Comparative Essay: Routine Activity Theory and Lifestyle Exposure Theory

Why do people offend? What is the perfect situation to commit a crime? How can that situation be prevented? How do people get in situations where they are victimized? How can they make their life feel safer? Researchers and criminologists have been pondering, examining, experimenting, and theorizing about these questions for many years. Those years of theorizing produced two well known theories that every criminal justice student should know: Routine Activity Theory (RAT) and Lifestyle Exposure Theory. These two theories set out to explain why people offend and why people are victimized. Policy making is one of the most important tasks to do in the Criminal Justice system, but without understanding the spatio-temporal context of crime and victimization, it would be more difficult. This essay will explain the theoretical foundations and processes of both Routine Activity Theory and Lifestyle Exposure Theory, the differences between both theories, and the strengths and weaknesses of both theories as well. 

Routine Activity Theory was created by Lawrence E. Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979) and is one of the most well known and cited theories in criminology. RAT’s purpose was to examine the relationship between “social structural changes” and their effect on “routine activities and crime” (Groff, 2007). Cohen and Felson hypothesize that “it was a shift away from home-based activities that produced the increase in crime that occured after World War II. An increase despite improvement in the socioeconomic indicators historically associated with crime (e.g., unemployment and education)” (Groff, 2007). In other words, when people leave their homes to do their daily routines, Cohen and Felson believed that these factors created an increase in crime because of three important situations that need to converge: (1) motivated offender, (2) suitable target and (3) lack of a capable guardian. “Each successfully completed violation minimally requires an offender with both criminal inclinations, a person or object providing a suitable target for the offender, and absence of guardians capable of preventing violations” (Cohen & Felson, 1979). For a crime to take place (according to RAT), there has to be someone who has low self control (this is can be seen as a different theory intertwining with RAT, such as Self control Theory) who is inclined to commit a crime when they see a person or object that they think is a suitable target and no one else around that can stop them. For example, if a burglar is canvassing a neighborhood, they are more likely to steal the big screen television they can see through the window at a house that has no occupants and no security system versus the house that has a security system, two dogs, and possibly a family member in the house. In regards to a person being a suitable target, a motivated offender may single out an elder person or a woman because they seem like an easy target. 

Lifestyle Exposure Theory is another well known theory, created by Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo (1978) that helps us understand victimization. Reyns and Henson (2015) describes Lifestyle Exposure Theory as “situational opportunities to lifestyles that expose individuals to victimization risk”. The time spent outside the home (or in cybercrime perspective, time spent on the internet) can increase the risk of being exposed to motivated offenders, which then increases the possibility of being victimized; the proximity to motivated offenders also increases risk of being victimized (e.g high crime rates in your neighborhood). Reyns and Henson (2016) define exposure as the “accessibility or visibility of victims or other targets to motivated offenders, and the theory posits that all else equal, greater exposure equates with greater victimization risk” and they also define proximity as “the physical distance between victims and offenders.” When we put these two terms together we get the assumption that motivated offenders will victimize suitable targets in close proximity to where they live. An example of this theory can be seen in crimes such as robbery; if a woman’s (or man’s) daily routine causes them to be outside of their residence and they also live in a disorganized community with close proximity to motivated offenders, they are more likely to be robbed. Having a “risky” lifestyle can also increase the chances of being victimized, key word: chances; it is not certain. Buying drugs, going out to drink by yourself, etc are considered risky lifestyles.

Although Routine Activities Theory and Lifestyle Exposure Theory were intertwined to be Lifestyle Routine Activity Theory, they both have their major differences. Pratt and Turanovic (2016) explains that these two theories differ “in how they view the behaviors that put people at ‘risk’ for victimization. Where lifestyle theory conceives of risk in probabilistic terms (e.g., certain behaviors elevate one’s odds of being victimized), routine activity theory simply describes the victimization event itself (e.g., if the three key elements converge, victimization happens, yet if one of the elements is missing, victimization is avoided).” In layman’s terms, lifestyle exposure theory is centered around the probability of being victimized when exposed to “high risk times, places and people” (Pratt & Turanovic, 2016). Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo (1978) are not saying if your lifestyle is risky you will be victimized, they are just stating that the probability of being victimized is higher than usual. Pratt and Turanovic (2016) also describe routine activity as not centered around probability but is centered around “describing the victimization event itself” (Pratt & Turanovic, 2016). Another difference between these two theories is that a factor in routine activity that is not present in lifestyle exposure is the assumption that combining motivated offenders and suitable targets “in the absence of capable guardians should not be attributed to any “risky” activities on the part of the victims, but instead to the dispersion of ‘legitimate activities’ away from the home” (Pratt & Turanovic, 2016). Routine activity theory shows that crime can happen regardless of the situation and when the usual factors of crime such as socioeconomic status and unemployment are not present and also does not have to involve “risky” behaviors, like lifestyle exposure theory. 

Routine Activity Theory and Lifestyle Exposure Theory has both helped the criminal justice field tremendously for years but it does not come without weaknesses. RAT’s theoretical foundations were formulated during a time before the introduction of the internet. This can be seen as a weakness, being that we are in an age of technology and people are getting victimized through cybercrimes. Routine Activity theory does need a lot more development when it comes to the online environment and how there could be a guardianship in that realm. Reyns and Henson (2016) stated that “if all guardianship is social, then more work is needed to determine whether and how guardianship can be measured across different social contexts”. The general nature of the theory does not give us an insight when it comes to applying the theory to newer types of crimes. Another weakness that RAT exhibits is the fact that it is very macro-level and only focuses on situational factors, which then can completely ignore the why aspect of crime. The notion that leaving the house causes crime can be seen as a weakness also. Pratt and Turanovic (2016) did a great job at explaining this weakness; “just because the household activity ratio was intended to capture aggregate patterns of activities that take place away from the home does not mean that when an individual leaves his or her house they are, by definition, engaging in ‘risky behavior’ that could result in victimization” (Pratt & Turanovic, 2016). We can all agree that we can not stay in the house forever in hopes of not becoming a victim to some sort of crime and it is a necessity to leave the house; people have to go to work, school, grocery shopping, work out, etc; RAT needs to be more specific in its definitions. A weakness for Lifestyle Exposure Theory is that, yes engaging in risky behaviors can increase your risk of being victimized but lets face it, staying in the house is not always safe for everyone. For individuals who are in abusive relationships, children who are being abused, or simply individuals who live in neighborhoods where a motivated offender does not care if you’re in your home or not; “the home itself is typically the risky location” (Pratt & Turanovic, 2016). Even with these weaknesses, RAT and Lifestyle Exposure do share strengths also, such as the fact that RAT does explain crime from the offender’s perspective and Lifestyle Exposure does explain victimization, not as broadly but respectively in some aspects, like engaging in risky lifestyle behaviors. RAT gives us a good look at when, where, and who criminal situations may take place and gives us a scope on how it may relate to an individual's routine.