American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-019-09502-7

What you See Is What you Get? Investigating how

Survey Context Shapes the Association
between Media Consumption
and Attitudes about Crime

Colleen M. Ray 1 & Lisa A. Kort-Butler 1

Received: 31 May 2019 / Accepted: 23 September 2019 /

Published online: 7 December 2019
# Southern Criminal Justice Association 2019

Abstract
Research on the relationship between media consumption and perceptions of or
feelings about crime often relies on survey data. This research, however, rarely if
ever contextualizes the content of that media within the analyses. This study
explored how media type, frequency of use, and content are related to measures
of beliefs about crime. Using survey data from four different years, we tested the
relationship between media consumption, perceptions of the crime rate, worry
about crime, and anger about crime. We used regressions to investigate what types
of media are associated with public opinions on crime, and to examine how these
relationships differ across years. We then contextualized our findings by highlight-
ing both local and national news stories about crime that occurred leading up to
and during the time that each of these surveys was in the field. Results indicated
that local news had the most consistent effect on the three outcomes across years,
and other types of media were important when high-profile cases and political
debates were in the news cycle. In order to tell a fuller story about the effects of
media on beliefs about crime and justice, we argue that future research should
consider mixed-methods approaches to place surveys into social context.

Keywords Media . Crime . Survey research . Mixed methods . Worry . Anger . Public
opinion

* Colleen M. Ray
Colleen.ray18@gmail.com

Lisa A. Kort-Butler
Lkortbutler2@unl.edu

1
Department of Sociology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA
American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932 915

Media consumption has been linked to fear of crime, perceptions of the justice system,
and punitive attitudes (Dolliver, Kenney, Reid, & Prohaska, 2018). However, the
evidence is inconsistent and the strength of this relationship varies across studies
(Chadee & Ditton, 2005; Kleck & Jackson, 2017; Shi, Roche, & McKenna, 2019).
Differences in samples, types of media under study, operationalization of dependent
variables, and research design explain part of the inconsistency (e.g., Custers & Van
Den Bulck, 2011; Ditton, Chadee, Farrall, Gilchrist, & Bannister, 2004; Grabe & Drew,
2007; Roche, Pickett, & Gertz, 2016). Such inconsistencies have led researchers to
study how the effect of the media is filtered through or muted by other, more personal
factors like audience characteristics (Simmons, 2017), social networks (Kort-Butler &
Habecker, 2018), and personal experiences with crime (Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004).
Studies that rely on survey data suffer from another potential flaw, seldom addressed by
researchers: what is trending in the media when the survey is in the field may subtly
influence results (Kaminski, Koons-Witt, Thompson, & Weiss, 2010; Pickett, 2019). For
example, the large majority of studies we reviewed, while typically listing the dates during
which data were collected, rarely if ever reflected on whether high-profile events received
local or national news coverage during that time. Crime reporting, and its influence on public
opinion over time, is partly a function of actual trends in crime (Enns, 2016), but research
suggests an independent effect of local news consumption apart from local crime rates
(Chiricos, Padgett, & Gertz, 2000). Criminal events happen, and the news media selects
what to report based on various newsroom imperatives, as well as how to frame those stories
for consumption (Altheide, 1997). Trigger events, such as mass shootings, child abductions,
crime-related political debates, and local crime “waves,” receive more extensive coverage in
the media, thus exposing consumers to a particularly violent or extreme frame for crime
(Lowry, Nio, & Leitner, 2003).
Furthermore, frequency of media consumption may not be as relevant as the
interpretation placed on what people read or see (Ditton et al., 2004). For example,
Lowry et al. (2003) found that the content of TV newscasts 4 weeks prior to Gallup
polling impacted trends in crime-as-important-problem. Macro-level studies have also
demonstrated that trends in media content, including fiction, correspond to trends in
aggregate fear of crime (Jamieson & Romer, 2014; Romer et al., 2003). To know what
is “in” the media people consume, researchers generally rely on various forms of
content analysis. Thus, we know the media contains such-and-such a level of crime
and violent content (Morgan & Shanahan, 2010), portrays offenders one way and
victims another (Bjornstrom, Kaufman, Peterson, & Slater, 2010), and in doing so
misrepresents criminal justice processes and policy (Cavender & Deutch, 2007; Pickett,
Mancini, Mears, & Gertz, 2015; Rhineberger-Dunn, Briggs, & Rader, 2016). Addi-
tionally, scholars have described how and the extent to which media presentations
reflect, shape, and reinforce the cultural narrative about crime and justice, potentially
influencing how people think about and respond to crime (Surette, 2015; Welsh,
Fleming, & Dowler, 2011).

The Current Study

In this project, we asked how news and other media trends might tacitly influence
survey data in such a way to intensify (or weaken) the relationship between media
916 American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932

consumption and attitudes about crime. Graber (2004) observed that survey researchers
“often fail to ascertain, let alone content analyze, the media information that, they
assume, their subject encountered” (p. 561). Yet, research on public opinion about
crime and justice must consider the ways in which public opinion is tied to socio-
political context (Baranauskas & Drakulich, 2018; Williams, 2012). Doing so not only
provides for more precise research, but also allows for more robust theory testing
(Dolliver et al., 2018; Shi et al., 2019).
Using 4 years of survey data, we examined how media consumption was associated
with perceptions of the national crime rate, worry about crime, and anger about crime.
We were not interested in testing any specific theoretical perspectives per se, although
we considered theoretically-relevant variables in our analysis. Instead, our mixed
methods approach was designed to be descriptive, emphasizing the need for researchers
who use survey data – regardless of what theoretical perspective they are testing – to
pay attention to and inform their readers of current events that could color their results.
Therefore, we contextualized our survey data by screening media reports for prominent
local and national crime-related trigger events that occurred within the months prior to
and while the surveys were in the field. The analyses indicated that, at a minimum,
scholars relying on surveys should offer socio-historical context for their findings.

