The Creation and Validation of the Perceived Safety Scale ...

Running head: PERCEIVED SAFETY SCALE 1

The Creation and Validation of the Perceived Safety Scale

Stylianos Syropoulos

Franklin and Marshall College

Department of Psychology

Independent Study in Psychology (PSY 490)

Date of Graduation: 05/12/2018

Date of Submission: 04/16/2018

PERCEIVED SAFETY SCALE 2

Abstract

Safety is necessary for all societies. Without safety, our lives are impaired. In order to have an

accurate understanding of how safety is perceived across individuals and communities, the

proper assessment of safety perceptions is vital. Previous research has not used one standardized

measure; instead, researchers have used either one item to measure perceived safety or related

scales pertaining to walkability (i.e., the degree to which a neighborhood or city is considered

safe for walking) and fear of crime. The main goal of the present studies was to construct and

validate a measure of perceived safety that will encompass the complex nature of safety. In

exploratory Studies 1 and 2, Principal Component Analysis revealed that four factors seem to

explain variance in the overall perception of safety: Fear of Crime, Feeling Safe, Neighborhood

Walkability and Safety Confidence. Study 3 utilized a confirmatory factor analysis to confirm

the validation of the scale and replicate the previous findings. The construction of this measure

will allow researchers to build meaningful interventions and allow future cross-cultural and

meta-analytic studies to be conducted.


-Safety is something that happens between your ears, not something you hold in your hands.

-Jeff Cooper

The Creation and Validation of the Perceived Safety Scale

Safety is not only a crucial aspect of our lives, it is also a pre-requisite for societies to

prosper and flourish (Galtung, 1969; Maslow 1943). We only have to look into the news to

understand that safety is a widely discussed topic of today’s society, with mass shootings, racial

issues and cross-national conflict constantly affecting how safe individuals feel. Thus, despite

living in the most peaceful era in human history (Pinker, 2012), these recurrent local and national

events (e.g., terrorist attacks, police brutality, mass shootings) continually challenge daily

experiences of safety. Adding to this phenomenon, the complex character of safety only

increases the difficulty of measuring it as a construct. Different facets of safety pertain to

different aspects of life, such as health (Dierynck, Leroy, Savage, & Choi, 2017; Elf, Nordin,

Wijk, & Mckee, 2017), occupation (Sheehan et al., 2016), and living conditions (Maillot,

Dommes, Dang, & Vienne, 2017). As psychologists currently lack a proper measure of safety

(see Hinkle, 2015), the present research sought to introduce a new measure of safety that can be

used to examine the complex and fundamental construct.

Effect of a Safe/Unsafe Environment on an Individual

Living in an unsafe neighborhood directly influences a person’s health. People who do

not feel safe, for example, tend not to enjoy recreational activities (Snyder & Evans, 2017) which

negatively impacts their life satisfaction. Moreover, health is negatively impacted by high

anxiety (Davidson et al., 2016) and stress (Henderson et al., 2016; Won, Lee, Forjuoh, & Ory,

2016), which are caused by the lack of safety. Adding to these, safety is associated with reduced


walkability (i.e., the degree to which a neighborhood or city is considered safe for walking)

leading to increased levels of obesity and other negative effects on physical health (Burdette,

Wadden, & Whitaker, 2006; Ferrão et al., 2013; Sundquist, Eriksson, Mezuk, & Ohlsson, 2015),

particularly for older adults (Towne et al., 2016; Won, Forjuoh & Ory, 2016).

In addition to walkability, being in a safe neighborhood greatly affects parenting style

and child development. Higher fear of crime, higher crime rates, and reduced feelings of safety

are associated with more austere parenting styles (McDonell, 2007). Studies have also shown

that parental warmth (Tendulkar et al., 2010) and parental restriction (Cooper-Vince et al., 2014)

are affected by neighborhood safety. Neighborhood safety is, in turn, correlated with reduced

physical activity outside of the home (Fueyo et al., 2016), as well as increased anxiety (Vieno et

al., 2010) and decreased self-esteem and motivation (Roan-Belle, 2015) in early adolescence. To

combat these negative outcomes, applied research has focused on interventions that increase

safety through the introduction of new lighting and revitalization programs (Dulin-Keita et al.,

2015).

Additionally, safety is impacted by demographic factors such as age, gender, and race,

with older adults, and minorities feeling less safe overall (Jiang et al., 2017). Furthermore,

women feel less safe than men (Camerino, 2016; Jiang, Mak, Larsen, & Zhong, 2017; Zaplluzha

& Shahini, 2016). Age, socioeconomic status, neighborhood type and familiarity also have been

shown to be predictors of safety, with the elderly, a more urban and unfamiliar neighborhood

together with a low socioeconomic status being predictors of lowers levels of safety (Semyonov,

Gorodzeisky, & Glikman, 2012).

In academic settings, when students do not feel safe, their academic performance tends to

suffer (Hamada et al., 2016; Martin-Storey & Crosnoe, 2014; Milam, Furr-Holden, & Leaf,


2010; Nijs et al., 2014). Being the victim of school violence in turn decreases perceptions of

safety while at school (Yablon & Addington, 2017), creating a cycle of unsafety that negatively

affects both the emotional and physical health of the students, as well as the function of the

school as an institution. Further, being victimized and bullied at school, which is more prevalent

in unsafe institutions, is associated with a higher risk for suicidal behavior (Brunstein-Klomek et

al., 2007) and an increased need for mental health services (Evans-Lacko et al., 2017). Increased

fear of victimization in school can also lead to students being more likely to carry a firearm at

school (May, 1999).

Perceived safety mediates street harassment and anxiety experienced while outside one’s

household (Davidson et al., 2016). Feeling unsafe is also associated with experiencing

uncertainty in one’s life which can be the underlying cause for chronic anxiety, stress, obesity,

loneliness and depression (Brosschot, Verkuil, & Thayer, 2016). Moreover, one study has linked

neighborhood unsafety with childhood psychopathology, and in particular emotional disorders

(Meltzer et al., 2007).

Feeling unsafe is often tied with habituating an aesthetically unpleasing and not socially

cohesive environment (Ruijsbroek et al., 2015). In some specific cases, safety has also been

correlated with the feeling of solidarity, which in turn increased safety, and the aesthetic appeal

of a touristic attraction (Woosnam et al., 2015). Other works on the relationship between tourism

and safety have revealed that in order for tourists to go out more at night, safety is a necessary

pre-requisite (George, 2003). In a study conducted in Cape Town (George, 2003), participants

agreed that they did not feel safe roaming the streets at night which in turn reduced their

satisfaction. Outside of tourism, perceived neighborhood safety is associated with a better quality

of sleep (Hill et al., 2016), while also being intertwined with a higher level of well-being in


children living both in rural and urban areas (Eriksson et al., 2011).

Commonly Used Items Assessing Safety

As safety is a prerequisite for happy and healthy lives, it is necessary for experts to utilize

an instrument that will adequately examine perceived safety and all of its facets. The majority of

past research has used a variety of instruments to measure safety. Some studies have used a

single-item measure (e.g., “I feel safe walking alone late at night” or “I generally feel safe”;

Booth, Ayers, & Marsiglia, 2012; Boxer et al., 2003; Eriksson, Hochwälder, & Sellström, 2011;

Latham & Clarke, 2013; Mason et al., 2009; Mulvey, 2002; Nijs et al., 2014; Ozer & Weinstein,

2004; Peña, García, Hurtado, & Aguilar-Luzón, 2015; Semyonov, Gorodzeisky, & Glikman,

2012; Sun et al., 2012; Thibodeaux, 2013; Tucker-Seeley, Subramanian, Li, & Sorensen, 2009;

Wiebet et al., 2013). Because safety is affected by a variety of external factors (e.g., prevalence

of crime, neighborhood walkability) and internal factors (e.g., anxiety, confidence), and because

safety can have myriad cognitive, emotional, and behavioral manifestations, using only one item

to measure safety might not encompass the multidimensional nature of this experience and

significantly reduces its external validity. To illustrate this point, imagine two stereotypical

university students: a male student athlete and a female who is socially anxious and usually

keeps to herself. The male athlete would be more likely to perceive an environment as less

dangerous and perhaps more likely to confront a suspect due to his increased physical stature and

strength. On the contrary, a person who is lonely, more anxious in social environments, and has

fewer social interactions may be more likely to feel unsafe and perceive threat more often and

generally feel less safe due to the lack of physical strength and perceived support.

Other studies tend to measure fear of crime instead of perceived safety. These studies

asked participants to express their fear and perceived vulnerability with regard to various types


of crimes (Barni, Vieno, Roccato, & Russo, 2016; De Biasi, 2017; Hur & Nasar, 2014; Keane,

1998; Rollwagen, 2016; Toet & van Schaik, 2012; Wilson-Doenges, 2000). While fear of crime

is a crucial aspect of safety, it is not the only aspect that matters. To examine this, we can refer

back to the example of the varsity athlete and the socially withdrawn individual. Recall that there

is more than one factor that these two individuals potentially might differ when safety is

concerned. One might perceive more danger due to her stature, while the other might not. This is

linked with perceptions of safety and unsafety, and not directly with fear of crime. Fear of crime

captures the feeling of being afraid that a particular crime will happen to you, in other words, it is

a fear of victimization. That is why after all, previous works have measured fear of crime by

asking participants how afraid of a certain type of crime they are. This only reflects part of their

perception of safety. For example, both individuals (athlete and socially withdrawn) might be

afraid of crime, due to a recent crime spree in their neighborhood, despite one (the athlete) being

more likely to walk alone at night and confront a suspect, or both could also not be afraid of

crime due to a low crime rate in their neighborhood.

In a real life setting other factors would also influence how safe an individual might feel.

Physical stature and trust in one’s self and their ability to remain safe might greatly increase or

decrease fear of crime. For example, a person can be of a small stature but know enough self-

defense or carry a firearm thus reducing fear of crime greatly, while a person who is perceived as

more capable of protecting themselves might still experience a greater fear of crime, especially if

they have been the victim of a traumatic event in their past. Another case might be that a person

feels very safe in general, but instead they might be very afraid of crime. Their daily life might

be very safe resulting in high scores in safety but low scores in fear of crime. Thus, as an


individual characteristic, fear of crime should not generalized and thought as a perception of

safety, but rather as a facet of safety specifically focusing on crime and victimization.

Another measure that has been widely used in scientific literature for the purposes of

measuring safety (to some extent) is neighborhood walkability (Bracy et al., 2014; Brown et al.,

2014; Datar, Nicosia, Wong, & Shier, 2015; De Meester et al., 2013; Evenson, 2006; Foster et

al., 2016; Florindo, Salvador, & Reis, 2013; Henderson et al., 2016; Koohsari, Karakiewicz, &

Kaczynski, 2013; Lee et al., 2017; Oyeyemi et al., 2016; Peachey & Baller, 2015; Rech et al.,

2012; Sugiyama et al., 2014; Van Dyck et al., 2012). The most widely established measure of

walkability is the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale (NEWS; Saelens, Sallis, Black,

& Chen, 2003). This measure assesses participants’ perceptions of their neighborhood design and

features related to physical activity, street connectivity, accessibility of walking/cycling,

neighborhood aesthetics, neighborhood satisfaction, and traffic/crime safety. An abbreviated

measure is also used in the literature (Cerin, Saelens, Sallis, & Frank, 2006)

Although these measures include some questions on perceived safety, they do not

encompass the complexity of safety. This occurs due to their focus on environmental

characteristics and perceptions of neighborhoods. As safety depends on both the perceiver and

the environmental conditions, an individual might feel safe in some places or even in general in

their lives, but they might perceive their neighborhood as not being walkable. The athlete from

our previous example might have been robbed in his neighborhood once and now he perceives it

as less safe and walkable, so he always walks with his friends, while the socially withdrawn

individual has not been victimized and thus perceives the environment as more walkable.

Facets addressing both subjective (perceived safety, confidence in one’s safety habits and

the ability to remain safe) and more objective factors (fear of crime, neighborhood walkability)


should be taken into consideration when assessing safety. Thus, for an accurate measure of

perceived safety to be created, it needs to focus on all these factors collectively instead of

measuring safety in one single item or measuring any of these factors individually. Ecological

validity and applicability to the real world will be better achieved with a clearer understanding of

which specific factor of safety is lacking in a specific individual or community, which in turn

will allow for more effective interventions to be constructed.

Development of the P-SAFE Scale

The present series of studies reported here aimed to construct, validate, and demonstrate

reliability of a new measure for perceived safety. Specifically, I hypothesized that safety would

be comprised of a number of different factors given the multi-dimensional nature of the

construct. These would likely include subjective factors such as fear of crime and self-

confidence, as well as objective factors such as neighborhood walkability.

The research team generated items by sampling from measures used in previous

literature, as well as creating novel items inspired by qualitative questions included in these

studies (Study 1). It was determined that acceptable reliability would be indicated by Cronbach’s

αs greater than .70. Acceptable construct validity would be indicated by items having a

meaningful loading (> .40) onto a single factor. Acceptable discriminant validity would be

indicated by non-multicollinearity (rs < .80) across factors and between each factor and the most

commonly used items used in scientific literature to date (“I feel safe walking alone late at night”

and “I generally feel safe”). Predictive validity would be indicated by significant correlations

with measures of police legitimacy, social interaction anxiety, locus of control, and extraversion,

emotionality, and conscientiousness. This predictive validity was expected to also be unique for

each subscale, especially for the personality facets. Another prediction of this study was that


different demographic questions (gender, age, socioeconomic status, religiosity, neighborhood,

and political beliefs) would be significant predictors of safety.

To construct the scale, two exploratory factor analyses were conducted. These employed

principal component analysis (PCA) to achieve the best possible reduction of the items into

factors and to better conceptually visualize how the novel items match with the previously used

items. Then, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted using Promax rotation. Since Promax

is an oblique rotation, and oblique rotations take into consideration the correlation of all the

items and factors, it was deemed most appropriate given that the different factors were expected

to be interrelated to some extent.

