The Impact of Media on Fear of Crime among ...

The Impact of Media on Fear of Crime among University Students: A Cross-National Comparison1 Steven A. Kohm University of Winnipeg Courtney A. Waid-Lindberg North Dakota State University Michael Weinrath University of Winnipeg Tara O’Connor Shelley Colorado State University Rhonda R. Dobbs University of Texas at Arlington

La peur de la criminalite´ a fait l’objet d’une recherche conside´rable au Canada et aux E´tats-Unis depuis les cinquante dernie`res anneés. Les chercheurs s’interrogent toujours sur l’effet de diverses formes de me´dia sur la peur de la criminalite´. En particulier, est-ce que la pre´gnance d’une attitude de la part de certains types de me´dias particuliers et l’ampleur de l’exposition a` des me´dias d’information en particulier – journaux, te´le´vision, radio, et ` l’aide de donneés d’enInternet – a un effet sur la peur de la criminalite´? A queˆte recueillies a` trois universite´s ame´ricaines et une universite´ canadienne, le pre´sent article compare l’effet des me´dias sur la peur de la criminalite´ chez les e´tudiants d’universite´. Les re´sultats indiquent des diffe´rences marqueés entre les e´tudiants canadiens et ame´ricains, les e´tudiants canadiens affichant des niveaux plus e´leve´s de peur, en particulier des crimes violents. L’effet des me´dias sur la peur n’e´tait pas constant entre les deux groupes mais les me´dias avaient tendance a` exercer hors tout une plus grande influence sur la peur de la criminalite´ des e´tudiants ame´ricains. Mots cle´s : peur de la criminalite´, analyse comparative, e´tudiants d’universite´, Canada, E´tats-Unis Fear of crime has been the focus of considerable research in Canada and the United States over the past five decades. An enduring question for researchers is the impact of various forms of media on fear of crime. Specifically, do the salience of specific media types and the amount of exposure to specific news media – newspapers, television, radio, and Internet – affect fear of crime? 6 2012 CJCCJ/RCCJP doi:10.3138/cjccj.2011.E.01

68

Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice peńale

janvier 2012

Using survey data collected at three universities in the United States and one in Canada, this article comparatively examines the impact of media on fear of crime among university students. The results show distinct differences between Canadian and U.S. students, with Canadian students reporting significantly higher levels of fear, particularly of violent crime. The impact of media on fear was inconsistent between the two groups, but media tended to exert a broader range of influence on the American students’ fear of crime. Keywords: fear of crime, comparative analysis, university students, Canada, United States

Introduction This exploratory study examines the impact of media on fear of crime in a cross-national context. Using samples of university students in Canada and the United States, we explore the fear–media relationship alongside more traditional predictors of fear of crime. Our study adds a new wrinkle to a well-established literature in criminology. Since the 1960s, fear of crime has been a significant research issue for Canadian and American scholars (Conklin 1975; Kohm 2009; McIntyre 1967; Roberts 2001; Skogan and Maxfield 1981; Stanko 1995; Weinrath, Clarke, and Forde 2007). Much of the research is motivated by the assumption that fear itself can be debilitating and produce harmful social outcomes. Fear is thought to produce avoidance and protective behaviours including restricting movement and constraining socialization, both of which can erode informal control and impede life satisfaction (Clemente and Kleiman 1977; Dobbs, Waid, and Shelley 2009; Ferraro 1995, 1996; Hale 1996; Warr 1984, 2000). Over the decades there has been considerable debate about how the fear of crime is conceptualized. Sacco (2005) has suggested that fear of crime has several dimensions: (1) cognitive, which focuses on citizens’ estimation of their likelihood of victimization; (2) emotional, which centres on individuals’ feelings about crime; and (3) behavioural, which focuses on how people respond to fear of perceived risk of victimization. Killias and Clerici (2000) have argued that vulnerability (the perceived ability to escape or defend against a youthful attacker) is also an important concept underlying fear. However, several researchers argue that fear of crime is a distinctly affective – thus emotional – and physiologic response to perceived danger (Ferraro 1995; Warr 2000) and is conceptually different from the cognitive component of perceived risk of victimization (Chiricos, Eschholz, and Gertz 1997; Eschholz, Chiricos, and Gertz 2003; Rountree and Land 1996). Most recently, Gray, Jackson, and Farrall (2011) have argued that fear of crime ought to be conceptualized by

The Impact of Media on Fear of Crime: A Cross-National Comparison

69

distinguishing between generalized anxieties and more concrete episodes of fear, as well as by differentiating ‘‘functional/productive and dysfunctional/counterproductive effects of everyday worries and anxieties’’ (76). This revised conceptualization of fear is thought to allow for a better understanding of how citizens are motivated to protect themselves in specific situations by engaging in precautionary behaviours (Gray et al. 2008, 2011; Jackson and Gray 2010). Limitations of space prevent us from a more detailed review of these conceptual issues. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that this is an evolving area of scholarship, and we are sensitive to the complexities of conceptualizing fear. However, as an exploratory study, we hope this article may contribute to the literature by illuminating the impact of media on fear of crime in a cross-national perspective. We believe our conclusions, though somewhat tentative, set the stage for further research on fear of crime in an international context.

Indirect victimization and fear of crime Conceptual debate aside, it is perhaps surprising that fear levels have not changed among citizens of either Canada or the United States despite decreases in crime rates, especially violent crimes such as murder (Forde 1993; Roberts 2001; Weinrath et al. 2007). It has been hypothesized that elevated levels of fear are the result of perceived vulnerability to crime, which can occur because of past victimization events or through indirect victimization via media exposure to crime news or crime fiction. Through media exposure, individuals learn of crime events that have occurred at the local or national level (Skogan and Maxfield 1981; Taylor and Hale 1986; Weinrath et al. 2007). Studies have shown that news reports concentrate heavily on crime and criminal justice (Chermak 1995; Ericson, Baranek, and Chan 1991; Garofalo 1981; Graber 1980; Reiner 2002; Surette 2007). Much of what the public knows about crime and criminal justice is constructed from media accounts, and fear of crime may increase because of such exposure (Dowler 2003; Gilchrist, Bannister, Ditton, and Farrall 1998; Roberts and Doob 1990; Surette 1998). It has been suggested that media reports on crime can generate fear among the public and perhaps even create moral panics (Chermak 1994).

Comparing fear of crime International comparative research on fear of crime is relatively rare, but several recent studies have used the United Nations International

70

Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice

January 2012

Crime Victims Survey (ICVS) (e.g. van Dijk, van Kesteren, and Smit 2007). The ICVS incorporates one measure of fear of crime (‘‘How safe do you feel walking alone in your area after dark?’’) and one question measuring perceived risk of burglary (‘‘What would you say are the chances that over the next twelve months someone will try to break into your home?’’). According to van Dijk et al. (2007), of the 30 countries surveyed, the United States reported the second lowest level of concern about burglary (16% felt a burglary in the next 12 months was likely or very likely), while Canadians reported much higher levels of concern (25%) closer to the average of 29% across all nations. However, for both nations, the level of concern had declined since 1989. The proportion of citizens reporting feeling somewhat or very unsafe walking alone at night was comparable between the United States (19%) and Canada (17%), with fear levels tending to decrease over time (van Dijk et al. 2007: 132). Like all fear-of-crime research, the ICVS can be subject to methodological criticism. The two perceptual items discussed above may not fully measure fear – which can be thought of as ‘‘an emotion, a feeling of alarm or dread caused by an awareness or expectation of danger’’ (Warr 2000: 453). Instead, such questions only measure perceived risk or require participants to speculate about a hypothetical scenario (e.g., walking alone after dark). Researchers who are interested in fear of crime would be better advised to ask very specific questions about particular crime types (e.g., ‘‘How fearful are you about having someone break into your home?’’). A considerable strength of the present study is that it uses offence-specific measures to analyse fear of crime among Canadian and American university students comparatively. The present study seeks to fill a gap in the fear-of-crime literature by cross-nationally comparing fear levels among students in the United States and Canada. Furthermore, this study seeks to determine what impact, if any, different types of media, and the level of exposure to specific sources, might have on fear of crime among American and Canadian respondents.

