Cy fr.“ "4 . “.v‘ '.‘ :‘I fi’Ir-W- IIII )‘z'i- " ‘ I?" “3"” A", I'€v Mk: .. (r ' ‘J Ill I‘ "II 7 I/I. IIIIII..II.III-III ' ." mg? ”‘1‘?“ III 1'1, 1“ " 3 II“ ‘-"“ ‘.. ‘ I. . . M. V z“)... ‘I'IHHII 1 -;'. \‘A:.‘."y, K. vaII :y.‘ 4.“ gclfl ‘0‘. Iéi' '1‘}: u on ", . . f‘ I I'.- “5" Phi-1332f: : M4? .- M I .;¢7'0.\:EIIII‘I "($1 ' ”I r @423: ‘ IIIIIA-s. “-31: 5"“: 4.5;? " ‘ k’ ”‘5“ g I. 11"". ( .‘" “III"vequ‘J . .III 'I II‘Y .‘.< ”0! 1“?“ . IIIL 1'4” ‘II III ‘." “‘3’“? I'IIIII‘I \gf‘j‘l _II -‘: IvW“? .I..II #HTH le'fi‘pvfi' "11:. if”; .15" v‘ . ' I. 1 . I ”"0." L‘1"'I\'_-II‘I1 ‘3‘IWI I ‘fIi‘ll III’L'flI" 1nd \fi‘ I" 37., 3“ 511‘. \ II " .IJI if? z ‘6" c i'h : II,\?(I:! 4‘24 ‘1’ 11"":‘1‘ll‘ I.". “I '. .'. II .‘ - I». . "H, .‘J .I . .1“. "/3; . O ”-23.3, I V s I . \ . ‘4‘“) '£'; .I ,A‘,"1" 'lIo' . II"\ I v.3“. .. -- C JV . . “3‘ I . I._II ', , C. r "I' ‘Lrfi I.1‘..‘ NW. kg. .t“ ti" (5"‘9‘ - ‘.'.4‘".\'o. -. ~.‘ .‘. I" v \- r“ ’ - ‘ \ #:‘K1. :1“ .(_. MI I. afi‘ifif - '.. r'. I ‘ 1‘22” IIIII.‘II‘-I -",. . . {hi I [0‘15 "1‘ I I .f.-, . III}. ' ’ . '.'\ If .. "a; ‘3?“ ”Mk ‘I- 87‘“ .3. .II.~‘I‘II' 1-}u"“ri°~ .. ~ Hvyvfl) '-' " “. I‘KT-IYI'II “ .Iq ‘ - L l . . I:I\ .' IIEIIIrc ' ' “I I . q _ .. . I. ‘~— I“ . 1. I. . II. my; $181131 1?. .u... m, .. ' n," .“.,.I; ,1? ' "' ‘II’,}‘H.\ 1.1"." _ I '- 'f-m‘vr-r'p ‘# ll. \yfir- . ”1:. if.‘?'."““"". I :Jv-w- «Image-.4 ' ?' ' I: . . I .. I “' In. I .‘.‘ .". ‘ .' IIII 'I‘ .I ‘1 ' ‘1‘” '3‘ IIIP- . . I. I) ,II -II\ 3?‘l:‘1‘51;‘a&“~')'.’W'¢."Hn ‘ w. ‘ "‘.' " ‘ i" * '“1-5 'f 7-34. \c‘uM‘ '1‘ 1 V“; I'IIEIII I ‘2.."'|".{.. . 1"“.11‘1" .\.'I I 71“}! IJ_ "‘2‘! II'\II IIIIIQIIIII - ""Il’w: ’*_II"I-IIIII ‘.':" II ‘ . 11‘, $.11!” {III‘I‘IIII‘I III“."“ I.". “'51:" III“. IIIIWI ‘ ”Q11 :II““'I,.II’1“III,IIII III . .I.l1"I I I Hui—mi" ' '01' 1. , . , :11. .;1".I1III 4* ”I'LIII‘I 'I.- -... . ”I 1 O‘S‘r. [’III“ IN“. "I ' V. ‘ “'1'!“ w—‘n‘, W ~ :1" " a“ I" ; '.. ,I..I ‘IIM 3'1in 111” In 1. Mkfi’EI‘- ‘n l» II‘II‘. 9"?“ ‘a‘I‘L‘ r, 1““ 'P! " wk)” “' a“); T 0 I. T‘ "‘ “‘- .‘ "“ ‘5 1' -‘ u) ‘ 'im- "-—~ ' 1 £3 ‘;.‘_~ 1" Qt- -‘-‘HI -- . J?:.“:?~-“‘“‘n,’ Inn- 7 Viv-a! This is to certify that the thesis entitled FEAR OF CRIME AMONG A FOREIGN GROUP IN A UNIVERSITY SETTING presented by YOON H0 LEE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MS degree in CRIMINAL JUSTICE ch ' VINCENT J. HOF AN, Ph.D'.‘ Major professor :r 1618 DateS/ /95 0-7639 ’ MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRAfiJES remove this checkout from 1—! your record. FINES will be charged if book is ’ returned after the date ‘ stamped below. “5.4“ ‘ I ‘“ J 73?..h» .9. 00 AlflgJI mgfff1t99l '..- 121 \ ... Inge? W21 w, Jim?” 2003 m3 DI, H’ H.- “'5‘" Am; Q31??? H A HJB§U7ILI MRI? :2 .5 £993 .,... .- _ FEAR OF CRIME AMONG A FOREIGN GROUP IN A UNIVERSITY SETTING BY Yoon Ho Lee A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE School of Criminal Justice 1985 r “(Incl - This thesis is dedicated to my family and in-laws, and to my wife, Jin Sook, and my son, Chang Wook. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My sincere thanks to Drs. Vincent Hoffman, John McNamara, Frank Horvath, and Robert Trojanowicz, and Mr. Dennis Banas, and to Dan Puuri, a good friend of mine. iii LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER I: CHAPTER II: CHAPTER III: CHAPTER IV: CHAPTER V: TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . The Level of Fear of Crime . . . . The Fear Subgroups . . . . . . . . Determinants of Fear of Crime . . . The Consequences of Fear of Crime . RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . Research Site and Subjects . . . . Definitions and Variables . . . . . Research Design and Procedures . . Research Limitations . . . . . . . ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . The Demographic Composition of the Respondents . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of Fear of Crime . . . The Determinants of Fear of Crime . The Consequences of Fear of Crime . DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION . . . . . iv vi 15 15 31 45 81 99 99 101 105 106 109 109 114 138 150 161 APPENDICES Appendix A: Survey Format (in English) . . . . . 174 Appendix B: Survey Format (in Korean) . . . . . . 185 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 198 N O p... I. N o N u N 0 DJ .. N o b co N 0 U1 n N o m .. N o m .. 2.12: LIST OF TABLES Trends in Fear of Crime, 1965-1981 . . . . . . . 17 Feeling of Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Percentage Distribution on Fear of Walking Alone at Night Within one Mile of Home for Sample and Relevant Subsamples, 1973 and 1974 . . . . . . . 20 "Somewhat" or "Very" Unsafe (Percentages of Responses) for 26 Cities Surveyed for LEAA . . . 22 Fear Levels for Cities and Neighborhoods . . . . 24 Relationship Between Citizen Perception of Danger at Night and Crime Rates by Neighborhood . . . . 26 Perceived Problems in Neighborhood: Eight 0.8. Impact Cities, 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Fear of Crime and Related Attitudes . . . . . . 30 Percentage Distribution on Fear of Walking Alone at Night Within One Mile of Home for Sample and Relevant Subsamples, 1973 and 1974 . . . . . . . 32 Beta and Beta-Squared Values for Six Explanatory Variables (of Fear of Crime) . . . . . . . . . . 34 Formless Fear by Place of Residence, Gender, Race, Household Income, Occupational Status, Education, Employment Status, Marital Status, and Age . . . 37 Percentage Fearful by Age and Place of Residence, Marital Status, Race, Living Arrangement, Health Status, and Burglarized During the Past Year for Females . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Intercorrelation Matrix (of Variables Related to Fear) (Gamma) O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O 42 Summary of Most Significant Predictors of Fear of Crime Found to be in the Discriminant Analysis as Measured by the Change in RAO V . . . . . . . 44 vi List of Tables (continued) 2.15: Most Important Reason for Feeling Somewhat Unsafe of Very Unsafe While Out Alone on MSU Campus by SEX (1979' 1980' 1981) o o o o o o o o o o o 46 2.16: Correlations Between Media Usage and Fear of Crime Factor Scores for All Subjects (pooled), for Each of Four Areas, and for the Average of the Four Areas 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 50 2.17: Fear of Crime by Perceived Seriousness of Crime Relative to What the Newspapers and Television Say: Right Impact Cities Aggregates, 1973 . . . 51 2.18: Standardized Regression Coefficients for Safety Items on Perception of Crime Scale . . . . . . . 55 2.19: The Relationship of Fear of Crime to Estimate of Neighborhood Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 2 O 20: Feeling of safety 0 O O O O O I O O I O O O O O 59 2.21: Fear of Crime by Evaluation of Police Performance by Respondents): Eight Impact Cities Aggregates, 1975 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 61 2.22: Neighborhood Safety at Night by Victimization Status 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O 64 2.23: Fear Among Victims and Nonvictims . . . . . . . 65 2.24: Victimization and Fear of Crime . . . . . . . . 67 2.25: Proximity of Crime Victims and Fear . . . . . . 69 2.26: Net Effect of Knowing of Victims . . . . . . . . 71 2.27: Standardized Regression Coefficients for Trust Items on Perception of Crime Scale . . . . . . . 73 2.28: Standardized Regression Coefficients for Affect Items on Perception of Crime Scale . . . . . . . 74 2.29: Mean Scores on Fear of Crime and Perceived Safety for Support Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 2.30: Perception of Crime, Fear of Crime, Neighborhood Cohesion, Social Activity, and Community Affect: correlations O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 78 2.31: Precautionary Behavior and Exposure to Risk . . 84 vii List of Tables (continued) .fi 0 N b 0 DJ on :5 o vb .b o m to .b o \I 00 Action Taken as a Result of Perceptions of Unsafety (combining Somewhat and Very Unsafe), 1980 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 Correlation Between Fear and Use of Strategies by sex 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O 0 Protection of Citizenry Engaging in Various Household-based Anti-crime Measures . . . . . Frequency of Household Protection . . . . . . Distribution and Return Rate of Surveys by Married Housing Complex . . . . . . . . . . . Age, Length of Marriage, and Type of Family Among the Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . Education, Type of Hometown, and Religious Status Among the Respondents . . . . . . . . . The Length of Stay in the U.S., House Away from Home, and the Work Status Among the Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone During the Day in Their Neigh- borhOOd O O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 0 Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood . Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood in Korea 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0 Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Age 0 O O O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O 0 Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Residence Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Religious Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii 85 87 89 91 110 111 113 115 117 117 118 120 122 124 125 List of Tables (continued) Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Length of Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Family Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Length of Stay in the 0.8. . . . . . . . . Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Hours Away From Home a Day . . . . . . . . Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by work Status 0 O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Their Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood in Korea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by the Perceived Probabilities of Having Their Home Broken Into . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by the Perceived Probabilities of Being Mugged Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by the Perceived Probabilities of Being Sexually Assaulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Perceived Seriousness of Crime in Their Neighborhood Comparing with what Media Say About Crime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Perceived Defensive Ability . . . . . . . . ix 126 127 128 130 132 134 135 137 139 142 143 List of Tables (continued) Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Perceived Frequency of Seeing Police Officers Around Their Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by if They Agree with the Assumption that there are Various Placed That are Poorly Lit . . . Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Whether They Want to Move in Other Neigh- borhood or Stay Where They Live if They Were Given Chances to Move . . . . . . . . . . . Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by How Much They Perceive They Belong to the Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Korean Women's Perception of Frequency of Their Own Behavioral Change Because of Feeling unsafe O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Korean Women's Perception of Behavioral Change of Neighbors as a Result of Fear of crime 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Korean Women's Perception of Necessity of Taking Precautionary Actions to Protect oneself O O O O O C O O C O O O O O O O O 0 Korean Women's Perception of Usefulness of Selected Precautionary Actions Among Those Who Thought it Necessary to Take Any Precautionary Actions to Protect Oneself . . Korean Women's Perception of Necessity of Taking Precautionary Actions to Protect Home Korean Women's Perception of Usefulness of Selected Precautionary Actions Among Those Who Thought it Necessary to Take Any Precautionary Actions to Protect Home . . . 145 147 149 151 151 153 153 155 155 156 ABSTRACT FEAR OF CRIME AMONG A FOREIGN GROUP IN A UNIVERSITY SETTING BY Yoon Ho Lee The primary purpose of this study was to provide the information on such research concerns as the distribution of fear of crime, the determinants of fear of crime, and the consequences of fear of crime among Korean women living in the Michigan State University married housing. For this purpose, a self-administered mailing survey was conducted on the MSU married housing during the fall of 1983. Data from this survey were used to examine the fear of crime with regard to three research concerns. Regarding the distribution of fear of crime, 6.1 per- cent of the respondents felt only somewhat unsafe during the day, while 79.5 percent of them felt either somewhat or very unsafe at night. Among the respondents, those who perceived the probabilities of being the victims of such crimes as having homes broken into, being mugged, and sexually assaul- ted as high and those who did not work outside or attend school were found to have more fear of crime. The respon- dents' lighting acceptability, their perceived belongingness to the community, and their neighborhood satisfaction were Yoon Ho Lee found to be significantly associated with the fear of crime. In addition, about half of the respondents were found to have limited or changed their behavior in response to their fear of crime. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem The Harris Poll indicates that most citizens in large American cities are so concerned about rising crime rates that fear has changed their everyday life.1 Even_though the sharp increase in major crime during the 19603 and early 19705 has slowed, the fear of crime is one of the most vital problems in contemporary America.2 Because the fear of crime is not a consequence of just direct experience as a victim of crime, many researchers have come to know that the fear of crime does not auto- matically decline along with local crime rates.3 Rather, some argue that "the fear of crime involves more than psy- chological responses to being victimized and to specific perceived threats of being victimized by some criminal acts."4 Certainly, "the fear of crime is a diffuse psycho- logical construct affected by a number of aspects of urban life."5 Accordingly, it is not hard to say that the fear of crime is pervasive in cities, and even seems to be out of proportion to the actual danger posed by crime.6 The Harris Poll came to the dramatic conclusion that "Many people's fear of crime is exaggerated, and disproportionate to the 1 2 amount of crime in their area, and the people least in danger are most afraid."7 Considering that the fear of crime is not a simple matter related to the crime problem, it is desirable to con- ceptualize how the fear of crime is defined. While few researchers have defined the fear of crime concept, this definitional ambiguity has been a major conceptual problem in studies on the fear of crime.8 According to DuBow and others, a variety of measures have been used to assess the fear of crime. Several of these measures have included potential danger to self and/or others, fear, risk, concern, worry, anxiety, or behavior.9 Frank Furstenberg, Jr., has differentiated between the fear of crime and the concern for crime. According to him, the fear of crime is defined as "people's estimates of their probability of being victimized" and the concern for crime as "people's estimates of the seriousness of crime situation in this country."10 However, the problem with this def- inition is that "the fear of crime is not based solely on the probability of being victimized."ll As indicated pre- viously, the fear of crime is a diffuse psychological con- cept and does not necessarily have a direct relation with the crime rates. James Garofalo defined the fear of crime as "an emo- tional reaction characterized by a sense of danger and "12 anxiety about physical harm. While this definition may 3 indicate the fear of personal attack, the fear of property crime would not be included by the term physical harm. Finally, in a study on the fear of criminal victimiza- tion among the urban elderly, Sundeen and Mathieu defined the fear of crime as "the amount of anxiety and concern that persons have of being a victim."13 Even though the fear of crime may be disproportionate to the actual danger imposed by crime, it is as serious a 14 problem in society as crime itself. While the cost of crime may be associated with the economic and physical loss, the fear of crime may cost us the forced alteration of daily life and the negative psychological effects of living in a 15 state of constant anxiety. In addition, citizens are forced to limit their mobility and pay extra money in response to their fear of crime.16 This may possibly encourage citizens to forego opportunities for pleasure and cultural enrichment and to become less sociable and more suspicious.17 The fear of crime is not evenly distributed across the whole population. In addition to various crime-related variables, such as the risk of victimization or the actual experience with victimization, various demographic and personal variables are associated with the fear of crime.18 One of the most consistent findings in research on the fear of crime is that women are more fearful of crime than men even though they are less likely than men to be the 19 victim of crime. This is at least partially explained 4 because of women's sex-role socialization which results in such characteristics as passivity, dependency and vulner- ability which are considered feminine.20 The present study considers the characteristics pos- sibly unique to Korean women. These characteristics can be ascribed to their physical and psychological make-up, and the social environment. It seems that the fear of crime among Korean women experiencing the U.S. environment could be serious and problematic. For example, while the incidence of crime in Korea has been steadily increasing since the last decade, it is still relatively low compared with that in the U.S. During 1979, the average incidence of crime per 100,000 inhabitants in Korea was 1,582.8, while the average of 5,521.5 crimes per 100,000 inhabitants was reported in the U.S. during the same year. The average forcible rape of women per 100,000 inhab- itants in the U.S. was 30.8 during 1978, while it was 5.9 in Korea.21 Considering that the fear of crime might be perceived as the fear of being victimized, it may be assumed that those living in high crime rate areas are possibly more afraid of crime than those living in low crime rate areas. From this point of view, the low crime rate in Korea might help reduce the fear of crime across the whole population, especially women in Korea. In addition, Korea is a homogeneous society based on several factors. There is no non-Korean ethnic or cultural S minority of any significance in Korea. Koreans have a common history, and a common language. According to recent U.S. research, women living in racially mixed neighborhoods in the U.S. are more likely than those living in racially homogeneous neighborhoods to express the fear of crime.22 Based on this assumption, it can be said that Korean women in Korea might experience less fear of crime than their American counterparts. Traditionally and by education, Korean women have been house-bound and somewhat voiceless, under the strict domina- tion of their parents and in-laws. This has made them depen- dent on their parents and relatively passive in nature.23 The Korean woman prefers to be "a wise mother" to children and "a good wife" to the husband within the home. She has grown up and has been educated in the strict moral- ity and home discipline of a father-oriented family environ- ment. In addition, all Koreans have had a strict curfew imposed by law. They have not been allowed to be out after midnight (through 4 A.M.) due to national security until 1982. However, Korean tradition continuously forces women to limit their movement and behavior even though the law regu- lating the curfew was abolished. Accordingly, Korean women have been accustomed to living within their limited environment. This limited cir- cumscribed role of Korean women might lead to their lessened exposure to crime, which in turn might lead to the reduced 6 change of being victimized, and then the lessened fear of crime. However, upon arrival in a world strange to them-~the United States--Korean women experiencing anxiety, uncertain- ty, and tension are often beset by the fear and worry in their new environment.24 They are soon enough confronted with cultural and social shock and a language barrier. They are extremely handicapped by their unfamiliarity with the western culture in general, and the use of English in par- ticular, as compared with such orientals as Indian and Philipino, largely because Korea has never been an Anglo- American colony.25 This kind of unfamiliarity with the western culture and English language may affect the rela- tionships with peer group and even affect their self-esteem. They may lose their self-confidence, after repeated exper- iences of being misunderstood by Americans who are perceived as unsympathetic.26 In addition, interpersonal relations in Korean society are characterized by emotional ties similar to such concepts as uniformity of group members or group cohesiveness. This kind of relationship emphasizes a homogeneity of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors among members. Korean culture emphasizes loyalty to such primary groups as family, kinsmen, birth place, school ties, and provincial region. Koreans like to use the words "we" and "our," instead of "I" and "my." Koreans who are isolated, alienated, or ignored by others often feel extremely uneasy and anxious.27 7 After the short excitement period upon their arrival in the U.S., however, the Korean comes to feel some incompat- ibility with the free-style, aggressive, and individualistic American way of life. They begin to feel the effects of con- frontations with the harsh reality related to the language 28 Cultural differences make it barrier and cultural shock. difficult for them to adjust to American society. The lan- guage barrier and their oriental appearance create a long distance between themselves and Americans. They are anxious about, and sometimes fearful of, American values. They may feel helpless and inferior and, even worse, they may feel controlled by the majority of Americans. As a result of these factors, the Koreans have a ten- dency to isolate themselves from the mainstream of American society and have little or no social contact with the out- side to protect their safety. The less opportunity they have to integrate into the larger community, the more they are isolated and alienated, and so they have less chance to gain the familiarity with even their neighborhood social struc- ture. Therefore, they don't have a social support network to promote frequent social interactions, good interpersonal relationships, and solidarity with the outside community. According to Riger and Gordon, the beliefs that one's neighbors will assist in case of emergency may help reduce one's fear of crime.29 However, this kind of assistance is given more frequently to those who are familiar and in familiar settings.3O Social supports and ties are the most 8 31 important factors in diffusing the fear of crime, and the presence of an extensive social support network might reduce the fear of crime.32 Familiarity with the social structure of one's neighborhood is considered to reduce the level of fear of crime. Also, Skogan and others found that there is a relationship between social cohesion and informal participa- tion and that these can reduce crime and fear.33 Consequently, it might appear quite natural that such Korean women as those living in the Michigan State Univer- sity married housing would have a high level of fear of crime. Purpose of the Study Very recently, research in criminology has begun to deal with the effects of crime on the victim and society as a whole as well as the crime itself, the criminal, and treatment for offenders. However, early studies of victim- ization were most concerned with the compensation for those who had been experiencing the indirect effects of victimiza- tion. Since the studies conducted for the President's Com- mission, however, the fear of crime relating the indirect effects of victimization has been an interesting research topic.34 While women and the elderly consistently report the most fear of crime, less attention has been paid to women even though considerable research has dealt with the elderly 35 in this regard. In addition, although research has inves- 9 tigated race, it has been limited to the differences between black and white in terms of fear of crime. Unfortunately, other ethnic groups in the U.S., including Koreans, have been entirely excluded as the research subjects, even though they appear to be more fearful. Accordingly, we know little as yet about women from other cultures and their fear of crime. As noted earlier, fear of crime in the U.S. is a more serious problem among women than men because of their socialization and perceived characteristics, both physical and psychological. There is a paucity of investigation on the fear of crime among the minority females in the U.S. Further, there seems to be little, if any, work being done on the fear of crime among a female group relatively new to the U.S. scene--namely, oriental women--even though this 36 group has become a significant minority in recent years. In this sense, the current study is meant to be primarily Exploratory andmdescriptive within group comparison in nature. The study is limited to a specific population: Korean women living in the M.S.U. married housing. While this limitation may present methodological problems in com- ‘ paring the findings with other studies or possible control groups, the uniqueness of Korean women as research subjects may lead to an interesting cross-cultural perspective and aid in developing guidelines and perspectives for future research in this crucial area concerning fear of crime. 10 Therefore, this study isflgesigngd‘to address the following research concerns: 1) To understand the distribution of fear of crime, 2) To examine the determinants of fear of crime, 3) To find the consequences of fear of crime among Korean women living in the M.S.U married housing. 11 FOOTNOTES 1Jack Rosenthal, "The Cage of Fear in Cities Beset by Crime,“ Life, Vol. 67, No. 2, July 11, 1969. 