Youth & Society

Volume 39 Number 3
March 2008 267-293
2008 Sage Publications
And My Mama Said . . . 10.1177/0044118X07301000
http://yas.sagepub.com
hosted at
The (Relative) Parental Influence http://online.sagepub.com
on Fear of Crime Among
Adolescent Girls and Boys
Saskia De Groof
Free University of Brussels, Belgium

Many studies have been conducted to examine the predictors of fear of crime
among adults, but feelings of insecurity among children and adolescents have
been practically ignored. The aim of this study is to search for relevant deter-
minants of fear of crime in a representative sample of 1,212 Flemish
(Belgian) adolescents, age 14 to 18, and one of their parents. The effect of
parenting styles on the childs level of fear is investigated by means of (multi-
group) structural equation modeling. The level of parental supervision (espe-
cially fathers) is associated with more fears being experienced by children.
Active parental stimulation of participation in organized leisure activities
results in lower levels of fear among female children. Parents who focus on
independence and autonomy, in contrast, seem to raise boys who have lower
degrees of fear. Other findings that relate to fear of crime in adolescence,
such as gender differences and socialization, media and leisure patterns, and
victimization and personal adjustment, are also discussed.

Keywords: fear of crime; feelings of insecurity; parenting styles; adolescence;

gender

F ear of crime is a hot issue. Many researchers have noticed a growing

interest in fear and insecurity, as witnessed by its ongoing prioritization
on the public and political agenda (e.g., Ditton & Farrall, 2000; Lee, 2001)
and the concomitant media attention (e.g., Lowry, Nio, & Leitner, 2003;
Walgrave & De Swert, 2002). By repeating certain words, themes, and per-
spectives, the media use a discourse of fear, or the pervasive communica-
tion, symbolic awareness, and expectation that danger and risk are central

Authors Note: Address correspondence to Saskia De Groof, Department of Sociology/Research

Group TOR, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium; Saskia.De
.Groof@vub.ac.be.

267
268 Youth & Society

features of everyday life (Altheide, 2002, p. 229). After conducting qual-

itative content analyses on the use of fear in three major American newspa-
pers between 1985 and 1996, Altheide (1997, 2002) indicated that the
interest in fear has increased and that fear has gradually been projected onto
crime and violence. Moreover, he noticed a change from a specific use of
fear (to explain or describe specific events) to a general use in which fear
is seen as an inevitable condition of life. A large part of this discourse
includes children and the spaces they occupy (schools, neighborhoods,
etc.). This manifests itself in a couple of contradictions: (a) between the
perception of children as being both at risk and a potential threat to others
and the social order; and (b) between the increasing emphasis on child vul-
nerability and protection on one hand, and the recognition of childrens
competence and autonomy on the other (Nayak, 2003; Pain, 2003; Scott,
Jackson, & Backett-Milburn, 1998; Valentine & McKendrick, 1997). As a
result, Altheide (2002) argues that excesses in protecting children, and
excesses in punishing children or adults who threaten the innocence of
children, can more easily be justified.
Criminological research too often reduces childrens roles to either
offender or victim. Goodey (1994, p. 195) suggests: Perhaps it would be
better to start with the experience of the majority . . . as a public who are
aware of crime, and it is fear of crime which affects many of the publics
lives on a day to day basis. Many studies have been conducted to examine
the variables that determine fear of crime among adults or the elderly (for
a review, see Bilsky, Pfeiffer, & Wetzels, 1993; Ditton & Farrall, 2000;
Hale, 1996), but feelings of insecurity among children and adolescents have
been practically ignored. A small number of articles on childrens fear of
crime have been published; however, these articles either focus on a limited
or very specific population sample or they lack a thorough and/or holistic
approach to fear of crime (Gainey & Seyfrit, 2001; May, 1999, 2001; May
& Dunaway, 2000; Nayak, 2003; Pain, 2003; Wayne & Rubel, 1982;
Williams & Singh, 1994).
This article aims to extend the knowledge regarding the causes of fear of
crime in adolescents. As Goodey (1994) asserts, research into childrens
andespeciallyadolescents fears and worries may allow for a better
understanding of how adults experience fear. More specifically, the effect
of parents on their childrens level of fear is investigated. Parents are cru-
cial agents of socialization in childhood. Although youngsters gain more
independence from parents during adolescence, parents are of major impor-
tance in the development of their childrens values, norms, habits, and
 De Groof / And My Mama Said . . . 269

behaviors (e.g., Bengtson, Biblarz, & Roberts, 2002; Elchardus & Siongers,
2003; Grusec & Kuczynski, 1997; Zeijl, te Poel, du Bois-Reymond,
Ravesloot, & Meulman, 2000). This influence persists well into adulthood.
The same is true for fear; parents teach their children (either consciously or
unconsciously) to fear a number of situations and things (May, Vartanian,
& Virgo, 2002). At the same time, parents are aware of the fact that adoles-
cence is a time of transition in which young people have to gain indepen-
dence, develop their own knowledge and strategies, and form experiences
(Tulloch, 2004; Valentine, 1997a). By investigating the influence of parent-
ing styles on the level of fear of crime in their offspring, a comparison
among some competing goals of parenthoodchild safety, nurturance, sur-
veillance, (positive) independence, and so forthcan ultimately be made.
In the following sections, an overview of the literature linking parents to
their childrens fear of crime will be given. Structural equation models will
then be presented that try to explain fear of crime among a representative
sample of Flemish adolescents, with special attention to the influence of
parents and their educational styles.

Literature Review

Much of the empirical literature concerning fear of crime or feelings of

insecurity can be grouped into two paradigms: a rationalistic one and a
symbolic one (see Elchardus, De Groof, & Smits, 2005). The rationalistic
paradigm interprets fear of crime as a consequence of risk, vulnerability,
and defenselessness with regard to crime and victimization (e.g., Ferraro,
1995). The symbolic paradigm interprets fear of crime as a consequence of
more general feelings of vulnerability and malaise, which are projected
onto the threat of crime and victimization (by means of media representa-
tion, informal communication in social networks, etc.) (e.g., Hollander,
2001). A recently published inventory of international research findings
concerning the effects of victimization on one hand, and media consump-
tion and malaise on the other hand, as well as exploratory analyses on
Flemish data, resulted in more support for the symbolic than the rationalis-
tic paradigm (Elchardus & De Groof, 2006). According to the symbolic
paradigm, it is likely that feelings of insecurity are partly transmitted from
parents to childrennot only as an intergenerational transmission of feel-
ings of fear and insecurity, but as a by-product of some features of educa-
tion and parenting styles as well.
270 Youth & Society

Parental Fear
Although a large body of literature reveals that increasing numbers of
people feel fearful and insecure in society, fear for the safety of significant
others (defined as altruistic fear) has hardly been the subject of research
(Warr, 1992). Nevertheless, research by Warr and Ellison (2000) has shown
that parents fear for their children appeared to be as great as or greater than
fear for themselves. Compared to three fifths of the respondents who
reported personal fear of crime, more than 80% of the parents indicated fear
for their children. Warr and Ellison report similar levels of fear between
mothers and fathers with regard to their children; unlike personal fear,
mothers express only slightly more fear for their children than fathers do.
This is somewhat surprising in view of the greater child-rearing responsi-
bilities of mothersbut, as Warr and Ellison argue, this remains consistent
with the fathers protective role.
An Australian study conducted in the beginning of the 1990s (de Vaus &
Wise, 1996) also revealed widespread concerns among parents regarding
the safety of their children when they travel unsupervised. Parents of pri-
mary school children especially worry about their children being attacked
or kidnapped on the way to school,1 whereas parents of secondary school
children and children who have left school worry about their safety on the
way to and from entertainment. As children grow older, parents do not seem
to stop worrying; rather, they worry about different things. This especially
applies to girls. During childhood and adolescence, girls are more fre-
quently warned about possible dangers and dangerous situations than boys
are (Hale, 1996). Parents not only express more fear regarding the safety of
their daughters,2 they are more likely to stay worried for their daughters,
even when the latter have already left secondary school. Parental concern
for boys, in contrast, significantly decreases following the out-of-school-
transition (de Vaus & Wise, 1996). Analogously, Warr and Ellison (2000)
report declining parental fear as boys turn into adolescents, whereas fear for
daughters remains substantial into adulthood.

