AJCJ, Vol. XII, NO. 2 (1988)

A SCALE FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF FEAR OF CRIME

RAYMOND H. C. TESKE, JR. Sam Houston State University

MICHAEL H. HAZLETT Western I l l ino is University

ABSTRACT

This paper presents research findings from a victimization survey of 1442 Texas residents. Specific attention is given to the fear of crime indicators in the survey with comparisons made to other findings on this subject.

During the past two decades there has been an increasing interest in the concept fear of crime, both among the public and among scholars. Skogan and Maxfield ( lgBl: lJ), for example, note that since 1965 the Gallup organization (American Institute of Public Opinion Research, monthly), the National Opinion Research Center (1978), and other polling organizations have been asking respondents about fear of walking alone in their neighborhoods at night. In 1967 the President's Task Force on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice published its report and, of particular ~ote, concluded that, with regard to crime, a "fear of strangers" is the foremost concern among Americans (1967). Subsequently, the National Crime Surveys regularly included questions focusing on the extent to which the participants in the surveys fel t safe when out alone in their neighborhoods at night.

Consequently, a subarea has developed in the field of victimology which has attended to the issue of identifying causal factors related to fear of crime, correlates with fear of cr ime, and the consequences that fear of crime has on the socio-psychological states of Americans, as well as their l ifestyles. As McIntyre (1967) has noted, fear of crime, particularly as i t translates from fear of strangers, creates a condition of social and cultural impoverishment among those who are impacted by this fear. In other words, fear of crime has been

274

demonstrated to have a profound effect on the quality of l i fe of the average American.

Almost a decade ago Brooks noted that "[t]he fear of crime in the United States is a fundamental social problem which has not yet received attention in proportion to its severity and which may well prove to be more d i f f i cu l t to treat than criminality i tse l f " (1974:241). Brooks also postulated that the fear of cr ime level in the United States is i rrat ional, in relation to the actual probability of becoming a victim; nevertheless, he correctly recognized, in the tradit ion of W. I. Thomas, that i f the public whether correctly or incorrectly, perceives fear of crime to be real, then the consequences for their actions wi l l be real as well. Similarly, Garofalo recently delineated the distinction between actual fear and anticipated fear, observing that " we can expect that anticipated fear--as well as actual Fear--will produce behavioral responses" (1gBI:842).

At the same time, i t has been demonstrated that fear of crime is not equally distributed among the populace. Skogan and Maxfield (1981:76-77), for example, have documented that the elderly are more fearful than the young, women are more fearful than men, Blacks are more fearful than Whites, and the poor are more fearful than the affluent. Garofalo (1979), too, found that women are more Fearful than men and that older persons are more fearful than the younger persons. In addition, Garofalo found " that perceptions of the relative dangerousness of one's neighborhood also have a strong effect on the fear of crime" (197g:95). Clemente and Kleiman, using data from two national samples, found that "[f]emales, blacks, and residents of large cit ies all display signif icantly more fear than their respective counterparts" (1977:527).

Of course, as scho la r l y i n te res t has developed regarding fear of crime, the inevitable, concomitant problems of conceptualization and operationalization have had to be addressed. Although criminologists, and victimologists in particular, do seem to share in a consensus that fear of crime is an element of social real i ty, perhaps even conforming to Durkheim's cr i ter ia regarding social facts, nevertheless, the meaning of the concept fear of crime has not acquired complete uniformity in the l iterature. Yin, for

275

example, has noted that "fear of crime is almost never exp l i c i t l y defined by researchers" (1980:496). At the same time, however, he has provided reference to a def ini t ion by Sundeen and Mathieu who defined fear of crime as "the amount of anxiety and concern that persons have of being a victim" (1976:55). Garofalo, in a more exp l ic i t manner, has defined fear "as an emotional reaction characterized by a sense of danger and anxiety" (lgBl:840). In this context, he has provided a restricted definit ion of fear of crime as "the sense of danger and anxiety produced by a threat of physical harm" (1981:840). And, i t should be noted that this def ini t ion incorporates concern about property crimes, such as burglary, which might lead to direct confrontation with an offender. Other noteworthy efforts to conceptualize fear of crime include Furstenberg (1971) who, in developing an index of fear of crime, focused on the individual's perception of vulnerabi l i ty ( i t a l i cs added) in relation to eight di f ferent crimes. And Hartnagel (1979) has suggested that fear of crime is related to beliefs regarding personal safety ( i t a l i cs added).

