesis of crime. As Schafer (1968: 39-40) states: That the victim is taken as one of the determinants, and that a nefarious symbiosis is often established between doer and sufferer, may seem paradoxical. The material gathered, however, indicates such a relation. If this relation can be confirmed, and if the criminal-victim inter- actions and personal relationships can be observed in the functional interplay of causative elements, crime can be seen and understood in a broader perspective. To date, most empirical inquiries dealing with criminal- victim relationships have been associational in nature. These investigations set forth patterns of the crime event and describe relations among select variables as age, race, and sex character- istics of victims and offenders, spatial and temporal patterns of the crime, and the influence of alcohol in the crime event (Amir, 1971; Bohannan, 1960; Driver, 1961; Mulvihill, Tumin, and Curtis, 1969; Pittman and Handy, 1964; Pokorny, 1965; Schafer, 1968: 59-103; V055 and Hepburn, 1968; Wolfgang, 1958). Beyond these investigations, however, the victim-offender relationship offers rich material for the study of such encounters from other perspectives and orientations. Theoretical Orientation of the Study The present stage of theoretical development in Victimology is embryonic. As Vold (1958: 4) succinctly states in another context (i.e., criminological theory), which, nonetheless, is most appropriate for victimological concerns: "No present scheme of theoretical concepts is entirely valid or entirely sufficient to account for the full range of complexity of human behavior." The appropriateness of this statement is fully appreciated, as vic- timology not only lacks theory and systematic statements of testable hypotheses, but is only initiating collection of useable empirical information. The frame of reference employed in the present research derives from the symbolic interactionist school of thought, but most specifically from the interactional theory proposed by McCall and Simmons (1966). This role—identity model stresses the im- portance of perceptual and cognitive processes in interaction, and assumes that man has the ability to self-consciously direct his own activities. Furthermore, this orientation suggests that individual selves and identities emerge out of social structure and social situations. From this perspective, it is clear that individual behavior in the presence of others is more than a simple stimulus and response action and reaction. Interactional encounters incorpo- rate internal processes (i.e., perceptual and cognitive) which serve to establish governing mutual expectations for behavior in given social settings. The emergence of such a "working concensus" is thus an important aspect of studying interpersonal behavior. Previous interactional research (Glaser and Strauss, 1964; Goffman, 1959; 1967; Gordon and Gergen, 1968; Rose, 1962) has been directed toward the specification of variables (e.g., awareness contexts, self presentation, self-concept, role-taking ability, etc.) associated with the development and maintenance of recurrent interactional relationships and encounters. Sociologists, none- theless, have been hard pressed to formulate a theoretical account of those interactions which are non-recurrent, problematic, and consequential for the participants. This general interaction perspective provides a useful framework for viewing the interactive nature of the criminal act. Since victim-offender encounters may be considered special instances of a more universal class of conflict situations, it is of interest to investigate certain social psychological dimensions involved in this interaction. The focal concern of the present research is with exploring the dyadic relationship of victim and offender in the robbery situation in terms of the experiential or cognitive saliency of that experience. In this respect, it was asserted that the victimization event begins with the entering into some sort of relationship between criminal(s) and victim(s). While individual victimizations are highly idiosyncratic, certain dimensions of the event may be assumed to be more universally distributed, and it is in this direction that the present research was cast. The robbery victimization event being interactional in nature possesses some salient, although not entirely unique, characteristics generally not found in other social interactions, and the structural nature of this encounter cannot be ignored as an important variable. Denzin (1969) directs attention to the "situated aspects" of human conduct for interaction research. He (1969: 926) states: If behavior occurs within social situations and if the meaning attached to those situations influences subsequent behavior, then the situation becomes a dimension of analysis. Denzin proceeds to identify four components of the situation as follows: (a) the interactants as objects, (b) the concrete setting, (c) the meanings brought into the situation, and (d) the time taken for the interaction. In light of these situated aspects, the victimization event in the case of robbery may be considered as a special type of interactional occurrence charac- . terized by forced compliance on the part of the victim, and of a fleeting nature in that neither of the interactants desire to continue the relationship over any sustained period of time. The salient role orientations in the robbery encounter appear to be twofold as follows: (a) dominance of the offender over the victim and forced compliance by the victim, and (b) achievement- oriented and other-oriented, that is, the act is purposefully motivated on the part of the offender with the intent of monetary gain, and action is directed toward some person other than oneself. Social psychological research (Biddle and Thomas, 1966; Gross and stone, 1963) has shown that an individual's "role requirements" under varying conditions significantly influence his perception and behavior. Similar connotations may be advanced with regard to the robbery event. Thus, the victimizer is in a position of control and power, has planned his part in the inter- action, and has purposefully initiated the action. Conversely, the victim is in a position of forced compliance, experiences an unexpected encounter, and faces potential threat and trauma. Statement of the Research Problem The purpose of the present research is to demonstrate the utility of a social psychological perspective for personal ap- praisals of life situations. The life situation here selected is criminal victimization by robbery. The assumption was made that the phenomena of criminal victimization is of a selective and differential nature. In accord with this assumption, it