Study 1

The first study was exploratory in its nature, focusing on pinpointing the model of the P-

SAFE scale by utilizing a principal component analysis. In addition to searching for the

components of perceptions of safety, I predicted that an inner locus of control, higher social

interaction anxiety, and a higher sense of police legitimacy would be associated with higher

overall perceptions of safety.

Method

Participants Three hundred and eight participants were initially recruited online

through Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), an online website that has been shown to provide

valid and reliable data for psychological research (Kim & Hodgins, 2017; Thomas & Clifford,

2017; Holden, Dennie, & Hicks, 2013; Mason & Suri, 2012). For the final sample, 263

participants remained (136 female; Mage = 37.28, SDage = 11.98). The exclusion criteria were the

following: Being a U.S. resident (0 participants excluded), agreeing that “There are lights in my

house” (15 participants excluded), disagreeing that “I often go for a week without sleeping” (20


additional participants excluded), and agreeing that “I am responsible for most of my actions.” (9

additional participants excluded). Participants completed the survey and received remuneration

($1) for their participation in the study.

Materials and Procedure. With the primary focus of the study being perceived safety,

the Perceived Safety (P-SAFE) Scale, which consisted of 48 items rated on a 1–7 Likert scale (1

= Strongly disagree; 7 = Strongly agree), was administered first. To examine how other measures

correlated with this new measure for perceived safety, the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale

(SIAS; Mattick & Clarke, 1998), the Multidimensional Locus of Control Scale (Levenson,

1973), and the Police Legitimacy Scale (Tankebe, Reisig, & Wang, 2016) were administered in a

random order. Several demographic questions pertaining to gender, race, nationality, political

beliefs, religiosity, spirituality, and socioeconomic status were asked. Finally, participants were

asked to provide three things that make them feel safe and three things that make them feel

unsafe.

Study 1 Results

Factor Model. An initial unrestricted factor analysis was performed (see Table 1). A

scree plot indicated seven factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. Several of these factors,

however, were not interpretable. Constraining the model to only four factors produced the most

interpretable solution. These factors were: Fear of Crime (10 items, highest value = .873, lowest

value = .746), Feeling Safe (7 items, highest value = .760, lowest value = .514), External Factors

of Safety (4 items, highest value = .777, lowest value = .456), and Safety Confidence (3 items,

highest value = .953, lowest value = .465). Twenty-four items did not load into any of these four

factors and were thus excluded from the analysis. (See Table 2 for factor loadings.) For these

new factors, the correlation between them was significantly reduced (see Table 3).


Scale Reliability. A reliability test (Cronbach’s α) was conducted to assess the reliability

of the P-SAFE scale. Overall, the full scale was highly reliable: α = .968. Reliability was found

for two of the four factors identified by the restricted factor analysis (Fear of Crime: α = .938;

Feeling Safe: α = .824; External Factors: α = .346; Safety Confidence: α = .407).

Validity of the P-SAFE Scale. The four subscales were highly correlated. However,

their correlation with the most widely used items in safety literature did not surpass the cut-off

criterion (r = .8): “I generally feel safe”: r = .628, p < .001; “I feel safe walking during the day”:

r = .428, p < .001; “I feel safe when walking alone after midnight”: r = .718, p < .001, indicating

discriminant validity.

To examine predictive validity, several regressions were executed, with the overall

measure for Safety as the outcome variable and SIAS, Locus of Control, and Police Legitimacy

as predictor variables (see Table 4). When a similar regression was executed, with the dependent

variable being the item “I feel safe when walking alone after midnight”, results were still

significant, but with a smaller p value (see Table 5).

Qualitative Data. Lastly, two qualitative questions were included in the survey: “Name

three things/factors that make you feel safe” and “Please name three things/factors that make you

feel unsafe.” These questions were asked to better comprehend what is associated with

perceptions of safety and feelings of unsafety. Since these questions were only asked for the

purpose of generating new items for Study 2 they are not presented here. However, the data are

available upon request.

Study 1 Discussion

Study 1 revealed that safety is multidimensional. It seems to encompass four factors:

Fear of Crime, Feeling Safe, Safety Confidence, and External Factors of Safety. Additionally,


increased perceptions of safety are associated with lower anxiety levels, an internal locus of

control, and a higher police legitimacy score. Study 2 sought to better examine which factors are

more closely associated with safety. In particular, as previous studies have examined

neighborhood walkability instead of perceived safety, I was interested in examining whether

neighborhood walkability would be a facet of safety.

Study 2

With Study 1 partially supporting our hypothesis for the model of the P-SAFE, Study 2

focused on increasing the reliability and the factor model of the facets produced in the first study.

The same factors as Study 1 were initially hypothesized to be produced through the PCA.

Additionally, Study 2 also examined how different personality traits predict safety and its

facets. I hypothesized that emotionality, extraversion, and conscientiousness would significantly

predict safety. In particular, I hypothesized that emotionality would negatively predict safety, as

the more emotional a person is the more likely they are to be easily affected by an emotionally

negative event, thus reducing their safety. I hypothesized that extraversion and conscientiousness

would positively predict safety, as people who are more likely to go out and explore and who are

able to exert self-control and careful attention would be more likely to have a greater perception

of safety due to increased confidence in themselves.

Method

Participants. Five hundred and ten participants were originally recruited through

MTurk. For the final sample, 455 participants remained (257 female; Mage = 36.29, SDage =

11.69). From the 510 participants 55 were excluded because they failed to pass the exclusion

criteria. Being fluent in English (3 participants were excluded), stating that they at least neither

disagree nor agree with the following two statements: “I often go for a week without sleeping”


(40 participants excluded), and “There are no lights in my house” (12 participants excluded).

Participants completed the survey and received remuneration ($.45) for their participation in the

study.

Materials and Procedure. Similar to Study 1, this study included several new

exploratory items for the P-SAFE Scale in order to get a greater understanding of how the items

fit together. In this study, 47 items were included originally with two extra attention checks

(similar to Study 1). Furthermore, the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling, Rentfrow,

& Swann, 2003) and the demographic questions that were presented in Study 1 were also

included.

For this study, one question asking about participants’ familiarity with their

neighborhood (number of years living in the neighborhood) and one concerning the type of their

neighborhood (urban, suburban, rural) were included. These questions were included based on

the qualitative responses given by the participants in Study 1 when they were asked to provide

factors that make them feel safe and unsafe.

Study 2 Results

Factor Model. An initial unrestricted Promax factor analysis yielded 8 factors. These

were: Fear of Crime, Feeling Safe, Neighborhood Walkability, Safety Confidence, Fate/Religion,

and three additional factors that were either uninterpretable or only consisted of 1–2 items.

When restricted to four factors, in order to determine whether the factor structure from

Study 1 would be replicated, the Promax Factor analysis combined some of the Feeling Safe and

Fear of Crime items in one factor. The Safety Confidence factor was maintained and so was the

Fate/Religion factor. Similar results were produced when the factor analysis was changed from

Promax to Varimax. This initial analysis only supported our hypothesis partially, as the, Fear of


Crime, Feeling Safe and Safety Confidence factors were unique, but their items were not

grouped as I expected them to be.

A second analysis where the confounding factor of Fate/Religion was excluded, was

executed. To better examine the 4-factor model hypothesis, I only ran a restricted factor analysis

for this stage. The analysis produced the following four factors: Fear of Crime (grouped with a

few items from the original External Factors Scale), Feeling Safe, Neighborhood Walkability,

and Safety Confidence. Similar results were produced when a Varimax analysis was executed.

At this stage 14 items were dropped from the scale due to overlapping factor loadings or not

strong enough factor loadings. From the original 47 items, 33 remained.

When restricted, the Promax analysis grouped these items to their respective groups (see

Table 6). Similar results were produced with a Varimax rotation method (see Table 7) The final

set of factor analyses supported our initial hypothesis with Neighborhood Walkability replacing

External Factors. Semantically this change makes sense, as how walkable an environment is,

depends on external factors influencing perceptions of the specific environment.

Scale Reliability. Overall, reliability was high for all 33 items combined α = .928. Fear

of Crime (9 items) α = .896, Feeling Safe (8 items) α = .813, Neighborhood Walkability (8

items) α = .850, and Safety Confidence (8 items) α = .850.

Validity of the P-SAFE Scale. Once more, to establish discriminant validity for the new

scale a correlational analysis was executed for all the subscales, the scale overall and the three

most common items used in literature to measure safety until now. The four subscales were

highly correlated (see Table 8). However, their correlation with the most widely used items in

safety literature did not surpass the cut-off criterion (r = .8; Spector, 1992). For the construct of

Perceived Safety, correlation also did not exceed the cut-off criterion: “I generally feel safe”: r =


.672, p < .001; “I feel safe walking during the day”: r = .653, p < .001; “I feel safe when walking

alone after midnight”: r = .752, p < .001, indicating discriminant validity.

To ensure predictive validity for the scale, a regression was executed with the TIPI as the

predictor variable (see Table 9). From the five factors, the results of the regression (R2 = .218,

F(5, 454) = 25.063, p < .001) showed that Agreeableness (β = -3.335, p = .001),

Conscientiousness (β = 2.178, p = .030) and Emotionality (β = 1.185, p < .001) significantly

predicted perceived safety (using the 33 items). Lastly, all the demographic items were also

included to further determine the predictive and construct validity of the scale (see Table 10).

The regression (R2 = .252, F(12, 454) = 12.389, p < .001) showed that age (β = 2.300, p = .017),

household income (β = 3.014, p = .003), gender (β = -10.451, p < .001), being in a committed

relationship (β = 2.002, p = .046), and neighborhood type (β = 3.235, p = .001) significantly

predicted perceived safety. Participants were also asked to provide their zip code so that an

examination of their region’s effect on safety can be made. From the 455 participants 453

provided a zip code. Initially their zip code was searched, their state of residence was noted, and

then depending on their state they were grouped into one of four regions: Northeast (N = 100),

South (N = 161), Midwest (N = 85) and West (N = 107). A one-way ANOVA was executed, and

no significant differences were found for either of the subscales of the P-SAFE or the overall

construct of perceived safety. This was a very limited sample, however, and ideally an

examination of the effect of a person’s city on safety should be conducted.

Study 2 Discussion

Replicating Study 1, a factor analysis constrained to four factors yielded an interpretable

factor structure, with factors corresponding to Fear of Crime, Feeling Safe, Neighborhood

Walkability, and Safety Confidence. When several items were excluded, and when restricted to


four factors the PCA provided evidence for a much more comprehensive model. This model

included four factors that better explained the variability of the different facets tapping into

safety. Furthermore, since the constructs of the TIPI and the demographics questions predicted

each subscale differently, this study provided further evidence for the construct and discriminant

validity of this new measure. Study 3 sought to confirm this model by conducting a confirmatory

factor analysis.

Study 3

This study served as a confirmatory study of the four-factor structure of the modified P-

SAFE Scale that was derived in Study 2.

Method

Participants. Six hundred and sixty-nine participants were recruited via MTurk. The

final sample consisted by 646 participants (362 female; Mage = 36.83, SDage = 12.10). From the

669 participants 23 were excluded. The exclusion criteria were: Being fluent in English (3

participants excluded) and stating that they at least somewhat disagree to the following

statement: “I am responsible for my actions” (20 participants excluded). Participants completed

the survey and received remuneration ($.45) for their participation in the study.

Materials and Procedure. Participants were presented with the P-SAFE scale, followed

by the Police Legitimacy Scale, the Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control Scale, and the

Short Social Desirability Scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) in a random order. Participants then

answered the same demographics questions as in Studies 1 and 2. They were also presented with

a question focusing on the frequency of past traumatic experiences (“Some people have

experienced a traumatic event that has had a significant impact on their lives. Please let us know

what is most true of your experience(s)”), in order to determine whether a history of trauma led


to reduced perceptions of safety and were asked to indicate their height and the weight in order

to determine whether taller and heavier individuals experience heightened feelings of safety.

Study 3 Results

Factor Model. To test whether the factor structure derived in Study 2 would replicate in

a new sample of MTurk participants, a confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) was executed. The

analyses used a Promax rotation, as this oblique rotation method allows for intercorrelations

amongst the four facets of safety. Since not all of the subscales had normal frequency

distributions, a Principal Axis Factoring extraction method was preferred rather than a Maximum

Likelihood extraction method. However, to increase the validity and replicability of the scale,

both extraction methods were utilized. The cut-off criteria were .4 for the factor loadings in each

facet.

Four items failed to load on either of the four factors: “Police presence should be

increased”, “I am not afraid of being murdered”, “I am not afraid of being sexually

assaulted/raped”, and “Staying safe is just a matter of good common sense”. The rest of the items

remained similar to the model derived in Study 2, with the exception of two items that previously

loaded onto Feeling Safe (“I do not feel safe being home alone”, “I do not feel safe even when

my friends are nearby) instead loading onto Fear of Crime. Since the questions were negatively

framed, and they were associated with the experience of lack of safety due to perceived threat

their association with crime and fear of victimization is not (someone who does not feel safe

when alone at home or when friends are nearby, would also be afraid of crime; see Table 11).

Thus, these results mostly replicate the previous factor structure found for the P-SAFE Scale and

confirm that safety is indeed a multidimensional construct. A similar pattern of results was also

found when using Maximum Likelihood extraction (see Table 12).


Reliability. Overall reliability (26 items) was very high (α = .900). Reliability was also

high for all the subscales: Fear of Crime (9 items): α = .905, Feeling Safe (5 items): α = .737, and

Neighborhood Walkability (7 items): α = .814, and Safety Confidence (5 items): α = .851.

