Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2024 Fawn T Ngo - Life Domains Constraints Motivations and Intimate
2024 Fawn T Ngo - Life Domains Constraints Motivations and Intimate
2024 Fawn T Ngo - Life Domains Constraints Motivations and Intimate
research-article2022
CADXXX10.1177/00111287221106951Crime & DelinquencyNgo et al.
Article
Crime & Delinquency
Life Domains,
2024, Vol. 70(1) 29–63
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
Constraints, Motivations, sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00111287221106951
https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221106951
and Intimate Partner journals.sagepub.com/home/cad
Abstract
Given the victim-offender overlap, it has been suggested that every theory
about offenders implies a corresponding theory of victimization. We assess the
above assertion concerning Agnew’s general theory of crime and delinquency
within the context of intimate partner violence (IPV). Drawing data from the
International Dating Violence Study, we examine the direct and indirect effects
of the self, family, school/work, and peer domains on IPV perpetration and
victimization. We found the four life domains significantly predicted both IPV
perpetration and victimization and their effects on both outcome variables
were mediated by the constraint and motivation factors. Our results indicate
that the mechanisms that account for offending posited in Agnew’s perspective
appear to be equally relevant and applicable for understanding victimization.
Keywords
Agnew’s integrated theory, life-domains, intimate partner violence, criminal
victimization, constraints, motivations
1
University of South Florida, Tampa, USA
Corresponding Author:
Fawn T. Ngo, Department of Criminology, College of Behavioral and Community Sciences,
University of South Florida, 4202 East Fowler Avenue SOC 107, Tampa, FL 33620, USA.
Email: fawnngo@usf.edu
30 Crime & Delinquency 70(1)
Introduction
The relationship between victimization and offending, also known as the
victim-offender overlap, has been widely documented (Pratt & Turanovic,
2021). The discovery that offenders and victims are often the same individu-
als has been corroborated in studies involving the general population of
adults and juveniles (Lauritsen et al., 1991; Sampson & Lauritsen, 1990) and
specialized populations of adult offenders and deviant youth (Whitbeck et al.,
2001). Scholars and researchers have applied theoretical concepts derived
from criminological perspectives originally developed to account for crime
and deviance, namely, self-control (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990), social
learning (Akers, 1998), general strain (Agnew, 1992), and control balance
(Tittle, 1995), to examine criminal victimization. Theoretical measures such
as low self-control (Schreck, 1999), imitation, differential association, dif-
ferential reinforcement (Cochran et al., 2011), anger (Hay & Evans, 2006),
and control imbalances (Fox et al., 2016) have been linked to risks of victim-
ization. Consequently, Berg and Schreck (2021) contend that every theory
about offenders implies a corresponding theory of victimization.
In this paper, we assess Berg and Schreck’s (2021) assertion by exploring
the victim-offender overlap using Agnew’s (2005) general theory of crime
and delinquency. Like other mainstream perspectives, Agnew’s theory was
developed to account for offending and has been employed to examine an
array of criminal and deviant behaviors (Choi & Kruis, 2019; Cochran, 2017;
Kabiri et al., 2020; Muftic et al., 2014; Ngo & Paternoster, 2014; Roh &
Marshall, 2018; Zhang et al., 2012). However, to date, only one study has
extended Agnew’s perspective to understand criminal victimization (Grubb
& Posick, 2018). To address this gap, we explore whether the underlying
processes concerning offending posited in Agnew’s perspective are equally
useful for explaining the underlying causes of victimization within the con-
text of intimate partner violence (IPV).
Our focus is on IPV because Agnew’s theory is well suited to examine this
multifaceted phenomenon. Agnew’s perspective not only incorporates the
key elements of crime and deviance derived from the dominant criminologi-
cal theories—namely, biological, psychological, control, strain, and social
learning—but also unifies risk factors and criminogenic characteristics
known to directly influence criminal offending, including IPV, into a unified
framework. Yet only one study has applied Agnew’s theory to examine IPV
perpetration focusing on gender differences (Ngo et al., 2022) and no study
has employed the perspective to understand IPV victimization. Hence, the
present study extends the work of Ngo et al.1 by investigating how IPV per-
petration and victimization may be inextricably linked. Given that IPV is a
Ngo et al. 31
crime of serious human and policy significance, findings generated from this
study are intended for researchers and scholars to build upon, elaborate on,
and extend in future inquiry to understand its root causes and advance appli-
cable intervention and prevention strategies.
The remainder of our paper is organized as follows. First, we summarize
Agnew’s general theory of crime and delinquency and provide a review of
prior tests of the perspective. We also summarize prior findings on the cor-
relates of IPV perpetration and victimization. Next, we describe our data and
methods and report our results. Lastly, we discuss the policy implications of
our findings and propose directions for future research.
