Asia pacific journal of information systems

  • 제30권1호
  • /
  • Pages.53-71
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 2288-5404(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2288-6818(eISSN)
한국경영정보학회 (The Korea Society of Management Information Systems)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Lifestyle-Routine Activity Theory (LRAT) Approach to Cybercrime Victimization: An Empirical Assessment of SNS Lifestyle Exposure Activities

  • Jihae Suh (AI Institute at Seoul National University) ;
  • Jiseon Choe (MIS in the Business School at Seoul National University) ;
  • Jinsoo Park (MIS in the Business School at Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2018.12.06
  • 심사 : 2019.11.29
  • 발행 : 2020.03.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

The Internet and all of its possibilities and applications have changed individuals' lifestyles in relation to socializing, working, and how they spend their leisure time. Social networking sites (SNSs), such as Facebook or Instagram, are ideal settings for interacting with others but, unfortunately, they are also ideal settings for motivated offenders to commit cybercrimes. Thus SNS users may be more vulnerable to cybercrime. The purpose of this study is to investigate the occurrence of cybercrime victimization, specifically cyber-harassment, cyber-impersonation, and hacking. Self-report surveys collected from a sample of 147 respondents were examined using the moderated multiple regression analysis and a logistic regression analysis to determine possible relationships between SNS lifestyle exposure activities and cybercrime victimization. The results indicate moderate support for the application of lifestyle-routine activity theory (LRAT) to cybercrime victimization. Possible educational and managerial implications, as well as suggestions for future research, are discussed.

키워드

과제정보

This study was supported by the Institute of Management Research at Seoul National University.