Moreover, efforts to operationalize fear of crime ref lect this consensus regarding the individual's perception of personal vulnerabi l i ty to crime which might bring him or her into personal contact with an offender. Even more so, this implied consensus has lead victimologists to rely heavily on one single indicator of fear of crime, that is, the extent to which an individual is afraid to walk alone in his or her neighborhood at night. And, use of this indicator to operationalize fear of crime is quite logical and is readily acceptable based on the standard of face va l id i ty . The fact that this presents a situation wherein the individual is (1) in a public place, (2) alone, and (3) in the dark certainly implies the possibi l i ty of personal contact with a potential offender. Furthermore, based on individual perception, some wi l l feel more vulnerable than others in this part icular type of situation.

These and other writers do suggest that, i f there is an implied consensus regarding the conceptual meaning of fear of crime, i t is to be found in the individual 's perception of personal vulnerabi l i ty regardless of whether the perception is based on objective real i ty .... which might bring him or her into personal contact with an offender.

276

Predicated on this assumption, then, researchers have frequently operationalized fear of crime by asking respondents about their fear of being out alone in their neighborhood at night. And, although the format of the questions have varied somewhat, the underlying assumption on which the questions have been based has remained the same. Respondents to the national crime surveys, for example, were asked: "How safe do you feel or would you feel being out alone in your neighborhood at night?" The four response categories were very safe, reasonably safe, somewhat safe, and very unsafe (Garofalo, 1977:18-19, 128). Garofalo (1979), as well as other researchers relying on these data, have by necessity had to rely on this specific indicator of fear of crime. Skogan and Maxfield (IgBl) also used this question as an indicator of fear of crime in a telephone survey and in data collected subsequently through face-to-face interviews. Others have either relied on this question or have designed their own similar question(s). For example, Smith has drawn on data collected in the General Social Survey by the National Opinion Research Center which used the question: "Is there any area right around here---that is, within one mile -where you would be afraid to walk along at night" (1976:208)? The response choices were dichotomized as either yes or no. Clemente and Kleiman (1977) also used this question to operationalize fear of crime.

Although there has been more than adequate reason to re ly on these question in order to operat ional ize fear of crime, researchers have been faced with two specific limitations. First, they have had to consistently rely on a single indicator Focusing on a single specific circumstance, that is, a hypothetical situation which either asks how safe, or would the respondent feel safe, in a g iven situation. Secondly, in using this format, researchers have generally been restricted to treating the dependent variable, that is, fear of crime, as nominal or, at best, ordinal data. And, of course, this has placed limitations on the level, and strength, of analysis of the data.

These limitations have certainly been recognized by others. Garofalo, for example, recently noted the need for more refined indicators of fear of crime, stating that "[w]e must develop indicators that reflect differences in the saliency and intensity of

277

both actual and anticipated fear experiences" (1981:855). Similarly, Clemente and Kleiman have noted that "the NORC question on fear of crime could easily be improved by eliminating the dichotomous format and including a broader range of responses. Further, other dimensions of fear of crime, e.g., afraid in one's own house, also deserve attention" (1977:529). They also exhort that "[ t ]his paucity of multivariate work has seriously inhibited the development of causal explanations of differential fear of crime" (1977:529).

Therefore, understanding and further explanation of the phenomenon fear of crime would be significantly enhanced i f an index, or measurement instrument, were available which was based on multi-indicators and which could provide for interval level data and concomitant means of analysis. 1

SCALE DEVELOPMENT: OPERATIONALIZATION

In order to address this issue the researchers sought to develop a scale to measure fear of crime which would meet both of these cr i ter ia, that is, a scale consisting of several distinct indicators and which could provide interval level data. And, since fear of walking alone in one 's neighborhood, particularly at night, has become an acceptable, standardized means of operationalizing fear of crime, the researchers decided to build, or expand, on this indicator. In other words, a series of items was developed which would reflect varying degrees of vulnerability to physical danger f rom potential assailants. For example, i t was assumed that, although some individuals might be afraid to walk alone within one b~eck of their home at night, not al l of these same individuals would be afraid to walk within one block of their home at night i f accompanied by a friend. At the same time, individuals who might be afraid to walk alone within one block of their home at night, nevertheless, might be afraid for a young child to walk alone within one block of their (the respondent's) home at night. Also, i t was assumed that a distinction might obtain between the same hypo- thetical situations depending on whether the situation referred to was related to the daytime or nighttime. 2

