Aggression and Violent Behavior 34 (2017) 166–177

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aggression and Violent Behavior

Youth exposure to violence in the community: Towards a theoretical

framework for explaining risk and protective factors
Maria João Lobo Antunes a,⁎, Eileen M. Ahlin b
a
Department of Sociology, Anthropology and Criminal Justice, Towson University, 8000 York Road, Towson, MD 21252, United States
b
School of Public Affairs, Criminal Justice Program, Penn State Harrisburg, 777 W. Harrisburg Pike, Middletown, PA 17057, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Exposure to community violence (ETV-C) negatively impacts youth development and is associated with many
Received 2 February 2016 negative outcomes. Although attention has been paid to examining risk and protective factors that promote or
Received in revised form 11 October 2016 reduce ETV-C, many of the studies in this growing body of literature do not place predictive models within a the-
Accepted 18 January 2017
oretical framework. In this review, we argue that the routine activity theory and lifestyles perspectives (RAT/LS)
Available online 20 January 2017
within an ecological framework is a useful strategy for examining how a series of behaviors and choices enacted
Keywords:
by youth in their everyday lives affects their ETV-C. By focusing on the role of target suitability and capable guard-
Exposure to violence ianship within the neighborhood, family, peers, and individual levels of the mesosystem, we suggest scholars can
Criminological theory examine the relative salience of these various components to determine whether they serve to increase youth's
Ecological framework ETV-C or buffer against such experiences. We propose that the RAT/LS perspectives can not only be placed in an
Youth violence ecological framework, but it also provides effective tenets with which to explore ETV-C.
Routine activity theory © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
1.1. Defining exposure to violence in the community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
1.2. The need for theoretical perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
2. Rationale and utility of routine activity theory (RAT)/lifestyles (LS) perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
2.1. Relevance of RAT/lifestyles in the study of youth exposure to community violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
2.2. Contextualizing RAT/LS and youth ETV-C: A mesosystem approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
3. Applying an ecological framework to youth exposure to community violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
3.1. Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
3.1.1. Structural characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
3.1.2. Collective efficacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
3.2. Family and parenting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
3.2.1. Family characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
3.2.2. Parenting strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
3.3. Peers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
3.3.1. Unstructured socializing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
3.3.2. Peer deviance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
3.4. Individual characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
3.4.1. Race/ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
3.4.2. Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
3.4.3. Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
3.4.4. Personality characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mantunes@towson.edu (M.J.L. Antunes), ema105@psu.edu (E.M. Ahlin).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2017.01.015
1359-1789/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior 34 (2017) 166–177
1. Introduction
Violence among youth continues to be a public health problem, and
despite a decrease in murder rates in the United States since 1995
(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015), assault (including homicide)
remains the second leading cause of death among 15- to 24-year olds
(Murphy, Xu, & Kochanek, 2012). While such direct violence is un-
doubtedly detrimental to youth health and psychological well-being,
there are also significant risks that plague the large number of youth
who witness violence. Further, evidence also indicates that exposure
to violence in the community (ETV-C), direct and indirect victimization
outside of the home, can have devastating consequences (see Osofsky,
Wewers, Hann, & Fick, 1993; Salzinger, Feldman, Stockhammer, &
Hood, 2002). Unsurprisingly, the prevalence of ETV-C for 14–17 year
olds, particularly among urban minority males (Buka, Stichick,
Birdthistle, & Earls, 2001), is greater than individual experiences with
direct victimization (Finkelhor, Turner, Shattuck, Hamby, & Kracke,
2015).
Dahlberg (1998) identified key risk factors of youth violence (perpe-
tration and victimization), and highlighted components consistent with
an ecological framework: neighborhood, family, peers, and individual
factors. Scholarly investigation of the multiple facets of ETV-C often em-
braces an ecological framework by investigating the relevance of a com-
bination of these contexts. However, the application of an ecological
model is often piecemeal, as only some, but not all, of the various con-
textually relevant factors are examined in empirical models. Although
there is ample research on ETV-C, including several review articles, a
unifying theoretical base is often lacking and there is a paucity of re-
search that has explored the utility of certain theoretical perspectives
in explaining youth experiences with neighborhood violence. Often-
times investigations of ETV-C have included elements of particular the-
ories like the routine activity theory/lifestyles perspective (RAT/LS),
theoretical explanations of victimization, but have not specifically test-
ed whether these theories can help explain youth experiences with
neighborhood violence. We propose that the RAT/LS perspective can
not only be placed within an ecological framework, we also suggest
that it provides effective tenets with which to explore ETV-C.
The present review covers studies that apply an ecological frame-
work – whether explicit or implicit – to explain the role of context in
youth ETV-C, as well as exploring RAT/LS as a theoretical basis for
explaining youth ETV-C in multicontextual models. While not a system-
atic review or meta-analysis of the literature, the current piece proposes
a theoretical platform upon which to place investigation into the causes
of youth ETV-C. Essentially, this review summarizes research on several
mesosystem layers of the ecological framework (neighborhood, family,
peers, and the individual) as they pertain to youth ETV-C, and examines
the current status of knowledge in this area, in addition to the relevance
of RAT/LS theories within these layers. By summarizing the literature on
youth ETV-C it is hoped that future studies will broaden their focus and
incorporate multiple contexts to explain ETV-C and approach the study
of youth ETV-C theoretically. The studies included examining exposure
to violence as an outcome variable and focus on children and youth.1
1
We place children and adolescents under the unifying term - youth. Wilson and
Rosenthal (2003) suggest such practice may be problematic given developmental differ-
ences between preadolescent and adolescent youth. However, unrestricted access to the
neighborhood is itself a developmental milestone marking strides in achieving autonomy.
Studies that look at ETV-C (Gibson et al. (2009) for example) often use samples that cap-
ture differences in access to the community as a way of controlling for developmental dif-
ferences. We recognize that particular behaviors are certainly the product of
developmental pathways (e.g., friendships, unstructured socializing) and that younger
children are less likely to be exposed to community violence or have deviant friends. How-
ever, the results of survey research suggest that, by the middle years of childhood, “most
inner-city children have already had firsthand encounters with serious acts of violence”
(Schwartz et al., 2003, p. 39).
167
1.1. Defining exposure to violence in the community
The concept of exposure to violence can have a variety of interpreta-
tions and meanings depending on the experience under scrutiny
(Guterman, Cameron, & Staller, 2000; Lynch, 2003; van Dulmen,
Belliston, Flannery, & Singer, 2008). Exposure to violence in different
contexts often results in different outcomes (see Mrug, Loosier, &
Windle, 2008; Mrug & Windle, 2010; Slopen, Fitzmaurice, Williams, &
Gilman, 2012), elevating the importance of concrete conceptualization.
The heterogeneity surrounding the definition of ETV-C deserves atten-
tion. What is meant by ETV-C, and how it differs from other forms of vi-
olence that may be experienced by youth, is addressed prior to
examining the literature on the topic.
The definition of ETV-C has certainly varied across research en-
deavors. Guterman et al. (2000) address issues of definition and include
a discussion of what constitutes “community” and “violence”. For the
current review, ETV-C includes violent events (for example being shot
at, robbed, beaten, threatened, assaulted) experienced in the communi-
ty, that specifically locates victimization, witnessing, or hearing of such
events within this particular context. We move beyond direct victimiza-
tion and include secondary ETV-C as the witnessing of violence directed
against someone else and/or hearing about someone's victimization. In
essence, community violence, as studied here, follows definitions used
by Selner-O'Hagan and colleagues (Selner-O'Hagan, Kindlon, Buka,
Raudenbush, & Earls, 1998), Gardner and Brooks-Gunn (2009), and
Gibson, Morris, and Beaver (2009) as violent victimization or violence
that occurs in the neighborhood/community as is specifically identified
by the youth as having happened within that particular context. We
draw from Gibson et al. (2009) to include the “hearing of violence” in
the neighborhood as a form of secondary ETV-C. However, contrary to
others who have studied ETV-C, we do not include perpetration of vio-
lence (Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998) or burglary (Schwartz, Hopmeyer-
Gorman, Toblin, & Abou-ezzeddine, 2003). A key element of ETV-C is
that it occurs outside of the home. By comparison, other forms of vio-
lence such as intimate partner violence, family violence, and child mal-
treatment are more generally cloistered behind closed doors and less
accessible to the public. While these instances of violence are worthy
of scientific inquiry, focusing on youth ETV-C is particularly imperative.
Neighborhoods are an important factor in shaping youth development,
and engagement with the community increases as youth age, become
more independent from their families, and form stronger ties with
their peers. This increased mobility and exposure to their neighborhood
and surrounding communities increases the probability that youth will
encounter environments where violence may occur, especially if they
lack sufficient guardianship to protect them against ETV-C or have risk
factors that inflate their target suitability for such harmful experiences
(Jensen & Brownfield, 1986; Miethe & Meier, 1994; Wilcox, Land, &
Hunt, 2003). Youth are more likely to experience violence in their com-
munity, either as direct victims or by witnessing or hearing about
others' victimization, than in their homes (see Finkelhor et al., 2015)
thereby elevating the need to focus on risk and protective factors of
ETV-C among youth.
1.2. The need for theoretical perspectives
While there has been much research devoted to studying the dam-
aging consequences of youth exposure to violence, including communi-
ty violence, there is also a growing body of literature focusing on ETV-C
as an outcome variable though findings regarding what increases or at-
tenuates risk have been mixed (Gardner & Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Lobo
Antunes, 2012). There is substantial depth to the literature on the con-
sequences of youth ETV-C which highlights a multitude of negative out-
comes across a variety of contexts. This in-depth focus of ETV-C as a
predictor of various dependent variables overshadows the need to ex-
amine risk and protective factors that explain ETV-C as an outcome.