Intergenerational Transmission of Fear

In spite of concerns about family decline and losses of family influence,
many studies show strong similarities between parents and children regard-
ing values, practices, norms, and so forth (for an overview, see Siongers,
2005). Parental fears can likewise be passed on to children; this congruence
can be induced by role modeling. Children pick up clues from their parents
 De Groof / And My Mama Said . . . 271

when judging specific situations, places, and persons with regard to safety
(May et al., 2002). By observing and imitating the behavior and weltan-
shauung of others (in this case, parents),3 children model their own behav-
iors and worldviews:

If parents see the world as predictable, then their children are likely to
develop a similar perspective. If parents perceive the world as chaotic and
dangerous, a world where individuals exercise little control over their fate,
then children will tend to inherit a similar worldview. . . . If parents believe
that society is occupied by malevolent strangers engaging in random acts of
violence against children, it is likely that they will pass this fear on to their
children. (de Vaus & Wise, 1996, p. 37)

This process can be reinforced by education. Parents explicitly teach

their children to fear and avoid certain situations and things (strangers, spiders,
heights, and desolate places, among others). As a consequence, children
will often experience the fears of their parents (May et al., 2002). De Vaus
and Wise (1996), for example, investigated to what extent children share
their parents concerns. Cross-tabulation of parents and childrens fears
revealed a considerable match between parental levels of fear and the
childs own level of fear. Children with anxious parents were more likely to
express fear. Conversely, children with carefree parents tended to be fear-
less. Thus, parental fears can easily be transmitted to children. As de Vaus
and Wise argue, the parental expression of greater concern for daughters
induces long-term consequences for gender equity in adult life.
This altruistic fear may also have implications for protective and restric-
tive behaviors with regard to both parents and children. In Warr and
Ellisons (2000) study, altruistic fear predicted many anticrime protective
precautions (e.g., avoiding going out, securing the house, carrying weapons,
etc.). An English study compared children traveling unaccompanied in 1971
with children traveling unaccompanied in 1990 (see Valentine & McKendrick,
1997). The percentage of children who commute independently to and from
school decreased massively during those 19 years, from 80% to 9%. A sim-
ilar pattern was found in the context of leisure time. These decreases are a
result of increasing fears of traffic, but also a result of so-called stranger
dangers (parents fear of abduction and molestation by strangers). Parents
acknowledge the importance of independent outdoor play for children.
They also realize thatcompared to their own childhood experiences
todays children are somehow curtailed in their freedom. However, they
argue that today it is scarcely responsible to let children outside of the home
unsupervised (Valentine, 1997a). This led Tulloch (2004, p. 375) to state that
272 Youth & Society

on the basis of qualitative interviews with parents, The contradictions,

variations and tensions within parents talk indicate the complexity of the
discursive construction of altruistic fear of crime. The question remains
as to how the nurturing parent and the protective parent can be harmonized
with the idea of the parent as acceptor and stimulator of his or her childs
independence and capacities. Furthermore, the extent to which these par-
enting goals and styles will impact the level of childrens experienced fear
also needs to be addressed.

Parenting Styles and Fear

May et al. (2002) assessed the relationship between adolescent fear of
crime and parental attachment and supervision. Starting points were attach-
ment theory and social control theoryboth criminological theories con-
cerned with juvenile delinquency. These theories assert that adolescents
adjustment, emotional well-being, and social (or antisocial) behavior are
strongly influenced by the quality of the relationship with their parents.
Parental attachment and bonding, and parental involvement and supervision,
are considered fruitful in the development of personal well-being and the
reduction of the willingness to engage in delinquency. On the basis of these
theories and findings, May and colleagues assumed that parental attachment
and supervision should have a similar impact on reducing fear of crime.4 The
results, based on self-report surveys from 318 incarcerated adolescent males,
did show a strong relationship between parental supervision and fear of criminal
victimization, but in the opposite direction than hypothesized. Adolescents
who were closely supervised by their parents were more fearful than their
counterparts with parents who supervised less, but they were less likely to
perceive personal risks of criminal victimization.5 The authors concluded that
there may be a sheltering effect of parental supervision:

It could be that those youth who are closely supervised are not as likely to
interact with youth who would be likely to victimize them; as such, they real-
ize that they are unlikely to be victimized by crime and consequently indicate
lower levels of perceived risk. Despite the realization that they are unlikely
to be victimized by crime, however, the fear that they will be victimized still
remains. It could be that this fear is regularly reiterated by their parents who,
as part of their close supervision, constantly remind them of the risks associ-
ated with adolescence. (May et al., 2002, p. 283)

By primarily focusing on the risks and dangers children face, oversu-

pervising parents might not offer an equivalent that empowers their children
 De Groof / And My Mama Said . . . 273

to deal with those risks and dangers and to control their environment
hence, higher levels of fear (May et al., 2002). However, these conclusions
were drawn on the basis of a limited population sample (incarcerated male
adolescents); it is not clear to what extent they can be generalized. Other
studies brought forth similar results: Sacco (1993) and Zani, Cicognani,
and Albanesi (2001) report a positive relationship between social support
and fear of crime. They argue that a caring, nurturing, and supporting parent
may attend to informing adolescents of possible dangers thatframed in a
recurrent, negative lightmight increase their feelings of insecurity. This
leads Sacco (1993, p. 194) to the pessimistic conclusion thatagainst
common knowledgesupportive others might be largely ineffective in
reducing anxieties about personal safety and may even, under some cir-
cumstances, exacerbate those anxieties.
The present article seeks to gain a more thorough understanding of
parental influence on fear of crime. Except for the study of de Vaus and
Wise (1996), the reviewed studies examined fear of crime (as well as par-
enting styles) via the use of either parents or youngsters questionnaires.
They were almost never surveyed together. Moreover, most of the studies
were not conducted solely with the purpose of examining the impact of
parents on childrens fear. This results in valuable, but also rather limited,
information about the influence of parental attachment, supervision, inde-
pendence, and so forth on adolescents feelings of fear and insecurity.
Although our survey did not intend to only study fear of crime in young-
sters but to provide a much larger study on the world of adolescents, we
hope to fill this knowledge gap with an in-depth analysis of the link
between some parenting styles and fear of crime in adolescence.

Data, Variables, and Method

Sample
The parental impact on adolescents fear will be tested using data from
a representative survey held in 2002 in Flanders (the Flemish-speaking part
of Belgium) regarding the social and civic participation of Flemish youth
(Smits, 2004). The data were gathered on the basis of a random sample
drawn from the population register of Flemish inhabitants, age 14 to 18.
Utilizing face-to-face interviews conducted by young pollsters, we collected
1,769 questionnaires from adolescents (response rate = 70.7%). To assess
the parental influence, the interviewees gave a short questionnaire to their
parents, of whom 1,212 filled out and returned it (response rate = 68.5%).
274 Youth & Society

Only one of the parents was to fill out the questionnaire; in 72% of cases,
this was the mother. The questionnaire gauged their own participation in
civil society, as well as their perceptions of leisure activities and educa-
tional styles with regard to their children. Because it was not the primary
aim of the survey, other behaviors and valuesfor example, media con-
sumption or (altruistic) fear of crimewere not retained in the parents
questionnaires.6 For that reason, we can only assess the indirect parental
influence on childrens fears via the parenting styles, and not the direct
influence of parents (altruistic) fears.