Methods

Data

Data were from four omnibus mail surveys, representative of adult Nebraskans: the
2011, 2015, and 2016 Nebraska Annual Social Indicators Survey (NASIS), and the
2014 Nebraska Community Survey (NCS). Each of these surveys was conducted by
the Bureau of Sociological Research at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln. All
surveys were sent to addresses obtained from the U.S. Postal Services Delivery
Sequence File. This method yields high coverage for household populations (English
et al., 2012).1 Across surveys there was comparable formatting of items related to
media use, attitudes about crime, and respondent demographic characteristics.
Data collection for the 2011 NASIS took place between April 21 and August 18, and
there was a response rate of 36.3% (AAPOR RR1).The 2014 NCS was collected in the
spring of 2014, and the final response rate was 31% (Habecker, Dombrowski, & Khan,
2015). The 2015 NASIS was collected between August 12 and October 20, and the
response rate was 32.7% (AAPOR RR2). Finally, the 2016 NASIS was collected
between September 1 and November 10, and yielded a response rate of 26.9%
(AAPOR RR2). Listwise deletion was used for each of samples, and the final analytic
samples were 666 for 2011, 440 for 2014, 826 for 2015, and 930 for 2016. Analyses
employed state-based population weights.

1
Data for 2014, 2015, and 2016 use the “next birthday” method to maintain a probability sample (Dillman,
Smyth, & Christian, 2014). The 2011 NASIS, however, incorporated an experiment into their probability
sample selection, and different groups were given instructions based on age or birthday indicating who should
fill out the survey.
American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932 917

Measures

Dependent Variables

The four surveys measured perceptions of changes in the Crime Rate in the United
States similarly. The questions asked respondents to indicate if they thought the rate of
crime in the United States seemed to be decreasing, staying about the same, or
increasing. The variable was dichotomized so that responses that the crime rate seemed
to be increasing were coded 1 and decreasing or staying about the same were coded 0.
The 2011 NASIS measured Worry about Crime by combining the degree to which
respondents worried about being a victim of a violent crime, a property crime, and someone
in their family being a victim of crime. The four response categories ranged from “do not
agree” to “strongly agree.” In the other three surveys, respondents were asked how often
they personally worried about six different crimes: walking alone at night, their residence
being broken into, getting robbed, getting raped or sexually attacked, getting murdered, and
a family member being a victim of a crime. The four response options for the 2015 and 2016
NASIS ranged from “not all worried” to “very worried.” In the 2014 NCS the five response
options ranged from “never” to “always.” In each year, variables were coded so that higher
values indicate more worry, and a mean scale of worry was created from the available
questions (α values ranged from 0.85 to 0.89).
In the 2011 NASIS Anger about Crime was measured by asking how much
respondents agreed with the statement, “When I think about crime in this country, I
feel angry.” The four response categories ranged from “do not agree” to “strongly
agree.” In the other surveys, there were two questions about how angry people felt
when they thought about “crime in this country” and “crime in your community.” The
four response options ranged from “not at all angry” to “very angry.” In all years, we
coded the variables so that higher values indicated more anger (Johnson 2009). For the
2014, 2015, and 2016 surveys, we averaged the two anger items.

Independent Variables

People may encounter crime news and crime-related content in a variety of media
genres (e.g., Roche et al., 2016; Simmons, 2017). Accordingly, we examined con-
sumption of local and national TV news; news in newspapers and on the Internet; and
viewership of TV crime dramas, reality shows, and non-fictional crime shows. The
NASIS asked how many days in an average week respondents watched “local news”
(in 2011) or “local TV news” (in 2015 and 2016). The 2014 NCS asked how many
days in the past 7 days respondents watched local TV news. The Local News variables
were then coded so that higher numbers represent more frequent viewing.
To measure National News, the 2011 NASIS asked only one question about how
many days in an average week respondents watched “national news like CBS Evening
News or CNN Newsroom.” The 2015 and 2016 NASIS asked two questions about
average weekly viewing of “national network TV news on ABC, CBS, or NBC” and
“national cable TV news, like CNN, FOX, or MSNBC.” The 2014 NCS asked about
viewership in the past 7 days. For each of these three surveys, these two questions were
averaged together to create a single indicator of national news viewing, where higher
numbers represent higher frequency of viewing.
918 American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932

Crime Drama, Reality Crime TV, and Crime Non-Fiction were measured in each
NASIS but not measured in the 2014 NCS. In the NASIS a stem asked “We are interested in
knowing how often people watch different kinds of TV programs. How many days in an
average week do you:” with options ranging from zero to 7 days. In 2011 the Crime Drama
question was “Watch TV crime dramas like Law & Order or CSI,” and in 2015 and 2016 it
asked “Watched a fictional program about crime, like Law & Order or NCIS?” All 3 years of
the NASIS measured Reality Crime TV though the question “Watch reality programs about
crime like America’s Most Wanted or COPS?” All 3 years of the NASIS identically asked
the question for Crime Non-Fiction as “Watch non-fictional programs about crime like those
on A&E or the Discovery Channel?”
How often respondents consumed Newspapers and Internet News was mea-
sured in the 2014 NCS, the 2015 NASIS, and the 2016 NASIS. For the NCS the
stem was “In the past 7 days, on how many days did you;” where Newspaper
was measured through “read a print newspaper?” and Internet News was mea-
sured through “read or watch news on the Internet.” Both the 2015 and 2016
NASIS used the stem “How many days in an average week do you:” but the
questions were identical to the 2014 NCS.
Trust in Media Information was measured with the following stem in the 2011
NASIS “Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements:” and the
question “I think the media is a reliable source of information about crime.” Response
options were “Strongly agree,” “Somewhat agree,” “Slightly agree,” and “Do not
agree.” For the remaining years it was asked with the following stem “How reliable
is:” and the question “The media as a source of information about crime?” With the
response options “Very reliable,” “Mostly,” “Somewhat,” and “Not at all reliable.” For
all 4 years the variables were coded so that higher values indicate higher levels of trust
or thoughts of reliability in the government as a source of information about crime.

Control Variables

Trigger events may not impact all viewers/consumers equally. Given known audi-
ence effects, a number of demographic variables were included as controls
(Eschholz, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2003; Simmons, 2017). Urban was measured in the
2014 NCS using zip codes, where a respondent was coded 1 for urban if the area
that they lived in had more than 50,000 people and smaller areas coded 0. In the
2011, 2015, and 2016 NASIS respondents were given the options “Town/city,”
“Farm,” and “Open country.” The variable was dichotomized so measure where
those that indicated town/city were coded 1 and others were coded 0. Race was a
dichotomous variable: respondents who indicated that they were White were coded
1 and all other racial groups were coded 0. Male respondents were coded 1 and
female respondents were coded 0. Education was a dichotomous variable where a
Bachelor’s Degree or higher degree was coded 1, and less than a bachelor’s degree
was coded 0. Political Conservativism was a five-point scale on which respondents
rated themselves from very liberal (1) to very conservative (5).
Finally, a control was also included for Victimization experiences. In the 2011
NASIS, respondents were asked if they had been a victims of any crime in the past
year. In the 2014 NCS and the 2016 NASIS, the question asked about the past
12 months. In the 2015 NASIS, however, the question asked “Have you, or has
American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932 919

any person close to you, been a victim of a crime in the last 12 months?” On all of
the surveys, the response options were yes (coded 1) or no (coded 0).

