THE-5‘3

SIIAHTYLBR

IlllillfllHIillllillfllillilllllllllIUUIH [Illlfllliil

3 1293 0157

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

THE RELATIONSHIP OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS
AND BEHAVIORS REGARDING PERSONAL SAFETY:
A Comparative Study of Two Small, Private Colleges

presented by

Mary-Beth Ann COOper

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph .D . degree in Educational Administration

 

Date

 

MS U i: an Aflimatiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-1277!

_ 'n . 6
PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or bdoro date duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE RELATIONSHIP OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS
AND BEHAVIORS REGARDING PERSONAL SAFETY:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TWO SMALL, PRIVATE COLLEGES

BY
Mary-Beth Ann Cooper

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1997

ABSTRACT
THE RELATIONSHIP OF STUDENT PERCEPTIONS

AND BEHAVIORS REGARDING PERSONAL SAFETY:
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF TWO SMALL, PRIVATE COLLEGES

BY
Mary-Beth Ann Cooper

A prediction study design was used to describe the
relationship between safety related beliefs, demographic and
enabling variables and the intention to use safety
precautionary strategies on two college campuses. In
addition, this study examined the relationship between
safety behavioral intentions and the use of personal safety
devices. Residential students at two small, private
colleges were surveyed regarding their perception of
personal safety and their motivation to comply with
recommended safety behavior. Seven hypotheses were tested
using z-tests for percentages and analysis of variance for
means. Multiple regression analysis was used for each of the
dependent variables to determine those factors which have
the greatest impact on predicting safety behavior intention.
The major finding of this study is that it is possible to
predict intended safety behavior and safety device usage by
using a combination of safety belief, enabling and

demographic variables.

Dedicated in loving memory of John Raymond Buckley
and Angela Kochan Buckley

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge and thank my advisor, Dr.
Kathryn Moore, for her patience and guidance as I completed
this dissertation. Her belief in me was instrumental as I
persevered with this project.

Many thanks to my role models in higher education who
served as true educators and have inspired me through my
early professional years. I offer my deep appreciation to
Mr. David Butler, Dr. Robert Harris, Dr. William Pickett,
Dr. Larry Roper and Mr. Brian McAree. Without their
guidance and support, I would not have achieved my personal
and professional goals.

I wish to thank my brothers, Mark, Matthew, Peter,
Daniel and Paul, for their continued love and support.

And finally, I wish to acknowledge my husband, Dave
Cooper, who demonstrated incredible patience through this
process. Dave's sacrifice of time and disproportionate care
of Cal during the last six months of the completion of this

project, was commendable. You have my gratitude and love.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................... viii
CHAPTER 1

Introduction and Statement of the Problem ................ 1
Purpose of the Study ..................................... 8
Significance of the Study ................................ 13
Limitations of the Study ................................. 13
Organization of the Study ................................ 13
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction ............................................. 15
Campus Crime ............................................. 16
Environmental Issues ..................................... 21
Students Perceptions of Personal Safety .................. 24
Health Belief Model ...................................... 26
Risk Behavior ............................................ 31
Summary .................................................. 37
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

Target Population ........................................ 38
Instrumentation .......................................... 40
Data Collection .......................................... 41
Research Design .......................................... 43
Data Analysis ............................................ 46
Research Hypotheses ...................................... 47
Definition of Terms ...................................... 47

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS

Profile of Respondents ................................... 49
Enabling variables ....................................... 53
Safety Belief Variables .................................. 54
Safety Behavior Intention ................................ 66
Safety Device Usage ...................................... 71
College Crime Statistics ................................. 77
Summary of Statistical Hypotheses ........................ 79
CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS

Summary of Findings ...................................... 81
Implications for Practice ................................ 87
Limitations .............................................. 90
Recommendations for Future Research ...................... 92
TAPPENDICES

Appendix A: Hazareth Survey .............................. 94
Appendix B: Nazareth Letter .............................. 101
Appendix C: Nazareth Return Postcard ..................... 102
Appendix D: Fisher Survey ................................ 103
Appendix E: Fisher Letter ................................ 110
Appendix F: Fisher Return Postcard ....................... 111
Appendix G: Reminder Postcard ............................ 112
Appendix H: Letter of Approval for Study ................. 113
Appendix I: Campus Survey Request ........................ 114
Appendix J: Response from Survey Author .................. 115
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................. 116

vi

\D (D «our!» (HMO-J

uh uh uh 03> bub uh #- rb huh-Db huh-ab

H
O

.11
.12

.13
.14
.15
.16

LIST OF TABLES

Frequency Distribution of Demographic Variables ..... 52
Enabling Variables, Z-Test for Percentages .......... 54
Safety Dimensions/Scales, Independent z-Tests

for Percentages ..................................... 55
Safety Precautions Recorded by Fisher Students ...... 62
Safety Precautions Recorded by Nazareth Students....63
Ratings of Safety Precautions by Percent ........... 65
Safety Behavior Intention, Likelihood of Taking
Specific Safety Precautions During the Month ........ 67
Safety Behavior Intention, z-Test for Percentages
Comparison Groups: Gender & College ................. 68
Stepwise Multiple Regression on Safety Behavior
Intention with Demographics ......................... 71
Safety Device Users Categorized by Demographic
Variables, z-Test for Percentages ................... 72
Summary of Beeper Usage ............................. 73
Safety Belief Variables by Beeper Usage,

z-Test for Percentages .............................. 74
Enabling Factors by Beeper Usage, z-Test

for Percentages ..................................... 75
Safety Behavior Intention by Beeper Usage,

Z-Test for Percentages .............................. 76
Stepwise Multiple Regression on Beeper Usage

with Demographics ................................... 77
Campus Crime Statistics 1992-1996 By College ........ 78

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Safety Belief Model II ......................... 44
Figure 3.2 Independent & Dependent Variables .............. 45

viii

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Students who experience crime or its impact on their

campus may be less successful in their educational pursuits
and in their satisfaction with their collegiate experience.
Komisar states that.“as institutions devoted to the life of
the mind and the pursuit of truth, colleges and universities
have an especially urgent claim on freedom from fear.
Scholarly inquiry and transmission of knowledge can only go
forward in the presence of order and in the absence of
threat" (Komisar, 1986 in Kobasic, Smith & Zucker, 1988, p.
575).

Incidents of campus crime have increased through the
1970's and early 1980's, reaching a plateau that is likely
to continue to hold steady through the 90's (Smdth, 1989).
In an attempt to require colleges to protect their students
and employees from crime and violence, many victims and
families of victims have turned to the court system for
intervention. The trend of suing universities has grown
significantly; in fact, the number of court cases brought
against institutions of higher education has tripled in the

last ten years (CaStelli, 1990). In addition, federal and

2
state governing bodies have enacted legislation geared to
informing and protecting campus community members. Lenski
states, "Colleges and universities should have keen
interest in any examination of safety behavior which may
enable them to respond more completely to the legislation of
the 1990 Campus Security Act and which has any applicability
to the prevention of crimes that consume national attention
by current and prospective students and families" (Lenski,
1992, p. 4).

The legal case behind the 1990 Campus Security Act was
brought by Mr. and Mrs. Howard Clery against Lehigh
University. The Clery's daughter was raped and murdered in
her dorm room at Lehigh in 1986. In the settlement, Lehigh
agreed to spend more than $1 million to install better
lighting, alarm systems, to hire more security guards and to
implement a shuttle system for students after dark
(Hanchette, 1988).

More than just the changes to the environment by Lehigh
administrators, the Clerys sought assistance from the
Pennsylvania Legislature to enact the College and University
Information Act. This initial statute was modified and
later developed into the Campus Security Act of 1990, which
requires campuses to report campus crime and to publicize
college safety policies.

As recent federal and state legislation have mandated
that college and university administrators review their

current operating procedures regarding campus safety,

3
heightened awareness of the topic has resulted. It seems
straightforward to simply respond to legislative mandates,
but that does not provide a comprehensive approach to
educating students about the realistic possibilities of
campus crime. A more inclusive approach to understanding
campus crime and its impact would be for college
administrators to know critical information such as:
student feelings regarding safety, their perceptions of
safety on campus, and student reported behaviors related to

personal safety.

WW

Campus residence halls and their surrounding areas,
while seen as significant learning environments on campus,
can often represent settings for potential crime at a
college or university (College and University Law
Enforcement Officers, 1985). Common approaches to dealing
with safety education on college campuses have included
strategies for avoiding crime, self-defense workshops,
lengthy reports of crime statistics and reporting mechanisms
for victims of campus crime. Although all these approaches
have value, do campus educators and students understand why
crime occurs, or to whom? It is imperative to learn how
students perceive their personal safety on campus and how
their behavior may increase or decrease the likelihood of
them.becoming victims.

When designing safety and security programs for

4

campuses, institutions need to know how to best advise
students about personal safety on campus. It is a challenge
to simultaneously increase students' awareness of safety
risks associated with campus life and also empower students
to take more responsibility for themselves. Lenski (1992)
suggests that college administrators need to know more about
students' beliefs, perceptions, attitudes, and motivations
with regard to safety in order to design a comprehensive and
successful approach to help students see the connection
between their actions, the college environment and potential
consequences of risky behavior.

As colleges take the initiative to implement preventive
measures, how does one know which measures will work? The
research on effectiveness of safety interventions is
extremely limdted. It is challenging to assess
effectiveness of security programs because of the variety of
variables that are difficult to control on college campuses.
Yet, if the security measures are going to be put in place,
it is important to learn more about the effects of
interventions on college students. The goal of this project
is to examine the effect of one type of a security
intervention and how it impacts students' safety related
behavior on a small campus.

Recently the role of students' perceptions in
understanding campus safety was addressed in a study funded
through the Association of College and University Housing

Officers-International (Lenski, 1992). The project focused

5
on the relationship between college students' beliefs about
safety on campus, demographic and other modifying factors,
and the intention to practice precautionary behavior. The
researcher found that students who perceive safety
precautions as inconveniences are less likely to take those
precautions, while students who describe themselves as being
more concerned about personal safety were more likely to
plan on taking safety precautions, and students who were
concerned about the ways crime victimization might affect
their lives were more likely to demonstrate less risky
behavior on campus (Lenski, 1992). The findings from this
study are significant in evaluating current safety awareness
programming and its impact on students' attitudes and
beliefs about crime and victimization on campus.

.College resident students, ages 18 to 24, are a group
that is traditionally vulnerable to crime. Residence hall
or community living is a new experience for most of these
students and requires that they adjust to group living and
develop a variety of skills in taking personal
responsibility for protecting themselves, including their
property (Wills, 1993). When crime (i.e. theft of personal
belongings, violence, vandalism) does occur, many students
are often unsure about what to do; they may even choose not
to report criminal activity to the authorities. Often the
crime itself is overwhelming and the process of reporting it
prolongs their role as a victim" Beyond those students

directly effected by crime, for the rest of the community a

6

feeling of invulnerability often prevails.

Invulnerability is defined in terms of an incapability
of being harmed, injured, or wounded (Turner, 1993).
Dolcini (1993) notes that given the widespread acceptance of
the idea that young adults hold exaggerated beliefs
concerning their indestructibility, it is surprising that
more research has not focused on risk-taking behaviors,
including understanding the origins of perceived

invulnerability (Dolcini et al.,1989).

H 1" E 1' E H i J i S E | E J' E H i J
In the 1950's, a project was set up by the US Public
Health Service to explain the widespread failure of people
to participate in programs to prevent or detect disease.
The outcome of this project was the development of the
Health Belief Model, which has become one of the most widely
used and accepted psychological approaches to explaining
health related behavior (Rosenstock, 1990). Basically the
model is a theoretical approach to understanding "the forces
that drive and inhibit behavior as well as the individual's
environment and personal characteristics" (Becker et a1,
1977). Rosenstock (1990) states that in its most current
form, the model suggests that individuals will take action
to avoid or control health conditions after considering a
number of factors which are present or available to them.
Some of those factors suggested are: perceived

susceptibility of contracting a health condition, perceived

7
seriousness of contracting an illness, perceived benefits of
taking health action, elimination or minimization of
perceived barriers to health action.

Researchers have attempted to apply the health belief
theory to the topic of adolescent sexual behavior. In one
study (Hinston et al., 1990) teenagers' beliefs about AIDs
and condom use were directly related to self-reported
behavior of use of condoms. More specifically, "the greater
the perceived susceptibility to AIDS, perceived severity of
AIDs, and perceived effectiveness of latex condom, the
greater their reporting of 'always using' condoms" (Turner,
1993).

At the collegiate level, a study done in 1995 by
Lenski, Meyers and Hunter used the Health Belief Model as a
base to design The Safety Belief Model. The Safety Belief
Model combines variables identified in the Health Belief
Model, along with demographic variables and behavior
variables related to personal safety. The model is
comprised of eight safety belief scales, demographic
characteristics and certain life experiences, which combined
could predict the likelihood of following safety
precautions. Examples of precautionary behavior include
locking doors, using a college escort system, walking with a
prearranged individual, walking in well lit areas, and
reporting suspicious persons to security personnel (Lenski,

Meyers, Hunter, 1996).

8
The eight scales, each of which is targeted to a set of

beliefs and behavioral intent, are:

1. Motivation to Comply: referred to positive health

incentives such as attentiveness to physical
health and wellness.

2. Perceived Benefits: assessed beliefs that

compliance with recommended safety precautions
would reduce the threat of victimization and the
degree to which the individual and the institution
are empowered to improve personal safety.

3. Perceived Barriers: included questions to assess

students' negative perceptions of the recommended
safety behaviors, including peers' opinions of
safety precautions and convenience of use.

4. Perceived Susceptibility: composed of items

related to feelings of vulnerability to property
and personal crime on campus.

5. Perceived Severity: contained items for

subjective assessment of the effect of crime
victimization on college, work, and personal life.

6. Perceived Threat: composed of the latter two
scales.
7. Safety Beliefs: created by pooling all the other

belief scales, the purpose of which was to assess
the combined predictive power of the model.

8. Safety Behavior Intention: outcome variable

computed from summed ratings of a person's
likelihood to take the listed precautions.

(Lenski et al, 1992)

PURPOSE_QE_IHE_SIUDX
The purpose of the present study was two-fold. In an
attempt to understand the impact of a security intervention
on students at a small campus, this researcher used the

Campus Safety Survey to investigate its effect on the

9
students' behavior. The specific purposes of the study are
listed below:

1). To test the usefulness of the Safety Belief Model by
using the Campus Safety Survey in predicting students'
behavioral intentions. Specifically, what variable or
combination of belief, demographic, and/or enabling
variables predict the safety behavior intentions of
residential students at St. John Fisher College and
Nazareth College?

2). To examine the relationship between use of personal
safety devices and safety behavioral intentions of
residential college students at two small, private
colleges.

RESEARCH_QHESIIQNS
This study addressed the question of whether the Safety

Belief Model is useful in predicting students' behavioral

intentions and whether a relationship exists between safety

behavioral intentions and personal safety devices. These
basic issues were formed into a set of testable research
questions:

1. Is there a statistically significant relationship
between any of the safety belief variables and safety
behavior intention?

2. Is there a statistically significant relationship
between any of the demographic variables and safety
behavior intention?

3. Is there a statistically significant relationship
between any of the enabling variables and safety
behavior intention?

4. .Are there significant differences between safety device
users and non-users in any of the safety belief
variables?

5. Are there significant differences between safety device
users and non-users in any of the demographic variables?

10

6. Are there significant differences between safety device
users and non-users in any of the enabling variables?

7. Are there significant differences between safety device
users and non—users in safety behavior intention?

INDEEENDENI_YARIABLES
S E E J’ E H . I] :
1. Motivation to Comply with recommended behavior

2. Perceived Susceptibility to campus crime (part of
Perceived Threat variable)

3. Perceived Severity of crime victimization (part of
Perceived Threat variable)

4. Perceived Benefits of taking precautions
5. Perceived Barriers to taking precautions
M 1.: . M . l] :
1. Demographic variables
Gender, Race/Ethnicity, Age, Class standing, Length
of time lived on campus, Self-reported grade point
average

2. Enabling variables (prior victimization or
sensitization to topic)

3. College
Nazareth or St. John Fisher

DE2ENDENTLIOUICOMEI_YARIABLES

1. Safety Behavior Intention, a score derived from
intended use of a series of safety precautions

2. The likelihood of using a safety device beeper.

METHODOLOGY
The two institutions used in this study are similar in

size (approximately 1600 students total, 800 residential

11
students on each site); both are small, liberal arts
institutions founded in the Roman Catholic tradition,
located in the suburban area of a mid-size Northeastern
city. What is significantly different is that one of the
campuses has recently installed a security system for
members of its campus community.

At one campus, faculty, staff and students may obtain a
"Security Escort" beeper from the Campus Safety Department.
The small hand held transmitter when activated sends a
message to a central switchboard area on campus, displaying
the location and identity of the individual in need of
assistance. Security personnel respond to the geographic
spot where the beeper has been activated. The adoption of
this device has had a significant impact on the campus, in
that over 65% of the population are participating in this
personal safety system.

The second campus does not have an advanced security
system in place. Although approached by the same vendor of
the described security system, the administration is
skeptical of the effectiveness of such an intervention. The
institutions in the study have similar educational
programming targeted at increasing awareness of personal
safety on campus, trained security officers who respond to
criminal activity on campus, and campus personnel work to
influence the quality of life within their campus
communities. So, by focusing the study on the impact of this

security beeper system, the value of the product in terms of

12
how it impacts its users and nonusers, was examined.

To obtain the necessary data for the study, the Campus
Safety Survey (Lenski, 1992) was administered to all
resident students at St. John Fisher College and Nazareth
College during the Fall Semester, 1996. Lists of subjects
were provided by the residential life offices at both
campuses.

The self-administered questionnaire was mailed directly
to each student along with a cover letter describing the
study. A follow-up letter and second copy of the
questionnaire was sent after two weeks to all non-
respondents. Students were asked to return a separate
postcard at the same time they returned their questionnaire.
In the cover letter, the students were notified that
returned postcards (along with questionnaire), were to be
used in a drawing for a gift certificate for movie passes
and a dinner at a local restaurant in close proximity to

both campuses.