2Wesley G. Skogan, "Crime in Contemporary America," in H. Graham and T. R. Gurr (eds.), Violence in America, Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1979; Michael Lalli and Leonard D. Savitz, "The Fear of Crime in the School Enter- prise and its Consequences," Education and Urban Society, Vol. 8, No. 4, August 1976. 3Hazel Erskine, "The Polls: Control of Crime and Violence," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 38, 1974: Sarah L. Boggs, "Formal and Informal Crime Control: An Exploratory Study of Urban, Suburban, and Rural Orientations," The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 12, Summer 1971; John E. Conklin, "Dimensions of Community Response to the Crime Problem," Social Problems, Vol. 18, 1971. 4James Garofalo and John Laub, "The Fear of Crime: Broadening Our Perspective," Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978. 5Wesley G. Skogan, "Public Policy and the Fear of Crime in Large American Cities," in John A. Gardiner (ed.), Public Law and Public Policy, New York, New York: Praeger Publishers, 1977, p. 11. 6Wesley G. Skogan and Micheal Maxfield, Coping with Crime: Victimization, Fear, and Reaction to Crime, Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1981, Chapter 2; Margaret T. Gordon, Stephanie Riger, Robert K. LeBailly, and Linda Heath, "Crime, Women, and the Quality of Urban Life," Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 5, No. 3 Supplement, Spring 1980; Michael J. Hindelang, Michael R. Gottfredson, and James Garofalo, Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimiza- tion, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger, 1978. 7 Rosenthal, op. cit., p. 20. 8Stephanie Riger and Margaret T. Gordon, "The Fear of Rape: A Study in Social Control," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 37, No. 4, 1981. 12 9Frederic DuBow, Edward McCabe and Gail Kaplan, Reactions to Crime: A Critical Review of the Literature, Washington, D.C.: National Institution of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 1979. v 10Frank Furstenberg, Jr., "Public Reaction to Crime in the Street," American Scholar, Vol. 51, 1971, p. 603. 11Peter P. Yin, "Fear of Crime Among the Elderly: Some Issues and Suggestions," Social Problems, Vol. 27, No. 4, Spring 1980. 12James Garofalo, "The Fear of Crime: Causes and Consequences," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 72, No. 2, 1981, p. 841. 13Richard A. Sundeen and James T. Mathieu, "The Urban Elderly: Environment of Fear," in Jack Goldsmith and Sharon S. Goldsmith (eds.), Crime and the Elderly: Challenge and Response, Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1976, p. 55. 14Michael D. Maltz, Evaluation of Crime Control Problems, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. 15Frank Clemente and Michael B. Kleiman, "Fear of Crime Among the Aged," The Gerontologist, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1976; Margaret T. Gordon and Stephanie Riger, "Fear and Avoidance: A Link Between Attitudes and Behavior," Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978. 16DuBow, et al., op. cit.; Terry L. Baumer, "Research on Fear of Crime in the United States," Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978. ”’17Jennie McIntyre, "Public Attitudes Toward Crime and Law Enforcement," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 374, 1967, p. 46. 18Riger and Gordon, op. cit.; James Garofalo, "Victimization and Fear of Crime," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1979. 19James Garofalo, Public Opinion About Crime: The Attitudes of Victims and Nonvictims in Selected Cities, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977. 20Riger and Gordon, op. cit.; Hindelang, et al., op. cit.; Arthur Stinchcombe, Carol Heimer, Rebeca Adams Iliff, Kim Schepple, Tom W. Smith and D. Garth Taylor, Crime and 13 Punishment: Changing Attitudes in America, San Francisco, California: Jossey Bass, 1980. 21Office of Prime Minister of Republic of Korea, Whitepaper on Juvenile and Youth (in Korean), Seoul, Korea: Government Printing Office, 1980; Uniform Crime Report, FBI, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1980. 22 Gordon, Riger, ReBailly, and Heath, op. cit. 23Based on personal interviews with Korean women living in the M.S.U. married housing. 24Sook J. Hong, "The Changing Trends of Korean Women's Social Position," Women, 12, Summer 1978; Seung G. Moon, "Ancestor Worship in Korea: Tradition and Transition," Journal of fiComparative FamilyIStudies, 5, Autumn 1974: Dae C. Chang, "The Korean Family," in Man Singh Das and Panos D. Bardis (eds. ), The Family in Asia, London, England: George Allen and Unwin, 1979. 25Won M. Hurh, Hei C. Kim, and Kwang C. Kim, Assimila- tion Patterns of Immigrants in the United States: A Case Study of Korean Immigrants in the Chicago Area, Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1978. 26Hyung C. Kim, The Korean Diaspora, Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio, Inc., 1977. 27Wan K. Paik, "Psychocultural Approach to the Study of Korean Bureaucrats," in Bun W. Kim and Hwa J. Rho (eds.), Korean Public Bureaucracy, Seoul, Korea: Kyobo Publishing, Inc., 1982. 28Bong Y. Choy, Koreans in America, Chicago, Illinois: Nelson-Hall, 1977; Won M. Hurh, Comparative Study of Korean Immigrants in the United States: A Typological Approach, San Francisco, California: R and E Research Associations, Inc., 1977. 29 Riger and Gordon, op. cit. W30James C. Hacker, Kwai—Yiu Ho, and Carol Urquhart- Ross, "The Willingness to Intervene: Differing Community Characteristics," Social Problems, Vol. 21, 1974. 31 Sundeen and Mathieu, op. cit. 32Yin, op. cit. 33Weasley G. Skogan, Dan A. Lewis, Aaron Podolefsky, Frederic DuBow, and Margaret T. Gordon, with Albert Hunter, Michael G. Maxfield, and Greta Salem, Executive Summary: The 14 Reactions to Crime Project, the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University, 1982. h’ 34A.D. Biderman, L.A. Johnson, J. McIntyre, and A.W. Weir, Report on Victimization and Attitudes Toward Law Enforcement, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967. 35 Yin, op. cit. CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE This chapter refers to the review of literature related to such research concerns as l) The Distribution of fear of crime, 2) The Determinants of fear of crime, and 3) The Consequences of fear of crime. Section 1: The Distribution of Fear of Crime This section deals with how prevalent is the fear of crime or the level of fear of crime and who is experiencing this fear. The Level of Fear of Crime Personal safety on the streets is a major concern in present day American cities. Citizens are afraid of being victims of crime. This fear of crime in the United States has become a problem as serious as crime itself.1 Over the past two decades, National Public Opinion Polls have consis- tently shown that citizens consider crime to be one of the most serious problems and that fear for personal safety on the streets is the next most important concern. Until now, for most research on the fear of crime, National Public Opinion Polls and other National Crime Surveys have been used as the indicators of the level of fear. According to the Gallup Organization, the fear level 15 16 has been measured by asking the citizens how afraid they feel while walking alone at night in some nearby area.2 As seen in Table 2.1, the national level of fear of crime had gradually increased from the mid-19605 through the early 19703. Since then, the level of fear has stabilized. However, the recent level of fear remains much higher than in the 19605. While approximately 34 percent of those surveyed felt unsafe to walk alone at night in some nearby area in 1965, about 45 percent of the respondents were afraid since 1974. As discussed earlier in Chapter 1, the fear of crime is not distributed in the same patterns across the whole popu- lation. Differences by location within/out a city are apparent. In 1971, Sarah L. Boggs found that central city residents were more likely than rural and suburban residents to feel unsafe.3 A survey concerning a set of questions about neighborhood crime and its deterrence was conducted in Missouri during the spring of 1968 by the University of Missouri Public Opinion Survey Unit. A total of 842 respon- dents consisting of 270 central city residents, 212 suburban residents, and 360 small town and rural residents were asked a variety of questions including whether or not they consid- ered their neighborhood safe, with the answers being "Very safe," ”Safe,” "Unsafe," "Very unsafe," and "Don't know or not ascertained." As Table 2.2 indicates, there are some disparities by the type of residential area in terms of percentages feeling 17 Tdble 2.1 : Trends in Four of Crime, 1965 - 1981 Fearful i- - #5- NO‘ 35* 30‘ 25: 20* 15' 10‘ 5.1 0 (Your, 35 '33 37 65 ‘69 IO 71 72 I3 I: 75 73 77 I5 79 30 51 Adapted tron.weoley G. Skogan, ”On Attitudes and Behnviaro," 1n Dan A. Lewis (ed.), Reactions to Crime Beverly 3111-, Californin : 8150 Publications Inc., 1981, p.2 18 Table 2.2 : Feeling of Safety Rural/ suburbs Central Total Small City State Town (n-360) (unzig)~; (n-ero) (n-Bhe) How safe from crime would you say your neighborhood 13 I very safe 33.3 3h.0 17.8‘ 23.5 Safe 62.5 61.3 57.h‘ 60.6 Unsafe 1.1 2.8 13.7 5.6 Very unsafe 2.0 1.h io.h h.5 H Don't Know or not ascertained 1.1 0.5 0.7 0.8 Total 100.01 100.0% 100.0: 100.0% a I Probability aasociated.with percent suburbs vs. central city responding 'Very safe' and 'Safe' Adapted from Sarah L. Boggs, "Formal and Informal Crime Control : An Exploratory Study of Urban, Suburban, and Rural Orientations," The Sociological Quarterly, 12, Summer, 1971, p.32h 19 either very unsafe or unsafe. Approximately 95.8 percent of rural/small town residents and 95.3 percent of suburban residents perceived their neighborhoods safe, while 75.2 percent of central city residents indicated the same response. A study by Frank Clemente and Michael B. Kleiman supports this finding that there is disparity by city size with regard to the level of fear.4 The data for their study were obtained from General Social Surveys conducted by National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago during 1973 and 1974. With the use of multi-stage area probability sampling method, a total of 2700 samples were chosen for the study. As seen in Table 2.3, the residents of large cities expressed a great deal more fear than others. When the respondents were asked "Is there any area right around here--that is, within a mile--where you would be afraid to walk at night?" with the responses being "Yes" or "No," 60 percent of large city residents answered in the affirmative, compared to relatively lower percent of other area residents ranging from 24 percent for rural area residents to 52 percent for medium city residents. As noted above, the urban residents are more likely than their counterparts to consider their neighborhoods unsafe or to actually feel unsafe in their neighborhoods. Therefore, it appears to be worthwhile to understand the fear of crime at the neighborhood level. 20 Table 2.3 : Percentage Distribution on Fear of Walking Alone at Night Within One Mile of Home for Sample and Relevant subaamples, 1973 and 1975 Community aise Fear ‘3? N I afraid Large city 621 60 Medium city 320 51 suburb 706 Al Small town 520 36 Rural 533 2% Total 2,700 R2 :TPercent not afraid is, in each case, 100 minus the percent afraid. Adapted from Frank Clemente and Michael B. Kleiman, ”Fear of Crime in the United States : A Multivariate Analysis," Social Forces, Vol.56, No.2, December 1977. p.527 21 Some of the most comprehensive data on the fear of crime at the urban level is from the survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Law Enforcement Assistance Admin- 5 In order to estimate the rates istration during 1972-1974. of victimization, about 10,000 citizens aged 16 or over in cities across the country were asked "How safe do you feel, or would you feel, being out alone in your neighborhood at night?" with the responses being "Very safe," "Reasonably safe," "Somewhat unsafe," and "Very unsafe."6 As Table 2.4 indicates, twenty-six cities surveyed are different in terms of level of fear, ranging from 58 percent for Newark to 26 percent for San Diego. Even though the aggregate data in Table 2.4 shows a wide variation in the level of fear between cities, a majority of cities fall near the city mean. It has been argued that there are more important differences within cities than between cities in the level of fear, largely because of the different physical or social characteristics of each neighborhood within a city. Wesley G. Skogan and Michael Maxfield examined the differences in the level of fear within cities of San Francisco, Chicago, and Philadelphia. In 1977, 10 neighbor- hoods were selected based on racial predominance. From each neighborhood, a sample ranging from 200 to 450 respondents was selected by random digit dialing. Finally, a total of 1389 respondents were interviewed.7 Table 2.1: : "Somevhat' or "Very” 22 Unsafe (Percentages of responses) for 26 Cities Surveyed for LEAA (S) .. 50-1 Pliladelphial-——-—- San Prancisco--- - Chicago --— —- - -- phS—l -60. .. 55-4 r------Hevark - Detroit " ‘- - ' ' ' Oakland P---- —- - ----Ba1timore ------ Cleveland - —----- --lev York ----- St. Louis i- ------ llev Orleans-- Atlanta ------ Boston - ~— - - - Buffalo ~304 J b25- - - - Los Angeles TTTT Pitsburgh 1. ..___ - - .Cincinatti - '* - ‘- - - Washington Houston " “‘ ‘“ Milwaukee - ‘“ ._. “ Miami - - - - - Portland Denver ‘ Dallas ‘ “Minneapolis ----- ----- K K‘ \ \ l- " San Diego Adapted from Wesley G. Skogan and Individual and Neighborhood Reactions, Beverly Hills, California Publications Inc., 1981, p.22 Michael Maxfield, Coning with Crime : Sage 23 The data depicted in Table 2.5 indicates that three cities are not much different in the level of fear, but significantly different within cities. Wicker Park of Chicago was ranked the highest, while South Philadelphia had the lowest average fear score. Interestingly, in Table 2.5, predominantly black neigh- borhoods or heterogeneous neighborhoods had considerably higher average scores than predominantly white neighbor- hoods. For instance, Wicker Park, with the highest average score, was a heterogeneous neighborhood consisting of about one-third black, one-third Hispanic, and one-third white ethnic groups.8 In a recent study on the perception of crime at the neighborhood level, Marlys McPherson examined if individual fear of crime was based on the actual probabilities of personal victimization. Data for her study was collected by the Minnesota Crime Prevention Center during the fall of 1975 as a part of initial research to develop a comprehen- sive crime prevention program. For her study, 1541 adult residents were surveyed and also the crime rates for the year of 1975 were calculated.9 Among the questions concerning the perception of crime, the respondents were asked how dangerous they felt it was to walk through their neighborhood alone at night, with the responses being zero (no danger) to 10 (very dangerous). As the measure of fear, those who answered 8, 9 or 10 on the scales were considered to be those who had fear of crime. 24 Table 2.5 : Pear Levels for Cities and Neighborhoods Somewhat. 3.0.- unsafe -— -— ~ Wicker Park - --Hbod1avn —.--«Vistacion valley 2.5“ -~— -Mission ~-— --West Philadelphia Chicago-:-’- ~- - —- Back of the yards Philadelphia- --~— - - Sunset San Prancisco-«--: —--Lincoln park “-Logan Reasonably 2.04 ..__- South Philadelphia safe 105‘ very safe 1.04 Adapted from Wesley G. Skogan and Michael Maxfield, a cit., p.5It 25 As indicated in Table 2.6, McPherson's study provides additional support for the findings that the level of fear varies by each city's neighborhood. The level of fear of crime within the city of Minneapolis ranged from 29 percent for Central to 5.1 percent for University. Interestingly, the rates for all crimes presented (per 100,000) were found to be precisely related to the citizen's perception of danger at night. There was a strong correlation between the crime rates and the citizen's perception of danger at night. As a result, it might be said that the neighborhood with high crime rates have also a high level of fear of crime. Neighborhoods with relatively low crime rates such as University, Nokomis, Southwest, Northeast, and Longfellow had relatively low level of fear of crime, while such neigh- borhoods with high crime rates as Central, Near North, Powderhorn, Camden, and Calhoun-Isles had a high level of fear. While most researchers claimed that a substantial proportion of citizens are experiencing some degree of fear of crime--whether rational or irrational--a controversy arises from the measurement of that fear. In order to under- stand the prevalence or level of fear which the respondents are experiencing, various research questions have been employed so far. However, there still exist uncertainties about whether those questions can measure the actual fear of crime precisely. 26 . End .33 .....m.oz .m.Ho> .2852. USSaESS 5 "B2830; =49...“ coofioeuuoz one «a oars .8 «83888 as. 333.3... .8233: «3.82 so: 883 ' no.“ .8. W 8. M S. v 8.3 883288 mmmw. I .u owwc. I .u Nana. I A 33. I .u Ahvnofiaedohhoo ado—8: twosoOAA noounom 2..» TR 2.4. coon «and. Wm.” a...» :53 amount—oz “.3 «.3 ES «.2. e3 GA... «.3 we. 33.2 um.m due 5...... 3.2 mud or“ «Hm 18 8381.8.” “Tm ~69 «7m mama «HA. 93 «1m .12. 5885:: «a.» o.mH na.~ w.m: ma.» ~.oa «a.» m.wm vuoazvsom um.ma m.om mm.ma m.mHH um.ma m.:a um.cn w.mm common um.aa o.HHH um.HH >.mma no.HH m.- no.HH m.hom ouHoHlnoomdoo no.8 oémm 2.8 3.84 no.8 3.3 no.8 131.94 35.8 u:.om H.mmH u:.om o.mmm u:.cm m.mw u:.o~ :.mN: nuomhuurom um.mm :.maa um.mm 0.4mm um.mm o.oc um.mm o.m~: make: has: now“: an pnwma an nwdogoonnfiz aw unwan an msouowdc unouomnmu uoonuonnwaoz msouownnc mewccoomon ooo.ooa mnaceonnOM ooo.ooa anew: an wnwcnoomou coo.ooa m use ovum . a new ovum noonomnoo moan # ooo.ooa u now ovum I I. uncanny u .. you own: I nomnonvu uoxooaxoum uaznmu< Huaxom rouluomnohpm \noeanm cease huonnbm Henonhom 828,23”... 3 «one: «5.8 93 23.. 2. guess .8 coalescence p.838 8253 eBSoSSae " Sm 3a.... 27 James Garofalo discussed the possible uncertainties about the questions developed for the National Crime Survey as an indicator of the fear of crime. For example, "How safe do you feel, or would you feel, while being alone in your neighborhood at night?" For this question, the word "crime" is not mentioned at all. What "neighborhood" means is ambig- uous and can vary from respondent to respondent. The phrase of "being alone" is also problematic since the time spent out alone varies among citizens, depending upon job, social activities, and personal situations. Furthermore, "do you or would you" may combine actual feeling of fear with guesses. Also, Garofalo argued that the popular measure of the fear of crime may measure many other things beside just people's reactions to the risk of crime itself.10 Garofalo provided the empirical support for his conten- tions, using a 1972 survey of eight American impact cities on problems in neighborhoods.11 As seen in Table 2.7, only 19 percent of the respondents viewed crime or fear of crime as the most important problem in their neighborhoods. Garofalo argues that the fear of crime may not be explained separately from the unease generated by other indicators listed in Table 2.7. The contrary viewpoint put forward by Skogan and Maxfield claims that the expression of the fear of crime is largely independent of most of those alternative interpreta- tions of their meanings, and that fear of crime is not linked to mistrust, suspicion, and concern about change but 28 Teble 2.7 : Perceived Problems in Neighborhood : Eight U.S. Impact CitiesIa), 1972 Most important problem Estimated number of in neighborhood Percent householdsIbI Crime or fear of crime 19 115,170 Neighborhood changing; bad element . moving in 17 101,610 Problems with neighbors or visitors to neighborhood l3 7h,710 Environmental problems; trash, noise, overcrowding, etc., 29 172,8h0 Traffic, parking 10 60,0h0 Public transportation 1 8,690 Inadequate schools, shopping facilities, etd., R 21,350 Other 6 36,580 Total 99(c) 591,190 a the eight impact cities ; Atlanta,TBaltimore, Cleveland, Belles, Denver, Revert, Portland, and St. Louis - b Population estimated derived from.samples of about 5,000 households per city c Percentagessdo not sum to 100 because of rounding Adapted from.James Garofalo, Public 92inion About Crime : The Attitudes of Victims and Nonvictims in Selected Cities, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Crimenal Justice Information and Statistics. Service, washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 1977, pp.6h-66 J 29 related to the threat of crime and victimization.12 They used data obtained from General Social Survey between 1973 and 1974 by the National Opinion Research Center. The respondents were asked questions pertaining to the fear of crime as well as a number of indicators tapping suspicion, distrust, anxiety about social change, and social trust and anomie. As seen in Table 2.8, the Multiple R for such vari- ables as social trust, distrust, and dissatisfaction with social change are about .30 compared to .02 for the fear of crime. Therefore, one might say that the fear of crime is independent of, and unrelated to, other variables listed in Table 2.8. In the discussion so far, the level of fear of crime was examined from several perspectives. The nationwide level of fear of crime had gradually increased until the early 19705, but it has stabilized at a higher level than in the 19605. The variation in the level of fear of crime existed between cities as well as within a city, due mainly to the different physical and social characteristics of cities and neighborhoods or communities. The residents of large or central city expressed relatively higher level of fear compared to those of rural/small town or suburbs. At the neighborhood or community level, people in the neighborhood with high crime rate and heterogeneous ethnic groups had higher level of fear than their respective counterparts. 30 Table 2.8 : Fear of Crime and Related Attitudes Multiple R Survey questions with all other items Is there any area right around here - that is, within . v - 1 mile - where you would be afraid to walk alone at night! .02 Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can't be too careful in dealing with .35 people! Would you say that most of time people try to be helpful or that they are mostly Just working out for themselves? .33 Do you think that most prople would try to take advantage of flu if they get a chance, or they would try to be fair? .31 In spite of what some people say, the lot of average man is getting worse, not better. .18 Most people don't really care what appears to the next fellow. .3“ These days a person doesn't really know whom he can count on .23 Number of cases 2807 ‘. Adapted from Vesley G. Skogan and Michael Maxfield, on cit., p.57 31 The Fear Subgroups This part of the section reviews the literature on who expresses the fear of crime most. As Yin has noted, The strength of the existing literature on the fear of crime is the relative abundance of research on the relationship between fear of crime and demographic or personal characteristics and residential locale. As discussed earlier in Chapter 1, one of the most consistent findings on the fear of crime is that sex of respondents is one of the most powerful indicators of fear of crime. In their study, Clemente and Kleiman examined the independent ability of each variable such as sex, age, race, socioeconomic status, and community size to predict the fearful subgroups, using data from 1973 and 1974 General Social Surveys conducted by the National Opinion Center.14 According to data in Table 2.9, sex, race, and community size are found to be significantly related to the fear of crime, while age, income, and education have some relation- ship to the fear of crime. Approximately 22 percent of male respondents, compared to 61 percent of females, claimed that they felt either somewhat or very unsafe while walking alone at night within 1 mile of home. In addition, 60 percent of large city respondents and only 24 percent of rural respon- dents expressed some degree of fear. For the variable race, 57 percent of black respondents were afraid of walking alone at night, while 40 percent of white respondents were afraid. Even though no significant percentage differences exist, the 32 Table 2.9 : Percentage Distribution on Fear of Walking Alone at Night Within 1 mile of Home for Sample and Relevant Subsamples, 1973 and 1974 {3 1 Category N afraid Category N afraid Sample 42,700 42 Income($): 6.999 821 48 Sex: 7.000-9.999 429 41 Males . 1.291 22 10,000-14.999 665 43 Female 1,409 61 15,000 + 785 35 Race: Education: White 2,386 40 (HS 938 44 Black 314 57 HS 898 44 >HS 864 38 Age: 18-34 . 972 41 Community size: 35-49 721 40 Large city 621 60 50-64 611 43 Medium city 320 51 65 + ' 396 50 Suburb 706 41 Small town 520 36 Rural 533 24 Adapted from Frank Clemente and Michael B. Kleiman, op cit. p.527 33 elderly, low income respondents, and respondents with a low level of education were more fearful than their respective counterparts. Furthermore, Clemente and Kleiman employed a Beta and Beta-Squared Test in order to indicate the independent ability of each variable. As presented in Table 2.10, sex with a Beta Squared of .153 has the highest independent ability, which would mean that sex has considerably strong explanatory power in explaining the differences in the fear of crime. While it is not as significant a factor as sex, community size also has relatively strong explanatory power, with the Beta-Squared of .058. Almost all of the previous research on the fear of crime parallels the research discussed above in terms of the relationship between the fear of crime and such independent variables as discussed in Table 2.10. The National Crime Survey reports that there is a strong relationship between the fear of crime and gender of respondent, and that the place of residence has also a strong relationship with the fear of crime. In terms of percentages, 26 percent of male respondents, compared to 60 percent of female respondents, felt either somewhat or very unsafe. In addition, the elderly, black, and low income respondents were also found to have more fear than their respective counterparts.15 Barry D. Lebowitz analyzed data from a 1973 represen- tative national sample collected by the National Opinion 34 Table 2.10 : Beta and Beta-Squared Values for Six Explanatory Variables (of Fear of Crime) Beta Variable Beta-Squared Sex .39 .153 Race . 