Data Strengths and Limitations

The surveys sampled from one state, using the same sampling techniques and
delivery mode, and were administered by the same survey organization. These
similarities extended to the general format of the questions. Most survey tech-
niques have their limitations, but mail surveys conducted in the modes used here
are considered effective in reaching people that phone surveys cannot (Dillman
et al., 2014). Although the data is not necessarily representative of other popula-
tions, it does allow us to speak consistently to the socio-historical context of the
surveys. Because of their lower proximity and exposure to crime relative to other
states (e.g., Nebraska ranked 33rd in violent crime rates in 2014 [FBI, 2015]),
Nebraskans may be more dependent on the media as a window for viewing crime
and justice, so that the media may be a more salient source. One caveat: unfor-
tunately, none of our news viewing variables explicitly asked about crime-related
news.
Our primary interest in the analyses was the patterning of relationships from
year-to-year; nevertheless the cross-sectional nature of the surveys does not allow
for causal inferences within years. These were omnibus surveys, with slight
inconsistencies in survey structure between the years in question wording and
order, placement on the survey, and formatting styles. Such variations may
influence responses, potentially contributing to some differences in the effects of
variables within models across the years.

Data Analytic Plan

First, we performed univariate analyses to describe the media consumption,

perceptions and beliefs about crime, and demographic characteristics of the sam-
ples across the 4 years, followed by a correlation analysis. For this bivariate
analysis, after the study variables were created within each year’s data, all 4 years
were combined into a single data set so that comparisons could be made. Each
data set included a year indicator so that models could be performed for a single
year (using a subpopulation command in STATA), and comparisons could be
made across years. Next, regressions were used to explore the correlates of the
three outcomes. A binary logistic regression was used for perceptions that crime is
increasing in the US. The other two outcomes of interest, worry and anger about
crime, are mean scores of Likert scale items, so an ordinary least-squares (OLS)
linear regression was used. Finally, we contextualized the findings from the
multivariate statistical results with a recounting of the trigger events present in
the news media, gathered from Internet searches.2
2
Given Enns’s (2016) argument about the association between crime rates and crime reporting, a real-time
assessment of crime statistics leading into and during the survey periods – mirroring our qualitative analysis –
would have been a meaningful statistical control. However, the only readily available measures were year-end
crime rates in the Uniform Crime Reports, which mute within-year patterns. Future researchers may seek
crime rate data that better approximates within-year fluctuations (Chiricos et al., 2000).
920 American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932

Results

Univariate Results

Table 1 shows univariate statistics for the study variables including the three outcomes
of interest (US crime rate, worry about crime, and anger about crime), variables
measuring the consumption of different forms of media, and demographic characteris-
tics of the respondent. Across the 4 years roughly two-thirds of respondents believed
that the crime rate in the United States was increasing (range = .59–.68). Worry about
crime values ranged from a 2.23 (2015)-2.79 (2011), which corresponds to between
“somewhat (2)” and “fairly worried (3).” Similarly, anger about crime ranged from a
low of 2.66 in 2014 to a high of 2.99 in 2016.
Across all 4 years, respondents watched the local news about 4 days per week, and
watched national news about 3 days per week. Television shows about crime (crime
dramas, reality TV, and non-fiction) were only measured in the NASIS, and not in the
2014 NCS. On average respondents watched TV crime dramas and non-fiction crime
shows about two times per week, and watched reality TV crime about once per week
across all 3 years (2011, 2014, 2015). Readership and viewing of newspapers and
Internet news were only measured in the three most recent years, 2014, 2015, 2016. On
average respondents read newspapers about two and a half days per week. In 2014

Table 1 Descriptive statistics of study variables by year

2011 (n = 666) 2014 (n = 440) 2015 (n = 826) 2016 (n = 930) Diff.

Mean/p SE Mean/p SE Mean/p SE Mean/p SE F

US Crime Rate 0.66 0.68 0.59 0.63 2.63*

Worry about Crimea 2.79 0.07 2.47 0.04 2.23 0.03 2.25 0.03 23.45***
Anger about Crime 2.89 0.06 2.66 0.04 2.92 0.04 2.99 0.04 11.67***
Local News 4.46 0.15 3.64 0.13 4.08 0.11 4.11 0.11 6.26***
National News 2.81 0.18 2.58 0.11 2.94 0.09 3.09 0.09 4.62**
TV Crime Drama 1.67 0.12 - - 1.64 0.08 1.62 0.08 .06
Reality TV Crime 0.96 0.18 - - 1.06 0.07 0.98 0.06 .39
Non-Fiction Crime Shows 1.60 0.16 - - 1.93 0.09 1.67 0.08 3.08*
Newspaper - - 2.45 0.14 2.54 0.10 2.76 0.11 1.89
Internet News - - 3.27 0.14 4.44 0.11 4.51 0.11 29.98***
Trust Media Information 2.10 0.05 2.26 0.04 2.23 0.03 2.15 0.03 3.40*
Urban 0.82 0.51 0.59 0.79 31.83***
Male 0.51 0.47 0.51 0.50 .39
White 0.92 0.92 0.89 0.95 3.98**
BA 0.43 0.50 0.52 0.54 2.72*
Conservative 3.16 0.08 3.41 0.05 3.23 0.04 3.32 0.04 3.94**
Crime Victim 0.09 0.11 0.10 0.10 .25

***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05

a In 2014 this variable ranged from 1 to 5, in all other years it ranged from 1 to 4
American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932 921

respondents read or watched news on the Internet just over three times per week (3.27),
but in 2014 and 2015 it was more than 4 days on average (4.44 and 4.51, respectively).
Finally, across all 4 years respondents reported just over two on their trust in media
information, which corresponds to them reporting that information from the media on
crime is “somewhat reliable.”
The number of respondents living in urban areas ranged from a low of 51% in 2014
(measured by zip code) to a high of 82% in 2011(measured by self-report). Across all
4 years, the sample was nearly evenly split between male and female respondents. The
samples were mostly White, about half had a bachelor’s degree or more, with the
average political belief being slightly more on the conservative side. About 10% of
respondents had been the victim of a crime in the last 12 months.

