CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 411Cybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesCrime Patterns and InterventionsCriminal Justice and Penology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 77 of the 78 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Routine Online Activity and Internet Fraud Targeting: Extending the Generality of Routine Activity Theory

Pratt, Travis C., Holtfreter, Kristy, Reisig, Michael D.·2010·Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
DOI 10.1177/0022427810365903
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Routine activity theory predicts that changes in legitimate opportunity structures (e.g., technology) can increase the convergence of motivated offenders and suitable targets in the absence of capable guardianship. The Internet has fundamentally changed consumer practices and has simultaneously expanded opportunities for cyber-fraudsters to target online consumers. The authors draw on routine activity theory and consumer behavior research to understand how personal characteristics and online routines increase people’s exposure to motivated offenders. Using a representative sample of 922 adults from a statewide survey in Florida, the results of the regression models are consistent with prior research in that sociodemographic characteristics shape routine online activity (e.g., spending time online and making online purchases). Furthermore, indicators of routine online activity fully mediate the effect of sociodemographic characteristics on the likelihood of being targeted for fraud online. These findings support the routine activity perspective and provide a theoretically informed direction for situational crime prevention in a largely unexplored consumer context.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0022427810365903

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 78 references

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. American Association for Public Opinion Research., 2004, Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys
  2. Anderson, Keith B., 2004, Consumer Fraud in the United States: An FTC Survey
  3. Berg, Sara. 2008. ‘‘Preventing Identity Theft through Information Technology.’’ Pp. 151-67 in Perspectives on Identity Theft, edited by M. M. McNally and G. R. Newman. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
  4. Budd, Tracey., 1999, Burglary of Domestic Dwellings: Findings from the British Crime Survey
  5. Chang, Joshua, 2004, ’’ Journal of American Academy of Business, 5, 171
  6. Clarke, Ronald V., 1999, Hot Products: Understanding, Anticipating, and Reducing Demand for Stolen Goods (Police Research Series, Paper 112)
  7. Copes, Heath and Lynne Vieraitis. 2008. ‘‘The Risks, Rewards, and Strategies of Stealing Identities.’’ Pp. 87-110 in Perspectives on Identity Theft. Crime Prevention Studies. Vol. 23, edited by M. McNally and G. R. Newman. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
  8. Criminal Law Reporter., 2006, ’’ Criminal Law Reporter, 78, 725
  9. Eck, John E. and David Weisburd. 1995. ‘‘Crime Places in Crime Theory.’’ Pp. 1-33 in Crime and Place, Crime Prevention Studies. Vol. 4, edited by J. E. Eck and D. Weisburd. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
  10. Fallows, Deborah., 2005, How Women and Men Use the Internet
  11. Federal Bureau of Investigation., 2001, Press release: Internet fraud investigation ‘‘operation cyber loss.’’
  12. Federal Trade Commission., 2006, Consumer Fraud and Identity Theft Complaint Data
  13. Ferraro, Monique Mattei, 2004, Investigating Child Exploitation and Pornography
  14. Gelber, Alexandra., 2006, ’’ United States Attorney’s Bulletin, 54, 3
  15. Harris Poll., 2005, Harris Interactive Poll.’’ Retrieved March, 5, 2010
  16. Hesseling, René B. P. 1995. ‘‘Displacement: A Review of the Literature.’’ Pp. 197-230 in Crime Prevention Studies. Vol. 3, edited by R. V. Clarke. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
  17. Hindelang, Michael J., 1978, Victims of Personal Crime
  18. Holtfreter, Kristy, 2006, St. Thomas Law Review, 18, 761
  19. Horrigan, John B., 2008, Online Shopping
  20. Internet Crime Complaint Center., 2006, Internet Crime Report
  21. Jöreskog, Karl G., 1996, PRELIS 2: User’s Reference Guide
  22. Korgaonkar, Pradeep K., 1999, Journal of Advertising Research, 39, 53
  23. McNally, Megan M., 2008, Crime Prevention Studies, 23
  24. Miethe, Terance, 1994, Crime and Its Social Context: Toward and Integrated Theory of Offenders, Victims, and Situations
  25. Newman, Graeme R. 2008. ‘‘Identity Theft and Opportunity.’’ Pp. 9-31 in Perspectives on Identity Theft. Crime Prevention Studies. Vol. 23 , edited by M. M. McNally and G. R. Newman. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
  26. Nielsen Online., 2008, Nielsen Online Reports Topline U.S. data for March 2008
  27. Parks Associates., 2008, Only One in Five Households Has Never Used E-Mail
  28. Pew Research Center., 2004, Survey Experiment Shows Polls Face Growing Resistance, but Still Representative
  29. Pontell, Henry N., Gregory C. Brown, and Anastasia Tosouni . 2008. ‘‘Stolen Identities: A Victim Survey.’’ Pp. 57-85 in Perspectives on Identity Theft. Crime Prevention Studies. Vol. 23, edited by M. M. McNally and G. R. Newman. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
  30. Titus, Richard. 2001. ‘‘Personal Fraud and Its Victims.’’ Pp. 57-74 in Crimes of Privilege: Readings in White-Collar Crime, edited by N. Shover and J. P. Wright. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  31. U.S. Census Bureau., 2008, Projected Online Retail Sales
  32. U.S. Department of Commerce., 2008, U.S. Census Bureau News: Quarterly Retail E-Commerce Sales, 4th Quarter 2007
  33. U.S. Department of Justice., 2008, Crime in the United States, 2006
  34. Willison, Robert. 2008. ‘‘Applying Situational Crime Prevention to the Information Systems Security Context.’’ Pp. 169-92 in Perspectives on Identity Theft. Crime Prevention Studies. Vol. 23, edited by M. M. McNally and G. R. Newman. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
  35. Wilson, Debbie, 2006, ‘‘Fraud and Technology Crimes: Findings from the 2003/04 British Crime Survey, the 2004 Offending, Crime and Justice Survey and Administrative Sources. Online Report 9/06.’’

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–408 of 408

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Pratt, T. C., Holtfreter, K., & Reisig, M. D.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Pratt, Travis C.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2010-08
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
267-296
ISSN
  • 0022-4278 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-731X
DOI
10.1177/0022427810365903
OpenAlex
W2161881360
Cited by
411
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 35 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 11
FWCI
33.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
Keywords
routine activity theory, online fraud, cybercrime, online consumer behavior, sociodemographic factors, online purchase, situational crime prevention, mediation

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