was sug- gested that personal reactions to robbery victimization encounters for both victims and offenders is relative not only to their location in the social structure, but also to their respective role relations in the victimization encounter. Refraining from the more global concerns of past research, the present study sought to concentrate on the experiential level of analysis through the examination of one property of cognitive structure. This property, termed cognitive dimensionality (specified in Chapter IV), is one variable of cognitive complexity and allows an examination of indi- vidual reactions and representations of specific events in semantic space. This level of analysis was selected because of the impossibility of directly observing criminal-victim interactions and behaviors during robbery encounters. As such, it was necessary to move the data source to covert or experiential aspects of the situation in order to allow inferences from the data. Concerned with this element of the victimization event and victim-offender relationships, the present research focused on the relationship among several sets of variables heretofore generally unmentioned, and certainly underinvestigated, in contemporary victimological research. First, consideration was given to those situated aspects of the encounter in terms of the specific role relations among the participants (i.e., the offender in a planned control position and the robbery victim in an impinged position of compliance to unexpected demands). Given this structural aspect of the event, it was suspected that differential responses would accrue among the interactants in representing the experience in semantic space. Secondly, consideration was directed to victim perception of the experience as stressful or threatening to self as an important variable in accounting for differential response patterns. Third, attention was given to suspected differences among robbery offenders as a result of their commitment to criminality. Finally, since the interactionist perspective sug- gests that individual identities emerge from social structure location and that as a result of these identities individuals bring differential meanings to specific situations, it was of interest to consider the relation of sociological background factors (i.e., age, race, sex, education, religion, income, and marital status) and representations of the victimization experience in cognitive space. The approach to these specific goals will begin by first examining the past research in Victimology (Chapter II). Chapter III will consist of a general overview of the criminal offense of robbery. Chapter IV will introduce the concept of cognitive dimensionality as the major dependent variable in terms of its applicability and importance as an area of victimological concern. Chapter V will introduce, delineate, and specify the operational- ization of variables and statements of hypotheses. Chapter VI will present the analysis of the results. The final chapter will provide a discussion of the results, as well as making sug- gestions for future research. CHAPTER II OVERVIEW OF VICTIMOLOGICAL RESEARCH This chapter is a critique of various studies, wholly or partially, devoted to the examination of the victim in the criminal act. It is designed to provide the reader with a general overview of victimological research. The present chapter does not purport to be an exhaustive, nor a critical review of the literature. The major intent, rather, is to identify and systematize diverse lines of research which have led to the present state of knowledge in Victimology, as well as to place the present investigation within that spectrum. In order to make the task manageable within the confines of this purpose, the chapter will be divided along the following conceptual and substantive considerations: (a) violent personal crimes, (b) property crimes, (c) victim surveys, (d) victim precipitation, (e) non-reporting victims, and (f) the present perspective. Violent Personal Crimes Interest in the victims of violent personal crimes became enlightened in the decade of the 1950's with a concern over sexual offenses. This interest was in part generated by extensive popular literature reinforcing the belief that: the present danger to women and children from serious sex crimes is large and is increasing more rapidly than any 9 10 other crime; that most sex crimes are committed by "sexual degenerates," "sex fiends," or "sexual psychopaths" (Sutherland, 1950: 142). Much of the concern here was with the arguments surrounding the establishment of various sexual psychopath laws. There is little need to reiterate these issues other than to mention that a base was established for incorporating the victim into criminological investigations. Since this early attention, there has been increased interest in the victim of sexual offenses. Several discussions (Amir, 1971; Guc, 1961; Gebhard, et al., 1968; Gibbens and Prince, 1963; Henriques, 1961; LaFon, et al., 1961; MacDonald, 1971; Schultz, 1960; 1973) have focussed on criminal-victim relationships. In addition to these considerations, numerous studies have shown a concern for the impact of victimization on the part of the victim (Brunold, 1964; Gagnon, 1965; Halleck, 1965; Libai, 1969; Milliken, 1950; Reifen, 1958; Weiss, et al., 1955). In addition to sexual offenses, violent personal crimes have attracted considerable investigation involving a victimologi- cal perspective. Of the voluminous number of studies on homicide, Wolfgang's (1958) appears to be the most provocative. This study examined 588 cases of criminal homicide occurring between 1948 and 1952 in Philadelphia. Wolfgang explicitly distinguished between victim and offender data in terms of age, race, and sex characteristics, as well as describing the patterns of the homicide event for such factors as method of inflicting death, time and place of occurrance, the presence and influence of alcohol, and previous 11 arrest records. In addition to these, Wolfgang reports the inter- personal relationships between victims and offenders. Several later studies--Bensing and Schroeder (1960) in Cleveland, Pokorny (1965) in Houston, Schafer (1968) in Florida, Voss and Hepburn (1968) in Chicago--have sought to confirm some of Wolfgang's more general findings, and may be considered partial replications of his study. Wolfgang's investigation has also served as an impetus and point of departure for subsequent studies on personal crimes employing the same methodological designs in order to seek patterned criminal-victim relationships. Included among these investigations are Amir's (1971) study of forcible rape, Normandeau's (1968) inquiry of robbery, and Pittman