{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020600558659217876, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002793296089385475, 'mean_word_length': 4.96875, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
In order to investigate longitudinal victimization patterns across long periods

of individuals’ life, we need longitudinal data on victimization. Such data sources are rare, especially when it comes to long-term longitudinal data. In order to overcome this difficulty, Chapter 2 investigated whether the short-term longitudinal data of the NCVS could be extended into long-term longitudinal data. Results indicated that they cannot. It was found that for all age-cohorts investigated, victimization reporting decreased over time, unlike the inverse Ushaped curves that typically result from cross-sectional age-victimization studies. The main potential explanations for this phenomenon included respondent fatigue, selective attrition, and the American crime drop. The results from the second chapter painted a somewhat gloomy picture for the rest of the thesis. From a pessimistic point of view, the findings of this chapter would lead us to infer that the investigation of longitudinal victimization patterns is useless because the data are not suitable. Instead, this thesis concurs with a more optimistic view in which the difficulties of longitudinal self-report data are investigated and recognized and in which measures are taken to deal with these problems as best as possible. One particular measure was taken: In Chapters 3 and 4, I controlled for time-effects as best as possible by including a measure for time. Since the focus of these two chapters was not on age, this could be done for both chapters.1 This is not to say that including a time effect effectively controls for any problems. As stated in the conclusions of Chapter 2, we cannot assume that time effects are similar across age cohorts. However, including a time effect is at this point the best measure we can take to control for time effects. By including it, I feel that I have controlled for time effects as best as possible. Chapters 3 to 5 addressed the main theoretical issue of this dissertation. In these chapters, I investigated some of the mechanisms behind the finding that prior victimization directly increases future victimization. In particular, I investigated whether, how, and why prior victimization leads (or does not lead) victims to change behavioral routines and prevention practices. In Chapter 3, I focused on the role of personality traits, notably self-control, in the link between prior and future victimization with data from the PYS. I hypothesized that victims with high levels of self-control are more likely to change their behavior after victimization and thus have a lower likelihood of repeat victimization than victims with low levels of self-control. This hypothesis was confirmed, but only for victims of theft. For victims of violence, I found that those with high selfcontrol did not have a lower risk of repeat victimization than those with low