Some scholars have begun to explore various neighborhood, family,
168 M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior 34 (2017) 166–177
peer, and individual contextual elements as buffers or predictors of
youth ETV-C (see Gardner & Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Gibson et al., 2009;
Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998), though these studies often focus on only
one or two mesosystem variables and lack a cohesive and unified theo-
retical framework. We propose that the lack of consistent results stems
from the dearth of theoretical rationales and frameworks used in exam-
ining ETV-C. Furthermore, oftentimes variables used to predict youth
victimization and ETV-C are not placed within useful theoretical per-
spectives which could help clarify processes and explain why some
youth, compared to others, are more likely to experience violence in
their community. Maybe one of the greater difficulties has been to dis-
entangle context from consequence. The utility of understanding the
consequences of ETV-C is undeniable, but in order to better comprehend
the phenomena that is exposure to violence outside of the home, espe-
cially for youth, it is critical that studies explore in greater breadth and
depth the causal mechanisms and pathways that predict ETV-C. Thus,
while consequences matter, we need a better grasp of the processes
that predict youth experiences with neighborhood violence. By focusing
on the relevant risk and protective factors in addition to the application
of a theoretical framework, the design and creation of policies and prac-
tices that emphasize protective strategies, and in turn minimize risk fac-
tors, can contribute to reducing not only risk but also the often-studied
harmful effects of ETV-C.
2. Rationale and utility of routine activity theory (RAT)/lifestyles
(LS) perspectives
The scarcity of studies that have used theory to explain youth ETV-C
stems, perhaps, from the overemphasis on correlates of victimization
and isolated explanatory mechanisms rather than the lack of a suitable
theoretical framework. We posit that the RAT/LS perspective is one of
the most useful theories with which to explore ETV-C. Although this
perspective has not often been directly tested within such a scenario
several investigations of youth victimization and in some cases ETV-C
have LS or elements from the perspective/LS or elements from the per-
spective (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017; Averdijk & Bernasco, 2015;
Finkelhor & Asdigian, 1996; Nofziger & Kurtz, 2005; Spano, Freilich, &
Bolland, 2008; Taylor, Freng, Esbensen, & Peterson, 2008; Tillyer,
Tillyer, Miller, & Pangrac, 2011). We start by highlighting the theoretical
foundations of RAT/LS, beginning with the lifestyles theory of
victimization.
The lifestyles theory (Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo, 1978) fo-
cuses on how activities in which individuals engage during the course
of their everyday lives contribute to the likelihood of victimization.
Such activities include going to bars, spending time away from the
home, and working outside the home. Furthermore, demographics
like age, marital status, race/ethnicity, and gender seem to shape these
daily routine activities. For instance, Miethe and Meier (1994, p. 32)
point out, that these characteristics are often associated with certain
patterns of behavior and the formation of relationships that can invari-
ably “enhance one's exposure to risky and vulnerable situations”. This
exposure, therefore, translates to higher probabilities of victimization
as well as witnessing of violent events. Lifestyles can, even if only to a
certain extent, help explain differences in risks of ETV-C. Individuals
who spend more time away from their home engage in unstructured so-
cializing with their peers, and who interact with deviant friends, are
more susceptible to ETV-C. Susceptibility is enhanced because of
lowered guardianship and increased target suitability. Hindelang and
colleagues emphasized the more micro-individual routine activities ap-
proach, but it was Cohen and Felson's (1979) description of how “rou-
tine activities which include formalized work as well as the provision
of standard food, shelter, sexual outlet, leisure, social interaction, learn-
ing, and childrearing” (p. 593) could influence victimization rates that
placed RAT on the horizon as a major theoretical explanation of
victimization.
RAT is often distilled to its three main components - motivated of-
fender, suitable target, and lack of capable guardianship. A classic as-
sumption of the RAT is that motivated offenders are readily present
and provided with a steady supply of victims who are suitable targets
and devoid of capable guardianship. Assuming motivated offenders
are ubiquitous, what makes a target suitable for experiencing direct or
indirect violent victimization in the community? Suitable targets in-
clude inanimate objects such as lightweight property available for
theft, the portable goods described by Cohen and Felson (1979). But in-
dividuals whose routines place them in the same environment as a mo-
tivated offender capable of violence and who view such goods as “target
attractive” are equally enticing as targets to those who commit crime.
What characterizes individuals as suitable or attractive targets will de-
pend, in great part, on the intentions of the motivated offender, the
levels of guardianship, and the circumstances of the crime. There is
agreement throughout the literature that certain individual attributes,
as suggested by lifestyles theory (Hindelang et al., 1978), make people
more or less susceptible to victimization, especially when these same
characteristics are considered in conjunction with guardianship (Ahlin
& Lobo Antunes, 2017). Target suitability is said to be diminished
when capable guardians, including informal (e.g., neighbors) and for-
mal (e.g., police, security guards) social controls and environmental de-
terrents (e.g., closed-circuit television), are unavailable to monitor the
environment. Thus, like target suitability, guardianship can be activated
at different levels, from community (Wilcox, Madensen, & Tillyer, 2007)
to the individual (Zimmerman & Messner, 2013) and encompasses a
wide range of behaviors like collective efficacy, parental supervision,
and self-control. Guardianship is the ability, or inability, to attenuate
or limit exposure to noxious environments, events, and even individ-
uals. According to Cohen and Felson (1979, p. 590) “guardianship is im-
plicit in everyday life and usually is marked by the absence of
violations”, but could also be the active prevention and/or protection
against crime and victimization.
For a crime, and therefore victimization, to occur the motivated of-
fender, suitable target, and lack of guardianship must meet within a par-
ticular time frame and geographical space (Cohen & Felson, 1979). This
theoretical proposition has inspired several reformulations and may
prove to be a useful foundation upon which to study youth ETV-C. We
argue ETV-C which is a form of victimization, is the product of a series
of behaviors and choices enacted by individuals in the pursuit of their
everyday, routine existence. It is these elements of RAT/LS that can be
useful as a framework for explaining ETV-C as an outcome and clarifying
critical risk and protective factors that impact youth ETV-C, particularly
considering the implied or assumed role of the motivated offender.
2.1. Relevance of RAT/lifestyles in the study of youth exposure to community
violence
The utility of the RAT/LS framework in studying youth ETV-C rests
most specifically on the relevance of concepts like target suitability
and guardianship. ETV-C, whether it is from direct victimization or vi-
carious victimization such as hearing about or witnessing of a violent
event, may be clarified using a framework that incorporates an ecolog-
ical perspective. Miethe, Stafford, and Long (1987, p. 185) posit that “in-
dividuals who spend more time away from home should have higher
risks of victimization because of their greater suitability as a target
(i.e., greater visibility and accessibility) and decreased guardianship”.
Further, the capacity to exert guardianship or even minimize target suit-
ability rests often on the actions and lifestyles of the youth themselves,
who they spend their time with, and whether they are out in the neigh-
borhood without adult supervision and monitoring.
When a youth experiences direct or vicarious victimization several
mechanisms operated simultaneously for the exposure to actually
come to fruition. Firstly, the exposure necessitates, in most cases, a mo-
tivated offender without which there would be no incidence of violence.
The very fact that the motivated offender is a given, shifts attention
 M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior 34 (2017) 166–177
towards target suitability and guardianship, the characteristics, and
contexts related to those who are victimized and exposed to violence.
Secondly, youth can enhance their target suitability by making con-
scious choices regarding who to spend time with and where to socialize.
And finally, the idea of guardianship can be thought as having multiple
levels with external capable guardians (for example the neighborhood,
family, and peers) inhibiting ETV-C coupled with the youth's ability to
protect themselves against victimization or witnessing of violent
events.
Which brings us to the question: What specifically about youth is
more or less likely to put them at risk of ETV-C? One explanation is
that youth are often left unsupervised during the hours between school
and when parents arrive home from work. The literature on afterschool
victimization is extensive (Flannery, Williams, & Vazsonyi, 1999;
Gottfredson, Gottfredson, & Weisman, 2001; Snyder & Sickmund,
1999). It is during these hours that youth are freer to associate with
their friends, and are away from the protective supervision (guardian-
ship) that parents and caregivers can provide. Their daily routine activ-
ities and their lifestyles enhance opportunities and therefore risk for
ETV-C not only because of their suitability as a target and lack of capable
guardianship, but also because of the relationships the youths them-
selves cultivate with each other. For instance, while there is much
known about peer deviance and how it impacts youth engagement in
crime and delinquency (Kirk, 2006; Maimon & Browning, 2010;
Osgood & Anderson, 2004), we also know that these associations may
place children and youth in more vulnerable situations with respect to
violent events (Averdijk & Bernasco, 2015). These deviant relationships
simultaneously increase occasions where youth become suitable targets
while also hindering capable guardianship. In essence, opportunities for
unstructured socializing (Maimon & Browning, 2010; Osgood &
Anderson, 2004; Osgood, Wilson, O'Malley, Bachman, & Johnston,
1996), time spent with friends without a set agenda or the protective
monitoring and supervision of adults and caregivers, is more likely to
expose these youth to motivated offenders given that “supervision is a
protective factor and participation in deviant lifestyles is a risk factor
for violent victimization” (Spano et al., 2008, p. 383).
Just as peer relationships comfortably fit into a RAT/LS perspective
and can contribute to explaining youth ETV-C, parenting plays a critical
role in enhancing guardianship and reducing target suitability such that
youth are protected from violent events occurring within the communi-
ty. Time youth spend away from the home and beyond the watchful
eyes of parents and caregivers provides them with the unregulated op-
portunity to explore their surroundings and forge relationships within
the neighborhood. Thus, parental management strategies designed to
organize a youth's activities outside the home as well as rules regarding
unfettered access to the community serve to strengthen guardianship,
limit access to motivated offenders, and diminish opportunities where
the youth may become a suitable target in terms of victimization prob-
ability and secondary exposure to violence.
Youth also have considerable control over their environments by
enacting a variety of choices such as where and with whom to associate
and spend time that affect their routine activities and lifestyle. These in-
dependent predictors of ETV-C demonstrate the various mesosystem
factors (neighborhood, family, peers, and individual) that influence
youths' risk of direct and indirect victimization in the community,
while also demonstrating the utility of RAT/LS as a unifying theoretical
perspective for multilevel models that integrate various risk and protec-
tive factors of ETV-C. Before examining the extant literature on ETV-C as
an outcome variable, we explore the theoretical underpinnings of RAT/
LS and their fit within an ecological framework capable of explaining
ETV-C.