Life Domains
Within the self domain, Agnew (2005) posits that the super traits of low self-
control and irritability are linked to criminal behavior. The super trait of low
self-control characterizes individuals who are impulsive, risk-seeking, gravi-
tate toward exciting and high-energy activities, lack ambition, motivation, or
perseverance, are not bound by conventional rules and norms, and have little
thought for the long-range consequences of their behavior. The super trait of
irritability refers to individuals who tend to have an antagonistic or adver-
sarial interactional style, respond to life events in an aggressive or antisocial
32 Crime & Delinquency 70(1)
Overall, findings from prior research provide support for Agnew’s inte-
grated perspective in that the measures representing self, family, school, and
peer domains are associated with various delinquent and deviant behaviors,
occurring both online and offline (Cochran, 2017; Kabiri et al., 2020; Muftić
et al., 2014; Ngo & Paternoster, 2014; Roh et al., 2022). The hypothesized
mediating effects of the constraint and motivation factors (Cochran, 2017;
Zhang et al., 2012) and the efficacy of Agnew’s framework in accounting for
sex differences in offending, albeit preliminary, have also received some sup-
port (Ngo et al., 2022). On the other hand, the hypothesized lagged effects of
the life domains on crime and delinquency have shown less support in prior
research (Grubb & Posick, 2018; Ngo & Paternoster, 2014).
Notably, to date, only one study has applied Agnew’s theory to understand
criminal victimization. Employing three waves of data from the Project on
Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods Longitudinal Cohort Study
(PHDCNLCS), Grubb and Posick (2018) examined the contemporary and
lagged effects of the self, family, school, and peer domains on violent victim-
ization. They found while the different life domains influenced risks of crimi-
nal victimization, only measures in the self and peer domains retained their
significance once the offending measures were included. They also uncovered
that when all other variables in their analysis were taken into consideration,
prior victimization exhibited the greatest effect on current victimization.
Given the accumulating research assessing the generality of Agnew’s inte-
grated perspective, we seek to extend Grubb and Posick’s (2018) work by
applying Agnew’s theory to examine an outcome that has not been examined
in prior research: IPV victimization. Importantly, we also explore the mediat-
ing effects of constraint and motivation factors on the associations between
the life domains and IPV victimization. Before we present our hypotheses, we
provide a summary of the correlates of IPV perpetration and victimization.
differences (Ngo et al., 2022) and no study has employed the theoretical
insights from Agnew’s theory to understand IPV victimization. This study
attends to these issues and is an important extension of Grubb and Posick’s
(2018) and Ngo et al.’s (2022) research.
Current Study
We are interested in determining whether the underlying processes concern-
ing offending posited in Agnew’s perspective are equally useful for explain-
ing the underlying correlates of victimization within the context of IPV.
Agnew’s integrated theory encompasses seven key propositions specifying
the direct, indirect, and reciprocal effects among the life domains on crime,
and the nonlinear and/or contemporaneous effects of the risk factors on crime
and one another. Given the complexity of the theory, Agnew (2005) suggests
that it is best examined by assessing specific hypotheses. We follow Agnew’s
recommendation and focus on two of the seven propositions. Premised on the
first proposition that crime is caused by five clusters of variables organized
into the life domains of self, family, school, peers, and work, we propose the
following hypotheses:
H1A: The self, family, school/work, and peer domain variables will be
significantly related to IPV perpetration.3
H1B: The self, family, school/work, and peer domain variables will be
significantly related to IPV victimization.
Drawing from the second proposition that the variables in each domain
increase crime by reducing the constraints against crime and increasing the
motivations for crime, we propose the following hypotheses:
Methods
Data
Data for this research came from the International Dating Violence Study
(IDVS), a project involving a team of researchers from 68 universities in 32
nations gathering data on the prevalence, correlates, and consequences of
36 Crime & Delinquency 70(1)
IPV among young adults worldwide (Graham et al., 2019; Sabina & Straus,
2008). After obtaining approval from each university’s internal review board
(IRB), the researchers administered a pencil-and-paper survey to young
adults enrolled in mostly criminal justice, sociology, and psychology courses
between the years 2001 through 2006. Before starting the survey, study par-
ticipants were given information about the nature and purpose of the study
and were assured that no identifying information will be collected.
Respondents were also instructed to think about their current partner, or, if
they were single at the time of the survey, to think about their last relationship
that lasted a month or more when answering items contained in the survey.
The response rates for the IDVS ranged from a low of 20% to as high as
100%, with 80% of researchers reporting a response rate of 65% or above.
IDVS data are nicely situated for testing Agnew’s integrated theory given the
data’s ability to measure key components of this theoretical framework. For
the current study, only the sample from the United States is employed to
focus on one single cultural context (n = 4,162). It is noteworthy that this is a
common practice among scholars who have used IDVS data (Graham et al.,
2019; Meade et al., 2017; Paat & Markham, 2016; Sabina et al., 2017; Sabina
& Straus, 2008).
The demographic characteristics for the sample are presented in Table 1.
