The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Applying Routine Activity Theory to Cybercrime: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis
Open accessAbstract
The central question of this article is whether routine activity theory (RAT) can be used as an analytical framework to study cybercrimes. Both a theoretical analysis and an analysis of empirical studies have thus far failed to provide a clear answer. The multivariate analysis presented in this article tries to avoid some of the limitations of other RAT-based studies. Based on a large sample (N = 9,161), the effects of value, visibility, accessibility, and guardianship on victimization of six cybercrimes have been studied. Analysis shows some RAT elements are more applicable than others. Visibility clearly plays a role within cybercrime victimization. Accessibility and personal capable guardianship show varying results. Value and technical capable guardianship show almost no effects on cybercrime victimization.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2094589 · Cited by 8,856
Pratt, T. C., Holtfreter, K., & Reisig, M. D. (2010) · Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0022427810365903 · Cited by 411
Cited by
Empty streets, busy internet: a time-series analysis of cybercrime and fraud trends during COVID-19
Kemp, S., Buil-Gil, D., Moneva, A., Miró-Llinares, F., & Díaz-Castaño, N. (2021) · Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice · doi:10.1177/10439862211027986 · Cited by 125
Profiling Victims of Investment Fraud: Mindsets and Risky Behaviors
Deliema, M., Shadel, D., & Pak, K. (2020) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucz020 · Cited by 100
Understanding cybercrime in ‘real world’ policing and law enforcement
Curtis, J., & Oxburgh, G. (2023) · The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles · doi:10.1177/0032258x221107584 · Cited by 72
“…to of fl ine offences such as theft, burglary, criminal damage or fraud, cybercrimes are not synonymous with their of fl ine counter-parts, and are experienced differently by victims, perpetrators and authorities (see Bocij and McFarlane, 2003; Leukfeldt and Yar, 2016; ONS, 2020; Zhang et al., 2007).”
BackgroundConsumer Fraud against Older Adults in Digital Society: Examining Victimization and Its Impact
Kemp, S., & Erades Pérez, N. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20075404 · Cited by 70
Youths as targets: factors of online hate speech victimization among adolescents and young adults
Obermaier, M., & Schmuck, D. (2022) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1093/jcmc/zmac012 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Leukfeldt, E. R., & Yar, M.
- Venue
- Deviant Behavior
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2016-01-19
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 263-280
- ISSN
- 0163-9625 (ISSN-L)
- 1521-0456
- OpenAlex
- W2282632211
- Cited by
- 426
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 48.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