Theorizing media and fear of crime Several frameworks have been developed to explain how media affect fear of crime. Unlike the real world thesis (i.e., direct experience with crime influences fear), these perspectives stem from the indirect victimization model (Weinrath et al. 2007). According to this model, secondhand information like the news – not direct experience with crime – raises citizens’ fears and makes them feel that victimization is likely


71

(Covington and Taylor 1991; Lane and Meeker 2003; Skogan and Maxfield 1981). Thus, individuals receiving media messages about crime become indirect victims through their fear. Three perspectives on media and fear derived from the indirect victimization model – cultivation, substitution, and resonance – are discussed, in turn, below. Cultivation theory holds that there will be an increase in fear of crime as media consumption of violent crime stories increases. Over a period, most residents of a particular media market will be exposed, albeit at varying levels, to the patterns of programming on television. These effects can accumulate and affect fear levels over time. Media stories are organized in a fashion that leaves the consumer with the impression that violent crime is random, likely, and inexplicable (Gerbner and Gross 1976; Heath and Petraitis 1987; Surette 1998; Weitzer and Kubrin 2004). Cultivation theory has garnered little empirical support and is vulnerable to a number of criticisms (Cumberbatch and Howitt 1989; Gunter 1987; Heath and Gilbert 1996; Sparks 1992; Zillman and Wakshlag 1985). From a substantive angle, cultivation does not adequately explain differential effects of news reports on individuals, as some viewers may also have real world experiences that contribute to their fear. In addition, others have postulated that media content has a limited effect and consumers will choose items that resonate with their worldview (Shrum 2002). Methodologically, it is difficult to determine if media consumption, specifically television viewing, causes citizens to be fearful or if fear debilitates individuals, keeping them in their homes to view more television (Doyle 2006). The substitution perspective holds that crime-related media stories cause increased fear among individuals with no personal victimization experience (Gunter 1987; Weaver and Wakshlag 1986; Weitzer and Kubrin 2004). This perspective builds on the cultivation framework but accounts for audience characteristics. Individuals who are insulated from crime (i.e., those living in low crime areas who have never been victimized) are thought to be more susceptible to media images. While intuitively appealing, this perspective has not received much empirical attention from criminologists. Chiricos et al. (1997) found limited support for substitution among high income ‘white’ women only. Similarly, Weaver and Wakshlag (1986) have demonstrated some support for this perspective. The resonance perspective states that the media will increase fear when the media content is consistent with experience (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, and Signorielli 1980; Weitzer and Kubrin 2004). Thus, the

72


janvier 2012

media reinforce what individuals experience in the real world. As Eschholz (1997) states, ‘‘[I]ndividuals who live in high-crime areas may be particularly sensitive to crime on television because of their direct knowledge of a crime problem in their neighborhoods’’ (47). This perspective received empirical support in a study by Doob and MacDonald (1979), who note that exposure to television in general (not just news) increases fear among residents of neighbourhoods with high levels of crime, while television viewing had no effect on fear in communities with low levels of crime. Similar relationships were noted by Heath and Petraitis (1987) as well as Chiricos, Padgett, and Gertz (2000), lending more support to the perspective.

Crime news and media format Most people receive information about crime from news reports (Barak 1994; Surette 1984, 1990, 1998; Vandiver and Giacopassi 1997). American studies show that most local television stations begin the evening news with a story focusing on a criminal event, that one third of news stories focus on crime, and that crime news is twice as common as political news (Angotti 1997; Beale 2006; Klite, Bardwell, and Salzman 1997). Dowler’s (2004) recent comparative research suggests that local television crime coverage in Canada is very similar to American coverage. How crime is reported will vary according to the nature of the offence and the community context in which it occurs (Weitzer and Kubrin 2004). For example, smaller suburban and rural areas are more likely to report all homicides while large urban areas may be more selective (Heath and Gilbert 1996; Lane and Meeker 2003). Chermak (1998) indicates that crimes with multiple victims or other elements deemed newsworthy (e.g. rare victim characteristics or firearm use) are given precedence over stories involving a single victim. Regarding media format, research focusing on newspaper reports and their impact on the fear of crime is inconclusive. Some studies have shown an impact on fear levels if print stories are about violence (Heath and Gilbert 1996; Jaehnig, Weaver, and Fico 1981; Liska and Baccaglini 1990; Williams and Dickinson 1993). Other researchers suggest newspaper stories do not affect fear because people self-select which stories they read or ‘‘people who are interested in crime stories already protect themselves and feel safer’’ (Lane and Meeker 2003: 7). Similarly, some studies refute the link between television news and fear (Ditton, Chadee, Farrall, Gilchrist, and Bannister 2004), while other research supports the hypothesis (Romer, Jamieson, and Aday


73

2003). Early research was criticized for not examining differences between different types of television news stories (i.e., local vs. national), variation in audience characteristics, or urban and rural differences (Hirsch 1980; Hughes 1980; Lane and Meeker 2003). However, television news is an especially salient predictor of fear when considering the personal and demographic characteristics of respondents, as well as community-level (i.e., rural vs. urban) determinants (Chiricos et al. 1997; Chiricos et al. 2000; Heath and Gilbert 1996; Lane and Meeker 2003). Chiricos et al. (2000) note that local and national television news stories are related to fear of crime but the effects of local news tend to be stronger, which mirrors earlier findings of Liska and Baccaglini (1990). When considering all news media together, Weitzer and Kubrin (2004) note that local television news induces the highest level of fear among viewers. There is limited knowledge about the Internet as a news source (Flanagin and Metzger 2000, 2001). However, it is important to consider the impact of Internet news on fear of crime, given its rapid growth as an information source (Rainie 2010). Little is known about how Internet news affects its consumers. There is a tremendous array of information sources available online, with varying degrees of credibility or accuracy. At the same time, Internet users can be more selective and interactive in the way they use information resources online. As a result, Internet crime news could have a variable impact on users, depending on their individual characteristics and the online sources they utilize. Weitzer and Kubrin (2004) examined the impact of all media sources, including the Internet, on the fear of crime. Although only 12.3% of the sample reported using the Internet as the primary source of crime news, these respondents indicated that they were less fearful than individuals who indicated local television news as their primary news source.

Predictors of fear of crime Fear of crime is related to demographic factors, such as gender, age, and race/ethnicity, and other situational factors, which can include prior criminal victimization, perceived risk of victimization, and concern about crime in the local community. It has been widely noted that females are more fearful of crime than males (Chiricos et al. 1997; Dobbs et al. 2009; Hale 1996; Ortega and Myles 1987; Warr 1984). While males tend to experience higher levels of victimization, it has been established in the literature that women feel less able to defend

74


January 2012

against physical threat, thus increasing their vulnerability to crime and, in turn, heightening their levels of fear (Gordon, Riger, LeBailly, and Heath 1980; Killias and Clerici 2000; Riger, Gordon, and LeBailly 1978). Additional research has noted that the fear that women experience may, in fact, be fear of rape, and many women feel that rape may lead to other violent offences, with the result that such fear is quite generalized and pervasive (Dobbs et al. 2009; Ferraro 1996; Warr 1984). While the association of gender and fear is established, there are inconsistencies with age as a predictor of fear (Ferraro 1995). Warr (1984) found older respondents to be more fearful, while Rountree and Land (1996) note that younger individuals experienced more fear. African Americans have reported higher levels of fear than whites (Lane and Meeker 2003; Ortega and Myles 1987; Parker and Ray 1990; Skogan and Maxfield 1981; Warr 1984). Aboriginal Canadians are not appreciably more fearful than other Canadians (Weinrath 2000). Among college and university students, criminology and criminal justice majors appear to be less fearful of crime (del Carmen, Polk, Segal, and Bing 2000; Dobbs, Stickels, and Mobley 2008). Prior victimization is an inconsistent predictor of fear, with some studies showing that victimization increases fear, while others find no relationship or, in some studies, a lessening of fear (Ferraro 1995; Weinrath and Gartrell 1996). Perceived risk and concern about crime/victimization are considered by some researchers to be conceptually distinct from fear (Chiricos et al. 1997; Eschholz et al. 2003; Rountree and Land 1996) and can predict higher levels of fear. The present study examines all these predictors of fear alongside the media to determine how the fear–media relationship may be conditioned by more traditional demographic and situational factors.

