This article was downloaded by: [The UC Irvine Libraries]

On: 25 October 2014, At: 23:32

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Sociological Spectrum: Mid-

South Sociological Association
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usls20

AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT
OF THE “THREAT OF
VICTIMIZATION:” CONSIDERING
FEAR OF CRIME, PERCEIVED
RISK, AVOIDANCE, AND
DEFENSIVE BEHAVIORS
a b
Nicole E. Rader , David C. May & Sarah Goodrum
c

a
Mississipi State University , Mississippi State,
Mississippi, USA
b
Eastern Kentucky University , Richmond, Kentucky,
USA
c
Centre College , Danville, Kentucky, USA
Published online: 27 Jul 2007.

To cite this article: Nicole E. Rader , David C. May & Sarah Goodrum (2007)
AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE “THREAT OF VICTIMIZATION:” CONSIDERING
FEAR OF CRIME, PERCEIVED RISK, AVOIDANCE, AND DEFENSIVE BEHAVIORS,
Sociological Spectrum: Mid-South Sociological Association, 27:5, 475-505, DOI:
10.1080/02732170701434591

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02732170701434591

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
 representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Sociological Spectrum, 27: 475–505, 2007
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0273-2173 print/1521-0707 online
DOI: 10.1080/02732170701434591

AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF THE ‘‘THREAT

OF VICTIMIZATION:’’ CONSIDERING FEAR
OF CRIME, PERCEIVED RISK, AVOIDANCE, AND
DEFENSIVE BEHAVIORS
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

Nicole E. Rader

Mississipi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, USA

David C. May

Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky, USA

Sarah Goodrum

Centre College, Danville, Kentucky, USA

Rader (2004) has called for a reconceptualization in the study of fear of

crime, arguing that fear is one of several dimensions of the ‘‘threat of
victimization,’’ with fear of crime, perceptions of risk, and avoidance
(i.e., limiting or changing activity) and defensive behaviors (i.e., perform-
ing a specific action to allay fear of crime) as interrelated pieces. We use
data from adult residents of a midsouthern state to provide qualified
support for the threat of victimization concept in a series of multivariate
linear and logistic regression models. Implications for future fear of
crime research are also discussed.

An earlier version of this article was presented at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences
meetings in Baltimore, MD in March 2006.
Address correspondence to Nicole E. Rader, Department of Sociology, Anthropology, &
Social Work, Mississippi State University, P.O. Box C, Mississippi State, MS 39762, USA.
E-mail: nrader@soc.msstate.edu
 476 N. E. Rader et al.

Current research on victimization focuses on rates of criminal victi-

mization and the factors effecting fear of crime. The Bureau of Justice
Statistics (2005) reports that U.S. residents age 12 years and older
experienced 24 million crimes in 2004, and approximately 22 percent
of those crimes were violent. Survey research indicates that U.S. resi-
dents feel concerned about the crime problem in the U.S. and fear
they will experience it first hand. Over one in three residents (36%)
are afraid to walk alone at night in an area near where they live
(Maguire and Pastore 2003) and this percentage has remained
relatively unchanged for the past decade.
When people are fearful, or perceive that they are at risk of crimi-
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

nal victimization, this emotional fear and cognitive perception may

have drastic consequences for their daily lives. In addition, those with
experiences as a crime victim may perceive their risks as higher and
feel more fearful than those without experiences as a crime victim.
Experiences with crime, perceptions of risk, and fear of crime may
lead people to reduce or eliminate their participation in social activi-
ties, depriving them of numerous social and personal rewards. Rader
(2004, p. 691) has labeled the combination of fear of crime, con-
strained behaviors, and perception of risk as the ‘‘threat of criminal
victimization.’’ She argues for a reconceptualization of the research
on fear of crime.
While numerous research efforts have examined the antecedents of
fear of criminal victimization and the deleterious impacts of fear on
other behaviors, no studies have considered constrained behaviors,
perceptions of risk of victimization, and fear of criminal victimization
as concurrent traits of one general phenomenon, the ‘‘threat of crimi-
nal victimization.’’ The purpose of this research, then, is to develop
an empirical examination of predictors of the ‘‘threat of victimiza-
tion’’ (Rader 2004, p. 691). Using data from over 2,000 adult respon-
dents from a midsouthern state, we examine the association between
fear of crime, victimization experience, perceived risk, avoidance
behaviors, and defensive behaviors, along with other demographic
and contextual variables.

SUMMARY OF PRIOR LITERATURE

Fear of Crime

Fear, an emotional component of victimization, represents an impor-

tant concept in research on victimization issues because fear tends
to affect behavior. Fearful individuals may not travel at night,
may avoid certain areas that they consider ‘‘dangerous,’’ and may
 An Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’ 477

engage in a myriad of avoidance behaviors and adaptive strategies.

Thus, understanding the individual and structural causes of fear
proves important in studies on victimization.

Individual Level Predictors of Fear of Crime

The individual level factors creating variation in levels of fear of crime
include gender, age, race, income status, victimization status, and
environmental context. For example, gender is a strong predictor of
fear of crime, with women expressing more fear of crime than men. This
is interesting to researchers because women are less likely to be the vic-
tim of crime overall. This discrepancy between fear levels and actual
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

victimization rates is often called the ‘‘gender-fear paradox.’’ Several

explanations are posed for this paradox, including that women feel
physically vulnerable because of their physicality, that women’s
fear of rape ‘‘shadows’’ their fear of all other crimes, and that women’s
fear of crime and men’s lack of fear of crime is part of the gender socia-
lization process (Ferarro 1995, 1996; Fisher and Sloan 2003; Gilchrist
et al. 1998; Goodey 1997; Haynie 1998; Killias and Clerici 2000; May
2001a, 2001b; Smith and Torstensson 1997; Stanko 1990).
In regards to age, elderly individuals are often found to fear crime
at higher levels than younger people; although, some question the
age-fear association. LaGrange and Ferraro (1989) criticize previous
researchers’ finding that the elderly have a greater fear of crime than
the young; they find that the elderly population’s fear of crime has
been overestimated. Using vignettes—as opposed to survey questions
about fearfulness—Warr (1990) examined the effects of three key
factors (e.g., familiarity, darkness, and being alone) on fear of crime
when the threat of victimization was both clear and unclear. He
found that female and elderly respondents reported more sensitivity
to fear than male and younger respondents.
In terms of income and race, research suggests that low income indi-
viduals are more likely to report fear of crime than middle to upper
income individuals. Although this finding is intriguing, little work
has considered this variable in much detail (Hale 1996; Vacha and
McLaughlin 2004). The connection between a person’s race and fear
of crime is inconsistent, with some studies finding white individuals
with higher fear of crime levels and other studies finding nonwhite
individuals with higher fear of crime levels (Lane and Meeker 2003;
May and Dunaway 2000; Parker et al. 1993). This issue is further com-
plicated by the fact that the racial composition of the neighborhood in
which individuals reside may be more influential than the individual’s
race in determining fear of crime level (Hale 1996).
Finally, victimization experiences (both direct and indirect) influ-
ence fear of crime. Findings from studies that examine the impact
 478 N. E. Rader et al.

of victimization on fear of crime conflict, as some argue victims are

more likely to fear crime while others argue that nonvictims are more
likely to fear crime (Wilcox et al. 2006; Schafer et al. 2006). Other
researchers have also argued that experiencing victimization
indirectly (e.g., having a family member, friend, neighbor, or com-
munity member who was victimized) may actually impact fear of
crime as well (Mesch 2000; Warr and Ellison 2000). In addition,
environmental cues triggered feelings of fear across respondents.
Being in an unfamiliar environment at night (or in the dark) signaled
danger and these factors together produced varying levels of fear
depending on the characteristics of others and the characteristics of
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

the respondent (Warr and Stafford 1983).