2.2. Contextualizing RAT/LS and youth ETV-C: A mesosystem approach
Traditionally, RAT has emphasized the macro-level nature and utility
of guardianship, target suitability, and the presence of motivated
169
offenders (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Even though Hindelang et al.
(1978) proposed a much more individual-level approach for explaining
victimization in examining how features of one's lifestyle may place an
individual at more or less risk for violence, in the end both perspectives
are somewhat unidimensional and do not incorporate cross-level risk or
protective factors to explain victimization. There has not been much in-
vestigation dedicated to unravelling the layers within the RAT/LS per-
spective, nor demonstrating that, essentially, guardianship and target
suitability may be exerted at several levels in the mesosystem. The
same is true of the presence of motivated offenders. Certain neighbor-
hoods may provide more or less opportunity for these individuals, espe-
cially in neighborhoods lacking in guardianship and social control.
Neighborhoods that lack informal social controls such as collective effi-
cacy convey to motivated offenders that guardianship is absent or atten-
uated when physical and social disorder such as graffiti, vice, and
general unkemptness remain unchecked (Sampson & Raudenbush,
2001; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997).
Using an ecological framework (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), we argue
that RAT/LS can be reframed into a mesosystemic context whereby
the motivated offender, guardianship, and target suitability are exam-
ined at distinct levels with respect to ETV-C. Susceptibility to ETV-C
should be considered from a multifaceted lens that encompasses the
multitude of contexts and situations that may influence not only the
youth's activities, behaviors, and choice-driven actions but also environ-
ments which put them in direct contact with motivated offenders. An
ecological framework encompasses the interconnections of various set-
tings – such as the neighborhood, family, peers, and individual traits –
that influence how individuals conduct their daily lives and respond
to situations. Referred to as microsystems within this framework, to-
gether these settings comprise the larger mesosystem, or multiple con-
texts, in which people live (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 1992). This
mesosystem represents the linkages between various microsystems
and evidence suggests that these contexts influence youth ETV-C. Indi-
viduals are nested in social contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and their
experiences and choices are situated in the environment (Hitlin &
Elder, 2007). Therefore, concepts central to RAT/LS are placed within
four tiered levels - the neighborhood, the family, peers, and the youth
themselves. As Ahlin and Lobo Antunes (2017, p. 64) suggest, “individ-
uals are nested in a variety of social contexts and their routine activities
and lifestyle choices are influenced by multiple systems”. This is espe-
cially valid when examining the mechanisms that exacerbate or attenu-
ate youth ETV-C.
The very idea of capable guardianship can be extended to the neigh-
borhood, family, peers, and even youth, beyond what has been usually
thought of as individual-level characteristics. Concepts like neighbor-
hood collective efficacy (Sampson et al., 1997), a community's willing-
ness and ability to enforce social control and nurture social cohesion
certainly serves a guardianship function in not only fostering protection
and prevention but also exerting or attempting to exert control over
motivated offenders. Communities high in collective efficacy will, there-
fore, not want for capable guardianship, which itself should impact
youth ETV-C and serve to buffer youth against such exposure. Moreover,
community conditions can themselves inform parents and guide
choices made regarding management practices and active protection
from environments deemed potentially harmful, or conversely, less re-
strictive parenting in community seen as less risky (Fig. 1).
The family and youths' peers are present in the mesosystem layer
between community and youth. Similar to communities, parenting
and family management strategies act as another level of guardianship
or protection, and also function to limit the target suitability of youth.
Family management is the host of strategies, practices, and activities
that parents engage in or organize to structure their children's daily
lives in and outside the home (Eccles, 1992). Furstenberg, Cook,
Eccles, Elder, and Sameroff (1999) divide these practices into those
that apply within the home and those outside the home. Cohen and
Felson (1979, p. 594) argued that “routine activities performed within
170 M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior 34 (2017) 166–177
Fig. 1. Ecological model of routine activity and lifestyles theory perspectives.
or near the home and among family members or other primary groups
entail lower risk of criminal victimization because they enhance guard-
ianship capabilities”. Of particular interest to youth ETV-C, management
outside the home underscores the importance of controlling youth ac-
cess to the community, monitoring practices when children are away
from the home, and curtailing relationships with deviant peers. Interac-
tions with peers can also contribute to reduced levels of guardianship
and increased target suitability, particularly among youth who spend
time with deviant peers and engage in unstructured socializing. Deviant
peers may not serve as capable guardians to buffer against direct
and vicarious victimization as they are involved in delinquent and
criminal activities themselves. Such relationships and involvement in
unsupervised and aimless activities can also increase target suitability
by placing youth in risky environments prone to victimization
(Maimon & Browning, 2010; Osgood & Anderson, 2004; Osgood et al.,
1996).
Finally, we suggest that youth can and often do serve as their own
guardian, participating in behaviors and developing traits that can min-
imize ETV-C. For example, the development of self-control as a product
of parenting (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) or the establishment of an
internal locus of control (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2015) serve to inform
choices youth make in their daily lives. Moreover, youth may also
have control over their own susceptibility as a target through peer inter-
actions and unstructured socializing. The choice of peer relationships
will inevitably influence guardianship and target suitability through ex-
posure to motivated offenders - which are often the peers themselves
(Averdijk & Bernasco, 2015; Richards et al., 2004) which will, in turn, af-
fect the likelihood of ETV-C. Moreover, family management practices
themselves influence the youth and the establishment of individual
guardianship mechanisms like locus of control or self-control (Ahlin &
Lobo Antunes, 2015) but may also shape the decisions youth make
with regard to friends and time spent away from the home.
These various layers of the mesosystem have been examined in the
extant literature on youth ETV-C, often as covariates of the various ad-
verse outcomes of ETV-C outlined earlier, though more recently as pre-
dictors of ETV-C. In the next section, we review the evidence of
neighborhood, family, peers, and individual factors that fit an ecological
framework. We then conclude with suggestions for embracing RAT/LS
as a theoretical framework for multilevel explanations of youth ETV-C.
3. Applying an ecological framework to youth exposure to commu-
nity violence
To fully explore and examine the several processes that impact
youth ETV-C a multilevel, ecological approach should be employed. In
recent years more attention has been given to the role neighborhoods
play in youth outcomes and more studies have been dedicated to inves-
tigating youth experiences with victimization and violence in the neigh-
borhood, especially from an ecological perspective (Ahlin & Lobo
Antunes, 2017; Gardner & Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Gibson et al., 2009).
The very nature of ETV-C necessitates an ecological analysis that is com-
prised of mesosystemic levels that differentially influence ETV-C. Neigh-
borhood context, family relations, peers, and even individual
characteristics have been demonstrated to significantly predict youth
ETV-C (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017; Lobo & Ahlin Antunes, 2015;
Salzinger et al., 2002). Moreover, each context makes unique contribu-
tions to explaining why some individuals are more likely to experience
victimization and/or witness violence in their community. However, not
many studies have sought to use an ecological framework, especially
not a RAT/LS ecological perspective for examining ETV-C.
To date there have been two comprehensive reviews of youth ETV
(Jonson-Reid, 1998; Salzinger et al., 2002). Both use an ecological frame-
work to review the research on youth violence, youth ETV, and/or the
consequences of ETV. In her 1998 review piece, Jonson-Reid incorporat-
ed both youth violence perpetration and ETV-C. Rather than emphasize
the contexts for each, the author specifically examines research on the
relationship between violence perpetration and three separate domains
of violence exposure: child maltreatment, domestic violence, and com-
munity violence. Interestingly, Jonson-Reid (1998) organizes the review
by microsystem and macrosystem, but without considering any possi-
ble overlap between the two. For example, when discussing the litera-
ture on child maltreatment (exposure to violence within the home)
she includes the role of poverty at the micro-level (parental socioeco-
nomic status) but does not examine what effect macro-level poverty/
 M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior 34 (2017) 166–177
concentrated disadvantage may have on child maltreatment. Elder
(1994) and Furstenberg et al. (1999) note that parenting and parent-
child relationships may vary according to the economic affluence of a
community above and beyond poverty at the individual level. Thus, in
addition to individual-level SES, neighborhood SES itself may affect
child maltreatment. With respect to community violence, Jonson-Reid
(1998) looks at outcomes of ETV and how these, along with exposure it-
self, influence violence perpetration. Her approach to the ecological
framework is unique in that she considers the contextual mesosystemic
location of where exposure and violence perpetration occur rather than
what mesosystemic domains influence these outcomes. The review,
nonetheless, provided one of the first discussions on how youth vio-
lence, whether perpetration or exposure, should be examined within a
multilevel context, even if it did not include literature on predicting or
explaining ETV-C, or theories that may help scholars understand these
relationships.
Salzinger et al. (2002) build on the Jonson-Reid study to examine lit-
erature that predicts and explains ETV-C by considering both risk for ex-
posure and the effects exposure has on youth within five distinct
contexts - neighborhood, family, parents, peers, and youth characteris-
tics. The authors find that there is much evidence for direct and indirect
influences of these domains on youth violence and victimization. The
focus on ETV-C as well as the consequences of said violence lays impor-
tant foundational precedence for the current piece as Salzinger et al.
(2002) adopt a multilevel, ecological framework in their review of the
literature. Further, they begin at the most distal point, the neighbor-
hood; an approach later seen in other studies of ETV-C (Ahlin & Lobo
Antunes, 2017; Gardner & Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Gibson et al., 2009).
The authors move from outside the mesosystem (macro-level) to the
inside (micro-level) and conclude that “there is overwhelming evidence
that the effects of exposure cannot be understood without taking into
account the context - environmental and person - in which the expo-
sure occurs” (p. 445).
In the following sections, we extend this argument and update the
literature, bridging a 14-year gap, by proposing that ETV-C itself must
also be understood within a multilevel, ecological framework that con-
siders how neighborhood, family, peers, and individual characteristics
serve to enhance, predict, and explain youth experiences with neigh-
borhood violence. We take this approach one step further in examining
these relationships from a RAT/LS approach and placing the literature
with this theoretical framework.