As shown, the majority of the sample were females (68%) and the mean age
of the sample was 22 years. Many of the respondents (91%) were not married
(i.e., single, dating, engaged, or cohabitating), and an equal number of
respondents were married (10%) or lived with a partner (11%). Slightly more
than one-third (35%) of the sample indicated that they have engaged in IPV
perpetration while one-third (33%) of the sample reported that they have
experienced IPV victimization.
Dependent Variables
There are two main outcomes in this study, IPV perpetration (α = .79) and IPV
victimization (α = .82). IPV Perpetration was measured using 12 items asking
respondents if they have committed violent and aggressive acts towards their
intimate partners in the past 12 months. The same items were alternatively
presented in the context of the respondent being victimized by these acts to
measure the second variable, IPV Victimization. Two methods were used to
construct the dependent variables. First, responses were collapsed into a
dichotomous variable, where 1 represented the respondent perpetrated or
experienced at least one form of violence and 0 indicated that the respondent
did not commit or experience violence. Second, a simple summary score for
each outcome was created. Both outcome measures are used in their
Ngo et al. 37
continuous and dichotomous formats. The items and coding methods that
were employed to construct the dependent variables are listed in Appendix.
Control Variables
Our control variables include four measures, Sex, Age, Drug Abuse, and
Prior Violence. Sex was coded 1 for males and 0 for females and Age was
measured in years. The items and coding methods employed to construct
Drug Abuse and Prior Violence, along with their Cronbach’s alpha, are listed
in Appendix. The descriptive statistics for the life domain, motivation, con-
straint, and control variables, as well as the VIFs and tolerances, are provided
in Table 1. As shown, all VIFs are below 4 and all tolerances are above 0.25,
indicating that multi-collinearity is not a problem.
Analytic Plan
To examine the effects of the life domain measures on IPV perpetration and
victimization (Hypotheses 1A and 1B) and given that our dependent vari-
ables are count variables with a mean-variance inequality in favor of over-
dispersion (M = 2.69 and SD = 5.80; M = 2.62 and SD = 6.06, respectively), we
estimated two negative binomial regression models in which each of the out-
come variables (IPV perpetration and IPV victimization) was regressed on
the self (low self-control, authoritarian personality, negative attribution,
hostility toward men, and hostility toward women), family (married, cohabi-
tating, partner attachment, child neglect, and child sexual abuse), school/
work (discontent with school/work), and peer (criminal peers) domain mea-
sures while controlling for sex, age, drug abuse, and prior violence. All nega-
tive binomial models were estimated using SPSS version 27.
To explore the mediating effects of the constraint and motivation variables
on the relationships between the life domain measures and the outcome vari-
ables (Hypotheses 2A and 2B), we employed Preacher and Hayes’ (2008)
bootstrapped test of mediation, PROCESS. PROCESS is a computational tool
that integrates many of the existing statistical methods and techniques for
mediation and moderation analysis (Hayes, 2018). PROCESS encompasses
the bootstrapping method based on resampling with replacement (e.g., 5,000
times), and from each of these samples, the indirect effect is computed and a
sampling distribution is empirically generated (Cheung & Lau, 2008).
PROCESS uses ordinary least squares (OLS) regression when the outcome
40 Crime & Delinquency 70(1)
Results
Life Domains, IPV Perpetration, and IPV Victimization
The results of the direct effects of the life domains on IPV perpetration
(Hypotheses 1A) and IPV victimization (Hypotheses 1B) are shown in Table 2.
According to Model 1 of Table 2 (IPV perpetration), all five self domain mea-
sures (low self-control, authoritarian personality, negative attribution, hostility
toward men, and hostility toward women) were significantly related to the out-
come variable. For a one-unit increase in low self-control, the incident rate of
IPV perpetration increased by 4%, for a one-unit increase in authoritarian per-
sonality the incident rate of IPV perpetration increased by 6%, for a one-unit
increase in negative attribution the incident rate of IPV perpetration increased
by 22%, and for a one-unit increase in hostility toward men the incident rate of
IPV perpetration increased by 5%. Conversely, for a one-unit increase in hos-
tility toward women the incident rate of IPV perpetration decreased by 2%.
The results also reveal four of the five family domain variables and the
school/work domain measure were significant predictors of IPV perpetration.
Specifically, the incident rate of IPV perpetration for married respondents
was 27% greater than the rate for unmarried respondents, the rate for cohabi-
tating respondents was 38% greater than the rate for un-cohabitating respon-
dents, for a one-unit increase in child sexual abuse, the incident rate of IPV
perpetration increased by 6%, and for a one-unit increase in discontent with
school/work the incident rate of IPV perpetration increased by 8%. On the
other hand, for a one-unit increase in child neglect the incident rate of IPV
perpetration decreased by 4%. The peer (criminal peers) domain variable
was not related to the outcome variable. Among the control variables, sex,
age, and prior violence were significantly related to IPV perpetration.
Respondents with high levels of prior violence had an elevated risk of engag-
ing in IPV while male respondents and older respondents had a reduced risk
of perpetrating IPV against their partner (Models 1 of Table 2).