Structural Predictors of Fear of Crime
Other studies on fear of crime have used structural level predictors,
such as population size and community disorder. For example, Liska,
Lawrence, and Sanchirico (1982) conducted an aggregate level analy-
sis of national crime data to examine variations in fear of crime by
population size, crime rates, interracial crime rates, and racial compo-
sition across 26 cities in the U.S. The authors found that different city
characteristics shaped whites’ and nonwhites’ fear of crime. The size
of the population, level of racial segregation, and percent of the
population that is nonwhite positively affected nonwhites’ fear of
crime, while property crime rates and the proportion of interracial
crimes on whites positively affected whites’ fear of crime. Differing
from most research on fear of crime, the authors argue that fear
represents a social fact (not an individual fact) that varies by the
social structural characteristics of the city. Other research, however,
suggests that social factors, such as disorder (or incivility), play a
small role in fear. Using survey data from a random sample of
U.S. adults, LaGrange, Ferraro, and Supancic (1992) found that a
disorderly physical environment (e.g., litter, graffiti) and disorderly
social behavior (e.g., rowdy youth, public intoxication) did not
produce a strong direct effect on fear of crime. Yet other research
suggests that neighborhood conditions or perceptions of the environ-
ment as disorganized or unsafe greatly impacts fear of crime (Hale
1996; Liska et al. 1982; Skogan and Maxfield 1981).

Perceived Risk

Perceived risk is based on an individual’s perception of the likelihood

that they will become a victim of a crime. Ferraro (1995) argued that
perceived risk of victimization involved a cognitive judgment while
 An Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’ 479

fear of crime represented an emotional response. Most commonly

today, perceived risk is discussed as a cognitive or rational compo-
nent that is a strong correlate of fear of crime. Although often
considered separately, several researchers have argued that these
two constructs are interrelated and both should be included in studies
trying to understand this phenomenon (Ferarro and LaGrange 1987;
Ferarro 1995; Mesch 2000; Rader 2004; Warr 2000).
The Gallup organization annually queries the American public
regarding how likely they think they are to be victimized by crime
(arguably, a measure of individual perceptions of risk of victimiza-
tion). Americans were most likely to feel that they would: (1) have
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

their home burglarized when they were not there and (2) have their
cars stolen or broken into (Maguire and Pastore 2003). Less than
one in five were at least occasionally concerned that they would be
raped or murdered (Maguire and Pastore 2003). Warr and Stafford
(1983) find that, among various offenses, fear of victimization
emerged from a combination of the perception of risk and the percep-
tion of seriousness of the offense. Interestingly, a decline in the risk of
less serious crimes (e.g., burglary) reduced fear more than a decline in
the risk of more serious crimes (e.g., murder, robbery, or sexual
assault). Warr and Stafford (1983) warn, however, that a significant
increase in the rate of more serious crimes may increase general fear
significantly.
Several studies have considered the relationship between perceived
risk and demographic variables such as gender, race, income, and
age. Studies considering gender initially suggested that women’s fear
of crime was higher than warranted because they were not likely to
experience most crime (Lupton and Tulloch 1999); however, more
recent studies suggest this relationship is much more complex. For
example, Reid and Konrad (2004) considered the role of perceived
risk in explaining the gender gap found that perceived risk and fear
of crime were offense specific. Further, they found that men had
higher levels of perceived risk for robbery than women but that
women’s perceptions of risk impacted fear of sexual assault and bur-
glary. Other researchers, such as Fisher and Sloan (2003) and Wilcox
and colleagues (2006) mirror this finding, indicating that women use
perceived risk to make decisions about their fear of sexual assault on
college campuses.
As with gender, the relationships between perceptions of risk of
victimization and age and income are complex as well, as some sug-
gest that the relationship between age and levels of perceived risk is
positive (LaGrange and Ferraro 1989), negative (Rountree and Land
1996), or nonexistent (Hraba et al. 1998; Mesch 2000). Some research
 480 N. E. Rader et al.

also finds that those with higher incomes have higher levels of
perceived risk (Hraba et al. 1998), while others find that those with
lower levels of income and education have higher levels of perceived
risk (Chiricos et al. 2000).
The association between perceptions of risk of criminal victimiza-
tion and race is even more ambiguous. Although most research sug-
gests that nonwhites have higher levels of perceived risk than whites
(see Wilcox et al. 2003, for review), this relationship may be less
straightforward than it first appears. Finucane and colleagues
(2000) determined that nonwhites had significantly higher levels of
perceived risk of violent crime victimization and a number of other
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

potentially dangerous factors (blood transfusions, natural disasters,

etc.), but suggested that the racial differences in perceptions of risk
of victimization were largely due to the interaction between race
and gender (very low perceptions of risk among white males) rather
than solely the effect of race. Furthermore, although Chiricos and
colleagues (2000) also determined that nonwhites had higher percep-
tions of risk of criminal victimization than whites, they suggest that
these perceptions are impacted by neighborhood factors as well.
Given the complexity of the relationship between perceived risk of
criminal victimization, fear of criminal victimization, and demo-
graphic factors and contextual variables, further research is needed
to clarify the nature of those relationships.

Defensive and Avoidance Behaviors

While the current literature provides important information about

crime rates and the extent of fear of crime, we know less about the
actions people take as a result of their perceptions of risk of criminal
victimization and their fear of crime. In the fear of crime literature,
avoidance and defensive behaviors are often viewed as correlates of
fear of crime. Data from national polls suggest that some of these
actions occur regularly. In some polls, half of the respondents had
avoided going to certain places or neighborhoods because of their
concern about crime and at least one in four respondents kept a
dog for protection (31%), had bought a gun for protection (27%),
or had a burglar alarm installed in their home (25%) (Maguire and
Pastore 2003). Ferraro (1995) groups the actions people take as a
result of fear into two categories: defensive behaviors (e.g., installing
security systems, buying a guard dog, purchasing a gun) and avoid-
ance behaviors (e.g., limiting activity, avoiding unsafe areas at night),
and suggests that both fear of criminal victimization and perceptions
of risk have a significant impact on these decisions.
 An Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’ 481

Much of the research on the relationship between fear of crime and

behavior indicates that fear has a positive effect on avoidance beha-
viors and defensive behaviors (Liska et al. 1988; May 1999). Using
National Crime Survey data, Liska, Sanchirico, and Reed (1988)
found an increasing feedback loop between fear of crime and the
more general measure of constrained behavior (i.e., changing activity
to allay fear). Fear limits social behavior by leading people to avoid
seemingly dangerous situations; furthermore, this avoidance tends to
intensify fear (Liska et al. 1988).
Some research suggests that defensive and avoidance behaviors
differ by gender, income, and race, but not necessarily by age. For
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

example, in terms of gender, research repeatedly finds that women

fear crime more than men (LaGrange and Ferraro 1989; Warr
1984); intuitively then, women’s increased fear should increase the
likelihood that they would engage in defensive behaviors; however,
May (1999) offers evidence that indicates that men and women
engage in behaviors differently, at least among adolescents; male
adolescents were more likely to carry guns to school than female
adolescents, which seems contradictory given that females feel more
fearful of crime than males. In fact, research on the relationship
between gender and weapon carrying consistently finds that males
are more likely to carry a weapon than females (McKeganey and
Norrie 2000; Kuntsche and Klingemann 2004; Wilcox et al. 2006).
Further, in terms of race, Rountree and Land (1996) found that
nonwhites implemented fewer safety precautions (e.g., owned a
dog, owned a weapon, or had a burglar alarm) and perceived a lower
crime risk than Whites. Using a survey of Nashville residents, Kanan
and Pruitt (2002) found that nonwhites worried less about crime than
whites, but they viewed walking alone in their neighborhood at night
as a riskier behavior than whites did.
In regards to income, in a survey of parents with children age 8 to
12 years old, Vacha and McLaughlin (2004) found that socioeco-
nomic status influenced the likelihood that a parent would own a
gun and keep it loaded or unlocked. While low-income parents were
less likely to have a firearm in the home, they were more likely to
keep it loaded and unlocked than were middle-income families. Some
research suggests that low-income families see a firearms purchase as
an inexpensive means of self-protection (Kleck 1997; Vacha and
McLaughlin 2004). Vacha and McLaughlin (2004) found that defens-
ive (or self-protective) behaviors were more common among low-
income respondents than middle-income respondents. Rountree and
Land (1996), however, found that precautionary measures following
victimization varied by neighborhood context and suggested that
 482 N. E. Rader et al.

income had a positive effect on some safety precautions taken (e.g.,

dog ownership, gun ownership, burglar alarm). As such, the research
on the relationship between income and defensive behaviors is some-
what contradictory.
Finally, research that considers the relationship between age and
constrained behaviors finds that increased age may not impact the
use of defensive and avoidance behaviors. Liska and colleagues
(1988) found that the increasing feedback loop did not hold up for
all age groups, particularly the elderly. Among the elderly (i.e., 71
years and older), constrained behavior increased fear but fear did
not increase constrained behavior (Liska et al. 1988). The finding that
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

fear does not increase constrained behavior among the elderly runs
contrary to expectations and to earlier research on age and fear
(Clemente and Kleinman 1976; Warr 1984), but supports more recent
research (LaGrange and Ferraro 1989). LaGrange and Ferraro
(1989) have argued that the shift in findings results from changes in
measures of fear. Early measures used more foreboding questions,
such as ‘‘How safe do you feel or would you feel being out alone
in your neighborhood at night?’’ More recent surveys ask, ‘‘In
general, have you limited or changed your activities in the past
year because of crime?’’