The current study Much of the existing literature on media and fear of crime examines one news format (Weitzer and Kubrin 2004). However, sources vary in content and style and may affect individuals differently, depending on demographics, social and living situations, and preferences for receiving news. Therefore, all media sources, including the Internet, are considered in the present study. Moreover, this study breaks new ground in that it compares samples from populations in Canada and the United States. Although exploratory, this study allows for the examination of the three indirect victimization perspectives as respondents’ social and personal situations vary across the different sample sites.


75

Methodology A self-administered survey was given to undergraduate student volunteers at three American universities (Colorado State University [CSU], University of Texas at Arlington [UTA], and Florida State University [FSU]) and one Canadian university (University of Winnipeg [UW]). The three American universities were surveyed first; UTA in April 2007, FSU in August of 2007, and CSU in March 2008. To extend the analysis to a Canadian student population, the survey was adapted and administered at UW in September 2010. While the Canadian sample was taken some time after the American samples, we note that there was no significant media event of the magnitude noted by Stretesky and Hogan (2001) that could have significantly elevated student fears during the intervening time period. The Canadian survey was adapted to reflect differences in Canadian terminology and criminal justice practices. For example, questions concerning capital punishment were omitted from the Canadian instrument. There are several similarities and differences among the four universities. With the exception of CSU, the campuses are located in higher crime urban areas. Violent- and property-crime rates in Tallahassee, FL, Arlington, TX are higher than the United States average and violentand property-crime rates in Winnipeg, MB are higher than the Canadian national average (Dauvergne and Turner 2010; Federal Bureau of Investigation 2010). The U.S. schools are relatively large graduate and undergraduate institutions (26,000 to 40,000 students), while UW is a smaller primarily undergraduate university of about 10,000 students. The U.S. schools are located in suburban or semi-rural areas within a larger urban or metropolitan area, while UW is located in the downtown core of Winnipeg adjacent to a high crime, low income, inner city residential community. Nevertheless, most UW students live in the suburbs and commute to campus and thus do not necessarily live in a higher crime inner-city neighbourhood. The researchers employed a purposive sampling strategy and sought out a diversity of undergraduate students by approaching instructors in a variety of departments and classes at all levels of instruction. While this strategy precludes us from definitively generalizing to all Canadian or American students, or to the general public, it is consistent with numerous other exploratory studies in criminology (e.g., Byers and Powers 1997; Farnworth, Longmire, and West 1998; Hensley, Tewksbury, Miller, and Koscheski 2002; Lam, Mitchell, and Seto 2010; Lambert 2005, 2004; Lambert, Baker, and Tucker 2006; Lambert and

76


janvier 2012

Clarke 2004; Mackey and Courtright 2000; Ricciardelli, Bell, and Clow 2009; Tomsich, Gover, and Jennings 2011; Tsoudis 2000; Winterdyk and Thompson 2008). Furthermore, a recent methodological note by Wiecko (2010) pointed out that student samples are in fact very similar to non-student populations and ‘‘questions surrounding the validity of college samples may not be as warranted as once thought’’ (1198). As well, Straus (2009) has argued that ‘national context effects’ can be measured using convenience samples of students in different countries. Straus (2009) empirically validated this assertion by comparing non-random student samples to national level random samples and concluded that, where it is not practical to collect representative national samples, convenience samples may be used productively in crossnational research. Thus, although we suggest our findings be viewed with a measure of caution, we believe the results presented below capture broad differences in attitude between the campuses in the two nations. The sample breakdown across the four campuses is summarized in Table 1 below. Of the 1,466 students sampled, just over 27% of the sample (397) was Canadian while the remaining 73% (1,069) were attending university at the three American campuses. The sample was fairly evenly divided among the four campuses, although comparatively fewer students were sampled from FSU (242). The FSU and UW samples contained a larger proportion of students with a major or minor in criminology/criminal justice (54.5% and 50.9%) relative to the other two campuses (25.8% and 15.5%). The differences were

Table 1: University attended by declared or intended major University Where Survey Conducted Declared or Intended Major

UTA

FSU

CSU

UW

Total

Criminology criminal justice major

117 (25.8%)

132 (54.5%)

58 (15.5%)

202 (50.9%)

509 (34.7%)

Other or undecided

297 (65.4%)

100 (41.3%)

277 (74.3%)

150 (37.8%)

824 (56.2%)

Missing

40 (8.8%)

10 (4.1%)

38 (10.2%)

45 (11.3%)

133 (9.1%)

Total

454

242

373

397

1466

2

w ¼ 178.512*** *** p < 0.001


77

statistically significant, not surprisingly, given the large sample and substantive differences among the universities.2 The samples of Canadian and American students were very similar in terms of the characteristics of interest in this study (see Table 2). Both Canadian and U.S. sub-samples contained more females than males. This is not unusual in survey research, particularly when involving university students (see Lavrakas 1987; Mackey and Courtright 2000). At all four campuses, females make up more than half of the student body. The Canadian sample tended to be younger than the U.S. sample owing to the fact that more first-year (i.e., Freshman) students were surveyed at UW. While this difference was statistically significant, substantively the difference was only a year. The racial mix of the U.S. and Canadian samples was similar in that both were more than two thirds ‘white.’ The proportion of ‘white’ respondents was slightly higher in the Canadian sample (73.5%), which reflected the racial composition of UW. A larger proportion of American students reported ‘black’ racial background, while a larger proportion of Canadian students reported ‘Asian’ or ‘Native American / Aboriginal.’ These differences simply reflect the varying racial composition of the campuses surveyed. It should be noted that the category ‘Hispanic / Latino’ was not used in Canada as there were too few responses. Again, the differences were substantive and quite reliable. Canadian student victimization rates (48.6%) were very similar to those of U.S. students (45.4%) surveyed. The Canadian and American sub-samples were very similar in terms of the proportion who reported local TV news (34.5% and 35.0% respectively) and the Internet (31.8% and 34.3% respectively) as their primary source of crime news. However, more U.S. students (19.0%) reported national TV news than Canadian students (12.8%) and more Canadians (17.9%) reported newspapers or newsmagazines than the U.S. sub-sample (7.6%). Finally, the American students (18.9%) were slightly more inclined toward heavier weekly Internet use (21 or more hours per week) than the Canadians (16.4%). However, both groups were roughly similar in their pattern of weekly Internet use; both close to an average of about 14 hours a week. Internet use saw a fair bit of variation in individual use; note that the standard deviations indicate considerable variability and that the range was 99 hours. Finally, the Canadian and U.S. samples reported similar levels of concern about crime. On a scale of 1–10, both came in around 7, showing a fair-sized concern about crime. Canadians were slightly more apt to

78


January 2012

Table 2: Comparison of American and Canadian students by key study variables American Students

Canadian Students

Total

Chi or t

Sex

Male

40.7%

41.7%

41.0%

Female

59.3%

58.3%

59.0%

0.128

Age

21.10 (3.67)

20.16 (3.67)