Dependent Variable
Fear of crime can be measured in many different ways. The manner of
measurement influences the strength of the conclusions and their explana-
tions (De Groof, 2006; Farrall, Bannister, Ditton, & Gilchrist, 1997;
Rountree & Land, 1996; Skogan, 1993). Many proponents of the rational-
ist paradigm claim that fear of specific crimes is the appropriate way to
measure feelings of insecurity (Ferraro, 1995), whereas general feelings of
insecurity are a more appropriate measure from the vantage point of the
symbolic paradigm (Gabriel & Greve, 2003). A recent comparison of gen-
eral feelings of insecurity versus fear for specific crimes in young Flemish
adults revealed similar determinants, albeit with different explanatory
power (Elchardus & De Groof, 2006). In this study, only one scale that taps
general feelings of insecurity is present (Cronbachs alpha = .72) (Smits,
2004). Respondents could indicate their level of agreement with seven
statements (see Table 1).

Independent Variables7
Parenting styles. We asked parents to what extent they agreed with a list
of more than 25 statements concerning educational styles using a scale that
ranged from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree). By means of principal
component analysis, four dimensions were distinguished in their answers
(with eigenvalues of 3.77, 3.37, 2.69, and 2.12, respectively):

1. Supervision: To what extent do parents keep abreast of the way (and with
whom) their children spend their time? (eight Likert items). For example,
I usually know where my son or daughter is after school and with
whom, I know who my sons or daughters friends are, or I know
how my children spend their money.
 De Groof / And My Mama Said . . . 275

Table 1
Feelings of Insecurity (in row percentages)
(Totally) Disagree In Between (Totally) Agree

A burglar alarm is not a superfluous 12.9 27.6 59.5

luxury nowadays.
In the evenings, you have to be very 14.3 27.9 57.8
careful walking down the streets.
During the last 10 years, streets 12.4 31.0 56.6
have become less safe.
Nowadays, it is too unsafe to let 30.1 39.2 30.7
children be unsupervised on the
streets.
Out of fear of assault, I do not dare 49.4 26.6 24.0
to go to some neighborhoods.
Out of fear of something happening 76.7 14.3 9.1
to me, I do not dare to go out
alone at night.
I do not dare to stay home alone 83.4 10.3 6.3
during the evenings and nights.

2. Stimulation: To what extent do parents stimulate meaningful use of (free)

time such as, for instance, organized leisure activities? (eight Likert
items). For example, I stimulate my children to participate in organized
leisure activities, I am always prepared to bring my kids to a club or
association, or I think I have to give my son or daughter the opportu-
nity to learn something in his or her free time.
3. Autonomy: To what extent do parents focus on positive autonomy (allow
their children to try and discover new things and experiences, let them
take on responsibility, etc.)? (six Likert items). For example, I let my
children resolve their own problems, I encourage my children to be
independent, or I let my children make autonomous decisions.
4. Freedom: To what extent do parents permit their children to spend their
time freely? (five Likert items). For example, It does not matter where
my children spend their free time, as long as they have fun, In their free
time, young people should do as they please, or It does not bother me
that my kids go out with friends without supervision.

Background variables. We cannot assess the influence of parenting styles

on youngsters fear of crime without controlling for possible intervening
variables or alternative explanations. Almost all empirical research concern-
ing feelings of insecurity reports a higher fear of crime for women than for men
(e.g., Bennett & Flavin, 1994; Carcach, Frampton, Thomas, & Cranich, 1995;
276 Youth & Society

De Groof, 2006; Ferraro, 1995; Gainey & Seyfrit, 2001). In every age cat-
egory, women display higher feelings of insecurity regardless of the mea-
surement instrument used. Within the rationalist paradigm, that difference
is explained by the greater physical vulnerability and helplessness of
women when confronted with crime and violence (including hidden forms
of intimidation and domestic violence) (see Hale, 1996; Scott, 2003;
Stanko, 1988). From the vantage point of the symbolic paradigm, the higher
feelings of insecurity in women are explained as a consequence of tradi-
tional gender definitions and the related gender roles. Women are culturally
coded, so to speak, as vulnerable and helpless, men as fearless and even
aggressive (Day, 2001; Hollander, 2001). This cultural and gendered cod-
ing for vulnerability and helplessness is not only transmitted during educa-
tion, it is elaborated on in different forms of mass culture. Considering the
importance attached to differences in fear according to gender, as well as to
parents alleged higher fear for girls, we will not only assess the gender dif-
ferences in fear but perform gender-specific analyses. This allows us to
track possible gendered parenting styles and influences.
The socioeconomic status (SES) of the parents will also be included in
the analyses. Not only do parents transmit their norms, values, and fears to
their children (both overtly and covertly), they expose them to their social
and cultural positions (Bengtson et al., 2003; Vollebergh, Eidema, &
Raaijmakers, 2001). Adolescents nursed in luxury will have different expe-
riences, habits, and opinions than adolescents raised in poverty. Poor people
are thought to have higher feelings of insecurity, because their social vul-
nerability increases the threats to which they are exposed and their help-
lessness with regard to these threats (Skogan & Maxfield, 1981). Moreover,
parental social conditions strongly predict the developmental, educational,
and leisure opportunities offered to their children (Bengtson et al., 2003;
Siongers, 2005; Zeijl et al., 2000). The social position (especially the edu-
cational level) of the parents not only influences the educational careers, the
media and leisure preferences, and the values of their children, but their
own parenting styles vis--vis their children. Therefore, possible links
between parents (parenting styles) and adolescents (adolescents fears)
might be a result of their common social conditions.
The background variables of gender (girls vs. boys)8 and the educational
track of the adolescents (general vs. technical and vocational education)9
were used as controls in the analyses. The SES of the parents is constructed
as a categorical principal component analysis scale, including the educa-
tional level of both parents, their employment status and job description,
and their income.
 De Groof / And My Mama Said . . . 277

Other variables. In the rationalistic paradigm, fear of crime is consid-

ered a rational reaction to crime and victimization. It is understood that
people who have been victimized will express more fear (Rountree, 1998).
Media consumption and preferences, alternatively, are crucial in the sym-
bolic paradigm. According to this paradigm, feelings of insecurity and
malaise are developed and transmitted through (popular) media representa-
tion (Romer, Jamieson, & Aday, 2003; Williams & Dickinson, 1993).
Because fear of crime research not only attaches much importance to these
variables but points out gender variations,10 previous victimization and
media preferences will be added to the models.
Victimization experience was constructed by considering the extent to
which the respondents had been the victim of both verbal (e.g., name call-
ing, bullying, shutting out, etc.) and physical aggressions (e.g., robbing,
threatening, beating up, etc.) during the previous year on a scale that ranged
from 0 (never) to 5 (very often).11 Media consumption was measured on the
basis of media preferences (adolescents rating of 11 television and 11 radio
channels on a scale that ranged from 0 to 10, as well as their preferred mag-
azines). These media preferences fall into two dimensions: a preference for
more elitist, public media and a preference for more popular, commercial
media. Recent content analyses of television news programs in Flanders
revealed that significantly more time is spent on crime and corruption in
news broadcasts on the commercial channels than on the public channels.
A similar pattern is found in Flemish tabloids versus broadsheets (Pauwels,
2001; Walgrave & De Swert, 2002).
Finally, the models will also control for the youngsters personal adjust-
ment and leisure patterns. Parenting styles might indirectly influence fear
of crime via personal well-being and specific leisure activities, and as such
conceal spurious relationships.12
Personal well-being was measured by a meta-factor of a total of five
scales, which comprehended self-concept, future perspectives, feelings of
loneliness, assertiveness, and sense of identity. As such, it can be consid-
ered an overall measure of adjustment. Youngsters with high personal well-
being have, in this measure, a positive self-concept; are self-assertive; know
who they are, what they want, and what they are capable of; have hope for
a good future; do not often feel lonely; and so forth.
Using a scale that included the options of 1 (never), 2 (less than once a
month), 3 (once or a few times a month), 4 (once a week), 5 (a few times a
week), and 6 (every day), respondents had to indicate how frequently they
performed a number of activities in their free time (i.e., time not spent on
sleeping, personal care, or in school). Principal component analysis discerns
278 Youth & Society

four dimensions of leisure patterns (with eigenvalues of 4.55, 3.78, 3.03,

and 3.01, respectively):

1. Informal, commercial leisure pattern: going to pubs, parties, youth clubs,

movies; meeting (girl/boy) friends; hanging around; and so on.
2. Family leisure pattern: performing household work; doing things with
parents and/or siblings; shopping; playing with pets, and so on.
3. Sportive, technical, gaming leisure pattern: sporting inside and outside
clubs; playing computer games; being engaged in technical hobbies; per-
forming chores, and so on.
4. Cultural, creative leisure pattern: going to concerts, festivals, exhibitions;
reading, writing, playing music; following courses; and so on.