3.1. Community
Much of the literature on youth ETV-C has investigated the predic-
tive effects of family and individual-level characteristics. As Buka et al.
(2001) among others find, less is understood about how neighborhood
conditions may influence youth ETV-C, and there are several plausible
explanations as to why this is less prominent in the current literature.
Firstly, the paucity of data permitting a true ecological analysis of
youth experiences with neighborhood violence has impeded its prog-
ress. Secondly, neighborhood research examining community effects
on youth development has been inconclusive with some studies
reporting a direct influence of neighborhood characteristics on youth
behaviors while others show an indirect effect (Leventhal & Brooks-
Gunn, 2000). Further, some studies have found no neighborhood effects
at all (Kellam, Ling, Merisca, Brown, & Ialongo, 1998; Kupersmidt,
Griesler, DeRosier, Patterson, & Davis, 1995; Lynam et al., 2000;
Spencer & Dornbusch, 1990). Those studies that do incorporate neigh-
borhood level variables focus on various structural characteristics and
collective efficacy.
3.1.1. Structural characteristics
There has been scant investigation, in particular studies that look
specifically at youth ETV-C, extending neighborhood conditions beyond
the traditional neighborhood structural characteristics. Oftentimes
171
indicators of poverty, concentrated disadvantage, and ethnic diversity
are used (Buka et al., 2001; Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998). While the liter-
ature cited here, as well as other studies, describe community risk fac-
tors that should be taken into account when studying ETV-C they do
not adequately address questions of why contextual factors matter.
In an urban sample of African American youth (low income and mid-
dle class) Fitzpatrick and Boldizar (1993) reported that environmental
characteristics like percentage of female-headed households predicted
higher levels of post-traumatic stress disorder among youth experienc-
ing ETV-C. Relatedly, youth living in areas high in concentrated disad-
vantage (areas high in percentage of residents living below poverty,
on public assistance, unemployed, less than 18 years of age, and African
American) have a statistically significantly higher risk of ETV-C (Lobo
Antunes & Ahlin, 2015). However, understanding why these contextual
variables are important and why these factors increase risk for ETV-C
and detrimental sequelae resulting from ETV-C remains an issue for fu-
ture research. From a RAT/LS perspective we could argue that such areas
are more inviting to the motivated offender and that in conditions of
poverty parents are required to maintain several jobs which may hinder
guardianship (Simons, Lorenz, Wu, & Conger, 1993) thus increasing tar-
get suitability. Similarly, the proportion of female-headed or
monoparental households within a community can impede the forma-
tion of friendship networks and community bonds that in turn reduce,
according to Zimmerman and Messner (2010) and Sampson and
Lauritsen (1994), informal social control, a form of guardianship. Yet,
in many of the studies that incorporate structural characteristics, the
causal mechanisms and the processes that may explain why these char-
acteristics are important are often overlooked and not placed within a
specific theoretical framework.
The nexus between neighborhood structural characteristics and
youth ETV-C may rest on the potential influence these conditions
have, therefore, on parental and community ability to exert social con-
trol, which in our view, ties in with a RAT/LS perspective and the idea
that guardianship is simply another way of defining social control
(Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017). For example, Gibson et al. (2009) expand
on the ETV-C literature by investigating risk factors for secondary (hear-
ing and witnessing) exposure to violence. Using data from the Project
on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) the au-
thors examine neighborhood structural characteristics of disadvantage,
immigrant concentration, and residential stability but also include col-
lective efficacy and parenting measures. They find that youth living in
communities with higher levels of poverty and immigrant concentra-
tion experienced higher incidences of secondary ETV-C. Moreover,
Gibson et al. (2009) conclude that neighborhood characteristics influ-
ence ETV-C even after controlling for family and individual risk factors.
Of note, was the lack of significant findings regarding parental supervi-
sion. We discuss the role of parenting further on in this review, though
we posit that if parental guardianship measures like supervision are not
contextualized, meaning placed within the home or outside the house-
hold, we may be missing important causal mechanisms and failing to
understand how RAT/LS can be a useful theoretical perspective.
Along with the same structural characteristics used by Gibson et al.
(2009), Gardner and Brooks-Gunn (2009) examine how the presence
of youth community organizations impact youth ETV-C. Their study
controls not only for structural characteristics but also for community
violence. The authors report that youth ETV-C is less frequent in neigh-
borhoods with a greater variety of youth organizations and activities
and make an interesting point concerning why this may be the case.
The popular assumption is that participation in such organizations de-
creases youth unstructured socializing, an activity we argue could in-
crease youth target suitability. Instead, Gardner and Brooks-Gunn
(2009) suggest that neighborhood youth organizations inhibit violence
at the neighborhood level which therefore decreases youth ETV-C. This
is congruent with the multi-mesosystemic RAT/LS approach we advo-
cate for here. The variety and availability of youth organizations denotes
a level of investment in and commitment to the community, which we
172 M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior 34 (2017) 166–177

contend, may also be considered a protective factor that deters crime at with family characteristics and is followed by a review of the parenting
the neighborhood level (Gardner & Brooks-Gunn, 2009), and serve as a strategies literature.
type of neighborhood-level guardianship and social control. There is, as
the authors point out, a limiting of opportunities for violent crime which
3.2.1. Family characteristics
also curbs opportunities for exposure to said violence. Gardner and
Family characteristics have been used to evaluate youth exposure to
Brooks-Gunn's (2009) investigation illustrates how criminal opportuni-
violence (Gorman-Smith, Henry, & Tolan, 2004). Female headed house-
ty structures can occur at different levels of the mesosystem and its ef-
holds, living arrangements, and family SES are some of the more com-
fects can cascade downward from community to individual. Examining
monly examined variables (Buka et al., 2001; Jonson-Reid, 1998).
how concepts of RAT/LS can shape these opportunity structures not
Richters and Martinez (1993) reported that whether youth lived in
only provides a theoretical foundation for studying youth experiences
houses versus apartments had a significant predictive effect on youth
with neighborhood violence but also for establishing inter-level pro-
ETV-C, as youth who lived in houses were more likely to witness vio-
cesses within an ecological framework.
lence. From a theoretical standpoint, the RAT/LS perspective provides
a basis upon which to explain these findings. Guardianship, especially
3.1.2. Collective efficacy
informal guardianship, may be more pervasive in an apartment com-
The macro level perspective of collective efficacy blends informal so-
plex where neighbors may be more attuned to their surroundings
cial control and social cohesion to explain reductions in crime rates in
than among single family homes which are less interdependent struc-
communities (see Sampson et al., 1997). Although collective efficacy is
turally and perhaps socially, even if only informally. Financial hardship
not explicitly a component of the ecological framework, it would fall
and family SES have also been demonstrated to have a negative effect
under Bronfenbrenner's (1979) idea of the mesosystem and how child
on youth witnessing of violence (Crouch, Hanson, Saunders, Kilpatrick,
experiences, including ETV-C, are influenced by the community. While
& Resnick, 2000). Crouch et al. (2000) used family income as a measure
the use of an ecological framework is not clearly stated in research ex-
of SES and showed that youth, especially White youth, from families
amining the influence of collective efficacy on ETV-C, coupled with the
with higher SES witnessed fewer incidences of violence, assault, and
RAT/LS theoretical perspectives it does provide a community-level
harsh disciplining. Bell and Jenkins (1993) demonstrated that family
guardianship variable (see Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017). Collective effi-
characteristics like parental structure impacted youth outcomes. The
cacy serves an external guardianship role in the community where
authors concluded that youth from homes with fewer caregivers pres-
neighbors watch over each other's children and provide informal social
ent (i.e., female-headed households) were more likely to be involved
controls over their behaviors to monitor truancy, vandalism, and other
in violence. Similarly, Esbensen and Huizinga (1991) found that youth
delinquent acts (Kirk, 2009; Sampson, Morenoff, & Raudenbush, 2005;
living in two-parent households were less likely to be victimized, espe-
Sampson et al., 1997). Collective efficacy is theoretically a buffer against
cially compared to those living in single-parent homes, suggesting from
ETV-C, and is one of the most robust macro level predictors of crime
a RAT/LS perspective that guardianship may be reduced in
(Pratt & Cullen, 2005).
monoparental homes.
Sampson et al. (1997) introduce the concept of collective efficacy
Like much of the literature on victimization and exposure to vio-
and demonstrate that higher levels of collective efficacy are significantly
lence, there are studies that find no effects of family characteristics.
associated with less neighborhood violence. Such reductions in violent
For example, in their study of pre-teen and teen African-American and
crime rates in neighborhoods with high collective efficacy may translate
Latino males, Gorman-Smith and Tolan (1998) failed to uncover signif-
to fewer opportunities for youth to experience violence in their commu-
icant effects of family organization and other family characteristics on
nities. Few studies examine the relationship between collective efficacy
youth experiences with violence. It is possible that for these populations
and ETV-C, and most research in support of collective efficacy suggests it
neighborhood social processes play a greater factor in ETV-C than family
is a significant predictor of violence at the macro level, but not necessar-
characteristics. These investigations serve to emphasize the need to es-
ily at the micro-level. Building on the original collective efficacy study,
tablish theoretical linkages between family characteristics and process-
Morenoff, Sampson and Raudenbush (2001) determined that homicide
es, especially for those populations at higher risk for ETV-C. Family
rates were higher in neighborhoods with lower levels of collective effi-
characteristics like SES may convey that the financial resources with
cacy and high concentrated disadvantage. The authors also investigate
which parents can actively protect their children from dangerous envi-
the relationship between the availability of local organizations such as
ronments are scarce and limit, to some extent, familial ability to exert
religious institutions, political groups, and community councils finding
guardianship over youth.