Bivariate Results

Table 2 shows the results of unweighted pair-wise correlations among the three
dependent variables, all independent variables, and each year. In this combined dataset,
the relationships among the media variables were significant and positive. However,
Internet news use was only significantly associated with viewing national news and
non-fiction crime shows. Trust in the media was correlated with local and national TV
news consumption, reality TV consumption, and newspaper reading.
Many of the media variables were positively and significantly associated with the
perception that the crime rate was increasing. Internet news, however, was negatively
associated with the perception that the US crime is increasing, and there was no
significant correlation between either newspaper or the trust in media and perceptions
about the US crime rate. A different story exists for worry about crime, where only
local news viewership and trust in media had positive associations with worry about
crime. Internet news consumption had a significant and negative association with worry
about crime. All media variables had significant associations with individual’s anger
about crime. For all media variables, except Internet news, this relationship was
positive.
As demonstrated in the univariate analysis, there was significant variation across
years in the correlation analysis. First, the survey from 2015 had a significant and
negative association with perceptions of crime rates, such that respondents in 2015
were less likely to indicate that the US crime rate was increasing as compared to other
years. Second, data from 2011 had a positive association with worry about crime, while
data from 2015 and 2016 were both associated with marginally lower levels of worry
about crime relative to other years. Third, the data from 2014 had a significant and
negative relationship with anger about crime, indicating less anger about crime than the
other 3 years.
Media consumption patterns differed by year, as shown in the univariate statistics.
Local and national news viewership were significant and negative for 2014, but
significant and positive in 2016, indicating less consumption of TV news in 2014 but
more frequent consumption in 2016. A similar pattern appeared for reality and non-
fiction programs, such that viewership was significant and negative for 2011 but
positive for 2015. Newspaper reading was significant and negative for 2014 but
positive for 2016, indicting less newspaper use in 2014, but more frequent reading in
2016. Internet news consumption was negatively correlated with the 2014 data, but
 922

Table 2 Correlation matrix of unweighted study variablesa

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. US Crime Rate 1.00

2. Worry about Crimea .13*** 1.00
3. Anger about Crime .34*** .10*** 1.00
4. Local News .16*** .06** .22*** 1.00
5. National News .07*** .01 .18*** .64*** 1.00
6. TV Crime Drama .09*** .01 .10*** .19*** .18*** 1.00
7. Reality TV Crime .12*** .03 .18*** .16*** .23*** .37*** 1.00
8. Non-Fiction Crime Shows .09*** .01 .15*** .18*** .24*** .37*** .55*** 1.00
9. Newspaper .03 −.08 .08*** .36*** .34*** .12*** .01 .02 1.00
10. Internet News −.09*** −.05* −.05* .00 .09*** .02 .02 .08** −.02 1.00
11. Trust Media Information −.03 .04* .04* .19*** .19*** .04 .05** .03 .16*** .00 1.00
12. 2011 .02 .25*** −.03 .01 −.07*** .00 −.08*** −.09*** – – −.10***
13. 2014 .02 .03 −.11*** −.10*** −.08*** – – – −.05* −.17*** .04*
14. 2015 −.04* −.13*** .03 .02 .02 .02 .06** .08*** −.03 .06* .05**
15. 2016 .01 −.12*** .08 .05** .10*** −.01 .02 .01 .07* .08*** .01

***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05

a Year variables are not correlated with one another as they are mutually exclusive
American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932
American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932 923

positively correlated with 2015 and 2016 data, suggesting that Internet news consump-
tion was increasingly frequent in those years. Trust in the media was negatively
correlated with the 2011 data, but positively correlated with 2014 and 2015 data,
suggesting that trust in the media was higher on average in those years.

Multivariate Results

Table 3 shows the results of a binary logistic regression of respondents’ percep-

tions on whether the crime rate in the United States was (1) increasing or (0)
stable/decreasing. For each additional day that respondents watched local news in
2011, 2015, and 2016, they had 15–20% higher odds of thinking that the crime
rate in the US was increasing. In 2011, respondents who had more trust in the
media as a reliable source of information about crime were less likely to think that
the crime rate in the US was increasing. Males and those with a bachelor’s degree
or higher were less likely to think that crime rate in the US was increasing, while
those who are more conservative had higher odds of thinking that the US crime
rate was increasing.
Table 4 shows an OLS linear regression for respondents’ worry about crime. In 2015
respondents who watched more local news were more worried about being a victim of
a crime. Additionally, in 2016 individuals who watched more reality TV crime and
more non-fiction crime shows were also more worried about being a victim of a crime
on average. In 2011, however, those who watched more non-fiction crime were less
worried about being a victim of a crime. Individuals living in urban settings (2014 and
2015) were more worried about being a victim of a crime. Males in 2011 were more
worried about being a victim of a crime, while females were more worried in the other
years. Individuals with less education (2015), and those who were more conservative
(2014) were more worried about crime. In 2011, being a victim of a crime in the past
12 months was associated with less worrying about crime, but in 2014 and 2016 this
relationship was reversed.
An OLS linear regression on the respondent’s reported anger about crime is shown
in Table 5. In 2011, 2014, and 2015 those who watched more local news are angrier
about crime on average. In some years watching more reality TV crime (2016) or non-
fiction crime shows (2011) were associated with more anger about crime. In 2014,
individuals who thought that the media was a reliable source of information about
crime were angrier about crime on average. Across all 4 years males and those with
more than a bachelor’s degree were less angry about crime on average, while those that
were more conservative were generally angrier about the crime in the US. In 2016,
respondents who were a victim of crime in the past 12 months were angrier about
crime.