Method
We will assess the influence of the specified variables by means of struc-
tural equation modeling.13 This technique is used to distinguish direct and
total effects. Both are important because some variables do not have a direct
influence but an indirect influence via another variable. This article first
presents the overall model for explaining fear of crime in adolescence, after
which gender-specific models will be discussed.

Results

General Model for Explaining

Feelings of Insecurity in Adolescence
The results of the general model explaining fear of crime are presented
in Table 2 (Appendix B presents the significant correlations between the
exogenous variables).14 Only one parenting style exercises an influence on
feelings of insecuritynamely, the level of parental supervision. Similar to
the results of the study conducted by May and colleagues (2002), adoles-
cents with supervising parents are more likely to experience fear of crime.
Table 2 shows that parental supervision mainly has a direct effect on fear of
crime. We notice only a small indirect effect: Adolescents who are closely
supervised by their parents are less likely to have an informal, commercial
leisure pattern, and they are more likely to have a preference for commer-
cial mediaboth of which lead to increased feelings of insecurity. Parental
stimulation, freedom, and autonomy have no influence on fear of crime, nor
does the SES of the parents or the educational track of the adolescent.15
There is, however, a small, indirect effect from SES on feelings of insecurity.
 Table 2
Structural Equation Model Explaining Feelings of Insecurity: Standardized Direct and Total Effects
On Cultural, On Sportive, On Commercial, On
Creative Technical On Family Informal On Popular On Elitist On Personal On Feelings On Feelings
LP LP LP LP Media Media Victimization Well-Being of Insecurity of Insecurity

Direct Total
Effect of: Effects Effects

Gender (boys)a .167*** .702*** .308*** .271*** .063* .106*** .250*** .272
Education (vocational .194*** .285*** .098*** .081** .072* .007
or technical)a
SES parents .250*** .182*** .088** .085** .064
Parental stimulation .160*** .140*** .086** .012
Parental supervision .046* .174*** .101*** .070* .112*** .144
Parental autonomy .065* .063* .055* .015
Parental freedom .152*** .061* .020
Cultural, creative LP .103*** .130*** .299*** .190*** .075* .080** .114
Sportive, technical LP .061* .129*** .135*** .009
Family LP .284*** .093** .191*** .083** .091
Commercial, informal LP .078** .246*** .149*** .157*** .165
Popular media .085** .085
Elitist media .169*** .014
Victimization .170*** .346*** .106*** .148
Personal well-being .076** .076
R2 .216 .487 .118 .128 .266 .151 .026 .168 .174 .174

2
Note: N = 1,175; = 67.07; df = 55; p = .127; Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index = 0.983; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.014; Hoelters N (0.05) = 1,284;
LP = leisure pattern; SES = socioeconomic status.
a. This variable is included as a dichotomous variable; the reference category is included in parentheses.
*p < .05. **p < 01. ***p < .001.

279
280 Youth & Society

Parents with high SES have children who engage more frequently in cultural,
creative leisure activities and are less attracted to commercial media chan-
nels. This cultural pattern or preference of the adolescentsnot the SES of
the parentsleads to lower fear.
Furthermore, we notice strong gender differences with regard to fear of
crime. As could be expected from previous research, girls are more fearful
than boys; this is the strongest predictor ( = .25). This influence can
partiallybut only to a very small extentbe explained by girls preference
for popular media and their increased likelihood to have a home-based, fam-
ily leisure pattern. The latter could be an indication of the fact that girls are
more restricted by parents in their free time. Numerous studies have revealed
that boys receive more freedom in public spaces than girls, thereby confining
girls to a bedroom culture (see Hendry, Shucksmith, & Glendinning, 1993;
Kandy, 2001); this might increase girls feelings of fear outside the home.
With regard to commercial media, it is argued that women are underrepre-
sented on television, except in the victims role (Tulloch, 1998). People who
show an affinity for the population groups that are more frequently portrayed
in the victims role are more likely to feel unsafe (see Chiricos, Eschholz, &
Gertz, 1997). Nevertheless, even with these controls, a strong direct connec-
tion between gender and fear of crime remains.
Adolescents with victimization experience(s) are more afraid of crime
( = .11) and have especially low levels of personal well-being ( = .35).
The latter is mainly a result of victimization via verbal aggression rather
than victimization via physical delinquency. There is no differential effect
of forms of victimization on fear of crime, which means that both have an
equally detrimental impact on feelings of insecurity. A popular media pref-
erence is also connected with more feelings of insecurity, whereas a more
elitist media preference is not linked to fear of crime. Commercial media
are thought to be more sensational, crime centered, and entertaining, and
therefore possibly induce or strengthen fear of crime.
Finally, some of the leisure patterns are connected with feelings of inse-
curity.16 Whereas the family leisure pattern leads to more fear in adolescents,
both the cultural, creative and the informal, commercial leisure patterns are
likely to generate lower feelings of fear. Both patterns imply that adolescents
go out with peers (either in a cultural, more organized context or in a com-
mercial, informal context), away from the home premises. Perhaps these
adolescents experience the world as not as dangerous as it is represented in
media tales and programs. These outdoor leisure patterns might, in a certain
way, also empower them to face potential risks and hazards (Elchardus &
Smits, 2003). Adolescents who spend a great deal of time with their family,
 De Groof / And My Mama Said . . . 281

in contrast, might be overprotected and sensitized to possible dangers. There

is no relation between a sportive, technical, gaming leisure pattern and feel-
ings of insecurity. This leisure pattern is, however, connected with higher
values of personal well-being. Finally, adolescents with high levels of per-
sonal well-being are less likely to fear crime. Fear of crime is, in other
words, partly a result of feelings of personal discomfort and uncertainty,
which are projected onto the threat of crime and victimization.17

Gender-Specific Models for Explaining Feelings of Insecurity

Because of the extensive literature regarding gender-specific parenting
styles (e.g., Cicognani & Zani, 1998; Valentine, 1997b), the analyses were
also performed separately for girls and boys (Table 3). We notice substantial
gender differences in causes of fear of crime. Differential parental effects,
differential influences of leisure patterns and media preferences, and the
roles of victimization and adjustment will be discussed successively.