참고문헌

  1. Aguinis, H. (2004). Regression analysis for categorical moderators. Guilford Press. 
  2. Alshalan, A. (2006). Cyber-crime fear and victimization: An analysis of a national survey. Mississippi. 
  3. Back, S. (2016). Empirical assessment of cyber harassment victimization via cyber-routine activities theory. Master of Criminal Justice. Bridgewater State University. 
  4. Berry, W. D. (1993). Understanding regression assumptions. London: Sage. 
  5. Buglass, S. L., Binder, J. F., Betts, L. R., and Underwood, J. D. (2017). Motivators of online vulnerability: The impact of social network site use and FOMO. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 248-255. 
  6. Cappadocia, M. C., Craig,W., and Pepler, D. (2013). Cyberbullying: Prevalence, stability, and risk factors during adolescence. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 28, 171-192. 
  7. Cho, S., and Lee, J. M. (2018). Explaining physical, verbal, and social bullying among bullies, victims of bullying, and bully-victims: Assessing the integrated approach between social control and lifestyles-routine activities theories. Children and Youth Services Review, 91, 372-382. 
  8. Choi, K. (2008). Computer crime victimization and integrated theory: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2(1), 308-333. 
  9. Choi, K., and Lee, J. R. (2017). Theoretical analysis of cyber-interpersonal violence victimization and offending using cyber-routine activities theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 394-402. 
  10. Choo, K. K. R. (2011). The cyber threat landscape: Challenges and future research directions. Computers & Security, 30(8), 719-731. 
  11. Cohen, L. E., and Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-608. 
  12. Cohen, L. E., Kluegel, J. R., and Land, K. C. (1981). Social inequality and predator victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review, 46, 505-524. 
  13. Dashora, K. (2011). Cyber crime in the society: Problems and preventions. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 3(1), 240-259. 
  14. Dredge, R., Gleeson, J., and de la Piedad Garcia, X. (2014). Presentation on Facebook and risk of cyberbullying victimisation. Computers in Human Behavior, 40, 16-22. 
  15. Eck, J. E., and Clarke, R. V. (2003). Classifying common police problems: A routine activity theory approach. Theory and Practice in Situational Crime Prevention, Crime Prevention Studies, 16, 7-39. 
  16. Elias, R. (1986). The politics of victimization: victims, victimology, and huma rights. New York: Oxford Press. 
  17. Gross, R., and Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society, 71-80. New York, NY: ACM. November 2005. 
  18. Halder, D., and Jaishankar, K. (2011). Cyber crime and the victimization of women: Laws, rights and regulations. India: Manonmaniam Sundaranar University. 
  19. Henson, B., Reyns, B. W., and Fisher, B. S. (2011). Security in the 21st century examining the link between online social network activity, privacy, and interpersonal victimization. Criminal Justice Review, 36(3), 253-268. 
  20. Hindelang, M. J., Gottfredson, M. R., and Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, Mass: Ballinger Pub. Co. 
  21. Hinduja, S., and Patchin, J. (2008). Cyberbullying: An exploratory analysis of factors related to offending and victimization. Deviant Behavior, 29, 129-156. 
  22. Holt, T. J., and Bossler, A. M. (2009). Examining the applicability of lifestyle-routine activities theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant Behavior, 30, 1-25. 
  23. Holtfreter, K., Reisig, M. D., and Pratt, T. C. (2008). Low self-control, routine activities, and fraud victimization. Criminology, 46, 189-220. 
  24. Jaishankar, K. (2018). Cyber criminology as an academic disipline: History, contribution and impact. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 12(1), 1-8. 
  25. Kim, Y., Park, Y., Lee, Y., and Park, K. (2018). Do we always adopt Facebook friends' eWOM postings? The role of social identity and threat. International Journal of Advertising, 37(1), 86-104. 
  26. Kokkinos, C. M., and Saripanidis, I. (2017). A lifestyle exposure perspective of victimization through Facebook among university students. Do individual differences matter? Computers in Human Behavior, 74, 235-245. 
  27. Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., and Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140, 1073.
  28. Kshetri, N. (2016). Cybercrime and cybersecurity in India: Causes, consequences and implications for the future. Crime, Law and Social Change, 66(3), 313-338. 
  29. Leukfeldt, E. R., Kleemans, E. R., and Stol, W. P. (2017). Origin, growth and criminal capabilities of cybercriminal networks: An international empirical analysis. Crime, Law and Social Change, 67(1), 39-53. 
  30. Long, S. J., Long, J. S., and Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using Stata. Stata Press. 
  31. Messner, S. F., and Blau, J. R. (1987). Routine leisure activities and rates of crime: A macro-level analysis. Social Forces, 65(4), 1035-1052. 
  32. Miethe, T. D., and Meier, R. F. (1994). Crime and its social context : toward an integrated theory of offenders, victims, and situations. Albany: State University of New York Press. 
  33. Ngo, F. T., and Paternoster, R. (2011). Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5(1), 773. 
  34. Peluchette, J. V., Karl, K., Wood, C., and Williams, J. (2015). Cyberbullying victimization: Do victims' personality and risky social network behaviors contribute to the problem? Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 424-435. 
  35. Pereira, F., Spitzberg, B. H., and Matos, M. (2016). Cyber-harassment victimization in Portugal: Prevalence, fear and help-seeking among adolescents. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 136-146. 
  36. Phillips, E. (2015). Empirical assessment of lifestyle-routine activity and social learning theory on cybercrime offending. Master of Criminal Justice. Bridgewater State University. 
  37. Pratt, T. C., Holtfreter, K., and Reisig, M. D. (2010). Routine online activity and internet fraud targeting: Extending the generality of routine activity theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 267-296. 
  38. Shin, D. H. (2010). The effects of trust, security and privacy in social networking: A security based approach to understand the pattern of adoption. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 428-438. 
  39. Spitzberg, B. H., and Hoobler, G. (2002). Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism. New Media & Society, 4(1), 71-92. 
  40. Staksrud, E., Olafsson, K., and Livingstone, S. (2013). Does the use of social networking sites increase children's risk of harm? Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 40-50. 
  41. Suh, J., Park, J., Kim, B., and Rahman, H. A. (2018). How practitioners perceive a ternary relationship in ER conceptual modeling. Asia Pacific Journal of Information Systems, 1(1), 75-92. 
  42. Svensson, R., and Pauwels, L. (2010). Is a risky lifestyle always "risky"? The interaction between individual propensity and lifestyle risk in adolescent offending: A test in two urban samples. Crime & Delinquency, 56(4), 608-626. 
  43. Vakhitova, Z. I., Alston-Knox, C. L., Reynald, D. M., Townsley, M. K., and Webster, J. L. (2019). Lifestyles and routine activities: Do they enable different types of cyber abuse? Computers in Human Behavior, 101, 225-237. 
  44. Wall, D. (2001). Cybercrimes and the internet. In D. Wall (ed.) Crime and the internet. London: Routledge. 
  45. Walrave, M., and Heirman, W. (2011). Cyberbullying: Predicting victimization and perpetration. Children & Society, 25, 59-72. 
  46. Wearesocial. (2017). Digital in 2017: Global overview. Retrieved from https://wearesocial.com/special-reports/digital-in-2017-global-overview 
  47. Wilson, R. E., Gosling, S. D., and Graham, L. T. (2012). A review of Facebook research in the social sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 203-220. 
  48. Yar, M. (2005). The novelty of 'cybercrime' an assessment in light of routine activity theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2(4), 407-427. 
  49. Yucedal, B. (2010). Victimization in cyberspace: An application of routine activity and lifestyle exposure theories. Doctor of Philosophy. Kent State University.