W

The research questions were investigated using the
slightly modified Campus Safety Survey developed by Lenski
(1992). The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics,

multiple regression analysis, and analysis of variance.

13
SIGNIEIOANOE_OE_IHE_SIHDX

The challenge presented to college administrators is to
reduce legal exposure and assist campus community members to
feel safe, and at the same time to recognize individual
responsibility while on campus. It was this researcher's
intent to assess residence hall students' perceptions of
personal safety on college campuses and to investigate the
variables which impact likelihood of using precautionary
behavior. A significant focus of the study was to determine
the impact of personal safety devices used on one of the

Campuses in the sample.

I' . l' E I] SI 3

1. Both institutions used in the study are small, private
religiously affiliated colleges. The results of this
study will be generalizable only to similar populations.

2. The length of the survey may result in a lower than
desired return rate.

3. The use of behavioral intention as an outcome, rather
than self-reported behavior makes the emphasis of this
study prospective rather than retrospective. It is
possible that the actual behavior of the respondents
during the month following the administration of the
instrument, may be different than their recorded
intentions. Behavioral intention should not be confused
with actual behavior(which this researcher is not
including in this study).

B . l' E I] SI 1

The study is organized into five chapters with the

addition of appendixes. Chapter 2 is a review of the

l4
literature relevant to influences on social behavior, campus
safety research and the social-psychological framework of
risk behavior. Chapter 3 describes the methodology and
includes descriptions of the sample, variables,
instrumentation, data collection and analysis procedures.
The fourth chapter contains an analysis of the data.
Chapter 5 presents a discussion of the findings,
implications for Student Affairs practitioners, and

recommendations for future research.

Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Introduction

In this chapter, a review of the literature related to
campus safety is presented: (1) crime on college campuses,
(2) environmental influences on human behavior, (3) Health
Belief Model and preventative health behavior, and (4)
Developmental Theory of Adolescent Reckless Behavior
(Jessor, 1992).

The first section provides an overview of campus crime
and recent legislative measures. Recent statistics
regarding crime victimization and factors associated with
campus crime rates will be included. The second section
focuses on the campus environment as an influence on
behavior. Literature on campus design and residence hall
environments is included in this section. Section three
includes a review of the research on the Health Belief
Model, of primary interest in this study because the
instrument this researcher used is modeled after the Health
Belief Model's assessment of attitudes, beliefs, perceptions
and behavioral intent. The final category focuses on
Jessor's social-psychological framework for the explanation

of adolescent risk behavior. The exploration of risk

15

16
behavior and prevention/intervention will be of particular
interest to this study of the relationship of student

perceptions and behaviors regarding personal safety.

W

The responsibility of an institution of higher
education for the safety of its students has been explored
by various courts in recent years. A college's
responsibility is illuminated by the following excerpt from
the decision of Eiseman v. State of New York, (1985, p.
963):

Students enroll in a college in the expectation that,

not only will they be afforded the means to derive an

education in an atmosphere conducive to the stimulation
or thought and learning, but also that they will be
permitted to do so in an environment reasonably free

from risk of harm. A college is not expected to be a

guarantor or insurer of the safety of its students, but

obviously is expected to provide, in addition to an
intellectual climate, a physical environment harmonious
with the purposed of an institution of higher learning.

To that end it employs a security force and establishes

rules and regulations, breach of which can lead to

suspension or expulsion.

Since 1989, a series of high profile crimes took place
on college campuses across the nation, making it a priority
for college administrators whether they liked it or not.
Maybe it was the Clery case, in which a 19 year old was
raped, sodomized, and strangled in her dormitory room. Or
the Hawelka case, where a student was raped and killed in
full view of campus security officers who believed they were

witnessing a young couple engaged in consensual sex. Or the

l7
Pappas case, which found a financial-aid officer shot by a
disgruntled man who had waited two hours to apply for
financial assistance (Greene,1988). These are only three of
the many cases of violent crimes which received significant
press locally and nationally.

As a result of the Clery murder, the victimfis parents
decided to do something about what had happened to their
family. Howard and Constance Clery were a major force
behind a Pennsylvania law which required all colleges in the
state to disclose crime statistics. The Clerys' goal was to
have colleges and universities be compelled to abide by

strict truth in advertising concerning crime and security on

college campuses. The legislation, Pennsylgania_ggllggg_and
W was signed into law in

1988. Two years later, one of the most significant and
controversial bills was introduced and passed by the House
of Representatives and the US Senate. The original draft
was the Wat
gf_1220* Revisions of this bill and clarifications of terms
took place over the next four years.

The legislation is officially known as Title II of the
WIRED It
requires colleges and universities to distribute to all
current students and employees and applicants for enrollment
or employment two types of information: (1) descriptions of
policies related to campus security; and (2) statistics

concerning specific types of crimes. Colleges were now

18
required to publish statistics in nine categories: incidents
of murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, and
motor—vehicle thefts, and arrests for liquor-law violations,
drug-law violations, and weapons-law violations.
Distribution must be made through appropriate publications
and mailings on an annual basis (section 204 (a)).

Although the intent of the legislation was to gain a
more accurate picture of crime on campus, a debate continues
over how to interpret the data submitted. College officials
and in particular those who work with campus law
enforcement, warn against drawing firm conclusions from the
statistics provided by the reporting institutions (Lederman,
1995). Many feel that ambiguity still exists around who has
to report what, that the definitions of the crimes are too
broad and that simply, many colleges and universities fail
to comply with the requirements listed in the Act of 1990.

Of 796 campuses out of 5000 which responded to a survey

done by The Chronicle of Higher Education in 1994, they

reported the following: from 1993 to 1994 there was an
increase of reports of robberies and aggravated assaults
(+2.2%), a sharp increase in drug and weapons violations (up
+34 and +11.2% respectively), a drop in number of burglaries
and motor-vehicle thefts (down 5% and 3% respectively), and
the total number of reported murders fell from 17 in 1992 to
15 in 1993. Rising numbers in the statistics could reflect

increased enforcement, or an increase in criminal activity

19
on campuses, the reader is left not knowing the complete
story (Ledeman, 1995).
Many administrators do agree on one major point. Most
feel great concern about the continuing increase in the

number of violent crimes. USA_Tnday published in

chronological order the violent crimes committed on campus
during the fall term 1990 (Ordovensky, 1990). In a three
month period, 33 assaults and/or murders (18 were murders)
occurred on college campuses. The statistical analysis done

by the flEA_IQda¥ staff indicated that every 3.4 minutes a

larceny is committed on U.S. campuses, and every 1 hour 33
‘minutes an auto theft is committed. Additionally, every 3
hours and 20 minutes an aggravated assault is committed and
a rape is committed every 21 hours on America's campuses
(Ordovensky, 1990).

With the pressure on colleges to report crime reports,
the consequences are complicated and varied. The issue of
student privacy has surfaced at a number of institutions.
Even though specific names are not a part of the reporting
procedure, some parents and campus activists contend that
the college community is entitled to know details about
crimes, so they can be better educated and prepare
themselves against similar crime. These concerns led to
recent efforts in Pennsylvania to require Colleges to open
security logs. However, unsealing security logs may

implicate innocent parties or further victimize those

20
individuals who reported the crimes by divulging sensitive
details to an entire community (Felsenthal,1994).

Another area to discuss is the relationship between
crime and alcohol use. Over 95% of the reported violent
crimes on campus were either drug or alcohol related (noted
in the introductory paragraphs of the Campus Security Act of
1990, provided by Uniform Crime Reports, 1989). In a

publication entitled The Links Among.Drugs, Alcohol, and
campus crime, (Bausell, Maloy, & Sherrill, 1989), the

authors reported that students who commit crimes tend to be
heavy drug and alcohol users. In addition, victims of
crimes also tend to be heavier users of drugs and alcohol
than their counterpart students who report that they have
not been a victim of crime. Several studies support this
relationship between drug and/or alcohol use and campus
crime. Researchers at Towson State University's Center for
the Study Prevention of Campus Violence found that violent
crimes were associated with frequent drug and alcohol use by
both perpetrators and victims. In three years of National
Campus Violence Surveys completed by the Center, they
reported response means demonstrating 52% of violent
incidents involved alcohol or drugs (Towson State
University, 1986, 1987, 1988).

One of the revisions to the Act of 1990 was to require
colleges and universities to report the number of arrests

involving liquor law violations and drug abuse violations.

21
As campus crime receives national attention and reporting
laws continue to focus on this critical issue, the
relationship between alcohol and drug use and campus crime

needs to continue to be explored.

Enximnmentalesues

The dormitory helped to create an atmosphere that
invited frustration, argument, and crime. In the
commons room of dormitory at South Carolina
College in 1833, two students at the same moment
grabbed for a plate of trout: only one of them
survived the duel that ensued. Among the victims
of the collegiate way (the notion that a
curriculum, a library, a faculty and students are
not enough to make a college) were the boy who
died in a duel at Dickinson, the students who were
shot at Miami in Ohio, the professor who was
killed at the University of Virginia, the
president of Oakland College in Mississippi who
was stabbed to death by a student, the president
and professor who were stoned at the University of
Georgia, the student who was stabbed at Illinois
College, the students who were stabbed and killed
at the University of Missouri and the University
of North Carolina. For their misfortune these
victims of college life could thank the dormitory,
the sometime house of incarceration and infamy
that sustained the collegiate way (Rudolph, 1990,
p. 97).

Schneider (1977) pointed out that, historically,
student housing had been seen as a means of controlling
student behavior. She suggested that parents were
comfortable with a restricted environment which was intended
to protect the students from misbehaving. The reality is
that colleges and universities with residence halls have

many more opportunities for potential crime than their

commuter counterparts (Fox & Hellman, 1985). Although staff

22
typically have the responsibility to encourage resident
students to behave in ways to assure the safety of
themselves, their personal property and their community
members, students do not always comply with suggested safety
measures.

In 1993, the University of Maryland conducted a survey
of safety and security programs in residence halls at fifty
selected colleges and universities. Participating
institutions were asked to identify the challenges they
encounter with student behavior related to safety and
security programs. The most often cited problems included:
Propped entrance doors, tailgating or the practice of
allowing non-residents to trail into a building without an
official host, tampering with or vandalism to safety and
security equipment and students' failure to lock their room
door (Davidson, 1994). Doug Tuttle, Campus Safety Director
at one of the responding institutions, agrees. He contends
that most students, particularly freshmen, just aren't used
to locking their bedroom door when they go to bed at night
because they didn't do that at home....we have to teach them
it's not just their bedroom door anymore: it's the only
thing between them and the outside world (Tuttle, 1990, p.
37).

It is the hope of housing administrators that a
residential setting can be created where community members
share expectations, responsibility, respect and

consideration. In Maslow's (1954) hierarchy of needs,

23
meeting an individual's requirement to feel safe and secure
is second only to meeting the individual's physiological
needs. Residential environments need to satisfy the
resident's need to feel safe and secure, otherwise little
else will be accomplished (Simpson, 1994).

When examining satisfaction of resident students needs,
student perceptions and interpretations of the physical
environment play a major role. While perceptions are
subjective and particular to an individual, in the aggregate
they theoretically become and define the culture in which
the individual lives. This aggregate view represents the
shared perception of a particular environment or setting
(Pascarella and Terenzine, 1991).

Pace, as a prominent writer on the field of perceptual
models, has given significant attention to the study of
collegiate environments and student perceptions of these
environments. Pace illustrated the importance of the social
climate of a college by showing relationship between social
climate and student satisfaction. In Pace's view, there are
behavioral and psychological dimensions of an environment.
The psychological aspect is apparent in the beliefs,
feelings and attitudes of members, while behaviors are
inferred by actions and relationships among community
members (Pace, 1984).

Discrepancies between need for safety or feeling safe
and high incidences of violence or crime, result in

psychological conflict, strain and general dissatisfaction.

24
The result of this general dissatisfaction or negative
feelings about the environment, can be demonstrated through
attrition, vandalism, poor academic performance or isolation
by community members (Pace, 1984).

Campus ecology and milieu management seek to change the
environment and diminish the negative conditions which
influence students' experience on campus (Evans, 1983).
While safety cannot be guaranteed, residential students
should be assured that their safety is of the highest
priority to college and university officials. Strange
(1996) suggests to an extent that various campus physical
features contribute to students' safety and security, their
sense of belonging and familiarity with an institution,
their ease of access and movement through its spaces, and
their experience of membership in an educational community

is the ultimate test of their design and purpose (p. 247).

W313:

Assessing students' perceptions of their environments
is one step in understanding the complexities of the issue
of safety on college campuses. The college environment
exerts more influence on students' degree of satisfaction
with the college experience than any characteristic an
entering student brings with them to college (Astin, 1977).
Therefore, what happens on the college campus does matter.
Specifically, when an event happens on campus which violates

the students' sense of security it is important to the

25
community and its members.

In the article, "Preventing Violence on College
Campuses," Roark (1987) identified some of the reasons for
the vulnerability of college students as victims of
violence. Typically, students are in a new setting, away
from parental supervision and support, and among others who
are also experimenting with new freedoms. Recognition of
this factor as we deal with young adults, may lead to the
implementation of strategies to reduce health risk and to
participate in behaviors that enhance health.

A major element present on college campus is the "it
won't happen to me syndrome". In studies of health risks,
the findings demonstrate the strong tendency that people
tend to consider themselves less likely than others to be
victims of disease (Harris & Guten, 1979; Kirscht, Haefner,
Kegeles, & Rosenstock, 1966; Weinstein, 1980).

An illustration of this was explored in a study
conducted at the University of Iowa in 1974. When studying
resident attitudes toward security in the residence halls,
the phenomenon of students not seeing themselves as a
potential victims of crime was dramatically demonstrated by
the results of the research project. An initial survey of
attitudes of resident students about security issues took
place and just fifteen days later a coed was brutally
murdered on campus. A follow-up survey (a replication of
the original survey) was administered after the murder to

determine the impact of the murder on student attitudes

26
toward residence hall security. The murderer was still at
large and little information regarding the case was released
to the community. The survey asked about the likelihood of
violent crime in the halls and 90% of the respondents in
both samples did not believe that a violent crime was likely
to occur. Approximately 75% of the respondents said that
they had not been concerned about a lack of security in
their residence hall and there was no significant change in
this response after the murder. The authors concluded that
the murder of the coed did not significantly impact
residents' attitudes toward security or alter their security

related behavior (Miller, 1974).

Heath_Bclie£_MDdel

.The Health Belief Model was initially developed over
thirty years ago by a group of social psychologists at the
U.S. Public Health Service in an attempt to explain the
widespread failure of people to participate in programs to
prevent or to detect disease (Hochbaum, 1958; Rosenstock,
1960, 1966, 1974, 1990). Specifically, the Model grew out of
Public Health Services staff members' frustration with the
limited success of a number of programs sponsored by their
organization in the 1950's. Since the model's development,
it has been considered one of the most influential and
widely used psychosocial approaches to explaining health-
related behavior (Rosenstock, 1990).

Kasl and Cobb define health behavior as any activity

27
undertaken by a person who believes himself to be healthy
for the purpose of preventing disease or detecting disease
in an asymptomatic stage (1966). This is in contrast to
illness behavior or sick-role behavior, where a person who
feels ill seeks a definition of the illness and/or treatment
for the purpose of getting well (Rosenstock, 1974).

The Health Belief Model investigates the belief that
individuals will take action to ward off, to screen for, or
to control ill-health conditions if they regard themselves
as susceptible to the condition, if they believe it to have
potentially serious consequences, if they believe that a
course of action available to them would be beneficial in
reducing their susceptibility to or the severity of the
condition, and if they believe that the anticipated barriers
to (or costs of) taking action are outweighed by its
benefits (Rosenstock, 1990, p. 43).

It is these combined levels of perceived
susceptibility, severity, benefits and barriers that
influence health-related behaviors. Additional influences
to health-related behaviors include demographic,
sociopsychological, and structural variables which affect
individual perception, and how one chooses to act. The
Health Belief Model attempts to describe motivation to act
as a function of expected goal attainment (Maiman & Becker,
1974).

The Health Belief Model in its current form consists

of six combinations of independent variables. It portrays a

28
set of health beliefs and modifying factors as interacting
together, predicting the likelihood of compliant behavior.
The Model has its roots in a threat-avoidance logic,
focusing on preventing or detecting serious disease.
Rosenstock suggests that behavior to promote health is
essentially the same as behavior to prevent disease and can
be described by the variables listed in the model just as
other preventive or screening behaviors can (Rosenstock,
1990).

The Health Belief Model has been utilized as a
theoretical foundation in a significant amount of research.
Hochbaum studied more than 1200 adults in three cities in
1952, attempting to identify factors underlying the decision
to obtain a chest X-ray for the detection of tuberculosis.
In his interviews, he focused on beliefs the participants
had concerning their susceptibility to tuberculosis and
beliefs in the benefits of early detection. Perceived
susceptibility included (1) the respondent's beliefs about
whether tuberculosis was a real possibility in their case
and (2) the extent to which he/she accepted the fact that
one may have tuberculosis in the absence of all symptoms.
For those participants who exhibited both of these beliefs,
82 percent had at least one voluntary chest X-ray during a
specified period of time preceding the interview. On the
other hand, of the group exhibiting neither of these
beliefs, only 21 percent had obtained a voluntary X-ray

during the same period. Hochbaum found that four out of the

29
five people who exhibited both beliefs took the predicted
action, while four of five who accepted neither of the
beliefs chose not to take the action. In support of the
Model, Hochbaum appears to demonstrate the a particular
action is a function of two interacting variables, perceived
susceptibility and perceived benefits (Rosenstock, 1990).

Another study applied the Health Belief Model in the
context of obtaining influenza vaccinations by people
thought to be at high risk for complications from the
influenza infection (i.e. people over sixty-five, those
individuals with chronic problems such as heart disease,
diabetes of renal disease). The researchers , Larson,
Olsen, Cole and Shortell, targeted a group of individuals in
a family medical center following a flu epidemic. The
participants completed a self-administered questionnaire to
assess health beliefs and vaccination status. The response
rate in this study was a significant 75 percent.