Shifting our attention to Model 2 of Table 2 (IPV victimization), the results
indicate that four of the five self domain variables (low self-control, negative
attribution, hostility toward men, and hostility toward women) were signifi-
cant predictors of IPV victimization. For a one-unit increase in low self-con-
trol the incident rate of IPV victimization increased by 3%, for a one-unit
Ngo et al. 41
Model 1 Model 2
Note. Entries are Incidence Rate Ratios; Standard errors are in parentheses.
*p < .001. **p< .01. ***p < .05.
respondents, and for a one-unit increase in child sexual abuse, the incident
rate of IPV victimization increased by 6%. On the other hand, for a one-unit
increase in partner attachment the incident rate of IPV victimization decreased
by 4%. The school/work (discontent with school/work) and peer (criminal
peers) domain variables were not related to IPV victimization. Among the
control variables, sex, age, and prior violence were significantly related to
the outcome variable in that respondents with high levels of prior violence
had an increased risk of falling victim to IPV while male respondents and
older respondents had a decreased risk of experiencing this type of victimiza-
tion (Model 2 of Table 2).
a
Because the regression coefficient for X in a model of dichotomous Y without the mediators included is not equal to the sum of the direct and indirect effects of X, the
total effects option is not available with a dichotomous Y.
b
Entries are log-odds metric. Significant effects include values within the 95% CI that do not include zero. PROCESS (the statistical software that was employed to
43
analyze the data) does not provide the levels of significance (i.e., 001, .01, etc.). Significance is determined when the values within the 95% C.I. do not include zero. I
provided a note explaining significance at the bottom of the table.
Table 4. Mediating Effects of Constraints and Motivations on the Relationships between Life Domain Measures and IPV
44
Victimization (n = 4,162).a
Effect of life domain on mediatorb
Sex N/S — — — —
Age N/S — — — —
Drug abuse N/S — — — —
Prior violence (+) Significant — — — —
Low self-control N/S Anger management –0.122 0.014 [–0.149, –0.094]
Authoritarian personality N/S Anger management –0.139 0.025 [–0.188, –0.090]
Negative attribution (+) Significant Anger management –0.169 0.019 [–0.207, –0.131]
Hostility toward men N/S Life stress 0.129 0.016 [0.097, 0.161]
Hostility toward women (−) Significant Life stress 0.143 0.016 [0.111, 0.174]
Married N/S Religious involvement –0.566 0.121 [0.329, 0.802]
Cohabitating N/S — — — —
Partner attachment (−) Significant Life stress –0.049 0.011 [–0.070, –0.028]
Child neglect N/S Violent socialization 0.351 0.030 [0.292, 0.410]
Child sexual abuse N/S Violent socialization 0.300 0.028 [0.246, 0.354]
Discontent with school/work N/S Life stress 0.529 0.060 [0.411, 0.647]
Criminal peers N/S Religious involvement –0.174 0.034 [–0.239, –0.108]
Relationship commitment N/S — — — —
Religious involvement (−) Significant — — — —
Anger management (−) Significant — — — —
Violent socialization (+) Significant — — — —
Life stress (+) Significant — — — —
No network support N/S — — — —
R2 .20
a
Because the regression coefficient for X in a model of dichotomous Y without the mediators included is not equal to the sum of the direct and indirect effects of X, the
total effects option is not available with a dichotomous Y.
b
Entries are log-odds metric. Significant effects include values within the 95% CI that do not include zero.
Ngo et al. 45
Shifting our focus to the mediating effects of the constraints and motivations
for IPV victimization (Table 4), the results reveal two of the four self domain
(low self-control and hostility toward men) and three of the four family domain
variables (married, cohabitating, and child sexual abuse) that were signifi-
cantly related to the outcome variable in the previous IPV victimization model
became insignificant after the constraint and motivation variables were added
to the model. The school/work and peer domain measures continued to be unre-
lated to IPV victimization in this model as in the previous model (compare
Model 2 of Table 2 with Table 4). Notably, similar to the mediation results for
IPV perpetration, the results from Table 4 reveal evidence of mediating effects
by constraint and motivation measures on the relationships between the life
domains and IPV victimization. In particular, the relationships between the five
self domain variables and IPV victimization were mediated by anger manage-
ment (low self-control, authoritarian personality, and negative attribution) and
life stress (hostility toward men and hostility toward women), the relationships
between four of the five family domain measures and the outcome variable
were mediated by religious involvement (married), life stress (partner attach-
ment) and violent socialization (child neglect, and child sexual abuse), the
association between the school/work domain (discontent with school/work)
and IPV victimization was mediated by life stress, and the association between
the peer domain (criminal peers) and the outcome variable was mediated by
religious involvement. None of the constraint and motivation variables medi-
ated the relationship between cohabitating and IPV victimization (Table 4).
and increasing the motivations for it. Except for the relationships among
cohabitating, IPV perpetration, and IPV victimization, we found the effects
of the self (low self-control, authoritarian personality, negative attribution,
hostility toward men, and hostility toward women), family (married, partner
attachment, child neglect, and child sexual abuse), school/work (discontent
with school/work), and peer (criminal peers) domains on IPV perpetration
and victimization were mediated by two constraint (anger management and
religious involvement) and two motivation (violent socialization and life
stress) variables. Respondents with the ability to control their anger had a
decreased risk of perpetrating and falling victim to IPV, while respondents
who were less involved in religious activities, socialized or exposed to vio-
lent behavior as a child, and reported high levels of life stress had an elevated
risk of engaging in and being a victim of IPV (Tables 3 and 4).