Consequently, eight dichotomous i tems were designed which could, potentially, be arranged hierarchically from lowest feelings of vulnerability

278

to highest feeling of vulnerabil ity-whether on the part of the respondent while alone, the respondent in the accompaniment of a friend, or on the part of a young child. 3 The eight items included in the survey instrument are presented in Figure I . The distr ibution responses to the six items retained in the scale are presented in lable l and the distr ibution of responses to the two items not included in the scale are presented in Table 2.

FIGURE 1

Questionnaire Items Included and Not Included Regarding Feelings

of Personal Vulnerability

Items included in the Guttman Scale for the Measure ment of Fear of Crime.

Item l

Item 2

Item 3

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Would you be afraid for a ys child to walk alone within one mile of your home at night? Would you be afraid for a young child to walk alone within one block of your home at night? Is there any area within one mile of your home where you would be afraid to walk alone at night? Is there any area within one mile of your home where you would be afraid to walk at night i_f_f accompanied by a friend? Would you be afraid to walk alone within one block of your home at night? Would you be afraid to walk alone within on__ee block of your home at night j f accompanied by a friend?

Items not included in the Guttman Scale for Measure- ment of Fear of Crime.

Item A

Item B

Is there any place in your community where you are afraid to walk a lone during the daytime? Is there any place in your community where you would be afraid for a young child to walk alone during the daytime?

279

1ABLE I

DISIRIBUIION OF RESPONSES TO SCALE ITEMS: INCLUDING "NO RESPONSE"

Item l Item 2 Item 3 N % N % N %

Yes I l l 8 328 23 386 27 No 1,315 gl 1,095 76 1,040 72 No Response 16 l Ig l 16 l

Total 1,442 I00 1 ,422 I00 1,422 lO0

Item 4 Item 5 Item 6 N % N % N %

Yes 829 58 841 5B 1,252 87 No 592 41 583 40 175 12 No Response 21 l 18 l 15 l

Total 1,422 lO0 1 ,422 lO0 1,422 lO0

1ABLE 2

DISTRIBUIION OF RESPONSES lO IIEMS NO1 INCLUDED IN IHE GUIlMAN SCALE

Item A Item B N % N %

Yes 338 23 758 53 No 1,084 75 662 46 No Response 20 l 22 l

Total 1,442 I00 1,422 I00

DATA COLLECTION

lhe Criminal Justice Center at Sam Houston State University conducts an annual survey called the Texas Crime Poll. The survey instrument includes a number of items which are repeated each time in order to

280

measure trends in public opinion concerning salient criminal justice issues (for example, the death penalty). In addition, current or special issues are also addressed in the surveys. I t was in this context that the eight items were included in the 1982 Texas Crime Poll survey. 4

Briefly stated, survey instruments were mailed to a randomly selected sample of 2000 licensed drivers in Texas. Each potential respondent received a pre-survey post card informing him/her of the purpose of the survey. Then, each individual in the sample was sent a survey packet consisting of the survey instrument, a return addressed and stamped envelope, and a letter explaining the purpose of the survey. Two weeks later al l nonrespondents were sent a follow-up post card, followed a week later by another survey packet and, i f no response had been received by the f i f t h week, a f inal follow-up post card.

A total of 1442 (72.1%) of the individuals in the sample returned useable survey instruments. 5 Moreover, the characteristics of the respondents were s ta t is t ica l ly representative of the original sample of 2000 with respect to sex , race , age, and geographic distribution. At the same time, i t should be recognized that the sample was drawn from the l i s t of registered drivers in Texas and, although this includes more than 90% of the adult population in Texas, generalizations from the findings should be restricted to the population of licensed drivers in the State of Texas.