Differential parental effects. Parental supervision is still connected with

more fear of crime in both boys and girls (see Table 3). Like the overall
model (Table 2), a direct influence mainly exists, though a small, indirect
effect via the commercial leisure and media pattern persists. Interestingly,
two other parenting styles that were not significant in the overall model
appear to play an important role with girls and boys separately. Active
parental stimulation of meaningful time use in organized leisure activities
results in lower levels of fear in girls. In Appendix B we notice that girls are
somehow less stimulated than boys to actively spend their free time. Girls
who do get parental stimulation seem to be less fearful. Parents who focus
on independence and freedom in leisure time, in contrast, appear to raise
boys with lower feelings of insecurity or fear.
To acquire a clearer picture of gender-specific parenting styles, a multi-
group analysis was performed (Table 4). As such, possible differences in
parental impact between parentchild pairs can be traced.
Supervision by either parent has the same impact on boys as it does on
girls. However, a fathers impact can be much stronger than the mothers on
both boys and girls. Parental supervision is the only dimension or parenting
style in which mothers have a significantly higher score than fathers. In
general, mothers are more supervisory than fathers, more aware of what their
children are doing, and monitor their children more; mothers: M = 0.08, SD =
0.95; fathers: M = 0.19, SD = 1.09; F(1,1182) = 17.38, p < .000.18 This
may partially explain why a mothers supervising impact is less influential.
282 Youth & Society

Table 3
Structural Equation Model Explaining Feelings of
Insecurity in Girls and Boys: Standardized
Direct and Total Effects
Girls Boys

Direct Total Direct Total

Effects Effects Direct Effects

Education (vocational .017 .033

or technical)a
SES parents .041 .050
Parental stimulation .129*** .133 .022
Parental supervision .117** .154 .115** .165
Parental autonomy .005 .002
Parental freedom .016 .093* .116
Cultural, creative LP .054 .056
Sportive, technical LP .087* .069 .017
Family LP .001 .107** .098
Commercial, informal LP .174*** .165 .167*** .187
Popular media .146*** .146 .103** .103
Elitist media .014 .027
Victimization .017 .123** .191
Personal well-being .065 .123** .123
R2 .086 .086 .141 .141

Note: LP = leisure pattern; SES = socioeconomic status. Girls: n = 572; 2 = 59.10; df = 59;
p = .173; Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index = 0.968; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
= 0.017; Hoelters N (0.05) = 644. Boys: n = 604; 2 = 64.76; df = 60; p = .314; Adjusted
Goodness of Fit Index = 0.972; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.011; Hoelters
N (0.05) = 737.
a. This variable is included as a dichotomous variable; the reference category is included in
parentheses.
*p < .05. **p < 01. ***p < .001.

Active stimulation of children is only significant for girls, irrespective of

the gender of the parent. Boys are influenced by the level of allowed free-
dom by their mother, as well asand this is a new result, yet in line with
the foregoingby the focus on positive autonomy on the fathers side. The
fact that parental autonomy has no effect in the model presented in Table 3
may be explained by the substantially larger sample of mothers, possibly
concealing the fathers effects. Apparently, girls get more benefit from
 De Groof / And My Mama Said . . . 283

Table 4
Gender-Specific Parental Influence on Feelings of Insecurity:
Multigroup Analysis and Direct Standardized Effects
Girls/Mothers Boys/Mothers Girls/Fathers Boys/Fathers
(n = 426) (n = 417) (n = 144) (n = 186)

Supervision .125*** .134*** .233*** .241***

Stimulation .145*** .058 .152** .057
Autonomy .002 .002 .002 .139**
Freedom .022 .141*** .020 .023
R2 .033 .066 .032 .078

Note: 2 = 9.94; df = 12; p = .621; Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index = 0.983; Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation = 0.000; Hoelters N (0.05) = 2,476.
**p < 01. ***p < .001.

parental stimulation to be actively involved in their free time, whereas boys

are favored by freedom and stimulation of autonomy.

Differential influence of leisure and media patterns. Leisure patterns

also appear to differ according to gender (see Table 3). An unorganized,
commercial leisure pattern is conducive to lower levels of fear in both boys
and girls; this is the strongest predictor ( = .17). Popular, commercial
media preferences are also significant in both groups, but they are more
defining in girls level of fear. Additionally, boys with a family leisure pat-
tern are more likely to experience fear, and girls with a sportive, technical,
gaming leisure pattern are more likely to be fearless. In general, a family
leisure pattern and a sportive, technical, gaming leisure pattern are charac-
teristics of female-oriented and male-oriented cultures, respectively (see
Table 2, = .31 and .70). Apparently, boys with a more feminine leisure
pattern are more fearful. Conversely, girls who engage more frequently in
masculine leisure activities are less likely to report fear of crime.
The latter finding could be an indication of cultural gender coding and
socialization. During childhood and adolescence, girls and boys learn what
it is to be a woman or a man. A French study of secondary school pupils
demonstrated that even young people have a clear-cut image of what femi-
ninity and masculinity represent (see Boyer, 1999). The surveyed young-
sters, both boys and girls, thought of girls as organized, caring, coquettish,
sensitive, beautiful, tender, and understanding, but also as fearful, docile,
capricious, cunning, jealous, prodigal, possessive, and talkative. Boys were
284 Youth & Society

seen as humorous, active, energetic, brave, athletic, competitive, and pos-

sessing a strong work ethic, but also as aggressive, short tempered, brag-
ging, unorganized, macho, deceitful, and overambitious. These features are not
only associated with femininity and masculinity, they are also considered
normative for women and men. From the family, school setting, peer group,
and (popular) media, children and adolescents learn what they are expected
to do if they want to be treated as real men and women (Belet, Kuppens, &
Stevens, 2002; Derks & Vermeersch, 2002). Among other things, this
implies vulnerable, fearful, and rather passive girls, and tough, fearless,
and proactive boys (see also Day, 2001).
Some authors emphasize the coherence or the logic of culture (see Burke,
1989; Elchardus & Siongers, 2006). This can take the form of an affinity or
compatibility on the basis of related distinctions or resemblances. From this
point of view, womens higher fearfulness is a result of the fact that fear is a
constituent trait of gender, as it is conceived in our culture, and associated
with femaleness. It is also likely that engagement in specific leisure activi-
ties will be used to develop gender specificity. Numerous studies revealed a
huge gap in the time use of boys and girls. Girls are significantly more
engaged in household activities (e.g., cooking, cleaning, grocery shopping,
taking care of siblings, etc.), school-related activities (e.g., studying, doing
homework, etc.), and social and cultural activities (e.g., telephoning, visiting
family, writing, etc.). Boys spend more time on new media (e.g., computer,
Internet, games, etc.), sports (both inside and outside clubs), and instrumen-
tal activities (e.g., sciences, technical matters, etc.) (Gager, Cooney, & Call,
1999; Glorieux, Stevens, & Vandeweyer, 2005; Kandy, 2001; Shanahan &
Flaherty, 2001). Therefore, an association between maleness, sportive, tech-
nical, gaming leisure activities, and fearlessness on one hand, and between
femaleness, a home-based family leisure pattern, and fearfulness on the
other hand, is to be expected. Apparently, adolescents who engage in activ-
ities related to the other gender are more likely to partly adopt some related
or constituent features of that gender.

Victimization and adjustment. Prior victimization and personal well-

being are only relevant in explaining boys fear of crime. May and Dunaway
(2000), on the contrary, report victimization effects on fear of crime of girls.
However, their scale only tapped fear of crime in and around the school
environment, and victimization was measured by asking if the respondents
had ever had someone threaten to hurt them at school. These differences in
measurement could account for the differences in results.
 De Groof / And My Mama Said . . . 285

Generally, girls are less victimized than boys (see Table 2). Apparently,
if girls do get victimized, it has no considerable effect on their feelings of
insecurity. Another possible explanation is that girls have very high levels
of fear, regardless of their (low) victimization rate, whereas boys might
develop fear after victimization. Previous victimization has a direct and
indirect effect on fear of crime in boys. Victimization leads to lower per-
sonal well-being and a more home-based leisure pattern, both of which are
connected to greater feelings of insecurity in boys. Alternatively, fear of
crime in girls does not appear to be a partial manifestation of low personal
adjustment (nor, as already mentioned, of a home-based leisure pattern).