Reconceptualizing the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’

As the literature reviewed above suggests, numerous studies have

examined the correlates of fear of criminal victimization, perceived
risk of criminal victimization, and defensive and avoidance beha-
viors. Nevertheless, there is little consistency in the proposed tem-
poral nature of these variables as some studies suggest that
perceived risk predicts fear of crime and defensive and avoidance
behaviors, while others reverse these relationships and view fear as
the antecedent and risk and avoidance and defensive behaviors as
the dependent variables. Nevertheless, a recent article by Rader
(2004) calls for a change in how researchers study fear of crime.
Rader has argued that fear should not be viewed as the result of con-
strained behaviors or perceptions of risk. Instead, building on Liska
and colleagues (1988) and Ferraro (1995), Rader (2004) suggests that
researchers view fear as one of three dimensions of the ‘‘threat of
victimization,’’ where fear of crime, perceptions of risk, and con-
strained behaviors act as interrelated pieces of the larger threat of
victimization. This theoretical reconceptualization urges researchers
to consider fear of crime a cause and a consequence of perceived
 An Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’ 483
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

Figure 1. Theoretical model of fear of crime, perceived risk, avoidance

behaviors, and defensive behaviors (Rader 2004).

risk and constrained behaviors, thus broadening the depth and nature
of the previous conceptualization of fear of crime (see Figure 1).
Although intriguing, the merit of this argument has not been
empirically tested in the literature, as none of the aforementioned stu-
dies included measures designed to operationalize fear of criminal
victimization, perceived risk of victimization, and constrained beha-
viors and examine (1) the correlates of each and (2) the interrelation-
ship among each of these concepts. Using data from approximately
2,000 residents from a midsouthern state, we thus examine the associ-
ation between fear of crime, victimization experience, perceived risk,
avoidance behaviors, and defensive behaviors, along with other
demographic and contextual variables to examine the usefulness of
the Rader’s (2004) threat of victimization conceptualization.

RESEARCH METHOD

Sampling

The population targeted for this project was the state of Kentucky.
We began by purchasing a sample generated via a random digit dial
procedure (including both listed and unlisted phone numbers)
designed to yield a true probability sample. In order for the survey
to be representative of the state, we sampled by demographic quota
on three variables: race, gender and rural=suburban=urban location.
Potential respondents in our telephone sample were categorized by
 484 N. E. Rader et al.

their rural=suburban=urban location prior to being contacted. The

other two demographic characteristics represented the first questions
asked of respondents once they agreed to participate in the survey.
After a quota became full, the computer-assisted telephone interview-
ing system automatically notified the interviewer who then termi-
nated the interview after asking three broad questions about the
criminal justice system in Kentucky.

Survey Instrument

In July and August 2003, two meetings with Kentucky Justice Cabinet
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

and Kentucky Criminal Justice Council representatives were held to

design and construct the survey instrument. Feedback from these
meetings was utilized to revise the survey and, after several redesigned
drafts, a final version of the survey was completed in September 2003.
Telephone interviews were then conducted by a professional tele-
phone interviewing organization in October and November 2003. A
total of 2,091 interviews were completed after establishing contact
with 7,614 respondents. Of the 7,614 respondents, 5,517 refused to
start the interview and 106 terminated the interview before it was com-
pleted. Hence, a final response rate of 27.5 percent was achieved.
The response rate is a clear limitation of this study. The most
conservative and safest strategy (and the one recommended by the
research team) is to say that findings from the sample can be general-
ized to the population of the state only to the extent that the popu-
lation possesses characteristics similar to those found in the sample.
It is certainly possible that persons with particular characteristics
(e.g., prior victimization experiences) were systematically more likely
to complete the interviews. On the other hand, recent research
(Curtin et al. 2000; Keeter et al. 2000) suggests that low response
rates in telephone interviews do not necessarily indicate larger biases.
In either case, as this is an exploratory analysis designed to empiri-
cally examine a reconceptualization of the fear of crime literature,
we feel the response rate does not diminish the impact of this effort.
As mentioned earlier, in an attempt to maximize the representa-
tiveness of the sample when compared to the larger population
from which it was drawn, we quota sampled by race, gender, and
resident type (e.g., urban=rural=suburban). During the interviews,
additional demographic questions were asked of the respondents.
With the exception of education and income, and to a lesser extent
age, the sample’s demographic profile is very similar to the state
profile. When compared to the state, the sample displays higher
levels of education and income.
 An Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’ 485

Although these differences are a limitation, there are four reasons

why we thought these two dissimilarities were not of great enough
concern to merit weighting of the variables: (1) the units of analyses
for the sample and the 2000 census data are different,1 thus introdu-
cing the opportunity for less similarity; (2) given existing trends, such
as those found in examining improvements in education and income
between the 1990 and 2000 census for Kentucky (United States
Bureau of Census 1990, 2000), the state’s education and income
profile has most likely slightly improved in the four years since the
2000 census was conducted, thus making the sample and 2000 census
data more similar; (3) the missing data in the sample, which the
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

reported census data does not have, contains data that could make
the two more similar (as well as dissimilar); and (4) the percent differ-
ences between the sample and 2000 census data are not significant
(i.e., do not exceed 20 percent) for any demographic category.
Because our sample closely matched the 2000 census data on gender,
race, and urbanicity, we felt that weighting the data would not signifi-
cantly improve any estimates.

Dependent Variables

There are four dependent variables discussed in this research including

fear of criminal victimization, perception of risk, avoidance behaviors,
and defensive behaviors. The operationalization of each is described
in detail below.

Fear of Criminal Victimization Index

The variable representing fear of criminal victimization was operatio-
nalized by asking respondents to indicate their level of agreement
with six statements examining their fear in a number of situations.
Responses were scored using a four-point Likert-type format
(strongly agree ¼ 4, somewhat agree ¼ 3, somewhat disagree ¼ 2,
and strongly disagree ¼ 1). Scores on the index thus ranged from 6
(least fearful) to 24 (most fearful) with a sample mean of 11.8 for
the scale. The scale demonstrated high internal reliability with a
1
There are a number of differences in the two data sets that do not allow for exact com-
parison of the data sources. First, due to the differences in the manner in which some of the
demographic data were categorized in the telephone survey, some of the Census data were
interpolated into categories matching those of the sample. Secondly, data collected about
marital status for the 2000 census included respondents age 15 and over while data collected
about education level used respondents 25 and over; data for the sample for both variables
came from respondents age 18 and over.
 486 N. E. Rader et al.

Cronbach’s alpha of .863. The statements that comprise the index are
included in the Appendix.
Perceptions of Risk Index
The variable representing perceived risk of criminal victimization was
operationalized by summating responses to a series of questions ask-
ing respondents to estimate the likelihood that seven activities would
happen to them in the next 12 months (on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1
representing ‘‘not at all likely’’ and 10 representing ‘‘very likely’’).-
Scores on the index thus ranged from 7 (very low risk) to 70 (very
high risk) with a sample mean of 21.2 for the scale. The scale demon-
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

strated high internal reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .891. The

statements that comprise the index are included in the Appendix.
Avoidance Behaviors
To determine the impact of fear of criminal victimization on the
respondents’ behaviors in this sample, respondents were asked to
indicate their level of agreement with the following statement: ‘‘In
the past twelve months, fear of crime has prevented me from doing
things I would like to do.’’ Responses were coded so that those
who agreed (either ‘‘strongly’’ or ‘‘somewhat’’) were coded (1) while
those who disagreed with the statement (either ‘‘strongly’’ or ‘‘some-
what’’) were coded (0). Approximately one in five respondents
(19.6%) agreed with that statement, indicating that they had limited
their behaviors in the past 12 months due to fear of crime.
Those respondents that agreed that fear had prevented them from
doing things they liked to do were then asked to ‘‘state any activities
that fear of crime has prevented you from doing in the past 12
months.’’ The open-ended responses were then categorized into 19
‘‘avoidance behaviors.’’ The most common avoidance behavior was
exercising at night (33.9%). About one in ten respondents had also
avoided shopping (9.0%), leaving the house unattended (8.8%),
and going to certain parts of town (8.3%). Respondents also indi-
cated they had avoided going places alone (6.3%), going to the park
(4.9%), and being outside or driving in the neighborhood at night
(3.7% for each) because of their fear of crime.
Defensive Behaviors
Respondents were then read a list of ‘‘items that people place in their
homes for security reasons’’ (hereafter referred to as defensive beha-
viors) and were asked to indicate whether they had ‘‘. . . placed any of
those items in your home in the past 12 months.’’ Two in three
respondents (63.7%) had engaged in some form of defensive behavior
over the past 12 months. The most common defensive behaviors were
 An Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’ 487

installation of outdoor security lights (38.5%) and installation of

door bolts (35.7%). One in four respondents (25.1%) had also pur-
chased a gun and installed extra door locks (24.2%). Approximately
one in five respondents had acquired a guard dog (19.0%) and had
installed electronic light timers (18.1%). More than one in ten respon-
dents had installed window guards (16.0%), burglar alarms (12.2%),
and police department identification stickers (11.7%).