SCALE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY

Although the eight items were predicated on similar items that have come to be accepted as indicators of fear of cr ime, nevertheless, the researchers decided to further address their val idi ty and selected one of the items for this purpose. 6 The i tem selected asked: "Would you be afraid to walk alone within one block of your home at night?" I f a respondent answered yes then he (or she) was asked to explain why he would be afraid. Their explanations were presented in Table 3.

lhe responses to the contingent question were open- ended. A total of 328 (23%) of the respondents answered yes to the first question. Of these 66 (20%) failed to explain why they would be afraid and,

281

of the remainder, al l but I I (3%) listed reasons which could be linked directly, or indirectly, to crime-related concerns. Therefore, i t seems quite reasonable to conclude that the indicator is, in fact, measuring concern about vulnerability and safety in conjunction with crime-related factors and, in effect, is indirectly measuring fear of crime. 7

TABLE 3

REASONS FOR FEAR OF WALKING ALONE WITHIN ONE BLOCK OF HOME AT NIGHT**

Reasons Given Number Percent

High Crime Area 28 Afraid of Physical Violence 46 Previous Experience With Violence 25 Neighborhood Not Safe 44 Afraid of Robbery 2 Lack of Trust 5 Poor Police Protection 5 Inefficiency of Courts 3 Racial Unrest/Problems 9 Transients in Neighborhood 19 Drunks in Neighborhood lO Afraid of Teenagers 3 Inadequate Lighting 36 Neighborhood Deserted at Night 13 Neighborhood Located Near Prison 2 Long Blocks in Neighborhood 1 Afraid of Dogs 5 Located Near Busy Highway 6 No Response 66

8 14

8 13

2 2 1 3 6 1 1

11 4

2 2

20

TOTAL 28 l O1%

*Less than 1% **The respondents were asked the fo l lowing open-ended

question: "Would you be a f ra id to walk alone wi th in one block of your home at night? I f yes, why? (Exp la in ) . "

282

Scale Development

The intention of the researchers in developing a hierarchical set of items measuring fear of crime was to allow for the construction of a Guttman Scale which could be used to assign a score to each individual responding to the survey. Therefore, i t was necessary that two properties, or cr i ter ia , be met i f the items were to be used for the construction of this particular type of scale. First, they had to be unidimensional, that is, ". the component items must al l measure movement towards or away from a single underlying object" (Nie et a l . , 1975:529). Secondly, the scale, and hence the items, must be cumulative since the la t ter cri terion is the one property which differentiates Guttman scales from almost al l other types of scales. 8

I t was also necessary that the data consist of dichotomous categories since the Guttman scale requires that for each i tem the response must be classified as either pass or fa i l , yes or no. This was accomplished by scoring as l a response of yes and by scoring as 0 a response of no. g

The expectation, then, is that the items wi l l be patterned in a hierarchical order from minimal fear of crime to maximum fear of crime, lO Therefore, i f the respondent answers yes to an item in the scale he would then answer yes to al l items in the scale up to that point. For example, i f he answers yes to the fourth item, then he would be expected to answer yes to the f i r s t , second, and third items, but not necessarily to the items above the fourth item. Moreover, i f he answers yes to the highest item in the scale--in this case, fear of walking alone within one block of the respondent's home at night i f accompanied by a friend--then he would be expected to answer unusual i f a l l responses followed a perfect pattern. For example, a respondent might answer yes to the fourth item, as well as the f i r s t and second items, but not to the third item. Therefore, the Guttman evaluating procedure takes into account these "errors" and, based on consistency in predicted response patterns, calculates two principal stat is t ics for evaluating the scale.

The f i r s t s ta t is t ic is the coefficient of reproducibil i ty which is " a measure of the extent to which a respondent's scale score is a

283

predictor of one's response pattern" (Nie et a l . , 1975:532). The coefficient of reproducibil ity varies from 0 to l and, in general, should exceed .9 in order to indicate a valid score. The second stat is t ic is the coefficient of scalabi l i ty, which also varies from 0 to l , and serves to assess the extent to which the scale meets the two cr i ter ia of unidimensionality and cumulativeness. In order to assume that the scale is bo th unidimensional and cumulative the coefficient of scalabi l i ty should be above .6.