05 . 002 As- .09 .008 Income .06 .003 Education .02 .000 Size .21: . 058 a - .ha,‘ R*3 .2230 Adapted from Frank Clemente and Michael B. Kleiman, op cit., p.528 35 Research Center. His study also shows significant differ- ences in the fear of crime by sex and place of residence among all age groups.16 Another National Crime Survey also reports significant differences in the fear of crime by sex and age but little differences by race. Based on data from the results of the Boston Attitudinal Survey conducted in early 1974, it was found that females and elderly are more fearful than their respective counterparts. However, race in this study had weak relationship with the fear of crime.17 In addition, Stephanie Riger and Margaret T. Gordon, in their study on the fear of rape, also found considerable disparities in the fear of crime by sex, age, income, race, and education. According to their analysis of aggregate data obtained from a telephone survey of 540 adults selected by random digit dialing in Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Chicago in 1977, female respondents (43.6%) were more fear- ful than male respondents (17.9%). For both males and females, the younger, white, high income respondents were found to have relatively less fear of crime than their respective counterparts-—the elderly, black, low income respondents.18 For the discussion of women's fear of crime, Stephanie Riger analyzed 1975 National Crime Survey data from the nation's five largest cities--New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit. In detail, about 61.1 percent of female respondents, compared to 31.7 percent of 36 males, felt either somewhat or very unsafe at night. Among females, 68.4 percent of black females and 73.3 percent of elderly females over age 65 felt either somewhat or very unsafe, while 57.1 percent of white females and 53.7 percent of younger females indicated the same responses.19 A recent study conducted by Research and Forecasts, Inc., examined the fear of crime in a somewhat different fashion.20 Data for the study was based on a telephone survey of national random digit samples in the entire United States during 1980. Interestingly, they identified two different types of fear of crime-~"Concrete fear" or "the fear of becoming a victim of a specific violent crime” and "Formless fear" or "a nonspecific fear about safety in one's home, neighborhood and large community." The latter is similar to the definition of general fear of crime discussed by most researchers. This formless fear was derived from six submeasures of fear. The respondents were asked how safe they felt being out alone during the day and at night in the central business district or main shopping center and in the neighborhood, and being alone at home during the day and at night. As depicted in Table 2.11, 54 percent of large city dwellers, compared to 33 percent of small city residents and 30 percent and 31 percent of suburbs and country site residents, respectively, expressed a high level of fear. In terms of gender, 48 percent of female respondents indicated a high level of fear, but only 26 percent of male respon- 37 Table 2.11 : Formless Fear By Place of Residence, Gender, Race, Household Income, Occupational Status, Education, Employment Status, Marital Status, and Age Formless fear Categories Moderate No. of High to low responses Place of residence: Rural 31 69 200 Suburb 3O 70 233 Small city 33. 67 370 Large city 54 46 218 Gamma : .23 Gender: Male 26 74 492 Female 48 52 544 Gamma : .44 Race: White 34 66 860 Black‘ 48 52 118 Household income: 26,000 or more 26 74 190 11,000 to 25.999 33 67 424 Under 11,000 49 51 304 Gamma : .21 a ' Occupational Status: Owner/manager/professional 34 66 265 Salaried white color 27 73 304 Blue color 44 56 449 Gamma : .05 Education: College graduate 38 62 166 High school graduate or some college 35 65 511 Some high school or less 45 55 355 Gamma : .15 Employment: Working full time 30 70 515 Retired 46 54 -193 Other 43 57 315 Gamma : .21 Marital Status: Single 33 67 187 Married 34 66 637 Sep./Div/ 48 52 100 Widowed 49 51 113 38 Table 2.11 : Continued from previous page A e: g18 - 29 36 64 283 30 - 39 30 70 191 40 - 49 34 66 160 50 - 59 41 59 158 60 and oVer 43 57 237 Gamma : .08 Adapted from Research and Forecasts, Inc., The Figgie Report on ’Fear of Crime : America AfraidL Part 1, The General Publig, r Willougby, Ohio, A-T-O Inc., 1980, pp.51-54 39 dents indicated the same responses. While 34 percent of white respondents reported a high level of fear, 48 percent of black respondents did so. Those with the lowest income had the highest level of fear. In terms of percentages, 49 percent of low income group (below $11,000) had a high level of fear, compared to 26 percent of those with income over $26,000. Considering the level of formal education, 45 percent of those respondents with some high school education or less indicated a high level of fear, while 35 percent of high school graduates and 38 percent of college graduates indicated the same responses. For work status, 46 percent of retired respondents, compared to 30 percent of those who had full-time jobs, had a high level of fear. While 33 percent of single and 34 percent of married respondents had a high level of fear, 48 percent of separated or divorced respon- dents and 49 percent of widowed respondents had a high level of fear. Finally, when broken down by age, the level of fear ranged from 30 percent for age group of 30-39 to 43 percent for age group over 65. Margaret M. Braungart and others investigated the joint or combined effects of age level, sex difference, and such social factors as place of residence, race, marital status, living arrangement, health status, and victim experience in fear of crime, using data from the General Social Survey in 1976.21 According to their study, both male and female elderly expressed more fear of crime than their respective counterparts, youth and the middle aged. Among all age 40 groups, females were more afraid of crime than males. As depicted in Table 2.12, female respondents of large urban city were not more fearful than those in a small city or community among all age groups. With regard to marital status, the most fearful female subgroups were middle aged single (86%) and separated or divorced elderly (85%). As expected, female married respondents were least fearful. Except for the age group of youth, black respondents were more likely than white to feel a fear of crime. Those who lived with others were more fearful than those who lived alone, except for the youth age group. No significant difference in the level of fear existed by health status. However, among all age groups, those who were burglarized during the past year were much more afraid than those who were not. V/. Charles C. Thomas and Jeffery M. Hyman examined the influence of social characteristics and victimization exper- ience on the variations in the perception of crime, fear of victimization, and attitudes toward police. Data for their study was obtained from a random sample of households in four cities in Virginia between 1973 and 1974. The bivariate correlations in Table 2.13 show that blacks, females, elderlies, those respondents with low income, those respondents with low level of education, and inner city respondents were more concerned with the fear of victimization. As indicated in Table 2.13, the place of residence was the best predictor of the fear of victimiza- 41 Table 2.12 : Percentage Fearful By Age and Place of Residence, Marital status, Race, Living arrangement, Health status, and Burglarized During the Past year for Females " """"""""" , _’""""""":"'£'g;'53112 """"""""" Category . Youth Middleéaged Elderly Place of residence: Large urban 55 (31) 56 (61) 63 (35) Smaller city or Community 62 (169) 60 (344) 64 (181) Marital status: Married 63 (118) 57 (312) 50 (88) Widowed 100 (1) 73 (26) 72 (106) Sep./Div. 48 (23) 57 (53) 85 (13) Never married 59 (59) 86 (14) 80 (10) Race: White 64 (178) 58 (375) 63 (201) Black 38 (31) 79 (23) 31 (16) Living arrangement: Alone 59 (17) 76 (21) 73 (101) Living with others 61 (183) 58 (383) 56 (116) Health status: Excellent/Good 61 (171) 57 (301) 59 (120) Fair 65 (20) 65 (28) 67 (61) Poor 4O (10) 65 (26) 72 (25) Burglarized during past year: Burglarized 72 (25) 75 (24) 85 (13) Not burglarized 59 (175) 58 (381) 63 (204) Adapted from Richard G. Braunagrt, Margaret M. Braungart, and William J. Hoyer, "Age, Sex, and Social Factors in Fear of Crime," Sociological Focus, Vol.13, No.1, June 1980, pp.59-62 42 Table 2.13 : Intercorrelation Matrixi(of Variables Related to Fear)(0ama-) X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 X10 X11 X1 1.000-.545 -.110, .439 .372 .248 -.464 -.093 -.224 -.281 .608 X2 1,000 .044 -.471.-.137. .212 .201 .011 .349 .198 -.182 X3 1,000 ..088~—2296--.090 1:163 1150 ..187 ".164 ..248 X4 1,000 .406 .196 -.269 -.121 -.197 -.178 .218 X5 1,000 .409 -.147 -.170 -.254 -.276 -.012 X6 1.000 -.093 -.115 -.118 -.111 -.023 X7 1.000 -.032 -.488 .334 -.190 X8 1.000 -.032 -.052 .055 X9 1.000 .697 -.108 X10 1.000 -.085 X11 1.000 X1 = Ethnicity X2 = Sex X3 = Age X4 = Total family income X5 = Educational attainment X6 = Occupational prestige X7 = Place or residence X8 = Victimization experience X9 = Fear of victimization X10 = Perception of crime X11 = Evaluations of police (Adapted from Charles C. Thomas and Jeffery M. Hyman, "Perceptions of Crime, Fear of Victimization, and Public Perceptions of Police IPerfbrmance," Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol.5, No.3, 1977, 13.314 43 tion with a Gamma of -.488 and sex was the next best predictor with a Gamma of .349. While such variables as educational attainment (.187), ethnicity (-.224), total family income (-.197), and age (.187) exerted moderate effects on the fear of victimization, victimization exper- ience had insignificant effect. Ronald W. Toseland investigated the relationship of demographic or personal, crime related, and psychosocial variables to the fear of crime, using data from the 1976 General Social Survey by the National Opinion Research Center.23 The discriminant analysis presented in Table 2.14 shows that sex is the best predictor of the fear of crime, as expected. The next most important variable in explaining the different level of fear of crime is the size of residen- tial place. The age variable contributes significantly to the fear of crime. However, health status, marital status, victimization experience, living arrangement, and race are found to be insignificantly related to the fear of crime in this discriminant analysis. The discussion in the second part of this section was concerned with identifying the most fearful subgroups based on demographic or personal characteristics of the respon- dents. In general, sex and age of the respondents were identified as the most powerful predictors of the fear of crime, following race and residential area of the respon- dents. Women and the elderly were reported to have higher levels of fear of crime than their counterparts, men and the 44 Table 2.14 : Summary of Most Significant Predictors of Fear of Crime Found To Be In The Discriminant Analysis As Measured By The Change In RAO V Standardized Significance Significance Variable Discriminant F of F(Willkis RAO V of change in name Coefficients Level Lambda) RAO V Sex .83593 232.3125 .0000 232.3706 .000 Size of Place .25420 28.1172 .0000 265.4480 .000 Age - .18114 20.4297 319.3259 .000 Health .09795 4.0254 328.6639 .025 Never . married .15827_ 3.3633 332.8824 .040 Burglary .09056 3.1094 339.7951- .048 Widowed .14814 2.2617 339.6506‘ .091- Persons living with.09946 1.7368 344.1120 .138 respondents Race .07496 1.7661 346.3560 .134 Married .11639 1.7197 348.5456 .139 Adapted from Ronald W. Toseland, Most Vulnerable?" Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol.10, 1982, p.203 " Fear of Crime : Who Is 45 youngers. Black and urban respondents indicated more fear of crime compared to whites and rural or suburban respondents. Even though there exists relative discrepancy, such var- iables as income, educational attainment, health status, employment or occupational status, living arrangement, victim experience, and marital status appear to be not so significant as sex, age, residential area, and race. Determinants of Fear of Crime This section deals with the determinants of fear of crime. The basis or sources of fear of crime must be diverse, considering the fact that the fear of crime as an emotional response to crime refers to a wide range of phenomena that are quite different, depending on the individual.24 Since individual fear of crime appears to be a combined emotional reaction of various factors associating to produce their fear of crime, it may be almost impossible to pinpoint one absolute source of fear. Rather it might be desirable to investigate which sources have a relative strength as possible determinants of fear. A recent study by Dan M. Puuri examined the relative strength of possible determinants of fear.25 In his study on fear of crime among undergraduate students at Michigan State University during 1979 through 1981, the respondents were given 8 statements identifying each possible deter- minant and asked to indicate what is the most important reason to fear. As indicated in Table 2.15, both male and 46 Most Important Reason For Feeling Somewhat Unsafe Table 2.15 or Very Unsafe While Out Alone On MSU Campus By Sex (1979. 1980. 1981) Survey year Determinants or _____ 1979 __________ 1980______ ___1981 _____ reason for M F M F M F feeling unsafe Direct Victimization 2.6% 1.6% 1.3% 2n1% 2.5% 2.8% Ingigiggization 1.9 3.3 4.4 4.5 5.4 5.2 Media effect 18.3 16.7 28.9 19.9 31.7 '20.5 Psychological 2.6 4.5 2.8 4.3 2.0- 5.2 Vulnerability 1.9 9.6 1.9 11.7 3.6 9.3 Inggggzitgontrol 25.9 14.5 20.4 10.2 14.4 6.8 Environment 38.9 44.0 30.2 33.0 34.7 39.1 Perception of crime 7.9 5.9 10.1 14.3 6.4 11.0 Totals 100.0%100.1% 100.0% 100.0% '99.9% 99.9% No. of responses 378 940 318 931 202 982 Adapted from Dan M. Puuri, A Study of Fear of Crime Among Undergradgate Students at a Selected University, Unpublished Master's Thesis, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1983, p.109 ° 47 female respondents considered physical environment to be the most important reason for fear. Each year the respondents ranging from 30.2 percent to 44 percent indicated physical environment as the most important reason for their feeling unsafe on the campus of M.S.U. at night. It is interesting to note that male respondents were more likely than female respondents to indicate inadequate_formal control as their most important reason. One might say that males are less likely to count on police protection than females. Consider- able differences between females and males also emerge on media effect. More males than females perceived mass media to be associated with their feeling unsafe at night. While perception of crime appeared to have a little effect on the fear of crime among both male and female respondents, physical vulnerability had a little impact on only females. Such possible determinants as direct and indirect victimiza- tion and psychological factors were found to be insignif- icantly related to the fear of crime. As mentioned above, however, it might be possible to conclude what is the absolute cause of individual's fear of crime, because the fear of crime varies from individual to individual. In addition, the fear of crime as a combined emotional response to crime is considered to be affected by a variety of factors. Therefore, this section reviews the research dealing with the possible determinants employed in this study in order to discuss each determinant of fear. 48 Lane It has been argued that people's fear of crime is out of proportion to actual danger posed by crime, and that the fear of crime doesn't automatically decline along with local crime rates since it is not believed that the fear of crime is related to just direct victimization experience.26 Rather, indirect victimization may affect the fear of crime more significantly. A recent study by Skogan and Maxfield indicates that most citizens (85%) learn about crime through media such as newspaper, T.V., and radio, or personal conversations. In addition, George Gerber and L. Gross have suggested that heavy T.V. viewers are more likely than light viewers to feel that they might be involved in some kind of Violent crime. Also, Walter B. Jaehnig and others found that people's fear of crime is associated more closely with news- paper emphasis on violent crime than with the actual frequency of occurrence of crimes. Margaret T. Gordon and Linda Heath concluded, in their recent study on the rela- tionships of the news business to crime and fear of crime, that readers of the newspapers which devote the largest proportion of its news to crime exhibit a higher level of fear of crime than do readers of other papers.28 On the contrary, Anthony N. Doob and Glenn E. MacDonald reported that when actual incidence of crime is controlled for, there is no overall relationship between television 29 viewing and fear of crime. In their study, the respon- 49 dents were chosen from a high- and a low-crime area in down- town Toronto and a high- and a low-crime area in Toronto's suburbs. They analyzed data obtained from a door-to-door survey, using a factor analysis. As Table 2.16 presents the Pearson's correlation between fear-of-crime factor and various measures of media usage, those who watched the most T.V. appear to be those who are the most fearful in general. However, when crime rate is controlled for, the effect seems to disappear. According to average correlation depicted in Table 2.16, there is no significant relationship between media usage and fear of crime, with an average score of less than 0.1. In the National Crime Survey sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice, when the respondents were asked how they perceive the seriousness of crime relative to what the media says, less than 10 percent of the respondents indicated crime as less serious than the media portrayed, while 42 percent of them considered crime to be more serious.30 As indicated in Table 2.17, the crosstabulation of the media usage with the fear of crime shows that those respondents who perceived crime as more serious than what the media says are more likely than those who perceived crime as less serious or about the same to feel some degree of unsafety. In terms of percentages, 51 percent of the respondents who considered crime to be more serious than what the media says, compared to 43 percent of those who indicated crime about the same and 29 percent of those who 50 nep.o .oeeP .m.oz .em.Ho> .smoeoeosmd Hmwoom use aufiaocompom mo Hd¢h§0h swammnno magm:0fipmaom one mH u :oapmafisfluofl> mo seem one msfizofi> :onH>oHoe: .uansopomz .m cacao one 9003 .z anonps< scum condop< Poo.hv “ o mo..Vd u a mo.1 me. mo. «9.1 om.1 50.1 mswcmmu nommdmzoz n . no. Pm. No.1 do.) we, mo. mzo: oflomm mo. oo. mo. eo.- ea. mo. 8:6: .>.e ea. 40.- ea. mo.- mm. we. ooeofloe> .>.e b o mo. 00.1 00. be. em. we. .>.e Hence p o soapoaoanoo Abbvbnsbsm Apevhuwo Aocvnnsbsm Ammvhpflo moose Has nape: ommno>< as no 30 me u m nachos a q H o : Hm poaoom moen< anon one no mmeno>¢ one new one .mmonc snob one we seem nom.AcoHooqvmuoonnsm Haw new monoom nausea oeano mo doom one omen: wave: noozpom uncapeaonnou " op.m oases 51 Table 2.17: Fear of Crime by Perceived Seriousness of Crime Relative to What the Newspapers and Television Say: Eight Impact Cities Aggregate, 1973 Seriousness of Crime relative Fear of Crime c to what media Very Reasonably Somewhat Very Estimated say safe safe unsafe unsafe number Less serious 28%a 42% 16% 13% 261,623 15b 9 6 5 About the same 15 42 23 20 1,514,438 46 51 49 42 More serious 13 36 23 28 1,292,171 35 37 41 50 Estimated number 474,850 1,208,236 683,365 701,781 3,068,232 (Gamma = .19) aRow percentage Column percentage Excludes persons who gave no response to either item Adapted from James Garofalo, "Victimization and Fear of Crime," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1979, p. 89. 52 reported less serious, felt either somewhat or very unsafe at night. Defensive Ability According to Skogan and Maxfield, it is suggested that both social and physical vulnerability affect the levels of fear. By physical vulnerability, they meant the inability to ward off or resist attack and difficulties recovering from victimization. From this point of view, it is not hard to assume that women and elderly are more physically vulner- able, largely because of their physical characteristics. On the other hand, social vulnerability was referred to as the frequency of exposure to the threat of victimization measured by actual risks and resources for dealing with the consequences of crime. Black and poor people are assumed to be more socially vulnerable because of their residential proximity to high crime rate areas and their financial inability to recover from or to prevent crime.31 Stephanie Riger, Margaret T. Gordon, and Robert LeBailly reported that the differences between male and female in the level of fear are associated with their physiques rather than psychological fact. In their study on women's fear of crime, the respondents were asked if they thought they could defend themselves against attack. While 41 percent of female respondents indicated that they could defend themselves, 54 percent of male respondents reported they could defend themselves.32 53 In addition, in a study by Riger and Gordon, when the respondents were asked to indicate their relative physical strength and running speed, only 28 percent of women consid- ered themselves to be better or similar, compared to the average women.33 Referring back to Table 2.16, a much smaller proportion of male respondents indicated vulnerability as the most important reason for feeling unsafe, while female respon- dents who indicated being vulnerable as their most important reason for feeling unsafe ranged from 9.3 percent to 11.7 percent. In addition, Braungart, et al., provides an additional support for the findings of previous studies in relation to the fear of crime and vulnerability. By and large, individ- uals who indicated their own physical condition as poor or fair are more likely than those in excellent or good physical condition to express their fear of crime among all age and sex groups.34 Perception of Crime It is assumed that the crime rate of the neighborhood may have a relatively strong effect on the fear of crime.35 Likewise, it is believed that people's perception of the relative crime rate of their neighborhood appears to be associated with their fear of crime. That is, the perception 54 of how much of a problem crime is may affect the levels of fear. This perception of crime refers to their perceived seriousness, dangerousness, and trends of crime in their own neighborhood. According to James Garofalo, information about the amount and nature of crime in the neighborhood, through direct or indirect victim experience and media, may provide the individuals with a somewhat nebulous image of crime.36 However, the perception of crime may have an affect on the fear of crime under the assumptions that people's perception of crime in their neighborhood may be fairly accurate. Several studies provide an additional support for the finding that citizens are able to accurately estimate how much of a problem crime is in their own neighborhood.37 John E. Conklin hypothesized that there is an inverse relationship between feelings of personal safety and percep- 38 As seen in Table 2.18, the regression tion of crime. analysis of safety items on the perception of crime scale shows that the relationship between the two variables is strong in the urban community but insignificant in suburbs. In detail, it can be understood that more residents of the urban area than of the suburbs perceive high rates in their community, and more residents of high crime rate areas feel unsafe in their community. 55 Table 2.18 : Standardized Regression Coefficients for Safety Items on Perception of Crime Scale ‘ ’Suburb 7 'Urban Coeffi- N Coeefi- N uestions . .. Q clent oient 1.Some people worry a great deal about having their house broken . .1 into and other people are not as .07 NS -.29 .001 concerned. Are you very concerned, somewhat concerned, or not at all concerned about this? 2.How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood when it's dark?'°08 NS "28 “002 3.How likely is that a person walking . around here at night will be held -.06 NS -.46 .001 up or attacked? Adapted from John E. Conklin, "Dimensions of Community Responses to the Crime Problem," Social Problems, Vol.18, Winter 1972, p.379 56 A study by Frank E. Furstenberg, Jr., reports the relationship of fear of crime with an estimate of neighbor- hood safety. In his study, the respondents were asked to indicate their estimate of the likelihood that various crimes occur in their own neighborhood, compared to most 39 The crosstabulation of this question with other areas. the fear of crime indicates the existence of significant relationship between the two variables. As seen in Table 2.19, those who perceived their neighborhood as less safe than most other areas were more likely to express their fear of crime, compared to those who indicated about average or more safe than most other areas. On the contrary, Fredric DuBow, et al., claimed that factors associated with the perception of crime rates and crime risks does not always have a similar relationship to fear. According to them, the general level of crime or trend in crime rate do not entirely account for the level of fear and perceived risk.40 Police Visibility Jeffery Henig and Michael Maxfield suggested that one‘ of the general strategies for reducing the fear of crime should be to increase the general visibility of police. In contrast, Jane Jacobs attributed the perception of safety to the social informal control defined as an intricate, almost 57 Table 2.19 : The Relationship of Fear of Crime to Estimate of Neighborhood Safety . . Less safe About . More safe Fear Of crime index than most average than most Low(O-4) . 