Ripped from the Headlines

In order to contextualize these results, potential trigger events were discovered via
Google news searches for terms such as “crime,” “murder,” and “death penalty.” To
begin, we limited the searches by the 3 months prior to the dates the surveys entered the
field to the last month of the field dates. After general searches for crime-related terms,
we included “Nebraska” in the search to limit to state-level news. We also searched the
 924

Table 3 Binary logistic regression on US crime rate (1 = Increasing)

2011 (n = 666) 2014 (n = 440) 2015 (n = 826) 2016 (n = 930)

OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI

Local News 1.150* [1.022–1.293] 1.129 [0.973–1.310] 1.198*** [1.089–1.319] 1.181*** [1.071–1.302]
National News 0.926 [0.831–1.032] 0.903 [0.758–1.075] 0.966 [0.861–1.084] 0.933 [0.835–1.041]
TV Crime Drama 0.992 [0.878–1.120] – – 1.008 [0.912–1.114] 0.992 [0.882–1.115]
Reality TV Crime 1.187 [0.932–1.512] – – 1.090 [0.952–1.247] 1.048 [0.897–1.224]
Non-Fiction Crime Shows 1.119 [0.962–1.302] – – 1.004 [0.899–1.123] 1.088 [0.969–1.222]
Newspaper – – 1.036 [0.929–1.156] 0.974 [0.909–1.044] 0.982 [0.914–1.055]
Internet News – – 0.925 [0.840–1.019] 0.997 [0.930–1.069] 0.949 [0.884–1.020]
Trust Media Information 0.753* [0.595–0.953] 0.888 [0.638–1.236] 1.002 [0.773–1.299] 0.791 [0.596–1.048]
Urban 0.872 [0.466–1.635] 1.014 [0.608–1.693] 1.067 [0.725–1.571] 0.906 [0.547–1.499]
Male 0.362*** [0.229–0.575] 0.738 [0.446–1.222] 0.540*** [0.379–0.770] 0.540** [0.369–0.790]
White 1.125 [0.409–3.095] 1.071 [0.435–2.637] 1.440 [0.773–2.683] 1.414 [0.612–3.271]
BA 0.509** [0.308–0.840] 0.573* [0.335–0.979] 0.541** [0.364–0.802] 0.581** [0.391–0.864]
Conservative 1.454** [1.107–1.909] 1.832*** [1.353–2.480] 1.363** [1.115–1.667] 1.793*** [1.474–2.182]
Crime Victim 1.186 [0.518–2.714] 0.810 [0.344–1.905] 1.279 [0.631–2.596] 1.428 [0.757–2.694]
Intercept 1.291 [0.220–7.571] 0.555 [0.109–2.837] 0.366 [0.116–1.158] 0.422 [0.106–1.684]
F 4.83*** 2.41** 3.78*** 5.74***

***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05

American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932
American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932 925

Table 4 OLS Linear regression on worry about crimea

2011 (n = 666) 2014 (n = 440) 2015 (n = 826) 2016 (n = 930)

b SE b SE b SE b SE

Local News −0.024 0.022 0.033 0.021 0.031** 0.012 0.022 0.012
National News −0.009 0.020 0.015 0.024 0.006 0.014 −0.006 0.015
TV Crime Drama −0.003 0.023 – – 0.006 0.014 −0.012 0.014
Reality TV Crime .039 0.046 – – 0.002 0.015 0.039* 0.019
Non-Fiction Crime Shows −0.109** 0.038 – – 0.005 0.014 0.040* 0.016
Newspaper – – −0.016 0.016 −0.008 0.009 0.011 0.008
Internet News – – −0.002 0.016 −0.003 0.009 −0.006 0.010
Trust Media Information −0.003 0.044 −0.072 0.054 −0.047 0.036 −0.042 0.036
Urban −0.247 0.127 0.154* 0.076 0.128* 0.051 0.008 0.066
Male 0.266** 0.085 −0.659*** 0.072 −0.459*** 0.044 −0.519*** 0.046
White −0.103 0.136 0.100 0.131 −0.085 0.081 −0.001 0.163
BA 0.013 0.094 −0.048 0.076 −0.128* 0.050 0.019 0.049
Conservative 0.054 0.052 0.128** 0.045 0.020 0.025 0.033 0.024
Crime Victim −0.686*** 0.136 0.448*** 0.132 0.116 0.093 0.188* 0.093
Intercept 3.113*** 0.290 2.195*** 0.221 2.422*** 0.149 2.296*** 0.224
F 4.93*** 10.17*** 10.92*** 14.11***
Adjusted R2 0.193 0.260 0.181 0.232

***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05

Vanderbilt Television News Archive for national news items.3 There was some varia-
tion across the years in the nature of trigger events in the news in the months prior to
and during the time the surveys were in the field (see Table 6). We also noticed that
certain trigger stories had a long shelf-life, reappearing in the news cycle as additional
information came to light, a case went to trial, a verdict was rendered, anniversaries
approached, or crime-related debates bubbled up.
We also examined viewership numbers (via Nielsen ratings) to determine popular
TV shows during the survey years. These may be less relevant to time-bound surveys
because many of them are “always on,” either in re-runs or, increasingly, via streaming
services. The exception here may be the binge-watching of certain shows that might be
“trending.” Not surprisingly, crime-related dramas dominated the top 10, including
NCIS (and its spin-offs), Criminal Minds, and Blue Bloods, which have a consistent
presence from 2011 through 2016, with The Walking Dead making its way onto the
charts after 2013. Re-runs of crime dramas were also in heavy rotation on basic cable
stations. Reality shows like COPS were still on-the-air, as were non-fictional crime
programs on cable stations. Services like Netflix also began offering more “true crime”

3
It was not our intention to perform a full content analysis of the nature of coverage. Rather, we were
interested – post hoc – if trigger events occurred while surveys were in the field and what the events were. As
we advocate in the discussion section, in the future, more robust studies should monitor the news in real time.
926 American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932

Table 5 OLS linear regression on anger about crime

2011 (n = 666) 2014 (n = 440) 2015 (n = 826) 2016 (n = 930)

b SE b SE b SE b SE

Local News 0.068** 0.025 0.020 0.027 0.060** 0.021 0.036* 0.017
National News 0.018 0.021 0.030 0.032 0.029 0.026 0.009 0.020
TV Crime Drama −0.005 0.028 – – −0.001 0.020 −0.021 0.018
Reality TV Crime 0.028 0.033 – – 0.026 0.025 0.079*** 0.022
Non-Fiction Crime Shows 0.068* 0.030 – – −0.003 0.023 0.028 0.020
Newspaper – – 0.023 0.021 −0.013 0.015 0.003 0.013
Internet News – – −0.015 0.019 −0.022 0.014 −0.016 0.012
Trust Media Information −0.015 0.054 0.075* 0.064 0.015 0.055 −0.033 0.049
Urban −0.003 0.121 0.072 0.093 0.144 0.076 −0.042 0.082
Male −0.196* 0.095 −0.140* 0.089 −0.156* 0.073 −0.228*** 0.065
White 0.142 0.200 0.024 0.216 −0.035 0.135 0.066 0.156
BA −0.318** 0.109 −0.198* 0.097 −0.259*** 0.081 −0.261*** 0.067
Conservative 0.156** 0.050 0.144* 0.063 0.151*** 0.042 0.062 0.032
Crime Victim 0.202 0.168 −0.120 0.131 −0.003 0.133 0.297*** 0.082
Intercept 2.042*** 0.315 2.006*** 0.349 2.338*** 0.236 2.849*** 0.242
F 6.83*** 2.70** 6.71*** 8.13***
Adjusted R2 0.144 0.081 0.124 0.140

***p < .001, **p < .01, *p < .05

shows, particularly in the later survey years, with programs such as Making a Murderer
(released 2015) and Killing Fields (released 2016).