The eight original items were examined using the Guttman evaluation procedure and i t was evident, based on the interitem correlations, that two of the items not only failed to contribute to the scale, but were negatively affecting both the reproducibil ity and scalabilityo Therefore, these items were removed from the scale.

At this point six scale items were retained. The coefficient of scalabi l i ty is .745 and the coefficient of reproducibil ity is .908. Both indicators, then, are above minimum acceptable levels.

The next step in the process was to assign a scale score to each of the respondents. According to Nie et al. " . i f a group of items passes the rather stringent requirement of the Guttman evaluating procedure, assigning each case as scale score based on the number of items passed (whether or not they are perfect scale types) is a sound procedure" (1975:533). Therefore, each respondent was assigned a scale score by calculating the total number of ones (1) scored by that individual.

The distr ibution of the scale scores is presented in Table 4. The scores range from O, indicating that the respondent did not answer yes to any of the six items, to 6, indicating that the respondent answered yes to al l six of the items. In theory, a score of 6 would indicate maximum fear of crime. In other words, the higher the score the greater the fear of crime.

One central concern, of course, is that the scale scores are distributed in such a way that they can be used for stat is t ical analysis. I f , for example, they were highly skewed to one or the other end of the scale, then the u t i l i t y of the scale for research purposes, and for theory building, would be marginal. Examination of the scale scores suggests an acceptable

284

dis t r ibu t ion , with minimum skewness (skewness = .25). However, the scores are somewhat " f l a t " in thei r d is t r ibut ion, although they do peak near the mean (kurtosis = -.62). Moreover, the mean (2.63), median (2.00) and mode (2.00) are close together. In summary, a l l indicators support the position that the six-item scale is well within acceptable l imits for use in s ta t i s t i ca l analysis.

TABLE 4

DISIRIBUTION OF SCALE SCORES*

Number W i t h Percent W i t h Cumulative Score This Score This Score Percent

0 162 12 12 1 IB7 13 25 2 355 25 50 3 263 19 69 4 240 17 86 5 gl 7 93 6 94 7 1 O0

TOTAL 1,392 lO0 lO0

*NOTE: The greater the scale score, the more intense the fear.

Mean = 2.63 Median = 2.00 Mode = 2.00 Standard Deviation = 1.66 Skewness = .25

Kurtosis = -.62 Coefficient of

Reproducibil ity = .gOB Coefficient of

Scalabi l i ty = .745

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Whereas the coefficient of reproducibility and the coefficient of scalability are above acceptable levels and, since the distribution of the scores supports the position that the scale can readily be used for statistical analysis requiring interval level data, a regression equation was calculated in order to illustrate the utility of the scale and to identify factors which might help to explain varia- tions in levels of fear of crime. The stepwise

285

multiple regression procedure was used to regress a set of 12 selected independent variables on the dependent variable, that is, scores derived from the fear of crime scale, yielding a multiple R of .500 and a R of .250. I I

Out of the 12 factors analyzed, eight (B) of the independent variables served to explain 25 percent of the variation in fear of crime. The independent variable accounting for the greatest amount of varia- tion was sex (13.6%). Size of home town was next adding an additional 5.5 percent for a total explained variation of 19.1 percent. The remaining variables and the amount they contributed, in descending order, were perception of the community crime problem during the next three years (2.3%), family income (I.8%), perception of the community crime problem during the previous three years (I.0%), race--White/nonWhite (.3%), age (.2%), and whether or not the individual had been the victim of at least one crime during the previous year (.3%). The regression results are presented below in Table 5. A complete l ist ing of the 12 variables, and the corresponding "product moment correlations," is presented in Table 6.

TABLE 5

SUMMARY OF REGRESSION ANALYSIS USING THE SIX POINT "FEAR CRIME" SCALE AS THE DEPENDENI VARIABI_E

Variable Multiple R R_

Sex .369 Size of Home Town .437 Crime Problem: Next 3 Years .463 Family Income .481 Crime Problem: Previous 3 Years .492 White/nonWhite .495 Age .497 Victim of At Least One Crime: .500*

Previous Year

.136

.Igl

.214

.232

.242

.245

.247

.250"