What Larson and others, found was that “perceived
severity of influenzafl “perceived susceptibility to
influenzafl,“perceived efficacy of vaccinefi “perceived
expensiveness of vaccine", “self-reported inconvenience” and
“satisfaction" were all significantly correlated with
vaccine behavior. The investigators concluded “this study
has demonstrated that health beliefs regarding
susceptibility, severity, [vaccine] efficacy are important

factors in utilization of influenza vaccine” (p. 1211) .

30

Another experimental study, this one focusing on
mothers' adherence to a diet for their obese children
yielded further support for the model. This study included
motivation, demographic and enabling variables. Multiple-
item scales were used to assess each of the model's
dimensions with the participants, prior to the mothers
receiving a weight-reduction plan for their child. The
researchers conducted a multiple regression analysis in
which weight change measures were regressed against belief
measures (Becker et al., 1977). Nine items from the
motivation, susceptibility, severity and benefits categories
accounted for approximately 49% of the variance in the
children's weight change. The researchers concluded that
health beliefs may be most important at the beginning of a
regimen, but over time and in the introduction of factors
(i.e. weight change, boredom with the regimen of the diet)
other variables may play a significant role (Becker et al.,
1977).

Other research using the Health Belief Model has been
done in studying preventative dental behavior, Tay-Sachs
carrier status screening program, practice of breast self-
examinations, attendance at screening programs for high-
blood pressure to name a few. Summary reports from these
studies provide support for the model. There are
limitations to the model, such as the fact that some of the
early research was done with small samples and were

retrospective in nature. In addition, there has been

31
inconsistency in the questions used in all the studies,
which points to difficulty in determining the overall value
of the Model. However, the Health Belief Model still
remains among the foremost models in health behavior
prediction today (Glanz, Lewis, and Rimer, 1990). Lenski
used the Health Belief Model as the prototype for the Safety
Belief Model in her study in 1992. This researcher utilized
the Safety Belief Model as a framework to examine
precautionary behavior regarding personal safety behavior

among residential college students.

8' 1 E 1 .
Studies of specific health and safety hazards suggest
that people tend to believe that they are invulnerable.
Most people believe that misfortunes will more than likely
strike others, not themselves. Specifically, people tend to
believe that their own risks are below average (Harris and
Guten, 1979; Kirscht et al., 1966; Robertson, 1977). In a
study of 100 college students comparing their own chances of
experiencing 45 different health and life threatening
problems with the chances of their peers, they showed a
significant optimistic bias for 34 of these hazards,
consistently considering their own chances to be below
average (Weinstein, 1982). Weinstein suggests that the
realization that one's own risk is above average as a
powerful motivator for change in behavior. Health promotion

and safety campaigns need procedures and illustrations that

32
will lead people to recognize their own risk status, and
eliminate the unrealistic optimism.demonstrated in this
study (Weinstein, 1982).

Many adolescents perceive themselves as being
invulnerable to the risks and consequences of their own
behavior. In a study focused on sexual risk-taking,
researchers found that while adolescents usually acknowledge
others suffering from the consequences of risk-taking
behaviors, they perceive themselves as being somehow immune
(Moore and Rosenthal, 1991). Despite having adequate
knowledge of reproduction and contraception, pregnant
adolescents still had difficulty believing that pregnancy
“could happen to them”(Donnelly, 1990) .

Robinson, 1988, investigated perceived invulnerability
among teenage fathers, observed after concluding his
research:

Teenagers see themselves as immortal and

invulnerable. They believe they are immune from

such consequences as automobile accidents, death,
-or becoming involved in unwanted pregnancies.

Over and over again I have heard ‘I never really

thought it would happen to her' when teenage

fathers describe an unplanned pregnancy with their

female partners. Such magical thinking helps

teenagers--especially younger teenagers--to

convince themselves that they are somehow special

and exempt from the conditions under which others

must abide. (p. 5)

In an investigation of older adolescents, Burger and
Burns (1988) found that low rates of contraceptive use was

also attributable to perceived invulnerability. In a study

of undergraduate college women, it was found that sexually

33
active females tended to see themselves as less likely than
other students, other women their age, and women of
childbearing age to become pregnant.

Biglan et al.,(1990) revealed in an investigation that
adolescents who engage in one type of sexual risk taking
were also apt to engage in other high-risk sexual behaviors.
They found that teenagers who have sex with multiple
partners whom they did not know very well are also not
likely to use condoms. Moreover, these forms of sexual
risk-taking were also related to other health-risk
behaviors, such as drinking alcohol, use of drugs or smoking
cigarettes (Orr et al., 1991).

Although significant research has been completed on
adolescent behavior, very little research has been completed
on perception of vulnerability and risk-taking behavior
among traditional age college students. It is this
researcher's intent to suggest risk behavior in college age
students relates to their development as individuals in the
late stages of adolescence. A number of college age
students come to college under the legal age of eighteen.
For all practical purposes, college administrators ‘treat’
their population as adults complete with all the
responsibilities that come along with that status. Aside
from biological age, not to mention personal development
issues, many of today's college students may not be equipped
emotionally to deal with the changes in their environment.

One recent study of acquaintance rape prevention

34
programs at a rural community college found that perception
of vulnerability can be affected by direct efforts. Gray
(1990), Department Chair of Criminal Justice at Wor-Wic Tech
Community College, suggests that educators must do more than
disseminate information about crime on campus if their goal
is to alter risk—taking behavior that may lead to students
becoming victims of crime. Simply providing information
about who is victimized and tips on avoiding being a victim
will have little impact on students who do not feel
vulnerable or who do not perceive the seriousness of the
threat of victimization (Gray, 1990).

Gray suggests that students must first think that they
personally are at risk, before they will take the threat of
crime seriously and make a commitment to reduce risk-taking
behaviors. He found that by personalizing acquaintance rape
prevention programs to include local data and examples of
actual crimes which have occurred, perceptions of
vulnerability and intent to avoid risk-taking behaviors were
increased for the participants in his study. Students then
see that others just like them, on their campus, in their
town have been victims of crime. Thus, specific activities
initiated by colleges and universities can influence student
knowledge and behaviors and have the effect of reducing
victimization.

Many college students are entering the final stages of
adolescence, which researchers have targeted as a life stage

of high risk (Jessor, 1984). Jessor singles out adolescence

35

as "a time of relatively high risk in which risk-related
learning takes place - learning new risk behaviors, of risk-
prone personality dispositions, and of risk-enhancing
opportunities in the environment" (Jessor, 1984, p.86).

Jessor suggests that adolescence is period of change.
Transitions occur from physical changes to social and
psychological changes in a wide variety of domains and take
place rapidly relative to its rate in nearly all other life
stages. White (1975) suggests that the main developmental
trends associated with late adolescence and early adulthood
as: the stabilizing of ego identity; the freeing of personal
relationships; the deepening of interests; the humanizing of
values; and the expansion of caring. What White does not
comment on is the focus on the variety of behaviors relevant
to health.

Jessor suggests several implications for health that
are inherent in this life stage: (1) adolescence is a
period in which a variety of behaviors relevant to health
are initially learned and tried out, such as drug use or
precocious sexual activity, (2) many of the psychosocial
attributes that influence and regulate the occurrence of
health-related behaviors - values, beliefs, attitudes,
motivations, personal controls, self-concept, general
lifestyle - are also acquired or consolidated during
adolescence, (3) the changing environment of adolescence -
peers come to play a greater role in this stage relative to

the role of parent or other adults, there is greater access

36
to potentially health-compromising materials (drugs,
alcohol, automobiles, metorcycles), (4) the pervasiveness
and rapidity of personal and societal changes may require
coping with feelings of inadequacy and expectations of
failure and (5) the asynchrony of changes is likely to be
stressful and problematic for health. Jessor suggests that
based on these descriptors of this stage, that adolescence
is a critical period for significant health-promoting
intervention. In particular, that this is the time to
discuss the management of personal responsibility for
adolescents for their own health as well as the health and
safety of others (Jessor, 1984).

The primary causes of death and disability at this life
stage are behavioral in origin. Forms of violence - traffic
accidents, suicides, and homicides - constitute the leading
cause of death among this age group. Jessor describes risk
not only in terms of behavior, but also of personality
attributes and environmental supports. For health educators
the key concern should be to make adolescents aware that
there are risks associated with many of the behaviors in
which they engage. The choice of using risk behavior versus
risk-taking behavior is suggested by Jessor to discuss the
interrelatedness of many of the health compromising
behaviors already suggested earlier. He suggests a “web of
causation” comprised of five domains: social environment,
perceived environment, personality, biology/genetics and

other behavior. Risk behavior crosses over the different

37
domains and elements of the web of causation ought to be of
great importance to the design of intervention efforts.
Intervention programs should highlight the linkages between
the adolescent problem behaviors, not attempt to focus on
one issue at a time, since research shows that risk
behaviors often occur simultaneously. Successful
interventions should be oriented to healthy lifestyle
choices by providing specific knowledge and developing
attitudes and skills necessary to deal with the challenges

of the environment and personal choices(Jessor, 1991).

W

In this chapter, an effort has been made to look at
campus crime, the physical environment of the college campus
and two theoretical approaches to examine human behavior.
The Health Belief Model was reviewed as an important
framework for the Safety Belief Model, used in this study.
Campus crime and issues of personal safety have not been the
focus of much research in higher education. The angle of
examining college student behavior as it relates to the
later stages of adolescence is a promising new way to view

college student issues.

Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY

This study examined the relationship between safety
belief variables, modifying variables and intention to use
precautionary safety strategies. In addition, this study
examines the relationship between personal safety devices
and safety perceptions and behaviors of residential college
students at two small, private colleges.

This chapter will describe the sample, the instrument,
methods of data collection, and how the data were analyzed.
The instrumentation section will relate questionnaire items

with the dependent and independent variables.

W

The population included all the residential students at
two nearby private colleges located in the suburban area of
a midesize Northeastern city. The two institutions,
Nazareth College and St. John Fisher College are small,
liberal arts colleges founded in the Roman Catholic
tradition. Located a mile away from each other, the
institutions have positive relationships with each other and

the surrounding community of Rochester, New York.

38

39
Nazaretthllege

Founded in 1924, Nazareth College has an undergraduate
population of 1375 students. During the Fall Semester, 1996,
62% of these students reside on campus, in five separate
residence halls. Of the 854 resident population, 75% are
female and 25% are male. An underground tunnel system
connecting many of the halls to central campus buildings
provides convenience and protection against the elements of
the often harsh climate of upstate New York.

Since 1993, the Campus Safety Department of Nazareth
College has provided a "Security Escort" beeper to all of
their full time faculty, staff and students. The Security
Escort beeper is a small hand held transmitter, which many
of the users attach to a key ring for convenience. When
activated by the user, the system instantly communicates the
identity and location of the user to a central console
located in the Campus Safety Office. This is accomplished
through a network of radio receivers that are strategically
located throughout the grounds and buildings of the Nazareth
Campus. There is no charge to those who choose to obtain a
beeper and participate in this personal safety system.
During the Fall Semester, 1996, 55% of the resident
population were enrolled with the Campus Safety Office as

users of this personal safety system.

40

SL_John_Eisher_Ccllece

Founded in 1948, St. John Fisher College has an
undergraduate population of 1485 students. During the Fall
Semester, 1996, 45% of these students resided in six
residence halls on campus. Of the 674 resident population,
54% are female and 46% are male. Similar to Nazareth
College, both campus life staffs include trained security
officers who respond to criminal activity on campus, and who
are responsible for educational programming on safety issues
for campus members. This campus, however, does not have an

advanced security system in place.

W

In this study, an attempt was made to survey all
residential students at the two colleges. Students were
contacted from lists provided by the Residential Life
Offices at both campuses. Students in the survey were

enrolled during the Fall Semester, 1996.

Instnmentation

Instrumentation for the study consisted of a
questionnaire developed by Lenski(1992) titled The Campus
Safety Survey. Her questionnaire was developed using
questions from prior Health Belief Model research (from
Maiman, Becker, Kirscht, Haefner & Drachman, 1977:
Rosenstock, 1974b reported in Lenski, 1992). Likert scales

were used in the instrument because they demonstrated

41
substantial convergent reliability when used in the Health
Belief Model (Cummings, Jette & Rosenstock, 1978).

The Campus Safety Survey was slightly modified to
include questions regarding personal safety device use for
both campus resident populations. Additional questions
regarding the personal safety device were asked only of
Nazareth College students. This author also tailored the
demographic information so it was applicable to this
population and environment.

In April, 1996, a panel of seven resident students from
each institution had an opportunity to examine the
instrument for applicability, language and to determine the
length of time needed to complete the instrument. Slight
modifications were made to the language of two questions

relating to beeper use as a result of this exchange.

DataJollection

Permission to conduct the study was requested and
granted from the residential life directors at both
institutions involved in the study. The author met with the
resident advisors at both institutions two weeks prior to
the questionnaires being distributed to explain the study
and the importance of subject participation.

Since all resident students were involved in the study,
the researcher estimated that four weeks into the semester
was adequate time for new students to acclimate and set

patterns of behavior within the context of the college

42
environment.

On September 30, 1996, all resident students at both
colleges received a cover letter describing the study, a
Campus Safety Survey, an addressed return envelope, and a
postcard for the respondent to participate in the incentive
program developed by the researcher (Appendices A,B,C,D,E,F
and G).

The cover letter (Appendices A and D) was signed by the
director of Residential Life at Nazareth College and the
researcher employed by St. John Fisher College. It
explained the voluntary and anonymous nature of the study,
emphasized the importance of a high participation rate, and
provided a phone number and name of someone respondents
could contact with questions regarding the study. In
addition, the incentive program offered by the researcher,
"Dinner and A Show" was explained in full detail.

A follow-up postcard (Appendix G) was distributed to
all resident students at both campuses on October 4, 1996.
It reminded them to turn in their survey and to enter the
"Dinner and A Show" drawing. They were also told that they
could obtain another survey from their resident advisor if
they had misplaced their original one.

To increase the return rate, the researcher offered the
Opportunity for respondents to participate in a drawing for
a gift certificate to a local restaurant and two free movie
passes. The "Dinner and a Show" program was only available

for those who returned their postcards and completed surveys

43
by the October 7, 1996 deadline. Three winners were
selected from each institution and their gift certificates
and movie passes were delivered to them on October 14, 1996.

Of the 1528 mailed questionnaires, 1003 were returned.
Of those returned, 997 questionnaires were useable. The
overall response rate for the study was 65%.
Reseamhflsign

Variables drawn from the Health Belief Model and campus
crime literature were formulated into the Safety Belief
Model I by Tammy Lenski in 1992. In the present study,
Lenski's model was modified into Safety Belief Model II (see
Figure 3.1). As with Lenski's Model, the safety belief
variables and the safety behavior intention variable were
set up as scales, since the responses to the questions in
the survey targeting beliefs and intentions were ultimately
summed to a score. Figure 3.2 lists the survey items that
comprised each of the independent and dependent variables
used in the analysis.

As stated earlier in this chapter, the purpose of the
study was to test the usefulness of the Safety Belief Model
in predicting students' behavioral intentions. Another goal
of the study was to examine the relationship between

personal safety devices and safety related behaviors.

AnDnmiLx
The respondents were assured of complete anonymity.

Each respondent was instructed to return their completed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eugen".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45

 

 

Frame 3.2

Way 8:54 Variables
0 Motivation to comply with recommended behavior

W

o Perceived susceptibility to campus crime
Aseessedlikelihoodd’heeolningaptopertycsinevictin
Assessedlikelihoodofbeeolningavioletnctimevietin
Amusedfihelihoodofbecununsaviolentaimevicdneonpetedmothuaudsnu
Feelingsot'nfietywhileoncenpmdmingthehy
Feeliupsot‘safetywhileonanpusatnipnt
Feelinpofsaietyinthetesideneehell
Opiniouofownneedtotab-ietyplm

o Faeeivedseverityol'crilnevieti-hation
Deyeedworrydmnvictituimou
mommammmm

O Pereeivedbeneiitsoftakingprecautions
Perceivedwilityoflnstinniontoredueevictimintion
Peseeiveddailitydselftoreducevictimimion
Amudtilitytodeiendseif
Speafic‘ knowledgeaboutsefietypreeemous'

Beliet'thet . in l .. . .
El'fthatplm ”0". ma! I ucnmzan. . on
F I' depeeificpreeennmons . .uciumm. .on

O Perceivedbarriesstotakingprecautions
Peers‘opiuionsd'safietyptecautions
Oonvenienced’safetyprecamions
mmmwmmmmmwmm:m
“MMCaflinafiiendtowukwithaMdutJQCaflingeeoonsetvieeanet
Micheaoppednmuingfiordnnight(d)Avoidiugpoorlyfitp¢hs.(e)lbckin¢
dommomatnight.(t)Lockingdommomwindowa®Clodngpmppedmior
m¢)Amngingfafitndmsinfamifiarnurounding(i)Avonfinghevmpuues
memmmflydmm

Mm Variables
o Demographicvarhbles e Enablingvariahles
A! Priormdanceatctinle-
Classstandin; mud-dime
Lenahottitueoaaupus worm
- Colese
W
A. Likelihood of using morn-ended Safety Precautions
BeluviorlmScote

B. likelihoodot’asiugpersoaalsafetybeeper

 

 

46
survey separately from their return postcard. Follow-up
reminders were sent to all respondents, not knowing who had
turned in their completed surveys or postcards for the
drawing. No coding system for identification was used on

any of the questionnaires or return postcards.

SI I' I' J E J .

Data from the survey were tabulated for the overall
sample, as well as broken down by college (Nazareth, St.
John Fisher), and a host of demographic and behavioral
variables including gender, class (e.g. freshman, sophomore,
junior, and senior), number of semesters residing on campus,

use of Escort protection system, perceived vulnerability and

safety awareness level. Differences between segments were
evaluated for significance using z-tests for percentages,
and analysis of variance for means. Differences between
segments that had a probability of occurrence of less than
.05 based on chance alone were considered statistically
significant.

Multiple regression analysis was used to identify those
factors which have the greatest impact on predicting safety
behavior intention and the use of a safety intervention,

such as the Eacort system” A.mmltiple regression analysis

provides an equation describing a dependent variable (e.g.
safety behavior intention, use of a beeper) as a function of

student responses on various attributes (the independent

47
variables). The weights assigned to the various attributes
in the equation (so-called beta weights) can be interpreted
as measures of relative importance of those attributes in
predicting responses on the dependent variables.