and Handy's (1964) investigation of aggravated assault. A comparison of the findings of these studies indicate striking similarities, not only across crimes, but also within the specific locales investigated. In general, it may be con- cluded that crimes of personal violence (i.e., homicide, assault, and rape) are: (a) intra-racial, (b) involving persons who are relatives, friends or acquaintances rather than strangers, (c) males and non-whites showing greater involvement--both as victims and offenders, and (d) high in propinquity in that these crimes tend to involve persons who live near to each other. In addition to the Wolfgang replication line of investi- gation, several other studies of violent personal crime have contributed to the victimological perspective. Several investi- gations (Ennis, 1967; President's Commission, 1967b: 39-40; 12 Lanzkron, 1963; Morris and Blum-Cooper, 1964: 321-379; Nakata, 1963; Svalastoga, 1962) have consistently confirmed and substantiated the intricate personal interrelationships between offender and victim. Additional studies have provided further information on: (a) sex, age, and interpersonal patterns of criminal-victim relationships (Robin, 1963; Ueno and Ishiyama, 1963), (b) the psychology of the victim (MacDonald, 1961; 1971), and (c) the impact of victimization (Halleck, 1965; Kisker, 1964; Sutherland and Scherl, 1970). The crime of robbery, when considered as a violent personal offense, tends to depart from these characteristics. While more specific detail will be given to this offense in the next chapter, some of the more noted differences are that robbery: (a) tends to be more interracial (Mulvihill, et al., 1969: 213), (b) appears to be more impersonal involving more stranger—to-stranger inter— actions (Mulvihill, et al., 1969: 222; Normandeau, 1969: 130), and (c) tends to be more spatially dislocated in the sense that distances between places of robbery occurrence and offender's and/ or victim's residences are much greater than in other crimes of personal violence (Normandeau, 1968: 269-272). Many of the aforementioned inquiries have been confined to particular offenses and particular cities or jurisdictions. In an attempt to rectify this situation, and to compile a more adequate picture of the various aspects of criminal-victim relationships and situational factors involved in crime occurrences, the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence (Mulvihill, et al., 1969) prepared the first national survey of offender and 13 victim patterns for four major violent crimes. This investigation collected a ten percent random sample of 1967 offense and arrest reports from 17 large United States cities. Although the design and implementation of this survey possessed certain methodological problems, it does represent a fairly accurate profile of general patterns of victim-offender interactions. Additionally, it repre- sents one of the only current sources of extensive data which can be compared to the previous investigations of individual locales. Rather than engage in a detailed reiteration of the numerous findings of the survey, the present writer has prepared a summary table of major findings (Table l) for the age, race, and sex of offenders and victims, as well as reproducing relevant data tables from the survey (Tables 2-5). While many of these findings need to be scrutinized further, one general conclusion emerges. It is noted that in each of these offenses the criminal and his victim engage in a face-to-face inter- actional scheme, which is characterized by violence or at least the threat of violence. Given this similarity, significant vari- ations become manifestly apparent. Consequently, any attempt to analyze the underlying dynamics of a particular offense must take account of the multitudinous factors that converge in the occurr- ence of that event. The results of this survey give the clear indication that the mere compilation of various characteristics of crimes of personal violence is indeed dubious. While certain general patterns do emerge, the results of this survey portray significant variations among major relevant variables previously 14 .mmuwczuco: u 2 new .moawsz u : .apas N z ..»a fiancee. go ..»a vague. ..»a uaupaamma. ..»n uap_wx= mamas “\v gmapm aces momma &N.Fm cm mp10\m_-o mommu mommo new: mgmucmmwo momma No.~¢ cw go.~¢ cw Lomczo» aw.mm cw +o~\+mm saw: +m~\+o~ cow; Appmgmcmm +m~\m~-wp xgommpmu agomwgmu saw: :Lmuuma now: :meumq :meumg mum msmm mom mamm umxwe vmxwe compo o: xFFGmemm xppmcmcmm mm< mommo F.Nm mmwmu N¢.wm cw 2\z new cw 2\z can mommo fim.m¢ mommo &~.m¢ mommo xm.mm momma xm.mm momma &~.mo cw 3\z new: cw 3\z cow; cw z\z cow: cw 2\z saw: cw Z\z sow: _m_umccmpcw meomccmacw Forumgmcucw meumcmgucw Pawumcmgpc_ appmcmcmm zFFmmemm prmgmcmm xppmgmcmm AFchmcmm mama momma xm.mo momma xo.mm mommu Nm.~o cm z\z saw: momma am.¢w cm z\z saws cw az\z saw: —m=xmmmgucw cw z\z cy_z Pmaxmmmcucw pmaxmmmgucw xppmcmcmm szxommcucw xppmcmcmm appmgmcmm xmm xgmnnom xgmnnom mama upammm< muwuwsoz nmsgmcs umsg< mpnwugom uwum>ocmm< .Ampmumom "comp .mwucau new .cw53h .FPP;V>P=z sogmv mmewgu some: Laom Low mswuuw> was mcmncmwwo mo mm< use .momm .xom co mmcpucwm gone: mo ngEE=mul._ m4m

4Hzv coumwmlcmgpogm F.o o o.~ N._ m.m on ucazaa A>v u_wgo o o N.o m.o o.~ on u__;u A>v pcaeaa o o.o o v.m w.mp mumznazV mow: o o o m. m.F Acoeeouv on mow: A>v ucmnmaz o o. o m.m o.o Amem_v on acmnmsz A>v mew: o o o m.” m.o A_mmm_v mow: A>v ucmnmaz Agmnnom xgmnnom mama u_:mmm< ouwuwso: cowumuog coagacz umEL< mpnmogou umum>mgmm< —ocwswcu waxy chwapgo pcmpow> «so: .ANPN "mmmp .mwugzu ucm .cw53h .F—w;w>p:z Eogmv pouch mo ucmogmm cw .msmgu mo maxw xn .gmucmmmo new Empow> :moZHmn qmcmzowuopom Facomgoagmucm o:»--.~ m4m

¢< m.mm w.om “.mm o.mm «.mv >mv LmUWCmo mowpoa co :opmu “.mm o.mn m.mm m.o~ o.m_ Lomcmcpm «.0 ¢.F m.o o.m w.m xsmcm so Fm>P¢ xmm o m.o P.o m.P m.p cowumpmm mmmcwmzm m.~ m.o m.m m.m F.m Concave: o.m m.m m.mN o.m_ «.mp mucauc_a=au< _.o m.o o ~.o m.o “0 Lo >V ap:p_umoea F.o ¢.o m.m m.o o.m >mmgmm< pmcwsmgo waxy pm=_ewgu pcmpow> ago: .Umzcwucouuu.m m4mmh .me cusp gmcpo acme:_mugmucu Co comp; p.o ¢.N m.o m.~ 0.“ omcaog .soocamh .=Lm>mh .cmm m.m ¢.om ¢.p P.m m.~ ucwsgmm_nmamu meocmseou gmcpo o o.m o o o xcmm o ~.F o ¢.o o mcoum :wmsu m.o o.m o m.o o.o cowumum muw>cmm ¢.o_ N.o m._m m.o~ m.em mac: .4mpm .mepm .Ppm: ¢.~ o.m _.m m.mp m.__ zeapm .cmo .Eooa mcw>mn o m.o _.o ~.~ m.~ cmzupmx m.m m.o «.mm o.m o.o~ soocumm Agmnaom xgmnnom mama upammm< conga: compmuoo BEE: BE< m z .82: 8:33? 2: P P E 25 mewco paw—ow> Lona: .APNN “mmmp .mwugzu use .cwszk .Ppw;w>p:z soggy quok do ucmugmm cw mswcu mo waxy an mucmggsuuo mo mumpm och--.m m4m “Loamcmch owpnaa o.m m.m o.PP _.P F.N mpowgm> ugoamcmcp mum>wga a.m m.F N.m m.o m.~ _ no; ¢.a m.o m.~ m.F ¢.o xcma m._ F.N P.o N._ 0., am~_< m.me m.am m.¢ F.mm m.¢~ pmmgum o.m m.e N.N m.¢ N.¢ mocmu_mma ucaoc< mmg< mpmwnmEEH ~.m o.em m.m_ N.o~ onpmamm< pamnpwz mazp memgu pcwpow> Lona: .umacwucou--.m uam