20.85 (3.69)

4.247***

White

68.0%

73.5%

69.4%

Black

13.1%

4.7%

10.9%

Asian

6.4%

10.0%

7.4%

Native American / Aboriginal

0.5%

10.3%

3.1%

12.0%

1.4%

9.2%

Criminology / Criminal Justice

31.3%

57.4%

38.2%

Other / Undecided

68.7%

42.6%

61.8%

Yes

45.4%

48.6%

46.3%

No

54.6%

51.4%

53.7%

Racial Background

Other

148.318***

Student Major

74.714***

Victim of Crime

1.211

Primary Source of Crime News

Internet

34.3%

31.8%

33.6%

Local TV News

35.0%

34.4%

34.8%

National TV News

19.0%

12.8%

17.2%

7.6%

17.9%

10.5%

Newspaper/Newsmagazine Other

4.2%

3.1%

3.9%

Internet Usage (hours per week)

14.03 (12.54)

13.46 (13.20)

13.89 (12.7)

0.705

Concern about Crime (0–10)

6.82 (2.12)

6.66 (2.00)

6.78 (2.09)

1.244

Risk of Violent Victimization (0–10)

2.26 (2.26)

2.81 (2.81)

2.41 (2.52)

3.247***

Risk of Property Victimization (0–10)

3.5 (3.50)

3.29 (3.29)

3.44 (2.77)

1.252

Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

38.992***


79

report that they felt likely to be a victim of violent crime in the next year (2.8 to 2.3 for American students), although both groups rate low on a 10-point scale. Despite a fair skew in this variable, the difference was large enough to be statistically significant. Conversely, the American students reported that they were more likely to be a victim of property crime in the next year (3.5 compared to 3.3 in the Canadian sample, a small difference that was not significant).

Analysis Dependent variables Fear of crime was measured by asking how fearful respondents were of being the victim of 10 specific crimes (murder, rape/sexual assault, attack with a weapon, robbed/mugged, beaten up/assaulted by strangers, approached on street by beggars, home broken into, car stolen, property vandalized/damaged, cheated/conned out of money). These items have been used in previous fear-of-crime research (see Chiricos et al. 1997; Chiricos et al. 2000; Chiricos, Welch, and Gertz 2004). Each of these items was measured on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 representing no fear. A fear-of-crime scale was created by summing these items. TOTALFEAR combined all 10 variables into a general index of fear of crime (Cronbach’s alpha 0.946), with a high score denoting more fear of crime (range 0–100). Factor analysis was carried out on the 10 items comprising TOTALFEAR. All items loaded acceptably in a one factor solution. We used t tests to assess the reliability of mean differences between Canadian and American students in the overall sample for each item as well as TOTALFEAR (Table 3). For each fear indicator of violent crime, as well as for the index TOTALFEAR, Canadians reported significantly higher mean levels of fear. However, mean levels of property crime fear were very similar between the Canadian and American samples, and there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups. From the above analysis, it is evident that the key differences between Canadians and Americans are to be found in fear of violent forms of crime rather than property crime. Higher levels of fear of violent crime drove the statistically significant difference between Canadians and Americans on the TOTALFEAR index and overshadowed any similarities between the groups on the property crime items. In short, the

80


janvier 2012

Table 3: Mean differences in fear by nation Means USA

Canada

Being murdered

4.40

4.90*

Being raped/sexually assaulted

4.62

5.18*

Being attacked by someone with a weapon

5.17

5.95***

Being robbed or mugged on the street

4.69

5.86***

Being approached on street by a beggar or panhandler

3.52

4.01*

Being beaten up or assaulted by strangers

4.03

5.28***

Fear someone breaking into your home

5.59

5.55

Fear having your car stolen

4.82

5.07

Fear having your property vandalized/damaged

4.88

5.09

Fear being cheated, conned, or swindled out of $ TOTALFEAR (0–100)

4.48 45.94

4.43 51.65***

* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001

observed difference between Canadian and U.S. student fear of crime is largely the result of higher levels of fear of violent crime among Canadian students.

Independent variables Media salience was measured by asking respondents which media source was their primary source of crime news. The salience variables included local TV News (LOCALTV), Internet news (NETNEWS), national TV news (NATIONALTV), and newspaper news (PAPERNEWS). Each of these items was dichotomized (1, 0) so that respondents could only select one primary news source. Media consumption levels were measured by asking respondents to estimate the number of hours they watched TV in a typical day (TVHOURS), the number of hours they used the Internet in a typical week (NETHOURS), and the number of times they listened to local news on the radio in a week (RADIOWEEK). Other measures of online activity included how often respondents used the Internet to create a web blog (OFTENBLOG) and how often respondents used the Internet to access social networking or dating websites (OFTENDATE), both measured on an 8-point scale where 1 is never and 8 is several times per day.


81

Other variables included in the analysis were dichotomous variables measuring race: BLACK, ABORIGINAL, ASIAN, and OTHER. In addition, using three risk items that asked respondents to estimate the likelihood of being a victim of violent crime, property crime, or Internet crime in the next year (0–10, where 0 is unlikely), a risk index variable (RISK) was computed (Cronbach’s alpha 0.782) that ranged from 0 to 30. To measure concern about crime (CONCERN), respondents were asked ‘‘On a scale from 0–10, with 0 being not at all concerned and 10 being very concerned, how concerned are you about crime?’’ Those students reporting a declared or intended major or minor in Criminology or Criminal Justice (CRCJ) were coded as 1 and all others as 0. Victimization was measured by asking respondents if they had ever been a crime victim. Those respondents indicating crime victimization (VICTIM) were coded as 1 and all others as zero. Those respondents from UW (CANADIAN) were coded 1 and all others as zero. While we refer to UW students as ‘Canadian,’ we urge caution in the interpretation of our findings. We do not suggest that UW students are formally representative of all Canadians, or even all Canadian students. However, consistent with Strauss’s (2009) theory of ‘‘national context effects’’ it is more than likely that our sample still reflects broad differences in attitudes between individuals socialized in the two nations.

Methods of analysis Through the use of ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression, this study comparatively examines the effect of media in different news formats (i.e., local television and the Internet) and Internet use on fear of crime among Canadian and American university students. Given the dearth of research in this area among university students, our study should be treated as exploratory in nature. We will compare sub-samples in our analysis to further explore Canadian-American variation in possible influences on fear of crime. We will consider the substantive size of differences, but also look to test for the equality of regression coefficients. We favour the formulation developed by Clogg and his colleagues (1995) and further advocated by Paternoster et al. (1998): b1 b 2 /((SEb 12 þ SEb 22 ).

Findings Table 4 summarizes the regression results for the full sample of Canadian and American university students.3 Following Weitzer and Kubrin

82


January 2012

Table 4: Regression results for fear of crime on media and Internet Model 1 Std. Error

B

(Constant)