As Lenski did in her study, multiple regression was
used to test the null hypothesis and also tested the Safety
Belief Model by providing information on the strength of the
scales, variables and the overall predictive power of the
model. A regression analysis was run using the scales,

demographic variables and enabling variables.

Hypotheses
1. There will be no significant differences between any of

the safety belief variables and safety behavior
intention.

2. There will be no significant differences between any of
the demographic variables and safety behavior intention.

3. There will be no significant differences between any of
the enabling variables and safety behavior intention.

4. Safety device users will report higher scores on all of
the safety belief variables.

5. There will be no significant differences for safety
device users when categorized by demographic variables.

6. Safety device users will report higher scores on the
enabling variables.

7. Safety device users will report higher scores on safety
behavior intention.

E E' . . E I

. A student who lives in a
residence hall(dorm) at St. John Fisher College or
Nazareth College

48

Belief. A cognitive link between an object and what a
person knows about the object (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975)

Behayicr_1ntenticn. An expressed indication of the

probability a person will perform a specific behavior
Lenski, 1992)

Sa£n£¥_Behaxinr. Any activity undertaken for the
purpose of preventing or reducing susceptibility to

personal or property crime (Lenski, 1992)

YinlenD_Peraonal_Crime. A violent crime committed

against a person; includes murder, sex offenses,
robbery, and aggravated assault.

. A crime of property; includes burglary
larceny-theft, auto theft, arson, and destruction of
property.

. A small, hand held transmitter
when activated sends an electronic signal to Campus
Security Personnel offered to resident students at
Nazareth College.

CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Introduction

Results of the data analysis are presented in this
chapter. The survey respondents are described by the
demographic and enabling variables reported. Questionnaire
data, as it relates to the safety belief scales and the use

of the beeper will be presented.

Wars
The sample represented two subgroups, resident students
from Nazareth College and resident students from St. John

Fisher College.

D 1' I E I'
St. John Fisher surveys comprised 473 of the 997 usable
surveys. Forty percent of the Fisher respondents were male
and sixty percent were female. Similar to the existing
gender breakdown for the College cited in Chapter III,
Fisher's resident population is 46% male and 54% female.
Nazareth surveys comprised 524 of the 997 usable surveys.
Twenty-nine percent of the Nazareth respondents were male

and 71% were female. Again, this sample is similar to the

49

50
Nazareth resident population, which is 75% female and 25%
male.

Class representation in the sample for both
institutions was very similar. For Fisher, the respondents
were 37% freshman, 26% sophomore, 20% junior and 15% senior
(2% did not report their class standing). For Nazareth, the
respondents were 37% freshman, 24% sophomore, 20% junior,
and 19% senior.

Eighty-six percent of the Fisher respondents described
themselves as White, 4% described themselves as Black or
African American, 2.5% as Asian, Asian American, or Pacific
Islander, 2% as Hispanic and less than 1% for each of the
following categories: American Indian, Mexican American and
Puerto Rican. The remaining 2% answered this question by
describing themselves as “Other”.

Ninety-one percent of the Nazareth respondents
described themselves as White and less than 1% each for the
following ethnicity groups: Asian, Asian American or
Pacific Islander, American Indian, Puerto Rican, Black or
African American, Mexican American or Chicano and Hispanic.
The remaining 4% of the Nazareth sample described themselves
as “Other”.

The mean age of respondents for Fisher was 19.3 years
with 81% reporting they were under 21 and 19% reporting they
were 21 or over. The mean age of Nazareth respondents was
also 19.3 years. The same age breakdown existed for the

Nazareth respondents, 81% reported being under 21 and 19%

51
reported being 21 or over.

When asked to respond to how many semesters they lived
on campus, 41% of Fisher students stated less than one
semester, 8% said one to two semesters, 25% stated three to
four semesters and 25% reported five or more semesters.
Nazareth respondents again are similar on this demographic
variable. Forty-one percent reported less than one
semester, 7% one to two semesters, 23% stated three to four
semesters and 28% reported five or more semesters on campus.
Both college samples spent similar amounts of time on campus
in the residential environment.

The Fisher sample self-reported their grade point
average in the following breakdown: 16% at 3.5 - 4.0, 74%
between 2.5 - 3.5 and 9% less than 2.5. The Nazareth sample
reported their grade point average in the following manner:
25% at 3.5 - 4.0, 68% between 2.5 — 3.5 and 4% less than
2.5. Seventeen Nazareth respondents chose not to respond to
this question. The mean grade point average was 3.2 for the
Nazareth sample and 3.06 for the Fisher sample.

Table 4.1 provides a frequency distribution of
demographic variables for the Fisher and Nazareth

respondents.

52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.1 UINCY DISTRIBUTION OF DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES
De-epaplie Variable Fisher I Fisha' 56 Nausea: f Nazareth '/o
Gouda
Male 188 39.7 109 20.8
Full: 280 59.2 411 78.4
' ' 5 1.0 4 .8
Total 473 100.0 524 100
RaeelEthieity
Wlie 406 85.8 477 91.0
Black or Afiie-I Am 20 4.2 2 .4
Am Asia Alain or 12 2.5 4 .7
Pacific Isl-h
Lena / South / Canal 10 2.1 1 .2
Am -
Am ink a Name 4 .8 3 .6
m
Pub lit. 3 .6 3 .6
Maia: Amine or Cine.» 1 .2 1 .2
7 15 20 3.8
10 2.1 13 2.5
Tall 473 100.0 524 100.0
MB
18 or b 165 34.9 187 35.7
19 128 27.1 128 24.4
20 84 17.7 108 20.6
21+ 88 18.6 96 18.3
' 8 1.7 5 .9
TM 473 100.0 524 100.0
Clan Shh
Fm 173 36.6 191 36.4
Me 124 26.2 126 24.0
Ju'or 93 19.7 106 20.2
Sdtl 71 15.0 98 18.7
Mich; 10 2.1 3 .6
Total 473 100.0 524 100.0
Sm a Can:-
< 1 194 41.0 212 40.4
1 - 2 36 7.6 39 7.4
3 - 4 119 25.1 124 23.7
5 + 119 25.1 146 27.9
' 5 1.0 3 .6
Trial 473 100.0 524 100.0
Gnfi Poi! A”
Una 2.5 41 8.7 20 3.8
2.5 - 3.0 158 33.4 142 27.1
3.0 ~ 3.5 190 402 215 41.0
3.5 - 4.0 75 15.8 130 24.8
' ' 9 1.9 17 3.2
Ton! 173 100.0 524 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

53
E 11' M . 11 I E |'

Another dimension of the Modifying Variables is what
Lenski labeled Enabling Variables. Enabling variables
include items concerning property crime victimization and
violent personal crime experience. Table 4.2 illustrates
responses from the sample for enabling variable items. As
the table shows, Fisher students were somewhat more likely
to report being a victim of a property crime (33% vs 25% of
Nazareth students), although both segments were similar in
terms of their experiences with violent crime (14% and 12%
respectively). Nazareth students, however, were twice as
likely to report attendance at safety awareness programs
(49% vs 24% of Fisher students).

When the expert panel of seven students from each
college initially reviewed this question for the researcher,
most of the Fisher students had initial difficulty with this
question. After further investigation into the classes and
workshops offered by both communities, this researcher
learned that Nazareth entitles their self-defense workshops
as “self-defense classes” and offers these free each
semester, whereas Fisher offers a Tai Kwon Do class through
the physical education department only during the fall

semester for a fee. In addition, because of the Security
EScort System in place at Nazareth, new student orientation

programs spend a significant time (approximately two hours

during the first day students are on campus) discussing the

54
logistics of the beeper system. These two considerations

may account for the large difference in the samples.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IUNe42
ENABLE“:VMJUABLESJDTESTFONHHHNJUTDNGES

Enfluhu‘hwhbkdums Naumdh Fkbu'
Have been a victim of property crime , 25%‘ 33%‘
Have been a victim of a violent personal crime 12% 14%
Has attended crime mess or self-defense 49%“ 24%"
endow»)

‘p < .05

S E | E J' E M . 1]
The Safety Belief Variables were scored and divided
into'three ranges: high, mid-range and low. Table 4.3
illustrates the results of independent z-tests for
percentages between the colleges. A discussion of
statistically significant differences among the various

demographic variables within the scales follows Table 4.3.

55

13Me43
SAFETYIHNflHHHONSEKMJISMDHHHHBHMDTTZflflfiflsIKHRFERCENTAGIS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

\hwhbk INuumuh thu'
hflnhuhmnoCbmpw

High Score 32%" 21%"

Mid-range Score 41%‘ 33%"

meSane 27%! 46%‘
PoodwdSqumbmw'

HmmSone zen 28%

hfidnmpeSane ERG «#06

meSone 3m% 2&%
.HuomndSmndq'

High Score 33% 31%

hfidnmgeSane ZZK 19%

LowSaxe 49% son
HuummdBaufiu

High Score 30%‘ 24%‘

hfidmuchune 42% 3m%

meSane 28%! BEK'
Euamdeufias

High Score 28%"' 38%"

Mid-range Score 35% 33%

meSane 3T%‘ 29%‘
’p < .05.

H I' . 3 J . 1 E l l E 1 .

The Motivation to Comply Scale is a significant variable
because it includes the importance of general health
interest in contributing to practicing safe behavior.

Motivation to comply refers to positive health
incentives such as attentiveness to physical health and
wellness. In the overall scale, 32% of Nazareth students
scored in the high range for motivation to comply compared

to 21% reported by Fisher, a difference which was

56
statistically significant (see table 4.3). The Nazareth
sample also showed a significant difference (p<.05) at the
average and low levels, with Nazareth students continuing to
report at a higher level for motivation and interest in
practicing safe behaviors than Fisher students. Fisher
respondents (46%) scored in the low range for practicing
safe behavior compared to Nazareth response of 27% in the
low range score.

The first question factored into the Motivation to
Comply Scale asks “How much attention do you pay to your
health?” .A significant difference existed between males
(88%) and females (96%) reporting “a lot/some attention to
health”. In the Fisher sample where the breakdown of gender
is mere equally distributed than Nazareth, the females still
report more attention to health (94%), than their male
counterparts (87%). It is also interesting to note that the
higher the self-reported grade point average, the higher the
amount of attention paid to health issues. Ninety-seven
percent of students with over a 3.5, paid a great deal of
attention to health, compared to 85% with a 2.5 grade point
average or below.

In the overall sample, age seems to influence attention
to health issues, attention paid to wellness programs, and
concern for personal safety. In both sample populations,
students who are 18 or younger (46%) pay “a lot of
attention? to personal safety. In this age category (18 or

less), Fisher students reported(81%) at the “a lot of

57
attention” level, compared to Nazareth (56%) .

The other two elements of Motivation to Comply are
awareness of campus safety services and use of these
services. Awareness and usage of campus safety services
seemed to be higher among Nazareth students. Specifically,
99% of the Nazareth population reported being aware that of
campus safety services being available to them, compared to
94% of Fisher students. Those who take advantage of the
services are more likely to be from Nazareth, and more
likely to be female (43% as compared to 21% for male) and

older students.

E . l 5 '1'1' 3 2 .

There was no significant difference between the
Nazareth and Fisher samples on the perceived susceptibility
scale (see Table 4.3). Within the combined sample however,
females were more likely to score in the high range than
males (33% vs 18%). Of those with a grade point average of
2.5 or less, 43% scored low on perceived susceptibility
compared with only 28% of those with those with a grade
point average of 3.5 or better. Grade point average
continues to be a factor within the scores of the safety
belief scales.

Perceived likelihood of being a victim of property
crime is also an item included in the Perceived
Susceptibility Scale. Freshman (65%) were most likely to

select “highly unlikely to be a victim” compared to all

58
other upperclass students in the combined sample, with no
other classes reporting over 59%.

In speaking to the issue of invulnerability, there was
no significant difference between students at the two
colleges with regard to the question of their perceived
likelihood of becoming a victim of property crime. Eighty-

two percent of the total sample report that their chances

are less/much less than others, with no significant
differences with respect to gender, age, race/ethnicity,
’semesters on campus, and grade point average.

When asked about perceived likelihood of becoming a
victim of violent personal crime, the percentages are very
similar with 83% of the total sample stating that they are
unlikely/very unlikely to become a victim» In the combined
sample, somewhat more females (17%) believe they that are
very likely to become victims of a violent personal crime
than their male peers (13%).

When reporting their own feelings of safety while on
campus, nearly all Nazareth and Fisher students report they
feel safe/very safe during daylight hours, 100% and 99%
respectively. Not surprisingly fewer report feeling safe
on campus after dark. Eighty-nine percent of Nazareth
students report feeling safe/very safe in comparison to 83%
Fisher students reporting the same way to this question.
Males (95%) feel much safer than women, with 82% saying

they feel safe/very safe on campus after dark.

59

In terms of feeling safe in their dorms, both
populations reported high levels of perceived safety.
Ninety-six percent of Fisher students report feeling
safe/very safe in the dorms compared to 99% of Nazareth
students. When looking at grade point averages, 100% of
students who have a 2.5 or less report feeling safe/very
safe in the dorms. This reinforces the relationship between
low grade point average and high feelings of perception of
safety in the residence halls.

When asked whether or not they believe that there are
specific precautions a person can take which will reduce his
or her chances of being a victim of a violent personal
crime, both Nazareth and Fisher students overwhelming agreed
with this statement (96%). Juniors at Nazareth agreed with

this statement mere often than any other class.

B . l S 'l E 2 . M' . . I'
This scale contains items for subjective assessment of
the effect of crime victimization on college, work, and
personal life. When asked how much do they worry about
being a victim.on campus, 45% of the Nazareth students
reported “a great deal/some” in comparison to Fisher's 37%
response. Female students at both institutions worry much
more than their male peers, (52% vs. 16%). This is a
significant difference at the p<.05 and one of the largest
gender differences in the study. Students with higher grade

point averages worry more about being a victim as

60
demonstrated by 88% with a 3.0 or higher responding “a great
deal/some" versus 43% with a 2.5 or less responding “little
or no worry”. Forty-six percent of seniors and freshmen in
both samples worry at about the same level, somewhat higher
than their sophomore and junior classmates (36%).

When asked to what extent concern for safety on campus
interferes with doing things they like to do, most of the
total sample replied “little/none”, with an 85% response to
this question. A small significant difference exists
between men (10%) and women (17%) responding “.a great
deal/some” extent to the which concern for safety interferes

with doing what they would like.

E . l E E' E I 1' E .

Perceived benefits are beliefs that compliance with
recommended safety precautions will reduce the threat of
crime victimization. An underlying theme to this scale is
the feeling of personal control over individual safety and
general ability to reduce victimization. Students were
asked the power the college had to reduce their chance of
becoming violent crime victims. There was no significant
difference between Nazareth and Fisher in their responses.

Seventy-five percent of females in the combined sample
responded that the college has “a great deal” or “some”
power, compared to the males (40%) in the combined sample

who believed that the college had “little” or “none” to do

61

with reducing the chance of victimization. Freshmen

students (78%) were also more likely to believe the college
has a great deal of power in this area (78% vs 68% of
upperclassmen).

When asked about their personal power to reduce the
chance of victimization, 85% responded that they had "a
great deal” or “some” power, with females responding a bit
higher (87%) in comparison to males (81%). On a similar
theme, over 97% of the entire sample “agreed” or “agreed very
tmxflf that there are specific precautions a person can take
which will reduce his or her chances of being a victim.

A compiled list of the suggested safety precautions
from each college are listed in Tables 4.4 and 4.5.
Respondents had an opportunity within the survey to list
safety precautions students could take on their campus.
Students at both institutions listed “Don't walk alone/Don't
walk alone at night7*with the highest frequency.

In the area of assessment of their ability to
physically defend themselves from attempted crime, the
gender variable shows a significant difference at the .05
level, with 86% of the males in the combined sample
reporting that they were “likely” to be able to defend
themselves in comparison to their female peers, only 57% of

whom see themselves as “likely” to defend themselves.

62

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FM 4.4 SAFETY PRECAUTIONS RECORD- BY FISHER STUDENTS

Precaution

Don’t walk alone/don’t walk alone at night. 205
Be alert/aware of surroundings 49
Take self-defense class 48
Cuwpeppmpny/m 35
Lock your door 19
Avoid poorly lit streets/paths 17
Stay away fiom/don’t leave parties with Hangers 15
Use an escort service 14
Be aware of and use campus safety services 12
Use common sense 12
Carry personal beeper/alarms 1 1
Tell people where you’re going 11
Sayincontrol atparties/don’tdrinktoonmch 9
Take precautions 7
Walk with confidence 5
Don’t hesitate to fight back 6
Don’t make anyone mad 4
Use Blue phones 4
Don’t respond to fights 3
Don’t can-y lots of money 3
Haveyom'keysreadybeforereachingdoor/car 2
Carry a whistle 2
Don’t dress provocatively 2
Don’t prop doors 1
Don’t provoke trouble/dress provocatively 1
Wear light clothing 1

 

 

 

 

n=307

63

Figure 4.5

SAFETY PRECAUTIONS RECORD- BY NAZARETH STUDENTS

 

Preeaution

 

Don’t walk alone/don’t walk alone at night

286

 

Take self-defame class

120

 

Carry Security Escort

102

 

Be alert/aware of surroundings

 

Lockyourdoor

 

Avoid poorly lit meets/paths

 

Stay in control at parties/don’t drink too much

 

Stay away fiom/don’t leave parties with strangers

 

Beawareofandusecampussafetyservices

 

Use common sense

 

Canypepper spray/mace

 

Use an escort service

 

Walk with confidence

 

Tell pe0ple where you’re going

 

Don’thesitatetofightback

 

Haveyomkeysreadybeforereachingdoor/car

 

Don’t respond to fights

 

Don’t make anyone mad

 

Carryawhistle

 

Don’tdressprovocatively

 

Don’t can-y lots of money

 

Don’t provoke trouble/dress provocatively

 

 

Don’tcommitacrime

 

 

 

54
E . l E . I l' E .

Perceived barriers are subjective reasons why taking
suggested safety precautions are not met with a positive
response. The questions included in this scale assess
students' negative perceptions of the recommended safety
behaviors, including peers' opinions of safety precautions
and convenience of use.