Validity. For correlations between the P-SAFE subscales and additional measures, see

Table 13. Again, there was no multicollinearity across the different subscales. Social desirability

did not strongly influence results, with only one weak significant correlation (with Safety

Confidence, r = -.100). Neighborhood Walkability was only significantly correlated with the

effectiveness of a police force, and not its lawfulness nor its procedural or distributive fairness in

comparison with all the other facets of safety, which were significantly correlated with all of

these traits of police legitimacy.

Regression analyses replicated the results of Study 2, with the exception that gender did

not significantly predict fear of crime and perceived safety (see Tables S15 & S16 for regression

analyses; see Fig. 1 for descriptive statistics split by gender). In a series of regression analyses

with the demographic variables as predictors and each subscale as the outcome variable, trauma

was a significant predictor of fear of crime and perceived safety but not of Neighborhood

Walkability and Safety Confidence, and weight was a significant predictor of Safety Confidence

(see Tables S15-S19).

To determine if the findings from studies 1 and 2 on police legitimacy and locus of

control would replicate 5 more regression were ran. The findings replicated those of studies 1

and 2. Most importantly, when it comes to perceived safety (see Table 14), every aspect of police

legitimacy except for lawfulness (p = .525) and every aspect of locus of control except for

chance (p = .863) are significantly predicting safety (p < .001 for every trait except for

procedural fairness: p = .040). Police forces are the enforcers of the law with their primary duty


revolving around ensuring security for everyone. Thus, it is natural for police legitimacy to be a

strong predictor of perceived safety.

An inner locus of control is associated with holding one’s self accountable for what

happens to an individual, and thus people who place accountability for their life’s events on their

own shoulders, tend to be more confident and safe. Another important finding is that police

effectiveness is the most important predictor for all subscales and the overall measure of the P-

SAFE (p < .001) with the exception of Safety Confidence. For people scoring higher on this sub-

scale, police effectiveness is not essential as they feel that they are capable of protecting

themselves regardless of an effective police force. For a closer look at the predictive relationship

between the traits of the police legitimacy and the locus of control scales with the subscales of

the P-SAFE scale see Tables S20 -S23.

Finally, individuals living in rural environments scored significantly higher in perceived

safety when compared to city-dwellers [F(2, 643) = 10.898, p < .001], and were also higher on

three of the four subscales: Fear of Crime [F(2, 643) =11.536, p < .001], Safety Confidence [F(2,

643) = 3.180, p = .044], Feeling Safe [F(2, 643) = 8.848, p < .001], and Neighborhood

Walkability [F(2, 643) = 2.722, p = .082].

Study 3 Discussion

Study 3 confirmed a four-factor structure for the P-SAFE scale, demonstrating that safety

is a multidimensional construct that cannot be fully captured with a one- or two-item measure.

Additionally, this study found that scores on the P-SAFE scale are associated with locus of

control and police legitimacy, showing that the scale is a valid measure of safety.

The P-SAFE scale can be used to measure perceptions of safety, broken into four

distinguishable components. Feeling Safe is related to how safe individuals feel at all times. Fear


of crime is related to the experience of fear and lack of safety in relation with crime.

Neighborhood walkability is related to one’s ability to feel safe walking in one’s immediate

environment. Safety Confidence is related to one’s ability to protect themselves. This

combination of facets captures both subjective (Feeling Safe, Safety Confidence) and objective

(Fear of Crime and Neighborhood Walkability) forms of safety, and these factors are

distinguishable and differentially associated with other validated measures.

General Discussion

The purpose of these studies was to construct and validate the Perceived Safety Scale (P-

SAFE). Items were sampled from previously validated measures and constructed from frequently

mentioned concerns in relevant literature. Factor analyses yielded four distinct subscales: Fear of

Crime, Feeling Safe, Neighborhood Walkability, and Safety Confidence. These subscales were

reliable and had multiple forms of validity (ecological, construct, predictive, discriminant and

external). Two of the subscales are more objective (Fear of Crime and Neighborhood

Walkability), since these are affected by external factors such as the social order or disorder and

crime rates in a specific neighborhood. Feeling Safe and Safety Confidence are more subjective,

as they are more deeply associated with individual differences regarding perceived safety, thus

remaining more unaffected by one’s environment. Thus, the P-SAFE Scale accounts for both

objective and subjective safety, as it encompasses both perceptions of safety and more objective

aspects that contribute to the feeling of safety or the feeling of fear. This finding provides

support for our hypothesis that safety is a multidimensional and complex construct.

Previous research has emphasized only one aspect of safety, not taking into consideration

the multidimensional aspect of the construct. Some researchers only measured safety with a

single item (see Introduction). Although the present research does not question the validity of the


measures employed in these studies, it shows that potentially was not captured holistically, and

only one aspect of this complex feeling was investigated.

Police legitimacy, loneliness, an external locus of control, social interaction anxiety,

agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotionality, and other demographic measures predicted

perceived safety. Police legitimacy, and especially police effectiveness, naturally makes people

feel safer, as it is the task of a police force to maintain peace and order which in turn leads to

people feeling safe. Loneliness and social interaction anxiety make people feel more secluded

and vulnerable which in turn reduced their levels of safety. Altruistic individuals tend to sacrifice

their own personal benefit in favor of others, thus this bold and courageous characteristic

explains their higher scores in Safety Confidence and Feeling Safe. When individuals have an

external locus of control they tend to depend on others for their safety, which in turn reduces

their overall capacity to feel safe since they depend on other factors for their safety. Moreover,

different personality traits predicted the overall construct safety, and different personality traits

predicted the specific subscales of the P-SAFE scale, adding to the construct and discriminant

validity of the measure.

The present studies had limitations. The samples were not globally representative—

participants were mostly White Americans. Additionally, there could be more facets to safety

than the four factors found in the present research (something that the confounding factor of

fate/religion hinted at). Safety is a complex and multidimensional construct thus leaving room

for more facets to exist. Cross-national validity and test re-test reliability also need to be assessed

in future studies. Despite these limitations, the P-SAFE Scale promises to open doors for future

research on safety, including cross-cultural investigations. Meta-analytic studies will also be

easier if the measure is widely adopted by the scientific community. Understanding between-


community variance in different aspects of safety will allow for more efficient intervention

programs to be created.

With safety being a recurrent focus of recent news, future studies should focus on

addressing perceptions of safety in relation to current events. In particular, one does not have to

look far to find a recent event that has reduced safety. On average, there has been one school

shooting per week in 2018 in the U.S. (CNN, 2018). Students no longer feel safe. Situations like

these demand an assessment of safety in order for intervention to be created. Other events may

include the effect of immigrant movements on perceptions of safety, the effect of different police

styles on safety, perceptions of safety by law enforcement, and the effect of gun control on

perceptions of safety. This new measure can be used to re-examine findings on implicit biases

towards weapons and race. Additionally, developmental studies focusing on pinpointing the

stage of development where teenagers stop feeling “invincible” and their perceived safety

stabilizes will also be conducted. A different attachment or parenting style might result in a

person scoring higher in Safety Confidence, while Fear of Crime might remain less variable as it

focuses more on objective facts and crime rates

Other topics are also worthy of scientific examination. Immigration movements might

affect safety but only in terms of fear of crime, while police legitimacy and different police styles

might affect walkability. Since the validation of this scale provides evidence for the

multidimensional character of safety, an important part of future investigations will be to

replicate previously established findings, such as the association of perceived safety with health

and behavioral outcomes in various environments (e.g., neighborhood, academic institutions,

one’s residence).


Recent times have brought two topics in the forefront of safety. The first issue concerns

the numerous police brutality incidents, with a specific focus on racial minorities. Police

legitimacy has been reduced, and since police legitimacy is an important aspect of the policing

and its effectiveness (Crowl, 2017; Duck, 2017; Gerber & Jackson, 2017; Huq, Jackson, &

Trinkner, 2017), it is important to examine how these events have affected perceived safety so

that meaningful interventions can be built with the aim of re-establishing police legitimacy.

The second important issue that has seemingly impacted safety, as it has caused many

political changes in several countries is the refugee/immigration crisis (Kislev, 2017). In recent

years, armed conflict in the Middle East in combination with other problems have created a

humanitarian crisis which has forced the immigration of millions of people. Many displaced

individuals have relocated mainly to Europe, with some also arriving in the United States and

Australia (Kislev, 2017). At the same time, terrorism and violent attacks by non-state actors have

also increased (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2016).

The confluence of these events has led many people to believe that immigration is largely

responsible for the increase in terrorist attacks. Some countries have thus restricted immigration

by patrolling or closing their borders. The movement of millions of refugees has provided

opportunities for psychologists to study this phenomenon. While many studies to date have

examined the implications of refugee movements on the psychological state and mental health of

the refugees (Anagnostopoulos, Giannakopoulos, & Christodoulou 2017; Brannan et al., 2016;

Jefee-Bahloul et al., 2016; Krausz & Choi, 2017; Leuzinger-Bohleber et al., 2016) or the health

of the individuals choosing to help the refugees (Sifaki-Pistoli et al., 2017, Chatzea et al., 2016),

fewer studies have sought to examine the impact that these migration trends might have had on

the perceived safety of citizens in the countries experiencing these movements. Thus, another


large-scale phenomenon that requires attention is the immigration crisis, and the P-SAFE scale

would provide a clear image of how safety has been impacted by this movement.

In addition, the examination of how recent mass shootings have affected safety would be

another important contribution that the P-SAFE scale could provide. Aside from these horrible

events and the stain they could have potentially caused in the country, the examination of the

effect of lack of gun control on perceptions of safety could also shed light on a much-heated

debate. On the other hand, smaller scale projects, like recent spikes in crime rates within a

community, a specific terror event in a city, or the examination of a specific environment (a

university/school setting) can also be conducted. A necessary examination is that of the

perceived safety in academic institutions all over the U.S.A. Having an annual measure of safety

would allow for the examination of how violence has changed perceptions of safety in these

institutions thus allowing for pinpointing areas where interventions are required.

In a more theoretical approach another meaningful examination could be that of the

nature of safety. Revealing whether safety is an emotion, or an affective state would be an

important contribution to the literature. With more arguments focusing on the directionality of

the effect in morality and emotions (Gray, Schein, & Cameron, 2017) stating that instead of

being unidimensional (like an arrow), there is a mutual interaction (like a circle). Understanding

how safety is affected by other emotions or affects other emotions would reveal the interaction

between different emotions that are fundamental for our daily existence.

Overall, this study constructed and validated the P-SAFE scale, a novel, reliable and

multidimensional scale capable of matching the complex character of safety, which can be

utilized for smaller and larger scale examinations aimed to accurately capture perceived safety.


References

Aikawa, A., Fujita, M., & Tanaka, K. (2007). The relationship between social skills deficits and

depression, loneliness, and social anxiety: Rethinking a vulnerability model of social

skills deficits. The Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, 23(1), 95–103.

Anagnostopoulos, D., Giannakopoulos, G., & Christodoulou, N. (2017). The synergy of the

refugee crisis and the financial crisis in Greece: Impact on mental health. International

Journal of Social Psychiatry, 63(4), 352–358.

Anderson, S. F., & Maxwell, S. E. (2017). Addressing the 'replication crisis': Using original

studies to design replication studies with appropriate statistical power. Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 52(3), 305–324.

Barni, D., Vieno, A., Roccato, M., & Russo, S. (2016). Basic personal values, the country’s

crime rate and the fear of crime. Social Indicators Research, 129(3), 1057–1074.

Bogusch, L. M., Fekete, E. M., & Skinta, M. D. (2016). Anxiety and depressive symptoms as

mediators of trait mindfulness and sleep quality in emerging adults. Mindfulness, 7(4),

962–970.

Bonner, R. L., & Rich, A. R. (1991). Predicting vulnerability to hopelessness: A longitudinal

analysis. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 179(1), 29–32.

Booth, J., Ayers, S. L., & Marsiglia, F. F. (2012). Perceived neighborhood safety and

psychological distress: Exploring protective factors. Journal of Sociology and Social

Welfare, 39(4), 137–156.

Boxer, P., Edwards-Leeper, L., Goldstein, S. E., Musher-Eizenman, D., & Dubow, E. F. (2003).

Exposure to 'low-level' aggression in school: associations with aggressive behavior,

future expectations, and perceived safety. Violence and Victims, 18(6), 691–704.


Bracy, N. L., Millstein, R. A., Carlson, J. A., Conway, T. L., Sallis, J. F., Saelens, B. E., & ...

King, A. C. (2014). Is the relationship between the built environment and physical

activity moderated by perceptions of crime and safety? The International Journal of

Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 11(1), 11–24

Brannan, S., Campbell, R., Davies, M., English, V., Mussell, R., & Sheather, J. C. (2016). The

Mediterranean refugee crisis: Ethics, international law and migrant health. Journal of the

Institute of Medical Ethics, 42(4), 269–270.

Brosschot, J. F., Verkuil, B., & Thayer, J. F. (2016). The default response to uncertainty and the

importance of perceived safety in anxiety and stress: An evolution-theoretical

perspective. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 41, 4122–4134.

Brown, B. B., Werner, C. M., Smith, K. R., Tribby, C. P., & Miller, H. J. (2014). Physical

activity mediates the relationship between perceived crime safety and obesity. Preventive

Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to Practice and Theory, 66, 140–144.

Brunstein-Klomek, A., Marrocco, F., Kleinman, M., Schonfeld, I. S., & Gould, M. S. (2007).

Bullying, depression, and suicidality in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of

Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 40–49.

Burdette, H. L., Wadden, T. A., & Whitaker, R. C. (2006). Neighborhood safety, collective

efficacy, and obesity in women with young children. Obesity, 14(3), 518–525.

Burns, R. (2000). Culture as a determinant of crime: An alternative perspective. Environment

and Behavior, 32(3), 347–360.

