AJCJ, Vol. XII, NO.

2 (1988)
A SCALE FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF FEAR OF CRIME R A Y M O N D H. C. TESKE, JR. S a m Houston State University MICHAEL H. HAZLETT

Western I l l i n o i s University
ABSTRACT

This paper presents research findings from a victimization survey of 1442 Texas residents. Specific attention is given to the fear of crime indicators in the survey with comparisons made to other findings on this subject. During the past two decades there has been an increasing interest in the concept fear of crime, both among the public and among scholars. Skogan and Maxfield ( l g B l : l J ) , for example, note that since 1965 the Gallup organization (American Institute of Public Opinion Research, monthly), the National Opinion Research C e n t e r (1978), and other polling organizations have been asking respondents about fear of walking alone in their neighborhoods at night. In 1967 the President's Task Force on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice published its report and, of particular ~ote, concluded that, with regard to crime, a "fear of strangers" is the foremost concern among Americans (1967). Subsequently, the National Crime Surveys regularly included questions focusing on the extent to which the participants in the surveys f e l t s a f e when out alone in their neighborhoods at night. Consequently, a subarea has developed in the field of victimology which has attended to the issue of identifying causal factors related to fear of crime, correlates with fear of c r i m e , and the consequences that fear of crime has on the socio-psychological states of Americans, as well as their lifestyles. As McIntyre (1967) has noted, fear of crime, particularly as i t translates from fear of strangers, creates a condition of social and cultural impoverishment among those who are impacted by this fear. In other words, fear of crime has been

274

demonstrated to have a profound effect on the quality of l i f e of the average American. Almost a decade ago Brooks noted that "[t]he fear of crime in the United States is a fundamental social problem which has not yet received attention in proportion to its severity and which may well prove to be more d i f f i c u l t to treat t h a n criminality i t s e l f " (1974:241). Brooks also postulated that the fear of c r i m e level in the United States is i r r a t i o n a l , in relation to the actual probability of becoming a victim; nevertheless, he correctly recognized, in the tradition of W. I. Thomas, that i f the public whether correctly or incorrectly, perceives fear of crime to be real, then the consequences for their actions w i l l be real as well. Similarly, Garofalo recently delineated the distinction between actual fear and anticipated fear, observing that " we can expect that anticipated fear--as well as actual Fear--will produce behavioral responses" (1gBI:842). At the same time, i t has been demonstrated that fear of crime is not equally distributed among the populace. Skogan and Maxfield (1981:76-77), for example, have documented that the elderly are more fearful than the young, women are more fearful than men, Blacks are more fearful than Whites, and the poor are more fearful than the affluent. Garofalo (1979), too, found that women are more Fearful than men and that older persons are more fearful than the younger persons. In addition, Garofalo found " that perceptions of the relative dangerousness of one's neighborhood also have a strong effect on the fear of crime" (197g:95). Clemente and Kleiman, using d a t a from two national samples, found that "[f]emales, blacks, and residents of large cities all display significantly more fear than their respective counterparts" (1977:527). Of course, as s c h o l a r l y i n t e r e s t has developed regarding fear of crime, the inevitable, concomitant problems of conceptualization and operationalization have had to be addressed. Although criminologists, and victimologists in particular, do seem to share in a consensus that fear of crime is an element of social r e a l i t y , perhaps even conforming to Durkheim's c r i t e r i a regarding social facts, nevertheless, the meaning of the concept fear of crime has not acquired complete uniformity in the literature. Yin, for 275

example, has noted that "fear of crime is almost never e x p l i c i t l y defined by researchers" (1980:496). At the same time, however, he has provided reference to a d e f i n i t i o n by Sundeen and Mathieu who defined fear of crime as "the amount of anxiety and concern that persons have of being a victim" (1976:55). Garofalo, in a more e x p l i c i t manner, has defined fear "as an emotional reaction characterized by a sense of danger and anxiety" (lgBl:840). In this context, he has provided a restricted definition of fear of crime as "the sense of danger and anxiety produced by a threat of physical harm" (1981:840). And, i t should be noted that this d e f i n i t i o n incorporates concern about property crimes, such as burglary, which might lead to direct confrontation with an offender. Other noteworthy efforts to conceptualize fear of crime include Furstenberg (1971) who, in developing an index of fear of crime, focused on the individual's perception of vulnerability (italics added) in relation to eight d i f f e r e n t crimes. And Hartnagel (1979) has suggested that fear of crime is related to beliefs regarding personal safety ( i t a l i c s added). Moreover, efforts to operationalize fear of crime r e f l e c t this consensus regarding the individual's perception of personal v u l n e r a b i l i t y to crime which might bring him or her into personal contact with an offender. Even more so, this implied consensus has lead victimologists to rely heavily on one single indicator of fear of crime, that is, the extent to which an individual is afraid to walk alone in his or her neighborhood at night. And, use of this indicator to operationalize fear of crime is quite logical and is readily acceptable based on the standard of face v a l i d i t y . The fact that this presents a situation wherein the individual is (1) in a public place, (2) alone, and (3) in the dark certainly implies the p o s s i b i l i t y of personal contact with a potential offender. Furthermore, based on individual perception, some w i l l feel more vulnerable than others in this particular type of situation. These and other writers do suggest that, i f there is an implied consensus regarding the conceptual meaning of fear of crime, i t is to be found in the individual's perception of personal v u l n e r a b i l i t y regardless of whether the perception is based on objective r e a l i t y ....which might bring him or her into personal contact with an offender.