Independent Variables

Demographic Variables
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

The demographic variables that will be used as control variables in

this study are included in Table 1. Slightly over half of the sample
(51.3%) was female; the vast majority (89.2%) of respondents was
white. Three in five respondents (59.6%) were married and respon-
dents were evenly distributed across the various age groups. One in
four respondents (26.8%) was a high school graduate while one in
five respondents (19.4%) was a college graduate. Slightly over one
in ten respondents (11.1%) had some graduate or professional train-
ing. Approximately equal percentages of respondents had a house-
hold income of over $40,000 (42.4%) and less than $40,000
(41.7%) while approximately equal percentages of the sample were
rural (50.5%) and either suburban or urban (49.5%). Approximately
two in five respondents considered themselves either somewhat or
very conservative while approximately one in five respondents
considered themselves either somewhat or very liberal.
Perception of Crime in the Community
Respondents were asked ‘‘Over the past 12 months, do you believe
that crime in your community has: greatly decreased, somewhat
decreased, stayed the same, somewhat increased, or greatly
increased?’’ Respondents who thought that crime had greatly
increased were coded.
Satisfaction with the Criminal Justice System Index
The independent variable representing satisfaction with the criminal
justice system was operationalized by summating responses to a series
of questions asking respondents to indicate their level of satisfaction
with various criminal justice agencies in their community. Scores on
the index thus ranged from 8 (very dissatisfied with all criminal jus-
tice agencies) to 40 (very satisfied with all criminal justice agencies)
with a sample mean of 27.4 for the scale. The scale demonstrated high
internal reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha of .798. The statements
that comprise the index are included in the Appendix.
 488 N. E. Rader et al.

Table 1. Comparison of sample and population demographic characteristics

Sample 2000 Census
(N ¼ 2,091) population
Demographic variable (Frequency & %) (Frequency & %)

Gender
Male 1,015 (48.5) 1,975,368 (48.9)
Female 1,072 (51.3) 2,066,401 (51.1)
Missing Data 5 (.2)
Race
White 1,865 (89.2) 3,678,740 (91.0)
Black 159 (7.6) 311,000 (7.7)
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

Other 57 (2.7) 96,581 (2.4)

Missing Data 10 (.5)
Marital Status
Married 1,247 (59.6) 1,844,628 (57.3)
Widowed 114 (5.5) 231,630 (7.2)
Divorced 268 (12.8) 353,637 (11.0)
Separated 48 (2.3) 57,237 (1.8)
Never Married 307 (14.7) 730,035 (22.7)
Missing Data 107 (5.1)
Age
18–24 201 (9.6) 401,858 (13.4)
25–35 434 (20.6) 632,494.2 (21.0)
36–45 458 (22.0) 637,074 (21.2)
46–55 383 (18.4) 539,033.2 (17.9)
56–65 282 (13.6) 361,716.4 (12.0)
66 and over 207 (9.5) 432,219.4 (14.4)
Missing Data 126 (6.0)
Education
No high school diploma 151 (7.2) 685,000 (25.9)
High school Diploma or GED 560 (26.8) 888,277 (33.6)
Vocational Program 87 (4.2) NA
Some College 378 (18.1) 490,170 (18.5)
Two-year College Degree 169 (8.1) 129.481 (4.9)
College Graduate 406 (19.4) 271,418 (10.3)
Some Graduate or Professional 233 (11.1) 182,051 (6.9)
Missing Data 107(5.1)
Income




Less than $10,000 138 (6.6) 220,692 (13.9)
$10,001–$20,000 235 (11.2) 256,494 (16.1)
$20,001–$30,000 250 (12.0) 232,489 (14.6)
$30,001–$40,000 249 (11.9) 197,200 (12.4)
$40,001–$50,000 207 (9.9) 174,456 (11.0)
$50,001–$75,000 339 (16.2) 274,530 (17.2)
Over $75,000 341 (16.3) 235,878 (14.8)
Missing Data 332 (15.9)

(Continued)
 An Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’ 489

Table 1. (Continued )


Sample 2000 Census
(N ¼ 2,091) population
Demographic variable (Frequency & %) (Frequency & %)

Urbanicity
Rural 1,056 50.5
Urban=Suburban 1,035 49.5
Political Beliefs
Very Conservative 303 14.5
Somewhat Conservative 559 26.7
Moderate 622 29.7
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

Somewhat Liberal 287 13.7

Very Liberal 128 6.1
Missing 192 9.2

12-Month Victimization Experience

Respondents were also asked a series of questions to assess their
criminal victimization experience in the past 12 months. These ques-
tions are included in the Appendix. The responses to those questions
were then categorized into three separate variables: nonsexual violent
crime victimization, sexual crime victimization, and property crime
victimization. Any respondent indicating that they were victimized
by a nonsexual violent victimization (e.g., mugging, aggravated
assault, or simple assault) in the past 12 months was coded as (1)
on the nonsexual violent crime victimization variable; all others were
coded (0). Any respondent indicating they had been victimized by any
of the property crimes in the past 12 months were coded as (1); all
other respondents were coded as (0). Less than one in 20 respondents
(3.7%) had been victimized by a nonsexual violent crime in the past
12 months while one in four respondents (25.7%) had been victimized
by one of the property crimes in question in the past 12 months.
Lifetime Sexual Crime Victimization Experience
Given the traumatic emotional and psychological impact that sexual
victimization has upon the victim, we felt that it was also important
to examine the impact of lifetime sexual victimization experience on
constrained and defensive behaviors. As such, we also included two
questions assessing the respondents’ lifetime experience with sexual
victimization. Those respondents who indicated they had been victi-
mized by one of those activities were coded as (1); those who had
not been victimized were coded as (0). Slightly over one in six
respondents (17.6%) had experience with a sexual victimization in
their lifetime.
 490 N. E. Rader et al.

Analysis Strategy

Given that the purpose of this study was to test the threat of victimi-
zation concept proposed by Rader (2004), we felt that it was impor-
tant to determine if the predictors of fear, perceived risk, and
avoidance and defensive behaviors were constant across the sample.
Furthermore, we also wanted to examine the relationship between
these four variables, which are typically treated as conceptually dis-
tinct in the literature. As such, we estimated a series of multivariate
linear and logistic regression models to examine these relationships.
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

Fear of Crime
We regressed fear of criminal victimization on the demographic,
contextual, and theoretical variables. The stepwise linear regression
results presented in the first model in Table 2 suggest that gender,
education level, 12-month property and violent victimization experi-
ence, lifetime sexual victimization experience, perceptions of criminal
justice agencies, and perceptions of crime in the community all had
statistically significant association with perceived fear of criminal
victimization. As expected, females, respondents with lower levels
of education, victims of property and violent crime in the past
year and victims of sexual crime in their lifetime, as well as those

Table 2. Multivariate linear regression results of regressing fear of criminal

victimization on demographic, contextual, and victimization and risk of victi-
mization variables
B S.E. Beta B S.E. Beta