13% 30% 57% Medium(5-11) 32 35 24 ' High(12 +) 55 35 20 Chi Square + 183.534 4df p£.001 Adapted from Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., "Public Reaction to Crime in the Streets," American Scholar, 42, 1970/71, p.607 58 unconscious network of voluntary controls and standards ‘ among the peOple themselves.41 A study by Boggs provided additional supports for the assumption that people's perception of safety in their neighborhood is based more heavily on informal controls.42 According to data in Table 2.20, a majority of respondents attributed their perception of safety in their neighborhood to informal controls such as residents' character, community character, and social network. Average 75.8 percent of total respondents who indicated their neighborhood as safe attributed their perception of safety to informal controls consisting of resident's character, community character, and social network, while only average 15.1 percent of total respondents who indicated formal control as the reason for feeling safe. Among those who indicated their neighborhood was unsafe, an average 5.9 percent of the respondents attributed their perception of unsafety to formal control, while 75.8 percent of them indicated social informal charac- teristics such as residents' character, general moral decline, and physical character as their reason for feeling unsafe in their neighborhood. In his study, Richard L. Block found that no signif- icant relationship existed between the fear of attack and citizens' evaluation of police. That is, the evaluation of'\ \ police had no or little effect on the fear of crime. In 59 Table 2.20 : Feeling of Safety Rural/ suburbs Central Total small town (N=212) city State (N2360) . (Na270) (N=842) What makes your neighborhood safe ? (N-345) (Na202) (Na203) (NtTSO) Informal controls; 82.9a' 70.3 67.9 75.8 Resident's character 37.1 32.6 37.4 36.0 Community character 33.3b 24.8 18.7 27.4 Social network 12.5 .. 12.9 11.8 12.4 Formal control ' a (Law enforcement) 10.4 20.2 17.7 15.1 No past crime 4.1 4.5 7.4 7.4 Other reason - 1.5 1.0 0.7 Don't know or not assertained 2.6. 3.5 6.0 1.0 Total 100. oz .1 o o. 0% 100 .035 100 .03 What makes your neighborhood unsafe ? (IV-Ill) (N=9) (rt-65) (11:85) Character of residents 55.3 49.4 General morale decline 4 13.8 15.3 Physical character .2.3 16.5 Law enforcement ‘ 3.1 5.9 Other reason 3.1 2.3 Don't know 6. 2 4. 7 Not assertained 6.2 5.9 Total 100.0% 100.0% a probability associated with Rural Vs. Suburbst<'.OOl b probability associated with Rural Vs. Suburbs.om .oaano on uneavosom .A.oovnusoq .< can ca e.ooHo:onnoz no: .osxsu>sq .h .Hnsm some ooucoo< meow gnome amma maom coma pace «nan chosen sosssm 1 n mm Nb 1 1 consumes“ when» :so om am am pm 1 1 moanesas> o>enmcm 1 1 ca 1 1 1 bass non: ooaaoa huwuoz 1 1 mm 1 1 1 more can: moauo>aaoo 90pm 1 1 we 1 1 1 some some sows: ammz o>om 1 1 mm mm 1 me some can: mammua no o>eoq 1 mm 1 I 1 1 Devon HO unmfla GO HmEHu mm: hm mm 1 mm mm NH woo gave: :30 mm ma 1 1 mm 1 .7 , com :30 1 1 1 as am 1 seemed tooepso monsoon HasunsH h p 1 m m m suede unawuon HampunH 1 1mem 1 \m: 1 1 \mm m\1 unepxoxooa some“: HaounnH P: mm 1 1 mm m: axooa noon deflooAa adopunH 1 1 1 ma\mm 1 1 sonm\oson cos: unoccub moon 1 1 1 :m\m> 1 1\mw henm\oaoc neg: snoop moo; mecca .um odcoaoooauzm oneness o>waooaonm \.a.em1sosse \omdoaeo assessed sumo .o.e sumo: .pm \nopmocoom \oouuocouh new shad encounoumnacmoz dead 1 whoa prod mead ammd mounmnoa 05:01.35 oouomIoHocoE—oz unoahs> 5 mnqmswom Enemies Mo neuaoououm “le .m canoe 90 was related to an insurance policy. In terms of percentages, 75 percent of them had an insurance policy to reduce the impact of crime. While 60 percent of them had a neighbor watch their homes, 40 percent of the respondents used a timer on indoor lights or an appliance such as radio when away. In addition, 37 percent of them installed an alarm system, window bars, and special locks, while the percent- ages of those who installed special outdoor lights, engraved valuables for easy recovery, or had a handgun at home ranged from 30 to 16. Along with personal protection, Skogan and Maxfield found that people would employ household protection measures frequently.66 Table 2.35 shows the frequency of given household protection activities adapted by the respondents in three cities. An average of 82 percent of the respon- dents reported leaving lights on and an average of 78 per- cent indicated having neighbors watch their homes for better surveillance. About the average of 65 percent bought insur- ance for loss reduction, while an average of 31 percent marked their valuables. In addition, an average of 57 per- cent stopped delivery, but only an average of 11 percent notified police when they were away from home. The last section of literature review discussed how individuals react to their fear of crime. Whatever the determinants of fear of crime are, most research came to the somewhat consistent conclusion that the fear of crime requires individuals of the behavioral change or even 2 91 Table 2.35 : Frequency of Household Protection Target Loss hardening prevention Surveillance Cgt Locks Insur- Mark- Light- Neigh- Dle- Police ‘ y /bars ance ing on bor liver Philadelphia 42 70 3O 86 8O 52 12 Chicago 49 65 34 84 75 57 8 San Francisco 44 6O 29 76 73 60 11 Average 45 65 31 82 77 57 11 Adapted from Wesley G. Skogan and Michael Maxfield, op cit., p.213 _ . 92 limitation and extra precautions or even costs individuals extra money. In response to the fear of personal crime, individuals would limit their exposure to the crime by simply avoiding certain times and places in relation to certain types of activities or behaviors. Individuals also employ the various ways of target hardening, or surveil- lance, loss reduction and occupancy proxy as their household protective precautionary measures. 93 FOOTNOTES 1K. Weiss and M. Milakowich, "Politics and Measure of Success in the War on Crime," Crime and Delinquency, 21, 1975. 2Gallup Organization, The Gallup Opinion Index, Princeton, New Jersey: Gallup Organization, Inc., 1981. 3Sarah L. Boggs, "Formal and Informal Crime Control: An Exploratory Study of Urban, Suburb, and Rural Orientation," The Sociological Quarterly, 12, Summer 1971. 4Frank Clemente and Michael B. Kleiman, "Fear of Crime in the United States: A Multivariate Analysis," Social Focus, Vol. 56, No. 2, December 1977. 5Wesley G. Skogan and Michael G. Maxfield, Coping with Crime: Individual and Neighborhood Reactions, Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1981. 6James Garofalo, Public Opinion About Crime: The Attitudes of Victims and Nonvictims in Selected Cities, Analytical Report, SD-VAD-l, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977. 7For more details, see Wesley G. Skogan and Michael G. Maxfield, op. cit., pp. 18-26. 8Wesley G. Skogan and Michael G. Maxfield, op. cit. 9Marlys McPherson, "Realities and Perceptions of Crime at the Neighborhood Level," Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978, and Douglas Frisbie, Glenn Fishbine, Richard Hintz, Mitchell Foelson, and Jullia Brown Nutter, Crime in Minneapolis: Proposals for Prevention, Minneapolis: Minneosta Crime Prevention Center, 1977. 10James Garofalo, "Victimization and Fear of Crime," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 16, No.1, 1979. 11 , 1977, op. cit. 12Wesley g. Skogan and Michael G. Maxfield, op. cit. 94 l3WPeter P. Yin, "Fear of Crime Among the Elderly: Some Issues and Suggestions," Social Problems, Vol. 27, No. 4, April 1980. 14 Frank Clemente and Michael B. Kleiman, Op. Cit. 15James Garofalo, 1977, op. cit. 16Barry D. Lebowitz, "Age and Fearfulness: Personal and Situational Factors," Journal of Criminology, Vol. 30, No. 6, 1975. 17A National Crime Survey, Boston: Public Attitudes About Crime, U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1979. 18Stephanie Riger and Margaret T. Gordon, "The Fear of Rape: A Study in Social Control," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 37, No. 4, 1981. 19Stephanie Riger, "On Women," in Dan A. Lewis (ed.), Reactions to Crime, Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1981. 20Research and Forecast, Inc., The Figgie Report on Fear of Crime: America Afraid, Part I, The General Public, Willoughby, Ohio: A-T-O, Inc., 1980. 21Margaret M. Braungart, Richard G. Braungart, and William J. Hoyer, "Age, Sex, and Social Factors in Fear of Crime," Sociological Focus, Vol. 13, No. 1, January 1980. 22Charles W. Thomas and Jeffery M. Hyman, "Perceptions of Crime, Fear of Victimization, and Public Perceptions of Police Performance," Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1977. 23Ronald W. Toseland, "Fear of Crime: Who is Most Vulnerable?" Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 10, 1982. 24Wesley G. Skogan, Dan A. Lewis, Aaron Podolefsky, Fredric DuBow, and Margaret T. Gordon, with Albert Hunter, Michael G. Maxfield, and Greta Salem, Executive Summary: The Reactions to Crime Report, The Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, 1982. 25Dan M. Puuri, A Study on the Fear of Crime Among Undergraduate Students at a Selected University, Unpublished Master's Thesis, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1983. 95 26Wesley G. Skogan and Michael G. Maxfield, op. cit.; Harzel Erskine, "The Polls: Fear of Violence and Crime," Public Opinionguarterly, Vol. 38, Spring 1978; Sarah L. Boggs, op. cit., and John E. Conklin, "Dimensions of Community Response to the Crime Problem," Social Problems, Vol. 18, 1971. 27 Wesley G. Skogan and Michael G. Maxfield, op. cit. 28George Gerbner and L. Gross, "The Scary World of TV's Heavy Viewer," Psychology Today, Vol. 89, April 1976; Walter B. Jaehnig, David H. Weaver, and Frederick Fico, "Reporting Crime and Fearing Crime in Three Communities," Journal of Communications, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1981, and Margaret T. Gordon and Linda Heath, "The New Business, Crime, and Fear," in Dan A. Lewis (ed.), op. cit. 29Anthony N. Doob and Glenn E. MacDonald, "Television Viewing and Fear of Victimization: Is the Relationship Causal?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, No. 2, 1979. 30 James Garofalo, 1979, op. cit. 31Wesley G. Skogan and Michael G. Maxfield, op. cit. 32Stephanie Riger, Margaret T. Gordon, and Robert LeBailly, "Women's Fear of Crime: From Blaming to Restricting the Victim," Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978. 33S tephanie Riger and Margaret T. Gordon, op. cit. 34Margaret M. Braungart, Richard G. Braungart, and William J. Hoyer, op. cit. 35Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., "Public Reaction to Crime in the Streets," The American Scholar, 51, 1971; Victoria H. Jaycox, "The Elderly's Fear of Crime: Rational or Irrational?" Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978; Marlys McPherson, op. cit.; Powell M. Lawton and Silvia Yaffee, "Victimization and Fear of Crime in Elderly Public Housing Tenants," Journal of Gerontology, Vol. 35, No. 5, 1980, and James Garofalo, 1979, op. cit. 36James Garofalo, "The Fear of Crime: Causes and Consequences," The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 72, No. 2, 1981. 37Peter P. Yin, op. cit.; James Garofalo, 1979, op. cit.; Frak F. Furstenberg, Jr., op. cit., and Marlys McPherson, op. cit. 38 John E. Conklin, op. cit. 96 39Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., op. cit. 4OFredric DuBow, Edward McCabe, and Gail Kaplan, Reactions to Crime: A Critical Review of Literature, Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 1979. 41Jeffery Henig and Michael G. Maxfield, "Reducing Fear of Crime: Strategies for Intervention," Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978, and Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, New York: Vintage Books, 1961. 42 Sarah L. Boggs, op. cit. 43Richard L. Block, "Fear of Crime and Fear of the Police," Social Problems, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1971, and James Garofalo, 1979, op. cit. 44Jeffery Henig and Michael G. Maxfield, op. cit.; Fred Heinzelman, "Crime Prevention and the Physical Environment," in Dan A. Lewis (ed.)., op. cit.; Jack L. Nasar, "A Model Relating Visual Attributes in the Residential Environment to Fear of Crime," Journal of Envirpnmental System, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1981-2; Edward J. Pesce, "Creating Safe Environments: A Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, The CEPT Concept," in Burt Galaway and Joe Hudson (eds.), Perspectives on Crime Victims, St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby Company, 1981; Thomas Molumby, "Patterns of Crime in a University Housing Project," American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 20, 1976; Herb Rubinstein, Charles Murray, Tetsuro Motoyama, and W.V. Rouse, The Link Between Crime and the Built Environment, Volume 1, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1980: Oscar Newman, Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design, New York: Macmillan Company, 1972; and Ray C. Jeffery, Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1971. 45Barton-Achman Associates, Securitngroblems and Strategies, Allentown Community Development Project, First and Sixth Wards, Washington, DC: Barton-Achman Associates, 1975. 46James M. Tien, Vincent O'Donnell, Arnold Marnett, and Pitu Mirchandani, Street Lighting Projects: National Evaluation Program, Phase I, Final Report, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Public Systems Evaluation, Inc., 1977. 47 Peter P. Yin, op. cit. 48James Garofalo, 1977, op. cit. 97 49Wesley G. Skogan and Michael G. Maxfield, op. cit. 50Wesley g. Skogan, "Public Policy and the Fear of Crime in Large American Cities," in John A. Cardiner (ed.), Public Law and Public Policy, New York: Praeger Publishers, 1977. 51William R. Klecka and George F. BishOp, "Victimization and Fear of Crime Among the Elderly Living in High Crime Urban Neighborhoods," unpublished paper, cited from Victoria H. Jaycox, op. cit., p. 529. 52 Wesley g. Skogan and Michael G. Maxfield, op. cit. 53John E. Conklin, The Impact of Crime, New York: Macmillan, 1975. 54Jaber F. Gubrium, "Apprehensions of Coping Incompetence and Response to Fear in Old Age," International Journal of Aging and Human Development, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1973. 55Richard A. Sundeen, "The Fear of Crime and Urban Elderly," in Marlene A. Young Raifai (ed.), Justice and Older Americans, Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1977; also see Richard A. Sundeen and James T. Mathieu, "The Fear of Crime and its Consequences Among the Elderly in Three Urban Communities," The Gerontologist, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1976; and Richard A. Sundeed and James T. Mathieu, "The Urban Elderly: Environments of Fear," in Jack Goldsmith and Sharon 8. Goldsmith (eds.), Crime and the Elderly: Challenge and Response, Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1976. 56Timothy Hartnagel, "The Perception of Fear of Crime: Implications for Neighborhood Cohesion, Social Activity, and Community Affect," Social Forces, Vol. 58, No. 1, September 1979. 57Ronald W. Toseland, op. cit. 58James Garofalo, 1977, op. cit. 59Ibid. 60 Wesley G. Skogan, "On Attitudes and Behaviors," in Dan A. Lewis (ed.), op. cit.; Paul J. Lavrakas and Dan A. Lewis, "The Conceptualization and Measurement of Citizens' Crime Prevention Behaviors,“ Journal of Researchip_Crime and Delingugncy, l1, July 1980; Paul J. Lavrakas, "On Households," in Dan A. Lewis (ed.), op. cit. 61 Wesley G. Skogan and Michael G. Maxfield, op. cit. 62Dan M. Puuri, op. cit. 98 63Margaret T. Gordon, Stephanie Riger, Robert K. LeBailly, and Linda Heath, "Crime, Women, and the Quality of Urban Life," Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 5, No. 3, Supplement, 1980. 64 Paul J. Lavrakas, op. cit. 65Ibid. 66Wesley G. Skogan and Michael G. Maxfield, op. cit. CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES Research Site and Subjects This study was conducted at the Michigan State University married housing. The campus of Michigan State University is located at the south of the city of East Lansing, with its approximate population of 48,000, and at the east and north of the city of Lansing, with its estimated population of 130,000. As one of the largest single campus universities in the country, nearly 45,000 students including undergraduates and graduates were enrolled at the time of the survey. The campus of Michigan State University is considered to be a relatively low crime area. There were 3,561 crimes reported on the whole campus in 1983. There were 621 breaking-and-entering incidents, 62 burglaries, 13 rapes, and 47 sexual offenses. In addition, 63 drug violations, 21 weapons violations, and 394 bicycle larceny cases were reported to the Department of Public Safety.1 The actual research site for this study was in one part of the campus called M.S.U. married housing complex, in which the respondents live. The M.S.U. married housing complex is located on the campus, and consists of three distinct apartment areas: Cherry Lane, Spartan Village, and 99 100 University Village. These university apartments are occupied almost entirely by students and some school employees who are married and accompanied by their family. Foreign students who have brought their family, as well as many U.S. married students, live in these on-campus apartments. These university apartments are furnished, relatively inexpensive compared to off-campus apartments, and in close proximity to the university. Spartan Village is the largest complex with 1452 apart- ments. University Village and Cherry Lane have 292 and 456 apartments, respectively. The subjects for this study were all the married Korean women living in the M.S.U. married housing in the fall of 1983. In order to locate the eligible subjects, all Korean students registered in the fall of 1983 were identified from the computer printout by the Office of the Registrar. This printout listing all students with Korean nationality was obtained by the Korean Student Club of M.S.U. from the Office of International Programs and Scholars. About 200 Korean students were found from this list. However, those whose local addresses were not listed in M.S.U. married housing were excluded. In order to make sure that listed Korean students were married and brought their wives, con- sulting with Korean Student Club was made and individual phone calls were made in some cases. By doing this, 77 Korean male students were identified to be married and accompanied by their wives. All Korean wives of those 77 101 Korean male students were identified as the subjects of this study. Definitions and Variables2 The main research concerns in this study are the distribution of fear of crime, the determinants of fear of crime, and the consequences of fear of crime. The first research concern, the distribution of fear of crime, attempts to find the level of fear of crime and who are experiencing the fear of crime among the subjects studied. The level of fear of crime refers to how prevalent the fear of crime which the subjects are experiencing is. The second portion of this research concern is to examine which sub- groups are experiencing the fear of crime most among the subjects. Data on this research concern are sought by asking the respondents hpw safe they feel while walking alone in their neighborhood during the day and at night, with the answers being "very safe," "reasonably safe," "somewhat unsafe," and "very unsafe." This question as the dependent Aw... .._. -...._- variable in this study is the modified version of survey "h- question developed for the National Crime Survey Report by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA).3 In addition, the respondents were asked the questions about their demographic and personal characteristics to define the most fearful subgroups among the subjects. As the indepep:_ dent variables for this study, the questions about the m '— H...’ demographic and personal characteristics included age, 102 education level, working status, residence complex, length of marriage, type of family, length of stay in the United States, hours away from home, perceived possibilities of being the victim of selected crimes. The second research concern, the determinants of fear of crime, is to find what causes the fear of crime or why the respondents are experiencing the fear of crime. While a variety of possible determinants have been developed by various researchers, the following variables as the indepen- dent variables are considered to examine the possible deter- minants of fear of crime. Media: This variable is to assess the impact of media on the respondents' assessment of their own personal safety. Defensive ability: This factor concerns the relation- ship between the fear of crime and the respondents' physical strength and/or ability to defend themselves from personal attack. Perception of crime: This variable is based on the assumption that there is a relationship between the respon- dents' perception of crime trends and their fear of crime. Whether or not a great deal of crime is committed around them, individuals may have different perception of safety. Police visibility: Based on the assumption that the police are responsible for protecting citizens from crime, this factor examines if the respondents' perception of safety is dependent on the police performance. 103 Lighting acceptability: This variable attempts to examine the effects of lighting acceptability as a physical environment on the fear of crime based on the fact that the quantity of specified visual attributes of physical environ- ment such as poor lighting or blind spots may produce perceived unsafety from crime. Victimization experience: This variable includes the past victimization experiences of the respondents and their acquaintances. This variable considers the impact of personal experiences with crime on their perception of safety. The respondents' own experiences as the victim are considered to be the direct victimization, and the knowledge about the victimization of acquaintances are treated as the indirect victimization. Neighborhood satisfaction: This variable refers to the respondents' satisfaction with the neighborhood as a place to live. It is believed that the satisfaction with the neighborhood is associated with the fear of crime. Neighborhood helpfulness: From the assumption that the perception of helplessness may produce more fear of crime, the respondents are asked their perception of neighbors' willingness to help in case of emergency. Neighborhood cynicism: This variable is measured by asking what the respondents think people in their neighbor- hood care about one another in order to examine if the respondents' perceived cynical attitudes of their neighbors are related to the respondents' perception of unsafety. 104 Interpersonal trustworthiness: In order to examine the fact that the interpersonal trustworthiness may be related to the fear of crime, the respondents are asked if they perceive people in their neighborhood to be dependable and trustworthy. Neighborhood friendliness: The respondents are asked if they perceive their neighbors as friendly toward outsiders. This examines whether a perception of neighbors' friend- liness toward outsiders is related to the perception of safety. Neighborhood cohesion: This variable is designed to examine the relationship between neighborhood cohesion and the perception of safety. To do this, the respondents are asked how many adult neighbors they would know by name if they meet them on the streets. Alienation: Considering that the respondents' aliena- tion from the community in which they live may produce more fear of crime, the respondents are asked the degree to which they perceive they belong to the community. The third research concern in this study, the conse- quences of fear of crime, implies the relationship between the fear of crime and the behavioral responses. This research concern is based mainly on the assumption that people may have changed or limited their activities they would normally do in a certain way because of their feeling unsafe.4 In order to examine how the respondents COpe with their fear of crime or how they react to their fear of 105 crime, the respondents are asked if they had changed or limited their activities because of fear of crime. Addition- ally, the respondents are asked to indicate if they perceive other people in their neighborhood have changed or limited their activities. Furthermore, the respondents are asked if they think it is necessary to take any precautionary actions to protect themselves or their homes from crime and if necessary how useful they think it is to take each precau- tionary action given. Research Design and Procedures This study is designed to examine such research con- cerns as the distribution of fear of crime, the determinants of fear of crime, and the consequences of fear of crime. The primary data for this study was obtained from one self- administered mailing survey.5 During the fall of 1983, the surveys were distributed, returned, and coded for data analysis. At that time, the surveys were accompanied by a self-addressed return envelope with postage and a cover letter stressing the purpose of the study, the importance of responses, and anonymity guarantee.6 After all surveys were returned, each was edited and checked. A codebook was constructed and numerical values were assigned to responses on the surveys. The coded infor- mation on data sheets were keypunched onto computer cards through automatic optical scanning with the services 106 provided by the M.S.U. Scoring Office, and was transferred to computer tape for the data analysis. On the univariate descriptive level of data analysis, simple percentage and frequency tables are presented to describe the distribution of demographic and personal characteristics of the respondents, the distribution of fear of crime among the subjects, and the consequences of fear of crime. E On the univariate analytical level of data analysis, the crosstabulations of the dspepdenp variable, fear of crime, with such independent variables as demographic or personal characteristics of the respondents and the possible determinants of fear of crime are presented. In order to test the statistical significance of crosstabulation, the significance level is set at .05. Chi-Square is also used to show whether the two variables crosstabulated with each other are independent from each other. In addition, the Gamma score is used to show the strength of association between the two variables. Research Limitations Although much attention has been paid to minimizing problems caused by language differences related to the translation of measures in this crosscultural study, it is difficult to ignore the impact of possible misperceptions and misunderstandings between the researcher and the respon— dents. That is due mainly to nuances between English and 111.1111! 