*Rounded from .4997 and .2497

286

IABLE 6

PRODUCT-MOMENI CORRELATIONS BETWEEN FEAR OF CRIME SCALE SCORES AND SELECIED INDEPENDEN1 VARIABLES

Socioeconomic Sex .369" Age .019 Family Income (1) -.083* Size of Hometown (2) .242* Education (3) -.016 Race

White/nonWhite -.079* Black/nonBlack .071" Hispanic/nonHispanic .044 Other Race/nonOther Race .005

Perception of Crime Problem in Community Previous 3 Years .180" Next 3 Years .169"

Victimization Durin 9 Previous Year At Least One Property Crime At Least One Violent Crime At Least One Crime

.073"

.048"

.OB6*

Knew Victim of Crime During Previous Years Knew At Least One Victim .086"

*p .05

( i )

(2)

(3)

(4)

Ordinal data divided into 7 categories.

Ordinal data divided into 9 categories beginning with "rural area" and up to "over 500,000."

Ordinal data grouped into 4 categories: less than high school; h igh school or GED; some college; and, college degree (including advanced college degree).

The respondents were asked: "Over the past three years, do you feel the crime problem in your community is: (1) getting better; (2) about the same; or, (3) getting worse?" Based on previous experience in analysing these data, the researchers dichotomized the data by grouping together "getting better" and "about the same."

287

(5) The respondents were asked: During the next three years, do you feel that the crime problem in your community wit1: (1) get better; (2) stay about the same; or, (3) become worse? The data were dichotomized by combining the responses "get better" and "stay the same" into one category.

CONCLUSION

In summary, a s ix- i tem Guttman scale was developed which should prove pragmatic for the understanding and fur ther explanation of the phenomenon fear of crime. H is to r i ca l l y , researchers studying fear of crime have been restr ic ted in two respects: (1) they have had to consistently rely on a single indicator focusing on a single specif ic circumstance or projected circumstance; and, (2) they have been rest r ic ted to treat ing the indicators used to measure the dependent variable, fear of crime, as nominal or, at best, ordinal data. Therefore, the six- i tem scale presented in th is paper should prove useful to researchers in helping to overcome both of these l imi ta t ions. 12 Both the coef f ic ient of reproduc ib i l i t y and the coef f ic ient of sca lab i l i t y are above acceptable levels and the d is t r ibu t ion of the scale scores supports the posit ion that the scale can readi ly be used for s t a t i s t i ca l analysis requiring interval level data. By using the scale in a multiple regression analysis, including 12 independent variables, 8 of which contributed significantly to the regression equation, the researchers were able to account for 25 percent of the total variation in fear of crime. Hopefully, the scale wi l l be used by other researchers using different sampling frames, as well as additional independent variables, thereby leading to a greater understanding of factors which influence and cause fear of crime.

NOTES

l i t should be noted that fear of crime has been operationalized in ways other than fear of being out alone in one's neighborhood at night. Furstenberg, for example, has developed an index of fear " based on the ind iv idual 's perception of vu lnerab i l i ty to eight d i f ferent crimes" (1971:604). However, he

288

was restricted to a nominal level of analysis. Another example can be found in the work of Hartnagel who relied on two measures of fear of crime, " the degree of personal safety Rs fel t in their own neighborhoods; and the safety of the ci ty as a whole as they rated i t " (1979:181). Again, analysis of the data was restricted to nominal or, at best, ordinal level of analysis.

2The researchers recognize that attitudes consist of several components and, in developing the scale, focused on only one aspect of an attitude, the cognitive. Moreover, the respondents were asked only i f they would be afraid under certain circumstances and not about the extent to which fear of crime actually affects their behavior in regard to these circumstances.

3The reader is reminded that, conceptually, fear of crime is equated to feelings of vulnerability.

41tems 3 and 5 have been included in all Texas Crime Poll surveys, beginning in 1977. For a review of the responses to these items from each of the surveys, see Teske et al. (1983).

5For a complete discussion of the research procedures and response patterns, see Teske et al. (]983).

6Using discriminant validation, Skogan and Maxfield concluded that the General Social Survey question---"Is there any area around here--that is, within l mile--where you would be afraid to walk alone at night?"--is clearly a valid indicator of fear of crime (1981:55-58). Also, when the context in which these questions were asked in the Texas Crime Poll survey is taken into consideration, i t is also reasonable to assume that the respondents to the survey understood that the questions were asked in relation to their fear of crime.