Constant 10.183 .763 5.388 .336

Gender 2.714 .205 .289 1.911 .171 .203
Education Level .203 .049 .085 — — —
Property Victim 1.866 .226 .177 .626 .191 .060
Victim of Violence (12 months) 1.361 .503 .057 — — —
Lifetime Victim of Sexual Crime 1.605 .264 .135 .686 .220 .058
Crime in Community Increasing .942 .120 .170 .218 .102 .039
Satisfaction with Criminal .118 .024 .107 — — —
Justice System
Perceived Risk of — — — .159 .007 .421
Criminal Victimization
Avoidance Behavior — — — 3.156 .221 .267
Defensive Behavior — — — .673 .174 .067
F (df) 97.223 260.820
(1720) (1684)
R2 (Adj. R2) .284(.281) .521(.519)
 An Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’ 491

respondents who felt that crime was increasing in their community

and had lower opinions of the criminal justice system were all signifi-
cantly more fearful of criminal victimization than their counterparts.
Regression coefficients reveal that gender was the strongest predictor
of fear of criminal victimization (B ¼ .289, p < .001), followed by
property crime victimization experience (B ¼ .177, p < .001), and
perceptions of crime in the community (B ¼ .170, p < .001). The
model explained 28 percent of the variation in respondents’ risk of
criminal victimization (F ¼ 97.223, p < .001).
In our second set of regression models in Table 2, we regressed fear
of criminal victimization on the demographic and contextual vari-
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

ables included in the first model and added perceived risk of criminal
victimization and variables representing defensive and avoidance
behaviors. The stepwise linear regression results presented in the
second model in Table 2 indicate that gender, 12-month property
crime victimization experience, lifetime sexual victimization experi-
ence, and the index representing perceptions of crime in the com-
munity all had statistically significant associations with fear of
criminal victimization. Additionally, each of the theoretical predic-
tors was associated with fear of criminal victimization as well. As
expected, females, victims of property crime in the past year, victims
of sexual crime in their lifetime, as well as those respondents who felt
that crime was increasing in their community were all significantly
more fearful of criminal victimization than their counterparts. Fur-
thermore, those respondents who had the highest levels of perceived
risk of victimization, those who had avoided certain activities because
of their fear of crime, and those who had engaged in defensive beha-
viors were all more likely to have higher levels of fear of criminal vic-
timization. Regression coefficients reveal that the strongest predictor
of perceptions of fear of criminal victimization was risk of criminal
victimization (B ¼ .421, p < .001), followed by whether the respon-
dent had engaged in avoidance behaviors (B ¼ .267, p < .001), and
gender (B ¼ .203, p < .001). The model explained 52 percent of the
variation in respondents’ fear of criminal victimization (F ¼ 260.820,
p < .001). In sum, these results support the conceptualization of
fear of crime in the threat of victimization model because perceived
risk, avoidance behaviors, and defensive behaviors all predict fear
of crime.

Perceived Risk
We then regressed perceptions of risk of criminal victimization on the
demographic, contextual, and theoretical variables. The stepwise lin-
ear regression results presented in the first model in Table 3 indicate
 492 N. E. Rader et al.

that gender, race, education, 12-month property and violent crime

victimization experience, lifetime sexual victimization experience,
and the indexes representing perceptions of crime in the community
and satisfaction with the criminal justice system all had statistically
significant associations with perceptions of risk of criminal victimiza-
tion, As expected, females, blacks, respondents with lower levels of
education, victims of property and violent crime in the past year,
and victims of sexual crime in their lifetime, as well as those respon-
dents who felt that crime was increasing in their community and had
lower opinions of the criminal justice system were all significantly
more fearful of criminal victimization than their counterparts.
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

Regression coefficients reveal that the strongest predictor of percep-

tions of risk of criminal victimization was the respondent’s perception
of increasing crime in the community (B ¼ .194, p < .001), followed
by property crime victimization experience (B ¼ .182, p < .001), and
the respondent’s dissatisfaction with the criminal justice system
(B ¼
.134, p < .001). The model explained 22 percent of the vari-
ation in respondents’ perceptions of risk of criminal victimization
(F ¼ 59.554, p < .001).

Table 3. Multivariate linear regression results of regressing perceived risk of

criminal victimization on demographic, contextual, and victimization and fear
of victimization variables
B S.E. Beta B S.E. Beta

Constant 18.731 2.143 4.658 1.827

Gender 2.915 .567 .117 — — —
Education Level
.415 .135
.066 — — —
Household Income — — — — — —
Age — — — — — —
Property Victim 5.058 .625 .182 2.618 .552 .094
Victim of Violence 5.946 1.389 .094 4.372 1.208 .069
(12 months)
Lifetime Victim of 3.672 .730 .117 1.392 .627 .044
Sexual Crime
Crime in Community 2.845 .333 .194 1.564 .296 .106
Increasing
Satisfaction with
.392 .066
.134
.257 .057
.088
Criminal
Justice System
Race 2.111 .911 .050 — — —
Fear of Criminal — — — 1.349 .055 .510
Victimization
F (df) 59.554 (1715) 198.065 (1684)
R2 (Adj. R2) .218 (.215) .415 (.413)
 An Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’ 493

In the second regression model in Table 3, we regressed percep-

tions of risk of criminal victimization on the demographic and con-
textual variables included in the first model and added fear of
criminal victimization and variables representing defensive and
avoidance behaviors. The stepwise linear regression results presented
in the second model in Table 3 indicate that 12-month property and
violent crime victimization experience, lifetime sexual victimization
experience, and the indexes representing perceptions of crime in the
community and satisfaction with the criminal justice system and fear
of criminal victimization all had statistically significant associations
with perceptions of risk of criminal victimization. As expected,
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

females, nonwhites, respondents with lower levels of education, vic-

tims of property and violent crime in the past year, and victims of sex-
ual crime in their lifetime, as well as those respondents who felt that
crime was increasing in their community and had lower opinions of
the criminal justice system, were all significantly more fearful of
criminal victimization than their counterparts. Regression coeffi-
cients reveal that the strongest predictor of perceptions of risk of
criminal victimization was fear of criminal victimization (B ¼ .510,
p < .001), followed by the respondent’s perception of crime in the
community (B ¼ .106, p < .001), and property crime experience
(B ¼ .094, p < .001). The model explained 22 percent of the variation
in respondents’ fear of criminal victimization (F ¼ 198.065,
p < .001). These results suggest that the threat of victimization model
is partially supported since fear of crime is a significant predictor of
perceived risk; however, avoidance behaviors and defensive behaviors
were not significant predictors of perceived risk.

Avoidance Behaviors
We then regressed the respondents’ participation decision to avoid
certain activities because of fear of criminal victimization (avoidance
behavior) on the demographic, contextual, and theoretical variables.
The results presented in the first model in Table 4 suggest that gender,
education level, household income, 12-month property and violent
victimization experience and lifetime sexual victimization experience,
perceptions of criminal justice agents, and perceptions of crime in the
community all had statistically significant association with the
respondents’ engagement in avoidance behaviors. As expected,
females, respondents with lower levels of education and household
income, victims of property and violent crime in the past year, and
victims of sexual crime in their lifetime, as well as those respondents
who felt that crime was increasing in their community and had lower
opinions of the criminal justice system were all significantly likely to
 494 N. E. Rader et al.

Table 4. Multivariate logistic regression results of regressing avoidance

behaviors on demographic, contextual, victimization, defensive behaviors,
and fear and perceived risk of victimization variables
B S.E. Wald B S.E. Wald

Constant 2.594 .522 24.649 6.489 .390 276.658

Gender .748 .147 25.799 — — —
Education Level .082 .037 4.764 — — —
Household Income .366 .147 6.193 .370 .149 6.152
Property Victim .723 .142 25.878 .340 .157 4.697
Victim of Violence (12 months) .828 .296 7.806 .730 .317 5.301
Lifetime Victim of Sexual Crime .445 .159 7.824 — — —
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

Crime in Community .595 .082 52.718 .474 .088 29.333

Increasing
Public Opinion of .049 .016 9.307 — — —
Criminal Justice
Fear of Criminal Victimization — — — .262 .018 215.378
Defensive Behavior — — — — — —
Risk Scale — — — — — —
Chi-Square 270.868 479.081
2 Log Likelihood 1451.408 1198.924
Cox & Snell R2(NagelkerkeR2) .146 (.230) .247 (.392)

have engaged in avoidance behaviors more than their counterparts.