107 Korean language. However, it is believed that these possible negative impacts might be eliminated since the questionnaire translated into Korean was reviewed by some Koreans from a bilingual perspective and pretested by those who understand both languages well. In terms of research design, there is no comparison group in this study. However, this study is believed to be worthwhile, considering that this study is primarily descriptive and exploratory to understand the distribution of fear of crime, the determinants of fear of crime, and the consequences of fear of crime among Korean women living in the M.S.U. married housing. In this sense, this study is believed to provide some interesting cross-cultural perspec- tives since no research on the fear of crime among Korean women has been done either in American settings or in Korea yet. There is a limitation as to the applicability of the research findings to other research settings in terms of further implementation by decision makers. The hope is that evenexpending studies be done on the fear of crime among both foreign and native American women. 108 FOOTNOTES 1Annual Report of the Department of Public Safety, Michigan State University, January 1, 1983-December 31, 1983. 2See Appendix A for more on variables. 3U.S. Department of Justice, Boston: Public Attitudes About Crime, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979. 4 Op. cit. 5See Appendix A for full survey. 6For more discussions on survey methods and data analysis, see Frank E. Hagan, Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology, New York, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1982; Earl R. Babble, The Practice of Social Research, 2nd Edition, Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1979; Walter R. Borg and Meredith D. Gall, Educational Research: An Introduction, 4th Edition, New York, New York: Longman, Inc., 1983. CHAPTER IV: ANALYSIS OF DATA In this chapter, data obtained by a self-administered mailing survey on the fear of crime among Korean women living in M.S.U. married housing is analyzed. The Demographic Composition of the Respondents Within three apartment complexes, 77 surveys were distributed and 50 were returned. Table 4.1 provides the number of surveys distributed, the number of returns, and the rates of return for each complex. The return rate for the study was 64.9 percent, with the highest rate of 86.4 percent for University Village and the lowest rate of 53.3 percent for Spartan Village. As the next step of data analysis, the demographic and personal characteristics of the respondents are presented. In some cases, however, some respondents failed to respond to the questions. This missing data was excluded from data analysis but the number of missing data is indicated for informative purposes. Table 4.2 reveals data on age, length of marriage, and type of family. At the time of survey, the average age of 49 respondents was about 26.7, and many of them (47%) fell between 25 and 27 years of age. As expected, since most 109 110 Table 4.1 : Distribution and Return Rate of Surveys By Married Housing Complex Married Housing Complex Cherry Spartan university Totals Lane Village Village No. of Surveys distributed 25 3O 22 77 . No. of Return 15 l6 19 50 Rate of Return 60% 53.31 86.45 , 64.91 111 Table 4.2 : Age, Length of Marriage, and Type of Family Among the Respondents Age Distribution Less than 25 25 - 27 More than 27 Totals No. of respondents 13 ' 24 12 49 Percentage 28 47 25 100.01 Missing case:l Mean:26.7 Medianz26.167 Standard Deviation:3.296 Length of erriage(month) Less than 25 25 - 36 .More than 36 Totals No. of respondents ’ - 22 “ ' " 10 15 - 147 Percentage 46.8 21.3 31.9 100.05 Missing case: 3 Mean: 36.9 Median: 25.000 Standard Deviation:32.878 Type of Family L“- Husbandlothers Husband only Totals A...- A... No. of respondents . 16 33 49 Percentage 32.7 67.3 100.05 Missing case: 1 112 respondents were in the middle 205, the average months of marriage was 36.9. About 68.1 percent of them had been married for 3 years or less, while 31.9 percent had been married longer than 3 years. As a result, it is no surprise that 67.3 percent of the respondents indicated that they had no other family than their husband living with them at the current residence. Table 4.3 provides the level of education, the type of hometown, and the religious status among the respondents. Considering the fact that the cost of studying abroad are quite expensive and requires the high level of English proficiency and at least college graduation, it is believed that most spouses of the respondents have reasonably high socioeconomic status in Korea. Without any doubt, therefore, most respondents themselves have relatively similar status to their spouse. In this sense, they are considered to be well educated. Approximately 95 percent of them achieved at least 4 years of college and 22.4 percent among them have attended school for more than 16 years. In accordance with their socioeconomic status, it is quite understandable that 87.2 percent of them indicated their hometown as urban, while only 12.8 percent of them came from suburban or rural areas in Korea. In addition, when the respondents were asked their religious status, about 70 percent of them indicated that they had some religious beliefs. Of them, 61.7 percent identified themselves as Christian, while 6.4 percent were 113 Table 4.3 : Education, Type of Hometown, and Religious Statps Among the Respondents ' Education Level Missing case: 3 16 or less More than 16 Totals No. of Responses 38 11 49 'Percentages 77.6 22.4 100.01 Missing case: 1 Type of Hometown urban Suburban/Rural Totals lo. of responses 41 ' 6 47 Percentages 87.2 12.8 100.01 Missing case: 3 Religious Status Buddhism. Christianity' None Totals no. of responses 3 29 15 47 Percentages 6.4 61.7 31.9 100.01 114 Buddhist. Approximately one-third (31.9%) stated they had no religious beliefs. Table 4.4 reveals the current work status, the length of stay in the U.S., and the hours away from home. Until recently, it was extremely difficult for Korean students to study abroad until Korean government widened the door to overseas study for those who wanted to do so. Because most Korean students have arrived in the U.S. since this policy change, most of the respondents have been in the U.S. for 24 months or less. Furthermore, 46 percent of them have been in the 0.8. for no longer than one year and 34 percent of them have stayed for 13-24 months. Their average time of stay in the U.S. was about 16.9 months. When the respondents were asked how many hours they spent away from home a day in order to know their social activity, 40 percent indicated spending 3-4 hours a day away from home. Another 40 percent indicated that they rarely went out. As expected, few respondents indicated having full or part-time jobs and attending school. Distribution of Fear of Crime The Level of Fear: The fear of crime, that is "the amount of anxiety and concern that persons have of being a victim,"1 was measured by asking the respondents how safe they felt while walking alone at night and during the day, respectively, in their neighborhood. 115 Table 4.4 : The Length of Stay in the U.S., Hours away from.Rome, and the work Status Among the Respondents Length of Stay in the U.S.(month) 12 or less 13 - 24 25 or more Totals No. of responses 23 17 10 50 Percentages 46 34 ‘ 20 100.05 Mean : 16.872 Median : 14.200 Standard Deviation : 111.426 hours Aggy From Home Mhny 3 - 4 Rarely go out Totals No. of responses 10 20 '20 50 Percentages 20 40 40 100.0% work Status Housexeeping only Housekeeping/others Totals No. of responses 36 12 48 Percentages 75 25 100.05 Missing case : 3 92 116 Table 4.5 shows the distribution of responses concern- ing the fear of crime or the perception of safety during the day. As expected, a majority of Korean women living in the M.S.U. married housing (93.9%) felt very safe or reasonably safe while walking alone during the day in their neighbor- hood. Only 6.1 percent indicated they felt somewhat unsafe while walking alone during the day in their neighborhood. However, as seen in Table 4.5, the Korean women's perception of safety dramatically changed at night, with 79.5 percent feeling either somewhat or very unsafe while walking alone in their neighborhood. It is also interesting to note that Korean women indicated their having more fear of crime while walking alone at night in their current neighborhood in the M.S.U. married housing than in their neighborhood in Korea. As Table 4.7 indicates, twenty-five respondents, or 51.1%, indicated they felt either somewhat or very unsafe while walking alone at night in their neighborhood in Korea. In contrast, looking back to Table 4.6, 79.5 percent felt either somewhat or very unsafe at night in their neighbor- hood in the M.S.U. married housing. The Fearful Supgroups: As mentioned earlier in Chapter I, the fear of crime is not distributed in the same pattern across the population and even among the subject samples. Since the fear of crime seems to be affected by not only crime related variables but also personal and demographic 117 Table 4.5 : Korean Women's Perception of Safety While walking Alone During the Day in Their Neighborhood Perception of safety Number of Percent during the day responses Very safe 24 49.0 Reasonably safe 22 44.9 Somewhat unsafe 3 6.1 Very unsafe 0 0.0 Totals 49 100.0% Table 4.6 : Korean women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood Perception of safety . Number of Percent at night responses Very safe 2 ' 4.1 Reasonably safe 8 16.3 Somewhat unsafe . 28 57.1 Very unsafe ll . 22.4 ___ 118 Table 4.7 : Korean women's Perception of Safety While walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood in Korea Perception of safety Number of percent at night responses Very safe 4 8.2 Reasonably safe 20 40.8 Somewhat unsafe 21 42.9 Very unsafe 4 8.2 Totals 49 100.0% 119 variables, the level of fear may vary among the subjects, depending on individual's characteristics. This portion examines the difference in the level of fear among the subjects as relating to such personal and demographic characteristics as age, education level, residence complex, religious status, length of marriage, work status, type of family, length of stay in the U.S., and hours away from home. These variables were crosstabulated with the subject's perception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood. Victimization experience and type of hometown are excluded from the data analysis since very few respondents (6%) experienced either direct or indirect victimization and only 12 percent of the respon- dents were from rural or suburban areas. In addition, the perceived probabilities of having their home broken into, being mugged, or being sexually assaulted were also cross- tabulated with the subject's perception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood. According to the research findings on the relationship between the fear of crime and age in the review of liter- ature, older respondents were found to have more fear of crime than the younger.2 For the ease of analysis and interpretation, the variable age was broken into those who were 26 years old or younger and those who were older than 26. When the two variables were crosstabulated, however, the two variables of age and the subject's perception of safety while alone at night in their neighborhood were found to be 120 Table 4.8: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Age Age Perception of safety at night 26 or less 27 or more Very safe 0.0% 6.9% (0) (2) Reasonably safe 10.0% 20.7% (2) (6) Somewhat unsafe 60.0% 55.2% (12) (16) Very unsafe 30.0% 17.2% (6) (5) Totals 100.0% 100.0% (20) (29) Chi Square: 3.11434 Significance: .3743 Gamma: -.41040 121 insignificantly related to each other with a significance level of .3743, as indicated in Table 4.5. Despite the insignificant relationship between the two variables, in fact, a negative Gamma (-.41040) may indicate that older respondents have less fear of crime than younger respon- dents. In terms of percentages within groups, 72.4 percent of those who were 27 years or older at the time of survey, compared to 90.0 percent of those who were 26 years or younger, felt either somewhat or very unsafe while walking alone at night in their neighborhood. Table 4.9 on education level shows the relationship between the subject's perception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood and their education level to be statistically insignificant. However, a negative Gamma (-.42857) in this crosstabulation may indicate that the respondents with higher education level may have a lower level of fear of crime than those who have a lower education level. In order to examine if the residential location is related to the fear of crime, the subjects' perception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood was crosstabulated with the three residence complexes described in Chapter III. Referring back to the review of literature, the residential area appears to be one of the strong predictors in diffusing the fear of crime. The level of fear of crime varies between and within cities by the size and characteristics of the community.3 122 Table 4.9: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Education Level Education level Perception of safety at night College or less More than college Very safe 2.6% 9.1% (1) (1) Reasonably safe 10.5% 36.4% (4) (4) Somewhat unsafe 63.2% 36.4% (24) (4) Very unsafe 23.7% 18.2% (9) (2) Totals 100.0% 100.0% (38) (ll) Chi Square: 5.54687 Significance: .1359 Gamma: -.42857 123 The data presented in Table 4.10 do not support the existence of any significant relationship between the two variables. This seems to be because three residence com- plexes are so similar in terms of their community character- istics and physical environment. As Table 4.11 indicates, the relationship between the subjects' perception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood and religious status (Chi-Square of 3.61499 and significance level of .3062) is not significant. The length of marriage was crosstabulated with the subjects' perception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood in order to examine if there exists any differences in the level of fear between those married for longer periods of time and those married for shorter periods of time. Table 4.12 shows there is no significant relationship between the two variables. Table 4.13 shows the family composition is related to the perception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood. Despite some differences of percentages in the level of fear, the statistics presented in Table 4.12 indicate that there is no significant relationship between the two variables. As Table 4.14 indicates, the percentage differences between the two groups dichotomized by the length of stay in the U.S. in relation to the fear of crime are very small and other statistics in Table 4.14 shows no statistical signif- icance. 124 Table 4.10: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Residence Complex Residence Complex Perception of safety Cherry Spartan University at night Lane Village Village Very safe 6.7% 6.7% 0.0% (l) (1) (0) Reasonably safe 33.3% 6.7% 10.5% (5) (l) (2) Somewhat unsafe 40.0% 60.0% 68.4% (6) (9) (13) Very unsafe 20.0% 26.7% 21.1% (3) (4) (4) Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (15) (15) (19) Chi Square: 6.56404 Significance: .3631 Gamma: .24280 125 Table 4.11: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night Status in Their Neighborhood by Religious Perception of safety Religious Status at night Religion No Religion Very safe 6.5% 0.0% (2) (0) Reasonably safe 9.7% 26.7% (3) (4) Somewhat unsafe 58.1% 60.0% (18) (9) Very unsafe 25.8% 13.3% (8) (2) Totals 100.0% 100.0% (31) (15) Chi Square: 3.61499 Significance: .3062 Gamma: -.28080 126 Table 4.12: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Length of Marriage Perception of safety at night Years of Marriage 2 years or less More than 2 years Very safe Reasonably safe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Totals 0.0% (0) 16.0% (4) 56.0% (14) 28.0% (7) 100.0% (25) 8.3% (2) 16.7% (4) 58.3% (14) 16.7% (4) 100.0% (24) Chi Square: 2.79894 Significance: .4237 Gamma: -.28889 127 Table 4.13: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Family Composition Perception of safety at night Family Composition Husband and others Husband only Very safe Reasonably safe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Totals 6.7% (1) 26.7% (4) 46.7% (7) 20.0% (3) 100.0% (15) 3.0% (l) 9.1% (3) 63.6% (21) 24.2% (8) 99.9% (33) Chi Square: 3.10177 Significance: .3762 Gamma: .31190 128 Table 4.14: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Length of Stay in the U.S. Months in the U.S. Perception of safety at night 12 or less 13 or more Very safe 4.3% 3.8% (l) (l) Reasonably safe 17.4% 15.4% (4) (4) Somewhat unsafe 43.5% 69.2% (10) (18) Very unsafe 34.8% 11.5% (8) (3) Totals 100.0% 99.9% (23) (26) Chi Square: 4.39123 Significance: .2222 Gamma: -.26260 129 In order to measure if the true factor might be a predictor affecting the fear of crime, the respondents were asked how many hours a day they spent away from home. Approximately 61 percent of the respondents indicated that they spent 3 hours or more a day away from home. The other 39 percent reported that they spent less than 3 hours or rarely went out. When crosstabulating this variable with the subjects' perception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood, the statistics provide no significant relationship between the two variables nor any significant percentage differences between two groups, as indicated in Table 4.15. In order to determine if the respondents' work status could be a factor attributable to the different level of fear among the respondents, the work status was crosstabue lated with the subjects' perception of safety at night while walking alone at night in their neighborhood. As reviewed in Chapter II, the employment status is moderately related to the fear of crime. Those working full time have less fear of crime than part-time workers, the retired, or the unem- ployed.4 In addition, Skogan and Maxfield found that women and the elderly working outside the home were less likely than their respective counterparts to engage in crime avoid- ance behavior. This may be interpreted to mean they don't engage in crime avoidance behavior since they may have less . 5 fear of crlme. 130 Table 4.15: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Hours Away from Home a Day Perception of safety at night Hours away from home/day 3 or more Less than 3 Very safe Reasonably safe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Totals 3.3% (1) 16.7% (5) 53.3% (16) 26.7% (8) 100.0% (30) 5.3% (1) 15.8% (3) 63.2% (12) 15.8% (3) 100.1% (19) Chi Square: .92119 Significance: .8203 Gamma: -.l6568 131 As presented in Table 4.16, there is at least a ten- dency to show that a relationship exists between the two variables even though the significance level of .0964 is not enough to show the statistical significance at the signif- icance level of .05. Respondents in this study who indicated themselves as housewives doing nothing but housekeeping are more likely than their working counterparts to feel either somewhat or very unsafe while walking alone at night in their neighborhood. Thus, 85.7 percent of those who iden- tified themselves as housewives felt either somewhat or very unsafe while walking alone at night in their neighborhood, while those respondents who claimed that they have at least part-time jobs or attend the school felt either somewhat or very unsafe. The reasons for this percentage difference between the two groups and the existence of somewhat mean- ingful relationship between the two variables may be explained in part by the assumption that the uncertainty, unawareness, strangeness, and unfamiliarity of respondents with their societal environment might produce more fear of crime.6 On the other hand, those who worked or attended the school appear to have more and better chances to experience and become familiar with their societal environment, and this might reduce the level of uncertainty, unawareness, strangeness, and unfamiliarity and further result in reducing the level of fear. An attempt was made to see if any relationship exists between the Korean women's perception of safety while 132 Table 4.16: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Work Status Perception of safety Work Status Attending the school at night or working out Housekeeping Very safe 16.7% 0.0% (2) (0) Reasonably safe 16.7% 14.3% (2) (5) Somewhat unsafe 50.0% 60.0% (6) (21) Very unsafe 16.7% 15.7% (2) (9) Totals 100.1% 100.0% (12) (35) Chi Square: 6.33546 Significance: .0964 Gamma: .38346 133 walking alone at night in their neighborhood in the M.S.U. married housing as compared to their perception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood in Korea. Interestingly, Puuri,7 in his study, found a significant relationship between the two variables. The large proportion of female respondents in Puuri's study who felt either some- what or very unsafe at night in their hometown also felt either somewhat or very unsafe at night on campus. This study did not show any significant relationship between the two variables as shown in Table 4.17. Finally, the respondents were asked what they thought the probabilities are that each of selected crimes would occur. This was asked in order to measure their perception of the probability of such an occurrence affecting their level of fear of crime. The perceived probabilities are crosstabulated with the subjects' perception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood. The answers to this question were very low, low, somewhat, high, very high, but were recoded as high (combining very high, high, and somewhat) and low (combining very low and low) for the ease of analysis and interpretation. As seen in Table 4.18, 35 respondents, or approximately 71 percent, perceived that the probabilities of having their home broken into is low, whereas 29 percent rated the prob- abilities as high. Table 4.18 indicates that a fairly strong association exists between the two variables. Although no significant total percentage difference by the level of 134 Table 4.17: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood in the MSU Married Housing by Their Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood In Korea Perception of safety Perception of safety at night at night in the MSU in Korean hometown married housing Safe Unsafe Very safe 4.3% 4.0% (1) (1) Reasonably safe 21.7% 8.0% (5) (2) Somewhat unsafe 56.5% 60.0% (13) (15) Very unsafe 17.4% 28.0% (4) (7) Totals 99.9% 100.0% Chi Square: 2.16718 Significance: .5384 Gamma: .31965 135 Table 4.18: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by the Perceived Probabilities of Having Their Home Broken Into Perceived probabilities of of having home broken into Perception of safety at night High Low Very safe 0.0% 5.7% (O) (2) Reasonably safe 21.4% 14.3% (3) (5) Somewhat unsafe 21.4% 71.4% (3) (25) Very unsafe 57.1% 8.6% (8) (3) Totals 99.9% 100.0% (14) (35) Chi Square: 15.99659 Significance: .0011 Gamma: -.50532 136 perceived probabilities was found, the significant disparity can be observed between two groups in relation to the proportion of those who felt either somewhat or very unsafe at night. Approximately 57.1 percent of those who perceived the probabilities of having their home broken into as high, compared to only 8.6 percent of those who perceived the probabilities as low, felt very unsafe. At the same time, the respondents were asked their perception of the probabilities that a woman would be mugged while walking alone at night around the M.S.U. married housing. (For this question, about a half of the respondents (26 respondents or 53.1 percent) perceived the probabilities as high. According to the statistics presented in Table 4.19, a significant relationship can be observed between the two variables. The association is negative, which may mean that those who perceived the lower probabilities of being mugged have the less fear of crime. Those who thought it high that a woman would be mugged were more likely to feel either somewhat or very unsafe while walking alone at night in their neighborhood. Despite no significant overall percentage difference between two groups, a significant difference in the degree of fear of crime can be observed. Approximately 35.5 percent of those who perceived the prob- abilities as high felt very unsafe, while only 4.3 percent of those who perceived it low felt very unsafe at night. 