Model 2

0.928

Beta

4.932

Std. Error

B

4.329

Beta

5.085

BLACK

0.808

2.559

0.008

0.701

2.568

0.007

ABORIGINAL

9.831*

4.050

0.063

10.285*

4.060

0.066

ASIAN

11.762***

2.749

0.107

12.044***

2.758

0.109

OTHER

4.203*

2.117

0.050

4.081^

2.123

0.049

RISK

1.413***

0.105

0.343

1.423***

0.106

0.345

CONCERN

4.234***

0.333

0.328

4.271***

0.334

0.331

FEMALE

14.463***

1.374

0.266

14.604***

1.376

0.269

AGE

0.423*

0.202

0.055

0.422*

0.203

0.055

VICTIM

2.945*

1.371

0.055

3.003*

1.376

0.056

CRCJ

2.833*

1.425

0.052

2.915*

1.429

0.053

CANADIAN

6.413***

1.693

0.103

6.632***

1.722

0.106

LOCALTV

4.677**

1.400

0.084

–

–

–

NETNEWS

–

–

–

4.488**

1.609

0.079

NATIONALTV

–

–

–

1.841

1.897

0.026

PAPERNEWS

–

–

–

4.575*

2.290

0.053

TVHOURS

0.446

0.330

0.035

0.421

0.333

0.033

RADIOWEEK

0.013

0.233

0.001

0.025

0.234

0.003

NETHOURS

0.063

0.051

0.031

0.063

0.052

0.031

OFTENBLOG

0.644^

0.347

0.046

0.673^

0.348

0.048

OFTENDATE

0.473*

0.238

0.050

0.510*

0.239

0.054

Adjusted R2 N

0.458

0.456

926

926

^ p < 0.08, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

(2004), Model 1 includes only salience of local TV news as well as all media consumption and Internet use variables. This model explains 45.8% of the variation in fear of crime (adjusted R2 ¼ 0.458). Consistent with previous research, the present analysis demonstrates that media salience is a significant predictor of fear of crime even when controlling for respondent characteristics, estimated risk of victimization, and concern about crime. Those who identified local TV news as their primary source of crime news were significantly more fearful of crime. Conversely, overall level of media consumption (in any form) did not


83

significantly predict fear. However, respondents who often used the Internet for dating and social networking were more fearful. Although modest, these effects are consistent with the literature. The traditional predictors of fear – age, female gender, and previous victimization experience – were significantly related to fear of crime in this model. However, age and previous victimization were associated with lower levels of fear. ‘Black’ racial background did not significantly predict fear among Canadian and U.S. students. However, ‘Asian,’ ‘Aboriginal,’ and ‘Other’ racial backgrounds were significant predictors of fear in this model. Of particular interest in our comparative analysis, we note that ‘Canadian’ was a significant predictor of fear of crime. Lastly, criminology and criminal justice majors and minors were somewhat less apt to be fearful. Model 2 omits local TV news salience and enters all other media salience variables into the regression equation along with the other media consumption and Internet use variables. This model explains 45.6% of the variation in fear of crime (adjusted R2 ¼ 0.456). As in Weitzer and Kubrin’s (2004) analysis, the impact of local TV news salience on fear is thrown into stark relief. Respondents identifying the Internet and newspaper as their primary source of crime news were significantly less likely to be fearful. Those who identified national TV news as their primary source of crime news were also less likely to be fearful, but the results were not statistically significant. Therefore, local TV news salience is clearly the most powerful media predictor of higher levels of fear of crime. The only other media or Internet variable that is associated with increased levels of fear is OFTENDATE, which predicted higher levels of fear in both models. To compare the impact of news media and Internet separately on Canadian and U.S. students, OLS regressions were carried out on two sub-samples of American and Canadian respondents (see Table 5). The sex of the respondent (i.e., female), risk, and concern are the strongest predictors of fear for both sub-samples. Risk had a much larger effect for the U.S. sub-sample, and in testing the equality of the regression coefficients, this difference was significant (t ¼ 1.720, p < 0.05 one tailed). However, the impact of local TV salience and the Internet variables disappears for the Canadian sub-sample. For the U.S. subsample, the effect of local TV news salience remains significant, if only moderately strong; the Canadian sub-sample shows roughly similar effects but they are not reliable enough to achieve statistical significance, nor are the differences between the two sub-samples large

84


janvier 2012

Table 5: Regression results by nation Canadian Students Std. Error

B

(Constant)

13.184

American Students

Beta

Std. Error

B

0.023

9.512

Beta

5.926

BLACK

11.484

9.092

0.066

0.168

2.682

0.002

ABORIGINAL

10.452*

4.711

0.128

4.892

11.496

0.012

3.367

0.122

2.173

0.049

ASIAN

5.258

5.085

0.058

OTHER

14.933

10.235

0.077

14.428*** 3.704

RISK

1.059***

0.224

0.269

1.497***

0.121

0.361

CONCERN

4.448***

0.724

0.341

4.177***

0.380

0.327

FEMALE

15.683***

2.884

0.296

AGE

0.667^

0.353

0.109

14.173***

1.578

0.261

0.372

0.252

0.045

0.262

2.937

0.005

3.527*

1.570

0.066

1.808

2.825

0.034

3.226^

1.678

0.056

LOCALTV

3.526

2.933

0.067

4.757**

1.616

0.084

TVHOURS

0.384

0.871

0.024

0.530

0.359

0.043

VICTIM CRCJ

RADIOWEEK

1.147^

0.623

0.099

0.141

0.258

0.016

NETHOURS

0.066

0.105

0.035

0.102

0.059

0.050

OFTENBLOG

0.195

0.813

0.013

0.753^

0.389

0.055

OFTENDATE

0.503

0.472

0.058

0.430

0.277

0.044

Adjusted R2 N

0.413

0.461

224

701

^ p < 0.08, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

enough to be significant (t ¼ 0.368, ns). The effects of race also become clearer when the sample is disaggregated by nationality. Aboriginal Canadian respondents were substantively more fearful than Americans, but the large standard error for the American subsample does not allow this to achieve statistical significance when the two groups are compared (t ¼ 0.448, ns). Asian Americans had elevated levels of fear, but this difference does not quite achieve statistical significance, just under the threshold for a one-tailed test (t ¼ 1.504, ns). Previous victimization is not a significant predictor of fear for Canadian students, but it is associated with lower levels of fear for the Americans (again, not significant, t ¼ 1.138, ns).


85

Table 6: Regression Results by Area Crime Rate High Crime Campus Area Std. Error

B

(Constant)

0.592

Beta

5.830

Low Crime Campus Area Std. Error

B

14.682

Beta

9.869

0.664

2.734

0.007

28.011*

9.355

0.159

ABORIGINAL

10.339*

4.229

0.074

6.246

18.702

0.018

ASIAN

10.773***

2.906

0.107

6.928

10.773

0.034

OTHER

4.620^

2.530

0.054

2.784

3.750

0.040

BLACK

RISK

1.325***

0.118

0.329

1.665***

0.234

0.398

CONCERN

4.482***

0.390

0.342

2.894***

0.678

0.246

FEMALE

15.526***

1.634

0.281

11.050***

2.598

0.235

AGE

0.381

0.231

0.051

0.639

0.432

0.083

VICTIM

2.184

1.604

0.040

4.892^

2.613

0.106

CRCJ

4.693**

1.623

0.086

0.854

3.593

0.013

CANADIAN

5.068**

1.837

0.087

–

–

–

LOCALTV

3.937*

1.616

0.071

5.136^

2.847

0.096 0.025

0.673

0.394

0.050

0.272

0.604

RADIOWEEK

0.162

0.266

0.017

0.203

0.484

0.022

NETHOURS

0.041

0.058

0.021

0.146

0.108

0.072

OFTENBLOG

0.383

0.398

0.028

0.943

0.716

0.070

OFTENDATE

0.569*

0.278

0.059

0.110

0.440

0.013

TVHOURS

Adjusted R N

2

0.465

0.375

689

236

^ p < 0.08, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001

To assess the impact of campus location, the sample was disaggregated by area crime rate. Those campuses located in metropolitan areas with crime rates higher than the national average (FSU, UTA, and UW) were analysed separately from CSU, which had violent crime rates lower than the U.S. average. The results presented in Table 6 demonstrate that the ‘Canadian’ effect remains significant even when the low crime campus students are removed from the regression equation. Within the high crime campus equation, ‘Canadian’ is a moderately strong and significant predictor of fear (B ¼ 5.068; p < 0.05). The regression coefficient for local TV news on fear of crime is slightly less stable for the low crime campus sub-sample (B ¼ 5.136; SE ¼ 2.847; p < 0.08), but remains a moderately strong predictor of fear in both

