According to the lifestyle exposure theory, the “demographic differences in the
likelihood of victimization can be attributed to differences in the personal lifestyles of victims”
(Meier & Miethe, 1997, p. 232; cited in Berg, 2006). There are disparities in demographic profiles (age, gender, income, educational background, race, marital status and residence) that increase the preponderance for perpetuators of internet identity thefts to occur. These factors include the following: sharing personal information (birthdates, addresses) in social networking sites, paying with credit cards, mobile phone users who do not secure personal information, disclosure of children’s social security numbers, and finally, high-income as well as high-profile people . Likewise, the demographic profile of victims presented by Harrell & Langton (2013) included people aged 16 years old and above, white non-Hispanics, and with household annual income ranging from $75,000 and above.
Identity theft victims are emotionally harmed through the stress and anxiety inflicted when their personal information have been noticed to be stolen or compromised. Aside from the fact that financial resources could have been stolen in the process, the victims have to go through the gruelling process of seeking redress. The agony of restoring privacy and confidentiality in personal information through installing measures that would intensity security and safety of the data that were previously stolen was evident. Likewise, there would always be a feeling of anticipated fear that the same incident and risks could happen in the future. As such, victims of identity theft have been observed to be exposed to a rollercoaster of emotions, ranging from despair, anxiety, depression, fear, embarassment, anger, and even the feeling of revenge or retribution. However, the level of emotional stress were reported to be different to the victims depending on the type of identify theft . As emphasized, “thirty-two percent of victims of personal information fraud reported that they found the incident severely distressing, compared to 5% of credit card fraud victims. Twenty-two percent of victims of new account fraud reported that the crime was severely distressing” .
References
Berg, S. (2006). Recommendations for a Comprehensive Identity Theft Victimization Survey Framework and Information Technology Prevention Strategies. Retrieved December 20, 2014, from sparsa.org: http://www.sparsa.org/files/research/IDTheftVictim.pdf
Fuscaldo, D. (2012, August 14). 5 groups at greater risk of identity theft. Retrieved December 21, 2014, from Bankrate: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/credit/groups-greater-risk-identity-theft.aspx#slide=6
Harrell, E., & Langton, L. (2013, December). Victims of Identity Theft, 2012. Retrieved December 21, 2104, from U.S. DOJ, BJS: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vit12.pdf
Meier, R. F., & Miethe, T. D. (1997). Understanding theories of criminal victimization. In M. McShane, & F. I. Williams, Victims of crime and the victimization process (pp. 225-265). New York: Garland.