Nazareth students appear to be less bothered by taking
safety precautions than the Fisher sample. When asked if
they agreed with the statement.TSometimes I'm.embarrassed to
insist on certain safety precautions when I'm out with
friends", more Nazareth students (78%) disagreed with the
statement than Fisher (68%). When asked about the amount of
time required to take safety precautions, 43% of the Fisher
students report that they don't take precautions because the
behaviors take too much time, in comparison to 35% of
Nazareth students.

Finally in this category, students were then asked to
rate the degree of hassle for a series of safety
precautions. The list of safety precautions are rated by
Nazareth and Fisher samples in Table 4.6. The safety
precautions which are statistically significant at the .05

level are asterisked.

Figure 4.6

65

RATINGS OF SAFETY PRECAUTIONS - PERCENTS ‘p < .05.

Qautioa:lngeneral,hownmdtofalnsdearethefoflowingufetyprecmfions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRECAUTION Nuareth% Fisher-96
Asldngafiieultowalkoncampuswithyou VeryEasy 41 37
afisrdark Easy 42 4O
Allassle 8" 12‘
Don’tDo 9 ll
Callingafiiendtowalkoncampuswithyou Veryksy 28 30
aflerchrk Easy 42 36
AI-hsale 18 19
Don’tDo 12 15
Callingthecarqmspoliceaerviceforeacort VeryBasy 20 18
mmafiertheslmttlelnsstoppedfir Easy 29 32
thenight AI-lassle 21 23
Don’tDo 31 28
Avoiding" poorlylitpathsoncanpus. VeryEasy 26 24
Easy 50 49
AHassle 16 18
Don’tDo 8 10
lodung' dormroomatmght‘ VetyEasy 82 77
Easy 14‘ 19‘
Al-lasale l l
Don’tDo 3 3
Keepmg' dammcmwmdows' locked VeryEasy 39‘ 32'
Easy 23 22
Al'hsale 9 12
Don’tDo 28" 35‘
Clash oath restdace' lllldoorsyoufind VeryEasy 39‘ 31‘
pruppedopm. Easy 37 38
Al-lassle 7 8
Don’tDo 17‘ 24‘
Arranginforfirst—timedatestooccurin VeryEasy 31 30
fimiliaraunmmdinga. Easy 48 45
AHassle 5' 9‘
Don’tDo l6 l6
Avoilingleavingapartyalonewithanew VeryEasy 33 29
W. Easy 47 43
Al-lassle 6' 11"
Don’tDo 14 17
Noufytng' '- secunty' ofausptctous" personson VeryEasy 24 20
campmorintherssidmce' hall. Easy 48‘ 40‘
Al-laaale 15‘ 22‘
Don’tDo 29 18

 

 

66
S E E l . I | .

The Safety Belief Model postulates that several safety
belief variables, combined with a student's demographic
characteristics and certain life experiences, could predict
the likelihood of following certain simple and common safety
precautions. Such precautions include calling a friend to
walk with after dark, using an escort service, avoiding
poorly lit paths, locking doors and windows, securing open
doors, notifying security personnel of suspicious persons,
and arranging for first-time dates to occur in familiar
surroundings (Lenski et a1, 1996).

The Safety Behavior Intention scale was computed from
the respondents' ratings of the likelihood they would take
the same safety precautions listed in the Perceived Barriers
scale. The responses were summed to a safety behavior
intent score. Responses to the intention scale questions
are provided in Table 4.7.

For each of the safety precautions (with the exception
of “Calling campus security for an escort”) , females in both
samples reported a much greater likelihood of taking
specific precautions. Females are more likely to call/ask a
friend to walk with them, avoid poorly lit paths, lock their
dorm door at night, avoid leaving a party with new
acquaintance, arrange for date to occur in familiar
surroundings and would notify security if they saw a

suspicious person on campus.

Table 4.7

67

SAFETY BEHAVIOR INTENTION - LIKELIHOOD OF TAKING SPECIFIC SAFETY
PRECAUTIONS DURING THE MONTH, INDEPENDENT Z-TESTS FOR PERCENTAGES

v

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Preeaution Nazareth Fisher
at 1' m . f

l. Call/askafiiendtowalkwithyourafierdark

Definitely will 3%" 15%" 3%" 24%"

Probably will 11%" 41%" 19%" 40%"

Probably won’t 44% 38% 39% 31%

Definitely won’t 42% 6%" 39%" 5%"
2. Call campus security for an escort after dark

Definitely will 1% 1% 2% 5%

Probably will 3%" . 9%" 9%" 16%"

Probably won’t 35%" 64%" 36%" 56%"

Definitely won’t 61%" 26%" 53%" 23%"
3. Avoid poorly lit paths after dark

Definitely will 6%" 33%" 7%" 38%"

Probably will 28%" 49%" 31%" 42%"

Probably won’t 41%" 15%" 39%" 17%"

Definitely won’t 25%" 3%" 23%" 3%"
4. Lock dorm room at night

Definitelywill sow lass/a- 70%* 377»

Probably will 25%" 8%" 19%" 10%"

Probably won’t 18%" 3%" 10%" 2%"

Definitely won’t 7%" 1%" 1% 1%
5. Keep dorm windows locked at night

Definitely will 13%" 24%" 19%" 27%"

Probably will 27% 25% 21% 23%

Probably won’t 39% 38% 31% 30%

Definitely won’t 21% 13%" 29%" 20%"
6. Close a propped door in your dorm

Definitely will 14%‘I 26%" 17% 24%

Probably will 25%" 42%" 35% 40%

Probably won’t 48%" 29%" 35% 31%

Definitely won’t 13%" 3%" 13%" 5%"

 

 

68

Table 4.7

SAFETY BEHAVIOR INTENTION - LIKELIHOOD OF TAKING SPECIFIC SAFETY
PRECAUTIONS DURING THE MONTH. INDEPENDENT Z-TESTS FOR PERCENTAGES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7tAnumefindueuuxnminfimflhrnmmwmmms
Definitely will 12%" 42%" 1 1%" 43%"
Probably will 33%" 48%'I 39% 43%
Probably won’t 38%" 7%" 35%" 9%"
Definitely won’t 17%" 3%" 15%" 5%"
8. Avoid leaving party alone with a new acquaintance
Definitely will 11%" 50%" 9%" 53%"
Probably will 26%" 42%" 38% 36%
Probably won’t 43%" 7%" 36%" 8%"
Definitely won’t 20%" 1%" 17%" 3%"
91kflfinnannyflyuuneasmmkkmspuummmcmmpu
Ikfimuhnfin 11%" 29%" 1&%" 21%"
Probably will 39% 45% 45% 43%
Probably won’t 34%" 34% 34% 27%
Definitely won’t 10%" 5% 5% 3%
"p<05

Not surprisingly, when the Safety Behavior Scores were

summed, the females scored significantly higher at both

institutions.

However, the difference between the genders

at the two schools was similar,- men in the high score range

(7% Nazareth and 10% Fisher),

range(44% Nazareth and 46% Fisher).

females in the high score

Table 4.8 shows the

distribution of Safety Behavior Intention scores by gender

for each of the two colleges.

 

69

Table 4.8
SAFETY BEHAVIOR INTENTION Z-‘I'ES‘I‘ FOR PERCENTAGES COMPARISON
‘GROWWSNGENDERJICUKJIEEI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Safety Behavior Intention Score Nazareth Fisher
at 1' III 1'
High Score 7%" 44%" 10%" 46%"
Mid-range Score 20%" 37%" 25% 32%
Low Score 73%" 19%" 65%" 22%"
" p < .05.

One of the study's specific purposes was to address the
question of whether the Safety Belief Model is useful in
predicting students' behavioral intentions. Research
questions were developed to examine if a relationship exists
between any of the safety belief variables, modifying
variables (includes demographic variables, prior
victimization and college) and the safety behavioral
intentions, as summarized by the Safety Behavior Intention
Scale. From the research questions, null hypotheses were
developed and tested in the data analysis. The first three
hypotheses dealt with the dependent outcome, Safety Behavior
Intention:

1). There will be no significant relationship between
any of the safety belief variables and safety
behavior intention.

2). There will be no significant relationship between
any of the demographic variables and safety
behavior intention.

3). There will be no significant relationship between

any of the enabling variables and safety behavior
intention.

70

In order to test these three null hypotheses and the
relationship between the safety belief scales, demographic
variables, enabling variables and safety behavior intention,
a multiple regression was performed. Safety behavior
intention was the dependent variable. The statistical
package used to analyze the data checked for
multicollinearity prior to including the variable in the
regression.

The analysis yielded nine variables which accounted for
64% of the variance in the dependent variable, Safety
Behavior Intention. The most significant predictor of
safety behavior intention was Perceived Barriers, which by
itself accounted for approximately 40% of the total variance
(Beta=.719). The next most important predictors included
Readiness to Act(Beta=.294), Gender(Beta=.288),and
Motivation to Comply(Beta=.l45). Other factors which had a
smaller influence on safety behavior intention included
semesters on campus, college, enabling factors, age and
perceived benefits variables, although, these variables
accounted for a very small proportion of the variance. The
stepwise regression is summarized in Table 4.9.

The regression indicated that safety behavior intention
does vary significantly with safety beliefs (perceived
barriers, readiness to act, motivation to comply and
perceived benefits), demographic variables (gender, age, and
semesters on campus), and enabling variables. Therefore,

the first three null hypotheses are rejected.

71

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.9
STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ON SAFETY BEHAVIOR INTENTION WITH
DENKXHUUHHCS

Variable Beta R R, Increase in R,
1. Perceived Barriers Scale .719 .634 .402 -

2. Readiness to Act .294 .777 .604 .202

3. Gender .288 .734 .539 .065

4. Motivation to Comply .145 .782 .612 .073

5. Semesters on Campus .118 .794 .631 .019
6.Coflege .076 .787 .619 .012

7. Enabling Factors .074 .791 .626 .007

8. Age .072 .796 .634 .008

9. Perceived Benefits .056 .798 .636 .002

W

The revised Safety Belief Model (Safety Belief Model
II) postulates that several belief variables, combined with
demographic and certain life experiences, could predict the
likelihood of using a personal safety beeper. Independent 2-
Tests for percentages and a multiple regression analysis
were used to analyze the data on beeper usage and
relationship with demographic, enabling and safety belief
variables.

Tables 4.10 and 4.11 provide information on who
possesses a beeper on the Nazareth Campus and how often they
use it. The most common characteristics of beeper owners
are: they are mostly women, who are freshman, 18 years old
or less, and self-report their grade point average over 2.5.

Females(72%)report a significant and dramatic comparison to

 

72
males(19%) in possession of this safety intervention. As
students' ages increase, as well as the length of time
reported on campus, the rate of possession steadily
decreases. And finally, as grade point average increases, so

does the percentage of beeper owners (see Table 4.10) .

Table 4.10
SAFETY DEVICE USERS CA‘I'EGORIZED BY DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES Z-TEST
FOR PERCENTAGES (BASE: NAZARETH COLLEGE STUDENTS)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Variable Possess Beeper
YES NO

Gender

male 19% 81%"

female 72%" 28%
Class Standing

Freshman 81%" 19%

Sophomore 66%" 34%"

Junior 38% 62%"

Senior 43% 57%"
Age

18 or less 82%" 18%

19 65%" 35%"

20 42% 58%"

21 + 40% 60%"
Race

White 62% 38%

Non-White ( 62% 38%
Semesters on Campus f

< 1 80%" 20%

1 - 2 50% 50%"

5 + 38% 62%"
Grade Point Average

Under 2.5 35% 65%"

2.5 - 3.0 59%" 41%

3.0 - 3.5 64%" 36%

3.5 - 4.0 63%" 37%

 

 

 

 

 

"p<.05

73
Among Nazareth students, 59% report some use of the
beeper, forty-one percent saying they use it “all the time”,
12% most of the time and only 3% of those who possess a

beeper, fail to use it at all (see Table 4.11).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TMSUWAMI RY or BEEPER USAGE (BASE: NAZARETH COLLEGE STUDENTS)
Use beeper all the time 41%
Use beeper most of the time 12%
Use beeper not very ofien 6%
Have beeper but never use it 3%
DomMpouus 3@%
n=SZ3 '

The remainder of the data analysis examines the
relationship between safety device usage and safety beliefs,
enabling variables, demographic variables and safety
behavior intention. Specific hypotheses will be addressed
with z-Tests for percentages and a multiple regression

analysis.

W:

Safety device users will report higher scores on all
safety belief variables.

Table 4.12 presents the findings of a Z-Test for
percentages with significant differences asterisked at the
p<.05 level. In all the safety belief variables, beeper

users scored higher than non-users with the exception of the

74
Perceived Barriers Scale and the Readiness to Act Scale.

Therefore, the hypothesis was rejected at the .05 level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.12
SAFETY BELIEF VARIABLES BY BEEPER USAGE, Z-TEST FOR PERCENTAGES
Ehkqanks Uuflkan
YES NO
Motivati' 'on to Comply
High 43%" 17%"
Mid- e 43% 39%
Low 14%" 44%"
Pauhafihmqmfimy
Hum 30% 2S%
hfldkuge 4T%" 3T%
LOW 23%" 41%"
‘HmmwflSwmny
High 41%" 20%"
hfldkmme 2E6 19%
Low 34%" 61%"
Paahuflkmfim
High 32%" 26%"
rhޢmmmz . 4H6 4M%
Low ‘ 2T% 30%
PuummdBufias
High 21w 39w
Mid-Range 35% 35%
Low 44%" 26%"
RedhwmoAm
High 28% 34%
Mid-Range 409/0" 270/“.
Low 32% 39%

 

 

 

 

 

"p<.05

75
H¥DQLhEBiS_5:

There will be no significant differences for safety
device users when categorized by demographic variables.

Table 4.10 categorizes safety device users by
demographic variables. Significant differences exist
between beeper users and non-users on gender, class
standing, age, race, semesters on campus and grade point

average. Hypotheses 5 is rejected at the p.<05. level.

Wis—6.:

Safety device users will report higher scores on the
enabling variables.

Table 4.13 presents the findings of a z-Test for
percentages with enabling factors by beeper usage. Beeper
users only scored higher in the mad-range level, not the
high level. It doesn't appear that prior life experience
impacts the use of beepers in this study. Overall, beeper
users do report somewhat higher scores, therefore Hypothesis

6 is accepted.

 

 

 

Table 4.13
ENABLING FACTORS BY BEEPER USAGE Z-‘I'EST FOR PERCENTAGES
Enabling Factor Scale Use Beeper
YES NO)
18%. 1F%
:3: «e 53%" 4W%"
low zen 4r%

 

 

 

 

"p<05

 

76
W:

Safety device users will report higher scores on safety
behavior intention.

Table 4.14 presents the findings of a Z-Test for
percentage between the two dependent variables, safety
behavior intention and beeper usage. At the p.<.05 level,
there was a significant difference between beeper users and
non-users at all three levels. A relationship appears to
exist between the safety belief intention and one's use of a
safety device. The higher one scores on safety behavior
intention, the greater their likelihood of using a beeper.

Based on this finding, Hypothesis 7 is accepted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.14
SAFETY BEHAVIOR INTENTION BY BEEPER USAGE Z-TEST FOR PERCENTAGES
Safety Behavior Intention Use Beeper

YES .NO
Hmm 47%" 20%"
Mid-Range 36% 30%
low 17%" 50%"
"p<05 ~

In addition to the z-Tests, a multiple regression
analysis was performed to determine which demographic,
enabling and safety belief variables are significant
predictors of beeper usage. The analysis yielded three
variables which accounted for 33% of the variance in the
dependent variable, Beeper Usage. The most significant

predictor of beeper usage was gender(Beta=.325), which by

77
itself accounted for approximately 20% of the total
variance. The other two predictor variables, Motivation to
Comply(Beta=.278) and Semesters on Campus(Beta=.274),
accounted for the remainder of the variance. The stepwise

regression is summarized in Table 4.15.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.15

STEPWISE MULTIPLE REGRESSION ON BEEPER USAGE WITH DEMOGRAPHICS
\hmhbk Ban R. R, InueuwbnR,
1. Gender .325 .446 .199 -
2. Motivation to Comply .278 .577 .334 .135
3. Semesters on Campus .274 .517 .268 .066

In an article in a recent trade journal for college
housing officers, a vendor of electronic alarm systems
stated that alarm and beeper systems can enhance an
institution's overall security program by offering constant
protection. This particular system comes complete with a
beeper for all users (similar to the one in use at
Nazareth). The vendor claims that. “electronic/beeper
systems are particularly well-suited for schools since they
will not fall asleep on the job, cannot be led into
temptation, and can sound at the first sign of trouble”
(Probst, 1996, p. 22).

Although not a specific aspect of this study on safety

behavior intention and beeper usage, it seemed significant

78

to include campus crime statistics for Nazareth College and
St. John Fisher College. Table 4.16 includes crime
statistics for the period that the survey was distributed
and collected (Fall, 1996). Crime on campus has held fairly
steady over the past five years, although there has been an
increase in grand and petty larceny and motor vehicle theft
on both campuses.

Also included in Table 4.16 is the notation of the year

that Nazareth acquired the Security Eacort System and made

beepers available to its community. 1993 and 1994 showed a
decline in crime on the Nazareth campus, but in the past two

years the statistics are comparable with St. John Fisher.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.16 '
CAMPUS CRIME STATISTICS 1992 - 1996 BY COLLEGE
Crime Categories 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
NC SJFC NC SJFC NC SJFC NC SJFC NC SJFC
hhmfln&flkm~ 0 0 0 0 (1 0 0 0 0 0
Negligent Homicide
Forcible Rape 0 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0
Non-forcible Sex 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0
(flfinus
Rummy 0 0 0 0 (1 0 1 0 0 0
lMflMWflwdAuth 0 7 (3 1 1 3 0 3 0 3
Burglary 6 7 1 2 1 l8 4 10 3 1 l
Larceny (Grand & 80 101 66 72 34 85 91 73 114 9?.
Petty)
Motor Vehicle 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 5 4
ram
Anon 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NC: Nazareth College. SJFC: St. John Fisher College
Nazareth installed the Security Escort System in Fall, 1993

79
Summary:

Seven primary research questions were addressed in this
study. The focus of the first three was on the relationship
between safety belief variables, enabling variables, and
demographic variables on safety behavior intention. The
final four questions focused on the relationship between
safety belief variables, enabling variables, demographic
variables, safety behavior intention on beeper usage. The
specific focus of the study was two-fold. One was to
examine the predictive value of the Safety Belief Model and
the second was to examine the relationship between use of
personal safety devices and safety behavioral intentions.