ma o o o o.m ¢.m amaoammm o o o m.m a.a chcmao apwsma xgmnaoa xgmnaoa mama upsmmm< muwu_Eo: mmEgmc: mmsc< mpnwomoa mmum>mamm< chwswgu m>wuoz maaw mswcu pcmFow> Loam: aomm "mwmp .mwussu mam .cwsah ._FP;_>F=2 momma .mmoh mo acmuema cw mswam mo wasp an emmcmmmo mam mo m>wmoz--.m mama» 20 amoma Amomv Ak_mv Amm¢_v Ammmv o.oo~ o.oop o.oo~ o.oo_ o.oop Fmpoh mmmcu N.m m.m m.m m._ o czocacz Pmuop —.mo m.Nm o.ma o.mp o mmgznca poz Pmuoh ~.am a.mp e.—N o.om o.oop mmczncH Pmuoh o._ o.m o.p o.a w.m gmgpo a.o~ a.m a.ap ¢.NN m.op zuom o o o F.o N.o :owmoa o m.m o.o a.—. ~.m ucmsaaumcH u:=_m o ~.~ a.o m.mN ~.mm unmangumcH acmcm L.mfio Lo momma o o.m ¢.F o.m— m.me Ecmmcwa xgmanoa xgmanoa mama ppzmmm< mmwuwso: mmEcmcz mmEg< mpnwugoa mmum>mcmm< pmcwsmgu Agzncm mcwuowpmcm maxw maven ucmpow> comm: mo mcmmz mam mzpmum xgznca .Ammm "mom, .mpagzo mam .cwszh .FFp;m>p=z sogav meoh mo memucma cw mewgu mo maaw an xgznca mempum_m:H mo m:mm:--.m m4m

o “my Amy ama Amy ..mm o m..m m.Pm o o.o¢ o o o mm-om Ana “my Amy “ma Amy a_ ama a_a flea N.ma m.N¢ m.op m.ma o.om k.m m.m~ m.mm o.m~ mm-om o o o o o a o o o ma-o¢ aav aav flea Aaa ¢.mp o F.PN _.F~ o m.m~ o o o mm-om Amy Amy Ama flea apa Ana flea ANV Ama m.om m.Na m.mm o.P~ o.m~ o.o~ F.km “.mm o.om mm-c~ Amy a_v a_a Amy A_a A_v a.“ n.4, m.m m.o_ o.m~ k.m o o 0 ON emmca Each m~mEma mpmz papa... wpmsma mpmz Pouch 2.650”. 0;: zoom amen: age—m .Apcmugma :PV Auaum uwogumo .xmm vcm .muma .mm< an .XLmanoa mo mewuum>uu.m m4m mc0 :0 050000> 000 mmczmmmz x000mcowwcm500 m>0000000 we x000mz 0000m~mccoucm0cH-.NF 000<~ 1(38 000.0 000.- c~0.- ~00.- a~0.- 000.- 000.- a~0.- 000. 000.- 000.- ~N0.- 000.- 000.- 000.- 000.- mom: 000.0 000. 0N0. 000. m~0. 0~0. ~00. 000.- 000. ~00. 0~0. _~0. 000. 0N0. 000. 000 000.0 ~00. 000. 000. 000. 000. ~00.- ~00. 000. ~00. N00. N00. 000. 000. 000 000.0 000. N00. ~00. 000. 000.- 000. 000. 000. 000. ~00. ~00. 000. 000 000.0 0~0. 0~0. 0~0. 0~0.- 000. ~00. 000. 000. N00. 000. N00. 000 000.0 000. 000. 000 - 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. ~00. 000. 00~ 000.0 000. 000.- 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 00~ 000.0 000.- 000. 000. 000. ~00. 0N0. ~00. ~00. 00000 000a0000 <~00 000.0 000.- 000.- 000.- 000.- 000.- 000.- 000.- mam: 000.0 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000 000.0 000. 000. 0N0. ~00. 000. 000 000.0 000. 000. 000. 000. 000 000.0 000. 000. 000. 000 000.0 000. 000. 00~ 000.0 000. 00~ 000.0 00000 mum: 000 000 000 000 00~ 00~ 00000 mam: 000 000 000 000 00~ 00~ 00000 000a=000 meaasoem «000 111.- 0e0asoem «zaaa .00.... mmxsmmmz XHWchowmcmeD m>wuwcmou .._.o xwLuwZ :OwuumLLOULmur—Hll.m— m..m<._. 109 000.0 000.- 000.- 000.- 000.- 000.- 000.- ~00.- 0~0. 000.- 0~0.- 0~0.- 000.- 000.- e0m.- e00.- mum: 000.0 0~0. ~00. 0~0. 0~0. 000. 000. ~00.- 000. N00. 000. 00~. 000. 000. 000. 000 000.0 0~0. 000. N00. N00. 000. N00.- 0~0. 000. 000. 000. ~00. 000. 000. 000 000.0 000. ~00. 000. 0~0. 000.- ~00. ~00. 0~0. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000 000.0 0~0. 000. ~00. 0~0.- 00~. 000. 000. 000. 000. 0~0. ~00. 000 000.0 ~00. 0~0. N00.- ~00. 0~0. 000. N00. 000. 000. 0~0. 00~ 000.0 ~00.- 00~. 000. 0~0. 000. 000. N~0. 000. 00~ 000.0 000.- 000. 000. 000. N00. ~00. ~0~. 000. 00000 000a=000 <000 000.0 000,- ~00.- ~00.- 000.- 000.- ~00.- ~00.- mam: 000.0 000. ~0~. 00~. NNO. 000. 000. 000 000.0 000. ~00. 000. 000. 000. 000 000.0 000. 000. 000. 0N0. 000 000.0 -0. 000. ~00. 000 000.0 000. 0~0. 00~ 000.0 000. 00~ 000.0 00000 mam: 000 000 000 000 00~ 00~ 00000 mom: 000 000 000 000 00~ 00~ 00000 mcwazocw m00 :0 mcmmcmaao 000 mmuzmmmz >000m00000m500 m>0000000 00 x000mz 0000m0m00000m000-.00 m00<~ '110 000.0 0~0.- 00w.- 000.- 000.- ~00. 000.- 000.- 000. mwm.- 000.- 000.1 ~00.- 000.- ~00.- 000.1 mam: 000.0 000. ~00. 000. 000. N00. 000. 000.- 0N0. 000. 000. N00. 000. ~0~. 000. 000 000.0 ~00. 000. 000. 000. 0~0. N00.- 000. 000. 000. 000. ~00. ~0~. 000. 000 000.0 0~0. 000. 000. 000. ~00.- 000. 000. 000. 0~0. 000. N00. ~00. 000 000.0 000. 0~0. 0~0. ~00.- 000. ~N0. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000 000.0 N00. 0~0. 000.- 000. 0N0. 000. 000. ~N0. 0~0. 000. 00~ 000.0 000. ~00.- 000. 000. 000. ~00. 000. 0~0. 000. 00~ 000.0 0~0.- 000. ~00. 000. ~00. N00. 0~0. 000. 00000 000a0000 <000 000.0 000.- 000.- 000.- N00.- 0~0.- 000.- ~00.- mum: 000.0 000. 000. N~0. 000. ~00. 0~0. 000 000.0 ~00. ~00. 000. 000. 000. 000 000.0 0~0. 000. 0~0. 0~0. 000 000.0 000. 000. 0~0. 000 000.0 0~0. 0~0. 00~ 000.0 000. 00~ 000.0 00000 mam: 000 000 000 000 mo~ w0~ 00000 mam: 000 000 000 000 00~ 00~ 00000 mcwazogm 0000000 00 x000mz 0000m0m0000cm0cH-.00 000<0 111 derived social psychological principles to real life situations, but . also it provides a new, and perhaps more comprehensive, approach to the understanding of the participants in robbery events. CHAPTER V RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGICAL ORIENTATION The purpose of this study was essentially threefold: (l) to discover if any differences in cognitive dimensionality exist among the participants of the robbery event as a result of their role as victim or victimizer, (2) to examine any within group differences in cognitive dimensionality among these participants, and (3) to discover any relationships of cognitive dimensionality to select background variables among these participants. By way of orientation, this chapter will begin with a description of the victim and offender sample selection methods and their limitation. The discussion will then turn to a delineation of the procedure, Operationalization of variables, and the specification of research hypotheses specific to the investigation. The Victim Sample Sampling victims of criminal offenses involves some unique difficulties in addition to the major problems confronting all behavioral science research. One such difficulty is noted by Syvrud (1967: 37-38): Initially the investigator contacted law enforcement agencies, i.e., community police forces, sheriff's departments, and a state crime commission, in an attempt to obtain information about the identity of robbery victims. It was found that these respective law enforcement agencies were generally reluctant 112 113 to divulge information regarding the identity and location of robbery victims. In the event that the law enforcement agency did permit the investigator to obtain information from their files there was considerable concern expressed on the part of the police that there might be dissatisfaction on the part of the victims with the police organization if such