that the presence of these associations increase collective efficacy
through the formation of social ties. What is missing from these corner-
stone blocks upon which collective efficacy is built is an explicit theoret- 3.2.2. Parenting strategies
ical framework to explain the causal mechanism between collective Parenting strategies take place within the home and beyond
efficacy, neighborhood violence, and micro-level experiences. The utili- household walls, and limiting our studies to the traditional measures
ty of collective efficacy, a macro level variable, to reduce individual's of supervision, attachment, and even discipline fails to capture the
ETV-C, a micro level variable, has yet to be established. Collective effica- full breadth of parenting practices employed by caregivers to protect
cy is not predictive of youth's exposure to violent peers (Zimmerman & their children. Averdijk and Bernasco (2015, p. 159) conclude
Messner, 2011) or ETV-C (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017). that “guardianship by parents is often operationalized in one of
two ways - attachment to parents and parental control - the latter
3.2. Family and parenting being the more direct measure”. However, according to
Furstenberg et al. (1999), community conditions will inform paren-
The relationship between family characteristics, parenting strate- tal strategies, underscoring the importance of examining a wider
gies, and youth ETV-C has been studied throughout the literature as breadth of family management strategies that reach outside of the
these tend to be the most common focus of inquiries on ETV-C risk home. The use of protective parenting strategies at home and while
and protective factors. Undeniably, family plays a critical role in attenu- youth are in the community can guard youth from negative neigh-
ating or exacerbating youth ETV-C. Often, the research has been divided borhood influences. In essence, when examining youth ETV-C it
into studies that examine family characteristics like marital status and makes sense to place parenting strategies within the community
SES and those that focus on parenting strategies like supervision, mon- context because managing the outside world and neighborhood in-
itoring, and discipline (Bacchini, Miranda, & Affuso, 2011; Buka et al., fluences is particularly important as youth mature and venture out
2001; Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998; among others). This section begins into the community.
 M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior 34 (2017) 166–177
To date there has been little agreement on what role the traditional
measures of parenting strategies have in explaining ETV-C. Gibson et al.
(2009) find no statistically significant effect of supervision and parental
warmth on youth secondary ETV-C. Interestingly, Tillyer et al. (2011)
found that parental control actually increased victimization risk, validat-
ing the results of Miller, Wasserman, Neugebauer, Gorman-Smith, and
Kamboukos (1999). In a replication of Gorman-Smith and Tolan (1998),
Gorman-Smith et al. (2004) uncovered no influence of parental supervi-
sion, discipline, and attachment to parents on youth ETV-C. Findings re-
garding parental strategies have clearly been mixed. Understanding
why youth differentially experience ETV-C may be a function of how par-
ents choose to guard or limit access to the community itself rather than
practices clearly limited to the home and requires additional exploration.
Recent studies have expanded the use of parenting strategies to in-
clude those that reach outside of the home and assess their relationship
with youth ETV-C. For example, setting limits for youth and increasing
monitoring for the times when youth are not at home has been shown
to decrease youth risk for ETV-C (Lobo Antunes, 2012; Dishion &
McMahon, 1998). Lobo Antunes and Ahlin (2015) and Ahlin and Lobo
Antunes (2015, 2017) reported that youth whose parents actively re-
strict their unsupervised time in the neighborhood are less likely to ex-
perience ETV-C. Additionally, Ahlin and Lobo Antunes (2017) suggest
that youth experiences with community violence should be not only ex-
amined within an ecological framework but also from a RAT/LS perspec-
tive, as parents actively engage in guardianship over their children.
Parents who supervise within the home, restrict unfettered access to
the community, and refrain from harsh discipline can not only attenuate
instances of ETV-C, they also reduce youth unstructured socializing and
association with deviant peers – leading to a reduction in target suitabil-
ity and enhancement of guardianship which is significantly predictive of
less youth ETV-C (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2015; Lobo Antunes & Ahlin,
2015).
Harsh disciplining practices, family conflict, and family violence
have also been shown to increase risk for ETV-C (Ahlin & Lobo
Antunes, 2017; Osofsky et al., 1993). Perhaps indirectly, these factors
influence the likelihood that youth will associate with deviant peers
and spend time in unstructured activities (Richards et al., 2004;
Zimmerman & Messner, 2013), both of which increase youth target suit-
ability (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017; Richards et al., 2004; Schreck,
Wright, & Miller, 2002). Observing curfews and rules regarding whether
children can spend time unsupervised in the neighborhood may, at least
to some extent, reflect the quality of a youth's relationship with their
parent/caregiver. Too much harsh discipline, or family conflict or vio-
lence, may negatively shape the choices youth make. Some evidence
suggests that certain family processes can influence youth anger regula-
tion, particularly with respect to parental support and cohesion. These
in turn influence ETV-C (Houltberg, Henry, & Morris, 2012) through su-
pervision; reinforcing the idea that guardianship itself can extend be-
yond supervision and monitoring.
Embracing an ecological framework, youth development research
has sought to examine how neighborhood characteristics can interact
with parenting to explain various outcomes (Lobo Antunes, 2012;
Elliott et al., 2006; Furstenberg et al., 1999). Sheidow, Gorman-Smith,
Tolan, and Henry (2001, p. 347) investigated the protective effects of
parenting on youth ETV-C, suggesting that “past studies have failed to
consider (whether) the effect of family functioning may vary depending
on neighborhood characteristics”. The authors conclude that family
functioning (which included parenting practices, parent-child relation-
ship, and clustering within neighborhoods) is especially important for
youth who live in highly disadvantaged neighborhoods. Inefficient fam-
ily functioning predicted greater levels of ETV-C for youth in these com-
munities. This resonates with the argument recently made by Ahlin and
Lobo Antunes (2017) and Lobo Antunes (2012) that when resources are
particularly scarce, parenting is one of the most important protective
factors in reducing youth ETV-C by increasing guardianship and
diminishing youth target suitability.
173
3.3. Peers
Using an ecological framework, Salzinger et al. (2002) identified five
ETV-C risk domains – community, family, parents/caregivers, peers, and
personal characteristics – and noted that much youth victimization in
the neighborhood is perpetrated by peers. From a RAT/LS perspective,
the role of peers in assessing victimization risk is essential. Clearly,
choosing ones friends and engaging in various activities with those indi-
viduals will affect how much opportunity youth have to experience vic-
timization while also determining the quality and quantity of
guardianship over peer interactions. As such, risk of victimization may
operate through peer interactions (see Schreck, Fisher, & Miller, 2004)
such as unstructured socializing and association with deviant peers.
From a RAT/LS perspective, these interactions with peers can impact
target suitability by influencing risk of direct victimization (Maimon &
Browning, 2010). Less is known, however, about whether these vari-
ables influence ETV-C.
3.3.1. Unstructured socializing
Unstructured socializing, sometimes referred to as unstructured lei-
sure time (Larson, 2001), generally consists of youth peer interactions
that have no set agenda or plans (e.g., going to parties, riding in cars
for fun, hanging out with friends) that lack supervision by parents or
other authority figures (Osgood et al., 1996). “Unstructured activities
are considered risky because they leave time available for deviant activ-
ities. Therefore, the link between unstructured time and victimization”
(Averdijk & Bernasco, 2015, p. 157) may be understood through the
role of peers and guardianship. By affecting routine activities, primarily
through a reduction in capable guardianship, unstructured socializing
also alters how much ETV-C youth experience. Parents who restrict
their children's unsupervised access to the community reduce the
amount of ETV-C experienced by youth (see Ahlin & Lobo Antunes,
2017). At the neighborhood level, poor guardianship and meager at-
tempts at informal social control permits instances of youth unstruc-
tured socializing. The literature also suggests that youth who are
unsupervised in the neighborhood and are involved in unstructured so-
cializing with their peers are more likely to be exposed to community
violence, though this relationship may differ across racial/ethnic catego-
ries (see Lobo Antunes & Ahlin, 2015; Zimmerman & Messner, 2013).
For example, Richards et al. (2004) examined the influence of risk and
protective situational factors over ETV-C, including measures of both di-
rect victimization and witnessing violent acts. According to their analy-
sis, more time spent in a risky situational context, assessed as
percentage of time spent in unstructured activities with peers, increased
youth ETV-C, while increased time with family or engaged in structured
and supervised activities acted as protective factors which decreased
ETV-C. More specifically, compared to socializing at home or school,
youth who engage in public outdoor companionship in the neighbor-
hood with older peers experience greater risk for ETV-C (Goldmann et
al., 2011).
3.3.2. Peer deviance
Like unstructured socializing, peer deviance also influences ETV-C
and there is substantial literature to support the salience of peer devi-
ance over youths' risk of ETV-C. Deviant peers can influence youth
ETV-C in multiple ways. Most directly, having deviant peers can increase
youth's own victimization (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017; Schreck &
Fisher, 2004; Schreck et al., 2002; Zimmerman & Messner, 2013).
From the RAT/LS perspective, risk of ETV-C can also be affected through
the presence of deviant peers by increasing opportunity and reducing
capable guardianship. Similar to the perspective adopted by Haynie
and Osgood (2005; see also Miethe & Meier, 1994) who argue that de-
linquent behavior is influenced by opportunity resulting from time
spent with delinquent peers, increased risk for victimization is also a
function of opportunity which is heightened when youth associate
with deviant peers. In terms of aggravating the risk of ETV-C, Averdijk
174 M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior 34 (2017) 166–177
and Bernasco (2015) also argue that adolescent youth are reaching their
peak levels of risk for engagement in crime, and thus hanging out with
peers may also expose youth to a stable cadre of motivated offenders,
potentially increasing ETV-C.
Stepping outside the peers' direct mesosystem level and highlight-
ing the need for an ecological approach, there are also individual charac-
teristics that may mitigate the risk of ETV-C posed by deviant peers.
While youth with low levels of self-control are at increased risk of
ETV-C (Zimmerman & Messner, 2013), high levels of self-control can
buffer this risk through reduced contact with deviant peers (see
Schreck et al., 2002). Further, youth with higher street efficacy, defined
as the ability to successfully avoid negative interactions in one's neigh-
borhood, are less likely to associate with delinquent peers (see Sharkey,
2006), which may in turn attenuate ETV-C. These individual character-
istics reduce the instances of ETV-C suggesting that youth may act as
their own capable guardian (see Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017).