Discussion

Surveys in Social Context

Among media types, local news played the most consistent role in both individuals’
perceptions of crime rates and their emotional responses to crime, akin to other research
(e.g., Baranauskas & Drakulich, 2018; Kleck & Jackson, 2017). Other news sources
had less consistent effects, reflecting the research literature generally. In part, this may
be because local TV news use correlated substantially with national news viewing and
newspaper reading (but not Internet use) (Callanan & Rosenberger, 2015). Moreover,
local TV news generally reports national trigger events, overlaps content with other
sources (newspapers, local radio), and maintains websites that are usually free. National
news may also have more diffuse effects on regional public opinion, unless clustered in
time (i.e., several high-profile events within a few months, as noted below).
An examination of news stories provides important context for these results. In
2011, there were several high-profile violent crimes in Nebraska involving teenaged
offenders, including a school shooting that happened prior to the survey period but
American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932 927

Table 6 Prominent News Stories Appearing During Survey Periods (Hyperlinked supplementary file avail-
able online)

2011
• Nebraska:
◦ Omaha-area school shooting and ongoing coverage
◦ Teen murders friend over money, drugs
◦ Teens implicated and 12 year-old extradited for shooting at city park implicated
◦ Teens implicated in murder at city park
◦ Cary Dean Moore execution stayed by Nebraska Supreme Court
◦ Anthony Riley murder/attempted murders case retrial
• National:
◦ Shooting at Rep. Gabrielle Gifford’s Tucson (AZ) event and ongoing coverage
◦ Casey Anthony murder trial and verdict
◦Whitey Bulger arrest
◦Norway mass shooting at Utøya youth camp
2014
• Nebraska:
◦ Nikko Jenkins, charged with four murders, hearings begin, no contest plea entered
◦ Teen kills corrections officer
◦ Man sentenced for stabbing wife in front of their children
◦ Convicted Douglas County chief crime scene investigator ordered to pay for planting evidence
◦ “Beatrice 6” lawsuit to trial in January; mistrial declared
• National
◦ Fort Hood (TX) shooting
◦ Shootings at Kansas City-area Jewish community centers
2015
• Nebraska:
◦ Ballot initiative for death penalty referendum (following legislative abolition in May 2015)
◦ Nebraska government tries (and fails) to buy drugs from overseas for lethal injection
◦ Riot at Tecumseh State Prison; 2 inmates die
◦ Double murder and baby abandonment
◦ Death row inmate Michael Ryan dies in prison
◦ Nebraska Supreme Court case re. publication of serial killer's artwork
• National:
◦ Shootings at Chattanooga (TN) recruiting centers
◦ Charleston (SC) church mass shooting
◦ Umpqua Community College (OR) mass shooting
◦ Pretrial action for Baltimore officers charged with Freddie Gray’s death in police custody
2016
• Nebraska:
◦ Death penalty referendum (debates refer to Moore, Jenkins, Beatrice 6, prison riot cases)
◦ 2015 prison riot trials
◦ Prisoners escape from state penitentiary
◦ Continuing unrest at state prisons and ongoing state inquiries
◦ “Beatrice 6” lawsuit retried; damages awarded
• National:
◦ Pulse (FL) mass shooting
◦ Dallas (TX) mass shooting
◦ Washington (state) mall shooting
◦ Philando Castile and Alton Sterling shootings and related protests
◦ Baton Rouge (LA) shooting of 2 police officers

remained in the news, along with updates about the shooting at Arizona Representative
Gabrielle Gifford’s event (both happened about the same time). There was a prominent
stay of execution by the Nebraska Supreme Court. During the 2014 survey period, in
928 American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932

contrast, only one high-profile state-level crime occurred; the remaining state-level
stories revolved around court proceedings. This is also a year in which respondents, on
average, consumed less news.
2015 and 2016 were especially dramatic years in the state. After the legislative
abolition of the death penalty, there were continuing debates about it during the 2015
survey period, including a push for a ballot initiative to reinstate the death penalty, and
the state government’s failed attempt to buy lethal injection drugs. In addition, there
was a riot at a state prison that left two inmates dead and many people injured. The
2016 survey occurred during the autumn run up to Election Day, with the death penalty
on the ballot. There was continuing unrest at state prisons, a dramatic prison escape,
and the beginning of trials for the 2015 riot. The coverage of the death penalty debate
invoked all of these, as well as other recent high-profile murder (and exoneration)
cases. Outside the state, during both survey periods, there were several notable mass
shootings, the deaths of people of color by the police that led to intensely covered
protests, as well as a raucous presidential election that invoked crime. In short, during
2015 and 2016, crime-related issues were frequently in the local news, as well as in the
state and national political agenda, and likely influenced people’s perceptions and
feelings about crime.
Viewership of non-news crime-related television shows also has the potential to
influence emotions about crime. Crime non-fiction shows (e.g., The First 48) had
effects in 2011, reducing worry but increasing anger about crime. However, a transition
seems to have occurred. By 2016, reality crime shows also became important, increas-
ing anger and, along with non-fiction shows, worry about crime. The rise of “true
crime” streaming shows and podcasts (e.g., Making a Murderer and Serial, respective-
ly) may blur a once distinct line between these genres. (Kennedy, 2018; Yardley, Kelly,
& Robinson-Edwards, 2019), while still acting as infotainment that reports but theat-
rically distorts the reality of crime (Kort-Butler & Sittner Hartshorn, 2011).4 Moreover,
in light of two very active years for crime-related news in the state, consuming reality
and non-fiction programming may have further added to unease about and mispercep-
tions of crime.