Camerino, D. (2016). Gender differences in safety, health and work/family interference—

Promoting equity. In I. Iskra-Golec, J. Barnes-Farrell, P. Bohle, I. Iskra-Golec, J. Barnes-


Farrell, P. Bohle (Eds.), Social and family issues in shift work and non-standard working

hours (pp. 153-179). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

Cerin, E., Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., & Frank, L. D. (2006). Neighborhood Environment

Walkability Scale: Validity and development of a short form. Medicine & Science in

Sports & Exercise, 38(9), 1682–1691.

Chatzea, V., Sifaki-Pistolla, D., Vlachaki, S., Melidoniotis, E., & Pistolla, G. (2017). PTSD,

burnout and well-being among rescue workers: Seeking to understand the impact of the

European refugee crisis on rescuers. Psychiatry Research, in press.

CNN, (2018), School shootings so far in 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/school-

shootings-2018-list-trnd/index.html.

Cooper-Vince, C. E., Chan, P. T., Pincus, D. B., & Comer, J. S. (2014). Paternal autonomy

restriction, neighborhood safety, and child anxiety trajectory in community youth.

Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 265–272.

Crowl, J. N. (2017). The effect of community policing on fear and crime reduction, police

legitimacy and job satisfaction: An empirical review of the evidence. Police Practice &

Research: An International Journal, 18(5), 449–462.

Crowne D. P., & Marlowe D. A., (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of

pathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.

Datar, A., Nicosia, N., Wong, E., & Shier, V. (2015). Neighborhood environment and children's

physical activity and body mass index: Evidence from military personnel installation

assignments. Childhood Obesity, 11(2), 130–138.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/school-shootings-2018-list-trnd/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/02/us/school-shootings-2018-list-trnd/index.html


Davidson, M. M., Butchko, M. S., Robbins, K., Sherd, L. W., & Gervais, S. J. (2016). The

mediating role of perceived safety on street harassment and anxiety. Psychology of

Violence, 6(4), 553–561.

De Biasi, A. (2017). Transforming vacant lots: Investigating an alternative approach to reducing

fear of crime. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 50, 125–137.

DeLisi, M., & Regoli, B. (2000). Individual neighborhood attachment and perceptions of

neighborhood safety. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(2), 181–188.

De Meester, F., Van Dyck, D., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Deforche, B., & Cardon, G. (2013). Does

the perception of neighborhood built environmental attributes influence active transport

in adolescents? The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,

10:38.

Dierynck, B., Leroy, H., Savage, G. T., & Choi, E. (2017). The role of individual and collective

mindfulness in promoting occupational safety in health care. Medical Care Research and

Review, 74(1), 79–96.

Duck, W. (2017). The complex dynamics of trust and legitimacy: Understanding interactions

between the police and poor black neighborhood residents. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 673(1), 132–149.

Dulin-Keita, A., Clay, O., Whittaker, S., Hannon, L., Adams, I. K., Rogers, M., & Gans, K.

(2015). The influence of HOPE VI neighborhood revitalization on neighborhood-based

physical activity: A mixed-methods approach. Social Science & Medicine. 139, 90-99.

Earp, B. D., & Trafimow, D. (2015). Replication, falsification, and the crisis of confidence in

social psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 621.


Elf, M., Nordin, S., Wijk, H., & McKee, K. J. (2017). A systematic review of the psychometric

properties of instruments for assessing the quality of the physical environment in

healthcare. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 73(12), 2796–2816.

Eriksson, U., Hochwälder, J., & Sellström, E. (2011). Perceptions of community trust and

safety—Consequences for children’s well-being in rural and urban contexts. Acta

Paediatrica, 100(10), 1373–1378.

Evans-Lacko, S., Takizawa, R., Brimblecombe, N., King, D., Knapp, M., Maughan, B., &

Arseneault, L. (2017). Childhood bullying victimization is associated with use of mental

health services over five decades: A longitudinal nationally representative cohort study.

Psychological Medicine, 47(1), 127–135.

Evenson, K. R., Birnbaum, A. S., Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Sallis, J. F., Voorhees, C. C., Ring, K., &

Elder, J. P. (2006). Girls' perception of physical environmental factors and transportation:

Reliability and association with physical activity and active transport to school. The

International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 3, 28.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (2016). 2016 Crime in the United States.

Ferrão, M. M., Gama, A., Marques, V. R., Mendes, L. L., Mourão, I., Nogueira, H., & ... Padez,

C. (2013). Association between parental perceptions of residential neighbourhood

environments and childhood obesity in Porto, Portugal. European Journal of Public

Health, 23(6), 1027–1031.

Flake, J. K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality

research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality

Science, 8(4), 370–378.


Florindo, A. A., Salvador, E. P., & Reis, R. S. (2013). Physical activity and its relationship with

perceived environment among adults living in a region of low socioeconomic level.

Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 10(4), 563–571.

Foster, S., Hooper, P., Knuiman, M., Christian, H., Bull, F., & Giles-Corti, B. (2016). Safe

RESIDential Environments? A longitudinal analysis of the influence of crime-related

safety on walking. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical

Activity, 13, 22.

Friedmann, R. R., & Sherer, M. (1984). Effect of different policing strategies upon citizens'

attitudes toward the police and their community. Canadian Police College Journal, 8(1),

27–35.

Galtung, J. (1969). Violence, Peace, and Peace Research. Journal of Peace Research, 6(3), 167–

191.

George, R. (2003). Tourists' fear of crime while on holiday in Cape Town. Crime Prevention and

Community Safety, 5(1), 13–25.

Gerber, M. M., & Jackson, J. (2017). Justifying violence: Legitimacy, ideology and public

support for police use of force. Psychology, Crime & Law, 23(1), 79–95.

Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2003). a very brief measure of the big five

personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528.

Gray, K., Schein, C., & Cameron, C. D. (2017). How to think about emotion and morality:

Circles, not arrows. Current Opinion in Psychology, 17, 41–46.

Hamada, S., Kaneko, H., Ogura, M., Yamawaki, A., Maezono, J., Sillanmäki, L., & ... Honjo, S.

(2016). Association between bullying behavior, perceived school safety, and self‐cutting:


A Japanese population-based school survey. Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/camh.12200

Henderson, H., Child, S., Moore, S., Moore, J. B., & Kaczynski, A. T. (2016). The influence of

neighborhood aesthetics, safety, and social cohesion on perceived stress in disadvantaged

communities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 58(1-2), 80–88.

Hernandez, R., Kershaw, K. N., Prohaska, T. R., Wang, P., Marquez, D. X., & Sarkisian, C. A.

(2015). The cross-sectional and longitudinal association between perceived neighborhood

walkability characteristics and depressive symptoms in older Latinos: The 'Caminemos'

study. Journal of Aging and Health, 27(3), 551–568.

Hill, T. D., Trinh, H. N., Wen, M., & Hale, L. (2016). Perceived neighborhood safety and sleep

quality: A global analysis of six countries. Sleep Medicine, 18, 56–60.

Hinkle, J. C. (2015). Emotional fear of crime vs. perceived safety and risk: Implications for

measuring 'fear' and testing the broken windows thesis. American Journal of Criminal

Justice, 40(1), 147–168.

Holden, C. J., Dennie, T., & Hicks, A. D. (2013). Assessing the reliability of the M5-120 on

Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1749–1754.

Hosker-Field, A. M., Molnar, D. S., & Book, A. S. (2016). Psychopathy and risk taking:

Examining the role of risk perception. Personality and Individual Differences, 91, 123–

132.

Hsu, H., Simon, J. D., Henwood, B. F., Wenzel, S. L., & Couture, J. (2016). Location, location,

location: Perceptions of safety and security among formerly homeless persons

transitioned to permanent supportive housing. Journal of the Society for Social Work and

Research, 7(1), 65–88.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/camh.12200


Hughes, M. E., Waite, L. J., Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2004). A short scale for

measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies.

Research on Aging, 26(6), 655–672.

Hur, M., & Nasar, J. L. (2014). Physical upkeep, perceived upkeep, fear of crime and

neighborhood satisfaction. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 38, 186–194.

Huq, A. Z., Jackson, J., & Trinkner, R. (2017). Legitimating practices: Revisiting the predicates

of police legitimacy. British Journal of Criminology, 57(5), 1101–1122.

Jefee-Bahloul, H., Bajbouj, M., Alabdullah, J., Hassan, G., & Barkil-Oteo, A. (2016). Mental

health in Europe's Syrian refugee crisis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(4), 315–317.

Jiang, B., Mak, C. S., Larsen, L., & Zhong, H. (2017). Minimizing the gender difference in

perceived safety: Comparing the effects of urban back alley interventions. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 51, 117–131.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and

theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality:

Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.

Keane, C. (1998). Evaluating the influence of fear of crime as an environmental mobility

restrictor on women's routine activities. Environment and Behavior, 30(1), 60–74.

Kim, H. S., & Hodgins, D. C. (2017). Reliability and validity of data obtained from alcohol,

cannabis, and gambling populations on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Psychology of

Addictive Behaviors, 31(1), 85–94.

Kislev, E. (2017). New trends and patterns in western European immigration to the United

States: Linking European and American databases. Annals of the American Academy of

Political and Social Science, 669(1), 168–189.


Ko, M., Geedipally, S. R., Walden, T. D., & Wunderlich, R. C. (2017). Effects of red light

running camera systems installation and then deactivation on intersection safety. Journal

of Safety Research, 62, 117–126.

Koohsari, M. J., Karakiewicz, J. A., & Kaczynski, A. T. (2013). Public open space and walking:

The role of proximity, perceptual qualities of the surrounding built environment, and

street configuration. Environment and Behavior, 45(6), 706–736.

Krausz, R. M., & Choi, F. (2017). Psychiatry's response to mass traumatisation and the global

refugee crisis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 4(1), 18–20.

Latham, K., & Clarke, P. J. (2013). The role of neighborhood safety in recovery from mobility

limitations: Findings from a national sample of older Americans (1996–2008). Research

on Aging, 35(4), 481–502.

Lee, S. M., Conway, T. L., Frank, L. D., Saelens, B. E., Cain, K. L., & Sallis, J. F. (2017). The

relation of perceived and objective environment attributes to neighborhood satisfaction.

Environment and Behavior, 49(2), 136–160.

Leuzinger-Bohleber, M., Rickmeyer, C., Tahiri, M., Hettich, N., Fischmann, T., Hettich, N., &

Rickmeyer, C. (2016). What can psychoanalysis contribute to the current refugee crisis?

The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 97(4), 1077–1093.

Levenson, H. 1973. Multidimensional locus of control in psychiatric patients. Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology 41, 397– 404.

Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Psychology’s replication crisis and the grant culture: Righting the ship.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(4), 660–664.


Maillot, P., Dommes, A., Dang, N., & Vienne, F. (2017). Training the elderly in pedestrian

safety: Transfer effect between two virtual reality simulation devices. Accident Analysis

and Prevention, 99(Part A), 161–170.

Martin-Storey, A., & Crosnoe, R. (2014). Perceived neighborhood safety and adolescent school

functioning. Applied Developmental Science, 18(2), 61–75.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370– 396.

Mason, M. J., Mennis, J., Coatsworth, J. D., Valente, T., Lawrence, F., & Pate, P. (2009). The

relationship of place to substance use and perceptions of risk and safety in Urban

adolescents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(4), 485–492.

Mason, W., & Suri, S. (2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s mechanical Turk.

Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23.

Mattick, R. P., & Clarke, J. C. (1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia

scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety1. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(4),

455–470.

Maxwell, S. E., Lau, M. Y., & Howard, G. S. (2015). Is psychology suffering from a replication

crisis? What does 'failure to replicate' really mean? American Psychologist, 70(6), 487–

498.

May, D. C. (1999). Scared kids, unattached kids, or peer pressure: Why do students carry

firearms to school? Youth Society, 31, 100–127.

McDonell, J. R. (2007). Neighborhood characteristics, parenting, and children's safety. Social

Indicators Research, 83(1), 177–199.


Meltzer, H., Vostanis, P., Goodman, R., & Ford, T. (2007). Children's perceptions of

neighbourhood trustworthiness and safety and their mental health. Journal of Child

Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(12), 1208–1213.

Milam, A. J., Furr-Holden, C. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Perceived school and neighborhood

safety, neighborhood violence and academic achievement in urban school children. The

Urban Review, 42(5), 458–467.

Mulvey, A. (2002). Gender, economic context, perceptions of safety, and quality of life: A case

study of Lowell, Massachusetts (U.S.A.) 1982-96. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 30(5), 655–679.

Nijs, M. M., Bun, C. E., Tempelaar, W. M., de Wit, N. J., Burger, H., Plevier, C. M., & Boks, M.

M. (2014). Perceived school safety is strongly associated with adolescent mental health

problems. Community Mental Health Journal, 50(2), 127–134

Oliveira, L. S., Oliveira, L., Joffily, M., Pereira-Junior, P. P., Lang, P. J., Pereira, M. G., & ...

Volchan, E. (2009). Autonomic reactions to mutilation pictures: Positive affect facilitates

safety signal processing. Psychophysiology, 46(4), 870–873.

Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (2017). Realizing the full potential of

psychometric meta-analysis for a cumulative science and practice of human resource

management. Human Resource Management Review, 27(1), 201–215.

Otto, P. E., & Bolle, F. (2011). Multiple facets of altruism and their influence on blood donation.

The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(5), 558–563.

Oyeyemi, A. L., Kasoma, S. S., Onywera, V. O., Assah, F., Adedoyin, R. A., Conway, T. L., &

... Sallis, J. F. (2016). NEWS for Africa: Adaptation and reliability of a built environment


questionnaire for physical activity in seven African countries. The International Journal

of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 13, 33.

Ozer, E. J., & Weinstein, R. S. (2004). Urban adolescents' exposure to community violence: The

role of support, school safety, and social constraints in a school-based sample of boys and

girls. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33(3), 463–476.

Peachey, A. A., & Baller, S. L. (2015). Perceived built environment characteristics of on-campus

and off-campus neighborhoods associated with physical activity of college students.