86


January 2012

high and low crime campus areas; the difference between the two subsamples for LocalTV is not significant (t ¼ 0.366, ns). Consistent with the resonance perspective, fear levels of students in high crime areas appear to be elevated by local crime news. At the same time, in congruence with the substitution perspective, student fear of crime in low crime areas is also elevated by local TV news. One could argue that, since our results are consistent with both resonance and substitution, both perspectives must be negated. However, we can’t necessarily infer by process of elimination that cultivation theory is supported. Cultivation theory suggests that increased consumption of violent media stories increases fear. However, none of our media consumption variables (TVHOURS, RADIOWEEK, NETHOURS) predicts higher levels of fear in any of our models. Lastly, OFTENDATE is a significant predictor of fear among the high crime campus sub-sample only. It appears that frequent social networkers may be more attuned to local crime issues in high crime urban contexts. Since they are more likely to encounter strangers met online, frequent social networkers may have a heightened sense of fear in cities with higher than average violent crime rates. Again the difference between the two samples for OFTENDATE is not significant, mostly because of the large standard error affecting the low crime student group. Overall, the equation for the low crime rate area sub-sample explains the least amount of variation of fear of crime of any of the models (adjusted R2 ¼ 0.375). Part of this may be due to the lower sub-sample size impairing the stability of the predictors or the attenuation of some effects due to the low crime location. Conversely, the estimate for high crime areas accounts for a greater amount of the variance (adjusted R2 ¼ 0.465) and is, in fact, the best fit of all models considered in this study.

Discussion and conclusion The above analysis demonstrates that many of the usual predictors of fear of crime – female gender, concern about crime, and perceived risk of victimization, in particular – continue to explain a considerable amount of the variation among both American and Canadian university students. This was the case in both higher- and lower-crime-rate urban areas. Surprisingly, UW students were more fearful of crime than American students. This ‘Canadian’ effect on fear remained even after disaggregating the sample by local crime rate level. As with previous research (e.g. Weitzer and Kubrin 2004) local TV news salience


87

was found to be the strongest and most consistent predictor of increased fear of crime of all the media and Internet related variables examined in this study. Interestingly, the effect of media and Internet on fear of crime almost entirely disappeared for UW students when the sample was disaggregated by nationality. Local TV news salience was not a significant predictor of fear for the Canadian student subsample; neither was frequent social networking or blogging. Conversely, local TV news salience and frequent Internet blogging predicted higher fear for the U.S. student sub-sample. The effect of local TV news salience persisted even when the total sample of Canadian and U.S. students was disaggregated by high- and low-crime-rate urban areas. Overall, we were able to explain a larger amount of the variation in fear of crime for the high crime area sub-sample. We cautiously infer from these findings that the resonance perspective holds more potential to explain the impact of media on fear of crime than the substitution hypothesis, particularly for the U.S. student subsample. We also note that, while fear of crime was higher among the UW students, it appears that they were less affected by media exposure and may, in fact, have been reacting to their perceptions of real world conditions. As mentioned above, the Canadian students were drawn from a campus adjacent to a higher crime inner city area, while the U.S. students – even those in higher crime cities – were drawn from suburban campuses. It is possible that the Canadian students in this study felt they were exposed to a greater risk of criminal victimization in their day-to-day lives in and around the campus. As previously noted, the Canadian students’ perceived risk of violent victimization was significantly higher than for their American counterparts. Thus, we cautiously speculate that the Canadian students’ fear of crime was likely driven by their own risk assessments. This study allowed us to examine various forms of media and determine whether these outlets had differential impacts on levels of fear. As noted in the literature, television news salience has long been shown to have an effect on fear of crime (Chiricos et al. 1997; Chiricos et al. 2000; Health and Gilbert 1996; Lane and Meeker 2003; Weitzer and Kubrin 2004). This was confirmed in the present study. National TV news, newspapers, and Internet news salience were associated with lower levels of fear for the full sample of Canadian and U.S. students, which mirrors the findings of Weitzer and Kubrin (2004). However, fear levels tended to increase when the Internet was used for dating and social networking. Given this as well as the vast change

88


janvier 2012

in the Internet as an educational and social networking tool in recent years, additional theoretical development is warranted. It is important to note some limitations of the present study. One weakness in the foregoing analysis is the considerable amount of missing data in the regressions (approximately 35%–40%). Given the number of variables and the nature of the cross-national sample, this was largely unavoidable. Nevertheless, our sample was large enough to allow for robust analysis even with several missing cases. A purposive, non-random sample makes our results hard to generalize to the wider student population in any event. Moreover, nuances in the location of students and campuses within high crime cities were not fully captured by the survey used in the present study. More information about campus location and where participants lived within the broader urban area could help researchers tease out some of the relationships between local context, media, and fear of crime. In the present study, we recognize that the location of UW in the inner city may not be exactly equivalent to that of FSU or UTA, even though all three campuses are located in higher crime cities. As well, a future cross-national study could utilize an additional sub-sample from a northern American university geographically and perhaps culturally closer to Canada. Adding these data to future analyses may allow for a more balanced examination of cultural differences between the two nations. In spite of the limitations noted above, the findings of this study will be of value to policy makers and university administrators as well as criminologists interested in crime and the new online social media. Much discussion has centred on the cyber activities of university students in recent years, and university-age individuals are the demographic group using the Internet the most to facilitate personal communication, social networking, and dating opportunities. Thus, it is not surprising that students in our study reported higher fear when the Internet was used for these activities. Orientation programs on university campuses for first-year and transfer students should stress the dangers of cyber-bullying, online sexual harassment, and other negative consequences of these behaviours but also highlight what universities are doing to protect and aid students who find themselves affected by these activities. More research is needed to clarify the relationship of online activity to fear of crime. Specifically, it would be useful to explore more fully the broad range of online activities associated with social networking,


89

dating, and communication. The present study was carried out just as social networking utilities like Facebook and Twitter were in their infancy. As these online tools have become increasing popular, users of these sites have become more attuned to issues of privacy, confidentiality, and personal safety. Criminologists interested in the fear–media relationship need to better understand these new social media, especially since Facebook and Twitter are growing media of communication among young people and students, in particular, despite being associated with higher levels of fear of crime. Likewise, additional research is needed to fully explore differences in the fear–media relationship between U.S. and Canadian students. In the present study, we can only speculate about the nature and cause of these differences. It is possible that American students in our study showed stronger media effects because of the nature of crime news reporting in the United States. It may be that American local TV news coverage – particularly in higher crime metropolitan areas – elevates fear even more than in a higher crime Canadian city such as Winnipeg. Moreover, a significantly higher percentage of UW students reported newspapers as their primary source of crime news. Given that newspaper salience is associated with lower levels of fear, it is possible that this attenuated the media effects for our Canadian sub-sample. In addition to examining students’ living and social situations, future research should more carefully examine the similarities and differences between local TV news in Canada and the United States. While Dowler (2004) noted many similarities between local television news casts in Ontario and the Midwestern United States, there may be regional differences not detected by his study. In particular, there may be differences in local TV crime reporting in the higher crime cities of Western Canada and the Southern United States. Given this possibility, future research could examine the content of television news in the study sites used here to determine if key differences exist.

Notes 1 The authors wish to thank David Forde for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper. We also wish to thank our university faculty colleagues for allowing us to enter their classrooms to administer this survey. Special thanks are owed to the Brandon University Research Ethics Committee for providing vital assistance with the Canadian ethics review process.

90


January 2012

2 We concede that, given our non-random sampling strategy, tests of significance may appear moot. Still, we feel that they allow readers to ‘‘ground’’ themselves in assessing differences in the data and the reliability of findings. In addition, others have argued that there is value in examining large convenience samples and testing for effects that can be followed up on in later studies (Baron 2011; Hagan and McCarthy 1997). Observing the direction, size of effects, and magnitude and reliability of differences can chart important territory for future investigations. 3 Correlation matrixes and collinearity diagnostics indicate no serious collinearity among any of the independent variables.

References Angotti, Joseph 1997, 6 May National survey finds crime dominates local TV news. Press release from University of Miami Office of Media and External Relations. Baron, Stephen W. 2011 Street youths’ fear of violent crime. Deviant Behavior 32(6): 475–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639621003800554. Barak, Gregg 1994 Media, Process, and the Social Construction of Crime. New York: Garland. Beale, Sara S. 2006 The news media’s influence on criminal justice policy: How marketdriven news promotes punitiveness. William and Mary Law Review 48: 397–481. Byers, Bryan and William B. Powers 1997 Ethical orientations and criminal justice: The effects of major and gender. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 8(2): 163–79. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511259700086281. Chermak, Steven M. 1994 Crime in the news media: A refined understanding of how crime becomes news. In Media, Process and the Social Construction of Crime: Studies in Newsmaking Criminology, ed. G. Barak. New York: Garland. Chermak, Steven M. 1995 Victims in the News: Crime and the American News Media. San Francisco: Westview Press.


91

Chermak, Steven M. 1998 Predicting crime story salience: The effects of crime, victim, and defendant characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice 26(1): 61–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(97)00055-X. Chiricos, Ted, Sarah Eschholz, and Marc Gertz 1997 Crime, news, and fear of crime: Toward an identification of audience effects. Social Problems 44(3): 342–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/ sp.1997.44.3.03x0119o. Chiricos, Ted, Kathy Padgett, and Marc Gertz 2000 Fear, television news, and the reality of crime. Criminology 38(3): 755–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00905.x. Chiricos, Ted, Kelly Welch, and Marc Gertz 2004 Racial typification of crime and support for punitive measures. Criminology 42(2): 358–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00523.x. Clemente, Frank and Michael B. Kleiman 1977 Fear of crime in the United States: A multivariate analysis. Social Forces 56(2): 519–31. Clogg, Clifford C., Eva Petkova, and Adamantios Haritou 1995 Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology 100(5): 1261–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/230638. Conklin, John 1975 The Impact of Crime. New York: MacMillan. Covington, Jeanette and Ralph B. Taylor 1991 Fear of crime in urban residential neighborhoods. Sociological Quarterly 32: 231–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1991.tb00355.x. Cumberbatch, Guy and Dennis Howitt 1989 A Measure of Uncertainty: The Effects of the Mass Media. London: John Libbey. Dauvergne, Mia and John Turner 2010 Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2009. Juristat 30(2). del Carmen, Alejandro, O. Elmer Polk, Caryl Segal, and Robert L. Bing III 2000 Fear of crime on campus: Examining fear variables of CRCJ majors and nonmajors in pre-and post-serious crime environments. Journal of Security Administration 23(1): 21–47.

92


janvier 2012

Ditton, Jason, Derek Chadee, Stephen Farrall, Elizabeth Gilchrist, and Jon Bannister 2004 From imitation to intimidation: A note on the curious and changing relationship between the media, crime and fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology 44(4): 595–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ bjc/azh028. Dobbs, Rhonda R., John W. Stickels, and Sara Jane Mobley 2008 Fear of crime on campus and other perceptions: The impact of being a CRCJ major. Law Enforcement Executive Forum 8(2): 147–66. Dobbs, Rhonda R., Courtney A. Waid, and Tara O’Connor Shelley 2009 Explaining fear of crime as fear of rape among college females: An examination of multiple campuses in the United States. International Journal of Social Inquiry 2(2): 105–22. Doob, Anthony and Glenn MacDonald 1979 Television viewing and fear of victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37(2): 170–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.37.2.170. Doyle, Aaron 2006 How not to think about crime in the media. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 48: 867–85. Dowler, Kenneth 2003 Media consumption and public attitudes toward crime and justice: The relationship between fear of crime, punitive attitudes, and perceived police effectiveness. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture 10: 109–26. Dowler, Kenneth 2004 Comparing American and Canadian local television crime stories: A content analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 46: 573–96. Ericson, Richard, Patricia Baranek, and Janet Chan 1991 Representing Law and Order: Crime, Law and Justice in the News Media. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Eschholz, Sarah 1997 The media and fear of crime: A survey of the research. University of Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy 9: 37–59.


93

Eschholz, Sarah, Ted Chiricos, and Marc Gertz 2003 Television and fear of crime: Program types, audience traits and the mediating effect of perceived neighborhood racial composition. Social Problems 50(3): 395–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.2003.50.3.395. Farnworth, Margaret, Dennis R. Longmire, and Vincent M. West 1998 College Students’ Views on Criminal Justice. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 9(1): 39–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511259800084171. Ferraro, Kenneth F. 1995 Fear of Crime: Interpreting Victimization Risk. New York: State University of New York. Ferraro, Kenneth F. 1996 Women’s fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault? Social Forces 75: 667–90. Flanagin, Andrew J. and Miriam J. Metzger 2000 Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 77: 515–40. Flanagin, Andrew J. and Miriam J. Metzger 2001 Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Communication Research 27(1): 153–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hcr/ 27.1.153. Forde, David R. 1993 Perceived crime, fear of crime, and walking alone at night. Psychological Reports 73(2): 403–07. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1993.73.2.403. Garofalo, James 1981 Crime and the mass media: A selective review of research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 18(2): 319–50. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/002242788101800207. Gerbner, George and Larry Gross 1976 Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication 26(2): 172–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x. Gerbner, George, Larry Gross, Michael Morgan, and Nancy Signorielli 1980 The mainstreaming of America: Violence profile No. 11. Journal of Communication 30(3): 10–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1980.tb01987.x.

94


January 2012

Gilchrist, Elizabeth, Jon Bannister, Jason Ditton, and Stephen Farrall 1998 Women and the fear of crime: Challenging the accepted stereotype. British Journal of Criminology 38: 283–98. Gordon, Margaret T., Stephanie Riger, Robert K. LeBailly, and Linda Heath 1980 Crime, women, and the quality of urban life. Signs 5(3): S143–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/495716. Graber, Doris 1980 Crime New and the Public. New York: Praeger. Gray, Emily, Jonathan Jackson, and Stephen Farrall 2008 Reassessing the fear of crime. Journal of European Criminology 5(3): 363–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1477370808090834. Gray, Emily, Jonathan Jackson, and Stephen Farrall 2011 Feelings and functions in the fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology 51(1): 75–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azq066. Gunter, Barrie 1987 Television and the fear of crime. London: John Libbey. Hagan, John and Bill McCarthy 1997 Mean streets: Youth crime and homelessness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625497. Hale, Chris 1996 Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of Victimology 4: 79–150. Heath, Linda and John Petraitis 1987 Television viewing and fear of crime. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 8: 97–123. Heath, Linda and Kevin Gilbert 1996 Mass media and fear of crime. American Behavioral Scientist 39(4): 379–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764296039004003. Hensley, Christopher, Richard Tewksbury, Alexis Miller, and Mary Koscheski 2002 Criminal justice and non-criminal justice students’ views of U.S. correctional issues. Justice Professional 15(4): 303–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0888431022000070421.


95

Hirsch, Paul M. 1980 The ‘‘scary world’’ of the nonviewer and other anomalies: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.’s findings on cultivation analysis. Part 1. Communication Research 7: 403–56. Hughes, Michael 1980 The fruits of cultivation analysis: A reexamination of some effects of television watching. Public Opinion Quarterly 44(3): 287–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268597. Jackson, Jonathan and Emily Gray 2010 Functional fear and public insecurities about crime. British Journal of Criminology 50(1): 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azp059. Jaehnig, Walter B., David H. Weaver, and Frederick Fico 1981 Reporting crime and fearing crime in three communities. Journal of Communication 31(1): 88–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1981.tb01208.x. Killias, Martin and Christian Clerici 2000 Different measures of vulnerability in their relation to different dimensions of fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology 40(3): 437–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/40.3.437. Klite, Paul, Robert A. Bardwell, and Jason Salzman 1997 Bad News: Local TV News in America. Denver, CO: Rocky Mountain Media Watch. Kohm, Steven 2009 Spatial dimensions of fear in a high crime community: Fear of crime or fear of disorder? Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 51(1): 1–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.51.1.1. Lam, Anita, Jennifer Mitchell, and Michael C. Seto 2010 Lay perceptions of child pornography offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 52(2): 173–201. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3138/cjccj.52.2.173. Lambert, Eric 2005 Worlds apart: A preliminary study of the views on crime and punishment among white and minority college students. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society 18: 99–121. Lambert, Eric 2004 Assessing the crime and punishment views of criminal justice majors: How different are they from other majors? Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society 17: 245–57.

96


janvier 2012

Lambert, Eric, David Baker, and Kasey Tucker 2006 Two Americas: Capital punishment views among Canadian and U.S. college students. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences 1: 1–21. Lambert, Eric and Alan Clarke 2004 Crime, capital punishment, and knowledge: Are criminal justice majors better informed than other majors about crime and capital punishment? Social Science Journal 41(1): 53–66. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.soscij.2003.10.005. Lane, Jodi and James W. Meeker 2003 Women’s and men’s fear of gang crimes: Sexual and nonsexual assault as perceptually contemporaneous offenses. Justice Quarterly 20(2): 337–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418820300095551. Lavrakas, Paul J. 1987 Telephone Survey Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Liska, Allen E. and William Baccaglini 1990 Feeling safe by comparison: Crime in the newspapers. Social Problems 37(3): 360–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.1990.37.3.03a00060. Mackey, David A. and Kevin E. Courtright 2000 Assessing punitiveness among college students: A comparison of criminal justice majors with other majors. Justice Professional 12(4): 423–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2000.9959561. McIntyre, Jennie 1967 Public attitudes toward crime and law enforcement. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 374(1): 34–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000271626737400104. Ortega, Suzanne T. and Jessie L. Myles 1987 Race and gender effects on the fear of crime: An interactive model with age. Criminology 25(1): 133–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00792.x. Parker, Keith D. and Melvin C. Ray 1990 Fear of crime: An assessment of related factors. Sociological Spectrum 10(1): 29–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02732173.1990.9981910. Paternoster, Raymond, Robert Brame, Paul Mazerolle, and Alex Piquero 1998 Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology 36(4): 859–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.17459125.1998.tb01268.x.


97

Rainie, Lee 2010 Internet, Broadband and Cell Phone Statistics. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_ December09_update.pdf. Reiner, Robert 2002 Media made criminality: The representation of crime in the mass media. In The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, ed. M. Maguire Reiner, and R. Morgan. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ricciardelli, Rosemary, James G. Bell, and Kimberley A. Clow 2009 Student Attitudes toward Wrongful Conviction. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 51(3): 411–27. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.3138/cjccj.51.3.411. Riger, Stephanie, Margaret T. Gordon, and Robert K. LeBailly 1978 Women’s fear of crime from blaming to restricting the victim. Victimology 3: 274–84. Roberts, Julian V. 2001 Fear of Crime and Attitudes to Criminal Justice in Canada: A Review of Recent Trends. Report of the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada. Ottawa: Ministry of the Solicitor General. Roberts, Julian V. and Anthony N. Doob 1990 News media influences on public views of sentencing. Law and Human Behavior 14(5): 451–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01044222. Romer, Daniel, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, and Sean Aday 2003 Television news and the cultivation of fear of crime. Journal of Communication 53(1): 88–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2003.tb03007.x. Rountree, Pamela and Kenneth Land 1996 Perceived risk versus fear of crime: Empirical evidence of conceptually distinct reactions in survey data. Social Forces 74: 1354–77. Sacco, Vincent 2005 When Crime Waves. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shrum, L. J. 2002 Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and underlying processes. In Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research, ed. J. Bryant and D. Zillmann. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

98


January 2012

Skogan, Wesley and Michael Maxfield 1981 Coping with Crime: Individual and Neighborhood Reactions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Sparks, Richard 1992 Television and the Drama of Crime. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Stanko, Elizabeth 1995 Women, crime, and fear. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 539(1): 46–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0002716295539001004. Straus, Murray 2009 The national context effect: An empirical test of the validity of crossnational research using unrepresentative samples. Cross-Cultural Research 43(3): 183–205. Stretesky, Paul and Michael Hogan 2001 Columbine and student perceptions of safety: A quasi-experimental study. Journal of Criminal Justice 29(5): 429–43. Surette, Ray 1984 Justice and Media: Issues and Research. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas. Surette, Ray 1990 Media and Criminal Justice Policy: Recent Research and Social Effects. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas. Surette, Ray 1998 Media Crime, and Criminal Justice: Images and Realities. 2nd ed. New York: Wadsworth. Surette, Ray 2007 Media Crime, and Criminal Justice: Images and Realities. 3rd ed. New York: Wadsworth. Taylor, Ralph B. and Margaret Hale 1986 Testing alternative models of fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 77(1): 151–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1143593. Tomsich, Elizabeth, Angela Gover, and Wesley Jennings 2011 Examining the Role of Gender in the Prevalence of Campus Victimization, Perceptions of Fear and Risk of Crime, and the Use of Constrained Behaviors among College Students Attending a Large Urban University. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 22(2): 181–202. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2010.517772.


99

Tsoudis, Olga 2000 Does Majoring in Criminal Justice Affect Perceptions of Criminal Justice? Journal of Criminal Justice Education 11(2): 225–36. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511250000084881. Federal Bureau of Investigation 2010 Crime in the United States 2010. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010. van Dijk, Jan, John van Kesteren, and Paul Smit 2007 Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective: Key findings from the 2004–2005 ICVS and EU ICS. The Hague: Boom Legal. Vandiver, Margaret and David Giacopassi 1997 One million and counting: Students’ estimates of the annual number of homicides in the U.S. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 8(2): 135–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511259700086261. Warr, Mark 1984 Fear of victimization: Why are women and the elderly more afraid? Social Science Quarterly 65: 681–702. Warr, Mark 2000 Fear of crime in the United States: Avenue for research and policy. In Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, ed. D. Duffee. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Weaver, James and Jacob Wakshlag 1986 Perceived vulnerability to crime, criminal victimization experience, and television viewing. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 30(2): 141–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838158609386616. Weinrath, Michael and John Gartrell 1996 Victimization and fear of crime. Violence and Victims 11: 187–97. Weinrath, Michael 2000 Violent victimization and fear of crime among Canadian Aboriginals. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 30(1–2): 107–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J076v30n01_07. Weinrath, Michael, Kristin Clarke, and David Forde 2007 Trends in fear of crime in a Western Canadian city: 1984, 1994, and 2004. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 49(5): 617–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.49.5.617.

100


janvier 2012

Weitzer, Ronald and Charis E. Kubrin 2004 Breaking news: How local TV news and real-world conditions affect fear of crime. Justice Quarterly 21(3): 497–520. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/07418820400095881. Wiecko, Filip 2010 Research note – Assessing the validity of college samples: Are students really that different? Journal of Criminal Justice 38(6): 1186–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.09.007. Williams, Paul and Julie Dickinson 1993 Fear of crime: Read all about it. British Journal of Criminology 33: 33– 56. Winterdyk, John and Nikki Thompson 2008 Student and non-student perceptions and awareness of identity theft. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 50(2): 153–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.50.2.153. Zillman, Dolf and Jacob Wakshlag 1985 Fear of victimization and the appeal of crime drama. In Selective Exposure to Communication, ed. D. Zillman and J. Bryan. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice is the property of University of Toronto Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.