We also uncovered the effects of two self domain (negative attribution and
hostility toward women) and all five family domain (married, cohabitating,
partner attachment, child neglect, and child sexual abuse) measures on the
outcome variables (IPV Perpetration and IPV Victimization) were only par-
tially mediated by the constraint and motivation factors (i.e., they retained their
significance to the outcome variables in the full model; Tables 3 and 4).
According to Agnew (2005), the effects of the constraint and motivation factors
on crime and delinquency can be long-lasting (such as in the enduring con-
straints of believing that crime is wrong, or in having a strong emotional bond
to one’s partner) or situational (as in motivation stemming from the presence of
attractive targets for crime or in provocations by others). Unfortunately, the
cross-sectional nature of our data precludes us from exploring the above sup-
position. Hence, we encourage future research to employ longitudinal data and
examine the mediating effects of constraint and motivation factors on the rela-
tionships between the life domains and IPV perpetration and victimization. We
also encourage future research to consider alternative intervening mechanisms
not included in our study since Agnew (2005) maintains that his integrated
perspective “. . . not only incorporates all of the variables commonly associ-
ated with the leading crime theories but also incorporates all of the intervening
mechanisms associated with these theories” (p. 208).
Policy Implications
The findings generated from our study suggest that targeting anger and life
stressors is crucial for treating and preventing IPV. Violent behavior is gener-
ally seen as a momentary outburst of anger and thus, the focus in treatment
tends to be on managing emotions (Burton, 2018). In anger management
workshops and education, the use of cognitive-behavioral therapy appears to
48 Crime & Delinquency 70(1)
Study Limitations
Our study is not without weaknesses. First, our study involved cross-sectional,
quantitative, and self-reported data, and hence, definitive causal relationships
cannot be established and no information on contextual factors was available to
aid with the interpretation of the results. Second, our dependent variables only
encompass physical aspects of IPV, so replication of our results with other forms
of abuse is important, particularly psychological abuse like stalking. Similarly,
other life domain variables, such as more detailed information about respon-
dents’ employment and school experiences, were also not available in the IDVS.
We encourage future research to incorporate measures capturing a variety of
IPV victimization types as well as representing different aspects of the life
domains in their study. Third, the influences of and manifestations regarding
Ngo et al. 49
IPV perpetration and victimization may be age-graded and may involve a series
of different types, such as physical and emotional violence, and also include
relatively new spaces for it, primarily social media. Understanding how these fit
within Agnew’s theory, and other criminological theories, for that matter, would
be a relevant scope for future inquiry.
finding that life stress (experiencing peer pressure, having financial difficulty)
is a risk factor for both IPV perpetration and victimization, a useful undertaking
for future research is to move beyond demonstrating this variable as a risk for
crime and instead, establish it as a potential risk that if effectively targeted, will
lead to a reduction in reoffending and victimization.
Third, the relevance and applicability of Agnew’s conceptual framework to
crime and victimization occurring in cyberspace remain unexplored. The emer-
gence of cybercrime (i.e., illegal activities committed using a computer, net-
worked device, or a network) has occupied researchers and scholars in the past
decade. To date, the application of mainstream criminological theories to
understand cybercrime and cybercrime victimization has been characterized as
superficial, occurring with little consideration for changes in criminal context
and processes (Steinmetz & Nobles, 2017). Hence, an essential topic for future
exploration is whether the causal processes theorized by Agnew to understand
offending—and by extension victimization—in the physical world are appli-
cable and useful for explicating crime and victimization occurring in the virtual
environment. Future work in this area could help expand the scope of Agnew’s
framework and determine its contemporary application.
