We also look at evidence about place concentration found in some repeat victimization studies.
Now that we have conducted a meta-analysis of repeat victimization studies, our findings suggest that the scholars who promote the importance of repeat victimization are correct.
When looking at victimization, studies have shown time and again that one's activities and lifestyle contribute to their likelihood of being victimized (Miethe and Meier 1990; Tewksbury and Mustaine 2003).
Victimization studies allow more precise estimation of the magnitude and distribution of the different forms of violence.
When we compared studies of business victimization to studies of household victimization, we found that victimization is more concentrated among households than among businesses in prevalence studies, but that the reverse is true for frequency studies.
Victimization was studied because normative studies have shown that peer relations are important for children's well-being and that childhood victimization has long-term negative consequences (e.g., Bond, Carlin, Thomas, Rubin, & Patton, 2001; Kumpulainen & Räsänen, 2000; Sourander et al., 2007).
Other kinds of victimization this study examined are property and personal victimizations.
Though this conclusion reiterates what others have said about victimization, no study has systematically analyzed and confirmed this conclusion.
Childhood bullying behaviors (bullying and victimization) were studied as risk factors for substance use among Finnish males.
The first two columns compare studies using victimization surveys to studies using police reports for all places, whether or not the place was involved with crime.