The Wald statistics suggest that the respondent’s perception of an
increase of crime in the community had the strongest relationship
with their choice to engage in an avoidance behavior followed by pro-
perty victimization experience and gender.
The results presented in the second model in Table 4 reflect the
logistic regression results of regressing the respondents’ avoidance
behavior on the demographic and contextual variables reviewed
earlier in a multivariate logistic regression model and fear of criminal
victimization, perceived risk of criminal victimization, and the respon-
dent’s engagement in defensive behavior. The results suggest that
household income, 12-month property and violent victimization
experience, and perceptions of crime in the community all had statisti-
cally significant associations with the respondent’s engagement in
avoidance behaviors. Fear of criminal victimization was the only sig-
nificant correlate of avoidance behaviors when the theoretical vari-
ables were included. Consequently, respondents with lower levels of
household income, victims of property and violent crime in the past
year, and those respondents who felt that crime was increasing in their
community remained significantly more likely to have engaged in
avoidance behaviors because of their fear of criminal victimization
 An Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’ 495

than their counterparts, even after the inclusion of the theoretical vari-
ables. Of the theoretical variables, only fear of criminal victimization
had a significant association with avoidance behaviors. The Wald stat-
istics suggest that the fear of criminal victimization had the strongest
relationship with their choice to engage in an avoidance behavior fol-
lowed by the respondents’ perceptions of an increase of crime in the
community. These results suggest that fear of crime predicts avoid-
ance behaviors but perceived risk and defensive behaviors do not, par-
tially supporting the threat of victimization conceptual model.
Defensive Behaviors
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

We then regressed the respondents’ participation decision to add

items to their home to protect them against criminal victimization
(defensive behaviors) on the demographic, contextual, and theoretical
variables reviewed earlier in a multivariate logistic regression model.
The results presented in the first model in Table 5 suggest that
education level, 12-month property victimization experience, lifetime
sexual victimization experience, and perceptions of crime in the com-
munity all had statistically significant associations with the respon-
dents’ defensive behaviors. As expected, respondents with lower
levels of education, victims of property crime in the past year and vic-
tims of sexual crime in their lifetime, as well as those respondents who
felt that crime was increasing in their community were all signifi-
cantly more likely to have engaged in defensive behaviors than their
counterparts. The Wald statistics suggest that the respondent’s victi-
mization by property crime in the past 12 months had the strongest
relationship with their choice to engage in defensive behaviors.

Table 5. Multivariate logistic regression results of regressing defensive beha-

viors on demographic, contextual, and victimization and fear and perceived
risk of victimization variables
B S.E. Wald B S.E. Wald

Constant .359 .253 2.024 .004 .208 .000

Education Level .076 .027 8.053 .059 .027 4.695
Crime in Community Increasing .165 .066 6.356 — — —
Property Victim .748 .133 31.473 .677 .135 25.092
Lifetime Victim of Sexual Crime .418 .148 7.981 — — —
Fear of Criminal Victimization — — — .078 .013 37.708
Risk Scale — — — — — —
Avoidance Behavior — — — — — —
Chi-Square 73.429 95.715
2 Log Likelihood 2061.749 2019.540
Cox & Snell R2(NagelkerkeR2) .042(.059) .055(.077)
 496 N. E. Rader et al.

The results presented in the second model in Table 5 reflect the

logistic regression results of regressing the respondents’ defensive
behaviors on their demographic and contextual variables (reviewed
earlier in a multivariate logistic regression model), fear of criminal
victimization, perceived risk of criminal victimization, and respon-
dents’ avoidance behaviors. The results suggest that the respondent’s
education level and 12-month property victimization experience both
had statistically significant associations with the respondents’ engage-
ment in avoidance behaviors. Fear of criminal victimization was the
only significant correlate of defensive behaviors when the theoretical
variables were included. Consequently, respondents with lower levels
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

of education and victims of property crime in the past year remained

significantly more likely to have engaged in defensive behaviors than
their counterparts, even after the inclusion of the theoretical vari-
ables. Of the theoretical variables, only fear of criminal victimization
had a significant association with defensive behaviors. The Wald stat-
istics suggest that the fear of criminal victimization and victimization
by property crime in the past 12 months both had strong relation-
ships with the respondents’ choices to engage in defensive behaviors.
The results suggest that fear of crime predicts defensive behaviors but
that avoidance behaviors and perceived risk do not predict defensive
behaviors.

Table 6. Table of significant predictors of the threat of criminal

victimization
Fear of Perceived risk
criminal of criminal Avoidance Defensive
victimization victimization behaviors behaviors

Gender x
Race
Educational Level x
Household Income x
Property Victim x x x x
Violence Victim x x
Lifetime Victim of Sexual Crime x x
Crime in Community Increasing x x x
Satisfaction with Criminal Justice System x
Fear — x x x
Perceived Risk of Criminal Victimization x —
Avoidance Behaviors x —
Defensive Behaviors x —

The symbol (x) indicates a statistically significant relationship between the two variables
that intersect at that cell.
 An Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’ 497
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

Figure 2. Empirical test of ‘‘Threat of victimization’’ model.

In summary, these results suggest that the threat of victimization

conceptualization model is partially supported because fear of crime
is related to perceived risk, avoidance behaviors, and defensive beha-
viors in a reciprocal fashion. Nevertheless, as the results presented in
Table 6 suggest, the model is not fully supported. In fact, perceived risk
has no association with either avoidance or defensive behaviors, and
avoidance and defensive behaviors are not related to one another. As
such, it appears that the relationship between perceived risk and the
other components of the threat of victimization model may be prob-
lematic. Nevertheless, with the possible exception of the model explain-
ing defensive behaviors, the results presented here suggest that the
full model that includes the theoretical components is a better model
than models without all of the theoretical variables (see Figure 2).

DISCUSSION

In this article, we used empirical data to test Rader’s (2004) theoreti-

cal conceptualization of the threat of victimization, a reconceptuali-
zation of the fear of crime that includes fear of crime, perception
of risk, and constrained behaviors as interrelated phenomena. The
findings of this article suggest that the theoretical reconceptualization
was mostly supported because, with the exception of the relationships
between perceived risk and the two types of constrained behaviors,
the proposed relationships presented in Rader’s model were recipro-
cal. The theoretical model is further supported because perceived risk
 498 N. E. Rader et al.

and constrained behaviors seem to work together to provide a more

holistic picture of fear of crime, even if they do not predict each other
alone. This may indicate that a more sophisticated statistical tech-
nique that cannot be used here due to the limitations of the data, such
as structural equation modeling, might provide additional under-
standing of the relationships involved with this theoretical model.
With this in mind, the findings presented here of a reciprocal relation-
ship between fear of crime and perceived risk, fear of crime and
avoidance behaviors, and fear of crime and defensive behaviors opens
the door for much discussion.
Previous literature in the area of fear of crime focuses almost solely
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

on fear of crime as an effect and not a cause. The findings presented

here exemplify why fear of crime is thought about in such a manner,
as perceived risk, avoidance behaviors, and defensive behaviors had
significant associations with fear of crime; however, with a handful
of exceptions, few researchers have considered the reverse of these
relationships, that assessment of risk, avoidance of behaviors, and
defensive tactics may actually cause fear of crime. These findings sug-
gest a certain feedback loop that significantly changes the way
researchers think about this social topic. Future research needs to
be sensitive to this reciprocal relationship, which may impact the
effect of particular demographic and contextual variables as well.
The relationship between perceived risk and fear of crime should
come as no surprise. Although most research allocates fear of crime
as the dependent variable and perceived risk as an independent vari-
able, there have been many debates over the relationship between these
two variables (see Ferarro and LaGrange 1987 or Hale 1996 for a full
discussion of this debate). Given these findings, that these two vari-
ables are involved in a reciprocal relationship, it seems that this argu-
ment might need to be revisited to understand the exact connection.
More surprising was the nonsignificant relationship between per-
ceived risk and avoidance and defensive behaviors. This is surprising
because it seems logical that one who believes they are likely to be the
victim of a crime would engage in defensive behaviors for protection
or avoid situations that they feel will increase the likelihood of their
victimization. It also seems logical that one’s protective and avoid-
ance behaviors would impact how they assess their likelihood of vic-
timization. Thus, it is surprising that these constructs are only related
through fear of crime. Greater consideration of this model over time
and with a variety of types of methodologies may provide explana-
tions for these findings.
Also surprising was the finding that avoidance behaviors and
defensive behaviors are not related to one another. This is first
 An Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’ 499