Discussion

This article has tried to extend the knowledge on causes of fear of crime
in adolescent boys and girls and, more specifically, the parental impact on
sons and daughters feelings of insecurity. The level of parental supervision
(especially from fathers) is associated with more fears experienced on the
part of their childrenboth girls and boys. Moreover, some gender differ-
ences are noticed: Active parental stimulation of participation in organized
leisure activities results in lower levels of fear in girls, whereas boys get
more benefit from freedom and stimulation of autonomy.
Parental supervision and attachment19 seemingly foster feelings of inse-
curity in children. Consequently, parents should take care not to mother
their children too much. At the same time, we know that parental supervi-
sion and attachment lead to better adjustment (see also Table 2) and more
social behavior (see De Groof & Smits, 2006; May et al., 2002). As such,
parents have to find a balance between ensuring their childrens safety and
well-being and fostering their childrens independence, competence, and
self-sufficiency. Future analyses comparing types or clusters of parents
(e.g., the nurturing but not restricting parent, the overprotecting parent, the
authoritarian parent, etc.) and their relationships with fear, adjustment, and
behavior of children could be useful to get a more precise and thorough
understanding of the effects of parenting styles and education. Obviously,
it would be even more interesting to analyze both direct and indirect
parental influences on fear of crime. It is probable that parenting styles
(such as excessive supervision or lack of allowed freedom) are connected
with parental altruistic fears, possibly concealing (partly) spurious relation-
ships between parenting styles and childrens fears.
286 Youth & Society

Finally, we notice strong gender differences in the amount of fear, which

cannot be attributed to the specified variables such as differential parenting
styles, victimization, media and leisure patterns, or adjustment. Significant
effects on feelings of insecurity result from victimization experience, com-
mercial media preferences, home-based leisure patterns versus outdoor
leisure patterns, and personal well-being, but they cannot account for the
gender differences. This leads us to a cultural explanation for the found dif-
ferences. During childhood and adolescence, youngsters are taught not only
what to fear but what not to fear, and sometimes not to show fear at all (May
et al., 2002). Boys, for example, dont cry (as reflected in the title of
Goodeys 1997 article on the gendered stereotypes of fearless males versus
fearful females). Girls are socialized to be vulnerable, to need protection, to
risk avoidance, to be cautious, to care, and so on. Boys are socialized to
protect, to take risks, and to be aware of their physical strength. They are
taught to be brave and in control; if they are not, they cannot be considered
real men (and risk being labeled girls, sissys, or poufs) (Day, 2001;
Goodey, 1996, 1997; Hollander, 2001). Girls are allowed to fear, but boys
are not. Womenas the symbolic paradigm suggestsare culturally coded
to be vulnerable and helpless, men to be fearless or even aggressive. This
cultural coding could explain, or contribute to the explanation of, the higher
involvement of men in crime and their more frequent victimization, as well
as the higher feelings of insecurity in women.
This process is not easily countered, though parents could try not to
overprotect and oversupervise their girls. No differential levels of parental
supervision for girls and boys are found; girls: M = 0.01, SD = 1.00; boys:
M = 0.01, SD = 1.00; F(1,1186) = 0.06, p = .80. However, it can be observed
that in adolescents experiences, girls feel they are more supervised than
boys; girls: M = 0.10, SD = 0.95; boys: M = 0.10, SD = 1.04; F(1,1687) =
17.35, p < .000. The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. This does
not, however, imply a lack of involvement. Parental stimulation of active
involvement in free time is conducive to feelings of security in girls (see
Tables 3 and 4). Therefore, parents should trywithout being obtrusive
to stimulate girls (more) to take part in informal peer activities as well as
organized leisure activities. Stimulation to participate in more masculine
activities (or activities perceived as masculine) might be fruitfulfor
example, in the field of sportswhich might reduce girls feelings of phys-
ical vulnerability and enhance their feelings of being in control of the situ-
ation (see Theberge, 2003).
 De Groof / And My Mama Said . . . 287

Appendix A
Description of the Factor Score or Categorical Principal
Component Analysis Scales
Minimum Maximum M SD

General feelings of insecurity 3.25 3.49 0.00 1.00

Parental supervision 4.86 1.41 0.00 1.00
Parental stimulation 4.68 2.01 0.00 1.00
Parental autonomy 3.96 3.17 0.00 1.00
Parental freedom 3.38 2.68 0.00 1.00
SES parents (princals scale) 1.85 2.46 0.09 1.03
Gender (0 = boy; 1 = girl) 0 1 0.49 0.50
Educational track (0 = technical or vocational; 0 1 0.46 0.50
1 = general)
Victimization experience 1.04 5.50 0.00 1.00
Elitist media preferences (princals scale) 3.54 2.45 0.00 1.00
Commercial media preferences (princals scale) 4.10 2.25 0.00 1.00
Personal well-being 4.44 2.89 0.00 1.00
Informal, commercial leisure pattern 2.55 2.96 0.00 1.00
Family leisure pattern 2.82 3.97 0.00 1.00
Sportive, technical, gaming leisure pattern 2.42 3.72 0.00 1.00
Cultural, creative leisure pattern 2.31 5.80 0.00 1.00

Appendix B
Significant Correlations Between Exogenous Variables in Structural
Equation Model Explaining Feelings of Insecurity
Education
Gender (Vocational SES Parental Parental Parental
(Boys)a or Technical)a Parents Supervision Stimulation Autonomy

Education (vocational or .098***

technical education)a
SES parents .426***
Parental supervision
Parental stimulation .074** .081** .179*** .122***
Parental autonomy .102*** .153*** .071* .111***
Parental freedom .056* .130*** .283***

Note: SES = socioeconomic status.

a. This variable is included as a dichotomous variable; the reference category is included in parentheses.
*p < .05. **p < 01. ***p < .001.
288 Youth & Society

Notes
1. Similarly, a survey conducted in a number of English areas (Valentine, 1997a) demon-
strated that abduction is considered to be the greatest danger facing primary school children
(45%), even more so than traffic accidents (34%) or drugs (9%).
2. Valentine contests this gender-biased parental fear found in quantitative studies. On the
basis of qualitative research, she postulates that parents do worry about their sons (Valentine,
1997b). It is suggested that parents hold a more complex and contradictory view of gender.
Girls are not only seen as more at risk in public space, they are also considered more respon-
sible. Boys are perceived, among other things, as irresponsible and increasingly vulnerable to
violence from peers.
3. Children and adolescents have different role models: parents and siblings, initially,
then friends, teachers, idols, and so forth. Similarity and admired status of the role model are
conducive to modeled behavior (Bandura & Walters, 1969). Therefore, parents are probably
one of the most important modelers for adolescents.
4. Parental supervision was measured by means of a five-item summed index. Respondents
were asked to indicate their level of agreement with statements such as, My parents or guardians
know who I am with when I am away from home.
5. Besides fear of criminal victimization, the authors also analyzed perceived risks of
victimization.
6. Initially, parents were not to be surveyed. Eventually we had the opportunity to involve
parents in our research design, but to ensure a high response rate we had to limit the length of
the questionnaire.
7. For statistical information concerning the used scales and variables, see Appendix A.
8. Our total youth sample consists of 909 boys (51.4%) and 860 girls (48.6%); our
adolescentparent sample consists of 622 boys (51.5%) and 586 girls (48.5%).
9. In Belgium, compulsory education exists up to the age of 18. Belgian secondary edu-
cation consists of three main educational types or streams: general, technical, and vocational.
In the analyses we compare pupils of general education (46.4%) with pupils of technical and
vocational education (53.6%).
10. Women are less likely to be victims of crime, at least of reported crime (e.g., Young,
1992); women are more often portrayed as victims in the media (see Boulahanis & Heltsley,
2004; Chiricos et al., 1997).
11. We could make a distinction between both forms of victimization, but because these
forms are strongly connected (r = .409) and have the same impact on fear of crime, we use
only one overall measure.
12. With regard to the way that parenting styles relate to well-being and leisure patterns,
see, e.g., Jacobson & Crockett, 2000; Wenk, Hardesty, Morgan, & Blair, 1994; Zeijl et al., 2000.
13. For these analyses, the statistical packet AMOS 5 was used. The general fit of the
model is measured by means of the Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) (a value near 1
indicates a good fit), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) (a value lower
than or equal to 0.05 indicates a good fit), and the Hoelters critical N for a significance level
of 0.05 (a value larger than the sample size indicates a good fit).
14. For reasons of readability, the graphic presentations of the models are omitted in this
article. They can be obtained on request from the author.
15. There is no age difference with regard to the amount of fear of crime. Analyses com-
paring the parental influence between 14- to 16-year-olds and 17- to 18-year-olds did not
reveal different parental effects on fear of crime.
 De Groof / And My Mama Said . . . 289