Journal of American College Health, 63(5), 337–342.

Peña-García, A., Hurtado, A., & Aguilar-Luzón, M. C. (2015). Impact of public lighting on

pedestrians’ perception of safety and well-being. Safety Science, 78, 142–148.

Pinker, S. (2012). The Better Angels of Our Nature: A History of Violence and Humanity.

Penguin Books.

Pratto, Felicia, James Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, & Bertram F. Malle. 1994. Social dominance

orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 67(4), 741–763.

Rech, C. R., Reis, R. S., Hino, A. F., Rodriguez-Añez, C. R., Fermino, R. C., Gonçalves, P. B.,

& Hallal, P. C. (2012). Neighborhood safety and physical inactivity in adults from

Curitiba, Brazil. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,

9, 72.

Roan-Belle, C. (2015). Examining the influence of parents, teachers, and neighborhood safety on

African American adolescents' motivation and achievement. Dissertation Abstracts

International Section A, 76.


Rollwagen, H. (2016). The relationship between dwelling type and fear of crime. Environment

and Behavior, 48(2), 365–387.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies of internal versus external control of

reinforcements. Psychological Monographs, 80, 609.

Ruijsbroek, A., Droomers, M., Groenewegen, P. P., Hardyns, W., & Stronks, K. (2015). Social

safety, self-rated general health and physical activity: Changes in area crime, area safety

feelings and the role of social cohesion. Health & Place, 31, 39–45.

Russell, D., Peplau, L. A. & Ferguson, M. L. (1978). Developing a measure of loneliness.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 42, 290–294.

Saelens, B.E., Sallis, J.F., Black, J.B., & Chen, D. (2003). Neighborhood-based differences in

physical activity: An environment scale evaluation. American Journal of Public Health,

93, 1552–1558.

Semyonov, M., Gorodzeisky, A., & Glikman, A. (2012). Neighborhood ethnic composition and

resident perceptions of safety in European countries. Social Problems, 59(1), 117-135.

Sheehan, C., Donohue, R., Shea, T., Cooper, B., & De Cieri, H. (2016). Leading and lagging

indicators of occupational health and safety: The moderating role of safety leadership.

Accident Analysis and Prevention, 92, 130–138.

Sifaki-Pistolla, D., Chatzea, V., Vlachaki, S., Melidoniotis, E., & Pistolla, G. (2017). Who is

going to rescue the rescuers? Post-traumatic stress disorder among rescue workers

operating in Greece during the European refugee crisis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric

Epidemiology, 52(1), 45–54.


Skeem J, Polaschek D, Patrick C, Lilienfeld S. (2011) Psychopathic personality: Bridging the

gap between scientific evidence and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public

Interest, 12(3), 95–162.

Snyder, J. A., & Evans, S. Z. (2017). Fear of crime while camping: Examining perceptions of

risk, safety precautions, and victimization effects. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical

Journal of Crime, Law & Society, 30(3), 307–319.

Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Thousand Oaks,

CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.

Stults, C. B., Kupprat, S. A., Krause, K. D., Kapadia, F., & Halkitis, P. N. (2017). Perceptions of

safety among LGBTQ people following the 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting. Psychology of

Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4(3), 251–256.

Sugiyama, T., Cerin, E., Owen, N., Oyeyemi, A. L., Conway, T. L., Van Dyck, D., & ... Sallis, J.

F. (2014). Perceived neighbourhood environmental attributes associated with adults'

recreational walking: IPEN Adult study in 12 countries. Health & Place, 28, 22–30.

Sundquist, K., Eriksson, U., Mezuk, B., & Ohlsson, H. (2015). Neighborhood walkability,

deprivation and incidence of type 2 diabetes: A population-based study on 512,061

Swedish adults. Health & Place, 31, 24–30.

Sun, V. K., Cenzer, I. S., Kao, H., Ahalt, C., & Williams, B. A. (2012). How safe is your

neighborhood? Perceived neighborhood safety and functional decline in older adults.

Journal of General Internal Medicine, 27(5), 541–547.

Tankebe, J., Reisig, M. D., & Wang, X. (2016). A multidimensional model of police legitimacy:

A cross-cultural assessment. Law and Human Behavior, 40(1), 11–22.


Tendulkar, S. A., Buka, S., Dunn, E. C., Subramanian, S. V., & Koenen, K. C. (2010). A

multilevel investigation of neighborhood effects on parental warmth. Journal of

Community Psychology, 38(5), 557–573.

Thibodeaux, J. (2013). Student perceptions of safety in perceived similar and nonsimilar race

high schools. Journal of School Violence, 12(4), 378–394.

Thomas, K., A., & Clifford, S. (2017) Validity and Mechanical Turk: An assessment of

exclusion methods and interactive experiments. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 184–

197.

Toet, A., & van Schaik, M. G. (2012). Effects of signals of disorder on fear of crime in real and

virtual environments. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(3), 260–276.

Towne, S. J., Won, J., Lee, S., Ory, M. G., Forjuoh, S. N., Wang, S., & Lee, C. (2016). Using

Walk Score™ and neighborhood perceptions to assess walking among middle-aged and

older adults. Journal of Community Health: The Publication for Health Promotion and

Disease Prevention, 41(5), 977–988.

Tucker-Seeley, R. D., Subramanian, S. V., Li, Y., & Sorensen, G. (2009). Neighborhood safety,

socioeconomic status, and physical activity in older adults. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine, 37(3), 207–213

Van Dyck, D., Cerin, E., Conway, T. L., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., Owen, N., Kerr, J., & ... Sallis, J.

F. (2012). Associations between perceived neighborhood environmental attributes and

adults’ sedentary behavior: Findings from the USA, Australia and Belgium. Social

Science & Medicine, 74(9), 1375–1384.


Vieno, A., Nation, M., Perkins, D. D., Pastore, M., & Santinello, M. (2010). Social capital, safety

concerns, parenting, and early adolescents' antisocial behavior. Journal of Community

Psychology, 38(3), 314–328.

Wiebe, D. J., Guo, W., Allison, P. D., Anderson, E., Richmond, T. S., & Branas, C. C. (2013).

Fears of violence during morning travel to school. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1),

54–61.

Wilson-Doenges, G. (2000). An exploration of sense of community and fear of crime in gated

communities. Environment and Behavior, 32(5), 597–611.

Won, J., Lee, C., Forjuoh, S. N., & Ory, M. G. (2016). Neighborhood safety factors associated

with older adults' health-related outcomes: A systematic literature review. Social Science

& Medicine, 165, 177–186.

Woosnam, K. M., Shafer, C. S., Scott, D., & Timothy, D. J. (2015). Tourists' perceived safety

through emotional solidarity with residents in two Mexico-United States border regions.

Tourism Management, 46, 263–273.

Yablon, Y. B., & Addington, L. A. (2017). Students’ feeling of safety in school: Does frequency

of victimization matter? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(1), 26–38

Zaplluzha, S., & Shahini, M. (2016). Gender differences in the evaluation of school safety

indicators according to adolescents in higher secondary schools in Prizren. International

Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 21(1), 27–33.


Appendix A

Tables and Figures for Study 1

Table 1. Factor analysis for the original 48 items of the Perceived Safety (P-SAFE) Scale using a

Promax Method with Kaiser Normalization with a maximum likelihood extraction method

converged in 10 iterations.


Table 2. Factor using a maximum likelihood extraction method and a Promax with Kaiser

Normalization rotation method converged in 6 iterations.

Fear of

Crime Feeling Safe

External

Factors of

Safety

Safety

Confidence

I am afraid of being physically assaulted. .967 -.019 -.093 .002

I am afraid of being sexually assaulted/raped. .817 -.141 -.039 .098

I am afraid of being murdered. .783 .021 .009 -.063

I am afraid of being threatened by someone. .782 .053 -.012 .077

I am afraid I am going to be the victim of a crime. .650 .284 -.039 -.005

I am afraid of somebody breaking into my home and stealing or damaging things. .628 .015 .199 .007

I am afraid of being the victim of a robbery. .585 .126 .237 .044

I am afraid of being approached by an individual I don't know. .542 -.063 .322 .105

I feel safe sleeping at night. .070 .798 -.160 -.117

I feel safe when walking alone during the day. -.146 .735 -.097 -.034

I generally feel safe. .150 .717 -.116 -.036

I feel safe being alone at home. -.010 .695 .036 .034

I feel safe from crime. .188 .581 -.011 .108

I would take a detour to avoid a place where I feel I am in danger. -.034 -.155 .670 .099

It is not safe for children to be outside unattended. -.126 .121 .590 -.015

I feel safe when walking alone after midnight. -.183 .284 .576 .303

Police presence should be increased. .110 .122 .548 -.199

Alarm systems make me feel protected. -.108 .209 .488 .205

I always make sure that my doors are locked. .105 -.198 .477 -.125

I have the strength and skills to ward off criminals. .128 -.076 -.097 .889

If I was attacked at night, I am confident that I would be able to defend myself. .031 .038 -.020 .831

If I thought somebody was following me I would confront them. .054 -.030 -.080 .475

I always carry a means of protection with me. .182 .155 .233 .435


Table 3. Correlations for new factors of P-SAFE scale and the three common items measuring

perceived safety.

Perceived

Safety

Fear

of

Crime

Feeling

Safe

External

Factors

Safety

Confidence

I generally

feel safe I feel safe when

walking alone

during the day.

Fear of Crime .926**

Feeling Safe .839** .705**

External Factors .638** .508** .462**

Safety Confidence .636** .500** .481** .257**

I generally feel safe .628** .557** .753** .311** .359**

I feel safe when walking alone during the

day

.428** .308** .652** .217** .214** .408**

I feel safe when walking alone after

midnight

.718** .579** .739** .509** .488** .410** .322**

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


Table 4. Regression for police legitimacy, locus of control and social interaction anxiety

predicting perceived safety.

B S.E.(B) t p

Legitimacy .105 .046 2.249 .025

Locus of Control -.345 .086 -4.013 .000

SIAS -.423 .086 -4.901 .000


Table 5. Regression for police legitimacy, locus of control and social interaction anxiety

predicting perceived safety using the single item “I feel safe when walking alone after midnight”.

B S.E.(B) t p

Legitimacy .207 .086 2.421 .016

Locus of Control -.327 .158 -2.066 .040

SIAS -.380 .159 -2.390 .018


Appendix B


Table 6. Restricted (4) Factor analysis using principal component analysis as its extraction

method, with Promax with Kaiser Normalization as a rotation method, converged in 7 iterations.

Fear Confidence Walkability Safe

I feel terrified that I am going to be the victim of a crime. .822 .306 .465 .433

I am afraid of being physically assaulted. .811 .390 .529 .361

I am afraid of being threatened by someone. .803 .401 .540 .412

I feel terrified that I may someday be the victim of a robbery. .798 .345 .529 .323


I am afraid of becoming the victim of terrorist-related violence. .719 .200 .396 .264

I feel terrified of gang activity. .709 .148 .499 .250

I am not afraid of being murdered. .650 .382 .298 .247

I am not afraid of being sexually assaulted/raped. .547 .469 .320 .217

I have the strength and skills to ward off criminals. .254 .849 .336 .124

If I was attacked at night, I am confident that I would be able to defend myself. .315 .848 .378 .168

I know enough self-defense to protect myself. .263 .829 .277 .198

I have control over my safety. .406 .634 .244 .551

I have confidence in my ability to remain safe. .501 .629 .309 .589

If I thought somebody was following me, I would confront them. .215 .588 .304 .087

Staying safe is just a matter of good common sense. .267 .546 .004 .352

The way I look makes me feel safe. .196 .536 .189 .285

When it gets dark, I prefer to stay inside. .454 .368 .754 .226

When walking outside, I make sure to stay in well-lit areas. .387 .246 .747 -.034

I feel safe when walking alone at night. .533 .631 .717 .411

I feel confident when walking in dark areas at night. .496 .602 .716 .301

Walking through "bad" neighborhoods makes me feel unsafe. .382 .354 .681 -.036

I take detours in order to avoid dangerous places. .515 .274 .674 .129

Police presence should be increased. .438 .019 .637 .119

It is safe for children to be outside unattended. .296 .179 .593 .242

I generally feel safe. .597 .450 .379 .741

I feel safe when walking alone during the day. .577 .373 .437 .700

I feel at ease in familiar places. .304 .180 .040 .678

I do not feel safe even when my friends are nearby. .597 .185 .283 .674

Being at home makes me feel protected. .144 .116 -.014 .674

I do not feel safe when I fall asleep each night. .619 .151 .238 .624

I do not feel safe being home alone. .597 .249 .393 .603

My family makes me feel secure. -.045 .053 -.085 .467


Table 7. Restricted (4) factor analysis using principal component analysis as its extraction

method with Varimax with Kaiser Normalization as its rotation method, converged in 7

iterations.

Fear of

Crime

Safety

Confidence

Neighborhood

Walkability

Feeling

Safe

I feel terrified that I am going to be the victim of a crime. .757 .127 .213 .205

I am afraid of being physically assaulted. .728 .218 .276 .118

I feel terrified that I may someday be the victim of a robbery. .727 .174 .287 .085

I am afraid of becoming the victim of terrorist-related violence. .706 .049 .179 .057

I am afraid of being threatened by someone. .699 .224 .294 .178


I feel terrified of gang activity. .668 -.021 .316 .057

I am not afraid of being murdered. .629 .277 .052 .030

I do not feel safe when I fall asleep each night. .542 -.006 .057 .502

I am not afraid of being sexually assaulted/raped. .482 .384 .103 .018

I have the strength and skills to ward off criminals. .067 .845 .165 -.045

If I was attacked at night, I am confident that I would be able to defend myself. .120 .826 .195 -.013

I know enough self-defense to protect myself. .082 .824 .098 .036

If I thought somebody was following me, I would confront them. .073 .569 .186 -.039

I have control over my safety. .214 .559 .057 .421

Staying safe is just a matter of good common sense. .181 .536 -.177 .239

I have confidence in my ability to remain safe. .307 .529 .102 .437

The way I look makes me feel safe. .043 .511 .075 .195

When walking outside, I make sure to stay in well-lit areas. .222 .115 .713 -.164

When it gets dark, I prefer to stay inside. .223 .214 .689 .094


Police presence should be increased. .318 -.142 .608 .022

It is safe for children to be outside unattended. .094 .045 .589 .183

I feel confident when walking in dark areas at night. .239 .465 .588 .132

I take detours in order to avoid dangerous places. .368 .125 .577 -.027

I feel safe when walking alone at night. .255 .482 .576 .241


I feel at ease in familiar places. .181 .087 -.062 .653


I feel safe when walking alone during the day. .368 .206 .280 .581

I do not feel safe even when my friends are nearby. .480 .022 .117 .564


I do not feel safe being home alone. .451 .083 .235 .479


Table 8. Correlations for the new P-SAFE Scale and its subscale, and the three most commonly

used items measuring safety.