important because many researchers use one scale that includes

questions that reflect both defensive and avoidance behaviors and
thus consider them as one construct often called constrained beha-
viors (Ferarro and LaGrange 1987; Hale 1996; Rader 2004; Rountree
and Land 1996; Warr 2000). The finding that these two constructs
do not significantly impact each other suggests that they are indeed
two separate constructs. Because this finding is new, how these two
constructs work conceptually is an interesting consideration for
future research.
Finally, in light of the findings regarding the theoretical variables
of fear of crime, perceived risk, avoidance behaviors, and defensive
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

behaviors, many other correlates of fear of crime may be in need of

further consideration. One such demographic is gender. The prior
literature argues that gender is a strong predictor of fear of crime,
with women expressing more fear of crime than men (Haynie 1998;
Ferarro 1996; Warr 2000). Further, much debate surrounds the need
for women’s increased fear, given their lessened chance of victimiza-
tion. This would suggest that perceived risk and fear of crime may
have different effects for men and women (Lupton and Tulloch
1999). Nevertheless, the findings presented here suggest that gender
is an important predictor of only fear of crime, not perceived risk
or avoidance or defensive behaviors. In fact, the results presented in
Table 6 suggest that no demographic variable had a statistically sig-
nificant association with all of the theoretical variables; race did not
have a statistically significant association with any of the theoretical
variables and gender, education, and household income had statisti-
cally significant associations with only one theoretical variable (fear,
avoidance behaviors, and defensive behaviors, respectively). Given
these findings, it is important that future research consider each of
the theoretical components of the threat of victimization model rather
than solely fear, perceived risk, or avoidance or defensive behaviors.
The relationship between the theoretical variables and victimiza-
tion experiences lends credence to the idea that future research should
reconceptualize the idea of fear of criminal victimization. The results
presented in Table 6 suggest that only property victimization in the
past 12 months had a statistically significant association with each
of the theoretical variables in question. Victimization by a nonsexual
crime impacted perceived risk and avoidance behaviors (but not fear
of crime or defensive behaviors), while victimization by a sexual crime
at any point in the respondent’s life impacted fear of crime and
perceptions of risk but not avoidance or defensive behaviors in the
past 12 months. Consequently, it appears that recent property
victimization impacts both emotions and behaviors. Recent violent
 500 N. E. Rader et al.

victimization, on the other hand, increases risk perceptions and

causes respondents to avoid certain activities but does not increase
fear or cause respondents to take defensive measures to protect them-
selves. Sexual victimization increases fear and perceptions of risk
throughout the victim’s life. To our knowledge, these findings provide
heretofore unexplored relationships and further suggest the need for
more careful consideration of fear, risk, behaviors, and victimization.
In conclusion, this article empirically tested an alternative view of
fear of crime presented by Rader (2004). Rader (2004) argued that
fear of crime, perceived risk, and constrained behaviors were involved
in a reciprocal relationship in which all three components contributed
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

to something called the ‘‘threat of victimization.’’ This empirical

assessment of that work indicates that the threat of victimization is
more complex than Rader (2004) considered. The associations
between (1) fear of crime and perceived risk, (2) fear of crime and
avoidance behaviors, and (3) fear of crime and defensive behaviors
revealed reciprocal relationships, whereas the association between
perceived risk and both types of constrained behaviors were not. This
suggests that future research must consider fear of crime as not only
an ‘‘effect’’ with a host of ‘‘correlates,’’ but must also consider fear of
crime as a cause of these additional constructs and also more care-
fully consider the correlates as well. Reconsidering the role of fear
in such a manner may greatly impact what we know about the threat
of victimization, what we think we know about the threat of victimi-
zation, and what we would like to know about the threat of victimiza-
tion in the future. As such, this work should be viewed as a
‘‘launching pad’’ for improvements in research examining victimiza-
tion, its causes, and its effects.

REFERENCES

Chiricos, Ted, Ranee McEntire, and Marc Gertz. 2000. ‘‘Perceived Racial and
Ethnic Composition of Neighborhood and Perceived Risk of Crime.’’ Social
Problems 48(3):322–340.
Clemente, Frank and Michael B. Kleinman. 1976. ‘‘Fear of Crime Among the
Aged.’’ The Gerontologist 16(3):207–210.
Curtin, R., S. Presser, and E. Singer. 2000. ‘‘The Effects of Response Rate Changes
on the Index of Consumer Sentiment.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly 64:413–428.
Ferraro, Kenneth. 1995. Fear of Crime: Interpreting Victimization Risk. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
———. 1996. ‘‘Women’s Fear of Victimization: Shadow of Sexual Assault.’’ Social
Forces 75:667–690.
Ferraro, Kenneth and Randy LaGrange. 1987. ‘‘The Measurement of Fear of
Crime.’’ Sociological Inquiry 57(1):70–101.
 An Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’ 501

Finucane, Melissa L., Paul Slovic, C. K. Mertz, James Flynn, and Theresa A.
Satterfield. 2000. ‘‘Gender, Race, and Perceived Risk: The ‘White Male’ Effect.’’
Health, Risk, and Society 2(2):159–172.
Fisher, Bonnie S. and John J. Sloan III. 2003. ‘‘Unraveling the Fear of Sexual Victi-
mization Among College Women: Is the ‘Shadow of Sexual Assault’ Hypothesis
Supported?’’ Justice Quarterly 20(3):633–659.
Gilchrist, Elizabeth, Jon Bannister, Jason Ditton, and Stephen Farrall. 1998.
‘‘Women and the Fear of Crime: Challenging the Accepted Stereotype.’’ British
Journal of Criminology 38:283–298.
Goodey, Jo. 1997. ‘‘Boys Don’t Cry: Masculinities, Fear of Crime and Fearless-
ness.’’ British Journal of Criminology 37:401–418.
Hale, Chris. 1996. ‘‘Fear of Crime: A Review of the Literature.’’ International Review
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

of Victimology 4:79–150.
Haynie, Dana L. 1998. ‘‘The Gender Gap in Fear of Crime, 1973–1994: A Metho-
dological Approach.’’ Criminal Justice Review 23:29–50.
Hraba, Joseph, Wan-Ning Bao, Frederick O. Lorenz, and Zdenka Pechacova. 1998.
‘‘Perceived Risk of Crime in the Czech Republic.’’ Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency 35(2):225–242.
Kanan, James W. and Matthew V. Pruitt. 2002. ‘‘Modeling Fear of Crime and Per-
ceived Victimization Risk: The (In)Significance of Neighborhood Integration.’’
Sociological Inquiry 72(4):527–548.
Keeter, S., C. Miller, A. Kohut, R. M. Groves, and S. Presser. 2000. ‘‘Consequences
of Reducing Nonresponse in a National Telephone Survey.’’ Public Opinion Quar-
terly 64:125–148.
Killias, Martin and Christian Clerici. 2000. ‘‘Different Measures of Vulnerability in
Their Relation to Different Dimensions of Fear and Crime.’’ British Journal of
Criminology 40(3):437–450.
Kleck, G. 1997. Targeting Guns. New York: Alpine de Gruyter.
Kuntsche, Emmanuel N. and Harald K.-H. Klingemann. 2004. ‘‘Weapon-Carrying
at Swiss Schools? A Gender-Specific Typology in Context of Victim and
Offender Related Violence.’’ Journal of Adolescence 27:381–393.
LaGrange, Randy L. and Kenneth F. Ferraro. 1989. ‘‘Assessing Age and Gender
Differences in Perceived Risk and Fear of Crime.’’ Criminology 27(4):697–719.
LaGrange, Randy L., Kenneth F. Ferraro, and Michael Supancic. 1992. ‘‘Perceived
Risk and Fear of Crime: Role of Social and Physical Incivilities.’’ Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency 29(3):311–334.
Lane, Jodi and James W. Meeker. 2003. ‘‘Social Disorganization Perceptions, Fear
of Gang Crime, and Behavioral Precautions Among Whites, Latinos, and
Vietnamese.’’ Journal of Criminal Justice 32:49–63.
Liska, Allen E., Joseph J. Lawrence, and Andrew Sanchirico. 1982. ‘‘Fear of Crime
as a Social Fact.’’ Social Forces 60:760–770.
Liska, Allen E., Andrew Sanchirico, and Mark D. Reed. 1988. ‘‘Fear of Crime and
Constrained Behavior: Specifying and Estimating a Reciprocal Effects Model.’’
Social Forces 66(3):827–837.
Lupton, Deborah and John Tulloch. 1999. ‘‘Theorizing Fear of Crime: Beyond the
Rational=Irrational Opposition.’’ British Journal of Sociology 50:507–523.
 502 N. E. Rader et al.