Appendix
Survey Scales and Items
Dependent variables1
IPV Perpetration (Cronbach’s α = .79; Factor loadings > .38)
Have you committed the following acts towards your intimate partners in
the past 12 months:
1. Thrown something at them 7. Slammed them against a wall
that could hurt
2. Twisted their arm or hair 8. Beat them up
3. Pushed or shoved them 9. Grabbed them
4. Used a knife or gun on them 10. Slapped them
5. Punched or hit them with 11. Burned or scalded them
something that could hurt
6. Choked them 12. Kicked them
Have your intimate partner committed the following acts towards you in
the past 12 months:
Ngo et al. 51
Constraint measures7
Relationship Commitment (Cronbach’s α = .70; Factor loadings > .51)
Motivation measures8
Violent Socialization (Cronbach’s α = .74; Factor loadings >.50)
Control variables9
Drug Abuse (Cronbach’s α = .69; Factor loadings >.45)
1. In the past, I used coke, crack, or harder drugs more than once or
twice
2. I worry I have a drug problem
3. I have overdosed on drugs or had a severe health problem because of
taking drugs
4. I have been treated for a drug problem
1. Before age 15, I physically attacked someone with the idea of seri-
ously hurting them
Ngo et al. 55
Appendix Notes
1. The original response categories for the dependent variables consisted of an
8-point Likert-type scale: 1 = Once in the past year, 2 = Twice in the past year,
3 = 3 to 5 times in the past year, 4 = 6 to 10 times in the past year, 5 = 11 to 20
times in the past year, 6 = More than 20 times in the past year, 7 = Not in the past
year but it did happen before, and 8 = This has never happened. Two methods
were used to construct IPV Perpetration and IPV Victimization. First, a simple
summary score for each variable was created in which the original responses
were recoded to 0 = This has never happened, 1 = Not in the past year but it did
happen before, 2 = Once in the past year, 3 = Twice in the past year, 4 = 3 to 5
times in the past year, 5 = 6 to 10 times in the past year, 6 = 11 to 20 times in the
past year, and 7 = More than 20 times in the past year. And the above items were
summed together with higher scores indicating higher levels of IPV perpetra-
tion or victimization. Second, the responses were collapsed into a dichotomous
variable, where 1 represented the respondent perpetrated or experienced at least
one form of violence (i.e., the original responses 1 through 7 = 1) and 0 indicat-
ing that the respondent did not commit or experience violence (i.e., the original
response 8 = 0).
2. The response categories for the items used to measure the self domain variables
include a 4-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 = Strongly Disagree to
4 = Strongly Agree. The responses were summed together with a higher score
indicating a higher level of a particular self domain measure (i.e., higher levels
of Low Self Control, higher levels of Authoritarian Personality).
3. Married and Cohabitating were measured using a single item asking the respon-
dents about their relationship status. The response categories for Married and
Cohabitating were 1 = single, 2 = dating, 3 = engaged, 4 = married, and 5 = cohab-
itating. For the former measure, Married, the responses were recoded to cre-
ate a dichotomous variable where 1 = the respondent was married (the original
response 4 = 1) and 0 = =the respondent was not married (all other responses = 0).
Likewise, for the latter measure, Cohabitating, the responses were recoded to
create a dichotomous variable where 1 = the respondent was living with a part-
ner (the original response 5 = 1) and 0 = the respondent was not living with a
partner (all other responses = 0). The response categories for the items used to
measure Partner Attachment, Child Neglect, and Child Sexual Abuse include a
4-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly
Agree. The responses were summed together with a higher score indicating a
higher level of a particular family domain measure (i.e., higher levels of Partner
Attachment, higher levels of Child Neglect).
56 Crime & Delinquency 70(1)
4. The response categories for the items used to measure Discontent with School/
Work include a 4-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 = Strongly Disagree
to 4 = Strongly Agree. The responses were summed together with higher scores
indicating higher levels of discontent with school/work.
5. The Cronbach’s alpha for the school/work measure is low (.33) but results from
the principal component exploratory reveal all the items loaded on a single factor
with all loadings were >0.78 (see Appendix). The bivariate correlation between
the two items was, r = .203, p < .001. Also, per Streiner (2003), it is not always
the case that Cronbach’s alpha is an appropriate measure of internal consistency,
depending on whether the measure is a scale or an index. The school/work mea-
sure employed in the current study is not a scale.
6. The response categories for the items used to measure Criminal Peers include a
4-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly
Agree. The responses were summed together with higher scores indicating
greater associations with criminal peers.
7. The response categories for the items used to measure the constraint variables
include a 4-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 = Strongly Disagree to
4 = Strongly Agree. The responses were summed together with a higher score
indicating a higher level of a particular constraint (i.e., higher levels of Anger
Management, higher levels of Religion Involvement).
8. No Network Support was measured using the statement, “I have family members
who would help me out if I had a problem.” The response categories for all the
items used to measure the motivation variables include a 4-point Likert-type
scale that ranges from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree. The responses
were summed together with a higher score indicating a higher level of a particu-
lar motivation measure (e.g., higher level of no network support, higher levels of
violent socialization, and higher levels of life stress).
9. The response categories for the items used to measure Drug Abuse and Prior
Violence include a 4-point Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 = Strongly
Disagree to 4 = Strongly Agree. The responses were summed together with a
higher score indicating higher levels of drug abuse and prior violence.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and Alex Piquero for many
helpful comments, which greatly improved the manuscript.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.