information were released. . . . They did not want to take the chance of arousing protests from victims if their identities were revealed through the police agency. As a result of this problem, Syvrud (1967) opted for a less compli- cated method, and utilized robbery victimizations as reported in newspaper accounts which detailed names and addresses. In order to avoid difficulties inherent in Syvrud's method (e.g., incorrect and insufficient addresses, differential and selective crime reporting processes by.newspaper, biasing effect of deliberate exclusion of relevant victim information by news- papers, etc.), the present study sought court statistics and records as its major source of identifying and locating victims. The victim sample for the present study was generated from the records of the Detroit Recorder's Court. While gaining access to court records presented some initial problems as a result of agency cooperation, the actual compilation of victim lists was a relatively mechanical task. The compilation of a victim list from which the final sample was to be drawn was completed during the first week of November, 1974. This process consisted of first listing all armed robbery cases, noting the file number and the offender's name, from the court dockett book. This step was neces- sary in order to be able to locate and identify individual court records as they are filed by dockett number. Each individual court record was then inspected, and the name and address of each 114 victim was taken, specifically from the list of complaining witnesses contained in each record. Additional information gathered at this time included: (a) date of the offense, date the arrest warrant was issued, and date of the disposition of the case, and (b) name, age, race, and sex of the offender(s). Two major criteria dictated the selection of cases to be incorporated within the scope of the sampling frame. First, all cases included for consideration would possess a court disposition such that each case would be closed and not under appeal. This decision was based primarily on the agency prerequisite as a condi- tion of cooperation, and secondly, on the potentiality of legal liability on the part of the researcher (i.e., the potential of interview content and material interfering with the processing of a particular case). The second criteria for the selection of cases for inclusion in the final sample was the decision to control for the time lapse between the occurrence of the robbery and the victim interview. It was decided that a fifteen month lapse period (i.e., no case was considered in which the robbery was more than 15 months past) was sufficient to allow accurate recall of the robbery event. This decision was based upon recommendations of other investi- gations (Ennis, 1967: 94-100; Syvrud, 1967: 38; Turner, 1972b: 17), which attempted to control for "memory decay" and forgetting. In accord with the closed case limitation and lapse time control decision, all cases of armed robbery processed by the Detroit Recorder's Court between December 1, 1973 and March 31, 1974 were selected for inclusion in the final sample. A total 115 of 230 cases appeared in the dockett books for this time period. The final sampling frame was reduced further by the decision to eliminate: (a) cases which were dismissed by the court because the complaining witness (i.e., the victim) either failed to appear or could not be located by the court at the time of the trial, and (b) records which were not available for inspection at the time the researcher generated the victim listing. An analysis of Table 16 indicates one difficulty of victim- ological research employing this sampling technique. The most dramatic indication is that the attrition of potential subjects is considerably great. As a result of the aforementioned limiting factor, a total of 165 cases were then available for inclusion in the final sample, which represents a twenty-eight percent (28%) reduction from the total possible number of available cases. From this final sampling frame, an attempt was made to contact and conduct interviews with as many victims as possible. The final sample consisted of 26 robbery victims who voluntarily consented to interview requests. While this sample size is rela- tively small, it does represent a sixteen percent (16%) response return which is a reasonable expectation for this type of research, and which is comparable to return rates reported for other survey research (Miller, 1970: 76). Locatingpand Contacting Victims A two-fold procedure was employed to contact victims for interviews. First it was decided that the most expeditious means was to telephone potential respondents in order to arrange interview 116 .pmmaam emuca appmsmz .m>000m 0.000 mm: mmmo m00 00 00m000 m00 00 mem0 m00 0m 0m0m000 m0 000 00:00 00 0mmaam 00 mmpmmm cm000m mmmc003 0:000m0a200 m00 ..m.00 00:00 m00 an 0m0002000 mam: am00 mmzmuma mama» mpasmm pmcwu m00 :0 000000000 000 0mcm000000 0o: mam: 0000m0m0 0000 :0 mmmmum .0000 50000> m00 0m0mgm0m0 gmcugmmmmc m00 0mg: Aau=m0m cm00ocm >0 mm: :0 ..0.m0 m00m00m>m 00: m0030m000 Lo .0m0m0am0e .0000 00000m mm: 0000mm 00:00 m00 mm=m0m0 mama» mFaEmm 0m000 m00 :0 000000000 000 0mgm00mcom 00: mam: 000000m0 m000 :0 mmmmu 0 mm 00 mm me 00. 0m 0m 0mm 0<000 m 0 m 00 mm . m0 0 mm edema 0 mm m a 0m m 00 cm agmseeoa 00 mm 00 00 mm 00 0 am aemseeq m 00 0 00 mm m m 00 00000000 m—aEmm mmcoamma 0mmamma 0m0m000 msmga mpaEmm mmmmu mpnmpmm>< m00m00m>< 0me0a oz 062 Peeea =0 m>00o< 0 0oz nonm0 0000:0000 00m 0m000 so» 0mmmps 000m00m>< -000 .A¢~0P .zogmz - m~0~ .gmnsmumov mpasmm EP0UP> xgmnnoa 0pos0mo $0 000030000000 00000000<-.0~ 000 Laueaeao 50000> :0msoo co0umn=uuo :0msoa :o0umu0s0uu0> .mco0pmnzuoo 0o =0msoo on» can c0meoo eo0ua~0e0000> as» :0 aeeswaaz <0mm can <=a4< “poem as» Lo0 008m xn mgmucm00o can ms0pu0> Low m003m0m vamp-» new .mco0um0>wo vsmvcmum .mcmmzii.0m m4m<0 157 dimensional than Blacks in both domains. Furthermore, both Black and white offenders were more dimensional in the victimization domain, thus suggesting saliency in a task-oriented cognitive domain. This increased dimensionality in the victimization domain was not found to be statistically significant for either Black or white offenders. Ageyand Cognitive Dimensionality The relationship between age and cognitive dimensionality shows some interesting and unique findings even though overall significant differences were not found. Among offenders no sig- nificant differences among the various age groupings were located by the present data for either the victimization domain (F2,23 = 1.461, n.s. for Scott ALPHA and F2,23 = 1.081, n.s. for Scott BETA) or the domain of occupations (F2,23 = 1.830, n.s. for Scott ALPHA and F2,23 = 1.786, n.s. for Scott BETA). Robbery victims also show no differences within the domain of occupations (F3,22 = 2.530, n.s. for Scott ALPHA and F3,22 = 1.977, n.s. for Scott BETA). Within the victimization domain, however, significant differences were found among the various age categories (F3,22 = 6.343, p<.01 for Scott ALPHA and F3,22 = 4.779, p<.05 for Scott BETA). The summary data for these relationships are indicated in Tables 32-35. A comparative analysis of the age groupings between the two cognitive domains indicates that offenders are more dimensional in the victimization domain regardless of age with the exception of young offenders (less than 25 years old) on the Scott BETA measure. .Lmu0o ucm 0mm 00 memo» mm .mmm 0o meow» mmimm .mmm 0o momma mmimm "xpgmUPm unmm< 00uu0z "00:v< mcao> 158 .mmm 0o memo» mm cusp mmmg Hague» "N002 mmm. mom. 0mm.0 0mm.0 mum. owe. som.0 mFm.0 .n.m omm.