Statistical analysis included z—Tests for percentages
and multiple regressions. The seven hypotheses were
formulated at the .05 level of significance to test
relationships between segments on a variety of variables.
The results are summarized below:

Hypothesia_1: There will be no significant differences
between any of the safety belief variables and safety
behavior intention. The null hypothesis was rejected at the
.05 level.
Hypothesis_2; There will be no significant differences
between any of the demographic variables and safety behavior
intention. The null hypothesis was rejected at the .05
level.
Hypothesis_1: There will be no significant differences
between any of the enabling variables and safety behavior
intention. The null hypothesis was rejected at the .05
level.

Safety device users will report higher scores

on all of the safety belief variables. The hypothesis was
rejected at the .05 level.

8O

Hypothesis_5: There will be no significant differences for
safety device users when categorized by demographic

variables. The null hypothesis was rejected at the .05
level.

Hypothesis_fi: Safety device users will report higher scores

on the enabling variables. Hypothesis 6 was accepted at the
.05 level.

Hypothesis_1: Safety device users will report higher scores
on safety behavior intention. Hypothesis 7 was accepted at
the .05 level.

Chapter 5
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

W

The purpose of this study was two-fold. A prediction
study design was used to describe the relationship between
safety related beliefs, demographic and enabling variables
and the intention to use precautionary strategies. A model
designed by Lenski in 1992, Safety Belief Model I, was
modified to include an additional dependent variable. This
additional variable was the likelihood of using a personal
safety device. The study examined the relationship between
safety behavioral intentions and the use of personal safety
devices.

All residential students at Nazareth College and St.
John Fisher College, two small, private colleges located in
Rochester, New York were sent a copy of The Campus Safety
Survey (a seven page survey instrument), along with a cover
letter, a return postcard and an addressed return envelope.
This material was sent to the residential students' campus
mailboxes during the fourth week of the Fall Semester, 1996.
After the initial mailing, all residential students were
sent a reminder postcard and information of how to obtain a

second questionnaire if their first one was misplaced or

81

82
lost. A total of 1528 surveys were distributed and 1003
were returned. Of those returned, 997 questionnaires were
usable, representing a 65% return rate.

Research questions which focused on the relationships
between safety belief variables, modifying variables, safety
behavior intention and safety device users were formulated
into seven testable hypotheses. These hypotheses were
tested at the .05 level of significance. Descriptive
statistics were used to report characteristics of the
respondents. Differences between segments were evaluated
for significance using z-tests for percentages, and analysis
of variance for means. Multiple regression analysis was
used for each of the dependent variables to identify those
factors which have the greatest impact on predicting safety

behavior intention and the use of a personal safety device.

Conclusions

The major conclusion of this study is that it is
possible to predict intended safety device behavior and
safety device usage by using a combination of safety belief,
enabling and demographic variables. The Safety Belief Model
II was supported by the study results. Specific variables
and scales which contributed to the prediction of safety
belief intention and beeper usage are discussed in this

section.

83
SafetLBehaxioLIntr-mtion

The first three hypotheses focused on the safety belief
variables, demographic variables, enabling variables and
safety intention behavior. The factors which accounted for
the most variance in the dependent variable, safety behavior
intention, were Perceived Barriers, Readiness to Act, Gender
and Motivation to Comply.

Differences between the college samples were
significant in a number of the safety belief scales. Within
the Perceived Barriers Scale, Nazareth students appear to be
less bothered by taking safety precautions. Fisher students
scored at a higher rate than Nazareth, responding that most
safety precautions were a hassle, took too much time, and
that they would not likely call security or a friend for
assistance.

In comparison to Fisher, Nazareth students listed a
much greater number of safety precautions that a students
can take to reduce their likelihood of being a victim.
Nazareth reported a higher attendance rate at safety
programs and within Motivation to Comply, Nazareth scored
significantly higher than Fisher in the top two ranges,
demonstrating a higher level of motivation in practicing
safe behavior. Overall, students' attention to health,
wellness and personal safety, along with awareness of campus
safety services, contributed to prediction of intended
precautionary behavior.

Under the Perceived Severity Scale, Nazareth students

84
reported that they worry about crime victimization much more
than Fisher students and that they are more likely to use
campus safety services (i.e. such as using campus safety
personnel, calling a friend to walk with them after dark,
using blue phones or reporting suspicious persons to campus
safety).

There were no significant differences between Nazareth
and Fisher on perceived susceptibility scale. Both sample
populations saw themselves as relatively safe and less
likely than their peers to be a victim of crime. In the
combined sample, freshman saw themselves as highly unlikely
to be a victim.more so than the reporting upperclass
students. Although both campus samples feel very safe
during the day, Fisher students reported feeling less safe
at night.

In the overall comparison of the Fisher and Nazareth
samples and safety behavior intention, significant
differences existed between the genders within both
colleges. Within the score ranges, females reported
considerable higher safety behavior intention scores which
is consistent with other research, including Lenski's study
in 1992.

Saien¥_DB¥ine;nfia9£

A claim in a marketing brochure for a personal safety
device states that the device system delivers round-the—
clock protection indoors, outdoors, in elevators, even

underground in tunnels and basements (Security Escort,

85
1994). Another marketing piece claims that their electronic
device system enhances an institution's overall security by
offering constant protection (Probst, 1996).

This study provides information on student usage of a
beeper system and the relationship of this intervention with
other safety belief values and demographic information of
the sample.

During the Fall Semester, 1996, 886 personal safety
devices were in use at Nazareth College. Of the
subscribers, 473 were residential students, 290 were
utilized by commuters and the remaining beepers were used by
staff, faculty members and security personnel. The most
startling distribution is the gender breakdown. Of the 886
total, 810 beepers are used by women compared to 56 used by
the male population (Struble, 1997). In the reporting
sample, beeper users were mainly women, freshmen, 18 years
old or less, have lived on campus one semester or less, and
report their grade point average at 2.5 or over. Those that
possess a beeper, tend to use it. Most people who have a
beeper report using it all the time.

The remaining four hypotheses relate to beeper usage
and safety belief, demographic, and enabling variables.
Beeper users scored much higher on the following safety
belief scales: motivation to comply, perceived
susceptibility, perceived severity and perceived benefits.
Enabling variables didn't have much influence on the

difference between beeper users and non-users, similar to

86
their lack of impact on safety behavior intention.

One of the most significant findings in the study was
the relationship between safety device usage and safety
behavior intention. The higher a student scored in the
safety behavior intention, the greater their likelihood of
using a beeper. This finding demonstrated that the Safety
Belief Model II was successful in predicting the likelihood
of personal safety device usage, yet some of the key drivers
for behavioral intention were different from those for
beeper usage. Significant predictors of beeper usage
included gender, motivation to comply and semesters on
campus. Significant predictors of safety behavior intention
included perceived barriers, readiness to act, gender and
motivation to comply.

When Nazareth students were asked their perception of
the effectiveness of the beeper system.an preventing crime,
81% reported that it is effective compared to those (19%)
who believe it is not. When asked about the impact the
beeper has on feelings of personal safety, 72% of the
Nazareth sample reports that it makes them feel safer.

What is troubling about the usage of the beepers is the
amount of freshmen and those on campus for their first
semester that choose to use the beeper. There is a
noticeable decline in use as students age and the longer
they live in a residential environment. As students become
more familiar with the environment and more comfortable with

their community, does their attention to personal safety

87
issues decline?

What is unknown about the adoption of the personal
safety device is whether the initial decision to use a
beeper is solely the students. Parental influence can be
very strong for a large number of college freshmen. There
may be great pressure or strong encouragement from freshmen
parents for these students, particularly female, to sign up

for the system.

I J' I' E E .

When a college campus is perceived by students to be
unsafe, those feelings represent a major obstacle in the
achievement of the educational goals of the student and the
institution. It is significant for educational leaders to
understand that any incidents that interfere with the
emotional, psychological or physical well-being of students
represent an obstacle of the achievement of the educational
mission of the institution.

Unfortunately, college responses to crime have
historically been reactive, rather that proactive. You can
survey students five years in a row and learn that they
desire additional lighting, but what motivates action in
terms of adding lighting, increasing security patrol,
trimming landscape issues are typically either an increase
of incidents of crime or a significantly violent incident on
the campus. College administrators need to pay attention to

the environmental issues on a regular basis, without waiting

88
for legislation to dictate it or for an incident to require
a response.

The results of this study suggest that college
admdnistrators need to take a look at the bigger picture of
student behavior and victimization on campus. The
literature on human behavior, risk behavior and health
issues speaks to the issue of personal safety and should be
examined further.

The perceived barriers factor was a major consideration
and predictor of safety behavior intention. Students who
perceive precautions to be a hassle or an inconvenience are
less likely to take the extra effort to ensure their safety
or the safety of their community members. Those
administrators responsible for setting up systems for
building entrance/exit, for travel across campus (especially
at night), and for ways to activate campus safety personnel
need to solicit feedback from students on ways to make
precautions easier to use and more student accessible.
Students were able to list precautions rather easily as
shown in Tables 4.4 and 4.5 in Chapter Four.

.As suggested by Lenski in her findings (1992), students
that describe themselves as more concerned or attentive to
health, wellness or personal safety were more likely to plan
on taking better precautions than students who were less
concerned with health issues. Educators from other areas of
responsibility can be utilized in a collaborative way to

reach all students on the importance of taking care of one's

89
self while on campus and off.

The findings of this study provide information about
populations who believe that they are safer than others or
that threat of victimization is not a large concern for
them. Specifically, males, students with lower grade point
averages, students who have a long history in residence
halls could be targeted for educational programming on
personal safety issues. All students need to better
understand the risks prevalent on college campuses and that
there are measures they can take to reduce the risk of
victimization.

While not present in this study, but worth mentioning
as perception of victimization is discussed, is the role of
the College and the perception of the collegiate environment
depicted in college brochures and handbooks. If the
environments are described as safe, welcoming and family-
like, do applicants and later, entering students get an
unrealistic assessment of the college campus? Student
perceptions begin with print material and information from
college representatives, often before they step foot on the
campus. This is a good time to begin to discuss the
individual's responsibility for safety and for self-care.

The findings demonstrated that safety workshops are
important and Nazareth students in particular, felt that is
was a precaution that students should engage in.
Educational workshops on personal safety, self-defense

classes and any other opportunities to reinforce use of

90
existing campus safety interventions should be offered
throughout the college students collegiate experience.
Covering this topic once a year at Orientation sessions
clearly is not sufficient, as demonstrated by our upperclass
data.

Safety interventions such as the personal safety
device should be investigated in depth. Clearly, the beeper
is seen as effective by a large part of the population at
Nazareth. But does it really make students safer? As seen
by the Campus Crime Statistics in Table 4.16, the crime rate
did not decrease significantly. Many of the students who
possess a beeper report high usage of it, but does it
provide a false sense of security? While using the beeper,
do students feel more comfortable engaging in risky
behavior? Printed material on such interventions need to be
responsible and accurate on what the intervention does
provide so that users can be knowledgeable about the product

and its limitations.

1' . .

The results of this study are directly applicable to
small, private colleges. In addition, the populations at
both schools in the study are ethnically homogeneous and the
overwhelming majority of white respondents limit the ability
to draw conclusions about safety precautions for campus
populations that are more diverse.

Another limdtation was that the study was completed in

91
the first five weeks of the semester. It was done at this
time to have students have a level of comfort with their
environment and establish patterns of daily behaviors. If
the study been done at a different point of the year, it may
have resulted in differences in reporting of safety
behaviors. The general feelings of comfort with an
environment may have decreased the use of precautionary
behavior as demonstrated by less attention being displayed
by upperclass students and by those that have a history of
residing in the halls.

Jessor's work on risk behavior and problem behavior
theory is limited in its breadth. His work has been done at
the secondary level and has not been used with college-aged
students. More research should be done with his theory with
college populations.

A significant limitation of this study is the
definition of safety. Research on campus crime has dealt
with a very limited view of crime on campus, with a great
deal of emphasis on property or violent crime. College
admdnistrators are cognizant of the growing cases of hate
speech, harassment and even the issues of victimization
occurring through cyberspace and through technological
mediums.

During the Spring Semester, 1997 an incident of hate
speech occurred on Nazareth's campus. Racial slurs were
written on a resident student's dorm room door. The campus

community responded with anger and frustration and this was

92
illustrated by student responses in a local newspaper. A
student victim stated that although he had a beeper to alert
security if he is attacked, he does not feel safe as a
result of this incident. Students felt that the
administration was not doing enough and that students'
safety was not guaranteed (Wentzel, 1997). It is
irresponsible and dated to define safety only in property or
physical terms.

Another limitation of the study was that it used
behavioral intention rather than actual self-reported
behavior. It is prospective rather that retrospective,
since the focus was on factors which influence behavioral
intention. It is possible that the safety behavior
intention reported by the respondents would not coincide
with their final actions. There is no prediction of the
frequency of actual safety related behavior from the

samples.

WW

.As suggested by Lenski in her dissertation, there are
several possibilities for future research. Because of the
overlap of items for different scales, the predictive power
of the scales was difficult to differentiate. To clarify
components of the Safety Belief Model, the items should be
reviewed in depth to learn which questions accounted for the
most power to predict. If the work which has been completed

in this study was to be examined in conjunction with

93
Lenski's, Safety Belief Model I could be more specific and
be clarified.

Overall, this type of research has been performed only
at a large, private institution and now at two, small
private colleges. All the populations have been
characterized as homogeneous and with large residential
components. Because campus crime impacts commuter
populations, as well as campuses which have a greater
diversity in ethnicity and age, the Campus Safety Survey
could be utilized as an assessment tool on a number of other
campuses to learn more about behavioral intentions of
college students nationally.

This study focused on one intervention, a personal
safety device. There are a variety of campus safety
interventions in place on college campuses, and they should
be evaluated in a complex way. It should not be left up to
the manufacturer of these products to demonstrate their
effectiveness on college campuses. Educators and
administrators need to take responsibility for providing the
best safety measures for the students who are apart of their
community. A research basis can take some of the guess work
and ambiguity out of planning programs to highlight and
encourage students to take care of themselves while they are

on college campuses.

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

THE CADIPU S SAFETY SURVEY

Nazareth College
Fall, 1996

Mommasmwybyphdmm'rbymmsndmndumfimnnflmwmvflm
provided. Itshouldtalnsnomoreduulsm. Allrupcnsuwillbahustrictlycaifiduaislandmindividmlwillbe
idmtifiedin-Iywaymthesmdymort. Myoul

 

1. Somepeoplearequitecmcemedabomhealth.whileothusarenot. Hownaichsttemiondoyoupsyto
yourhealth?

IDantofsttution 20mm 3Dlidesttution 4Clnoattention

2. Howmchsttatiudoyoupsytowebessprogmnsofinducamus?

IDalotofattuItirm 20mm 30mm 4Dnosnention

3.1agenenlhowmchsttenfiondoyoupsytoymnpersonalsafetymcanpus?
IDaImofm ZDsa-ssnsntioa 3D1ittleansation 4Dnosttention
4. DowumadyukenyqedficnfiuypmsmingCaanSeanhymbckhgymnrwm
domuanfimrepmthgmspidousmdividuflshohnprweyomafayfiomuimemcanpu?
IDyes 2 Ciao
5. Anymawuedcanpunfitymmanpusmymbhefighttdephmmmy
personnel)svailabletoyou?
lClyes ZDao

6.1fyes,doyoueveruseanyoftbeaeservices?

IUyes ZDno

7.1-Iownaicbdoyonwonysbombdigsvictimmcanpus?
lClagrestdeal 20am 3Clslittle 4Ddon‘tworry

94

95

8. Ibwmchmflymnymacmfirym-hyumsmwhhdohgthhgsyoufiketo
do?

IDsgreatdeal 2Clsome 3Dsfltle 4C1aone

9. Proputyaimsbchdeshnglary,mothefi,mnddeuaaiuofprop¢ty. Howlikelydoyouthinkit
thstyouwilbecomeadirectvictimofpropctyctinnwhielivhgucanpus?
lflverEkely 2Ulikely 313m 4Uveryunlikely

10. WhndoyoumhkymnchncumofbehgavicthnofpmpatyahnsmaredmmhaNamh
studanswholiveoncanpus‘?
IDnaichgreater 2 Dgraster 3Uless 4Unascl|less

11.11aveyoueverbeuavictimofspropertyailns?
1Clyas 2Clno

12 anatpasaaalcrinehchdesmbbcy,sggrsvatsda.lh,smalasmkndnand¢. Howh'kelydoyou
thhkhbthnymwmbecomsdheavictinofaviol-npmmwflefivhgmcanpus?
lflvuyikely 20M “Unlikely 4Uvesyunlikely

l3. andoywthhkyomdincumofbehgavicfimofafiolanpmdannecmaredmmha
Nazarethstudanswboliveoncamus?
lUMgreater 2 Dgrester 3Clleas 4Clnatchleas

14.1bwdepowdowubeiswtheConegehuwmymnmofbahgavicfimofsvbht
persualcrimeucalmos’l
lflagreatdeal ZUsome 30am 4Claone

15. Ibwnnchpowudoymbfieveymhvemremsceyowch-cuofbégsviainofavhlutpmd
crineucaqms?
lClsgteatdeal ZDsome 3C1sitle 4Daone

16.

l7.

l8.

19.

96

Ibwikdyhimnyoumflbesbhmphyialydehdymsdffiomumedviolatpmfl

cr'mse?

lflverylikely 201%er 3Clunfih1y 4Clverytmlikely

Haveyoueverbeasvictimofsviolutpersmalcrime?