16. Strictly speaking, we cannot determine the causal direction of the relationship between
fear and leisure patterns. It is possible that adolescents who stay in much of the time develop
more fears, just as it is possible that fearful adolescents stay in more often than fearless ado-
lescents. The existing research does not provide clear-cut proof of causality. Some authors see
a home-based leisure pattern as part of a protective reaction to fear of crime; others consider
fear of crime a consequence of protective home-based behavior (see Ferraro, 1995; Mesch,
2000; Williams & Singh, 1994). We performed a two-least-squares analysis in which recipro-
cal relations between the leisure patterns and fear of crime were allowed. Although the effect
of leisure patterns on fear of crime was stronger than the reverse, we cannot totally reject the
latter. It is probably more correct to speak of an interaction between both: Fearful adolescents
are more likely to stay at home or with their family during their free time, and will as such
strengthen their existing feelings of insecurity (Liska, Sanchirico, & Reed, 1988).
17. A two-least-squares analysis revealed that personal well-being influences fear of
crime, rather than the reverse.
18. Parental stimulation: mothers: M = 0.03, SD = 0.98; fathers: M = 0.09, SD = 1.03;
F(1,1150) = 3.42, p = .07. Parental autonomy: mothers: M = 0.03, SD = 1.00; fathers: M =
0.09, SD = 0.99; F(1,1179) = 3.35, p = .07. Parental freedom/independence: mothers: M = 0.00,
SD = 1.00; fathers: M = 0.01, SD = 1.00; F(1,1172) = 0.05, p = .83.
19. Analyses on the effects of a positive perception of the relationship with parents among
Flemish adolescents revealed that attachment is connected with higher levels of fear (see also
Smits, 2004).

References
Altheide, D. L. (1997). The news media, the problem frame, and the production of fear. The
Sociological Quarterly, 38(4), 647668.
Altheide, D. L. (2002). Children and the discourse of fear. Symbolic Interaction, 25(2), 229250.
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1969). Social learning and personality development. London:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Belet, H., Kuppens, T., & Stevens, F. (2002). Bruce, Arnold, Jean-Claude et les autres. Scripts
voor het dagelijkse leven van jongens [Bruce, Arnold, Jean-Claude and the others. Scripts
for the daily life of boys]. In M. Elchardus & I. Glorieux (Eds.), De symbolische samen-
leving (pp. 315336). Tielt, Belgium: Lannoo.
Bengtson, V. L., Biblarz, T. J., & Roberts, R. E. L. (2002). How families still matter: A longi-
tudinal study of youth in two generations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bennett, R. R., & Flavin, J. M. (1994). Determinants of fear of crime: The effect of cultural
setting. Justice Quarterly, 11(3), 357381.
Bilsky, W., Pfeiffer, C., & Wetzels, P. (Eds.). (1993). Fear of crime and criminal victimization.
Stuttgart, Germany: Enke.
Boulahanis, J. G., & Heltsley, M. J. (2004). Perceived fears: The reporting patterns of juvenile
homicide in Chicago newspapers. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15(2), 132160.
Boyer, R. (1999). Le temps libre des collgiens et lycens [The free time of high school
students]. In Y. Lemel & B. Roudet (Eds.), Filles et garons jusqu ladolescence.
Socialisations diffrentielles (pp. 249268). Paris: LHarmattan.
Burke, P. J. (1989). Gender identity, sex, and school performance. Social Psychology Quarterly,
52(2), 159169.
290 Youth & Society

Carcach, C., Frampton, P., Thomas, K., & Cranich, M. (1995). Explaining fear of crime in
Queensland. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 11(3), 271287.
Chiricos, T., Eschholz, S., & Gertz, M. (1997). Crime, news, and fear of crime: Toward an
identification of audience effects. Social Problems, 44(3), 342357.
Cicognani, E., & Zani, B. (1998). Parents educational styles and adolescent autonomy.
European Journal of Psychology of Education, 13(4), 485502.
Day, K. (2001). Constructing masculinity and womens fear in public space in Irvine,
California. Gender, Place & Culture, 8(2), 109127.
De Groof, S. (2006). Het (on)grijpbare onveiligheidsgevoel. Een exploratie van de structuur
binnen het onveiligheidsconcept van mannen en vrouwen [The (un)graspable feeling of
insecurity. An exploration of the structures in the fear of crime concept of men and
women]. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie, 48(1), 1934.
De Groof, S., & Smits, W. (2006). Antisociaal gedrag bij jongeren onder de loep genomen [A
scrutiny of antisocial behavior of young people]. In C. Eliaerts (Ed.), Ernstige jeugddelin-
quentie: mythe of realiteit? (pp. 2552). Brussels, Belgium: VUBPress.
Derks, A., & Vermeersch, H. (2002). Studeren is voor mietjes! Een analyse van de gen-
derverschillen in schools presteren [Studying is for sissys! An analysis of gender differ-
ences in educational achievement]. In M. Elchardus & I. Glorieux (Eds.), De symbolische
samenleving (pp. 215240). Tielt, Belgium: Lannoo.
de Vaus, D., & Wise, S. (1996). The fear of attack: Parents concerns for the safety of their
children. Family Matters, 43, 3438.
Ditton, J., & Farrall, S. (Eds.). (2000). The fear of crime. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Elchardus, M., & De Groof, S. (2006). Rational fear or represented malaise: A crucial test of
two paradigms explaining fear of crime. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Elchardus, M., De Groof, S., & Smits, W. (2005). Rationele angst of collectieve voorstelling
van onbehagen. Een vergelijking van twee paradigmas ter verklaring van onveiligheids-
gevoelens [Rational fear or collective representation of malaise. A comparison of two par-
adigms explaining fear of crime]. Mens & Maatschappij, 80(1), 4868.
Elchardus, M., & Siongers, J. (2003). Cultural practice and educational achievement: The role
of the parents media preferences and taste culture. The Netherlands Journal of Social
Sciences, 39(3), 151171.
Elchardus, M., & Siongers, J. (2006). Ethnocentrism, taste, and symbolic boundaries.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Elchardus, M., & Smits, W. (2003). Bedreigd, kwetsbaar en hulpeloos: onveiligheidsgevoel in
Vlaanderen, 19982002 [Threatened, vulnerable, and helpless: Fear of crime in Flanders,
19982002]. In J. Lematre & H. Van Geel (Eds.), Vlaanderen Gepeild! (pp. 99136). Brussels,
Belgium: Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Administratie Planning en Statistiek.
Farrall, S., Bannister, J., Ditton, J., & Gilchrist, E. (1997). Questioning the measurement of the
fear of crime: Findings from a major methodological study. British Journal of
Criminology, 37(4), 658679.
Ferraro, K. F. (1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Albany: State University
of New York.
Gabriel, U., & Greve, W. (2003). The psychology of fear of crime: Conceptual and method-
ological perspectives. British Journal of Criminology, 43, 600614.
Gager, C. T., Cooney, T. M., & Call, K. T. (1999). The effects of family characteristics and
time use on teenagers household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61(4), 982994.
Gainey, R. R., & Seyfrit, C. L. (2001). Fear of crime among rural youth: Testing the general-
ity of urban models to rural areas. Sociological Focus, 34(3), 269286.
 De Groof / And My Mama Said . . . 291