~ omm.0 c~m.m mmo.m mmm.~ 00m.0 mmm.¢ ~¢N.m cam: <0mm 0m¢. new. mmo.0 mmm. amp. mmm. oem. mum. .u.m mmm.m o¢0.0 va.~ mmm.~ mpo.~ m~0.0 mm0.m mm¢.~ :mmz Amucv Amucv Amucv Amucv Amncv Amncv Amncv “oucv 0.2000” umm< 0.=u< mesa» »_eae_m umm< p_=u< mazes m0cu0z meao> chu0z mczo> :0meoo :o0pmaauuo c0m5oa co0um~0s0uu0> 0;» :0 mmgzmmmz <0um nee <1a4< “poem 0;» 250 00¢ 0; me0oe0> Lee aeo0pe0>aa eaaueapm eea meaez--.mm mom<0 159 TABLE 33.--Means and Standard Deviations for Offenders by Age for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations. ALPHA Victimization Domain Occupation Domain Young Young Young Adult Adult Young Adult Adult (n=10) (n=11) (n=5) (n=10) (n=ll) (n=5) Mean 3.295 2.855 3.020 3.121 2.407 2.545 s.d. .632 .486 .722 .844 .850 .963 BETA Mean 4.325 3.578 3.938 4.340 2.924 3.268 s.d. 1.273 .959 1.356 2.076 1.473 1.582 NOTE: Young: Less than 25 years of age. Young Adult: Elderly: 26-29 years of age. 30 years of age and older. 160 TABLE 34.--Analysis of Variance Summary for Victims by Age in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures. ALPHA Victimization Domain Occupation Domain Source 55 df MS F 55 df MS F Between 7.043 3 2.347 ‘ 3.933 3 1.311 Within 8.143 22 .370 11.405 22 .518 TOTAL 15.186 25 6.343 15.338 25 2 530 BETA Between 23.055 3. 7.685 12.000 3 4.000 Within 35.386 22 1.608 44.521 22 2 023 TOTAL 58.441 25 4.779 56.521 25 1.977 161 TABLE 35.--Analysis of Variance Summary for Offenders by Age in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures. ALPHA Victimization Domain Occupation Domain Source 55 df MS F 35 df 2 MS F Between 1.020 2 .510 A 2.835 2 1.417 Within 8.039 23 .349 17.817 23 .774 TOTAL 9.059 25 1.461 20.652 .25 1.830 BETA Between 2.925 2 1.462 10.946 2 5.473 Within 31.111 23 1.352 70.466 23 3.063 TOTAL 34.036 25 1.081 81.412 25 1.786 162 The increased dimensionality in this cognitive domain was shown to be most manifest for older offenders (i.e., those over 30 years of age), however, the difference did not prove to be significant (t = 0.882, df 8, n.s. for Scott ALPHA and t = 0.719, df 8, n.s. for Scott BETA). Robbery victims display a more dispersed pattern when com- paring the two cognitive domains. Younger victims (i.e., those in the under 25 years of age category and in the 25-35 age brackett) tend to show an increase in dimensionality in the victimization domain. Middle-aged victims (36-55 years old) show identical mean scores in both cognitive domains. Elderly victims (age 56 and over) showed a regression effect in the victimization domain. This effect was significant only for the Scott BETA measure (t = -2.110, df l6, p<.10). The regression effect displayed by elderly victims is not surprising, since older persons often see themselves as particu- larly vulnerable to criminal victimization (Kalish, 1974: 21). If this self-perception, as well as the harmed social life (i.e., staying home at night, avoiding strangers, reduced interpersonal contacts, etc.) is indeed true among elderly victims, it may be concluded that the victimization experience is relatively more traumatic and stressful which lends itself to their reacting in a less dimensional manner. 163 Educational Level and Cognitive Dimensionality Educational level and cognitive dimensionality are not significantly related among victims (Hypothesis 9) for either the victimization domain (F2,23 = 0.598, n.s. for Scott ALPHA and F2,23 = 0.920, n.s. for Scott BETA) or the domain of occupations (F = 1.328, n.s. for Scott ALPHA and F2 23 = 1.233, n.s. for 2,23 Scott BETA). Among robbery offenders (Hypothesis 9a) there are no sig- nificant differences within the domain of occupations (F2,23 = 1.717, n.s. for Scott ALPHA and F2,23 = 1.682, n.s. for Scott BETA). For the victimization domain, however, educational level among offenders shows significant effects (F2,23 = 5.423, p<.Ol for Scott ALPHA and F2,23 = 3.756, p<.05 for Scott BETA). Tables 36-39 show the means, standard deviations, and analysis of variance summary for these relationships. Several additional noteworthy findings emerge from the data. First, it is seen that offenders, regardless of educational level show an increase in dimensionality in the victimization domain. Within educational categories, however, no significant differences were obtained by the data. Second, robbery victims display differences, although not significant, among educational leVels. It is noted that both medium (12 years of reported formal education) and low (less than 12 years of education) education category subjects show a regression effect in the victimization domain, while those in the high group (more than 12 years of 164 TABLE 36.--Means and Standard Deviations for Victims by Educational Level for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations. ALPHA Victimization Domain Occupation Domain High Medium Low High Medium Low (N=7) (n=13) (n=6) (n=7) (n=13) (n=6) Mean 2.233 2.498 2.100 2.130 2.662 2.210 s.d. .581 .994 .338 .561 .942 .533 BETA Mean 2.645 3.295 2.345 2.525 3.465 2.575 s.d. .954 1.994 .432 .915 1.879 .863 NOTE: High: More than 12 years of reported formal education. Medium: 12 years of reported formal education. Low: Less than 12 years of reported formal education. TABLE 37.--Means and Standard Deviations for Offenders by Educational 165 Level for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations. ALPHA Victimization Domain Occupation Domain Low: Less than 6 years equivalent grade level. High Medium Low High Medium Low (n=1l) (n=9) (n=6) (n=ll) (n=9) (n=6) Mean 3.158 3.331 2.461 2.767 3.006 2.1531 s.d. .442 .554 .609 .661 1.107 .875 BETA Mean 4.066 4.436 2.941 3.461 4.272 2.582 s.d. 1.078 1.099 .941 1.115 2.473 1.389 NOTE: High: More than 9 years equivalent grade level. Medium: 6-9 years equivalent grade level. 166 TABLE 38.