1Clyes ZDao
Doyouknowofanyth'mgapcsoncoulddotoreduceln’sorharchancesofbehgavictimofsviolent
personalcrimemcanpus?
IDyes (pleasedesu'ire)

 

 

2C1no

stymm-dednymmasdfidahnmuopdmgsnthecwegemdsewhae?

“Eyes 20:10

Howssfedoyoufeelwhile...

20.

21.

22.

ontbeNazarethCollsgecamusdm’ngdayliglnhous?
IDverysafe 2Dsa£e 3Clunsafie 4Clverytmsafe

oatheNanrabCollegecanpusaficdark?

lflmsafe ” ZDsafe 30M 4Dvelyunsafe
'myourdorm?
lClvelyaafe 2Clsa£e 3L'Juaaafie 4Clvelyunsafe

How much do you agree with the following statements?

23.

Mmqedficpmsapmcnuhwhiéwflrednmflsmhadnmofbahgsvicfinofs
violutpcsoaalclineucanpns.

lClagreevaynmcli ZUsgree BUdiaagree 4Udiaagreeverymch

 

97

24. SometmIesrmentamuedtommcauiinfstypmcsufionswhulamomwhhfiiuds

lflsgreeverymnch ZUagree 3Ddisayee 4Ddiaagteeverymuch

25.1donotneedtotakesafstyprecsutioasmcanmua

lClagreevesynarch 2C1agree 3Dd'nayee 4Udissgreeverynaich

26. Isometfinesdontukesafityprecsutionsbecmsetheytaketoonnchtime.

lflsgreeverynatch ZDsgree 3Udiaagree 4Ddisagreeverynaich

27. Therein‘tmchspersoncmdotosvoidbehgavhtimofacrime.

lClagreeverynasch 2Clagree BUd'nsyee _4Ddisagreeverynaich

In general, how much of a hassle are the following safety precautions?
28. Askingsfiiudtowalkoncanpusw'zhyouafiadark

1Clveryeasy ZUeasy 3Clshassle 4U don'tdo

29. Callhgafiiadtowalkoncanpuswithyouafierdark

IDveryeasy 2C|easy 3Dahaasle 4D don'tdo

30. CslbgCanpusSeanityforanescortacroascanpusafierdark
1Clvuyeasy” ZUeasy 3C|s1|sss1e 4C1 doa‘tdo

31. Avoid'mgpoorlyfitpsthsoncanpus

IUvaryeasy 2Cleasy 3Usliaaale 4C] don‘tdo

32. bek'ngdonnroomatnight
1Clveryeasy 2Cleasy 3Uahassle 4Ddon'tdo

98

33. Keepigdormroomw’ndomlockedatnight
IDveryessy 2Cleasy 3Ushsde 4C1don'tdo

34. Closingexteriorreaidencehalldoorsyoufindproppedopm
lflvesyeasy ZDaasy 3Ual|assle 4Ddon‘tdo

35. Arrangingforfirst-timedstestooccwinfiniliarmound'lgs
ICIveryeasy 2Dsasy 3Ushasde 4Cldon'tdo

36. Avo’al'mglesvhgapartyalonew'lhsnewacmn’anaace
IDveryeasy ZDeasy 3Dsl|asale 4Ddoa‘tdo

37. Nofify'ngsecnr'tyofnqidouspmsoncanpusorintheresidencehafl
1Clveryeasy 2Ueasy 3Uallaasle 4Udon‘tdo

38. Ibwmddoyoubeievefinnkigprecnflnsndnufionhqms2&37mreduuyomchmus
ofbeiigavictimofviolatcrirneoncanpus?

IDsgreatdeal 2Clsome 3Uslittle 4Clnone

This month,willyou...
39. call/asksfiiudtowalkwithyoueachtimeyoucrosscaqussfierdark?
1(3me ZUprobsblywill 3Dprobablywon't 4Ddeh'aelywon‘t

40. callCanpusSscmityforansacmtsaditimeyoucrosscanpnsafisrdark?
10mm 2Clprobablywill BDprobsblywoa't 4Udefifitelywon't

41. svoidpooslyhpatissadnimeyoucsoucanpusaficdark?
1134mm ZDptobsblywill 3Dprobablywon‘t 4Ddefin'nelywon‘t

42.

43.

45.

46.

47.

48.

lockdormrooaneachnight?
113mm ZUprobablywill 3Dprobsblywun‘t 4Ddefiiitelywon‘t

keepdormroomwindowslockedeachnight?
lfldefiliclywill ZUprObablywill BUprobablywm't 4Udefiiitelywon‘t

.closesproppeddooreachtimeyoufiidme'myourdosm?

lfldefinitelywill 213mm 3D’probablywcn‘t 4Ddefinitelywon‘t

arrangefisreachdstetoocaninfimilinnnrmmhgaifyouweretodstesomeoneforthefimfime?
1Ddefi'za1ywil 2mebab1ywill 3Dprobablym‘t 4Ddefinitelywoa‘t

svoidlssviigeadiputyahoewihaaewscquainaacefi‘youwuetoauadapany?
lCldefii'selywill szrobablywil 3Clprobab1ywon‘t 4Ddefinitelywon‘t

aotifyucuiyifyonseeaniciouspmoamsor'nthemsideacehafls?
1C] deh'aelywill ZUprobablywill 3Clprobablywoa‘t 4Ddefinitelywon‘t

DoympouecsSavhyEscmBepaohihedfiomtheCanpusSafayDepmmyommus?

ICIyes ZUno
Ifyeadoyoucnrrotlycarrythe SecurityEseas-tleeper?
1Clallthetime ZDmouofthetime 3Daotveryofien 4Clnever

49. Ovmlhowefiaah'emflymuythnthesmwleepckhpmufigahnemm?

1Clveryefi'ective 2Dsomewhstefi'ective 3C]aotverye&ctive 4Unotstal|efiective

50. WhnhdofimsadouSmRyWSysu-mumfifigsofpmdufuymms?

lflmkesmefeelslotsafer

2C1 mkesmefielsomewhstsafer
3Uhashsdlittleinpsctonmyfechgsofpersoaalsafety
4C1makesmefeelhasaafe

100

Demographic Information (for classification purposes only)

51. thtisyourgaider?
lDfemale ZDmIe

52.1-Iowdoyoudescribeyourself?

lflAmericanlndianorNativeAlaskan SUMeaticanAmericaaorChicano
ZDAimAsianAmuicanorPscificlhder 6DPuertoRican
3DBlsckorAfiicanAmerican 7DIat'm/South/Central
4DWbite Amaricmorotherl'fispanic
- 80W
53. Howoldareyou? years

54. thtisyourclassstand'mg?

IDFreshm 4DSenior
ZDSophomore 50mm
3Clhmior 600016

55. HowlughaveyoulivsdoaCanpus?

101.cothsn0ne8emester SDFoursemesters
ZUOnesemester 6C1Fivesemesters
3DTwosemesters 7DSixsemeaers
4UI‘lneesunsaers 8DMorethnsix

56. Whidlcstegorybearepresentsyomgradepo’mtsvelage?

IBIS-4.0 4010-25
2010-15 SDWZD
3C1 2.5-3.0

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

UCRIHS APPROVAL son

\\\\\ Nazareth THIS project EXPIRES:
\\\“ College

September 30, 1996

AUG - 8 1997

WRENEWALAPPUCATION
ONEMONTHPl-‘IORTO
ABOVEDATETOW

Dear Student:

Please help us with a comprehensive study of safety on college
campuses today. The enclosed survey focuses on experiences and
perceptions of personal safety on our Campus. This research is
part of a student's doctoral work and your participation by
completing this questionnaire is critical in providing information
useful to study the significant impact of crime on campus
conmmnities. It is my hope that the results from this
questionnaire could help yield information useful in making
Nazareth a safer place for all students.

The questionnaire should take about fifteen minutes to complete.
We need your questionnaire no later than October 7. 1996. A
response from each of you is very important. As a small means of
saying thank you, we will enter the names of all who return their
survey by October 7th in a drawing for three separate packages for
a $25 gift certificate to CIAO'S and two movie tickets at the
Pittsford Plaza Cinema. Once you complete the survey, please
complete the enclosed card marked "Dinner and a Show" and.drop this
card off separately from the completed survey to the Office of
Residential Life so that you are included in the raffle.

Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary and.your
responses to the questionnaire will be anonymous. .At no time will
your name be connected with your responses. You indicate your
voluntary agreement to participate in this study by completing and
returning this questionnaire. You may withdraw from this study at
any time. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
participant in this research, you may contact David Wright at
(517)355-2180.

Thank you so nmch for completing the survey. The findings from the
research will be shared with the Division of Student Affairs to be
distributed to the campus community. If you have any questions,
please contact me at 586-2525 x700.

Sincerely,

Joan Anderson

Director of Residential Life

P.S. Your completed survey may be placed in the box.marked "Campus
Safety Survey" located in the Office of Residential Life or mailed

back in the enclosed envelope. Don't forget to complete the
"Dinner and a Show" card!!!!

101

APPENDIX C

 

APPENDIX C

DINNER 81 A SHOW

Please enter my name In the drawing for movie tickets to
Pittsford Plaza Cinema and dinner at ClaO's. I understand that I must
turn in my completed CAMPUS SAFETY SURVEY to be included in

the drawing.
Name
00°93'09": phone number

out-campus address

 

Office of Residential Life
Nazareth college

102

 

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

THE CAMPUS SAFETY SURVEY

St. John Fhller College
Fall, 1996

Mmleedasnnvsybyphdmm'rbyyurmmdmhwmnnflmdw
pm.hmmmmm15m.mwwmuupmmwammwm
ideaifiedmaiywaymthsstudyrport. Timkyoul

 

1. Somepeoplearequheconcanadabomheahh,wl|ibothersueaot Howrmtchsttentiondoyoupayto
’ yourheakh?

lClslotofsnenion 20mm 31311th 4Unoattention

2.1-IownndisttuniudoyoupaytowahsaspmgraI-ofisducmus?

lelotofsnenioa 20mm 30mm 4Dnosnention

3.1ngeneralbowmdiattafioadoyoupaytoyourperaualnfuyonmus?
lDalotot‘sneatioa 20mm 3Dl‘at1esneation 4Daoaneation
4. Doywanrutlyuhnyqedfie-fetyprecnnimshfingSeauhyuconabckhgyom
mmdwrnaflfineareponhguqicioushdividuab)miwmeymunfayfiommmmus?
lUyes 2 Duo
5. Anymaweofanpusmfmymicuwmhcmiymbhufightmmmiy
persoanalhvailsbletoyou?
lClyes 2 Duo

6.1fyeadoyouevaesesayofthaaesalvices?

lDyes 20110

7. Hownarchdoyouwonysbmnbe'ngavict'unoacanpus?
lClagreatdeal ZDsome 3Clal'atle 4Dh'tworry

103

 

104

8. Phwmrchwmflymnyfiflmfirymnflymmhafauwihdohgthhgsywfiketo
do?

legreatdeal ZDsmne 3Dsl'atle 4Daone

9. Propertycrhne'mchidesblughry,amothefi,usou.nddearucfimofprop¢ty. Howlikelydoyouth'mkit
tbstywwfllbecomsadfiectvicthnofpropertycrhnewflelivingmcanpus?
leeryflely ZDMy 3Dunflaly 4Dveryunlikely

10. WhndoywmhkymchncumofbehgsvicfinofpmaineconpuedeaSJPCnudmrs
whofiveoncanpus?
anaichgi-astsr 2 Elm 3Dless 4Dnaichless

11. Haveyweverbeusvictimofspropertycrime?
lDyes 2 Duo

12. Violmtpasonaluinehchdesmbbay,aggnvnedasnuh,samalsmsuhndmder. Howlikelydoyou
thhkhisthnymtwmbecomeadheavicfimofsvblutpmduinewhflefivhgmcanpus?
1Dverylikely 2 Dlikely 3Duaflaly 4Dverytmlikely

13. WhadoywthhkueymucbncuofbehgaviainofaviokntpasoadahneconpandmmherSFJC
studentswholiveoncarmus?

leichgrester 2Clgrester 3Clless 4Dnatcbless

14. HownaicbpowerdoyoubelievemeCollegehsstoreduceyomchancesofbe'mgsvictimofsviolent
personalctimeoncamus?

1Dagreatdeal 2Dsorne 3Dal’ltle 4Dnoue

15. Howmdpowudoywbefieveymhvemremweywrcbucesofbdgsvicfimofavhhtpmd
crimeoocanpus?

1Dsgrestdea1 2Dsome 3Dsl’ltle 4Daone

Willi Inna—a."

105

16. Howikdyhhmnymwmflbesbbmphyicaflydehdymseflfimnmedviolatpmfl
cr'nne?

10mm 20M 30m 40mm

17. Hsveyoueverbeenavictimofsviol-npcst-alcrime?

lDyes 2Dno

18. Doyouknowofanythingapasoncoulddotoreduceh'norherchancesofbeingsvictimofsviolent
personalcrimeoncanmus?

lDyes (pleasedescribe)

 

 

2Dno

19. Haveywmudednymammmmrkmwdmeefingsnthecwegemdnwhm?

1Dyes 2Dno

How safe do you feel while . . .

20. onthe St. John Fisher Collegecanmusdtn'hgdsylighthom’s?
leerysafe 2Dsafe 3Dunsafe 4Dveryunsafe

21. onthe St. Job Fisher College csnpusafier dark?

leerysafe 2Dsafe 3Dunsafe 4Dverytmsafe
22. 'myourdonn?
leerysafe 2Dsafe 3Duasafe 4Dveryunsafe

How much do you agree with the following statements?

23. Mmmedficprecsufimsapmmthichwflredwehkmhachmcuofbehgsvicfimof
violentpersualcrimeoncanpua

1Dagreeverynmch 2Dagree 3Ddisagree 4Ddisagreeverynaich

106

24.8mmmmmam-hymm1amomwhhfiimds
1Dagleeverynatch 2Dagree 3Ddisagree 4Ddisagreeverynatch

25.1doaotaaedtotakeaafstyprecamionsoncaqus.
lDagreevarynmch 2Dagree 3Ddissgree 4Ddisagreevelynaich

26. Isometimesdon'ttakesafatyprecsutionsbecaussthsytahstoonaichfime.
1Dsgreeverynasch 2Dagree 3Ddisagree 4Ddisagleeverynaich

27.1'hereim'tnaichapma-dotoavoidbdgsvictimofacsime.

legreeveryrmch 2Dagree 3Ddisagree 4Ddisagreeverynaich

In general, how much of a hassle are the following safety precautions?
28. Ask'ngafiimdtowalkoncanpuswithyouaficdark

1Dveryeasy 2Deasy 3Dshasale 4D don'tdo

29. Call'mgafiiudtowakucanpuswithyouafierdark

leeryeasy 2Deasy 3Dahasale 4D don'tdo

30. CalliigCanpusSeciuityforanescortscmsscanpusafierdark
1Dve'yeasy' 2Deasy 3Dshasa|e 4D don'tdo

31. Avoidigpoorlyl'npathsoacanpus
1Dveryeasy 2Deasy 3Dahanle 4D drm'tdo

32.1.aock'ngdormroomstaight
lesryeasy 2Deasy 3Dahassle 4Ddon‘tdo

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

107

Ksep'mgdormroomw'mdowslocksdstaight
1Dveryaaq 2Deasy 3Dshade 4Ddon‘tdo

leeryeasy 2Deasy 3Dshsde 4Ddon‘tdo

Arranghgfinfirst-timedstestooccm'mfaniliarnnroud’mgs
leeryeasy 2Deasy 3Dahade 4Ddon‘tdo

Avoid'mglsav'mgspartyalonewihaaewscqus'anaace
leeryeasy 2Deasy 3Dahssale 4Ddon'tdo

Notifyiigsecmityofatqiiciouspcsonsoncanpusorhtheresiducehan

leeryeasy 2Deasy 3Dshassle 4Ddon'tdo
mechdowubehevemnukhgpmsmdiuthueaions2&37cmmywchmces
ofbeiigsvictimofvioluncrimeoacanpus'?

legreatdeal 2Dsome 3Dal‘atle 4Dnone

Thismonth,willyon...

39. call/askafi'iadtowalkw'nhyousachtimeyoucrosscanpusafierdsrk?

lDdefinitelywill 2Dprobablywill 3Dprobablywon’t 4Ddefin'aelywon't

40. callCmssSecur’lyforanasconaachtimeyoucmascanpusafierdark?

1(3me 20mm 3Dprobablywm't 4Ddefifitelywon't

41. avoidpooriylitpathseachtimeymicrosscanmusaficdark?

1:1me 213me summit 4Ddeb'aelywon‘t

42.

43.

45.

47.

48.

49.

50.

108

Mdosmroomeadaight?
1Ddefm'zalyvu‘ll 2Dprohsblywl 3Dpsohsblywont 4Ddefinitelywon't

keepdormroomw'ndowslockedsachaight?
lDdefin'zelywm 2Dprobablywill 3Dprobablywon‘t 4Ddefii'nelywon't

.closesproppeddooreachtimeyoufmdme'nyomdorm?

113mm 2Dprobablywil 3Dprohablywon‘t 4Ddefinitelywon‘t

mgeforuddnemocmhmmdigah‘ywwcemdnemformefirnfime?
1D dehitelywfll 2D probablywil 3Dprobdilywm‘t 4D dehitalywm't

.svoidhsvhgeschputyahnewihsaewscquaiatuceifyouwuetosumdsputy?

11:]me 2Dptobablywill 3Dprobablywm‘t 4D definitelywon‘t

nofifysecmiyifyouseeanispidouspmoncanmusorhthereddmcehans?
1Ddehitelywill 2Dprobab1ywill 3Dprohab1ywon't 4D definitelywon‘t

Doyoucm-rutlycarryahandheldpersonalsafetyalarm?
1Dyes 2Dno

Howeflecfiwdoyouthhkhndheldpasmflnfuyalumswwflbehmmumus?

leeryefiaive 2Dsmnswhstefi‘ective 3Dnotveryefiv‘ective 4Dnotatallefl‘ective

Whakhdofhmaadoymfihkhudhddpamflmfayahmmflhwmymnfeebgsofpmsl
safetyoncama?