Directions for Future Research

People consume news to find out what is happening, while at the same time being
exposed to a framework for processing that information (Dolliver et al., 2018). Survey
research tends to overlook the “on-line processing” phenomenon, in which people
process information as they encounter it but retain what they processed, not the
underlying information itself (Graber, 2004). In conjunction with audience character-
istics (Eschholz et al., 2003), this cognitive process may explain, for example, why
crime reporting that offers more context or more details may not influence people’s
causal attributions about crime and reduce their punitiveness (Coleman & Thorson,
2002; Indermaur, Roberts, Spiranovic, Mackenzie, & Gelb, 2012).
Linkage studies are designed to address the theoretical and methodological
gaps in survey research alone, moving beyond the simple exposure measured in

4
Data are not available, or at least readily accessible at the current time, to determine what streaming shows or
podcasts were popular in the state in a given time period.
American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932 929

most surveys and capturing message. In brief, linkage analyses pair content
analysis with survey data in order to afford better inferences about the rela-
tionship between media consumption and personal or public reactions to that
media (de Vreese et al., 2017; Scharkow & Bachl, 2017). Linkage research,
becoming more common and methodologically robust in the study of political
communication, is largely absent from research on media and public opinion
about crime, although some linkage-type studies exist (Ditton et al., 2004;
Donovan & Klahm, 2015; Jamieson & Romer, 2014).
Our results suggest that in order to tell a fuller story about the effects of media
consumption on beliefs about crime and justice, researchers should consider mixed-
methods approaches or linkage analyses that places their surveys into socio-historical
context (Brown, 2012; Elsass, Schildkraut, & Stafford, 2016; Williams, 2012). Even
without specific linkage analyses, asking respondents how they access news and if they
looked at crime content may also yield greater precision in future work. At a minimum,
we call for researchers relying on survey data to provide more than the dates of their
surveys and to offer their readers a sense of major events in the news cycle (e.g., Kort-
Butler & Ray, 2018, p. 15). Nationwide surveys should report major national events
(e.g., mass shootings, high-profile crimes, heated political topics). Regional and local
surveys need to give particular attention to local events, including sensationalized
crimes and political debates about justice-related issues. Because local news stations
tend to touch on high-profile national news and “localize” national stories (Kappeler &
Potter, 2018), major national events should be reported. Researchers should also be
sensitive to the shelf-life of major stories, which may reappear as new information
comes to light in a case, or may be reframed when new (or renewed) debates about
crime and punishment arise.
Finally, local news may still shape the story of crime, but media use is increasingly
driven by self-selection (Kort-Butler & Habecker, 2018; Roche et al., 2016). Streaming
services and podcasts allow users to select content, even as such services offer
suggestions and promote trending programs (e.g., https://research.netflix.
com/research-area/recommendations). These programs may be less relevant to time-
bound surveys because they are “always on.” Although Internet news consumption in
this study was about as frequent as local news consumption, it did not appear to
influence attitudes about crime.5 Furthermore, Internet news consumption, unlike other
forms of media in this study, was not correlated with local news viewing; Internet news
was only correlated with national news and non-fictional crime program consumption.
Like streaming, consumers can decide which news sources they either seek out on the
Internet or let into their social media feeds. Social and streaming media may play an
increasingly important role in shaping beliefs about crime (Elsass, Schlidkraut, &
Stafford, 2014; Morgan, Shanahan, & Signorielli, 2015). As technology shifts and
the availability to access news and crime-based entertainment expands, the need for
linkage-type analyses in the study of the media and criminal justice attitudes and
perceptions also increases.

5
The item did not distinguish among source (e.g., social media, traditional news website, alternative news
website) or type (e.g., news article, video, blog), and variation among respondents may blunt the effect (Roche
et al., 2016). Future studies should consider gathering more detailed information about Internet news
consumption.
930 American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932

Acknowledgements Partial support for this work provided by University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of
Arts & Sciences and the Department of Sociology. The authors thank Lyndsey Witt-Swanson and the staff at
the UNL Bureau of Sociological Research for their assistance.

References

Altheide, D. L. (1997). The news media, the problem frame, and the production of fear. Sociological
Quarterly, 38, 647–668.
Baranauskas, A. J., & Drakulich, K. M. (2018). Media construction of crime revisited: Media types, consumer
contexts, and frames of crime and justice. Criminology, 56, 679–714.
Bjornstrom, E. E., Kaufman, R. L., Peterson, R. D., & Slater, M. D. (2010). Race and ethnic representations of
lawbreakers and victims in crime news: A national study of television coverage. Social Problems, 57,
269–293.
Brown, E. K. (2012). Rethinking public opinion in penal policymaking: Recommendations for research.
Sociology Compass, 6(8), 601–613.
Callanan, V., & Rosenberger, J. S. (2015). Media, gender, and fear of crime. Criminal Justice Review, 40, 322–
339.
Cavender, G., & Deutch, S. K. (2007). CSI and moral authority: The police and science. Crime, Media,
Culture, 3, 67–81.
Chadee, D., & Ditton, J. (2005). Fear of crime and the media: Assessing the lack of relationship. Crime,
Media, Culture, 1, 322–332.
Chiricos, T., Padgett, K., & Gertz, M. (2000). Fear, TV news, and the reality of crime. Criminology, 38, 755–
786.
Coleman, R., & Thorson, E. (2002). The effects of news stories that put crime and violence into context:
Testing the public health model of reporting. Journal of Health Communication, 7, 401–425.
Custers, K., & Van den Bulck, J. (2011). The relationship of dispositional and situational fear of crime with
television viewing and direct experience with crime. Mass Communication and Society, 14, 600–619.
De Vreese, C. H., Boukes, M., Schuck, A., Vliegenthart, R., Bos, L., & Lelkes, Y. (2017). Linking survey and
media content data: Opportunities, considerations, and pitfalls. Communication Methods and Measures,
11(4), 221–244.
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The
tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Ditton, J., Chadee, D., Farrall, S., Gilchrist, E., & Bannister, J. (2004). From imitation to intimidation: A note
on the curious and changing relationship between the media, crime and fear of crime. British Journal of
Criminology, 44, 595–610.
Dolliver, M. J., Kenney, J. L., Reid, L. W., & Prohaska, A. (2018). Examining the relationship between media
consumption, fear of crime, and support for controversial criminal justice policies using a nationally
representative sample. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 34, 399–420.
Donovan, K. M., & Klahm, C. F. (2015). The role of entertainment media in perceptions of police use of force.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42, 1261–1281.
Elsass, H. J., Schildkraut, J., & Stafford, M. C. (2016). Studying school shootings: Challenges and consid-
erations for research. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 444–464.
Elsass, H. J., Schlidkraut, J., & Stafford, M. C. (2014). Breaking news of social problems: Examining media
consumption and student beliefs about school shootings. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law and Society,
15, 31–42.
English, N., O’Muircheartaigh, C., Dekker, K., Bilgen, I., Fiorio, L., Clausen, M., & Brooks, T. (2012).
Predicting when to adopt given frame construction methods: Modeling coverage and cost benefits.
Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section, American Statistical Association. Available at:
http://ww2.amstat.org/sections/srms/proceedings/y2012/Files/400232_500672.pdf
Enns, P. K. (2016). Incarceration nation: How the United States became the most punitive democracy in the
world. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eschholz, S., Chiricos, T., & Gertz, M. (2003). Television and fear of crime: Program types, audience traits,
and the mediating effect of perceived neighborhood racial composition. Social Problems, 50, 395–415.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2015). Crime in the United States. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.
s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015. Accessed 1 March 2017.
American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932 931

