Search

Although many repeat victimization studies have focused on describing the prevalence of the phenomenon, this study attempted to explain variations in the concentration of victimization by applying routine activities as a theoretical model. A multivariate analysis of repeat victimization based on the 2005 Taiwan criminal victimization data supported the general applicability of the routine activity model developed in Western culture for predicting repeat victimization. Findings that diverged from Western patterns included family income to assault, gender to robbery, and marital status, family income, and major activity to larceny incidents. These disparities illustrated the importance of considering the broader sociocultural context in the association between risk predictors and the concentration of criminal victimization. The contradictory results and nonsignificant variance also reflected untapped information on respondents’ biological features and psychological tendencies. Future victimization research would do well to integrate measurements that are sensitive to salient sociocultural elements of the society being studied and individuals’ biological and psychological traits. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The current study compared the public confidence in legal authorities in two different political entities: China and Taiwan. Data from the 2005 World Values Surveys were used, and the results from the ordinal logistic regression models indicated that the Chinese had significantly more confidence in their police and the courts than did the Taiwanese. The variable, nation, was found to be the strongest predictor of the levels of public confidence in legal authorities between China and Taiwan. In addition, interests in politics and a sense of anomie were two other significant predictors of the confidence. Those who were interested in politics showed a higher level of confidence in legal authorities whereas those suffered from anomie demonstrated a reduced level of confidence in both societies. It is concluded that public opinions must be understood within the broader entity contexts and data from an authoritarian state should only be used with caution. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]