Maguire, K. and A. Pastore (Eds.). 2003. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics

2002 [online]. Retrieved May 19, 2004 from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/
May, David C. 1999. ‘‘Scared Kids, Unattached Kids, or Peer Pressure: Why Do
Students Carry Firearms to School?’’ Youth and Society 31(1):100–127.
———. 2001a. Adolescent Fear of Crime, Perceptions of Risk, and Defensive Behaviors:
An Alternative Explanation of Violent Delinquency. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen
Press.
———. 2001b. ‘‘The Effect of Fear of Sexual Victimization on Adolescent Fear of
Crime.’’ Sociological Spectrum 21(2):141–174.
May, David C. and R. G. Dunaway. 2000. ‘‘Predictors of Fear of Criminal Victimiza-
tion at School Among Adolescents.’’ Sociological Spectrum 20:149–168.
McKeganey, N. and J. Norrie. 2000. ‘‘Association Between Illegal Drugs and
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

Weapon Carrying in Young People in Scotland: Schools’ Survey.’’ British Medical

Journal 320:982–984.
Mesch, Gustavo S. 2000. ‘‘Perceptions of Risk, Lifestyle Activities, and Fear of
Crime.’’ Deviant Behavior 21:47–62.
Parker, Keith D., Barbara J. McMorris, Earl Smith, and Komanduri S. Murty. 1993.
‘‘Fear of Crime and the Likelihood of Victimization: A Bi-Ethnic Comparison.’’
The Journal of Social Psychology 133(5):723–732.
Rader, Nicole E. 2004. ‘‘The Threat of Victimization: A Theoretical Reconceptua-
lization of Fear of Crime.’’ Sociological Spectrum 24:689–704.
Reid, Lesley Williams and Miriam Konrad. 2004. ‘‘The Gender Gap in Fear: Asses-
sing the Interactive Effects of Gender and Perceived Risk on Fear of Crime.’’
Sociological Spectrum 24:399–425.
Rountree, Pamela Wilcox and Kenneth Land. 1996. ‘‘Burglary Victimization, Per-
ceptions of Crime Risk, and Routine Activities: A Multilevel Analysis across
Seattle Neighborhoods and Census Tracts.’’ Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 33(2):147–180.
Schafer, Joseph A., Beth Huebner, and Timothy S. Bynum. 2006. ‘‘Fear of Crime
and Criminal Victimization: Gender-Based Contrasts. Journal of Criminal Justice
34(3):285–301.
Skogan, Wesley G. and Michael G. Maxfield. 1981. Coping with Crime: Individual
and Neighborhood Reactions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Smith, William R. and Marie Torstensson. 1997. ‘‘Gender Differences in Risk
Perception and Neutralizing Fear of Crime.’’ British Journal of Criminology
37(4):608–634.
Stanko, Elizabeth, A. 1990. Everyday Violence. London: Pandora Press.
United States Bureau of the Census. 1990. 1990 Census of Population: Social and
Economic Characteristics. Retrieved May 7, 2004 from http://www.census.gov/
Press-Release/www/2002/dptables/90smp21.xls
———. 2000. 2000 Census of Population: Social and Economic Characteristics.
Retrieved May 7, 2004 from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/
dptables/2k21.xls.
United States Department of Justice. 2006. Criminal Victimization in the United
States, 2005 Statistical Tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvictgen.htm
 An Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’ 503

Vacha, Edward F. and T. F. McLaughlin. 2004. ‘‘Risky Firearm Behavior in Low-

income Families of Elementary School Children: The Impact of Poverty, Fear
of Crime, and Crime Victimization on Keeping and Storing Firearms.’’ Journal
of Family Violence 19(3):175–184.
Warr, Mark. 1984. ‘‘Fear of Victimization: Why are Women and the Elderly More
Afraid?’’ Social Science Quarterly 65:681–702.
Warr, Mark. 1990. ‘‘Dangerous Situations: Social Context and Fear of Victimiza-
tion.’’ Social Forces 68(3):891–907.
Warr, Mark. 2000. ‘‘Fear of Crime in the United States: Avenues for Research and
Policy.’’ Pp. 451–490 in Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice: Crime
Justice, vol. 4, edited by David Duffee. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
Warr, Mark and Christopher Ellison. 2000. ‘‘Rethinking Social Reactions to Crime:
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

Personal and Altruistic Fear in Family Households.’’ American Journal of

Sociology 106(3):551–578.
Warr, Mark and Mark Stafford, M. 1983. ‘‘Fear of Victimization: A Look at the
Proximate Causes.’’ Social Forces 61(4):1033–1043.
Wilcox, Pamela, David, C. May, and Staci D. Roberts. 2006. ‘‘Student Weapon Pos-
session and the ‘Fear of Victimization Hypothesis’; Unraveling the Temporal
Order.’’ Justice Quarterly 23:502–529.
Wilcox, Pamela, Neil Quisenberry, and Shayne Jones. 2003. ‘‘The Build Environ-
ment and Community Crime Risk Interpretation.’’ Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency 40(3):322–345.

APPENDIX

Fear of Criminal Victimization Index

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the

following statements:

I am afraid someone will break into my house while I am away.

I am afraid of being raped or sexually assaulted.
I am afraid of being attacked by someone with a weapon.
I am afraid to go out at night because I might become a victim of
crime.
I am afraid of being murdered.
I am afraid of having my money=possessions taken from me.

Perceptions of Risk Index

Respondents were asked to indicate the likelihood that they would be

victimized by each of the following crimes:

Someone breaking into your home and taking something or

attempting to take something.
 504 N. E. Rader et al.

Someone stealing or attempting to steal a motor vehicle belonging

to you.
Someone stealing items that belong to you without using force.
Someone taking or attempting to take something from you by
force or threat of force.
Someone beating you or attacking you with a club, knife, gun or
other weapon.
Someone threatening you with their fists, feet, or other bodily
attack.
Someone forcing you or attempting to force you to have sexual
intercourse with them against your will.
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

Satisfaction with Criminal Justice Agents

Respondents were asked to indicate their level of satisfaction with the

following criminal justice agencies (coded Very Satisfied ¼ 5, Some-
what Satisfied ¼ 4, Don’t Know ¼ 3, Somewhat Dissatisfied ¼ 2,
and Very Dissatisfied ¼ 1).
In general, how satisfied are you with the . . .

police who serve your community?

adult court system that serves your community?
prosecutors in your local court system?
public defenders in your local court system?
juvenile courts that serve your community?
jail that serves your community?
community-oriented corrections programs (such as probation,
parole, and other such programs) in your community?
prison system in Kentucky?

12-Month Nonsexual Violent Victimization Experience

Respondents were asked if any of the following experiences had

happened to them ‘‘during the past 12 months:’’

Did anyone take or attempt to take something directly from you by

using force or threat of force, such as a stick-up or mugging?
Did anyone attack you with a knife, gun, club, or another weapon
other than hands, fists, or feet?
Did anyone hit, attack, or beat you by using their hands, fists,
or feet or other bodily attack? (not including attacks with
weapons).
 An Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’ 505

Respondents that answered ‘‘yes’’ to any of the three questions

were coded (1); those answering no were coded (0).

12-Month Property Victimization Experience

Respondents were asked if any of the following experiences had

happened to them ‘‘during the past 12 months:’’

Did anyone steal or attempt to steal a motor vehicle belonging to

you such as a car, truck, motorcycle, or snowmobile?
Downloaded by [The UC Irvine Libraries] at 23:32 25 October 2014

Did anyone break into, or try to break into, your house or some
other building on your property intending to commit a crime?
Was anything else stolen from you (other than the incidents
already mentioned)?
Did anyone intentionally damage or destroy property owned by
you or someone else in your household?
Respondents that answered ‘‘yes’’ to any of the four questions
were coded (1); those answering no were coded (0).

Lifetime Sexual Victimization Experience

Respondents were asked if any of the following experiences had ever

happened to them:

Has anyone made or tried to make you have sex by using force or
threatening to harm you or someone close to you?
Did anyone force you or attempt to force you into any unwanted
sexual activity such as touching, grabbing, kissing, fondling,
etc.?
Respondents that answered ‘‘yes’’ to either of the questions were
coded (1); those answering no were coded (0).