3.4. Individual characteristics
The RAT/LS perspectives offer a macro-level explanation of victimi-
zation risk, which often highlights the demographic factors of groups
most likely to experience victimization, such as ETV-C. Such individual
characteristics are the most central mesosystem level to youth within
an ecological framework, and how individuals interact with their com-
munities and structure their daily routine activities and particular life-
style may be a function of their individual attributes. Until now, far
too little attention has been paid to the relevance of individual charac-
teristics beyond traditional demographic variables and how they may
serve to attenuate or mitigate youth ETV-C. We examine the relevance
of the conventional individual characteristics, race/ethnicity, gender,
and age, for explaining ETV-C and also extend the discussion to person-
ality characteristics which have more recently been explored in the
literature.
3.4.1. Race/ethnicity
Race and ethnicity are common correlates of victimization risk and a
considerable amount of research has been dedicated to this topic. In ra-
cial comparisons, scholars have shown that Blacks are more likely than
Whites to experience indirect, or secondary, ETV-C (Lobo Antunes &
Ahlin, 2015; Gibson et al., 2009; Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998). When ex-
amining race and ethnicity, there is consensus among social scientists
that Black and Hispanic youth are more likely than Whites to experience
ETV-C (Crouch et al., 2000; Martin, Gordon, & Kupersmidt, 1995). In a
recent study, Zimmerman and Messner (2013) note that compared to
White youth, the odds of being exposed to community violence for
Hispanic and Black youth are 74% and 112% higher, respectively. These
racial and ethnic disparities persist across informant types, youth,
primary caregiver, or parent, though youth self-reports of ETV-C tend
to be higher (Kuo, Mohler, Raudenbush, & Earls, 2000; see Buka et al.,
2001).
While Hispanic youth experience more ETV-C than their White
peers, either as a direct victim or through witnessing or hearing about
violence perpetrated against others (Crouch et al., 2000; Gibson et al.,
2009; Martin et al., 1995; Zimmerman & Messner, 2013), more current
attention has focused on the role immigrant generational status (e.g.,
first, second, third generation immigrant) has on ETV-C. Studies control-
ling for immigrant generational status suggest that ETV-C among Latino
youth is a function of whether they (first generation), or their parents
(second generation), or grandparents (third generation) are foreign-
born, with second and later generation Hispanic youth experiencing
more ETV-C (Eggers & Jennings, 2014; Gibson & Miller, 2010). Unlike
these scholars, MacDonald and Saunders (2012) report no differences
in ETV-C among Hispanics who are first-generation immigrants com-
pared to Latinos born in the US. In fact, controlling for neighborhood
structural characteristics in addition to collective efficacy and social dis-
order, first-generation immigrants experienced less ETV-C, suggesting
that situating race and ethnicity within an ecological framework may
explicate its relationship to ETV-C.
3.4.2. Gender
Tremendous research has been dedicated to understanding gender
differences not only in delinquency but also victimization and ETV-C.
Many studies have found that boys are at greater risk for ETV-C (Ahlin
& Lobo Antunes, 2017; Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998; Singer, Anglin,
Song, & Lunghofer, 1995). Similarly, Lobo Antunes and Ahlin (2015)
and Ahlin and Lobo Antunes (2017) show that, compared to females,
males are approximately 40% more likely to experience violence in the
neighborhood. However, Zimmerman and Messner (2010) demon-
strate that the gender gap in violent offending narrows due to exposure
to peer violence and community concentrated disadvantage. Essential-
ly, the authors find that the negative effect of exposure to violent
peers is enhanced for girls in conditions of greater neighborhood pover-
ty, suggesting perhaps that gender interactions between peer associa-
tions and violence merit closer examination within a multilevel RAT/
LS framework.
Frequently, research on the gender gap in ETV-C has argued that dif-
ferences lie in variations of parental monitoring and supervision (Lobo
Antunes, 2012; LaGrange & Silverman, 1999). As previously stated, in
impoverished neighborhoods parents may lack the financial and social
resources to effectively protect their children from neighborhood condi-
tions and deviant peers which may lead to increased target suitability
and exposure to motivated offenders (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017).
The gendered relationship between neighborhood poverty and differ-
ences in youth ETV-C may, just like age and race, be the result of paren-
tal and neighborhood interaction and the inability of parents to exert
guardianship and attenuate youth risk for ETV-C. The gendered selec-
tion of parenting mechanisms may influence routine activities and life-
styles and thereby differentially affect target suitability and
guardianship for females, depending on whether parents and caregivers
can and are willing to enact capable guardianship.
3.4.3. Age
At what age does ETV-C become a risk for children? This is an im-
portant question, and is perhaps best answered by considering vari-
ous elements of the ecological framework that we suggest are
fundamental for addressing ETV-C. For youth to experience violence
in their community they must spend time there and compared to
younger children, teens are much more likely to spend time in
their neighborhood where they form peer relationships and engage
in community activities (Lobo Antunes, 2012; Ward & Laughlin,
2003). Perhaps this is why studies have consistently established
that older youth are at greater risk for experiencing and witnessing
violence in their neighborhood (Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017; Lobo
Antunes & Ahlin, 2015; Selner-O'Hagan et al., 1998; Singer et al.,
1995). From a RAT/LS perspective, increased youth engagement
with their community, often without the watchful eye of a parent
or caregiver, is akin to a reduction in capable guardianship and, in
turn, a source of enhancement of target suitability.
In a series of studies using the PHDCN data, Lobo Antunes (2012), Lobo
Antunes and Ahlin (2014, 2015), and Ahlin and Lobo Antunes (2017)
found that the older cohorts in their sample, those in their mid- to late
teens reported higher risk for ETV-C. The authors demonstrate that youn-
ger youth are subjected to higher levels of parental control and guardian-
ship, which means they are less likely to spend time unsupervised in their
community and more likely to be monitored at home. Parental guardian-
ship also translates to fewer associations with deviant peers and time
spent in what Richards et al. (2004) call “risky” activities (i.e., unstruc-
tured socializing), reducing their chances of experiencing ETV-C. Guard-
ianship and target availability can explain, therefore, why it is that
younger youth are less likely to experience ETV-C.
 M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior 34 (2017) 166–177
3.4.4. Personality characteristics
Individuals can increase their own risk of victimization through per-
sonal decision-making about where and with whom to associate
(Cohen & Felson, 1979; Gibson et al., 2009; Hindelang et al., 1978;
Miethe & Meier, 1994), thereby increasing risk of victimization through
the selection of situations and peers (see Schreck et al., 2002). Certain per-
sonality characteristics can assist prosocial decisions to avoid ETV-C or
constrain good choices and increase ETV-C inviting its detrimental effects
on youth development. One much studied personality factor is low self-
control. Low self-control is characterized as lacking inhibitory control,
being present oriented, preferring immediate gratification, sensation
seeking, and a lack of persistence in tasks (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990).
Individuals with low self-control are more likely to place themselves in
precarious situations, perhaps because they fail to see the long-term con-
sequences of ETV-C, or they are engaged in criminal behavior themselves
(see Schreck, 1999). Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990, p. 157) suggest youth
with low self-control “gravitate to the street”. As such, compared to youth
with higher levels of self-control, individuals with less self-control are at a
higher risk of experiencing ETV-C (Higgins, Jennings, Tewksbury, &
Gibson, 2009; Zimmerman & Messner, 2013).
Low self-control may also place individuals in contexts that are
prone to victimization due to a lack of guardianship and increased
opportunities (see Forde & Kennedy, 1997), through delinquent
peer associations (Schreck et al., 2002). Compared to delinquent
peers, low self-control has a stronger effect over risk of direct victim-
ization, though high self-control has not been shown to act as a pro-
tective factor (Schreck et al., 2002). While low self-control and
impulsivity appear to predict increased direct violent victimizations
(Gibson, 2012), less is known about its relationship to indirect ETV-
C. However, impulsivity, one component of low self-control, does in-
crease ETV-C (Wilcox, Tillyer, & Fisher, 2009), while having an inter-
nal locus of control (a sense of ownership over outcomes resulting
from one's behaviors) is associated with a reduction in ETV-C
(Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2015). The literature on the relevance of per-
sonality characteristics, though quickly developing, is still in its na-
scent period. Within an ecological framework, and by applying the
RAT/LS perspective, we believe that these and other personality
characteristics could be explored as explanations of ETV-C, particu-
larly as moderators of existing known predictors of ETV-C.
4. Conclusions
The current review examines the literature on youth experiences
with ETV-C, placing the studies analyzed within a multileveled con-
text while also exploring the utility of a RAT/LS perspective. We find
that in order to better comprehend the mechanisms that influence
the likelihood a youth will be exposed to community violence we
should shy away from looking at risk and protective factors using a
silo approach but rather apply an ecological framework that con-
siders all levels of the mesosystem. This review also underscores
the paucity of studies that have actively sought to incorporate theory
in their analyses. ETV-C includes both victimization and witnessing
of violent events in the community and we contend that the RAT/
LS perspective is well-suited to explaining why there is a greater pro-
pensity towards ETV-C for some youth (see Ahlin & Lobo Antunes,
2017; Averdijk & Bernasco, 2015). The RAT/LS model is placed,
here, within a mesosystemic framework and research included in
this review has been evaluated using the key concepts of guardian-
ship and target suitability. Whether intentional or not, several of
the articles use these in their investigations, albeit sometimes
under different conceptualizations. Oftentimes guardianship is mea-
sured as social control, supervision, and monitoring, whereas target
suitability is assessed via peer relationships and “risky” activities
(Averdijk & Bernasco, 2015; Richards et al., 2004). Regardless, what
these studies show is that researchers should not only contextualize
youth ETV-C by placing the risk and protective factors at different
175
mesosystem levels - neighborhood, family, peers, and youth - but
should also consider applying a concrete theory to explain why
youth experience violence in the community.