137 Table 4.19: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by the Perceived Probabilities of Being Mugged Perceived Probabilities of being mugged Perception of safety at night High Low Very safe 0.0% 8.7% (0) (2) Reasonably safe 19.2% 13.0% (5) (3) Somewhat unsafe 42.3% 73.9% (11) (17) Very unsafe 38.5% 4.3% (10) (1) Totals 100.0% 99.9% (26) (23) Chi Square: 11.00694 Significance: .0119 Gamma: -.47668 138 As explained earlier in Chapter I, a woman has the additional fear of rape.8 One might argue that this additional crime against women can be responsible in part for the high level of fear of crime among women. In order to examine this possible additional source of fear, the respon- dents were asked their perception of the probabilities that an unaccompanied woman would be sexually assaulted at night around the M.S.U. married housing areas. Thirty-four respon- dents (69.3 percent) perceived the probabilities as high. The data in Table 4.20 does support the existence of signif- icant relationship between the two variables at the signif- icance level of .05. A negative association is observed, which may mean that those who perceived the probabilities that an unaccompanied woman would be sexually assaulted are also more likely to feel either somewhat or very unsafe while walking alone at night in their neighborhood. In percentage terms, 83.3 percent of those who perceived the sexual assault probabilities as high, compared to 60.0 percent of those who perceived such probabilities as low, felt either somewhat or very unsafe at night. The Determinants of Fear of Crime This section of data analysis deals with the deter- minants of fear of crime among the respondents, referring to what causes the fear of crime or why they are experiencing the fear of crime. Apparently, the basis of this fear are diverse, considering that the fear of crime is an emotional 139 Table 4.20: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by the Perceived Probabilities of Being Sexually Assaulted Perceived Probabilities of sexual assault Perception of safety at night High Low Very safe 0.0% 13.3% (0) (2) Reasonably safe 11.8% 26.7% (4) (4) Somewhat unsafe 55.9% 60.0% (19) (9) Very unsafe 32.4% 0.0% (11) (0) Totals 100.0% 100.0% (34) (15) Chi Square: 10.83284 Significance: .0127 Gamma: -.77709 140 response to crime and refers to a wide range of phenomena that are quite different.9 Since the individual's fear of crime appears to be a combined emotional reaction of various factors which associate to produce this fear, it might be difficult to isolate one absolute source of fear. Rather it may be desir- able to investigate which sources have relatively strong effects on the fear of crime. To do so, the subjects' per- ception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood was crosstabulated with the various possible determinants that are thought to be associated with fear of crime among the research subjects. However, as mentioned earlier in this chapter, both indirect and direct victimization experience and the percep- tion of crime are excluded from the analysis due to the small sample. Only three and four respondents reported any experience with direct and indirect victimization. In addition, only four respondents perceived that a great deal of crime occurred around the Lansing area. Therefore, one might say that the variables of victimization and perception of crime are not significant in diffusing the fear of crime in this sample population. Although there has been continuous controversy about the effects of the media on the fear of crime,10 it might not be the case in this study. Korean women are assumed to learn about crime only through mass media under the circum- stances without well organized information network based on 141 personal interaction with other neighbors. Moreover, the crime news on television here in the United States is con— sidered to be much more graphic than in Korea. Thus, the media might have significant effect both on the perception of crime and on the fear of crime among the respondents. As seen in Table 4.21, however, the crosstabulation of this variable with the subjects' perception of safety while walk- ing alone at night in their neighborhood does not support the existence of any significant relationship between the two variables. It has been argued that vulnerability, labeled "defensive ability" in this study, might be a good indicator of fear of crime especially among the elderly and women.11 In order to measure this possible indicator of fear, the respondents were asked their perception of their defensive ability. Approximately 85 percent perceived their defensive ability to be poor or fair, as expected. As seen in Table 4.19, however, no significant relationship is observed between this variable and the subjects' perception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood. Although it was generally accepted that most citizens depend more heavily on social informal controls than on formal controls for the protection against crime,12 it is assumed that Korean women in the M.S.U. married housing are somewhat different since they seem to be not socially integrated into the informal community network. In order to make it sure, the respondents were asked how often they 142 Table 4.21: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Perceived Seriousness of Crime in Their Neighborhood Comparing with what Media Say About Crime Perceived seriousness of crime relative to what media say about Perception of safety More About Less at night serious same serious Very safe 0.0% 3.6% 7.1% (0) (l) (1) Reasonably safe 0.0% 14.3% 21.4% (0) (4) (3) Somewhat unsafe 66.7% 60.7% 50.0% (4) (l7) (7) Very unsafe 33.3% 21.4% 21.4% (2) (6) (3) Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (6) (28) (14) Chi Square: 2.48794 Significance: .8698 Gamma: -.26316 Table 4.22: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Perceived 143 Defensive Ability Perception of safety Perceived defensive ability at night Good Fair Poor Very safe 14.3% 0.0% 4.8% (l) (0) (1) Reasonably safe 0.0% 15.0% 19.0% (0) (3) 52(4) Somewhat unsafe 71.4% 70.0% 42.9% (5) (14) (9) Very unsafe 14.3% 15.0% 33.3% (1) (3) (7) Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (7) (20) (21) Chi Square: 7.18516 Significance: .3041 Gamma: .11848 144 perceive they see police officers around their neighborhood. This frequency of seeing police officers was crosstabulated with the subjects' perception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood. As seen in Table 4.23, all the statistics presented show that no statistically signif- icant relationship exists between the two variables. In the review of literature, the effects of the phys- ical environment on the fear of crime was discussed. In general, based on the assumption that poor lighting and abandoned buildings may provide the criminals more opportun- ity to commit crime,l3 it is believed that certain parts of the physical environment such as buildings or street lights affect peOple's perception of safety. To test this assump- tion, the respondents were asked if they agree with the assumption that there are various places which were poorly lit around their community. A majority of respondents (85.1%) answered in the affirmative. When crosstabulating this variable with the subjects' perception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood, the two variables are found to be significantly related to each other with a significance level of .007. A Gamma of -.52632 indicates that a strong negative association exists between the two variables, which implies that those who agreed with the assumption that there are various places that are poorly lit (87.7%) are more likely than those who did not agree (57.2%) to feel either somewhat unsafe or very unsafe while walking alone at night in their neighborhood. 145 Table 4.23: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Perceived Frequency of Seeing Police Officers Around Their Neighborhood Perceived frequency of seeing police erception of safety at night Often Sometimes Rarely Very safe 0.0% 3.7% 8.3% (0) (l) (l) Reasonably safe 11.1% 18.5% 8.3% (l) (5) (1) Somewhat unsafe 55.6% 66.7% 41.7% (5) (18) (5) Very unsafe 33.3% 11.1% 41.7% (3) (3) (5) Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (9) (27) (12) Chi Square: 6.38528 Significance: .3814 Gamma: .05967 146 Finally, the last portion of this section is to examine the effects of psychosocial variables on the fear of crime. Conklin claimed that psychosocial variables such as inter- personal trust, alienation, and satisfaction with neighbor- hood might be important factors affecting peOple's fear of crime, considering that the fear of crime is a combined 14 emotional response to the crime. In addition, Hartnagel and Toseland employed several psychosocial variables thought to affect the fear of crime in their respective research.15 In this study, such psychological, social variables as neighborhood satisfaction, neighborhood friendliness, inter- personal trustworthiness, neighborhood helpfulness, neigh- borhood cynicism, neighborhood cohesion, and alienation were also employed to test if these psychological, social variables affect the respondents' perception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood. In the course of data analysis, however, such variables as neighborhood helpfulness, neighborhood cynicism, interpersonal trust- worthiness, neighborhood friendliness, and neighborhood cohesion were found to have no significant effects on the fear of crime among the respondents. As Hartnagel and Toseland found in their respective research,16 the negative relationship between the fear of crime and satisfaction with neighborhood is observed in this study. When the respondents were asked whether they want to stay where they live or move into another neighborhood within the M.S.U. married housing if they were given any 147 Table 4.24: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by if They Agree with the Assumption that There are Various Places that are Poorly Lit Perception of safety Perceived acceptibility that there are various places that are poorly lit at night Agree Disagree Very safe 0.0% 28.6% (0) (2) Reasonably safe 12.5% 14.3% (5) (1) Somewhat unsafe 62.5% 42.9% (25) (3) Very unsafe 25.0% 14.3% (10) (1) Totals 100.0% 100.0% (40) (7) Chi Square: 12.12150 Significance: .007 Gamma: -.52632 148 chance to move in, a majority of them (66.7%) wanted to stay where they live. As seen in Table 4.25, even though the relationship between the two variables is found to be statistically not significant enough at the significance level of .05, a significance level of .0546 in this table may show there is a meaningful relationship between the two variables. In addition, a Gamma of -.40000 indicates a strong negative association, which means that those who wanted to stay where they live (defined as those who have some degree of satisfaction with their neighborhood) feel less fear of crime than those who wanted to move into another neighborhood (defined as those who have some degree of satisfaction with their neighborhood). Although no significant overall percentage differences are found between the two groups, some disparities in the distribution of fear exist, when controlling for the degree of unsafety the respondents perceived. Among those who have some degree of neighborhood satisfaction, 68.8 percent of them felt some- what unsafe while 12.5 percent of them felt very unsafe while walking alone at night in their neighborhood. On the other hand, 37.5 percent of those who have some degree of dissatisfaction with their neighborhood felt somewhat unsafe while 43.8 percent of them felt very unsafe while walking alone at night in their neighborhood. Riger and Gordon claimed that weak feelings of attach- ment to the neighborhood might increase the level of fear of crime and, on the other hand, existence of ties to others 149 Table 4.25: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by Whether They Want to Move in Other Neighborhood or Stay Where They Live if They were Given Chances to Move Whether to move or stay Perception of safety at night Move Stay Very safe 0.0% 6.3% (0) (2) Reasonably safe 18.8% 12.5% (3) (4) Somewhat unsafe 37.5% 68.8% (6) (22) Very unsafe 43.8% 12.5% (7) (4) Totals 100.0% 100.1% (16) (32) Chi Square: 7.61688 Significance: .0546 Gamma: -.40000 150 and to the community might reduce the level of fear of . 17 crlme. In order to test this assumption, the respondents in this study were asked how much they perceive they belong to their neighborhood. About half of them, as expected, indicated that they don't feel any belongingness to their neighborhood. The crosstabulation of this variable with the subjects' perception of safety while walking alone at night in their neighborhood shows that there exists a significant relationship between the two variables. It can be inter- preted that the stronger the feelings of belongingness to the neighborhood, the less the fear of crime. The Consegpences of Fear of Crime This section of data analysis examines what people do in response to their perception of safety or unsafety. This notion refers to the ways people react or respond to and deal with their feeling unsafe. For this purpose, the respondents in this study were asked the questions concern- ing their perception of behavioral change or limitation, and perceived usefulness of selected precautions. In order to examine if the respondents limited or changed their own behavior as a result of the fear of crime, they were asked how often they stayed home at night because of feeling unsafe instead of going somewhere around the M.S.U. campus. As shown in Table 4.27, about half of the respondents (51 percent) indicated that fear of crime did not motivate their staying home if they wanted to go out. 151 Table 4.26: Korean Women's Perception of Safety While Walking Alone at Night in Their Neighborhood by How Much They Perceive They Belong to the Neighborhood Perceived level of belongingness Perception of safety at night Much Somewhat Never Very safe 28.6% 0.0% 0.0% (2) (0) (0) Reasonably safe 14.3% 11.1% 20.8% (1) (2) (5) Somewhat unsafe 57.1% 61.1% 54.2% (4) (11) (13) Very unsafe 0.0% 27.8% 25.0% (0) (5) (6) Totals 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% (7) (18) (24) Chi Square: 14.57181 Significance: .0239 Gamma: .21346 Table 4.27: Korean Women's Perception of Frequency of Their Own Behavioral Change Because of Feeling Unsafe Perceived frequency of behavioral change N Percent Many times 8 16.3 Sometimes 16 32.7 Never 25 51.0 Totals 49 100.0 152 Still, as the table shows, 49 percent are assumed to have limited or changed their activities to some degree because of their feeling unsafe. It is also interesting to note in Table 4.28 that a majority of the Korean women in the M.S.U. married housing perceived that most other people in their neighborhood do not limit or change activities because of fear of crime. Approximately 77.6 percent perceived that other people in their neighborhood did not change or limit their activities because of fear of crime, while 51 percent of the respon- dents reported in Table 4.26 that they had not changed or limited their own behavior. The respondents were asked to indicate if they thought it necessary to take any precautionary actions to protect themselves from crime. As shown in Table 4.29, a majority of the respondents (61%) claimed that such precautions were necessary. Further, in order to determine what kind of precautions the respondents perceive as useful, those who indicated that it was necessary for them to take any self-protective precautions were asked how useful they thought it was for them to take each of a set of selected precautionary actions. The most useful strategies indicated by the respon- dents were "being accompanied by others" and "trying to stay out of dangerous areas." In terms of percentage, 90.6 percent indicated both of these precautions to be very useful. The third most useful strategy indicated by them 153 Table 4.28 : Korean women's Perception of Behavioral Change of Neighbors as a Result of Fear of Crime Perception of behavioral change of neighbors N Percent Yes 11 22.4 No 38 77.6 Totals 49 100.01 Tdblo h.29 : Korean Women's Perception of Necessity of Taking Precautionary Actions to Protect Oneself Perceived necessity of self-protective precautions N Percent Yes 32 64.0 No 18 36.0 Totals 50 100.0% 154 (84.4%) was "stay at home at night." A smaller but nonethe- less fair prOportion of the respondents rated such precau- tions as "memorize police emergency phone number," "take physical training for self-defense," and "carry as little money as possible" to be very useful. The percentages of the respondents who perceived these precautions as very useful ranged from 37.5 percent to 53.1 percent. Only 12.9 percent of the respondents thought that it is very useful to "carry weapons" to protect themselves. By the same token, the respondents were again asked if they thought it necessary for people in the M.S.U. married housing to take any precautionary actions to protect their homes from crime. Table 4.31 shows that 45.8 percent of them identified it necessary to take home-protective precaution- ary actions. This contrasts with 64.5 percent of the respon- dents in Table 4.29 indicating the necessity for self- protective precautions. Finally and again, those respondents who indicated that it was necessary for people in the M.S.U. married housing to take home-protective precautions were asked to indicate how useful they thought it was for them to take each of a set of selected precautionary actions. Table 4.32 shows the degree of usefulness for each selected precautionary action. Unlike self-protective precautions, however, no absolutely useful strategies were found. Nevertheless, the most useful home- protective precaution indicated by the respondents was "leave lights, T.V., radio on when going out." In terms of 155 Table 4.30: Korean Women's Perception of Usefulness of Selected Precautionary Actions Among Those Who Thought it Necessary to Take Any Precautionary Actions to Protect Oneself Perceived Usefulness Selected self-protective precautionary actions Much Somewhat Never Totals Be accompanied by others 90.6% 6.3% 3.1% 100.0% (29) (2) (1) (32) Try to stay out of dangerous areas 90.6% 6.3% 3.1% 100.0% (29) (2) (1) (32) Stay at home at night 84.4% 9.4% 6.3% 100.1% (27) (3) (2) (32) Memorize police emergency phone number 53.1% 40.6% 6.3% 100.0% (l7) (l3) (2) (32) Carry as little money as possible 46.9% 37.5% 15.6% 100.0% (15) (12) (5) (32) Take physical training for self-defense 37.5% 37.5% 25.0% 100.0% (12) (12) (8) (32) Carry weapons 12.9% 22.6% 64.5% 100.0% (4) (7) (20) (31) Korean Women's Perception of Necessity of Precautionary Actions to Protect Home Table 4.31: Perceived necessity of home-protective precautions N Percent Yes 22 45.8 No 26 54.2 Totals 48 100.0 156 Table 4.32: Korean Women's Perception of Usefulness of Selected Precautionary Actions Among Those Who Thought it Necessary to Take Any Precautionary Actions to Protect Home Perceived Usefulness Selected home-protective precautionary actions Much Somewhat Never Totals Leave lights, T.V., radio on when going out 68.4% 26.3% 5.3% 100.0% (13) (5) (l) (31) Use crime prevention devices such as extra locks and burglar alarms 66.7% 23.8% 9.5% 100.0% (14) (5) (2) (29) Let someone know where you are going 42.9% 33.3% 23.5% 100.0% (9) (7) (5) (29) Have weapons available at home 4.8% 33.3% 61.9% 100.0% (1) (7) (13) (29) 157 percentage, 68.4 percent of those respondents who thought it necessary to take home-protective precautions considered that it was very useful to leave lights, T.V., radio on when going out. In addition, 66.7 percent of them perceived it very useful to "use crime prevention devices, such as extra locks and burglar alarms," while 42.9 percent of them thought it very useful to "let someone know where they are going." However, only 4.8 percent perceived it very useful to "have weapons available at home." 158 FOOTNOTES 1Richard A. Sundeen and James T. Mathieu, "The Urban Elderly: Environment of Fear," in Jack Goldsmith and Sharon S. Goldsmith (eds.), Crime and the Elderly: Challenge and Responses, Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1976, p. 55. 2Frank Clemente and Michael B. Kleiman, "Fear of Crime in the United States: A Multivariate Analysis," Social Forces, Vol. 56, No. 2, December 1977; Research and Fore- cast, Inc., The Figgie Report on Fear of Crime: America Afraid, Part I, The General Public, Willoughby, Ohio: A-T-O Inc., 1980; and Ronald W. Toseland, "Fear of Crime: Who is Most Vulnerable?" Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 10, 1982. 3Sarah L. Boggs, "Formal and Informal Crime Control: An Exploratory Study of Urban, Suburban, and Rural Orienta- tions," The Sociological Quarterly, 12, Summer 1971; Frank Clemente and Michael B. Kleiman, op. cit.; Wesley G. Skogan and Michael Maxfield, Coping with Crime: Individual and Neighborhood Reactions, Beverly Hills, California: Safe Publications, Inc., 1981; and Marlys McPherson, "Realities and Perceptions of Crime at the Neighborhood Level," Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978. 4Research and Forecast, Inc., op. cit. 5Wesley G. Skogan and Michael Maxfield, op. cit. 6Stephanie Riger and Margaret T. Gordon, "The Fear of Rape: A Study in Social Control," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 37, No. 4, 1981; Richard A. Sundeen and James T. Mathieu, op. cit.: and James C. Hacker, Kwai-Yiu, Ho and Carol Urquhart-Rose, "The Willingness to Intervene: Differ- ing Community Characteristics," Social Problems, Vol. 21, 1974. 7Dan M. Puuri, A Study of the Fear of Crime Among Undergraduate Students at a Selected University, unpublished Master's thesis, East Lansing, Michigan, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 1983. 8 Stephanie Riger and Margaret T. Gordon, op. cit. 159 9Wesley G. Skogan, Dan A. Lewis, Aaron Podolefsky, Fredric DuBow, and Margaret T. Gordon, with Albert Hunter, Michael G. Maxfield, and Greta Salem, Executive Summary: The Reactions to Crime Report, the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Evanston, Illinois, Northwestern Univer- sity, February 1982. 10Wesley G. Skogan and Michael Maxfield, op. cit.; G. Gerbner and L. Gross, "The Scary World of TV's Heavy Viewer," Psychology Today, Vol. 89. April 1976; Walter B. Jaehnig, David H. Weaver, and Frederick Fico, "Reporting Crime and Fearing Crime in Three Communities," Journal of Communicationp, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1981; Margaret T. Gordon and Linda Heath, "The News Business, Crime and Fear," in Dan A. Lewis (ed.), Reactions to Crime, Beverly Hills, California: Safe Publications, Inc., 1981; and Anthony N. Doob and Glenn E. Macdonald, "Television Viewing and Fear of Victimization: Is the Relationship Causal?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 37, No. 2, 1979. 11Wesley G. Skogan and Michael Maxfield, op. cit; Stephanie Riger, Margaret T. Gordon, and Robert LeBaily, "Women's Fear of Crime: From Blaming to Restricting the Victim," Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978; Stephanie Riger and Margaret T. Gordon, op. cit.: and Margaret M. Braungart, Richard M. Braungart, and William J. Hoyer, "Age and Social Factors in Fear of Crime," Sociological Focus, Vol. 13, No. 1, 1980. 12 Sarah L. Boggs, Op. Cit. 13Jack L. Nasar, "A Model Relating Visual Attributes in the Residential Environment to Fear of Crime," Journal of EnvironmentalISystems, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1981-1982; Fred Heinzelmann, "Crime Prevention and the Physical Environ- ment," in Dan A. Lewis (ed.), op. cit.; Jeffery Henig and Michael Maxfield, "Reducing Fear of Crime: Strategies for Intervention," Victimolpgyig An Intgrnational Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978; Edward E. Pesce, "A Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: The CEPT Concept," in Burt Gaaway and Joe Hudson (eds.), Perspectives on Crime Victims, St. Louis, Missouri: The C.V. Mosby Company, 1981; Oscar Newman, Defensible Space, New York, New York: Macmillan Company, 1972; Ray C. Jeffery, Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design, Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1971. 14John E. conklin, "Dimensions of Community Responses to the Crime Problem," Social Problems, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1971: and John E. Conklin, The Impact of Crime, New York, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1975. 