Perceived

Safety

Neighborhood

Walkability

Feeling

Safe

Fear of

Crime

Safety

Confidence

I feel safe when

walking alone

during the day.

I generally

feel safe.

Neighborhood

Walkability

.814**

Feeling Safe .682** .345**

Fear of Crime .881** .647** .554**

Safety

Confidence

.717** .452** .390** .440**

I feel safe

when walking

alone during

the day.

.653** .454** .735** .536** .390**

I generally feel

safe.

.672** .418** .768** .544** .461** .577**

I feel safe

when walking

alone at night.

.752** .766** .432** .557** .568** .503** .530**


Table 9. Regression for the factors of the Ten Item Personality Inventory predicting perceived

safety.

B S.E.(B) t p

Extraversion .033 .023 1.430 .154

Agreeableness -.114 .034 -3.335 .001

Conscientiousness .078 .036 2.178 .030

Emotionality .238 .029 8.215 .001

Openness .038 .032 1.185 .237


Table 10. Regression for the demographic items predicting perceived safety.

B S.E.(B) t p

Neighborhood familiarity -.007 .005 -1.619 .106

Age .006 .004 1.547 .123

Household income .099 .031 3.149 .002

Highest level of education -.055 .036 -1.534 .126

Being in a committed .266 .102 2.611 .009

Do you own a gun for protection? -.047 .105 -.453 .651

Political beliefs for social issues -.057 .039 -1.451 .148

Political beliefs for economic issues .012 .037 .315 .753

Religiosity -.004 .031 -.133 .894

Spirituality .004 .030 .126 .900

Do you have a pet? .104 .094 1.109 .268


Appendix C


Table 11. Confirmatory Factor analyses utilizing a Promax rotation method, with an extraction

method of Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) converged in 7 iterations.

Fear of

Crime

Safety

Confidence

Neighborhood

Walkability

Feeling

Safe

I feel terrified that I may someday be the victim of a robbery. .852 .005 -.040 -.033

I feel terrified that I am going to be the victim of a crime. .851 .073 -.058 .050

I am afraid of being physically assaulted. .759 .040 .082 -.047

I am afraid of being threatened by someone. .735 .115 -.017 -.015

I am afraid of somebody breaking into my home and stealing or damaging things. .710 .008 .066 -.087

I feel terrified of gang activity. .638 -.072 .133 -.070

I am afraid of becoming the victim of terrorist-related violence. .633 -.136 .052 .037

I do not feel safe being home alone. .581 .001 -.075 .225

I do not feel safe even when my friends are nearby. .521 -.063 -.082 .339

I have the strength and skills to ward off criminals. .005 .907 -.045 -.060

I know enough self-defense to protect myself. .044 .868 -.064 .017


If I thought somebody was following me, I would confront them. -.069 .545 .140 .011

The way I look makes me feel secure. -.050 .425 .030 .226

I feel confident when walking in dark areas at night. -.091 .139 .818 .087

I feel safe when walking alone at night. -.048 .105 .790 .187

When walking outside, I make sure to stay in well-lit areas. .068 -.052 .628 -.210

It is safe for children to be outside unattended. -.055 -.051 .536 .138

When it gets dark, I prefer to stay inside. .160 .046 .461 -.135

I take detours in order to avoid dangerous places. .295 -.148 .425 -.185



I feel at ease in familiar places. -.054 -.040 .089 .695



I feel safe when walking alone during the day. .117 -.062 .304 .480


Table 12. Confirmatory Factor analyses utilizing a Promax rotation method, with an extraction

method of Maximum Likelihood (ML) converged in 7 iterations.

Fear of

Crime

Safety

Confidence

Neighborhood

Walkability

Feeling

Safe

I feel terrified that I may someday be the victim of a robbery. .857 .072 -.061 .054

I feel terrified that I am going to be the victim of a crime. .848 .001 -.033 -.026

I am afraid of being physically assaulted. .770 .034 .080 -.048

I am afraid of being threatened by someone. .736 .108 -.009 -.012

I am afraid of somebody breaking into my home and stealing or damaging things. .711 -.009 .075 -.079

I feel terrified of gang activity. .635 -.132 .044 .039

I am afraid of becoming the victim of terrorist-related violence. .620 -.072 .136 -.057

I do not feel safe being home alone. .578 .019 -.091 .227

I do not feel safe even when my friends are nearby. .515 -.047 -.096 .343

I have the strength and skills to ward off criminals. -.001 .907 -.042 -.055

I know enough self-defense to protect myself. .040 .876 -.065 .024


If I thought somebody was following me, I would confront them. -.064 .537 .138 .011

The way I look makes me feel secure. -.056 .404 .051 .230

I feel confident when walking in dark areas at night. -.092 .117 .843 .081

I feel safe when walking alone at night. -.049 .086 .816 .182

When walking outside, I make sure to stay in well-lit areas. .112 -.024 .558 -.232

It is safe for children to be outside unattended. -.044 -.070 .545 .126

When it gets dark, I prefer to stay inside. .158 .051 .457 -.139

I take detours in order to avoid dangerous places. .166 .084 .400 -.371

Walking through "bad" neighborhoods makes me feel unsafe. .330 -.124 .366 -.200


I feel at ease in familiar places. -.044 -.029 .080 .690



I feel safe when walking alone during the day. .106 -.067 .318 .492


Table 13. Correlations for the overall measure of safety, its subscales, the three most commonly

used items assessing safety and the Short Social Desirability scale.

Perceived

Safety

Fear of

Crime

Safety

Confidence

Feeling

Safe

Neighborhood

Walkability

I generally

feel safe

I feel safe

when

walking

alone during

the day

I feel safe when

walking alone at

night.


Safety Confidence .586** .205**

Feeling Safe .526** .446** .211**

Neighborhood

Walkability

.791** .556** .384** .128**

I generally feel safe. .611** .569** .240** .742** .301**

I feel safe when

walking alone

during the day.

.534** .453** .184** .679** .328** .498**

I feel safe when

walking alone at

night.

.741** .507** .448** .308** .789** .384** .440**

Social Desirability .018 .063 -.100* -.067 .077 -.065 .000 .027


*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).


Table 14. Regression for all the traits of police legitimacy, locus of control and the social

desirability scale predicting perceived safety.

B S.E.(B) t p

Lawfulness .037 .058 .635 .525

Procedural Fairness .134 .065 2.061 .040

Distributive Fairness -.179 .051 -3.518 .000

Effectiveness .133 .027 5.015 .000

Internality .230 .047 4.881 .000

Powerful Others -.188 .042 -4.479 .000

Chance .007 .042 .173 .863

Social Desirability .045 .022 2.101 .036


Figure 1. Bar graph depicting the means for each facet of safety and the overall measure of

safety for males and females, error bars depict +/- 1 S.E. from the mean.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Perceived

Safety

Fear of Crime Safety

Confidence

Feeling Safe Neighborhood

Walkability

Male Female


Appendix D

Police Legitimacy Scale

Please express your agreement or disagreement to the following:

1-Strongly disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Somewhat disagree, 4-Neither agree nor disagree, 5-

Somewhat agree, 6-Agree, 7-Strongly agree

1) When the police deal with people, they always behave according to the law

2) If I were to talk to police officers in my community, I would find their values to be very

similar to my own

3) The police act in way that are consistent with my own moral values

4) The police treat citizens with respect

5) The police take time to listen to people

6) The police treat people fairly

7) The police respect citizens’ rights

8) The police are courteous to citizens they come into contact with

9) The police treat everyone with dignity

10) The police make decisions based on the facts

11) The police provide the same quality of service to all citizens

12) The police enforce the law consistently when dealing with people

13) The police make sure citizens receive the outcomes they deserve under the law

14) Crime levels in my neighborhood have changed for the better in the last year

15) There are not many instances of crime in my neighborhood

16) I feel safe walking in my neighborhood at night


Appendix E

Levenson IPC (Internality, Powerful Others, Chance) Scale

Please express your agreement or disagreement to the following statements:

1-Strongly disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Somewhat disagree, 4-Neither agree nor disagree, 5-

Somewhat agree, 6-Agree, 7-Strongly agree

1) Whether or not I get to be a leader depends mostly on my ability

2) To a great extent my life is controlled by accidental happenings

3) I feel like what happens in my life is mostly determined by powerful people

4) Whether or not I get in to a car accident depends mostly on how good of a driver I am

5) When I make plans, I am almost certain to make them work

6) Often there is no chance of protecting my personal interests from bad luck happening

7) When I get what I want, it’s usually because I am lucky

8) Although I might have good ability, I will not be given leadership responsibility without

appealing to those positions of power

9) How many friends I have depends on how nice a person I am

10) I have often found that what is going to happen will happen

11) My life is chiefly controlled by powerful others

12) Whether or not I get into a car accident is mostly a matter of luck

13) People like myself have very little chance of protecting our personal interests when they

conflict with those of strong pressure groups

14) It’s not always wise for me to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to be a matter

of good or bad fortune

15) Getting what I want requires pleasing those people above me


16) Whether or not I get to be leader depends on whether I am lucky enough to be in the right

place at the right time

17) If important people were to decide they didn’t like me, I probably wouldn’t make many

friends

18) I can pretty much determine what will happen in my life

19) I am usually able to protect my personal interests

20) Whether or not I get in a car accident depends mostly on the other driver

21) When I get what I want, it is usually because I worked hard for it

22) In order to have my plans work, I make sure that they fit in with the desires of people who

have power over me

23) My life is determined by my own actions

24) It’s chiefly a matter of fate whether or not I have few friends or many friends


Appendix F

Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS)

Please indicate the degree to which you feel the statement is characteristic or true for you:

1-Not at all, 2-Slightly, 3-Moderately, 4-Very, 5-Extremely

1) I get nervous if I have to speak with someone in authority (teacher, boss, etc.)

2) I have difficulty making eye contact with others

3) I become tense if I have to talk about myself or my feelings

4) I find it difficult to mix comfortably with the people I work with

5) I find it easy to make friends my own age

6) I tense up if I meet an acquaintance in the street

7) When mixing socially, I am uncomfortable

8) I feel tense if I am alone with just one other person

9) I am at ease meeting people at parties, etc.

10) I have difficulty talking with other people

11) I find it easy to think of things to talk about

12) I worry about expressing myself in case I appear awkward

13) I find it difficult to disagree with another’s point of view

14) I have difficulty talking to attractive persons of the opposite sex

15) I find myself worrying that I won’t know what to say in social situations

16) I am nervous mixing with people I don’t know well

17) I feel I’ll say something embarrassing when talking

18) When mixing in a group, I find myself worrying I will be ignored

19) I am tense mixing in a group

20) I am unsure whether to greet someone I know only slightly


Appendix G

Ten Item Personality Inventory

Here are a number of personality traits that may or may not apply to you. Please indicate the

extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement. You should rate the extent to which

the pair of traits applies to you, even if one characteristic applies more strongly than the other.

I see myself as:

1- Disagree strongly, 2-Disagree moderately, 3- Disagree a little, 4- Neither agree nor disagree,

5- Agree a little, 6- Agree moderately, 7- Agree strongly

1) Extraverted, enthusiastic

2) Critical, quarrelsome

3) Dependable, self-disciplined

4) Anxious, easily upset

5) Open to new experiences, complex

6) Revised, Quiet

7) Sympathetic, warm

8) Disorganized, careless

9) Calm, emotionally stable

10) Conventional, uncreative


Appendix H

3 – Item Loneliness Scale

For each of the following questions, indicate how often you feel that way using the 1-3 scale

provided.

1 – Hardly ever, 2 – Some of the time, 3 – Often

1) How often do you feel that you lack companionship?

2) How often do you feel left out?

3) How often do you feel isolated from others?


Appendix I

Altruism Self-Report scale

How often would you exhibit the following behaviors?

1 – Never, 2 – Once, 3 – More than once, 4 – Often, 5 – Very often

1. I would give directions to someone I did not know.

2. I would make changes for someone I did not know.

3. I would give money to a charity.

4. I would donate clothes or goods to a charity.

5. I would help carry belongings of someone I did not know.

6. I would delay an elevator and hold the door for someone I did not know.

7. I would allow someone I did not know to go in front of me in line.

8. I would point out a clerk's error in undercharging me for an item.

9. I would let a neighbor I did not know well borrow an item of value to me.

10. I would help a classmate who I did not know well with a homework assignment when my

knowledge was greater than his or hers.

11. I would voluntarily look after a neighbor’s pet or children without being paid.

12. I would offer to help a handicapped or elderly person across the street.

13. I would offer my seat on a train or bus to someone who was standing.

14. I would help an acquaintance move houses.


Appendix J

Short Dark Triad (SD3) Scale

Please rate your agreement or disagreement with each item using the following guidelines:

1 – Strongly disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Neither agree nor disagree, 4 – Agree, 5 – Strongly agree

Machiavellianism subscale

1. It's not wise to tell your secrets.

2. Generally speaking, people won’t work hard unless they have to.

3. Whatever it takes, you must get the important people on your side.

4. Avoid direct conflict with others because they may be useful in the future. 5.

It’s wise to keep track of information that you can use against people later.