The focus here was primarily on ETV-C as an outcome. In essence, a
majority of the articles reviewed specifically investigated predictors of
youth ETV-C. We have found that there seems to be more literature ded-
icated to the deleterious sequelae of ETV-C than explaining how youth
are at differential risk for ETV-C. We also demonstrate that these studies
often fail to consider the multilevel nature of ETV-C or explicitly use the-
ory to explain these outcomes. This is certainly a direction for future re-
search. Moreover, as van Dulmen et al. (2008) suggest, witnessing
violence and being the victim of violence are conceptually different
measures. It is reasonable then to argue that causal processes may also
be different. Gibson et al. (2009) do explore the issue of secondary, or
indirect, exposure to community violence; however, as many of the
studies included here they do not propose a definitive theoretical
framework. Future efforts should be directed at exploring these
avenues.
Lynch (2003) makes an important point regarding self-reported expe-
riences of community violence versus rates of community violence, sug-
gesting that rates themselves could negatively influence youth
outcomes or alter guardianship. The parenting literature (Lobo Antunes,
2012; Elliott et al., 2006; Furstenberg et al., 1999) shows that neighbor-
hood conditions shape family management practices. Communities rid-
dled with violence may prompt parents to enhance guardianship. While
this may seem the best course of action, research on adolescent develop-
ment highlights the need for teens to strive for autonomy and seek the
freedom to make their own choices (Roche & Leventhal, 2009; Tobler,
Komro, & Maldonado-Molina, 2009) and serve as their own guardians
over ETV-C (see Ahlin & Lobo Antunes, 2017). As youth mature, “parents
will reinforce and stimulate this process of growing autonomy, self-deter-
mination, and independence” (Eccles et al., 1993, p. 97). It is conceivable
then, yet unexplored, that too much guardianship can have a negative ef-
fect on youth behavior and possibly on ETV-C as youth seek to break the
protective grip established by parents (see Miller et al., 1999; Tillyer et al.,
2011). This in turn may lead to increased suitability as a target and ulti-
mately an increase in the likelihood of ETV-C.
In a similar vein, research may consider the differences in reporting
mechanisms when examining youth ETV-C (Kuo et al., 2000). Parental,
teacher, and even peer reports of violence may vary from those made by
the youth themselves. Youth perceptions of neighborhood conditions
and environment, perceptions that guide decisions and choices, are
not necessarily the same as those held by family, peers, and neighbor-
hood residents. Such considerations in future studies could shed light
on the complex processes involved in neighborhood violence and
more specifically youth ETV-C.
Within a policy paradigm, gains in knowledge regarding what can be
done at the community, family, peer, and youth level to ameliorate vio-
lence in the neighborhood by reducing ETV-C can also help foster posi-
tive community relations and youth development. Dahlberg (1998)
examined violence prevention programs but noted that many tended
to focus on only one level of the mesosystem. Tackling each level as if
in a vacuum negates the multidimensional relationship that exists be-
tween community, families, peers, and youth. For instance, Gardner
and Brooks-Gunn (2009) demonstrate the utility of youth organizations
in deterring violence at the neighborhood level. As Eccles and Gootman
(2002) argue, programs targeting youth should be implemented from a
multifaceted perspective, directed at the community, family, and peers,
and we suggest including the individual. Therefore, when considering
the damaging consequences of youth ETV-C, the ecological RAT/LS
framework within which ETV-C occurs, policymakers should take into
account a multicontextual model that focuses on increasing guardian-
ship at all levels of the mesosystem – neighborhood, family, peers, and
individual – while also promoting strategies that minimize target suit-
ability of those who live in and explore the neighborhood on a daily
basis.
176 M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior 34 (2017) 166–177
References
Ahlin, E. M., & Lobo Antunes, M. J. (2015). Locus of control orientation: Parents, peers, and
place. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 44, 1803–1818.
Ahlin, E. M., & Lobo Antunes, M. J. (2017). Levels of guardianship in protecting youth
against exposure to violence in the community. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,
15, 62–83.
Averdijk, M., & Bernasco, W. (2015). Testing the situational explanation of victimization
among adolescents. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 151–180.
Bacchini, D., Miranda, M. C., & Affuso, G. (2011). Effects of parental monitoring and expo-
sure to community violence on antisocial behavior and anxiety/depression among
adolescents. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 269–292.
Bell, C. C., & Jenkins, E. J. (1993). Community violence and children on Chicago's southside.
Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 56, 46–54.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Buka, S. L., Stichick, T. L., Birdthistle, I., & Earls, F. J. (2001). Youth exposure to violence:
Prevalence, risks, and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 298–310.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
Crouch, J. L., Hanson, R. F., Saunders, B. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Resnick, H. S. (2000). Income,
race/ethnicity, and exposure to violence in youth: Results from the National Survey of
Adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 625–641.
Dahlberg, L. L. (1998). Youth violence in the United States: Major trends, risk factors, and
prevention approaches. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, 259–272.
Dishion, T. J., & McMahon, R. J. (1998). Parental monitoring and the prevention of child
and adolescent problem behavior: A conceptual and empirical formulation. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 61–75.
Eccles, J. S. (1992). School and family effects on the ontogeny of children's interests, self-
perceptions and activity choice. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 40, 145–208.
Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (Eds.). (2002). Community programs to promote youth
development. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Iver, D.
M. (1993). Development during adolescence. The impact of stage-environment fit on
young adolescents' experiences in schools and in families. The American Psychologist,
48, 90–101.
Eggers, A., & Jennings, W. G. (2014). The effects of birth location and sociological influ-
ences on violent victimization among Hispanic youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile
Justice, 12, 355–366.
Elder, G. H., Jr. (1994). Time, human agency, and social change: Perspectives on the life
course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 4–15.
Elliott, D. S., Menard, S., Rankin, B., Elliott, A., Wilson, W. J., & Huizinga, D. (2006). Good
kids from bad neighborhoods: Successful development in social context. Cambridge, En-
gland: Cambridge University Press.
Esbensen, F., & Huizinga, D. (1991). Juvenile victimization and delinquency. Youth and
Society, 23, 202–228.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (2015). 2014 Crime in the United States. Washington, DC:
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Finkelhor, D., & Asdigian, N. L. (1996). Risk factors for youth victimization: Beyond a life-
styles/routine activities theory approach. Violence and Victims, 11, 3–19.
Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., Shattuck, A., Hamby, S., & Kracke, K. (2015). Children's exposure to
violence, crime, and abuse: An update. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
Fitzpatrick, K. M., & Boldizar, J. P. (1993). The prevalence and consequences of exposure to
violence among African-American youth. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 32, 424–430.
Flannery, D. J., Williams, L. L., & Vazsonyi, A. T. (1999). Who are they with and what are
they doing? Delinquent behavior, substance use, and early adolescents' after-school
time. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 247–253.
Forde, D. R., & Kennedy, L. W. (1997). Risky lifestyles, routine activities, and the general
theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 14, 265–294.
Furstenberg, F. F., Cook, T. D., Eccles, J., Elder, G. H., & Sameroff, A. (1999). Managing to
make it: Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gardner, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2009). Adolescents' exposure to community violence: Are
neighborhood youth organizations protective? Journal of Community Psychology, 37,
505–525.
Gibson, C. L. (2012). Unpacking the influence of neighborhood context and antisocial propen-
sity on violent victimization of children and adolescents in Chicago. Washington, DC: Na-
tional Institute of Justice.
Gibson, C. L., & Miller, H. V. (2010). Crime and victimization among Hispanic adolescents: A
multilevel longitudinal study of acculturation and segmented assimilation. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Justice.
Gibson, C. L., Morris, S. Z., & Beaver, K. M. (2009). Secondary exposure to violence during
childhood and adolescence: Does neighborhood context matter? Justice Quarterly, 26,
30–57.
Goldmann, E., Aiello, A., Uddin, M., Delva, J., Koenen, K., Gant, L. M., & Galea, S. (2011). Per-
vasive exposure to violence and posttraumatic stress disorder in a predominantly Af-
rican American urban community: The detroit neighborhood health study. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 24, 747–751.
Gorman-Smith, D., & Tolan, P. (1998). The role of exposure to community violence and de-
velopmental problems among inner-city youth. Development and Psychopathology, 10,
101–116.
Gorman-Smith, D., Henry, D. B., & Tolan, P. H. (2004). Exposure to community violence
and violence perpetration: The protective effects of family functioning. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 439–449.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Gottfredson, D. C., Gottfredson, G. D., & Weisman, S. A. (2001). The timing of delinquent
behavior and its implications for after-school programs. Criminology & Public Policy,
1, 61–86.
Guterman, N. B., Cameron, M., & Staller, K. (2000). Definitional and measurement issues
in the study of community violence among children and youths. Journal of
Community Psychology, 28, 571–587.
Haynie, D. L., & Osgood, D. W. (2005). Reconsidering peers and delinquency: How do
peers matter? Social Forces, 84, 1109–1130.
Higgins, G. E., Jennings, W. G., Tewksbury, R., & Gibson, C. L. (2009). Exploring the link be-
tween low self-control and violent victimization trajectories in adolescents. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 36, 1070–1084.
Hindelang, M., Gottfredson, M., & Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empir-
ical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Hitlin, S., & Elder, G. H., Jr. (2007). Time, self, and the curiously abstract concept of agency.
Sociological Theory, 25, 170–191.
Houltberg, B. J., Henry, C. S., & Morris, A. S. (2012). Family interactions, exposure to vio-
lence, and emotion regulation: Perceptions of children and early adolescents at risk.
Family Relations, 61, 283–296.
Jensen, G. F., & Brownfield, D. (1986). Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: Beyond rou-
tine activities. Violence and Victims, 1, 85–99.
Jonson-Reid, M. (1998). Youth violence and exposure to violence in childhood: An ecolog-
ical review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 159–179.
Kellam, S. G., Ling, X., Merisca, R., Brown, C. H., & Ialongo, N. (1998). The effect of the level
of aggression in the first grade classroom on the course and malleability of aggressive
behavior in middle school. Development and Psychopathology, 10, 165–185.
Kirk, D. S. (2006). Examining the divergence across self-report and official data sources on
inferences about the adolescent life-course of crime. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 22, 107–129.
Kirk, D. S. (2009). Unraveling the contextual effects on student suspension and juvenile
arrest: An examination of school, neighborhood, and family controls. Criminology,
47, 479–520.