-~Analysis of Variance Summary for Victims by Educational Level in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures. ALPHA Victimization Domain Occupation Domain Source SS df MS F SS df MS F Between .750 2 .375 . 1.611 2 .805 Within 14.436 23 .621 13.949 23 .606 TOTAL 15.186 25 0.598 15.560 25 1.328 BETA Between 4.331 2 2.165 5.476 2 2.738 Within 54.110 23 2.352 51.065 23 2.220 TOTAL 58.441 25 0.920 I 56.541 25 1.233 167 TABLE 39. --Analysis of Variance Summary for Offenders by Educational Level in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures. ALPHA Victimization Domain Occupation Domain Source SS df MS F SS df MS F Between 2.911 2 1.459 2.683 2 1.341 Within 6.202 23 .269 17.969 23 .781 TOTAL 9.121 25 5.423 20.652 25 1.717 BETA Between 8.377 2 4.188 10.387 2 5.193 Within 25.659 23 1.115 71.007 23 3.087 TOTAL 34.036 25 3.756 81.394 25 1.682 168 reported formal education) show increased dimensionality in that domain. A third important result is that there does not appear to be a linear relationship between educational level and cogni- tive dimensionality. For both offenders and victims, those in the medium educational category have higher mean dimensionality scores than either high or low education subjects in both the domain of occupations and the victimization domain. Religion and Cognitive Dimensionality Tables 40 and 41 indicate the means, standard deviations and analysis of variance results for the relationship of religious preference and cognitive dimensionality for robbery victims. Religious preference has no effect on cognitive dimensionality in the victimization domain (F3,22 = 1.134, n.s. for Scott ALPHA and F3,22 = 1.206, n.s. for Scott BETA). Within the domain of occu- pations, however, significant effects were found by the data (F = 5.223, p<.01 for Scott ALPHA and F3 22 = 5.140, p<.01 for 3,22 Scott BETA). An analysis of Table 40 reveals some additional findings on the effect of religion on dimensionality. It is seen that both Baptists and Protestants show a regression effect in the victim- ization domain. These differences were not found to be signifi- cant (t = 0.237, df 8, n.s. and t = 0.091, df 8, n.s. for Protestants 0n Scott ALPHA and BETA respectively, and t = 0.863, df 10, n.s. and t = 0.357, df lO, n.s. for Baptists on Scott ALPHA and BETA respectively). Catholics, however, show a slight increase 169 TABLE 40.--Means and Standard Deviations for Victims by Religious Preference for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations. ALPHA Victimization Domain Occupation Domain Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Catholic 2.109 .522 1.989 .479 (n=11) Protestant 2.291 .952 2.423 .925 (n=5) Baptist 2.827 1.054 3.248 .670 (n=6) Other or None 2.273 .649 2.172 .581 (n=4) BETA Victimization Domain Occupation Domain Mean s.d. Mean s.d. Catholic 2.429 .829 2.210 .663 (n=11) Protestant 2.953 2.041 3.185 1.972 (n=5) Baptist 3.867 2.169 4.608 1.391 (n=6) . Other or None 2.682 1.026 2.571 1.105 (n=4) 170 TABLE 41.--Ana1ysis of Variance Summary for Victims by Religion in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures. ALPHA Victimization Domain Occupation Domain Source SS df MS- F SS df MS F Between 2.033 3 .677 1 6.380 3 2.126 Within 13.153 22 .597 8.958 22 .407 TOTAL 15.186 25 1.134 15.338 25 5.223 BETA Between 8.259 3 2.753 23.288 3 7.762 Within 50.182 22 2.281 33.233 22 1.510 TOTAL 58.441 25 1.206 56.521 25 5.140 171 in dimensionality within this cognitive domain. Statistical sig- nificance on this difference was not obtained by the data (t = 1.200, df 20, n.s. for Scott ALPHA and t = 0.887, df 20, n.s. for Scott BETA). The category of "other or none" included those individuals who were either Jewish or who claimed no religious preference. It is seen that this category also showed a slight, although not significant (t = 0.443, df 6, n.s. for Scott ALPHA and t = 0.138, df 6, n.s. for Scott BETA), increase in dimensionality in the victimization domain. It is difficult to place much emphasis on the factor of religious affiliation alone in interpreting the above findings. For example, it is noted that all Baptists in the present study were also Black, and as indicated above, Blacks displayed a similar regression effect in the victimization domain. The contribution of the race variable however, does not explain the regression effect displayed by Protestants. The small sample size of the present investigation prohibited the effective utilization of control variables to explain certain relationships. With respect to religion, however, there appears to be no statistically or conceptually significant reason to elucidate these regression effects. Income and Cognitive Dimensionality Income is not significantly related to cognitive dimen- sionality in either the victimization domain or the domain of occupations (Hypothesis 11). The means, standard deviations, and analysis of variance summary is shown in Tables 42 and 43. 172 TABLE 42.--Means and Standard Deviations for Victims by Income for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations. ALPHA Victimization Domain Occupation Domain High Medium Low High Medium Low (n=8) (n=9) (n=9) (n=8) (n=9) (n=9) Mean 2.407 2.161 2.445 2.346 2.186 2.363 s.d. .841 .498 .989 .796 .501 .999 BETA Mean 3.003 2.514 3.196 2.869 2.631 3.504 s.d. 1.596 .840 2.024 1.497 .959 1.933 NOTE: High: More than $11,000 reported annual income. Medium: $9,000-$11,000 reported annual income. Low: Less than $9,000 reported annual income. 173 TABLE 43.--Analysis of Variance Summary for Victims by Income in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures. ALPHA Victimization Domain Occupation Domain Source 55 df MS F 55 df MS F Between .423 2 .211 .934 2 .467 Within 14.763 23 .641 14.404 23 .626 TOTAL 15.186 25 0.329 15.338 25 0.746 BETA Between 2.213 2 1.106 3.648 2 1.824 Within 56.228 23 2.444 52.873 23 2.298 TOTAL 58.441 25 0.452 56.521 25 0.793 174 Although significance among various income levels was not obtained, and analysis of Table 42 indicates that there are manifest differences in victim dimensionality scores when comparing the two cognitive domains of interest to the present investigation. It is Seen that low income subjects (less than $9,000 reported annual income) show a regression effect in the victimization domain, whereas medium income individuals ($9,000-$11,000 reported annual income) are almost identical in dimensionality between the two domains, and high income victims (over $11,000 reported annual income) display increased dimensionality in the victimization domain. A difference of means test between dimensionality scores in the victimization domain and the domain of occupations for each of these income groupings provided no statistically significant results. The dimensional model of cognitive structure as ascribed to in this investigation provides no theoretical rationale to explain these results. It may be that high income individuals are more vigilant and perceive themselves as more vulnerable for future victimization, and are thus more dimensional within the victimization domain. Low income individuals, on the other hand, may experience a greater personal loss thus resulting in the regressive trend in the victimization domain. This study was unable to assess these relative losses and perceptual apprehensions of future victim risk, and the exact nature of these relationships must be left for future investigation. 