6. You should wait for the right time to get back at people.

7. There are things you should hide from other people because they don’t need to know.

8. Make sure your plans benefit you, not others.

9. Most people can be manipulated.

Narcissism subscale

1. People see me as a natural leader.

2. I hate being the center of attention. (R)

3. Many group activities tend to be dull without me.

4. I know that I am special because everyone keeps telling me so.

5. I like to get acquainted with important people.

6. I feel embarrassed if someone compliments me. (R)

7. I have been compared to famous people.

8. I am an average person. (R)

9. I insist on getting the respect I deserve.


Psychopathy subscale

1. I like to get revenge on authorities.

2. I avoid dangerous situations. (R)

3. Payback needs to be quick and nasty.

4. People often say I’m out of control.

5. It’s true that I can be mean to others.

6. People who mess with me always regret it.

7. I have never gotten into trouble with the law. (R)

8. I like to pick on losers.

9. I’ll say anything to get what I want.


Appendix K

Demographic Questions

1) Are you currently in a committed relationship?

2) Which country are you currently living in?

3) Please give us an estimate of your household income

4) What is your gender?

5) What is your race/ethnicity?

6) What is your age?

7) Do you own a gun for protection?

8) What is your highest level of education?

9) What best describes your political beliefs?

10) How religious are you?

11) How spiritual are you?

12) Are you a fluent English speaker?

13) Do you have a pet?

14) What is your zip code?

15) For how many years have you been living in your current neighborhood?

16) How would you describe your neighborhood?

17) Some people have experienced a traumatic event that has had a significant impact on their

lives. Please let us know what is most true of your experience(s):

18) Please name 3 things/factors that make you feel safe.

19) Please name 3 things/factors that make you feel unsafe.


Appendix L

Perceived Safety (P-SAFE) Scale

Think about the area where you currently live (the residence where you spend most of your

time and where you tend to sleep most nights of the year). Please read the following

statements and express your agreement or disagreement.

1 – Strongly disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Somewhat disagree, 4 – Neither agree nor disagree, 5 –

Somewhat agree, 6 – Agree, 7 – Strongly agree

Fear of Crime

1. I feel terrified that I may someday be the victim of a robbery. (R)

2. I feel terrified that I am going to be the victim of a crime. (R)

3. I am afraid of being physically assaulted. (R)

4. I am afraid of being threatened by someone. (R)

5. I am afraid of somebody breaking into my home and stealing or damaging things. (R)

6. I feel terrified of gang activity. (R)

7. I am afraid of becoming the victim of terrorist-related violence. (R)

8. I do not feel safe being home alone. (R)

9. I do not feel safe even when my friends are nearby. (R)

Safety Confidence

1. I have the strength and skills to ward off criminals.

2. I know enough self-defense to protect myself.

3. If I was attacked at night, I am confident that I would be able to defend myself.

4. If I thought somebody was following me, I would confront them.

5. The way I look makes me feel secure.


Feeling Safe

1. Being at home makes me feel protected.

2. I feel at ease in familiar places.

3. I generally feel safe. My family makes me feel secure.

4. I feel safe when walking alone during the day.

5. My family makes me feel safe/secure.

Neighborhood Walkability

1. I feel confident when walking in dark areas at night.

2. I feel safe when walking alone at night.

3. When walking outside, I make sure to stay in well-lit areas.

4. It is safe for children to be outside unattended.

5. When it gets dark, I prefer to stay inside.

6. I take detours in order to avoid dangerous places.

7. Walking through "bad" neighborhoods makes me feel unsafe.


Appendix M

Supplementary Materials

Study 2A

The purpose of study 2A was to replicate the findings of study 1 & 2. Specifically, this re-

examination would center on the relationship between police legitimacy, locus of control and

safety in a collegiate sample. Additionally, this study aimed to investigate how certain traits,

such as psychopathy, narcissism, loneliness and altruism, were associated with safety. For the

Dark Triad traits, I predicted that narcissism would be correlated with higher scores in the Safety

Confidence subscale, as narcissists are confident in themselves, which would result in higher

scores in items pertaining to one’s ability and trust in their skills to remain safe. I also predicted

that psychopathy would be predictive of higher levels of safety, as psychopaths do not

experience emotions to the same degree as non-psychopathic individuals. For loneliness, I

predicted that individuals who experience greater loneliness would be more vulnerable and thus

feel more unsafe while individuals who are more altruistic would be more fearless and bold, thus

being more confident in their ability to remain safe.

Method

Participants. Seventy undergraduate introductory psychology students (44 female; 44

sophomores) were recruited from Franklin & Marshall College, in exchange for course credit.

Materials and Procedure. Participants were presented with the revised P-SAFE scale,

followed by the Police Legitimacy scale, the Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control scale,

the 3-Item Loneliness scale (Hughes, Waite, Hawkley, & Cacioppo, 2004), the Altruism Self-

Report scale (Rushton, 1981) and the Short Dark Triad (SD3) questionnaire (Jones & Paulhus,

2014), in random order. Lastly, this study also included several exploratory questions pertaining

to attitudes towards police and safety: “During which semester do you feel safer in general?”,


“Do you think that the office of Public Safety should have an increased presence on campus?”,

“Imagine that F&M chose to greatly reduce the presence of Public Safety officers on campus by

not allowing them to enter campus grounds in order to allow students to have a greater sense of

independence and freedom. Would that make you feel: Significantly safer than now, Safer than

now, Equally safe as now, Less safe than now, Significantly less safe than now”, and “Imagine

that F&M chose to employ a formal police force in order to better protect the students and to

have a more formal security on campus. Would that make you feel: Significantly safer than now,

Safer than now, Equally safe as now, Less safe than now, Significantly less safe than now”.

These questions focused on whether a different police style (less police presence, same police

presence as now, or more formal police presence) would affect how safe students feel. Further,

the same questions concerning factors that make people feel safe/unsafe similar to study 2.

Study 2 A Results

Reliability of the P-SAFE Scale. The P-SAFE scale was reliable (α = .929). All four

subscales of the P-SAFE were also reliable: Fear of Crime: α = .909, Safety Confidence: α =

.883, Feeling Safe: α = .758, Neighborhood Walkability: α = .756.

Correlations. Once again, all the subscales of the P-SAFE scale were significantly

correlated with the overall measure of safety, without indicating multicollinearity (see Table S1).

Loneliness was negatively correlated with Perceived safety (r = -.339, p < .001), Safety

Confidence (r = -.446, p < .001) and Neighborhood Walkability (r = -.340, p < .001).

Replicating the findings of study 1, the overall measure of Police Legitimacy was

significantly correlated with Safety Confidence (r = .360, p < .001), and police effectiveness

was also significantly correlated with both the Perceived Safety (r = .395, p < .001) and all the


subscales of the P-SAFE: Fear of Crime (r = .270, p < .001), Feeling Safe (r = .388, p < .001),

Neighborhood Walkability (r = .344, p < .001) and Safety Confidence (r = .329, p < .001).

Police effectiveness was associated with higher scores in Perceived Safety. However, the

other counterparts of police legitimacy are only significantly correlated with Safety Confidence.

This could potentially mean that how much faith a person has in his self and their ability to

remain safe is affected by how effective, fair and lawful a police force is. For a better look at

how all the different aspects of police legitimacy are correlated with the P-SAFE scale see Table

S2.

Ratings on the External Locus of Control scale were negatively correlated with overall

safety (r = -.252, p < .001) and perceived safety (r = -.341, p < .001), indicating that the more

one person depends on others for their safety the less likely they feel safe themselves (see Table

S3). Altruism was not significantly correlated with any of the subscales or the overall measure of

safety. Psychopathy was significantly correlated with Perceived Safety (r = .261, p = .029),

Safety Confidence (r = .406, p < .001) and Neighborhood Walkability (r = .334, p < .001), while

narcissism was significantly correlated with Perceived safety (r = .355, p < .001), Safety

Confidence (r = .552, p < .001) and Neighborhood Walkability (r = .271, p = .023), and

Machiavellianism was not correlated with any subscales of the P-SAFE scale (see Table S4).

Regression Analyses. The main goal of this study was to establish predictive and

discriminant validity for the subscales of the P-SAFE scale while also replicating the findings of

Study 1. Thus, linear regressions with all the measures of the study predicting the individual

subscales and the overall P-SAFE scale were executed. Loneliness (p = .038) and police

effectiveness (p = .002) were the only significant predictors of Perceived safety (see Table S5).

People who are lonelier tend to feel more vulnerable, while police forces are the primary


enforcers of security. For Fear of Crime, police effectiveness was the sole significant predictor (p

= .020; see Table S6). The more effective a police force is, the less crime is prevalent in a

specific environment. For Feeling Safe, loneliness (p = .016), altruism (p = .037), psychopathy (p

= .042), police distributive fairness (p = .046) and police effectiveness ((p = .007) were

significant predictors (see Table S7). As Feeling Safe captures an underlying notion of safety

pertinent to our everyday functioning, police legitimacy and loneliness are associated with this

construct. For Neighborhood Walkability, psychopathy (p = .004), effectiveness (p = .002) were

significant predictors (see Table S8). Psychopathy specifically is associated with perceiving less

danger, having less friends and engaging in less pro-social behaviors and thus explains why

people higher in this trait are more likely to walk alone at night. Lastly, for Safety Confidence,

loneliness (p = .034), psychopathy (p = .002), narcissism (p = .003), a higher belief in powerful

others (p = .008), and a higher belief in chance (p = .019), were significant predictors while

police effectiveness was marginally significant (p = .063; see Table S9). Supporting our

hypothesis, narcissism was a strong predictor of Safety Confidence, as this facet is associated

with trust in one’s ability, a habit that is prevalent in narcissist. Overall, and in accordance with

previous findings (Camerino, 2016; Jiang, Mak, Larsen & Zhong, 2017; Zaplluzha & Shahini,

2016), gender was a strong predictor (p < .01) of all facets of safety and Perceived Safety overall.

Exploratory Questions. In recent times, police legitimacy has been reduced due to

several incidents involving police brutality. To examine this phenomenon, students were asked

whether the Office of Public Safety, the law enforcement force employed by Franklin &

Marshall College, should have an increased presence on campus (see Table S10). From the 70

students, 25 (35.7%) answered yes, hinting that an increased present might lead to higher scores

in perceived safety. Additional questions were asked pertaining to different police styles. When a


formal police force is employed 19 students (27.1%) reported that they would feel safer, while

21 (30%) reported that they would feel less safe (see Table S11). This signifies that police

presence, if unwanted, can actually reduce safety. In the scenario where no police force was on

campus, due to a new law prohibiting them, 6 students (8.6%), reported they would feel safer,

while 47 (67.1%), reported that they would feel less safe (see Table S12). Additionally, students

reported no difference concerning what season makes them feel safer, as most of them (N = 61)

reported that they feel equally safe in both semesters of the school year.

Qualitative Data. Participants’ indications of which factors make them feel safe or

unsafe led to similar patterns as were observed in Study 2. Specifically, having a family member

or friend in proximity (N = 74), being in the confines of one’s house (N = 28) and being in

familiar spaces (N = 21) were the most common responses for factors leading to feelings of

safety (see Table S13). As what made them feel unsafe, this study also was similar to Study 2. In

particular, being in a large crowd or an area with people perceived to be dangerous (N = 37),

being in a dark area or being outside at dark (N = 36) and being alone or feeling lonely (N = 26;

see Table S14).

Study 2A Discussion

This study replicated Studies 1 and 2 in terms of reliability and validity for the P-SAFE

scale. Police effectiveness and an internal locus of control are the strongest predictors of safety

and individual facets of safety. Previous works have revealed that psychopaths tend to perceive

less fear, threat while also having a harder time experiencing other peoples’ emotions (Skeem,

Polaschek, Patrick, & Lilienfeld, 2011). In accordance with the hypothesis that people higher in

psychopathy would feel safer, as they experience blunted feelings of threat and take more risks,

psychopathy positively predicted Safety Confidence, Feeling Safe, and how likely people are to


walk in dangerous environments. Additionally, narcissism also predicted Safety Confidence,

which is supported by previous research that has revealed that narcissists tend to be

overconfident (Macenczak et al, 2016), which in the case of safety, could lead to people who are

higher in narcissism feeling more confident in their ability to remain safe.

Previous works have linked social anxiety and depression with loneliness (Aikawa,

Fujita, & Tanaka, 2007). Loneliness is also predictive of vulnerability to hopelessness (Bonner &

Rich, 1991). Thus, being anxious, depressed and more vulnerable could explain why people who

experience more loneliness also reported lower perceptions of safety in our study. Additionally,

altruism predicted safety overall. Individuals who are altruistic tend to engage in pro-social

behavior such as donating blood, or other types of behaviors that benefit others at the cost of the

self (Otto & Bolle, 2011). Individuals who are more altruistic could potentially be more bold and

courageous since they are willing to help others while risking themselves, which could explain

having increased perceived safety.

Although the sample of this study was small, the question pertaining to policing on

campus grounds, students preferred a private police force, as that would allow for a closer

relationship and better supervision, however more research is needed to further consolidate this

claim. Surprisingly, the qualitative questions asking students to provide factors/things that make

them feel safe showed that police is not one of the primary factors. This could be explained by

recent controversial events regarding police forces in the United States. Thus, this study provided

some additional insight for future work focusing on policing on university grounds.


Tables and Figures for Study 2A

Table S1. Correlations for all subscales of the P-SAFE scale, Loneliness and the three commonly

used assessing safety.

Perceived

Safety

Fear of

Crime

Feeling

Safe

Safety

Confidence

Neighborhood

Walkability Loneliness

I generally

feel safe.