Ngo et al. 57
ORCID iD
Fawn T. Ngo https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7127-4004
Notes
1. It is noteworthy that Ngo et al. (2022) also applied Agnew’s integrated theory
and employed the same dataset (the International Dating Violence Study) in their
study. However, the focus of their work was on examining gender differences in
IPV perpetration. Specifically, Ngo et al. (2022) explored Agnew’s proposition
that group differences in crime rates, including sex differences, are either due to
differences in the standing on the life domains between the groups or differences
in the effects of the life domains on crime among the groups. Our focus in this
study is on assessing the “generality” of Agnew’s theory, or whether the life
domain measures proposed in Agnew’s theory could account for both IPV perpe-
tration and victimization. We also explore the mediating effects of the constraint
and motivation variables on the relationships between the life domains and IPV
perpetration and victimization, a task that Ngo et al. (2022) did not undertake
in their study. For the current project, we examine two propositions that Ngo
et al. (2022) did not explore in their study: (1) crime is caused by five clusters of
variables organized into the life domains of self, family, school, peers, and work
and (2) the variables in each domain increase crime by reducing the constraints
against crime and increasing the motivations for crime.
2. In their study examining gender differences in IPV perpetration, Ngo et al.
(2022) employed a combined measure of school and work attachment because
a separate measure was not available in the International Dating Violence Study
dataset. Their combined measure of school/work attachment was not related to
IPV perpetration.
3. The data employed in this study do not include a separate measure for the school
and work domains. Hence, a combined measure of school/work domain was cre-
ated for the study. While this fact represents a limitation of our research, it is
noteworthy that Agnew postulates that the school domain primarily applies to
adolescents and not adults, the sample included in our study.
4. It is noteworthy that with multiple predictors, PROCESS estimates a series of
simple mediation models, one for each of the predictor variables.
5. The correlation between hostility toward women and child neglect is (r = .216,
p < .01)
References
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency.
Criminology, 30(1), 47–88.
Agnew, R. (2005). Why do criminal offend? A general theory of crime and delin-
quency. Roxbury.
Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime
and deviance. Northeastern University Press.
58 Crime & Delinquency 70(1)
Kabiri, S., Shadmanfaat, S. M. S., Choi, J., & Yun, I. (2020). The impact of life
domains on cyberbullying perpetration in Iran: A partial test of Agnew’s general
theory of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 66, 101633.
Kim, H. K., & Capaldi, D. M. (2004). The association of antisocial behavior and
depressive symptoms between partners and risk for aggression in romantic rela-
tionships. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 82–96.
Lauritsen, J. L., Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1991). The link between offending and
victimization among adolescents. Criminology, 29(2), 265–292.
Lokhmatkina, N. V., Agnew-Davies, R., Costelloe, C., Kuznetsova, O. Y., Nikolskaya,
I. M., & Feder, G. S. (2015). Intimate partner violence and ways of coping with
stress: Cross-sectional survey of female patients in Russian general practice.
Family Practice, 32(2), 141–146.
Meade, C. N., Jennings, W. G., Gover, A. R., & Richards, T. N. (2017). On the link-
age between sexual violence victimization and intimate partner violence out-
comes among male and female college students. Journal of Aggression, Conflict,
and Peace Studies, 9(4), 257–268.
Miller, S., Loeber, R., & Hipwell, A. (2009). Peer deviance, parenting and disrup-
tive behavior among young girls. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(2),
139–152.
Moffitt, T. E., Krueger, R. F., Caspi, A., & Fagan, J. (2000). Partner abuse and gen-
eral crime: How are they the same? How are they different? Criminology, 38(1),
199–232.
Muftić, L. R., Grubb, J. A., Bouffard, L. A., & Maljević, A. (2014). The impact of life
domains on juvenile offending in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Direct, indirect, and
moderating effects in Agnew’s integrated general theory. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 51(6), 816–845.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Percentage of college students 16 to
24 years old who were employed, by attendance status, hours worked per week,
and control and level of institution: Selected years, October 1970 through 2012.
Author. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_503.20.asp
Ngo, F. T., & Paternoster, R. (2014). Contemporaneous and lagged effects of life
domains and substance use: A test of Agnew’s general theory of crime and delin-
quency. Journal of Criminology, 2014(3), 1–20.
Ngo, F. T., Paternoster, R., Cullen, F. T., & Mackenzie, D. L. (2011). Life domains
and crime: A test of Agnew’s general theory of crime and delinquency. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 39(4), 302–311.
Ngo, F. T., Zavala, E., & Piquero, A. R. (2022). Gender, life domains, and intimate
partner violence perpetration: An empirical test of Agnew’s general theory of
crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 59(4),
487–529.
Okuda, M., Olfson, M., Wang, S., Rubio, J. M., Xu, Y., & Blanco, C. (2015).
Correlates of intimate partner violence perpetration: Results from a National
Epidemiologic Survey. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 28(1), 49–56.
Ngo et al. 61
Paat, Y. F., & Markham, C. (2016). A gendered approach to understanding the roles of
social bonding, personal control, and strain on college dating violence in emerg-
ing adulthood. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25(8), 793–811.