Kuo, M., Mohler, B., Raudenbush, S. L., & Earls, F. J. (2000). Assessing exposure to violence
using multiple informants: Application of hierarchical linear model. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 1049–1056.
Kupersmidt, J. B., Griesler, P. C., DeRosier, M. E., Patterson, C. J., & Davis, P. W. (1995).
Childhood aggression and peer relations in the context of family and neighborhood
factors. Child Development, 66, 360–375.
LaGrange, T. C., & Silverman, R. A. (1999). Low self-control and opportunity: Testing the
general theory of crime as an explanation for gender differences in delinquency.
Criminology, 37, 41–72.
Larson, R. W. (2001). How US children and adolescents spend time: What it does (and
doesn't) tell us about their development. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
10, 160–164.
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of
neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin,
126, 309–337.
Lobo Antunes, M. J. (2012). A multilevel exploration of neighborhood disorder, family man-
agement and youth antisocial behavior, Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Maryland, College Park.
Lobo Antunes, M. J., & Ahlin, E. M. (2014). Family management and youth violence: Are
parents or community more salient? Journal of Community Psychology, 42, 316–337.
Lobo Antunes, M. J., & Ahlin, E. M. (2015). Protecting youth against exposure to violence:
Intersections of race/ethnicity, neighborhood, family and friends. Race & Justice: An
International Journal, 5, 208–234.
Lynam, D. R., Caspi, A., Moffit, T. E., Wikström, P. O., Loeber, R., & Novak, S. (2000). The in-
teraction between impulsivity and neighborhood context on offending: The effects of
impulsivity are stronger in poorer neighborhoods. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
109, 563–574.
Lynch, M. (2003). Consequences of children's exposure to community violence. Clinical
Child and Family Psychology Review, 6, 265–274.
MacDonald, J., & Saunders, J. (2012). Are immigrant youth less violent? Specifying the
reasons and mechanisms. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 641, 125–147.
Maimon, D., & Browning, C. R. (2010). Unstructured socializing, collective efficacy and
youth violent behavior among urban youth. Criminology, 48, 443–473.
Martin, S. L., Gordon, T. E., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1995). Survey of exposure to violence
among the children of migrant and seasonal farm workers. Public Health Reports,
110, 268–276.
Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. F. (1994). Crime and its social context: Toward an integrated theory
of offenders, victims, and situations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Miethe, T. D., Stafford, M. C., & Long, J. S. (1987). Social differentiation in criminal victim-
ization: A test of routine activities/lifestyle theories. American Sociological Review, 52,
184–194.
Miller, L. S., Wasserman, G. A., Neugebauer, R., Gorman-Smith, D., & Kamboukos, D.
(1999). Witnessed community violence and antisocial behavior in high-risk, urban
boys. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 28, 2–11.
Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, col-
lective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517–559.
Mrug, S., & Windle, M. (2010). Prospective effects of violence exposure across multiple
contexts on early adolescents' internalizing and externalizing problems. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 953–961.
Mrug, S., Loosier, P. S., & Windle, M. (2008). Violence exposure across multiple contexts:
Individual and joint effects on adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78,
70–84.
 M.J.L. Antunes, E.M. Ahlin / Aggression and Violent Behavior 34 (2017) 166–177
Murphy, S. L., Xu, J., & Kochanek, K. D. (2012). Deaths: Preliminary data for 2010. National
Vital Statistics Reports, 60, 1–52.
Nofziger, S., & Kurtz, D. (2005). Violent lives: A lifestyle model linking exposure to violence
to juvenile violent offending. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 3–26.
Osgood, D. W., & Anderson, A. L. (2004). Unstructured socializing and rates of delinquen-
cy. Criminology, 42, 519–550.
Osgood, D. W., Wilson, J. K., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Johnston, L. D. (1996). Rou-
tine activities and individual deviant behavior. American Sociological Review, 61,
635–655.
Osofsky, J. D., Wewers, S., Hann, D. M., & Fick, A. C. (1993). Chronic community violence:
What is happening to our children? Psychiatry, 56, 36–45.
Pratt, T., & Cullen, F. T. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors and theories of crime: A
meta-analysis. Crime and Justice, 32, 373–438.
Richards, M. H., Larson, R., Miller, B. V., Luo, Z., Sims, B., Parrella, D. P., & McCauley, C.
(2004). Risky and protective contexts and exposure to violence in urban African
American young adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33,
138–148.
Richters, J. E., & Martinez, P. (1993). Violent communities, family choices, and children's
chances: An algorithm for improving the odds. Development and Psychopathology, 5,
609–627.
Roche, K. M., & Leventhal, T. (2009). Beyond neighborhood poverty: Family management,
neighborhood disorder, and adolescents' early sexual onset. Journal of Family
Psychology, 23, 819–827.
Salzinger, S., Feldman, R. S., Stockhammer, T., & Hood, J. (2002). An ecological framework
for understanding risk for exposure to community violence and the effects of expo-
sure on children and adolescents. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7, 423–451.
Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1994). Violent victimization and offending: Individual-,
situational-, and community level risk factors. In A. J. Reiss, & J. A. Roth (Eds.), Under-
standing and preventing violence. Vol. 3. (pp. 1–114). Washington, DC: National Acad-
emy Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Disorder in urban neighborhoods: Does it lead
to crime. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A
multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Raudenbush, S. (2005). Social anatomy of racial and eth-
nic disparities in violence. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 224–232.
Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and test of
a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633–654.
Schreck, C. J., & Fisher, B. S. (2004). Specifying the influence of family and peers on violent
victimization extending routine activities and lifestyles theories. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1021–1041.
Schreck, C. J., Wright, R. A., & Miller, J. M. (2002). A study of individual and situational an-
tecedents of violent victimization. Justice Quarterly, 19, 159–180.
Schreck, C. J., Fisher, B. S., & Miller, J. M. (2004). The social context of violent victimization:
A study of the delinquent peer effect. Justice Quarterly, 21, 23–47.
Schwartz, D., Hopmeyer-Gorman, A., Toblin, R. L., & Abou-ezzeddine, T. (2003). Mutual
antipathies in the peer group as a moderating factor in the association between com-
munity violence exposure and psychosocial maladjustment. New Directions for Child
and Adolescent Development, 102, 39–54.
Selner-O'Hagan, M. B., Kindlon, D. J., Buka, S. L., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. J. (1998).
Assessing exposure to violence in urban youth. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 39, 215–224.
177
Sharkey, P. T. (2006). Navigating dangerous streets: The sources and consequences of
street efficacy. American Sociological Review, 71, 826–846.
Sheidow, A. J., Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., & Henry, D. B. (2001). Family and commu-
nity characteristics: Risk factors for violence exposure in inner-city youth. Journal of
Community Psychology, 29, 345–360.
Simons, R. L., Lorenz, F. O., Wu, C. I., & Conger, R. D. (1993). Social network and marital
support as mediators and moderators of the impact of stress and depression on pa-
rental behavior. Developmental Psychology, 29, 368–381.
Singer, M. I., Anglin, T. M., Song, L., & Lunghofer, L. (1995). Adolescents' exposure to vio-
lence and associated symptoms of psychological trauma. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 273, 477–482.
Slopen, N., Fitzmaurice, G. M., Williams, D. R., & Gilman, S. E. (2012). Common patterns of
violence experiences and depression and anxiety among adolescents. Social
Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 47, 1591–1605.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and victims: 1999 national report.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Spano, R., Freilich, J. D., & Bolland, J. (2008). Gang membership, gun carrying, and employ-
ment: Applying routine activities theory to explain violent victimization among inner
city, minority youth living in extreme poverty. Justice Quarterly, 25, 381–410.
Spencer, M. B., & Dornbusch, S. M. (1990). Challenges in studying minority youth. In S. S.
Feldman, & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent
(pp. 123–146). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Taylor, T. J., Freng, A., Esbensen, F. A., & Peterson, D. (2008). Youth gang membership and
serious violent victimization: The importance of lifestyles and routine activities.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 23, 1441–1464.
Tillyer, M. S., Tillyer, R., Miller, H. V., & Pangrac, R. (2011). Reexamining the correlates of
adolescent violent victimization: The importance of exposure, guardianship, and tar-
get characteristics. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2908–2928.
Tobler, A. L., Komro, K. A., & Maldonado-Molina, M. M. (2009). Relationship between
neighborhood context, family management practices and alcohol use among urban,
multi-ethnic, young adolescents. Prevention Science, 10, 313–324.
van Dulmen, M. H., Belliston, L. M., Flannery, D. J., & Singer, M. (2008). Confirmatory factor
analysis of the recent exposure to violence scale. Children and Schools, 30, 93–102.
Ward, C. L., & Laughlin, J. E. (2003). Social contexts, age and juvenile delinquency: A com-
munity perspective. Journal of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 15, 13–26.
Wilcox, P., Land, K. C., & Hunt, S. A. (2003). Criminal circumstance: A dynamic
multicontextual criminal opportunity theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Wilcox, P., Madensen, T. D., & Tillyer, M. S. (2007). Guardianship in context: Implications
for burglary victimization risk and prevention. Criminology, 45, 771–803.
Wilcox, P., Tillyer, M. S., & Fisher, B. S. (2009). Gendered opportunity? School-based ado-
lescent victimization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46, 245–269.
Wilson, W. C., & Rosenthal, B. S. (2003). The relationship between exposure to communi-
ty violence and psychological distress among adolescents: A meta-analysis. Violence
and Victims, 18, 335–352.
Zimmerman, G. M., & Messner, S. F. (2010). Neighborhood context and the gender gap in
adolescent violent crime. American Sociological Review, 75, 958–980.
Zimmerman, G. M., & Messner, S. F. (2011). Neighborhood context and nonlinear peer ef-
fects on adolescent violent crime. Criminology, 49, 873–903.
Zimmerman, G. M., & Messner, S. F. (2013). Individual, family background, and contextual
explanations of racial and ethnic disparities in youths' exposure to violence. American
Journal of Public Health, 103, 435–442.