175 Marital Status and Cognitive Dimensionality Marital status of robbery victims is not significantly related to cognitive dimensionality in either the victimization domain or the domain of occupations. A one-way analysis of variance failed to substantiate Hypothesis 12. Table 44 presents the means and standard deviations for each marital grouping for each cognitive domain. Table 45 indicates the analysis of variance summary for each Scott measure. While significant differences were not found among the various groupings, it is noted the single persons are consistently more dimensional than married and separated or divorced indi- viduals in the victimization domain. Separated and divorced persons showed the lowest dimensionality scores in this domain. With respect to the domain of occupations non-married (separated or divorced) subjects were more dimensional than married persons for both the Scott measures, and more dimensional than single persons on the Scott BETA measure. What is perhaps more important than these descriptive relations is the regression effects in the victimization domain on the part of separated and divorced persons. For both the Scott measures, non-married individuals were significantly less dimen- sional in the victimization domain (t = 6.220, df 4 p<.OO5 for Scott ALPHA and one tailed test and t = 2.676, df 4, p<.05 for Scott BETA one tailed test). Single persons also displayed a regression in the victimization domain, however this difference was not 176 TABLE 44.--Means and Standard Deviations for Victims by Marital Status for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations. ALPHA Victimization Domain Occupation Domain Divorced Divorced and and Single Married Separated Single Married Separated (n=7) (n=16) (n=3) . (n=7) (n=16) (n=3) Mean 2.505 2.309 2.079 2.655 2.224 2.669 s.d. .774 .863 .095 .745 .837 .412 BETA Mean 3.229 2.541 2.392 3.458 2.705 3.563 s.d. 1.632 1.295 .186 1.603 1.545 .870 177 TABLE 45.--Analysis of Variance Summary for Victims by Marital Status in the Victimization Domain and the Domain of Occupations for the Scott ALPHA and BETA Measures. ALPHA' Victimization Domain Occupation Domain Source SS df MS F SS df MS F Between .410 2 .205 . 1.166 2 .583 Within 14.785 23 .643 14.172 23 .616 TOTAL 15.195 25 0.319 15.338 25 0.946 BETA Between 2.644 2 1.322 3.812 2 1.906 Within 41.204 23 1.791 52.709 23 2.291 TOTAL 43.847 25 0.738 56.521 25 0.831 178 significant (t = 0.486, df 12, n.s. for Scott ALPHA and t = 0.163, df 12, n.s. for Scott BETA). Another interesting finding is the apparent inconsistency among married persons on the Scott dimen- sionality measures. On the Scott BETA measure, married subjects_ Show a regression effect in the victimization domain, however, on the Scott ALPHA measure they show a slight increase in dimen- sionality in this domain. These differences were, however, not significant in either case (t = -O.193, df 30, n.s. for Scott ALPHA and t = 0.225, df 30, n.s. for Scott BETA). My. This chapter has presented the empirical data and the direct tests of the guiding hypotheses. In the first section, the relationships of each major variable in the theoretical scheme were presented. With regard to one's role in the robbery encounter as victim or viCtimizer, consistent trends in the predicted direction were found on all dimensionality measures. Victims were shown to be significantly less dimensional in representing the victimization experience in cognitive space than were offenders. When within group classification variables were considered, however, these associations were not as strong. No significant differences were found between high and low crisis perception (CP), immediate psychophysical reaction (IPR), and postvictimization (PVE) victims. Similarly, no differences were located among of- fenders in terms of their commitment to criminal behavior (CCB) or commitment to specific offense patterns (CSO). Lapsed time 179 since the victimization and the measure of cognitive dimensionality also did not Show significance. The relationship of cognitive dimensionality to various sociological background factors was shown to be generally unrelated (see Tables 46-48). No Significant differences were found with the exception of the following: (a) sex--with females being more dimensional than males in both cognitive domains, (b) age--with younger victims being more dimensional in the victimization domain, (c) education--with offenders in the medium age category displaying higher dimensionality scores in the victimization domain, and (d) religion--with Baptists being more dimensional in the domain of occupations. Only non-married (divorced or separated) victims showed Significant regression effects in the victimization domain. The limitations on the generalizability of these results has been previously noted. Nonetheless, while overall statistical significance was not attained, these findings are not tenuous. Upon closer examination of the patterns of the relationships among the variables certain linkages to social structural integration emerge. For example, it is seen that those status categories (i.e., males, older individuals, non-married persons, and persons with lower educations) most affected by robbery victimization (as indicated by lower cognitive dimensionality scores) are also those groupings which are potentially higher victim risks (Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, 1975: 30-31). The interactional pat- terns traditionally ascribed to these status groups corroborates 180 ooo.0 mwo. mm0. mNN.i 0mm. mm~.1 mmF. moo.1 emo.: mo0.i ¢m0.1 magnum 0600;82 ooo.0 «mm.- mow. mNF. amp. 0m¢.i mN¢.i o0e.- 0mm.i 00¢.i msouc0 ooo.0 m~0.i m¢~. mmm.i 0mm. wmm. Nam. com. mm0. =o0m000m 000.0 mm0.1 000. «00.1 300.- wmo.i mmo. 00o. :o0uouzcm coo._ moo. mm0.- eNN.- m-.- 000.. mee.- om< ooo.0 m0m.1 mm~.- m0m.- mm0.i mm0.i mumm ooo.0 mum. 0mm. amm. ¢m¢. xmm coo.0 0mm. mmu. mqn. .o.o <0mm ooo._ omu. 0mm. .o.o <0mm ooo.0 .o.> .o.> 0ou0gm: 100mm 13cm <0mm <=mo< v :0meoo :o0p-0s0pu0> 0:0 :0 ms0pu0> go0 manm0sm> ocaoemxumm 0800mo0o0uom :00: mmczmmo: