Running head: REACTIONS TO CRIME IN ITALY
A Predictive Model for Psychological Reactions to Crime in Italy: An Analysis of Fear of Crime and Concern about Crime as a Social Problem
Piero Amerio and Michele Roccato University of Torino
Authors note
Piero Amerio and Michele Roccato, Department of Psychology, University of Torino, Italy.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michele Roccato, Department of Psychology, University of Torino, Via Verdi, 10, 10124 Torino, Italy. Telephone: ++390116702015, Fax: ++390116702061, E-mail: roccato@psych.unito.it
Abstract
We built a model for predicting fear of crime (FC) and concern about crime as a social problem (CC) in Italy, using three sets of independent variables concerning: (a) the sociodemographic and criminal victimization domain; (b) the psychosocial domain; and (c) the mass media. We performed a secondary analysis on data gathered by the Observatory of the North-West (N = 3,262, a mail panel that is representative of the Italian population over 18). Results showed that FC and CC are related yet distinct constructs: FC is less widespread than CC, and has different predictors. FC predictors are sociodemographic, psychosocial and, above all, victimization variables; whereas mass media and psychosocial variables predict CC. Results were compared with the literature on the topic. Implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed.
Key words: Fear of crime, Social concerns, Feeling of unsafety, Victimization, Mass media
A Predictive Model for Psychological Reactions to Crime in Italy
Unsafety (as well as similar terms such as uncertainty, risk, and danger) has become a very popular word. It is used by people and the mass media, and it is a category systematically used in criminological and sociological analysis. It is also commonly used in the political arena: Politicians resort to the concept of unsafety, as a means for covering up other problems on the agenda, and as an effective tool of
ideological manipulation (Amerio, 2004). Unsafety – regarding the individual in his/her living context, as well as collective life, and social institutions – is becoming the
problem of our time (Amerio, 1999). Perhaps more serious problems afflict individuals and communities, but safety basically comprises them all. Projects on, allocation and management of material and human resources, personal feelings and social relations seem to be connected to a need for safety that, when it is not met, can bring about serious consequences at the personal as well as at the social level.
Unsafety can have negative consequences on individuals, as it concerns both their psychological sphere (anxiety, distrust, disempowerment, dissatisfaction with life, and even mental illness), and behaviors aimed to face unsafety (reduction of social
activities, constraints on one’s life, drug use, etc.). It can also cause negative social consequences, such as decreased cohesion and solidarity or, by contrast, the development of communities, whose solidity depends on their being closed and
reactionary, and whose survival is based on exclusion and delegitimization of those who are different. Under severe unsafe conditions, the personal and social levels merge and can generate an “ideology of safety” that can turn the legitimate demand for living in
safe communities into an attempt to legitimize the most violent racist and xenophobic behaviors (Jeudy, 1986; Pitch, 2001).
Unsafety has been studied principally in terms of psychological reactions to crime; research has focused on their main predictors and correlates. Traditionally, dependent variables have been questions such as “How safe do you feel or would you feel being out alone in your neighborhood at night (day)?” (US National Crime Survey: NCS) and “Is there any area right around here – that is, within a mile – where you would be afraid to walk alone at night?” (General Social Survey: GSS). However, many authors agree that psychological reactions to crime are a multidimensional construct. According to Rountree (1998; see also Rountree & Land, 1996; Lane & Meeker, 2003), psychological reactions to crime have a cognitive dimension (the perceived risk of crime) and an affective dimension (the affective response to crime: for example, being afraid of crime). Winkel (1998) draws a distinction between subjective victimization risk and perceived negative impact associated with victimization. Finally, Furstenberg (1971) distinguishes between two psychological reactions to crime. The first one is fear of crime (FC), a sensation of agitation or anxiety for one’s own safety or that of one’s personal property. This is a fear which is not experienced only in the actual moment of danger, but also as a reaction to a danger which is only potential. The second is concern about crime as a social problem (CC). This is a feeling not so much linked to personal fear of being the victim of a crime, but to a state of agitation concerning the spread of criminal acts in one’s own country. CC accordingly concerns the safety and well-being of the community in its entirety, rather than those of the individual.
FC and CC have been operationalized in many different forms. FC has been operationalized with single items, frequently NCS- and GSS-like (e. g. Roché, 1993;
Rountree & Land, 1996) or scales (Lane & Meeker, 2003; Perkins & Taylor, 1996; Warr, 1995; Warr & Stafford, 1983). In any case, the measurement of FC has always made reference to the life space of the subjects interviewed (home, block,
neighborhood, quarter, city) and not to the country in its entirety. On the other hand, CC has been operationalized by asking the subjects interviewed how serious the problem of criminality in their country is (Nardi, 2003), or if, in their opinion, criminality will increase in the years following the survey (Roché, 1993), or which of a series of problems (among which is criminality) is the most important problem which should be handled by the government (Diamanti & Bordignon, 2001). The questions used have accordingly been constructed in abstract form or have referred to the country in which the subjects interviewed live, rather than to their life space.
Empirical data show that the correlation between fear and concern is weak (Roché, 1993), and that individuals tend to show more CC than FC (Warr, 1995). Not much in-depth attention has been devoted to the predictors of CC. In fact, the literature does little more than claim that CC does not depend as much on victimization as on the individual’s value system and world outlook (Amerio, Gattino, & Roccato, 2004; Nardi, 2003), and is particularly affected by exposure to the mass media (Heath & Petraitis, 1987).
On the other hand, many studies have considered the predictors of FC. The most popular models (which, in this study, we will call “traditional models”) mainly use sociodemographic and victimization variables as FC predictors. With regard to the former, mainly gender, age, socio-economic status, race, urbanization of the area of residence were used. With regard to the latter, the single items used concerned direct victimization – “In the last year (or in the last few years), have you been the victim of
an episode of micro-criminality?”) – and indirect victimization – “In the last year (or in the last few years), has any of your friends or relatives been the victim of an episode of micro-criminality?”. Also used were check-lists, in which the subjects interviewed were asked to indicate whether, in the last year or in the last few years, they had been the victims of a series of crimes of the micro-criminality type. The literature refers to micro-criminal victimization (robbery, bag-snatching, pickpocketing, aggression, fraud, etc.) and not to criminal victimization, because it has been shown that the former has much more of an effect on FC than the latter (Violante, 1999). The results show that, with regard to sociodemographic variables, fear of crime is higher (a) among women (only when fear of rape is not controlled for) (Ferraro, 1995); (b) among youths (Lane & Meeker, 2003; Warr, 1995); (c) among low-status individuals, i.e. among non-whites (Liska, Sanchirico, & Reed, 1988; Rohe & Burby, 1988), the poor (Kanan & Pruitt, 2002; Pantazis, 2000), and the less educated (Kennedy & Silverman, 1985); and (d) among those who live in urban areas (Kuo, Bacaicoa, & Sullivan, 1998; Mela, 2003; Miceli, Roccato, & Rosato, in press; Perkins, Wandersman, Rich, & Taylor, 1993). With regard to victimization, its link to fear of crime is weak (Balkin, 1979). However, the relation is stronger when controlling for the most important vulnerability variables (namely sex, age, skin color, and income) (Rosenbaum & Heath, 1990; Tulloch, 2000).
In any event, several alternative models have been developed, in an attempt to overcome the principal limitation of the traditional models – that is, the fact that they do not take into account the ways in which people represent, evaluate and interpret the risk of becoming victims and their consequences (Ferraro, 1995), and their relationships with others and with the community in which they live (Amerio & Roccato, 2004). Several have specifically identified psychosocial predictors of fear of crime. The first
model was developed by Van der Wurff, Van Staalduinen and Stringer (1989) and identifies four psychosocial variables predicting fear of crime: (a) attractivity (the perception of being an attractive target for criminal acts); (b) evil intent (the degree to which a person ascribes criminal intents to another individual or to a given group); (c) power (the sense of self-assurance and the feeling of control relative to potential crime threats); and (d) criminalizable space (the perception that a given situation can lead to personal victimization). More recently, researchers have shown that fear of crime is promoted by the personal involvement in negative, even though not necessarily criminal, experiences in the area of residence (Zani, Cicognani, & Albanesi, 2001).
Other models have studied the relation between exposure to mass media and fear of crime. These models rest on the notion that the mass media devote a disproportionate amount of space to crime compared to its effective diffusion, and describe it in rather dramatic tones. This can spread fear among users, even when users are not specifically vulnerable or victimized. Results show that the effects of newspapers and television on reactions to crime are complex, and that they are amplified on the basis of: (a) the sensationalism of news and the degree of randomness of reported crime (Heath & Gilbert, 1996; Koomen, Visser, & Stapel, 2000); (b) personal characteristics of the audience (essentially, vulnerability, previous victimization, and belief in the reality of TV news) (Chiricos, Padgett, & Gertz, 2000; Weaver & Wakshlag, 1986); and (c) social characteristics of the audience (essentially, the degree of social isolation, and the degree of social peripherality) (Lane & Meeker, 2003).
Recently, Farrall, Bannister, Ditton, and Gilchrist (2000) have found that the traditional model has higher predictive power when integrated with the psychosocial model. By contrast, Lane and Meeker (2003) have shown that the mass media model
increases its predictive power when combined with the traditional model, in order to account for the characteristics of the mass media audience. However, to the best of our knowledge, no approach has ever analyzed psychological reactions to crime by
integrating the traditional, the psychosocial, and the mass media models.
Goals
This study had two objectives. The first was to determine how many Italians show FC and CC. The second was to try to predict FC and CC in Italy comparing the
predictive power of the traditional, the psychosocial, and the mass media model separately and conjointly.
Method Data set
We performed a secondary analysis on 2002 and 2003 data gathered by the Observatory of the North-West, a research institute of the University of Torino. Three times a year, the Observatory probes the Italian public opinion on various issues concerning culture, politics, economy, and society. The sample is a mail panel consisting of 3,262 people who were interviewed in September-October 2002 and January-February 2003. The sample is representative of the Italian population over 18 years. We used four sets of variables.
1. Reactions to crime. We used the following four-category items: (a) “Think of micro-criminality. How would you define the situation regarding this problem in your area of residence?”; (b) “Think of micro-criminality. How would you define the situation regarding this problem in Italy?”. In view of the fact that the first item makes
reference to criminality in the life space of the subject interviewed, whereas the second makes reference to criminality throughout Italy, we considered these items as
operationalizations of fear of crime (FC) and concern about crime as a social problem (CC) respectively.
2. Variables pertaining to the traditional model: sex, age (in both linear and quadratic forms), years of formal education, job, number of family members, size of area of residence, geopolitical area of residence, direct victimization, and indirect victimization.1 We considered as directly victimized those people who have been victims of micro crimes over the last three years (thefts, pocket-picking, aggressions, fraud, etc.). We considered as indirectly victimized those people who have had a family member, a relative, a friend or an acquaintance being a victim of micro-criminality during the last three years.
3. Psychosocial variables: satisfaction with one’s life, ethnic prejudice, predictions on the state of the Italian economy over the next 12 months, predictions on the state of one’s economic conditions over the next six months, perception of the state of one’s economic conditions over the last 12 months, trust in others, trust in Italians in general, and political disempowerment. Apart from ethnic prejudice and political
disempowerment, all these variables were assessed through single items. Ethnic prejudice ( = .64) was assessed by summing the answers to four Likert items such as “Most irregular immigrants commit criminal activities” and “Immigrants living in Italy contribute to the cultural enrichment of our country”. Political disempowerment ( = . 85) was assessed by summing the answers to six Likert items such as “People like me have no influence on government policies” and “Sometimes politics seem so
4. Mass media variables: estimate of the minutes of daily exposure to Rai channels, estimate of the minutes of daily exposure to Mediaset channels, estimate of daily exposure to La7, estimate of the minutes of daily exposure to minor and local channels, weekly frequency of newspaper reading and of television news watching.2
Data analysis
We initially calculated the frequency of Italians who showed much or some FC and much or some CC. We then correlated FC and CC individual scores. In line with the models by Furstenberg (1971) and Roché (1993), we expected to find a weak
relationship between the constructs. Then, we built 14 logistic models (stepwise method), seven of them predicting FC and seven predicting CC. We compared the predictive power of the traditional model, the psychosocial model and the mass media model, and their various combinations.3 Among them, we chose those models that obtained the best balance between fit (assessed through Nagelkerke r2) and parsimony (assessed by counting the number of independent variables that significantly influenced either FC or CC). We thus attempted to identify the main FC and CC predictors in Italy.
Results
Distribution of Fear of Crime and Concern about Crime as a Social Problem Tables 1 and 2 show that FC and CC have different distributions in the Italian population. Most Italians (56.7%) have low FC at the personal level but are quite or very concerned (96.5%) about criminality as a social problem. However, as predicted, FC and CC significantly correlate (rho = .23, p < .000).
Prediction of Fear of Crime
Table 3 reports the predictive power of the traditional model, the psychosocial model, the mass media model, and their combinations. The first column reports the percentage of FC variance explained by each model. The second column reports the number of independent variables included in each model. Analyzing single models, results show that the traditional model has higher predictive power than both the
psychosocial and the mass media ones. However, the most effective model results from the combination of the traditional and the psychosocial models: Their combination significantly increases the traditional model fit (Nagelkerke r2 = + 0.13), without
causing a drastic reduction in parsimony (the number of independent variables increases by just one unit).4
Table 4 shows that victimization exerts the strongest influence on FC, in particular direct victimization. Ceteris paribus, people being directly victimized over the last three years are seven times more likely to be afraid of crime than those who have not been victimized in the same period. To a lesser extent, also indirect
victimization strongly affects FC.
The other variables have a minor influence on FC. Among them,
sociodemographic variables play the most important role. Residence in a big city, residence in Southern Italy or Italian Islands, and not having a job increase the
likelihood of being afraid; whereas the number of family members decreases FC. Age makes a small contribution to FC. The combination of the linear and quadratic
components of age shows that being young or old has a positive effect on FC.
The only psychosocial variables influencing FC are ethnic prejudice and distrust of others: Both exert a positive influence on our dependent variable.
Prediction of Concern about Crime as a Social Problem
Table 5 shows that the most promising model for predicting CC is the
psychosocial model, while the traditional and the mass media models are less effective. However, the most satisfactory model, because it maximizes the ratio between fit and parsimony, is the model that integrates the psychosocial and mass media models. The combination of the three models (that also includes the traditional variables) has a slightly higher explanatory power but twice the number of independent variables.
Table 6 shows that the variable exerting the strongest influence on CC is frequency of news watching. Those people who report watching the news always or often are almost six times more likely to be concerned about crime in Italy than those who seldom or never watch the news. The overall duration of daily television exposure has no influence whatsoever with regard to the main Italian broadcasting networks (Rai and Mediaset), and have a mild negative influence as concerns La7.
The other variables positively affecting CC are psychosocial: in order of
importance, they are distrust of others, distrust of Italians in general, ethnic prejudice, and political disempowerment.
Discussion
Our study showed that Italians are highly concerned about crimes (CC) in their country, but on the whole are little frightened by the crime in their area of residence (FC). Even though correlated, CC and FC can thus be considered as different ways of representing and assessing the social context. Indeed, the variables influencing them are essentially different.
The majority of the variables which we found to influence FC in Italy correspond to those isolated in the literature. The variables primarily affecting FC are victimization (as in Balkin, 1979; Rosenbaum & Heath, 1990; Tulloch, 2000) and the sociological variables of the traditional model (see Kanan & Pruitt, 2002; Kuo, Bacaicoa, & Sullivan, 1998; Miceli, Roccato, & Rosato, in press; Pantazis, 2000; Perkins et al., 1993): urbanization of the residential area, socio-economic disadvantage, socio-cultural degradation, and social isolation. However, with regard to sex and age, differences emerged compared to other studies (Ferraro, 1995; Lane & Meeker, 2003; Warr, 1995). As our data set did not include a variable assessing fear of sexual victimization, we could not partial it out. Nevertheless, no differences in FC emerged as a function of sex. In addition, not only youths but also the elderly turned out to be the most frightened.
As concerns FC, moreover, our research showed that the objective variables in the traditional model can be fruitfully integrated with some psychosocial variables (distrust of others and ethnic prejudice) which express the ways of perceiving, representing and evaluating one’s own social world.
By means of our model, we confirmed that the variables primarily affecting CC: (a) express the ways people perceive, represent and evaluate their social world (cf. Amerio, Gattino, & Roccato, 2004; Nardi, 2003), and (b) belong to the mass media domain (Heath & Petraitis, 1987). In fact, the principal variable exerting a relevant influence on CC is frequency of news watching. Also very important are the variables which belong to the psychosocial domain (distrust of others, distrust of Italians, ethnic prejudice, and political disempowerment). As described by Ross, Mirowsky, and Pribesh (2001), the predictors we identified show that the deterioration of social
relations and distrust of politics play a relevant role in orienting the way Italians perceive their relations with their country (Amerio, 2004).
Further, media play a different role in FC and CC. Data showed that media have a weak influence on fear of personal crime, while they have a strong influence on CC as a social problem. In other words, our study stresses the importance of media in
influencing the way people perceive, represent and evaluate their social relations (Romer, Jamieson, & Aday, 2003). As Skogan and Maxfield (1981) wrote,
most media stories about crime contain little useful information for readers which would enable them to assess their own risk. The location of crime is often not specified, and there is seldom-sufficient information about victims and offenders for readers to estimate the risks to people like themselves. … In addition, many media accounts concern crimes that take place in other cities or nations, or involve very unlikely (and thus “newsworthy”) circumstances. … Television drama is not even concerned with real events, and tends to be an unreliable guide to real-world events (p. 143).
A final remark concerns the advantages and limitations of the secondary analysis we performed in this study. Secondary analysis allowed us to obtain low-cost results that could be extended to the whole Italian population. In our opinion, the
generalizability of the results constitutes a great advantage for our research, because the psychological reactions to crime, being relevant not only to individuals, but to
community organizations, constitute a problem which deserves to be studied with reference to the general population. However, in analyzing the file of the Observatory of the North-West, we had to measure FC and CC with single items and not with scales.
This prevented us from testing the reliability of the measurement of FC and CC (cf. Bilsky & Wetzels, 1997). In addition, the measurements of FC and CC which we used do not correspond 1:1 with those presented in the literature. Studies on representative samples, with a view to more precise measurement of the constructs investigated by the authors of this work, would naturally be desirable.
Conclusion
In our opinion, two principal conclusions may be drawn from our data. First of all: the individual level of FC is mostly derived from direct experience with criminality, whereas that of CC is mostly derived from the probability of being exposed to stories of criminal events presented by the mass media. These results, which reflect the media’s vast responsibility for shaping, at least in part, the opinions and attitudes of the
population, appear to confirm, at least with regard to CC, the efficacy of the “cultivation theory” propounded by Gerbner and Gross (1976). In brief, this theory claims that the mass media “cultivate” within their audience a view of the world as a more dangerous place than it is in reality. It should nonetheless be noted that our model was not capable of adequately taking into account the way in which people watch TV or read the papers. This is a rather important limitation. In fact, cognitive psychology has shown for a number of years that consumers of the mass media, far from being passive subjects who believe everything served up to them exactly as it is served up to them, are, rather, information processors, actively processing the messages they receive and
re-constructing the meaning thereof (Amerio, 1991; Kinder & Sears, 1985; Lau & Sears, 1986). Just as one would think, the socio-demographic variables we used can constitute a series of “proxies” of the individual characteristics of the audience. In any event, we
believe that more in-depth study of these variables, oriented toward social cognition models, could definitely be worthwhile.
Secondly, in view of the fact that the principal predictor of FC is victimization (direct and indirect), we believe we have shown that the policy makers should develop intervention programs aimed at helping victimized persons to cope with their experience of victimization. A policy of this type would be extremely relevant, not only on the individual level – to help the victimized persons protect their quality of life – but also on the social level, given that high levels of FC can also have a negative effect on the quality of life of the community (Marris, 1996).
References
Albano, R., Gattino, S., Loera, B., Ricolfi, L., Roccato, M., Testa, S., & Torrioni, P. (1999). Quanti voti sposta la tv in un periodo “freddo”? The effects of television on elections in a “cold” time. Politial and Economic Trends, 5, 38-49.
Albano, R., Loera, B., Ricolfi, L., Roccato, M., Testa, S., & Torrioni, P. (2000). Il voto europeo e la tv Television and the European elections. Political and Economic Trends, 7, 32-47.
Amerio, P. (1991). Perspectives theoriques cognitives et sociales en psychologie politique Theoretical perspectives on cognitive and social political psychology. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 4, 209-229.
Amerio, P. (1999). Dimensioni della sicurezza [Dimensions of security]. In P. Amerio (Ed.), Il senso della sicurezza [The sense of security] (pp.15-22). Milano: Unicopli.
Amerio, P. (2004). Problemi umani in comunità di massa Human problems in mass communities. Torino: Einaudi.
Amerio, P., Gattino, S., & Roccato, M. (2004). Insécurité et représentation du domaine politique Unsafety and representation of the political world. Psychologie et société, 7, 89-114.
Amerio, P., & Roccato, M. (2004). Structure multi-facettée du sentiment d’insécurité Multifaceted structure of the feeling of unsafety. Psychologie et société, 7, 47-70. Balkin, S. (1979). Victimization rates, safety and fear of crime. Social Problems, 26,
343-358.
Bilsky, W., & Wetzels, P. (1997). On the relationship between criminal victimization and fear of crime. Psychology, Crime and Law, 3, 309-318.
Chiricos, T., Padgett, K., & Gertz, M. (2000). Fear, TV news, and the reality of crime. Criminology, 38, 775-785.
Diamanti, I., & Bordignon, F. (2001). Sicurezza e opinione pubblica in Italia [Safety and public opinion in Italy]. Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 42, 115-133.
Farrall, S., Bannister, J., Ditton, J., & Gilchrist, E. (2000). Social psychology and the fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 40, 399-413.
Ferraro, K. F. (1995). Fear of crime. Interpreting victimization risk. New York: State University of New York Press.
Furstenberg, F. (1971). Public reactions to crime in the streets. American Scholar, 40, 601-610.
Gattino, S., Loera, B., Ricolfi, L., Roccato, M., Testa, S., & Torrioni, P. (1998). Preferenze elettorali e televisione Electoral preferences and television. Political Trend, 32, 33-44.
Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 173-199.
Heath, L., & Gilbert, K. (1996). Mass media and fear of crime. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 379-386.
Heath, L., & Petraitis, J. (1987). Television viewing and fear of crime: Where is the mean world? Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 8, 97-123.
Jeudy, H.-P. (1986). Les enjeux de l’insécurité Stakes of unsafety. Informations sociales, 6, 6-11.
Kanan, J. W., & Pruitt, M. V. (2002). Modeling fear of crime and perceived
victimization risk: The (in)significance of neighborhood integration. Sociological Inquiry, 72, 527-548.
Kennedy, L. W., & Silverman, R. A. (1985). Perception of social diversity and fear of crime. Environment and Behavior, 17, 275-295.
Kinder, D.R., & Sears, D.O. (1985). Public opinion and political action. In G. Lindzay, & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 659-741). New York: Random House.
Koomen, W., Visser, M., & Stapel, D. A. (2000). The credibility of newspapers and fear of crime. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 921-934.
Kuo, F. E, Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes: Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 28-59.
Lane, J., & Meeker, J. W. (2003). Ethnicity, information sources, and fear of crime. Deviant Berhavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24, 1-26.
Liska, A. E., Sanchirico, A., & Reed M. D. (1988). Fear of crime and constrained behavior specifying and estimating a reciprocal effects model. Social Forces, 66, 827-837.
Marris, P. (1996). The politics of uncertainty: Attachment in private and public life. London; New York: Routledge.
Mela, A. (2003). L’insicurezza urbana: Un fenomeno con molte facce [Urban
insecurity: A multifaceted phenomenon]. In A. Mela (Ed.), La città ansiogena [The anxiogenous city] (pp. 1-21). Napoli: Liguori.
Miceli, R., Roccato, M., & Rosato, R. (in press). Fear of crime in Italy: Spread and determinants. Environment and Behavior.
Nardi, L. (2003). Il senso di insicurezza [The feeling of unsafety]. In M. Barbagli (Ed.), Rapporto sulla criminalità in Italia [Report on criminality in Italy] (pp. 525-554). Bologna: Il Mulino.
Pantazis, C. (2000). “Fear of crime”, vulnerability and poverty. British Journal of Criminology, 40, 414-436.
Perkins, D. D., & Taylor, R. (1996). Ecological assessment of community disorders: Their relationship to fear of crime and theoretical implications. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 63-107.
Perkins, D. D., Wandersman, A. H., Rich, R. C., & Taylor, R. B. (1993). The physical environment of street crime: Defensible space, territoriality and incivilities. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 29-49.
Pitch, T. (2001). Sono possibili politiche democratiche per la sicurezza? Is it possible to promote safety by democratic policies? Rassegna Italiana di Sociologia, 42, 137-157.
Ricolfi, L. (1994). Elezioni e mass media. Quanti voti ha spostato la tv Elections and the mass media. Effects of televisions on voting. Il Mulino, 43, 1031-1044.
Ricolfi, L. (1997). Politics and the mass media in Italy. West European Politics, 1, 135-156.
Roché, S. (1993). Le sentiment d’insécurité The feeling of unsafety. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Rohe, W. M., & Burby, R. J. (1988). Fear of crime in public housing. Environment and Behavior, 20, 700-720.
Romer, D., Jamieson, C. H., & Aday, S. (2003). Television news and the cultivation of fear of crime. Journal of Communication, 53, 88-104.
Rosenbaum, D. P., & Heath, L. (1990). The “psycho-logic” of fear reduction and crime-prevention programs. In J. Edwards, R. S. Tindale, L. Heath, & J. Posavac (Eds), Social influence and prevention (pp. 221-247). New York: Plenum Press.
Ross, C. E., Mirowsky, J., & Pribesh, S. (2001). Powerlessness and the amplification of threat: Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and mistrust. American Sociological Review, 66, 568-591.
Rountree, P. W. (1998). A re-examination of the crime-fear linkage. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 341-372.
Rountree, P. W., & Land, K. C. (1996). Perceived risk versus fear of crime: Empirical evidence of conceptually distinct reactions in survey data. Social Forces, 74, 1353-1376.
Testa, S., Loera, B., & Ricolfi, L. (2002). Sorpasso? Il ruolo della televisione nelle elezioni politiche del 2001 Overtaking? The role of television in 2001 Italian political elections. Comunicazione politica, 3, 101-115.
Tulloch, M. (2000). The meaning of age differences in the fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 40, 451-467.
Van der Wurff, A., Van Staalduinen, L., & Stringer, P. (1989). Fear of crime in residential environments: Testing a social psychological model. Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 141-160.
Violante, L. (1999). Il senso della sicurezza [The feeling of security]. In P. Amerio (Ed.), Il senso della sicurezza [The feeling of security] (pp. 23-33). Milano: Unicopli.
Warr, M. (1995). Public opinion on crime and punishment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 59, 296-310.
Warr, M., & Stafford, M. (1981). Fear of victimization: A look at the proximate causes. Social Forces, 61, 1033-1043.
Weaver, J., & Wakshlag, J. (1986). Perceived vulnerability to crime, criminal victimization experience, and television viewing. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 30, 141-158.
Winkel, F. W. (1998). Fear of crime and criminal victimization. British Journal of Criminology, 38, 473-484.
Zani, B., Cicognani, E., & Albanesi, C. (2001). Adolescents’ sense of community and feeling of unsafety in the urban environment. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 475-489.
Footnotes
1 Because geopolitical area of residence is a nominal variable with four answer categories, we recoded it into three dichotomous variables in order to use it in our predictive models: residence in (a) North-Western Italy, (b) North-Eastern Italy, (c) Southern Italy or Italian Islands. We used residence in Central Italy as reference
category. Also job is a nominal variable (with six answer categories). We recoded it into five dichotomous variables: (a) belonging/not belonging to the autonomous low middle class, (b) belonging/not belonging to the white-collar low middle class; (c)
belonging/not belonging to the proletariat; (d) being/not being a student; (e) being/not being retired or a housewife. We used belonging/not belonging to the middle class as reference category.
2 The Italian television system is characterized by a duopoly. On the one hand, the public broadcasting corporation (RAI, with three channels: Rai1, Rai2, and Rai3), traditionally controlled by the government; on the other, the network Mediaset owned by the television magnate Silvio Berlusconi (who is also Italy current Prime Minister), and comprising three channels (Canale 5, Italia 1, and Rete 4). In addition, there are other local as well as national channels (La7 being the main channel), whose viewing share is so low that they are virtually irrelevant on the national territory. The estimated viewing of the various channels was calculated using the model that over the last decade Ricolfi – first alone (Ricolfi, 1994, 1997), and then in teamwork (Albano, Gattino, Loera, Ricolfi, Roccato, Testa, & Torrioni, 1999; Albano, Loera, Ricolfi, Roccato, Testa, Torrioni, 2000; Gattino, Loera, Ricolfi, Roccato, Testa, & Torrioni, 1998; Testa, Loera, & Ricolfi, 2002) – has applied to estimate the television influence on Italians’ voting (for details, see Ricolfi, 1994). As the frequency of newspapers reading and the
frequency of news watching were measured on ordinal scales, we dichotomized both variables (0 = never or seldom; 1 = often or always).
3 After dichotomizing the variables assessing FC and CC, we performed logistic regressions because these variables were measured on ordinal scales and thus could not be used as dependent variables in linear regressions. Logistic regression estimates the impact of one or more independent variables on a dummy dependent variable.
4 As a matter of fact, by dividing r2 by the number of independent variables in the equation, the average explanatory power of the traditional model taken alone is virtually identical to the explanatory power of the model combining traditional and psychosocial variables (the difference being + 0.0003 in favor of the traditional model). Nonetheless, given the exploratory nature of our research, we think that the combined model has more interpretative power than the traditional model.
Tables
Table 1
Perception of the micro-criminal situation in the interviewee’s area of residence
Frequency Not at all dangerous 310
(10.2%) A bit dangerous 1413 (46.5%) Rather dangerous 907 (29.8%) Very dangerous 407 (13.4%) Total 3262
Table 2.
Perception of the micro-criminal situation in Italy
Frequency Not at all dangerous 11
(0.4%) A bit dangerous 102 (3.2%) Rather dangerous 1663 (51.6%) Very dangerous 1446 (44.9%) Total 3262
Table 3.
Fear of Crime Prediction: Fit and Parsimony of Tested Models
R2 (Nagelkerke)
Number of independent variables in the equation
Traditional Model .183 11
Psychosocial Model .024 3
Mass media Model .002 1
Traditional + psychosocial .196 12
Traditional + mass media .155 13
Psychosocial + mass media .047 5
Traditional + psychosocial + mass media
Table 4.
Predictors of Fear of Crime
Independent Variable b Exp(b)
(Strength of the Relation)
Direct Victimization 1.9467*** 7.0054
Indirect Victimization 1.3346*** 3.7984
Size of area of residence 1.1152*** 3.0501
Students-unemployed 1.0490*** 2.8547
Retirees-housewives .5464*** 1.7269
Residence in Southern Italy or Italian Islands .5191*** 1.6805
Distrust of others .4250** 1.5296
Ethnic prejudice .0898*** 1.0940
Age .0659*** 1.0681
Years of formal education .0388** 1.0395
Age to the square power -.0008*** .9992
Number of family members -.1488*** .8617
Constant -4.8885
---** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Note. The column “Exp(b)” reports the degree to which the relation between being and not being afraid changes as the independent variable changes by one unit.
Table 5.
Prediction of Concern about Crime as a Social Problem: Fit and Parsimony of Tested Models
R2 (Nagelkerke)
Number of independent variables in the equation Traditional Model .079 6 Psychosocial Model .263 4 Mass-media Model .053 3 Traditional + psychosocial .302 9 Traditional + mass-media .133 7 Psychosocial + mass-media .323 6 Traditional + psychosocial + mass-media .358 11
Table 6.
Predictors of Concern about Crime as a Social Problem
Independent Variable B Exp(b)
(Strength of the Relation) Frequency of news watching 1.7806*** 5.9332
Distrust of others .9838*** 2.6746
Distrust of Italians .6373* 1.8913
Ethnic prejudice .3363*** 1.3997
Political disempowerment .2284*** 1.2566
Minutes of viewing La7 -.0288** .9716
Costant -.2937
* p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
Note. The column “Exp(b)” reports the degree to which the relation between being and not being afraid changes as the independent variable changes by one unit.