Penley, J. A., Tomaka, J., & Wiebe, J. S. (2002). The association of coping to physi-
cal and psychological health outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Behavioral Medicine, 25(6), 551–603.
Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., Tremblay, R., & Jennings, W. G.
(2009). Effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior
and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 5(2), 83–120.
Pratt, T. C., & Turanovic, J. J. (2021). Revitalizing victimization theory: Revisions,
applications, and new directions. Routledge.
Pratt, T. C., Turanovic, J. J., Fox, K. A., & Wright, K. (2014). Self-control and victim-
ization: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 52(1), 87–116.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior
Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.
Renner, L. M., & Whitney, S. D. (2012). Risk factors for unidirectional and bidirec-
tional intimate partner violence among young adults. Child Abuse & Neglect,
36(1), 40–52.
Roh, M., Cho, S., Nolasco Braaten, C. A., Kim, J., Kim, J., & Gentle-Genitty, C.
(2022). The impact of life domains on delinquent behaviors in five Caribbean
countries: A partial test of Agnew's general theory of crime and delinquency.
Violence and Victims, 37(1), 3–25.
Roh, M., & Marshall, I. (2018). A cross-cultural analysis of Agnew’s general theory of
crime and delinquency. Social Science and Humanities Journal, 2(1), 301–321.
Sabina, C., Schally, J. L., & Marciniec, L. (2017). Problematic alcohol and drug use
and the risk of partner violence victimization among male and female college
students. Journal of Family Violence, 32(3), 305–316.
Sabina, C., & Straus, M. A. (2008). Polyvictimization by dating partners and mental
health among US college students. Violence and Victims, 23(6), 667–682.
Sampson, R. J., & Lauritsen, J. L. (1990). Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime, and
the offender-victim link in personal violence. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 27(2), 110–139.
Sax, K. (2012). Intimate partner violence: A group cognitive behavioral therapy
model. https://www.apadivisions.org/division-49/publications/newsletter/group-
psychologist/2012/11/partner-violence
Schafer, J., Caetano, R, & Clark, C. (1998). Rates of intimate partner violence in the
United States. American Journal of Public Health, 88(11), 1702–1704.
Schnurr, M. P., & Lohman, B. J. (2008). How much does school matter? An
examination of adolescent dating violence perpetration. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 37(3), 266–283.
Schreck, C. J. (1999). Criminal victimization and low self-control: An extension and
test of a general theory of crime. Justice Quarterly, 16(3), 633–654.
62 Crime & Delinquency 70(1)
Spriggs, A. L., Halpern, C. T., Herring, A. H., & Schoenbach, V. J. (2009). Family
and school socioeconomic disadvantage: Interactive influences on adolescent
dating violence victimization. Social Science & Medicine, 68(11), 1956–1965.
Steinmetz, K. F., & Nobles, M. R. (2017). Technocrime and criminological theory
(1st ed.). Routledge.
Swinford, S. P., DeMaris, A., Cernkovich, S. A., & Giordano, P. C. (2000). Harsh
physical discipline in childhood and violence in later romantic involvements: The
mediating role of problem behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62(2),
508–519.
Tittle, C. R. (1995). Control balance: Toward a general theory of deviance. Avalon
Publishing.
Vivolo-Kantor, A. M., DeGue, S., DiLillo, D., & Cuadra, L. E. (2013). The medi-
ating effect of hostility toward women on the relationship between childhood
emotional abuse and sexual violence perpetration. Violence and Victims, 28(1),
178–191.
Ward, T., & Fortune, C. A. (2016). The role of dynamic risk factors in the explanation
of offending. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 29, 79–88.
Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007). Differences in
frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal
and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health,
97(5), 941–947.
Whitbeck, L. B., Hoyt, D. R., Yoder, K. A., Cauce, A. M., & Paradise, M. (2001).
Deviant behavior and victimization among homeless and runaway adolescents.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16(11), 1175–1204.
White, H. R., & Widom, C. S. (2003). Intimate partner violence among abused and
neglected children in young adulthood: The mediating effects of early aggres-
sion, antisocial personality, hostility and alcohol problems. Aggressive Behavior:
Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression, 29(4),
332–345.
Zhang, Y., Day, G., & Cao, L. (2012). A partial test of Agnew’s general theory of
crime and delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 58(6), 856–878.
Author Biographies
Fawn T. Ngo is Associate Professor of Criminology at the University of South
Florida. Her research interests include criminological theory, interpersonal violence,
cybercrime, and predictive analytic applications in criminology and criminal justice.
Her work has appeared in Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Justice
Quarterly, Crime & Delinquency, Journal of Criminal Justice, Victims & Offenders:
The International Journal of Evidence-based Research, Policy, and Practice, and
American Journal of Criminal Justice.
Taylor Fisher is a doctoral student at the University of South Florida. Her research is
related to cybercrime, digital and network forensics, and theory testing in a cyber
context.
Ngo et al. 63