1Dwouldmkemefeelslotsafsr
2Dwouldnlkemefselsomewhatsafir

3D wouldhsvel'atlehmiactonmyfeeligsofpuaoaalsafuy
4Dwouldmakemefsellesssafe

109

Demographic Information (for classification purposes only)

51. thtisymtrgender?
lDfsmale 2Dnnle

52. Howdoyoudescribeyoursell’?

lDAmericanlndianorNstiveAlsskan SDMexicanAmericsnorChicano
2DAsian,An'anAmsricanorPadficlslander 6DPnertoRicaa
3D'BlackorAfiicanAmerican 7D Latin/South/Central
4DWhite WormherI-l‘upanic
8D0ther
53. Howoldsreyou? years

54. Whatisyourdassnaad'ng?

lDFredumn ' 4DS¢|ior
ZDSophosnose 5DGsaduateStudut
3Dhmior 6DOthsr

55.1-10wlonghsveyoufivedonCanmus?

lDLessthaaanSenssaer SDFoursameners
2DOnesemester 6DI-‘ivesemesters
3D1‘wosemsners 7DSixsemeaers
4D'1‘hreesesnesters 8DMorethansix

56. Whichcategorybestrepresatsyompadepo'utsvenge?

1D 3.5-4.0
2D 3.0-3.5
3D 2.5-3.0
4010-23
5Duader2.0

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY

APPENDIX E

UCRIHS APPROVAL FOR
THIS prqact’ EXPIRES:

AUG - 8 1997

WRENEWALAPPLEATION
mammro
September 30, 1996 ABOVEOATETOOONTNUE

 

Dear Student:

Please help us with a comprehensive study of safety on college
campuses today. The enclosed survey focuses on experiences and'
perceptions of personal safety on our Campus. This research is
part of my doctoral work and your participation by completing this
questionnaire is critical in providing information useful to study
the significant impact of crime on campus consmmities. It is my
hope that the results from this questionnaire could help yield
information useful in making SJFC a safer place for all students.

The questionnaire should take about fifteen minutes to complete.
We need your questionnaire no later than October 7. 1996. A
response from each of you is very inportant. As a small means of
saying thank you, we will enter the names of all who return their
survey by October 7th in a drawing for three separate packages for
a $25 gift certificate to CIAO'S and two movie tickets at the
Pittsford Plaza Cinema. Once you complete the survey. please
complete the enclosed card marked "Dinner and a Show" and drop this
card off separately from the completed survey to the Office of
Residential Life so that you are included in the raffle.

Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary and your
responses to the questionnaire will be anonymous. At no time will
your name be connected with your responses. You indicate your
voluntary agreement to participate in this study by completing and
returning this questionnaire. Youmay withdraw from this study at
any time. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
participant in this research, you may contact David Wright at (517)
355-2180.

Thank you so such for completing the survey. The findings from the
research will be shared with the Division of Student Affairs to be
distributed to the campus commity. If you have any questions.
please contact me at 385-8230.

Sincerely,

Mary-Beth Cooper
Dean of Students

P.S. Your completed survey may be placed in the box marked "Campus
Safety Survey" located in the Office of Residential Life or mailed
back in the enclosed envelope. Don't forget to complete the
"Dinner and a Show" card!!!

110

APPENDIX F

APPENDIX F

Office of Residential Life
St. John Fisher college

 

DINNER & A SHOW

Mementermynamelnthedrawinorormovleticketsto
Pittsford Plaza Cinema and dinner at ClaO's. I understand that I must
turnlnmycompletedCAIlPllSSAFETYSURVEYtobelncludedin

thedrawlno.

111

APPENDIX G

APPENDIX G

 

Don’t FOrget...

 

To complete your campus safety survey and turn
it into the office of Residential Life.
If you misplaced your original survey, you can
get another from your RA.

Also, don't forget to enter the

"Dinner and A Show"
drawing.

112

APPENDIX H

 

517155-21!)
PM 51733-1171

 
  
 

APPENDIX H

MICHIGAN STATE

1

lJ hi I \' E I! S 1"Y

August 12. 19s:

'10: -II
24 Hill .
Pittsford. I? 1453s

- rm : 9‘ -413
‘3' rrrts: ‘nnr erstriowssrr or srunssr vsecrrriows AID
ssnsvroes ssoannrso erase-st SAIlTY: A
consanarrvr sruuv or run SHALL snrvarr corneas

RIVISION IIDUISTID: IVA
TIOOII: 2-1
APPIOVIL Dill: OI/OCI"

it coaldttee on nesearch Invol nuaan huh ects'tuc3f38)
gazigeizfrghiz project is coaplete., I aa.;§:2sed to advise that the
rights and welfare of the huaan subjects appear to be adequately

and chads to obtain infor-ed consent are a riate.
¥§:::§:;:. theuac1138 approved this project and any rev :ggns listed

IIIIIIL: UCIIIB is valid for one calendar . inn with
the appgggigvaite shown above. Investigatg::rpl::ging12g
continue a project one year lust use the green renewal
form (enclosed with original a roval letter or when a
2:23.Ct is renewed) to seek te certification. There_is a

one of four such expedit renewals ssihle. Investigators
wish to continue a project beyond the tine need to submit it
again or complete rev ew.

esvrsrosss UCIIIB'Iust review :2! changes in gzocedures involving huaan
subjects, prior to tiation of change. If this is done at
the ties o , please use the renewal form. To

revise an roved protocol at angcg r tine during the year.

send your w: tten request to the 135 Chair. requesting revised

:gproval and r:f:rencé:g ghznprgject's 128 8 and title.. Igclude

reques des o the change and an revise
ins ruaents. consent forge or advertise-ants that {re applicable.

should either of the fell arise during the course of the
work. investigators oust noti ucnrns promptly: (1) roblees
unexpected side effects coup aints. etc.) involving
suhgectzig: 52) ghgnges :he r=::a:ch environ-enabor new

inf rue indi ing grea er r o the human s 'ects than
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

If we can he of future hel 1.... do no
at (517)35: :iac.g¥ rar (517;; §-§171, ‘ h"*"" ‘0 Goat‘s: n-

  
 

0
vid I. wright. Ph
OCIIIB Chair

”shod

cc: Kathryn M. Hoore

113

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX I

March 19 , 1996

Dr. Tully Lenski

Dean of Students

Trinity College of Vermont
208 Colchester Ave
Burlington. VT 05401

Dear Dr. Lenski.

I am requesting permission to use the Campus Safety Survey you
developed in 1991. I am a doctoral student at Michigan State
University and I am proposing to investigate the relationship of
student perceptions and behaviors regarding personal safety, at two
small. private colleges in the Northeast.

I would like to use the Campus Safety Survey with a few additional
items on parent a peer influence on safety issues. as well as
student reported use of personal safety devices. It is my
intention to test the usefulness of the Safety Belief Model in
predicting students' behavioral intentions. to examine the impact
of personal safety devices on behavior and to investigate the
influence of parents and peers on personal safety issues.

The use of the Safety Survey will be solely for the purposes of
coagulation of my degree. I will credit you fully in my writing and
only alter the instrument as stated above. If you would be
interested in my findings. I would be happy to send you information
after my research is complete.

thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to
hearing your response.

Mary-Beth Cooper
24 Wood Hill Rd.
Pittsford. NY 14534

114

 

APPENDIX J

APPENDIX J

OFVElaOfl
0.»de

March 21, 1996

Mary-Beth Cooper
24 Wood Hill Road
Pittsford. NY 14534

Dear Mary-Beth.

ThankwaorycurnqueutonsetheCampuSafetySuncyinyourdoctonlworkat
Michigan State University. Understand thatyou wish to modify the instrument to
includeaddifionalvarisbles. Youhavemypennissimtodoso. I'mverypleasedyw‘ve
foundtheinsuumeatandtheSafetyBeliefModelhelpfulinyourwork.

laminterenedinthemmeofyourresesrchandwmldlovetohearhomywwhen
you’re done. Safety behavior research is much lauded to help colleges develop useful
safetypropmsforsmdenuandworklikeyounandminewillhelp-avoidin
availableinfoxmation.

lwishywthebestasyoucompleteyourresearch.

 

llS

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Council on Education (1985, reissued 1987).
. Washington, DC, One
Dupont Circle. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED265774).

Astin, A. (1977). Egnz_Czinical_Xears. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Bausell, C.R., Maloy, C.E., & Sherrill, J.M. (1989). Ihe
' ° . MD: Towson
State university Campus Violence Prevention Center.

Becker, M.H., Maiman, L.An, Kirscht, J.P., Haefner, D.P., &
Drachman, R. H. (1977). The health belief model and
prediction of dietary compliance. A field experiment.
W. 18. 348- 366

Biglan, A., Metzler, C., Wirt, R., Ary, D., Noell, J., Ochs,
L., French, C. and Hood, D. (1990). Social and
behavioral factors associated with high- -risk sexual
behavior among adolescents. Journa1_cf_neha2ioral
Medicine. 11. 24S— 262

Burger, J. M. and Burns, L. (1988). The illusion of unique
invulnerability and. the use of effective contraception.
' , 11, 264- 270.

Castelli, J. (1990). Campus crime 101. Heu_xsz_Iimes, pp.
1-2.

Cockey, M. Sherrill, J. M. & Cave, R. E. II. (1989). Towson
State university research on campus violence. In J.M.

Sherrill, & D. G. Siegal (Eds. ). RespondinLtuiclencem
campus (pp. 17-28, 103-106). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Publishers.

College and University Law Enforcement Officers and Campus
Housing Administrators (Producers). (1985). Ihe

WW
facilities. Louisville, KY: Campus crime prevention
workshop.

Cummings, K.M., Jette, A.M., & Rosenstock, I.M. (1978).
Construct validation of the health belief model. Health

We. 5. 394-405.

116

117

Dolcini, M.M., Cohn, L.D., Adler, N.E., Millstein, S.G.,
Irwin, C.E., Kegeles, S.M., and Stone, G.C. (1989).
Adolescent egocentrism and feelings of invulnerability:

Are they related? WW. 9.. 409-
418.

Evans, N.J. (1983). Environmental assessment: Current

practices and future directions. .Jnurnal_nf_Cnllene
StudenLPersnnnel. 2.4. 293-299.

Fesenthal, E. (1994, November 29). More colleges are
divulging crime reports. Ihe_flall_snzeen_innzndl. pp. Bl.
B10.

Fox, J. A. & Hellman, D. A. (1985). Location and other

correlates of campus crime W.
13, 429- 444.

Glanz, R., Lewis, F.M., & Rimer, B.K. (Eds.) (1990). Health
practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Gray M. (1990). The effectiveness of personalizing
acquaintance rape prevention: Programs on perception of
vulnerability and on risk-taking behavior. .qurnal_cf

Cnllene_Student_Dexelnnnnnt. 31. 217—220.

Greene, E. (1988, September 28). Pressed by students and
parents colleges step up their efforts to fight crime on

campuses. Winn. 15(5). A1.
A31.

Hanchette (1988). The Clerys: Victimls Parents Push Change.
W, October 4, 1988, p. 6A.

Harris, D. M. & Guten, S. (1979) Health-protective behavior:

An exploratory study. Journal_nf_nealth_and_3ncial
Belmvinr. 2.0. 17- 29.

(1990, March 14). Washington, DC:
Hearing before the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education
of the Committee on Education and Labor, House of
Representatives. (Eric Document Reproduction Service No,
ED 325 011)

Kingston, R., Strunin, L., and Berlin, B. (1990). Acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome transmission. Changes in
knowledge and behaviors among teenagers, Massachusetts
statewide surveys, 1986- 1988. Pediatrics. £5. 24- 29.

118

Hirschorn, M. W. (1987, September 2L A parental crusade to

force Colleges to reveal crime data. Chrnnicle_nf_Hisher
Educatinn. Pp. A3, A28.

Hochbaum, G. M. (1958). Public participation in medical
screening programs. A.sociopsychological study. Public
HealtLSeanmhlicatinn. no. 572.

Jessor, R. (1984). Adolescent development and behavioral
health. In J. D. Matarazzo, S. M. Weiss, J. A. Herd, N. E.

Miller, a S. W. Weiss (Eds ). Beharinral_nealth (pp. 69-
89). New York. John Wiley 5 Sons.

Jessor, R. (1991). Risk behavior in adolescence: A
psychosocial framework for understanding and action.

W11. 12. 597-605 .

Jessor, R. (1992). Risk behavior in adolescence: A
psychosocial framework for understanding and action.

W. 12. 374-390.

Kasl, S.V., & Cobb, S. (1966). Health behavior, illness

behavior, and sick- role behavior. Encircnmental_nealth.
12, 246-266.

Kirscht, J. P. Haefner, D., Kegeles, S. S. Rosenstock, I.
(1966). A national study of health beliefs. innrnal_n£
Win. 1. 242- 254

Kosimar in Kobasic, D.M., Smdth, E.R. s Barmore-Zucker, L.S.
(1988). Eisman v. State of New York: The duty of a
college to protect its students from harm by other
students admitted under social programs. Ihe_flnnrnal_n£

Cnllene_and_Unixersitx_Lau.1.4. 575- 605.

Larson, E. B. Olsen, E., Cole, W., and Shortell, S. (1979)
The relationship of health beliefs and a postcard reminder

to influenza vaccination Jnurnal_nf_£amil¥_2ractice. 8.
1207- 1211.

Lederman, D. (1995). Colleges Report Rise in Violent Crime.
' ' , February 3, 1995, A31,
A42.

Lenski, T.J. (1992). W

Unpublished manuscript. ACUHO-I Research and Educational
Foundation, Columbus, OH.

Lenski, T.J. (1992). W

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, university of Ferment.

119

Lenski, T. J. Meyers, E. W. , a Hunter, D.E. (1996).
Understanding Students' Intentions to Use Safety
Precautions. ' '
AdministratanJnurnal. 31.82- -93

Maiman, L. A. s Becker, M. H. (1974). The health belief
model. Origins and correlates in psychological theory.

WW. 2. 336- 353.

Maiman, L.Am, Becker, M.H., Kirsht, J.P., Haefner, D.P., &
Drachman, R.H. (1977). Scales for measuring health belief
model dimensions: A test of predictive value, internal
consistency, and relationships among beliefs. Health

W. 5.. 215- 231.

Maslom A.H. (1954). Win}; New York:
Harper 1 Row.

Moore, 8., and Rosenthal, D. (1991). Adolescent
invulnerability and perceptions of AIDS risk. innznal_ni
AdolescenLResearch. 5. 164-180 .

Ordovensky, P. (1990, November 29). Hour by hour, campus
crime toll mounts. HSA_cha¥, p.8A.

Orr, D. P. Beiter, M., and Ingersoll, G. (1991). Premature
sexual activity as an indicator or psychosocial risk.
2cd11£rin&..fil. 141- 147.

Pace, C.R. (1984). An Account of the Development and Use of
the College Student Experiences Questionnaire. unpublished
manuscript. Higher Education Research Institute, Graduate
School of Education. University of California, Los
Angeles.

Pascarella, E.T., & Terenzini, P.T. (1991). ch_ccllece
it I . . . . .
nf_research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Roark, M. L. (1987). Preventing violence on college

campuses. WM. 55. 367-

Roark, M., & Roark, E. Jr. (1987). Administrative Responses
to Campus Violence. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the American College Personnel Association/National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators. Chicago,
IL, March 15-18, 1987.

Robertson, L. S. (1977). Car crashes: Perceived
vulnerability and willingness to pay for crash protection.

W. 3. 136- 141.

 

120

Robinson, B.E. (1988). .Teenage_£athers. Lexington, MA
Lexington Books.

Rosenstock, I.M. (1974). Historical origins of the health

belief model. Health_Educatinn_Mnnnnranhs. 2. 328-335.
(a)

Rosenstock, I. M. (1974) The health belief model and

preventive health behavior. nea1th_Edncaticn_Mcncgraphs,
2. 354-385. (b)

Rosenstock, I.M. (1990) The health belief model: Explaining
health behavior through experiences. In R. Glanz, F.M.

Lewia. & 8.x. Rimer (Eds.). Health_behaxinr_and_health__
educat1nn1_Ihenrxi_researchi_and_nrnct1ce (pp. 39-62).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Rudolph, (1990). '
University of Georgia Press, pp.87, 97.

Schneider (1977). In.A. L. Rent: and G. L Saddlemdre (Eds.).
WWW (pp 232-
233). Springfield, Illinois: Charles C Thomas Publisher.

Simpson, J.A. (1994). Developing a Safety/Security Program
For Residence Halls. In

Camnns_Hnusinc (pp.4l-53). Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Association of College and University

Housing Officers-International. San Antonio, TX, June
26-30, 1994.

Smith, M. C. (1989). The ancestry of campus violence. In

J. M. Sherrill, s D. G. Siegal (Eds. ). Resnnndins_tn

Iinlence_nn campus (pp. 5- 15), San Francisco. Jossey-
Bass Publishers.

Towson State University, Center for the Study and Prevention

of Campus Violence (1986,1987,1988).Nhn1nnal_camnnn
We Towson,

MD: Towson State University.

Towson State University, Center for the Study and Prevention

of Campus Violence (1990). Ihc_11nkS_amOng_drn91_dldnhnli
Wm

WWW
21ct1mizatinn_suryey. Towson, MD: Towson State University.

Turner, J. (1993). WM
.1 l'J'I°Tl'EJ El] ..

Doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut,
1993.

121

Tuttle, D.F. (1990). In S. Colino (author), Felony 101.
StudentJamcer. p. 37.

united States Congress (1990L Ihe.£hnden£_319hnchncxnnn
Washington, DC. U. S. Government

Printing Office.

Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism.about
susceptibility to health problems. anurnal_nf_2ersnnalitx
ancLSnciaLPsxchnlncx. 39.. 806- 820.

Weinstein, N. D. (1982). Unrealistic optimism about
susceptibility to health problems.
Medicine. 5. 441- 460.

White. R.W. (1975). W
naturalJrnutanfmrsnnalitx (3“ d ). New York: Holt,

e .
Rinehart & Winston, 1975.

Wills. 8.3. (1993). WWW
BSIII :2 I IT 21].“. .|..

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois State
university.

"‘uumu