160 15Timothy F. Harnagel, "The Perception and Fear of Crime: Implementations for Neighborhood Cohesion, Social Activity, and Community Affect," Social Forces, Vol. 58, No. 1, September 1979; Ronald W. Toseland, op. cit. 16Timothy f. Hartnagel, op. cit.; Ronald W. Toseland, op. cit. 17 Stephanie Riger and Margaret T. Gordon, op. cit. CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Discussion With regard to the level of fear of crime, it appears to be far out of proportion to the actual risk of harm the respondents in this study may face. Rather, the fear of crime seems to be a kind of irrational phobia. Furthermore, it might be not the fear of crime but the fear of some others. This kind of argument was supported in this study by the finding that the proportion of Korean women surveyed who had some degree of fear of crime was considered to be high, compared to most findings of American research on the level of fear of crime. Most American research, however, was done in urban environments where a high level of fear of crime is reported. This study was conducted at the M.S.U. campus located in a suburban area. Considering the low rate of reported crime around the campus, the amount of fear indicated in this study is out of proportion to the actual danger posed by crime. In addition, the respondents in this study were found to experience more fear of crime in the M.S.U. married housing than in their Korean hometowns, even though they are assumed to be more affected by crime in their Korean hometowns than in the M.S.U. married housing due largely to the urban environments of their Korean home- 161 162 towns and consequent high rate of reported crime. All these factors seem to suggest that there is something special to Korean women living in the M.S.U. married housing, with regard to their fear of crime. In other words, what was measured and conceptualized in this study as the fear of crime may have its roots in something more diffuse than the perceived threat of some specific danger in their immediate environments. It was also argued in the review of literature that the fear of crime is not distributed evenly across the popula- tion and that this uneven distribution may be attributable in part to the fact that people behave or socialize differ- ently with each other due largely to their apparent bio- logical, psychological, social differences known to be affecting their fear of crime. In this sense, most research reviewed in this study has revealed that people with certain types of demographic or personal characteristics, such as female, the elderly, people with low socio-economic status, minorities, or urban dwellers, experience more fear of crime. However, none of these demographics was relevant to this study since the respondents in this study, Korean women living in the M.S.U. married housing, were all wives of Korean students attending Michigan State University with almost identical demographic backgrounds. However, given the relative scarcity of work on explaining the variation of fear of crime among peOple with similar demographics and residential locale, such social variables as extensiveness 163 of social support network and involvement in neighborhood network are quite often employed to explain this variation. In short, the society as a whole may affect the variation of fear of crime among the respondents independent of demo- graphic variables. In addition, most research, if not all, even though controversial, reports that such crime related variables as victimization experience and crime rate are not solely responsible for the fear of crime even though those might be somewhat related to the fear of crime, considering the high level of fear among peOple in the community with low rates of reported crime and victimization. In some sense, the fear of crime may be generated vicariously and not by direct victimization since the fear of crime seems to involve much more than psychological responses to only being victimized and to specific perceived threats of being victimized by some criminal acts. Rather, the fear of crime is affected by many social factors that may have little or nothing to do with victimization, either directly or indirectly. This kind of argument is well supported by this study, considering that very few respondents experienced victimization either directly or indirectly and that a very low rate of crime is reported around the M.S.U. campus. Consequently, the fear of crime at least in this study is not a simple reflection of perceived risk of being victimized, but related to some other social factors. Therefore, it may be assumed that such social factors as the uncertainty, unawareness, and strange- 164 ness of and unfamiliarity with the societal environment are known to be related to the fear of crime in this study, coupled with such sociocultural characteristics of the respondents as biological submissiveness, psychological passiveness and dependence, and social or physical vulner- ability. The result in this study that those who worked out- side or attended school had less fear of crime than those who did not appears to be explained in part by the argument made above. Considering most research finding that those who are familiar with or have strong ties and attachments to their community have less fear of crime, those respondents in this study who worked or attended school are believed to have less fear of crime since they may have more chances to experience and get familiar with their societal community. Interestingly, the finding in this study that the respondents' perceived probabilities of being victimized are significantly related to their fear of crime should be interpreted with cautions since it may sound contradictory to the assumption that the fear of crime is not a simple reflection of perceived risk of being victimized but related to other social factors. This possible contradiction, how- ever, may be eliminated by the two further explanations. Unless more sophisticated statistical techniques are employed, it is almost impossible to identify the extent of variation in the fear of crime explained by the perceived probabilities of being victimized. Since it is believed that the fear of crime is a diffuse psychological construct 165 affected by a host of variables including the probabilities of victimization as well as other social factors, it is not desirable to attribute the fear of crime to a single vari- able. It is not apprOpriate to hold the probabilities of being victimized solely responsible for the variation in the fear of crime even though they are found to affect the fear of crime. On the other hand, this possible contradiction may not be contradictory at all. Given the problems with the question asking the fear of crime that the word crime is not mentioned, since the respondents were asked their perceived probabilities of being victimized, they might conceptualize these perceived probabilities as their fear of crime. With regard to the determinants of fear of crime, the same logic of explanation employed above appears to be appropriate for the findings that the respondents' perceived lighting adequacy, satisfaction with community, and commun- ity cohesiveness may partially contribute to the fear of crime in this study. In questioning the fear of crime, the items about the fear of crime--How safe would you feel while walking alone in your neighborhood at night?--seem to tap all the dimensions of concern for community, considering the low rates of reported crime and victimization but high level of fear of crime indicated in this study. Even though the public in general or the respondents in particular may be concerned about crime, it still seems to be abstract rather than concrete. What the most researchers are trying to measure and conceptualize as the fear of crime, therefore, 166 might be something more than just fear of crime, since the questionnaire items as the indicators of fear of crime do not covary strongly with either the risk of or experiences with criminal victimization. Rather, the society as a whole is believed to intervene in determining the fear of crime. In this sense, it is believed that the quality of life should be highly considered to explain the determinants of fear of crime. Such factors as lighting adequacy, satisfac- tion with community, and community cohesiveness are consid— ered to affect the fear of crime. Regarding the consequences of fear of crime, the most findings in this study are consistent with most U.S. research reviewed that most peOple were found to have limited or changed their activities in response to their fear of crime. Interesting enough, however, it was also found that a majority of the respondents in this study considered that they were more affected than most people in their neighborhood by the fear of crime. This finding runs counter to much U.S. research which shows that people report themselves to be less affected than their neighbors by the fear of crime. This contrast may be explained in part by the fact that most Korean women still share such traditional confucianistic values as self-devaluation and extreme respect to others. As were the cases in most U.S. research, the respon- dents in this study took self-protective precautionary actions more seriously than home-protective precautionary 167 actions. This finding can be explained by the simple fact that people feel more secure and safe at home than when they are out and that most personal crimes are considered to be more serious than property crimes. In addition, it is assumed that the respondents in this study might perceive they don't have much to lose at home. As to the strategies employed by the respondents to protect themselves and their homes from crime, the most findings are consistent with much U.S. studies. For the self-protective strategies, the respondents tried to stay away in time and place from their perceived danger by simply limiting or avoiding their exposure to that risk. However, considering the proportion of the respondents, Korean women surveyed are little more likely than the respondents in most U.S. studies to employ this avoidance behavior. This result seems to reflect such Characteristics of Korean women as passivity and dependence again. As described above, for home-protective strategies, however, a smaller but meaning- ful proportion of the respondents considered them to be necessary and useful. This may be because they feel the exposure to personal or street crime can be eliminated or at least reduced to a significant extent by their own initia- tives such as avoidance behavior, while the exposure to crime against home may not be changed much regardless of what they do. Otherwise, it may be the case that the Opera- tionalization of home-protective precautionary actions 168 employed in this study were not simply ones that might be expected to reduce the probabilities of being victimized. Policy Implications Based on the fact that certain groups of society may be more vulnerable to the fear of crime, policy makers should pay attention to those groups who express the most fear of crime. The finding in this study that those who indicated themselves as housewives are most affected by the fear of crime may be related to the assumption that those who are unfamiliar with, uncertain, unaware, and strange of their societal environment may have more fear of crime. Those who do not work outside or attend school, those who described themselves as housewives, are assumed to have less chance to be acquainted with their community. Hence, they are more unfamiliar with and more uncertain, unaware, and strange to their community. In this regard, it is highly desired to motivate them to interact more actively with their commun- ity. By training them in their environmental mastery and stimulating additional use of and familiarity with their societal environment, it may be possible to provide them more chances to get involved in community activity and get them more familiar with custom, culture, and values. In this sense, English classes for international students and their spouses might inspire matters. Furthermore, an additional but important policy can be implemented based upon this regard. According to Korean laws regulating immigration and 169 passport, Koreans who intend to travel abroad, whatever their purposes are, are required to attend orientation classes before applying for passports. Using some of these orientation classes, Government authorities may educate them not only in such government propaganda as politics and econ- omy but also more relevant subjects such as custom, culture, people, society, and even courtesy. The relationship between the fear of crime and the perceived probabilities of being victimized provides an additional policy. Considering the low rates of reported crime and victimization around the campus, the reason that high proportion of the respondents perceived the probabil- ities of being victimized as high may be attributable to their inadequate knowledge of crime in their neighborhood. Without any access to the formal information on crime, the respondents in this study appear to rely heavily on the mass media and their neighbors to learn about crime. Most people perceive the crime in their neighborhood as less serious than the mass media describes it, hence the crime problem described in the mass media seems to be somewhat exaggera- ted. It is also assumed that any second-hand knowledge on crime may be snowballed and exaggerated, too. For this reason, it might be useful to tell the truth about the crime, provide more adequate information on crime and easier access to law enforcement agencies, and educate them about crime and crime prevention. For this purpose, we may further develop such programs as Neighborhood Watch programs and 170 motivate persons to get more actively involved in those programs. The finding that the perceived lighting adequacy is significantly related to the fear of crime suggests that the program designed to improve certain physical environments are essential for reducing the fear of crime. At the same time, it is also highly regarded to improve the circulation of people in order to minimize the amount of unused space and to spread the population evenly through time and space. Consequently, it may be possible to promote natural visual surveillance Opportunities to inhibit the crime and possibly the fear of crime. From the finding that such social psychological factors as neighborhood satisfaction and community cohesiveness affect the fear of crime, we may draw an additional policy to be implemented for reducing the fear of crime. Since the respondents in this study were all temporary aliens accom- panied by their husbands, it is quite understandable that most respondents had no feelings of belongingness to this community. Here is again a need to get them more actively involved in community activities. To do this, we may further utilize community organizations. Through these community organizations, we may have more frequent community meetings, block parties, or social events and facilitate host—family programs . 171 Future Research Considerations Although this study might have provided some descrip- tive or exploratory findings on the fear of crime among Korean women living in the M.S.U. married housing, further comprehensive research is highly recommended. As far as matter of external validity, more similar research in other environmental settings is necessary since the population and research site in this study don't represent all Korean women in the U.S. and all the U.S. environments in which Korean women live. It would be desirable to employ a well designed cross-sectional survey supplemented with ethnographic and cross-cultural method in order to examine the fear of crime among specific population with particular culture within a specific community. As discussed in the review of literature, the most problematic weakness of research on the fear of crime is the ambiguity in defining the fear of crime. The fear of crime items--the questions about how safe the respondents felt in their neighborhood--appear to tap all the dimensions of concern for community since the word crime is not mentioned in the questionnaire asking the fear of crime. One possible way to eliminate this problem is to ask the respondents to choose their most serious personal problem from a list of issues including the fear of crime. Here is a need to combine different questions to form an index of fear. The multiple items for measuring the fear of crime seems to be useful since the clustering of multiple items may suggest 172 whether or not they are measuring the same variable. On the other hand, the question may be improved by eliminating the dichotomous format and including a broader range of responses. In addition, there may be a need to use the regression of fear of crime in order to know the extent of the variation in the fear of crime explained or unexplained by given determinants. It has also been argued that different types of crime have different effects on the fear of crime and that effects may vary from group to group. However, most research on the fear of crime disregards the significance of the multiple nature of crime. Here is a need to itemize the different types of crime the respondents may fear. It might be neces- sary to ask the respondents the fear of specific crime including both personal and property crimes rather than the general perception of safety at night as the sole indicator of fear of crime. In understanding and interpreting the fear of crime, most research on this matter claimed that those who are socially marginal, such as a racial minority, women, or elderly, express more fear of crime. This unevenly distribu- ted fear of crime among the socially marginal population may be explained in part by their class and social inequality based on value and cultural differences, social conflict, racism, and so on. The existence of class structure and con- sequent inequality by class are believed to play an impor- tant role in diffusing the fear of crime. In order to 173 explain this high level of fear of crime among those social- ly marginal population, an additional emphasis should be placed on different characteristics of population being studied as well as their structural position in the society. In addition, although the fear of crime is assumed to be a diffuse psychological construct affected by a host of urban aspects, most research has been distinctively atheoretical and as a result, has been limited to the exam- ination of demographic or personal differences due largely to the paucity of independent variables. Such research, how- ever, seems to be unable to fully specify the variables Operating to produce the fear of crime among the individual subjects. In this sense, here is a need for simultaneous, integrated, and holistic attention to multivariate factors associated with the fear of crime. Finally, it has been generally believed that there still remain the problems of identifying the exact impact of the fear of crime on the victim of fear. This study examined the simple consequences of fear of crime, that is, the behavioral limitations and the consequent precautions, but didn't examine a variety of social psychological impacts of the fear of crime on the individual. Such research must deal with the multi-dimensional impact of the fear of crime on the individual. APPENDIX A SURVEY FORMAT (in English) 174 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE - SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EAST LANSING ' MICHIGAN ° 48824 BAKER HALL September 1983 Dear Respondent: We are trying to find ways for our Korean women on the M.S.U. campus to feel more safe and at peace while they live and study in the United States. For this reason, we are attempting to learn about Korean women's perceptions of crime here. We would like you, as the wife of your house- hold, to fill out these questionnaires. It is hOpeful that the findings of the study can be used in making safety policy on and off the M.S.U. campus. Your responding to the survey will provide you an opportun- ity to participate in making safety policy and help other women both Korean and non-Korean. We would greatly appreciate your participation in this project through completing the accompanying questionnaires. As you can see, these survey questions ask about your feelings about fear of being the victim of crime while you live near or at M.S.U. Your personal privacy will be scrupulously respected. The names of all participants in the study (as well as these individual answers to the questions) will be kept in the strictest confidence. We are looking for individual's per- ceptions and have no wishes to identify individuals. If you have any questions on this, or if you would like to receive the results of this survey, please contact any of the following persons: Yoon Ho Lee (office phone 5-2197 or 5-0114), Dr. Vincent Hoffman (office phone 5-2197 or 5-6603), or Dr. Robert Trojanowicz (office phone 5-2197 or 5-2192). Sincerely, MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Obbortum‘tv Institution 1 It) 175 ége at yclr las: :irtrda, lhat ‘s tre nlzres: :race 1-; ::n;-e::c i: 311:1; f l2 :r less 3 '3-15 3 lc e mtre trar li that 15 v u. ..a::: were T l sch cl attenlalce 2 car: or full-time ‘:t 3) ncu eneecing What would you say :5 vour religion f l) Buddhism 2) Catholic 3 ChrLStlan ~‘ sthe 5) none A) Do you have a U.S. driver's license ? 1) Yes 2) No --- Skip to o 3) 1'f "Yes", how long have 'ou drive: a car in the “.3. T / years months Your marital and family status ? A) You married for ; 1) love 2) arrangement 3) b B) How long have you maintained your current marital statu years months . C) Do you have any other family member with y:; :23: jorr 1) Yes 2) No -—- Skip t: 7 D) If "Yes", with whom do you live ?(checn all :13: apply) 1) child or children 2) parents 3 relatives 4) others A) 3) Bef A) With whom did you live ? (cheer Had you ever been the victim of any crime 1) Yes 2) No If "Yes", what kind of crime ? Were you ever employed full—time in KOREA I) Yes 2) No --- Skip to If "Yes", what kind of job ? \L‘; v.3 ore your marriage : 1) parents 2) sisters and 3) grandparents 4) relat' (1) (J Fl ..J 176 .l --- 77L; --r.£;C:.” "-11.“ ciI'3f°: 'C- I; . .. 3 3.52351? 2 tralitizre- “:-:al :.::L?: l 3:22 :2: n-ce:: 2' n- :V‘VR‘-;A - Q.-- -- ---'-‘ ..———— ' - - .,. 1‘ .L V ---. ._- a " e 1:73... 163-35th 15-??? S -( -‘..IE.---I- . - ' fl-Hc -fih ‘7' -~ 4- O a n..:-- (2.1. a-.. 11):: . ‘ urban ar-a 2 sao.rba: area : .ural area —_ _ —— T v.“ 7 -47'3’; .0” ‘7“1‘97" “a” 5" '7‘ Per- “- .;G -.‘P‘ P“"' [—.f‘ H -- 331‘ ..L“.\‘ #5- LA- LIN-nub. a--:., ..-.| kL‘-V.- Q:SQ\A---U-:.~ 6-:5 \— r" " 9 ‘:‘; rA“ q: a n 1/ 1"- v ‘- Ana "I‘A P f. arc; 1"- - :1 ‘ Viki” M¢U 344‘ .4..va 4 v'..-‘ unv:~— M-;' 3n=w-A —\4 r- boa ,-— 1“ - - -\ - - - _.. 39:13:73- Dar. 1 -1531” of"? 32:133.- bar. — - — - 7 “ C . I O- 3 near the city -lmlt — P.‘ 24". “A w ‘fid 1‘ 1‘ D “'9” ‘- nylon n '- O t VVLE.“S / 1-\.)~ 1-115 (1.. yo; $-47- V‘V- tan--- a C10 La “\— n\ T .7 : 7 ‘\ - do a 7 ‘ 1" f ._: 3, in union type c. nouSlng fac1_ltles is you usually live \ A e o e co + T 7 4. 7“. 1) Apartment 2) one :aml-y nouse :) unlt culls - . ._,__ 1 ~, others here did you live before you moved here ? ) outside the U.S. 2) within the Lansin ) somewhere else in the U.S. ()9 (‘1 "i (D (11 w 1—1 z: (I) oo \ How long have you been in the U. years months .4 (here do you live now ? ) Cherry Lane 2) Spartan Village Unive‘sity Village LA.) I“I B) How long have you lived at your current residence ? / years months How long have you been within the MSU married housing T / years months B. SOCIAL ACTIVITIES IN THE U.S. How often do you go out in the evening for entertainment, such as restaurants, theatres, etc. ? l)___very often 2)___often 3)___sometimes 4)___ra 5)___never "1 cl? A) Do you go these places more or less now than you did before in KOREA ? 1) about the same --- Skip to 3 2) more 3) less 3. 4. 177 11‘ 1‘ '1 '1 ((1 '11 (I) 11) I W 1) 1| 0}, (1 l I Q '1 l (n I r I a |.' I o I 9 r1 '1 I (l ((1 _ .TZIE If :93? C: I“ vy; ; reml-y reasons a v- - J 59?. TLC ,\ v - _ ‘j LCD: 5) Va *‘c7 :‘ *vo / I r&ua_ yuaUAs /\ t -_ 0) money SltlaT-Cn ~q ’1 , School 3) Places to go, people to go with 9) Time 10) Transportation 11) Want to, Like to, enjoyment Does fear of crime affect where you go out in the evening for entertainment ? l)___very much 2)___much 3)___somewhat 4)___little 5)___never A) How many hours a day do you usually spend away from home ? 1) many 2) 3-4 3) 1—2 4) rarely go out B) Would you please rank order from the most time spending activity as #1 to the least one as #4 ? ___go shopping “__go to school or work seek pleasures visit friends A C. GENERAL PERCEPTION OF CRIME Since you have been around the Lansing area, do you think that the crime around the Lansing area has increased, decreased, or remained about the same ? l)___increased 2)___decreased 3) same 4)___don't know - p .s 5 ~‘- - r r; wv; _ ..... ‘ v u! sd—A ‘ ~ . . v A ‘ v' a,» w :a ' - r, 1" - -. U-‘ - '- 0 hr . .1 -~_ r - '2 7'; v y... - I a- . u ' P " “£19 : :n ‘ - *6. s. - .— «Arh- ... u —— 2 Av. .; - ‘9’1 .- f‘ Q. V‘ 5. v‘ * ..A - . v 4 .1 .- - ~ . - f V‘ ‘. “ - "2 C V‘ “ 3. jun u. k -a v d... D , ' 7“” A vs; -— .' — be» r; m - - a O ‘ § \ ) 9 r‘O‘H“ fl"cr _ ..U u v V .- * In°s ace —’ Pa 4' v \- vh-vVuQA v a .. V o ? . A P C' - fir. - a V!” .1 n: l k‘ Ma v ‘ v 5.: ‘. J14 (3 3) A) 3) What would you think the probabilities are that A) feeling Mass media Neighbors I" ‘-)l - v - if :— ' T .‘ a .7 n - ". .' v.1. - f C o - 1. I.- 5‘“ - -. s‘-. . v u .4 .. ‘ § .. L-.—m-a- —.. --- - a - u- 312'4 3;”.“a'l_.' ”7' .zvr::rr_.: it-.- “‘2' -.a--.4~ fl--- ..... Q n. ---. .A-_.-‘ A 's‘v v-¢ fi-.,v,..,..-.. _ 5 .2 -,.. atl-::..:':.. , .5117... - n.;. t _.___. .— ..— “ rcfi*r'fi““"““’; "‘ "It“o: w“? crx- '°r:w - ..... 'u -. . .5.» -.A v- *_—-&- a..' w‘a-4~.o “3:, an 9,:v-w.- A." A“:'r: ' -v—o ‘5‘ ~'—-.l¢c \. v--L.l_ o - - ”‘1‘“ '1 PVC. h“?~*"‘: -'«: - my-- Cau—C-Cu- .. - .‘ . ans-v. «rt ”awfiawfl- at W fir 9".“ 9 -CS: VG-.—-‘---"C ,.- mu“. --z: fl - _ n”? finch+ P} v- ..Igo-v-y' {v r‘,-\ - tho «av-~33 Loc- 3.-.»...9 ybha --1-li-n~3 Gem-by L‘w a.“ 0- v .3 '1: R-vc roe " \— J—ofi..D-c&E 5‘.-»1 o v as ' n ~~ v‘aw- “457-”c. ova“ V-r} muc-. m‘dvn Dy‘mewndv -.vaé- n- a- m * — w _ VICTIMIZATION Have you ever been the victim of any crime been around the Lansing area ? 1) Yes 2,. If "Yes", what kind of crime ? No --- since you have Skip to 2 Do you personally know anyone who has been the victim of any crime around the Lansing area ? 2) No --- Skip to 3 l)____Yes If "Yes", what kind of crime ? very high Your home would be broken into while you were out 9 high somewhat low J- 179 -‘ ‘ .V l- v (P w I" ’ I O I N) f I‘ I I" '3'; D I ‘I t O ( r1 w )1 f“ L D H'; (l' [D u» ) ‘0 H- t :w :1 w r : w (\ '3 (W o'H w ‘5 D U '1 0 H E? L. W h »'€ -1 (J F W m fii'ri m - u) w (1' I l (O (D L) :5 (if. 0‘ ‘4 L) ‘0 (‘2. o ' U ' {3 d) I)"; 03 B _m d w :3 ..h 'J. ”'4 t D- H D ..3 _ c: m H -- you were the viCtim of any crime around the sans;ng area, that would you think the probabilities are that each of the following groups were to be the offender of crime against you ? very high high somewhat low very low B) Black ___ c) Oriental D) others How safe is you feel, or would you feel, while walking alone at night in your nei hborhood ? l)___7er? safe 2)___reasonably safe 3)___somewhat unsafe h)___7er" unsafe How safe do you feel, or would you feel, while walking alone during the day in your neighborhood ? 1) very safe 2) reasonably safe 3) somewhat unsafe h) verv unsafe A) are t'ere some parts around the MSU campus where you have r on to go or would like to go alone at night, but are to because of fear of crime ? es 2)___No --- Skip to h “‘3 .iPclnD e 1' 1r 3) 2; -es". how much are you afraid to go alone at night to each of the following parts ? very much much some little never 1) Academic buildings 2) Bus stOps \ I ‘4 . 180 W M t f w ll. ,c N) _ ‘ww:-rw-;r -v-¢ -5»--—a-‘ ; sa_“-:r:mats C library F. -‘.—‘1 - RO—“g—~ b-1dtr Dulu&—: ‘ \ n, P-3vgrounas P“. 1-- ‘ n (- - 5’.R f, Udell- parking -cts ‘0) :7 \'e”~"::a "9"“ A 5‘ -;-LA\. Wu..k-a 1“: VA.£‘I‘ ll, o.i-campus streets How often do you think each of the around the Lansing are “ very often often A) Burglary B) Robbery C) Rape D) Assault E) Auto theft How much are you afraid :5 each of A) Burglary 1‘3 (D 4 (D '1 the following crimes ? somewhat little never B) Robbery C) Rape D) Assault E) Auto theft How serious do you kink are each in terms of physical or/and property loss ? very much much somewhat little of the following crimes never 181 HO 1 I I tn C hate 2, Assault 3' Aut: tneft When you were in your hometown(;n KQEEE,, now safe did you feel while walking alone at night in your neighborhood T l) very safe 2) reasonabl" safe 3 scmewnat unsafe L) very unsafe F. DETERMINANTS OF FEAR OF C.IME How many hours a day do you usually watch the television ? 1) less than 2 hours 2) 2-5 nours 3) more than 5 Do you feel that the crime in your neighborhood is more or less serious than what the media says about crime ? 1) much more serious 2) more serious 3) about same h) less serious 5) much less serious How do you perceive your ability to defend "ourself compared with the average female ? .. 1) excellent 2) good 3) fair a} poor 5) very poor Does it seem to you that a great deal of crime occurs around the Lansing area ? 1) Yes 2) No How often have you seen police officers walking a beat, patrol, or talking to others around your neighborhood ? on C81” 1) very often 2) often 3) sometimes h) rarely 5)___never There are various places that poorly lit around the Lansing area ? 1) strongly agree 2) agree 3) disagree 1‘) strongly disagree How much are you satisfied in general with your everyday in these days ? 1) very much 2) much 3) somewhat h) little 5) never life 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. ih. 15. 