Show Summary Details

Page of

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Criminology and Criminal Justice. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 14 February 2025

Cyber-Routine Activity Theorylocked

Cyber-Routine Activity Theorylocked

  • Zarina I. VakhitovaZarina I. VakhitovaDepartment of Criminology, Monash University

Summary

Cyber-routine activity theory (CRAT) was developed in response to the emergence of cybercrime (i.e., criminal activities conducted using computer networks or digital devices as primary tools, targets, or mediums) and the need for a theoretical framework that can explain the specific dynamics of digital criminal activity. It builds on routine activity theory (RAT), which explains the occurrence of crime as the result of criminal opportunity. According to RAT, such an opportunity presents itself when three elements converge in time and space: the presence of a motivated offender, the availability of a suitable target, and the absence of capable guardians. In essence, CRAT provides a situational explanation for cybercrime, emphasizing the interaction between motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the lack of capable guardianship in the unique environment of cyberspace.

Early attempts to apply RAT in the context of cybercrime identified the need for a theoretical framework specific to cyberspace due to the incompatibility between the core premises of RAT and the unique features of cyberspace. Specifically, the main premise of RAT, which requires the physical convergence of offenders and victims, is not essential in the context of cybercrime. Victims of cybercrimes may not even be online at the same time as their attackers and may be geographically apart from them. Furthermore, RAT suggests that third parties can deter crime by simply being there as potential witnesses or interveners in criminal acts. This deterrence effect stems from the increased perceived risk of getting caught by the offender when witnesses are present. However, in cyberspace, the environment’s characteristics often make physical visibility difficult or impossible. Coupled with the anonymity provided by the online environment, in cyberspace, the deterrence effect of a mere presence is likely to be negligible. Consequently, the notion that the mere presence of third parties can prevent cybercrimes does not hold true in this context. The incompatibility of the core premises of RAT and the environment of cyberspace has led to the development of CRAT.

CRAT suggests that in cyberspace, crime occurs in digital domains, can happen asynchronously, and can be prevented by making targets less vulnerable through such means as personal self-protection (e.g., using strong passwords and knowledge about digital risks) and technical self-protection (e.g., using software cybersecurity applications like antivirus software and access control programs), or through active intervention by capable guardians (human third parties). Extensive empirical testing of CRAT thus far indicates its potential to provide valuable insights for developing cybersecurity measures, informing policy decisions, and predicting future cybercrime trends.

Subjects

  • Criminological Theory

You do not currently have access to this article

Login

Please login to access the full content.

Subscribe

Access to the full content requires a subscription