I feel safe when

walking alone

during the day


Feeling Safe .529** .288*

Safety Confidence .832** .548** .328**

Neighborhood

Walkability

.880** .677** .412** .683**

Loneliness -.339** -.135 -.179 -.446** -.340**

I generally feel safe. .656** .431** .725** .550** .543** -.230

I feel safe when

walking alone during

the day.

.398** .330** .572** .115 .411** -.137 .511**

I feel safe when

walking alone at

night.

.777** .639** .540** .522** .808** -.199 .589** .527**




Table S2. Correlations for all subscales of the P-SAFE scale, overall police legitimacy and the

subsequent counterparts of police legitimacy.

Perceived

Safety

Fear

of

Crime

Feeling

Safe

Safety

Confidence

Neighborhood

Walkability

Overall

Legitimacy Lawfulness

Procedural

Fairness

Distributive

Fairness


Feeling Safe .529** .288* .


Neighborhood

Walkability

.880** .677** .412** .683**

Overall Legitimacy .234 .086 .225 .360** .117

Lawfulness .207 .105 .208 .311** .061 .931**

Procedural Fairness .182 .019 .189 .344** .076 .978** .889**

Distributive

Fairness

.124 .016 .074 .294* .006 .942** .880** .942**

Effectiveness .395** .270* .388** .329** .344** .638** .507** .513** .413** **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).



Table S3. Correlations for all subscales of the P-SAFE scale, altruism, locus of control and its

subsequent subscales.

Perceived

Safety

Fear of

Crime

Feeling

Safe

Safety

Confidence

Neighborhood

Walkability Altruism

Locus of

Control Internality

Powerful

Others



Safety

Confidence

.832** .548** .328**

Neighborhood

Walkability

.880** .677** .412** .683**

Altruism .128 .131 .148 .081 .062

Locus of Control -.252* -.220 -.341** -.138 -.176 -.121

Internality .297* .172 .242* .287* .290* .150 -.216

Power Others .026 .008 -.155 .140 .004 -.058 .786** .234

Chance -.177 -.218 -.255* -.086 -.028 -.060 .825** .085 .568**




Table S4. Correlations for all subscales of the P-SAFE, psychopathy, Machiavellianism and

narcissism.

Perceived

Safety

Fear of

Crime

Feeling

Safe

Safety

Confidence

Neighborhood

Walkability Psychopathy Machiavellianism




Neighborhood

Walkability

.880** .677** .412** .683**

Psychopathy .261* .147 -.203 .406** .334**

Machiavellianism .031 .065 -.040 .068 -.048 .460**

Narcissism .355** .168 .088 .552** .271* .280* .082 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).



Table S5. Regression for all the measures predicting Perceived Safety.

B S.E.(B) t p

Loneliness -.135 .064 -2.124 .038

Altruism .020 .011 1.765 .083

Psychopathy .482 .247 1.950 .056

Machiavellianism -.171 .231 -.742 .461

Narcissism .268 .214 1.251 .216

Internality .198 .158 1.249 .217

Powerful Others .148 .137 1.081 .284

Chance -.291 .158 -1.847 .070

Lawfulness .030 .159 .190 .850

Procedural Fairness .067 .228 .296 .769

Distributive Fairness -.201 .202 -.994 .325

Effectiveness .291 .090 3.235 .002


Table S6. Regression for all the measures predicting Fear of Crime.

B S.E.(B) t p

Loneliness -.106 .116 -.918 .363

Altruism .029 .021 1.383 .172

Psychopathy .466 .450 1.035 .305

Machiavellianism -.087 .421 -.208 .836

Narcissism .173 .390 .443 .660

Internality .155 .289 .536 .594

Powerful Others .196 .249 .789 .433

Chance -.498 .287 -1.733 .089

Lawfulness .184 .289 .637 .527

Procedural Fairness -.431 .416 -1.036 .305

Distributive Fairness .028 .369 .076 .940

Effectiveness .394 .164 2.401 .020


Table S7. Regression for all measures predicting Feeling Safe.

B S.E.(B) t p

Loneliness -.132 .053 -2.475 .016

Altruism .020 .010 2.130 .037

Psychopathy -.431 .208 -2.077 .042

Machiavellianism .282 .194 1.454 .151

Narcissism -.054 .180 -.302 .764

Internality .161 .133 1.212 .230

Powerful Others -.109 .115 -.948 .347

Chance -.027 .132 -.207 .837

Lawfulness .132 .133 .992 .325



Effectiveness .212 .076 2.803 .007


Table S8. Regression for all measures predicting Neighborhood Walkability.

B S.E.(B) t p

Loneliness -.139 .071 -1.965 .054

Altruism .014 .013 1.109 .272

Psychopathy .820 .275 2.980 .004

Machiavellianism -.410 .257 -1.594 .116

Narcissism .138 .239 .578 .565

Internality .316 .176 1.791 .079

Powerful Others .018 .152 .116 .908

Chance -.127 .176 -.721 .474

Lawfulness -.101 .177 -.572 .569


Distributive Fairness -.219 .225 -.971 .335

Effectiveness .332 .100 3.311 .002


Table S9. Regression for all measures predicting Safety Confidence.

B S.E.(B) t p

Loneliness -.166 .076 -2.175 .034

Altruism .016 .014 1.188 .240

Psychopathy .960 .296 3.247 .002

Machiavellianism -.423 .276 -1.532 .131

Narcissism .787 .257 3.069 .003

Internality .160 .190 .844 .402

Powerful Others .448 .164 2.736 .008

Chance -.454 .189 -2.406 .019

Lawfulness -.101 .190 -.534 .596



Effectiveness .204 .108 1.895 .063


Table S10. Frequencies for the question: “Imagine that F&M chose to employ a formal police

force in order to better protect the students and to have a more formal security on campus. Would

that make you feel:”

Frequency (N) Percent

Significantly safer than now 4 5.7

Safer than now 15 21.4

Equally safe as now 30 42.9

Less safe than now 13 18.6

Significantly less safe than now 8 11.4

Total 70 100.0


Table S11. Frequencies for the question: “Imagine that F&M chose to greatly reduce the

presence of Public Safety officers on campus by not allowing them to enter campus grounds in

order to allow students to have a greater sense of independence and freedom. Would that make

you feel:”


Significantly safer than now 2 2.9

Safer than now 4 5.7

Equally safe as now 17 24.3

Less safe than now 32 45.7

Significantly less safe than now 15 21.4

Total 70 100


Table S12. Frequencies for the question: “Do you think that the office of Public Safety should

have an increased presence on campus?”


Yes 25 35.7

No 45 64.3

Total 70 100


Table S13. Frequencies for responses to the prompt: “Name 3 factors that make you feel safe”.

Response Frequency (N)

Family & friends 74

Being at home 28

Being at familiar places 21

People being present 19

Well-lit areas 15

Having security and locked doors 12

Being capable of self defense 12

Police presence 11

Other factors 9

Having a pet 5

Religion 2

Possessing a gun 2


Table S14. Frequencies for responses to the prompt: “Name 3 factors that make you feel unsafe”,

Response Frequency (N)

Being in a large crowd/with people perceived to be dangerous 37

Being in a dark area 36

Being outside alone or feeling lonely 26

Other factors (i.e. being at war, current president) 22

Being in an unfamiliar place 18

Crime, criminal activities and terrorism 17

Being in a neighborhood with a bad reputation 15

Weapons, people with weapons 13

Being unarmed 8

Public safety, police force 6

Violence 4

Unlocked doors, low security 4

Fraternities 2

Failure 2


Supplementary Tables and Figures for Study 3

Table S15. Regression for all the demographic questions predicting the Perceived Safety.

B S.E.(B) t p


Age .012 .008 1.546 .126


Highest level of education .049 .074 .664 .508

Being in a committed relationship .428 .214 2.004 .049


Political beliefs for social issues -.028 .078 -.359 .721

Political beliefs for economic issues .105 .072 1.459 .149

Religiosity -.147 .062 -2.345 .022

Spirituality .071 .062 1.150 .254

Do you have a pet? .050 .183 .274 .785

Height .001 .001 .918 .362

Weight -.002 .002 -1.080 .284

Experiencing trauma in the past -.243 .107 -2.270 .026

Gender -.503 .185 -2.720 .008


Table S16. Regression with all the demographic variables predicting Fear of Crime.

B S.E.(B) t p

Neighborhood familiarity -.001 .004 -.258 .797

Age .018 .009 1.935 .057


Highest level of education -.052 .087 -.601 .549



Political beliefs for social issues .051 .092 .559 .578


Religiosity -.025 .073 -.348 .729

Spirituality -.032 .073 -.447 .656

Do you have a pet? .083 .214 .387 .700

Height .000 .002 -.082 .935

Weight -.001 .002 -.536 .593


Gender .284 .216 1.316 .192


Table S17. Regression with all the demographic variables predicting Feeling Safe.

B S.E.(B) t p


Age .028 .012 2.327 .023


Highest level of education .212 .116 1.831 .071


Do you own a gun for protection? -.454 .341 -1.332 .187

Political beliefs for social issues -.011 .122 -.088 .930


Religiosity -.187 .097 -1.918 .059

Spirituality .104 .097 1.080 .284

Do you have a pet? -.081 .286 -.283 .778

Height .002 .002 .862 .391

Weight .002 .003 .652 .516


Gender -.163 .288 -.568 .572


Table S18. Regression with all the demographic variables predicting Safety Confidence.

B S.E.(B) t p

Neighborhood familiarity .004 .005 .682 .497

Age -.007 .013 -.508 .613

Household income .087 .113 .770 .444

Highest level of education -.093 .124 -.755 .453

Being in a committed relationship .027 .356 .076 .940

Do you own a gun for protection? .014 .365 .039 .969

Political beliefs for social issues .024 .131 .184 .854


Religiosity -.142 .104 -1.358 .178

Spirituality .116 .104 1.119 .267

Do you have a pet? .251 .306 .821 .414

Height .001 .002 .225 .822

Weight -.006 .003 -2.056 .043

Experiencing trauma in the past -.084 .178 -.472 .638

Gender -1.102 .308 -3.578 .001


Table S19. Regression with all the demographic variables predicting Neighborhood Walkability.

B S.E.(B) t p

Neighborhood familiarity -.001 .004 -.291 .772

Age .001 .010 .053 .958


Highest level of education .015 .095 .156 .876



Political beliefs for social issues -.145 .100 -1.446 .152


Religiosity -.185 .080 -2.320 .023

Spirituality .071 .079 .899 .371

Do you have a pet? .052 .234 .221 .825

Height .002 .002 1.161 .249

Weight -.004 .002 -1.899 .061

Experiencing trauma in the past -.087 .136 -.637 .526

Gender -1.073 .236 -4.553 .000


Table S20. Regression for all the traits of police legitimacy, locus of control and the social

desirability scale predicting fear of crime.

B S.E.(B) t p

Lawfulness .122 .082 1.488 .137



Effectiveness .152 .038 4.025 .000

Internality .100 .067 1.491 .137

Powerful Others -.299 .060 -5.015 .000

Chance -.172 .060 -2.850 .005




desirability scale predicting safety confidence.

B S.E.(B) t p

Lawfulness -.066 .094 -.703 .483

Procedural Fairness -.061 .107 -.569 .569

Distributive Fairness .149 .083 1.787 .074

Effectiveness .068 .044 1.560 .119

Internality .499 .077 6.471 .000

Powerful Others -.029 .069 -.416 .678

Chance .197 .070 2.827 .005

Social Desirability -.029 .036 -.828 .408



desirability scale predicting feeling safe.

B S.E.(B) t p

Lawfulness .265 .053 4.973 .000



Effectiveness .132 .025 5.383 .000

Internality .362 .043 8.317 .000

Powerful Others -.096 .039 -2.467 .014

Chance -.003 .039 -.080 .936

Social Desirability .006 .020 .281 .779



desirability scale predicting neighborhood walkability.

B S.E.(B) t p

Lawfulness -.162 .085 -1.904 .057



Effectiveness .157 .039 3.986 .000

Internality .109 .070 1.560 .119

Powerful Others -.224 .062 -3.599 .000

Chance .109 .063 1.739 .083



Table S24. Correlations for the subscales and overall measure of the P-SAFE and the subscales

and overall measure of the Police Legitimacy Scale.

Perceive

d Safety

Fear of

Crime

Safety

Confidence

Feeling

Safe

Neighborhood

Walkability

Police

Legitimacy

Lawfulness Prod. Fairness Dis. Fairness


Safety Confidence .586** .205**

Feeling Safe .526** .446** .211**

Neighborhood

Walkability

.791** .556** .384** .128**

Police Legitimacy .154** .111** .183** .268** -.021

Lawfulness .134** .104** .161** .281** -.054 .955**

Prod. Fairness .147** .113** .167** .251** -.021 .982** .927**

Dis. Fairness .089* .046 .180** .174** -.057 .953** .901** .920**

Effectiveness .224** .157** .148** .286** .125** .459** .347** .348** .337**




Table S25. Correlations for the subscales and overall measure of the P-SAFE and the subscales

and overall measure of the Levenson Multidimensional Locus of Control scale.

Perceived

Safety

Fear of

Crime

Safety

Confidence

Feeling

Safe

Neighborhood

Walkability

Locus of

Control

Internality Powerful

Others


Safety

Confidence

.586** .205**

Feeling Safe .526** .446** .211**

Neighborhood

Walkability

.791** .556** .384** .128**

Locus of

Control

-.350** -.406** -.112** -.362** -.116**

Internality .323** .254** .267** .455** .077 -.699**

Powerful others -.288** -.370** -.025 -.235** -.134** .850** -.351**

Chance -.263** -.368** -.010 -.263** -.067 .905** -.487** .712**



The Creation and Validation of the Perceived Safety Scale ...

Documents

Transcript of The Creation and Validation of the Perceived Safety Scale ...