182 If you were given a chunoe to live in any other neimhhorhood within the MSU married housing, how would you feel about moving 1) want to move very much 2)___rather move than stay where T—Km 3)___ruther stay where I am than move h)___wunt to stay very much Y If you were walking on your residential area alone at night, and stranger asked you for the directions, would you stop and give him the directions ? i)___Yes 2)__No If a person were to have an epileptic seizure on the street in front of you, how many people do you think would be to help? 1)___most 2)___many 3)___some h)___few 5)___none Do you think people in your neighborhood care about one another? 1) Yes 2) No Do you think that most people in your neighborhood are trustful and dependable ? l)___Yes 2)___No Do you think that any of your neighbors would call the police if they thought they saw someone breaking into a neighbor's home ? l)___Yes 2)___No How would you describe your neighbors' attitudes toward stranger from outside the neighborhood ? i)___very friendly 2)___tricndly 3)___unrricndly h)___very unfriendly How many of the adults in your neighborhood would know by name, if you meet them on the street ? l) quite a few 2) many 3) some h) row 5) none Do you perceive that you belong to the community in your ncrighln»rhcnid ? ' 1) very much 2) much 3) somewhat “) Little 5) never G. CONSEQUENCES OF FEAR OF CRIME Have there been any times when you wanted to go out somewhere around the following areas alone at night but you stayed at (A) l) 183 I~l.".’.': l.’.ELEE:" [921325; :33; CF;'4§T: l: 'w-_,...: Ii" Liiiif -' :2 :uite a few narv some few never A K3” campus 3‘ Downt:"n East Lans-ng C; Dcwrvc"n Lanaing to you think that most KOREAN wives in the MSU married ncuSing have limited or changed their actiVLties Since they moved in because they are afraid of crime ? 1} Yes 2) 30 A) Do you think that it is neccessary for people in the MSU married housing to take any precautionary actions to protect themselves from crime ? 1) Yes 2) No --- Skip to b B) If "Yes", how useful do you think that it is for you to take each of the following actions to protect yourself ? very much much somewhat little never Be accompanied by others Carry weapons Stay at home at night Memorize police emergency phone num®er Take phySical training for self-d.‘3nse Try to stay out of dangerous areas Carry as little money as possible 184 a... .8 2. r. .a. 3 f: a 1. .7 1 .2. C a. ... .T C .v. .«v w. .T I . ..T P. v... v: .Q.. n ..v. ~..~ .. ,. l! . I. L. A. t. 'v _\y .fiu 1. L. -4\ .v. C. L. . .v C a a. I. .e. n. C v. G. G. Y. a. .. i. u .n E. w. a ‘me he + U le a b q availa V mi av O: .l e a e L 3 n e h V n O t C U .1 O .Q a g r n ..l‘ r 3 O o: know someone where you are gOin E ‘ a. luables Deposit va‘ 5) k ‘ 1n nan APPENDIX B SURVEY FORMAT (in Korean) MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY 185 COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE ' SCHOOL OF CRIMINAL jL'STICE EAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN ° 48824 a sin ”is m as easeme- 2am: “lend-e seal errand an elder: an at; i: =14 use sale e se- glele urn-P; ElaiS-LW- °Ie was also *l*le sisal assesses; as one new eat-1 s24 e’ie as: Mum assume sass: swarms- ‘-l=l- @454 2'1”:- l‘ifl 7'33} 35535:“4 43W} °I%§I +5. filialall 3‘53" ”ial’i Jit'r’il’fl if: Q‘IE'XLE 5+§*I‘CI°IE XI?!- '3' JI’IEIH 3‘523’343 one 4» all as nodes is + ale “II-tial semen email-:- alarms e sexle- senses.“ e 540:; amines est! 2% *I'If‘i-S- “I“I-t‘i' :‘Ein-E “IE- °I °I“I3-EI Wi’l'mi’ii 19321634 33%2' 4" fi't‘.‘ sienna sales; as Jin-94 aide salient-s21 aim ale ‘-l‘=l- 3l*l9l 1’5 WEI-”J “I313 3‘21-3113-5- fi’ii’l €851 21°I°I 15 ggxié-QI C‘ééfii °'r"laI fii-‘I “If? 133-’3 EIE“ if} 3.1—veil l ”I§I°I iii? 333"", =‘r-e side has seer-311.21 ease: as View ewe Elsi—143* as °l :3. we dale ”lair files #35. a—e e25 one. EH31 1E i’i‘i’ 4"qu “I’ll °I==IEi 945:4?” fili’ih‘i‘ 3.9: {1* are MM were oral anal: ease-'1 Blame. °I 8‘ 1 (Yoon Ho Lee, ’I'JI' :1 CIII' ‘ 5.2797 3'19: 5‘07”): 315.5 1531' (Dr. Vincent Hoffman CI"? CI {MEI :5‘2797 3'8“ 5‘6603) i ”)1 3.5.74”: “If. (Dr. Robert Trojanowicz 4"?- CI {ii-31' 3 5—2797 £19; 5-2792) m .9. 9.". _L .9.” “i 1:: 4* ULl1 IEO EN _E.-°. I1 .7- eszfi I): sea amass. —~O 7983 :5 7o ' “ll? rp, ..J ‘I. | n (I III 186 I-JI’M 3453-3 ? .‘3i ’il 2- 3PM flail-he ‘? 1)_1§ow 2)_=fi3+e3l:la=le 3)__=le 4)_=Es'rs°lgr 3-'?l*l9l #3 Smile ? 7)__2+31 2)__2:Icl 3)__'1l*l 4- fili'lfll all: 1’ 7)___§1 2)____fje;z 3)_'7I§,-3. 4)__"l'-)§1 5)__3ls 5. A) slalom-sale ensues lessee-Am *2 7)___°ll 2) °ltl£ 13) (1:130:21 g5 sling-g- :Leglac' gen; 33) “1% SH eii‘sltl 3'3“] SICI'LI' 51,4 MEALS- 9 5 1i? 6- Jl‘fll 3‘24“? 5' ”let‘s? A)4l*l94 3E3 W43? Eel—“ii newness. 2‘ 7) 81°11 2)___§q} ‘3)__3°llele“llti 3 qefngaul: 'Biélflllil- «Iii-'81.; CHOP-[- flétflifi {-j-Xlfl. ? .‘f‘ 335‘ C Zea-9' *fied‘rci 9?; fit— Ll-wm are 0] magma ° :)___§il=‘r Z) Ed‘l T (E? ‘ 35:31-94; he ":é°' 153'" s-ErLEl‘rl whit." e° tit) E"- 3l*l-94I' 1.53"" gee/fie Edi-9‘49. tea hecl’ifi “ (flew? 51‘ 3*li'7etlll ttibial) 7)____’.‘i 2)___+5_ 3)___f_121 4)_7ie‘L \1 _T— 43 1.22— E ‘.=-.,;_.‘ )_ .. CICA-O '34? "n-‘e 339/1 e—fl“: 3";- aC‘ 23°] ~—t."1_~- ‘7 7) fit} 2) SCI a” 2‘: ~* '— — 1,32 --- -. a —: - ~.. : o . .315: ~__ ~l met/*1 54.1 is Janet M ms?— u :0 .-_-° 9) 0:... :31an Site manna-eels. ‘2 A) name Eli- tl’i seams 331°! 53.13:."le ? 7)_2J=l 2) 3W 2) (3+; 0M were 242*") sat-+1 and as: are) ...°1e 5.1-e °i eennsena? ~3l°l’ii"1 rennin 54°11: A)4l"i9+ 3M} eel-uals “lee 01se- :_°lcl*I£ ‘2 (aisles £1;- i’inlecl"! “PEP-W) 1)__43. 2)___3‘l7i*l°'rl 3)__a1r-a 4)__5Ie,1 5)___‘7l3l Blll'la eat-“tide =lee °1=I°EE earner}. era-ens X13 ? 7)__2+2:1 2)____§5:I 3) ‘lliglzfi cums semina- °ls 5:13”? e same-113. ‘2 wan-m as seems enemie- see °i=l° ears as. c 7)_=4’.a*I 2)__§¢a*1 3)_.g. o1§ mantle: mildew} needs "Isle one) seals. ‘? °l= t: Flil'l’i’ie e3 as sea teens senses/“~13. 9 7)__°InI’-‘— 2)__5EI<}E,F 3)__Elga:-;rt 4) file Gust-5.4% ea :3“??er sit-c1 at? E???) erg-W1 a: was if: 5-"194 °I.‘:. -‘.=- ‘5 ‘7 1 7>...._Esl"l9fi 2) 3*! 3'5?" 71’2‘? 3} snap-6;; 188 - :' 7T ‘ an. —r ’ —‘ ~° -‘ . ,. _ . .. ‘4 70. "I . "'1 MSU '71-:- ’T°i"-IE °, ° "l “L" “’1.“ “I “z": ’c‘ —-r-;- 2'1: " t' O J :1 C E‘A 7 c— L—. ‘ I: 1 3:... - 1)....1;_JIT '34 r)___. prol I-: ’) '—,"7 w: .12."; 72°13) 337+? JIfi’ii’i ’i’i-t: 5&3; °I_=|¢l7~]3_ *2 ”.4... Cherry Lane 2) Spartan Village 3)‘ University Village 3) W‘T’il’i EMI- filfi‘e 510114 tight) ”I313- Siul‘i .‘Ih’lfi ‘? .2.“ WI? 73- Ill‘l’ll’i MSU "’IE"I°I“I£ °il .‘Né’lt‘ ”13% $”I‘I.‘Ie"l£ ‘? 3' 11s 189 see B.“l¥‘il*l9~l*l 7. annexe new? ends males are 31:: oz: sir-H 44. “we ’13. 2 ’J a 7)____"Ii‘?- “I? 2‘"? 2) ”re a”) 5>__7re 2+=l 2)__-na seer 5)__o‘31 seer .A) B) as .3155 sales a} °l2+°13esl°ln #3584 as 313‘. °‘«‘. 3*; twin aIsl °li~°71*i =1 an “’i‘fie’ifi ea =1 on; "l’ie’la 2 _ 7>__‘-*Ie*l’l are 2)___=1 so} gm 3)_=1 an} 3:} (=1 a”! one =1 an area slaw so! 33+) name organ %§l°l‘+ $359+ e§31£°l134°l4£=l alanine *1 3°] ivr—‘r as =1 an More news”! 4PM as «we °l=ar 11"“5- sre “lle‘ll sameness. ? mamas “WSW 53°! $3 ‘49) 53' were °lii=l =lii=l Emil“? fiiulfi‘l user 2;“:94 eel—e __ mysegmgghagg) _ ___. awards; __ melee??? _ _. mosey ___ 6),-+% 2';in 190 use”) 51°) $2? ’1 on “if-CI =li5=l =li‘v‘f al=1ii=l sass melee 21713311 £9 2M 2* A a}. ' El. 9143.154 °1s 1m1e+e “Nil 33% . e “’11 *2. 3- 3125;011:1131 eds-fl 31‘194 emanate neon €12.31: are no =12 senile X11 ‘2 1)__'111L 31% non 2)___sl°1 "leer ”__ng =lel=1 4)___"i-Ql 3°15}? 5)___5161 Efulfilcf 4.11) ilfi’fil’ie e21 ‘1?»- 214.11 2151+ see/1e“ ? 7)_gl-gl- I131 2)__3”- 41131 3)__7‘— 2431 4)__"l£l al‘ic’f‘l B) 31*191 sends verse Hale snare dawn econ: i’i‘ll é:fl*}fi(°€:: 7.2.3-4) ___fi ‘3' :14 are 7- national news 321319591 33191 anneal 219171111? sen 2,412+ WHEdfi? ‘ 7)___.s"‘rl'r?=r 2)__;'*s‘.23=1 31__‘r1~l are +e°1=1 4>__3.e=1 . =1; a1 cross wens 313121 earn =li‘11 Wynne new sHEWfi-ezifii 7>_e'1;'£-=1 21___;'1¢;°13=1 31_"181 re +e°1=1 4>_1§=r 5121212121 as {$11 u1:1 as: «as-71541 ewe ens 31.511:- e‘isst new; oneness? '0 U) net 71....32-2H1 =1 sane 2)___2I=-2-L =1 sans 3)___'I121 as +e°1=1 41__2,#2+ :1 sat-=1 51___2'rs*~1 :1 sane 4 Wall-94 ZV‘E'E'r‘Dl :{fi-TH 5'312; 531% 25332- "I*lr‘:-‘l.9— ‘3 ”ii???” PJ°I ”I5? 77151:) Milt???) U 0 U3 v.1 rs r: a 44 0:1 “1' ‘29 H0 1111 1‘3 it 71.1 3.". -' Ir “5‘ [I] “‘E -7 01-2 31:71 “151 =1 7- A) 41"} ”1““) 7)__gg='r B) (32‘43‘) E'lx X 05 no' I-1' °1 11::1‘1 =1. '8 ‘1. 2 a O L. 1571 :1. [11" 1:77. o. A seams gene 53) 31"} 01 an sews see-1t! 21:25 313191 “1311; oneness 2.A) Jl‘i’il’i some we use. Eng/119,1 '13”) 3J1: “la :7 1)__3,1=} Buns—mas cV11: use Elsie] 151$ u 07 ‘6 :r\ o-l—--) 3."?1 EJ- iv...‘ C ‘- COP-ai- if: =1°1 ? 0121—01 -_z'r1-_' as}. :._Q_ of: iii-Irerée '1“ - 11|r 192 “‘1??- —‘:—=} 171 5:} €9.— é"? 1%“? 1.:'r='1 c) ASU V153°1=15 éfié °I=ZP°1 EX} :55 °1§°1§§Z1§ EJ‘S- ail-git ‘? WWW” S*é'*i$‘°?1’*l °1°=IEF 31%;.- E*E‘r‘=l'—L “'ré‘iémi: °r'=’i£'%°‘ é‘a‘I-t- *fS”! 5181;] ”$324631 CEPT/“I “’13‘733 §Q?*}"I-1‘=_-713 ‘2 %%§% §# lfilfifi y% fi$flw A) 353' 13);:31 C) ‘58”? D) '1‘} 31:171.th 017101] 321 nh‘i: 4211:: gig- =H EDP-f 3:481:11 :.”I"i&"i£ ‘3 \l) JO 1" ['4 -‘Il. 7) =31 "~"1=I- z) 15:: Cr’vflr [:21 4)__=?.% €51wa =4 7’2: lc-_1___ 13*} E-Wéqé 3% “1'1 31111113151311 :Wfllc-Zia ‘2 E" 71 4:11 515W 2) 2. 'cri or: 111:1 3)__91¥:1+ §&+'31-=1 41__=11z £31114 3- AM'Z’W’H °I=ZP°V1EX1 71:13 21°! 211131—1ku :‘fi-Dii 315m =13 51211;- :25— 0‘; “If-Ht. 21g- $31.941'f/fi— £5 0] 2151. campus , 3240?; 3133143 ‘2 7) 31:1 2‘1 3.1% 3‘ - =' ‘.~_ ‘ z - '- ~33- - -* 1.1 =‘,-: —z""r21‘7'1€1: ¥ol cg L1 grit] CG Lit?) 3.1351- IA‘ OFZFO'I OIL—LCPQC —7 . ~ 1 Y —- ‘J—‘J'i- -— rma-.- 201:1“ 1.11:1; a ,1- 111-1‘143 ? ‘fE-?- “3313* ‘ EN} 7194 {“1 =5 ‘ .'- :- _ _.- —7 _. gh—J‘tr ‘11-‘52} $§Ef $31’i‘3-J-5I- nil-£1“ 112'. _I. 4 w v__ - '33"§J§13¥;~'12“-931§1%) [\ 1 V J l )- 03'. 1: 11L 193 (£111-30 fl ‘1— mm ma 4‘ .11. 31W3fiii r L ( '—J "11.1.! K “3,1 H 4)"lé’+ 5) $311; @543 7145i"??? &&§§ masé%§ 7m332£ 77)3531A£H$E_i 4. «11111011 311:1 212111 01:53 “154;”: egg-lo r311 n .‘l --s-3 211': :1 35"6' I Qficf m——- .— 31'. [41 (ll- 7. WWW? 13+; 0;} ‘ #3911115? §‘-I‘. 94%: 21am“ 54°11 351151112 1: {fit-43» ‘2 7)__=H% 353k} 2)____1:=fi=11i 853m BLAH? 53,3??? '4 L. )J“ 4)___ “1’9- 1;- 415%} F.gizq°11=fifl$?1%91&e‘ WWW-.5 *1; 4232+ 33' 2* 2245‘?- 2‘3‘129-155.‘ *l§'°1‘*l-‘-1:-713 ‘3 :)___2A];_7} v13 2)_2_5 2131 3) 510.3} 013+ :Wfiwr‘: 54712195‘4’14 3513:7131 813l311°ii =13 SE94 iitfigvr 212111112 éfizw‘rfléfla as: 412113143141 131211211541: :7 7)__=%:$- 313113111 2)__¢1;11e1=1 3)__"’194 31% +é°l=1 4)__¢'2WM 3”} 5)_Ci°1 é'l’ki’rzl PJ‘f WWW-15 343%“? 8111101 4ch 2P°1—‘a‘ 3’12: °1$721 aura-131112. ? 7:____g:%=1-=‘1 2)___§=:~ 3»)_1312.§1=1 4)__e'9.l=*f=r 2)_____"'-‘:‘.‘- 3539.811“: ==-.‘~"—‘:~7-*=1A1-':: E's/“~32 0:21 gal-*1 :z-a- 51-11'71 :WEWI 3“:**1’J1%*13 ‘? 11___o 2>__°;~‘-13. gynwg. 151-2.;— ~3°,N. 5 v #1331 e§P*}-’i"r ”5314533? E‘Sé 13' 3553-”; 01:315. Z}??- —l=‘1-3.‘1‘E*=11 fi‘F‘J’W—t-‘Ifi ‘? 71 #9- 7:4? 432‘ BMW-2.1 J1 3) 711:1 1‘5“} A)___‘F1—°4 :‘i-E“ 70. 77. 72. 195 “'A't’v-oi‘o-n -t-‘o' 01—: '50 L-L. A_2o ‘1’ “we" 3- :"01’5'7' '1 l\.r i01 1 {TC 1‘ [\E'klt 3:“ :51 ""1 I. 1"]‘113' 01:32:? " "1— L -' :- 3"2""1)‘it "I -—~ 31.111.111.113 91H o1»1§.§1<>::=1;~c;;;151:123 01:21: E*§*1’1-1‘571£ ‘3 7) U119. 31- 11:} 2)__"T.‘=1 “1531‘? 3)_91'FCZ'F 3413?“? 4)__'1191 3141111 3111-1 5)__5"1 EH1 *1“! 3,111 51:1 21511le *'1°1='-13. W121 =1E %‘*¢1°22*l $713171é°1i|=15 Jitr’Wé 01*1011 cm 01;”; 3121*1'1-{543 ? 7)_‘=111L °1*1*12;I=1 2)___°1*1°‘12 gl=1 3>__°I*1*‘rl§l*1.31=1 4)__551*1 °I*1*1l;:|*11:+=1 .°I=CZP__=211 31:11:}. 2: 5:71? :1 gala-=1 .41 =1- gag-if:— \x U1 76. \I) 196 5:19;! 5:310) 01%;5153 5:127:15 3.15.7.”TA1- 155% 21:71.1. 9% 4:12; 11112-1- 2.1+ 111=11 21211111112121. 1 71 1191 51°] °1=1 2) .1: C1 °1=1 51 5% °1=1 4) 1111-51-1 5)___f;1"1 1.31:1 wfififiefiflhfihlfivfiflfi=w"flNfl°Pgm.ié3%;%fin. fifififiéfifi? - 1)__=131?- 51°] :11:- 1=1 2)_:—,1°l 211c=1 3)__2,1:11 311-: =1 41,1191 21*1 13111 5)___e111 21*1 113111 G-3131°11=HE111—E1%912131 12:121-3- 121011-1111 3714 112 *1°1° 112.118.1111:- 1 {533,1 15'1i/‘1 1:11:03} =15 319.7} 311:}1—1 312.1343 13 113% 3% iam1 nng fififl% °1fi1 4°14111£1 °1 D°l£5115171311=1 MSU 21721 ,1 -—-— __- '11! East Lansing A} U.“ v Lansing )1 ‘43, 31‘1'7’72’115 MSU 7|E¥°fnfi °’1‘."1§"r1-_- ”7914-5394 §¥¥€l§ 0] 0]};15 °I"+& °1=9 313194 1.321% 4111-1111512! :gigg. 7113*?771‘15343‘k11} §1fi4&43? ' 7) oz: 2) °11-15>.. A) %*i'”*11:: 213: 7155211012130; ”1'43”“‘1-‘5- fi‘E'é °1 31513—431 1% “1:32- 1 .- .1. ‘zJ-Tzz ‘21:: —1 5.1—“2'7! 5—1 "1 “Tue-51 1; “121 9371;111:111 221*V‘Hifl— 7 7>__°‘ 2) 111-19. 3“ 1 ~" 72":- 21': :‘ —1.. -c- -- —/ 1.214.151.1— lg 451' 3'51"} 31' 11 :F‘WE‘ 5:“ 313*) 3! 'r"‘11 fiz- 131411: «745? "15% 33"} 9151°1‘1%-91 452.1941”: 4*1-13- 21°] 31‘1“? ~33 "1‘74: -— 91%“1‘31'1 3~4r“1"‘31_‘-"!£ ‘7 °12 11- "? :11 911121 '11 91 51 111 -'-' ‘i‘l-t' 1': — 97%“1‘3197-2-1r..%1=11%&1‘1f=‘-%°11 “ ‘.-’~ ‘7 E- .— - --—;,--_ ”9‘15?“ 153* 155-51.“? 197 --h I c’ zi‘._ c L .1 73‘5" 5?“ .2 _1 02;!“ 9 '31:.“ 9.1 :1qu; :‘1 _, 571% “ “I 17% ”.Cf 9‘5- ‘f‘i' 4.3;;qu _L—g-EC'I— F L a. —. ~)°r”*-91'%% :3ch 3)—"i-"I-:1- ¢7t*?=r M§§-fi§§%31§w$ 3w 5) 7+1] gl-o1 1'3 % 51.23: c]- mmzqrafig flflq 7)"f%s- “33 3‘63 5% A z afar Jifif’fii’fl-t-z- MSU ”IEXPF‘fE °fl "'lé’I'E- €35“;- °I 2143.21151 1591 gig. 13"!"I 94*?”1 ’i‘i‘é‘d’liflé fifiWl‘E‘fl fififl'flé’fli ‘2 7)_ 013 2)___ °}"I£ ("I‘i"é"li*1§- 41W°Fi4tfl EHTC' ’3‘"? E'F'SH- 3‘.*}7‘Ti”'l-t-:- 35431::1‘1 34*“?1 31% 13°F] 943114 CHE-2i 43‘3‘45—“5- 51“}:‘2 35°I 31°F} ?r%*f=}l 38:P*{'*l-&7‘13 ‘3 r 2.13.: 27‘31 21:3 219-: .2 *1 9__g_f-'-:Y- .9__;_~:-’.:T. 9_p_ 3.27 A; 01:- «3,9 01:: n G I I u o o 1 u o I -‘- o g "' C \; H134§4.3231fl% 3H°fis+£4§ 4%”? 2)::13011 $21; BMW} 3)3{ 551-715, arm. atazafigg a1&_:}- “94%"! °I£°I 311312}; o].E[: t. .. 32.425 fié'I-J-z- $521.12.? Era-g “w; =’—;— a)” "-:,= E 81-5- *Ismo %%€‘=;€M15 =15}?! Zr’fl-Ei-‘i ‘12?- B I BL I OGRAPHY Annual Report of the Department of Public Safety, January 1, 1983-December 31, 1983. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1984. A National Crime Survey, Boston: Public Attitudes About Crime. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1979. Antuness, George E., Fay Romax Cook, Thomas D. Cook, and Wesley G. Skogan. "Patterns of Personal Crime Against the Elderly: Findings From National Survey," The Gerontologist, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1977. Ashton, Nancy, "Senior Citizens' Views of Crime and the Criminal Justice System." In David Lester (ed.), The Elderly Victim of Crime, Chicago, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Publisher, 1981. Babbie, Earl R., The Practice of Social Research, 2nd Edition. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., Inc., 1979. Barton-Achman Associates. Security Problems and Strategies, Allentown Community Development Project, First and Sixth Wards. Washington, D.C.: Barton-Achman Associates, 1975. Baumer, Terry L. "Research on Fear of Crime in the United States." Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978. Biderman, A.D., L.A. Johnson, J. McIntyre, and A.W. Weir. Report on Victimization and Attitudes Toward Law Enforcement. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1967. Block, Richard L. "Fear of Crime and Fear of the Police." Social Problems, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1971. Boggs, Sarah L. "Formal and Informal Crime Control: An Exploratory Study of Urban, Suburban, and Rural Orientations." The Sociological Quarterly, 12, Summer 1971. 198 199 Borg, Walter R. and Meredity D. Gall. Educational Research: An Introduction, Fourth Edition. New York: Longman, Inc., 1983. Braungart, Margaret M., Richard G. Braungart, and William J. Hoyer. "Age, and Social Factors in Fear of Crime." Sociological Focus, Vol. 13, No. l, 1980. Chang, Dae C. "The Korean Family." In Man Singh Das and Pamos D. Bardis (eds.), The Family in Asia. London, England: George Allen and Unwin, 1979. Choy, Bong Y. Koreans in America. Chicago, Illinois: Nelson-Hall, 1979, Clemente, Frank and Michael B. Kleiman. "Fear of Crime Among the Aged." The Gerontologist, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1976. . "Fear of Crime in the United States: A Multivariate Analysis." Social Forces, Vol. 56, No. 2, December 1979. Conklin, John E. "Dimensions of Community Response to the Crime Problem." Social Problems, Vol. 18, 1971. . The Impact of Crime. New York: Macmillan Company, 1975. . "Robbery, the Elderly, and Fear: An Urban Problem in Serch of Solution." In Jack Goldsmith and Sharon 8. Goldsmith (eds.), Crime and the Elderly: Challenge and Response. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1979. Doob, Anthony N. and Glenn E. Macdonald. "Television Viewing and Fear of Victimization: Is the Relationship Causal?" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Vol. 37, No. 2, 1979. DuBow, Frederic, Edward McCabe, and Gail Kaplan. Reactions to Crime: A Critical Review of the Literature. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice, 1979. Erskine, Hazel. "The Polls: Control of Crime and Violence." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 38, 1974. . "The Polls: Fear of Violence and Crime." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 38, 1974. Frisbie, Douglas; Glenn Fishbine; Richard Hintz; Michael Foelson; and Jullia Brown Nutter. Crime in Minneapolis: Proposal for Prevention. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Minnesota Crime Prevention Center, 1979. 200 Furstenberg, Frank, Jr. "Public Reaction to Crime in the Streets." American Scholar, Vol. 51, 1971. Gallup Organization. The Gallup Opinion Index. Princeton, New Jersey: Gallup Organization, Inc., 1981. Garofalo, James. Public Opinion About Crime: The Attitudes of Victims and Nonvictims in Selected Cities, Analytical Report, SD-VAD-1. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, National Criminal Justice Information and Statistics Service, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1977. , and John Laub. "The Fear of Crime: Broadening Our Perspective." Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978. . "Victimization and Fear of Crime." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Vol. 16, No. 1, 1979. __. "The Fear of Crime: Cause and Conse- quences." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 72, No. 2, 1981. Gerbner, George and L. Gross. "The Scary World of TV's Heavy Viewers." Psychology Today, Vol. 89, April 1979. Gordon, Margaret T. and Stephanie Riger. "Fear and Avoidance: A Link Between Attitude and Behavior." Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978. , Stephanie Riger, Robert K. LeBailly, and Linda Heath. "Crime, Women, and the Quality of Urban Life." Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 5, No. 3, Supplement, 1980. Q_ and Linda Heath. "The News Business, Crime and Fear." In Dan A. Lewis (ed.), Reactions to Crime. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1981. Gubrium, Jaber F. "Apprehensions of Coping Incompetence and Response to Fear in Old Age." International Journal of Aging and Human Development, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1973. Hacker, James, C., Kwai-Yiu Ho, and Carol Urquhart-Ross. "The Willingness to Intervene: Differing Community Characteristics." Social Problems, Vol. 21, 1974. 201 Hagan, Frank E. Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1982. Hartnagel, Timothy. "The Perception and Fear of Crime: Implementations for Neighborhood Cohesion, Social Activity, and Community Affect." Social Forces, Vol. 58, No. 1, September 1979. Henig, Jeffery and Michael G. Maxfield. "Reducing Fear of Crime: Strategies for Intervention." Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978. Heinzelman, Fred. "Crime Prevention and Physical Environ- ment." In Dan A. Lewis (ed.), Reactions to Crime. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1981. Hindelang, Michael J., Michael R. Gottfredson, and James Garofalo. Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimization. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger, 1978. Hong, Sook J. "The Changing Trends of Korean Women's Social Position." Women, 12, Summer 1978. Hur, Won M. Comparative Study of Korean Immigrants in the United States: A Typological Approach. San Francisco, California: R and E Research Association, Inc., 1977. Hur, Won M., Hei C. Kim, and Kwang C. Kim. Assimilation Patterns of Immigrants in the United States: A Case Study of Korean Immigrants in the Chicago Area. Washington, D.C.: University Press of America, 1978. Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Vintage Books, 1961. Jaehnig, Walter, E., David H. Weaver, and Fredrick Fico. "Reporting Crime and Fearing Crime in Three Commun- ities." Journal of Communication, Vol. 31, No. 1, 1981. Jaycox, Victoria H. "The Elderly's Fear of Crime: Rational or Irrational?" Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978. Jeffery, Ray C. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1971. Kim, Hyung C. The Korean Diaspora. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-Clio, Inc., 1977. 202 Lalli, Michael and Leonard D. Savitz. "The Fear of Crime in the School Enterprise and its Consequences." Education and Urban Society, Vol. 8, No. 4, August 1976. Lavrakas, Paul J. "On Households." In Dan A. Lewis (ed.), Reactions to Crime. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1981. and Dan a. Lewis. "The Conceptualization and Measurement of Citizen's Crime Prevention Behaviors." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 17, July 1980. Lawton, Powell M. and silvia Yaffee. "Victimization and Fear of Crime in Elderly Public Housing Tenants." Journal of Gerontology, Vol. 35, No. S, 1980. Lebowitz, Barry D. "Age and Fearfulness: Personal and Situational Factors." Journal of Criminology, Vol. 30, No. 6, 1975. Maltz, Michael D. Evaluation of Crime Control Problems. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1972. McIntyre, Jennie. "Public Attitudes Toward Crime and Law Enforcement." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 374, 1967. McPherson, Marlys. "Realities and Perceptions of Crime at the Neighborhood Level." Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978. Molumby, Thomas. "Patterns of Crime in a University Housing Project." American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 20, 1976. Moon, Seung G. "Ancestor Worship in Korea: Tradition and Transition." Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 5, Autumn 1974. Nasar, Jack L. "A Model Relating Visual Attributes in the Residential Environment to Fear of Crime. Journal of Environmental Systems, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1981-82. Newman, Oscar. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1972. Paik, Wan K. "Psycho Cultural Approach to the Study of Korean Bureaucrats." In Bun W. Kim and Hwa J. Rho (eds.), The Korean Public Bureaucragy. Seoul, Korea: Kyobo Publishing, Inc., 1982. Pesce, Edward J. "Creating Safe Environments, A Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design: The CEPT Concept." In Burt Galaway and Joe Hudson (eds.), 203 Perspectives on Crime Victims. St. Louis, Missouri: The C.V. Mosby Company, 1981. Puuri, Dan M. A Study on the Fear of Crime Among Under- graduate Students at a Selected University. Unpublished Master's Thesis. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1983. Research and Forecast, Inc. The Figgie Report on Fear of Crime: America Afraid, Part 1, The General Public. Willoughby, Ohio: A-T-O, Inc., 1980. Riger, Stephanie. "On Women." In Dan A. Lewis (ed.), Reactions to Crime. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1981. and Margaret T. Gordon. ”The Fear of Rape: A Study in Social Control." Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 37, No. 4, 1981. if , , and Robert LeBailly. ”Women's Fear of Crime: From Blaming to Restricting the Victim." Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978. Rosenthal, Jack. ”The Cage of Fear in Cities Beset by Crime." Life, Vol. 67, No. 2, July 11, 1969. Skogan, Wesley G. "Public Policy and the Fear of Crime in Large American Cities." In John a. Gaediner (ed.), Public Law and Public Policy. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1977. . "On Attitudes and Behaviors." In Dan A. Lewis (ed.), Reactions to Crime. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1981. . "Crime in Contemporary America." In H. Graham and T.R. Gurr (eds.), Violence in America. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, Inc., 1979. and Michael G. Maxfield. Coping with Crime: Individual and Neighborhood Reactions. Beverly Hills, California: Safe Publications, Inc., 1981. , Dan A. Lewis, Aaron Podolefsky, Frederic DuBow, and Margaret T. Gordon, with Albert Hunter, Michael G. Maxfield, and Greta Salem. Executive Summary: The Reactions to Crime Project. The Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University, 1981. 204 Stinchcombe, Arthur; Carol Heimer; Rebeca Adams Iliff; Kim Schepple, Tom W. Smith; and D. Garth Taylor. Crime and Punishment: Changing Attitudes in America. San Francisco, California: Jossey Bass, 1980. Sundeen, Richard A. "The Fear of Crime and Urban Elderly." In Marlene A. Young Raifai (ed.), Justice and Older Americans. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1977. and James T. Mathieu. "The Urban Elderly: Environment of Fear." In Jack Goldsmith and Sharon S. Goldsmith (eds.), Crime and the Elderly: Challenge and Response. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company, 1976. . "The Fear of Crime and its Consequence Among the Elderly in Three Urban Commun- ities." The Gerontologist,Vol.16,No. 3, 1976. Thomas, Charles W. and Jeffery M. Hyman. "Perceptions of Crime, Fear of Victimization, and Public Perceptions of Police Performance." Journal of Police Science and Administration, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1977. Tien, James M., Vincent O'Donnell, Arnold Marnett, and Pitu Mirchandani. Street Lighting Projects: National Evaluation Program, Phase I, Final Report. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Public Systems Evaluation, Inc., 1977. Toseland, Ronald W. "Fear of Crime: Who is Most Vulnerable?" Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 10, 1982. Uniform Crime Report. F.B.I., Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1980. Weiss, K. and M. Milakowich. "Politics and Measure of Success in the War on Crime." Crime and Delinquency, 21, 1975. Whitepaper on Juvenile and Youth (in Korean). Office of Prime Minister. Seoul, Korea: Government Printing Office, 1980. Yin, Peter P. "Fear of Crime Among the Elderly: Some Issues and Suggestions." Social Problems, Vol. 27, No. 4, April 1980. Zion, Robert J. "Reducing Crime and Fear of Crime in Downtown Cleveland." Victimology: An International Journal, Vol. 3, No. 3-4, 1978. u11111111111111"Hm