Grabe, M. E., & Drew, D. G. (2007). Crime cultivation: Comparisons across media genres and channels.
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51, 147–171.
Graber, D. (2004). Mediated politics and citizenship in the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology,
55, 545–571.
Habecker, P., Dombrowski, K., & Khan, B. (2015). Improving the network scale-up estimator: Incorporating
means of sums, recursive Back estimation, and sampling weights. PLoS One, 10, e0143406. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0143406.
Indermaur, D., Roberts, L., Spiranovic, C., Mackenzie, G., & Gelb, K. (2012). A matter of judgement: The
effect of information and deliberation on public attitudes to punishment. Punishment & Society, 14, 147–
165.
Jamieson, P. E., & Romer, D. (2014). Violence in popular US prime time TV dramas and the cultivation of
fear: A time series analysis. Media and Communication, 22, 31–41.
Johnson, D. (2009). Anger about crime and support for punitive criminal justice policies. Punishment &
Society, 11, 51–66.
Kaminski, R. J., Koons-Witt, B. A., Thompson, N. S., & Weiss, D. (2010). The impacts of the Virginia Tech
and Northern Illinois University shootings on fear of crime on campus. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38,
88–98.
Kappeler, V. E., & Potter, G. W. (2018). The mythology of crime and criminal justice (5th ed.). Long Grove,
IL: Waveland Press.
Kennedy, L. (2018). “Man I’m all torn up inside:” analyzing audience responses to Making a Murderer.
Crime, Media, Culture, 14, 391–408.
Kleck, G., & Jackson, D. B. (2017). Does crime cause punitiveness? Crime & Delinquency, 63, 1572–1599.
Kort-Butler, L. A., & Habecker, P. (2018). Framing and cultivating the story of crime: The effects of media
use, victimization, and social networks on attitudes about crime. Criminal Justice Review, 43, 127–147.
Kort-Butler, L. A., & Ray, C. M. (2018). Public support for the death penalty in a red state: The distrustful, the
angry, and the unsure. Punishment & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474518795896.
Kort-Butler, L. A., & Sittner Hartshorn, K. J. (2011). Watching the detectives: Crime programming, fear of
crime, and attitudes about the criminal justice system. Sociological Quarterly, 52, 36–55.
Lowry, D. T., Nio, T. C. J., & Leitner, D. W. (2003). Setting the public fear agenda: A longitudinal analysis of
network TV crime reporting, public perceptions of crime, and FBI crime statistics. Journal of
Communication, 53, 61–73.
Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (2010). The state of cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 54,
337–355.
Morgan, M., Shanahan, J., & Signorielli, N. (2015). Yesterday's new cultivation, tomorrow. Mass
Communication and Society, 18, 674–699.
Pickett, J. T. (2019). Public opinion and criminal justice policy: Theory and research. Annual Review of
Criminology, 2, 405–428.
Pickett, J. T., Mancini, C., Mears, D. P., & Gertz, M. (2015). Public (mis)understanding of crime policy: The
effects of criminal justice experience and media reliance. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 26, 500–522.
Rhineberger-Dunn, G., Briggs, S. J., & Rader, N. (2016). Clearing crime in prime-time: The disjuncture
between fiction and reality. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 255–278.
Roche, S. P., Pickett, J. T., & Gertz, M. (2016). The scary world of online news? Internet news exposure and
public attitudes toward crime and justice. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32, 215–236.
Romer, D., et al. (2003). Television news and the cultivation of fear of crime. Journal of Communication, 53,
88–104.
Scharkow, M., & Bachl, M. (2017). How measurement error in content analysis and self-reported media use
leads to minimal media effect findings in linkage analyses: A simulation study. Political Communication,
34, 323–343.
Shi, L., Roche, S. P., & McKenna, R. M. (2019). Media consumption and crime trend perceptions: A longitudinal
analysis. Deviant Behavior, 40, 1480–1492. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1519129.
Simmons, A. D. (2017). Cultivating support for punitive criminal justice policies: News sectors and the
moderating effects of audience characteristics. Social Forces, 96, 299–328.
Surette, R. (2015). Media, crime, and criminal justice (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Weitzer, R., & Kubrin, C. E. (2004). Breaking news: How local TV news and real-world conditions affect fear
of crime. Justice Quarterly, 21, 497–520.
Welsh, A., Fleming, T., & Dowler, K. (2011). Constructing crime and justice on film: Meaning and message in
cinema. Contemporary Justice Review, 14, 457–476.
Williams, M. (2012). Beyond the retributive public: Governance and public opinion on penal policy. Journal
of Crime and Justice, 35, 93–113.
932 American Journal of Criminal Justice (2020) 45:914–932

Yardley, E., Kelly, E., & Robinson-Edwards, S. (2019). Forever trapped in the imaginary of late capitalism?
The serialized true crime podcast as a wake-up call in times of criminological slumber. Crime, Media,
Culture, 15, 503–521.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps
and institutional affiliations.

Colleen M. Ray , PhD, is a research affiliate in Sociology at the University of Nebraska– Lincoln. Her
research focuses primarily on violence and victimization. She is generally interested in power dynamics and in
what social situations an abuse of power is more likely to occur

Lisa A. Kort-Butler , PhD, is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Her
research interests focus on media representations of crime and justice and their implications for public opinion.
She also studies health and well-being among adolescents and young adults