276

Predicated on this assumption, then, researchers have frequently operationalized fear of crime by asking respondents about their fear of being out alone in their neighborhood at night. And, although the format of the questions have varied somewhat, the underlying assumption on which the questions have been based has remained the same. Respondents to the national crime surveys, for example, were asked: "How safe do you feel or would you feel being out alone in your neighborhood at night?" The four response categories were very safe, reasonably safe, somewhat safe, and very unsafe (Garofalo, 1977:18-19, 128). Garofalo (1979), as well as other researchers relying on these data, have by necessity had to rely on this specific indicator of fear of crime. Skogan and Maxfield (IgBl) also used this question as an indicator of fear of crime in a telephone survey and in data collected subsequently through face-to-face interviews. Others have either relied on this question or h a v e designed their own similar question(s). For example, Smith has drawn on data collected in the General S o c i a l Survey by the National Opinion Research Center which used the question: "Is there any area right around here---that is, within one mile -where you would be afraid to walk along at night" (1976:208)? The response choices were dichotomized as either yes or no. Clemente and Kleiman (1977) also used this question to operationalize fear of crime.
Although there has been more than adequate reason to r e l y on these question in order to o p e r a t i o n a l i z e fear of crime, researchers have been faced with two specific limitations. First, they have had to consistently rely on a single indicator Focusing on a single specific circumstance, that is, a hypothetical situation which either asks how safe, or would the respondent feel safe, in a g i v e n situation. Secondly, in using this format, researchers have generally been restricted to treating the dependent variable, that is, fear of crime, as nominal or, at best, ordinal d a t a . And, of course, this has placed limitations on the level, and strength, of analysis of the data.

These limitations have certainly been recognized by others. Garofalo, for example, recently noted the need for more refined indicators of fear of crime, stating that "[w]e must develop indicators that reflect differences in the saliency and intensity of
277

both actual and anticipated fear experiences" (1981:855). Similarly, Clemente and Kleiman have noted that "the NORC question on fear of crime could easily be improved by eliminating the dichotomous format and including a broader range of responses. Further, other dimensions of fear of crime, e.g., afraid in one's own house, also deserve attention" (1977:529). They also exhort that " [ t ] h i s paucity of multivariate work has seriously inhibited the development of c a u s a l explanations of differential fear of crime" (1977:529). Therefore, understanding and further explanation of the phenomenon fear of crime would be significantly enhanced i f an index, or measurement instrument, were available which was based on multi-indicators and which could provide for interval level d a ta and concomitant means of analysis. 1 SCALE DEVELO PMENT: OPERATIONALIZATION In order to address this issue the researchers sought to develop a scale to measure fear of crime which would meet both of these c r i t e r i a , that is, a scale consisting of several distinct indicators and which could provide interval level d a t a . And, since fear of walking alone in o n e ' s neighborhood, particularly at night, has become an acceptable, standardized means of operationalizing fear of crime, the researchers decided to build, or expand, on this indicator. In other words, a series of items was developed which would reflect varying degrees of vulnerability to physical danger f r o m potential assailants. For example, i t was assumed that, although some individuals might be afraid to walk alone within one b~eck of their home at night, not a ll of these same individuals would be afraid to walk within one block of their home at night i f accompanied by a friend. At the same time, individuals who might be afraid to walk alone within one block of their home at night, nevertheless, might be afraid for a young child to walk alone within one block of their (the respondent's) home at night. Also, i t was assumed that a distinction might obtain between the same hypothetical situations depending on whether the situation referred to was related to the daytime or nighttime. 2 Consequently, eight dichotomous i t e m s were designed which could, potentially, be arranged hierarchically from lowest feelings of vulnerability
278

to highest feeling of vulnerability-whether on the part of the respondent while alone, the respondent in the accompaniment of a friend, or on the part of a young child. 3 The eight items included in the survey instrument are presented in Figure I . The d i s t r i b u t i o n responses to the six items retained in the scale are presented in lable l and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of responses to the two i t e m s not included in the scale are presented in Table 2.