7The two reasons given which did not appear to relate directly to fear of crime were "afraid of dogs" (n=5) and "located near a busy highway" (n=6). However, i t is reasonable to assume that, i f dogs are loose and generate fear in the respondents, this is s t i l l an indicator of a relative breakdown in social control, even within one block of the respondent's home. Also, since the question asked only about

289

walking within one block of the respondent's home at night, i t may be possible that "location near a busy highway" translates into fear of strangers.

BFor additional information regarding the Guttman Scale technique the reader should refer to Nie et al. (1975:528-535), Goodenaugh (1944), and Edwards (194B).

91ndividuals who did not respond to any one of the scale items were excluded f rom the scale development process. Therefore, of the 1,442 respondents 50 (3%) were excluded.

lOA score of zero would indicate no fear of crime as measured by the items in the scale. Therefore, the scale does contain a value of absolute zero.

llOne of the variables, race, was divided into four dummy variables. I f each of the dummy variables is taken to be a single variable, then there were a total 15 variables entered into the equation.

12The scale, of course, could be expanded by the researchers, or others, i f new items could be identified that conform to the same theoretical framework. Also, the two excluded items referring to walking alone during the daytime probably should be reworded to refer to "within one block" or "within one mile," rather-than "in your community" and then reexamined in relation to the scale. Moreover, the researchers certainly realize that the items in the scale refer to very specific location in reference to the respondent's home and do not measure fear in relation to other circumstances, for example, place of work, school, parking lot at a shopping center, and so forth.

REFERENCES

Brooks, 3. (1974) "The Fear of Crime in the United States." Crime and Delinquency 20: 241-244.

Clemente, F. and Michael B. Kleiman (1977) "Fear of Crime in the United States: A Multivariate Analysis." Social Forces 56: 51g-531.

290

Edwards, A. L. (1948) "On Guttman Scale Analysis." Educational and Psychological Measurement 8: 313-318.

Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (Ig7l) "Public Reaction to Crime in the Street." American Scholar 40: 601-610.

Garofalo, J. (1981) "The Fear of Crime: Causes and Consequences." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 72: 839-857.

(197g) "Victimization and Fear of Crime." Journal of Research in Crime and D@linquenc~ 16: 80-g7.

(1977) Public Opinion About Crime: The Attitudes of Victims and Nonvictims in Selected Cities. Washington, D.C.: Justice.

U.S. Department of

Goodenaugh, W . H . (1944) "A Technique for Scale Analysis." Educational and Psychologica ~ Measurement 4: 179-190.

Hartnagel, T.F. (lg79) "Perceptions and Fear of Crime: Implications for Neighborhood Cohesion, Social Activity, and Community Affect." Social Forces 58: 176-193.

McIntyre, J. (1967) "Public Attitudes Toward Crime and Law Enforcement." The Annals of the American Academy 374: 34-46.

National Opinion Research Center (1978) National Data Program for the Social Sciences: General Socia! Survey Cumulative Codebook 1972-1977. University of Chicago.

Chicago:

Nie, N.H., C.H. Hull, J.G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, and D.H. Bent (1975) Statistical package for the Social Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Adminis- tration of Justice (1967) The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

291

Skogan, W. G. and M. G. Maxfield (IgBl) Coping With Crime: Individual and Neighborhood Reactions. Beverly Hi l ls: Sage Publications.

Smith, O. L. (1976) "The Aftermath of Victimization: Fear and Suspicion," pp. 203-21g in E. C. Viano (ed.) Victims and Society. Washington, D.C.: Visage Press, Inc.

Sundeen, R. and J. Mathieu (1976) "The Urban Elderly: Environments of Fear," p. 55 in 5. Goldsmith and S. Goldsmith (eds.) Crime and the Elderly: Challenge and Response. Lexington, Mass.: Heath.

leske, R. H. C., Jr. , M. H. Hazlett, and M. L. Parker (1983) Texas Cr ime Poll: 1982 Survey. Huntsville, Texas: Sam Houston State University.

Yin, P. P. (lgBO) "Fear of Crime Among the Elderly: Some Issues and Suggestions." Social Problems 27: 492-504.

292