Glorieux, I., Stevens, F., & Vandeweyer, J. (2005). Time use and well-being of Belgian ado-
lescents: Research findings and time use evidence. Loisir et Socit/Society and Leisure,
28(2), 481510.
Goodey, J. (1994). Fear of crime: What can children tell us? International Review of
Victimology, 3, 195210.
Goodey, J. (1996). Adolescence and the socialization of gendered fear. In D. Milovanovic &
M. Schwartz (Eds.), Race, gender, and class in criminology (pp. 267291). New York:
Garland.
Goodey, J. (1997). Boys dont cry. Masculinities, fear of crime, and fearlessness. British
Journal of Criminology, 37(3), 401418.
Grusec, J. E., & Kuczynski, L. (Eds.). (1997). Parenting and childrens internalization of val-
ues: A handbook of contemporary theory. New York: John Wiley.
Hale, C. (1996). Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of Victimology,
4, 79150.
Hendry, L. B., Shucksmith, J. G., & Glendinning, A. (1993). Young peoples leisure and
lifestyles. London: Routledge.
Hollander, J. A. (2001). Vulnerability and dangerousness: The construction of gender through
conversation about violence. Gender and Society, 15(1), 83109.
Jacobson, K. C., & Crockett, L. J. (2000). Parental monitoring and adolescent adjustment: An
ecological perspective. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10(1), 6597.
Kandy, J. (2001). I just gotta have my own space!: The bedroom as a leisure site for ado-
lescent girls. Journal of Leisure Research, 33(1), 7190.
Lee, M. (2001). The genesis of fear of crime. Theoretical Criminology, 5(4), 467485.
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(3), 827837.
Lowry, D. T., Nio, J. T. C., & Leitner, D. W. (2003, March). Setting the public fear agenda: A
longitudinal analysis of network TV crime reporting, public perceptions of crime, and FBI
crime statistics. Journal of Communication, 6173.
May, D. C. (1999). Scared kids, unattached kids, or peer pressure. Why do students carry
firearms to school? Youth & Society, 31(1), 100127.
May, D. C. (2001). The effect of fear of sexual victimization on adolescent fear of crime.
Sociological Spectrum, 21, 141174.
May, D. C., & Dunaway, G. R. (2000). Predictors of fear of criminal victimization at school
among adolescents. Sociological Spectrum, 20, 149168.
May, D. C., Vartanian, L. R., & Virgo, K. (2002). The impact of parental attachment and super-
vision on fear of crime among adolescent males. Adolescence, 37(146), 267287.
Mesch, G. S. (2000). Perceptions of risk, lifestyle activities, and fear of crime. Deviant
Behavior, 21, 4762.
Nayak, A. (2003). Through childrens eyes: Childhood, place, and the fear of crime.
Geoforum, 34, 303315.
Pain, R. (2003). Youth, age, and the representation of fear. Capital and Class, 80, 151171.
Pauwels, C. (2001). Een vergelijkende analyse van de VRT- en VTM-avondjournaals naar
inhoud en vormgeving [A comparative analysis of content and format of the evening news
of a Flemish public and commercial television station]. Brussels, Belgium: CeMeSo.
Romer, D., Jamieson, K. H., & Aday, S. (2003, March). Television news and the cultivation of
fear of crime. Journal of Communication, 88104.
Rountree, P. W. (1998). A reexamination of the crimefear linkage. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 35(3), 341372.
292 Youth & Society

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(4), 13531376.
Sacco, V. F. (1993, April). Social support and the fear of crime. Canadian Journal of
Criminology, 187196.
Scott, H. (2003). Stranger danger: Explaining womens fear of crime. Western Criminology
Review, 4(3), 203214.
Scott, S., Jackson, S., & Backett-Milburn, K. (1998). Swings and roundabouts: Risk anxiety
and the everyday worlds of children. Sociology, 32(4), 689705.
Shanahan, M., & Flaherty, P. B. (2001). Dynamic patterns of time use in adolescence. Child
Development, 72(2), 385401.
Siongers, J. (2005, June/July). Democracy runs in the family . . . along cultural pathways:
Similarities in democratic attitudes between parents and their adolescent children in
Flanders. Paper presented at the International Conference on Childhood 2005, Children
and Youth in Emerging and Transforming Societies, Oslo, Norway.
Skogan, W. G., & Maxfield, M. G. (1981). Coping with crime: Individual and neighborhood
reactions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Skogan, W. G. (1993). The various meanings of fear. In W. Bilsky, C. Pfeiffer, & P. Wetzels
(Eds.), Fear of crime and criminal victimization (pp. 131140). Stuttgart, Germany: Enke.
Smits, W. (2004). Maatschappelijke participatie van jongeren. Bewegen in de vrijetijds-,
sociale en culturele ruimte [Social and civic participation of young people: An exploration
of the leisure, social, and cultural space of youngsters]. Brussels, Belgium: Onderzoeksgroep
TOR, Vakgroep Sociologie, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
Stanko, E. A. (1988). Fear of crime and the myth of the safe home: A feminist critique of crim-
inology. In K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 7588).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Theberge, N. (2003). No fear comes: Adolescent girls, ice hockey, and the embodiment of
gender. Youth & Society, 34(4), 497516.
Tulloch, M. I. (1998). Quantitative Review. In Centre for Cultural Risk Research (Ed.), Fear
of crimeVolume 1: Audit of the literature and community (pp. 728). Barton, Australia:
National Crime Prevention Program.
Tulloch, M. I. (2004). Parental fear of crime: A discursive analysis. Journal of Sociology,
40(4), 362377.
Valentine, G. (1997a). Oh yes I can. Oh no you cant: Children and parents understand-
ings of kids competence to negotiate public space safely. Antipode, 29(1), 6589.
Valentine, G. (1997b). My sons a bit dizzy. My wifes a bit soft: Gender, children, and
cultures of parenting. Gender, Place, & Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 4(1),
3763.
Valentine, G., & McKendrick, J. (1997). Childrens outdoor play: Exploring parental concerns
about childrens safety and the changing nature of childhood. Geoforum, 28(2), 219235.
Vollebergh, W. A. M., Eidema, J., & Raaijmakers, Q. A. W. (2001). Intergenerational trans-
mission and the formation of cultural orientations in adolescence and young adulthood.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 11851198.
Walgrave, S., & De Swert, K. (2002). Does news content matter? The contribution of the news
media in the making of the issues of the Vlaams Blok. Ethical Perspectives, 9, 249274.
Warr, M. (1992). Altruistic fear of victimization in households. Social Science Quarterly,
73(4), 723736.
Warr, M., & Ellison, C. G. (2000). Rethinking social reactions to crime: Personal and altruis-
tic fear in family households. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 551578.
 De Groof / And My Mama Said . . . 293

Wayne, I., & Rubel, R. J. (1982). Student fear in secondary schools. The Urban Review, 14(3),
197237.
Wenk, D., Hardesty, C. L., Morgan, C. S., & Blair, S. L. (1994). The influence of parental
involvement on the well-being of their sons and daughters. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 56(1), 229234.
Williams, J. S., & Singh, B. K. (1994). Urban youth, fear of crime, and resulting defensive
actions. Adolescence, 29(114), 323331.
Williams, P., & Dickinson, J. (1993). Fear of crime: Read all about it?: The relationship
between newspaper crime reporting and fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology,
33(1), 3356.
Young, V. D. (1992). Fear of victimization and victimization rates among women: A paradox?
Justice Quarterly, 9(3), 419441.
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(6), 475489.
Zeijl, E., te Poel, Y., du Bois-Reymond, M., Ravesloot, J., & Meulman, J. J. (2000). The role
of parents and peers in the leisure activities of young adolescents. Journal of Leisure
Research, 32(3), 281302.

Saskia De Groof is a researcher in the Department of Sociology of the Vrije Universiteit

Brussel (Free University of Brussels), Belgium. Her primary research areas include fear of
crime, malaise, well-being, and solidarity, examining both adolescents and adults.