FIGURE 1 Questionnaire Items Included and Not Included Regarding Feelings of Personal Vulnerability Items included in the Guttman Scale for the Measure ment of Fear of Crime. Would you be afraid for a ys child to walk alone within one mile of your home at night? Item 2 Would you be afraid for a young child to walk alone within one block of your home at night? Item 3 Is there any area within one mile of your home where you would be afraid to walk alone at night? Item 4 Is there any area within one mile of your home where you would be afraid to walk at night i_f_f accompanied by a friend? Item 5 Would you be afraid to walk alone within one block of your home at night? Item 6 Would you be afraid to walk alone within o n _ _ e e block of your home at night j f accompanied by a friend? Items not included in the Guttman Scale for Measurement of Fear of Crime. Item A Is there any place in your community where you are afraid to w a l k a l o n e during the daytime? Item B Is there any place in your community where you would be afraid for a young child to walk alone during the daytime? Item l

279

1ABLE I DISIRIBUIION O FR E S P O N S E S TO SCALE ITEMS: INCLUDING "NO RESPONSE" Item l N % Yes Ill No 1,315 No Response 16 Total 1,442 8 gl l I00 Item 2 N % 328 1,095 Ig 23 76 l Item 3 N % 386 1,040 16 1,422 27 72 l lO0

1 , 4 2 2 I00

Item 4 N % Yes No No Response 829 592 21 58 41 l

Item 5 N % 841 583 18 5B 40 l

Item 6 N % 1,252 175 15 87 12 l

Total

1,422

lO0

1 , 4 2 2 lO0

1,422

lO0

1ABLE 2 DISTRIBUIION O FR E S P O N S E S lO IIEMS N O 1 INCLUDED IN IHE GUIlMAN SCALE Item A N % Yes No No Response 338 1,084 20 23 75 l Item B N % 758 662 22 53 46 l

Total

1,442

I00

1,422

I00

DATA COLLECTION
lhe Criminal Justice Center at Sam Houston State University conducts an annual survey called the Texas Crime Poll. The survey instrument includes a number of items which are repeated each time in order to 280

measure trends in public opinion concerning salient criminal justice issues (for example, the death penalty). In addition, current or special issues are also addressed in the surveys. I t was in this context that the eight items were included in the 1982 Texas Crime Poll survey.4 Briefly stated, survey instruments were mailed to a randomly selected sample of 2000 licensed drivers in Texas. Each potential respondent received a pre-survey post card informing him/her of the purpose of the survey. Then, each individual in the sample was sent a survey packet consisting of the survey instrument, a return addressed and stamped envelope, and a l e t t e r explaining the purpose of the survey. Two weeks later a l l nonrespondents were sent a follow-up post card, followed a week later by another survey packet and, i f no response had been received by the f i f t h week, a final follow-up post card. A total of 1442 (72.1%) of the individuals in the sample r e t u r n e d u s e a b l e s u r v e y instruments. 5 Moreover, the characteristics of the respondents were s t a t i s t i c a l l y representative of the original sample of 2000 with respect to s e x , r a c e , age, and geographic distribution. At the same time, i t should be recognized that the sample was drawn from the l i s t of registered drivers in Texas and, although this includes more than 90% of the adult population in Texas, generalizations from the findings should be restricted to the population of licensed drivers in the State of Texas. SCALE VALIDITY A N D RELIABILITY Although the eight items were predicated on similar items that have come to be accepted as indicators of fear of c r i m e , nevertheless, the researchers decided to further address their v a l i d i t y and selected one of the items for this purpose.6 The i t e m selected asked: "Would you be afraid to walk alone within one block of your home at night?" I f a respondent answered yes then he (or she) was asked to explain why he would be afraid. Their explanations were presented in Table 3.

lhe responses to the contingent question were openended. A total of 328 (23%) of the respondents answered yes to the first question. Of these 66 (20%) failed to explain why they would be afraid and,
281

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

TABLE 3 R E A S O N SF O R FEAR O F WALKING A L O N E WITHIN O N E BLOCK O FH O M EAT NIGHT** Reasons Given High Crime Area Afraid of Physical Violence Previous Experience With Violence Neighborhood Not Safe Afraid of Robbery Lack of Trust Poor Police Protection Inefficiency of Courts Racial Unrest/Problems Transients in Neighborhood Drunks in Neighborhood Afraid of Teenagers Inadequate Lighting Neighborhood Deserted at Night Neighborhood Located Near Prison Long Blocks in Neighborhood Afraid of Dogs Located Near Busy Highway No Response
TOTAL

Number 28 46 25 44 2 5 5 3 9 19 lO 3 36 13 2 1 5 6 66
28

Percent
8 14 8

13 2 2 1 3
6

1 1 11
4

2 2 20 l O1%

*Less than 1% **The respondents were asked the f o l l o w i n g open-ended question: "Would you be a f r a i d to walk alone w i t h i n one block of your home at night? I f yes, why? (Explain)."

282

Scale Development The intention of the researchers in developing a hierarchical set of items measuring fear of crime was to allow for the construction of a Guttman Scale which could be used to assign a score to each individual responding to the survey. Therefore, i t was necessary that two properties, or c r i t e r i a , be met i f the items were to be used for the construction of this particular type of scale. First, they had to be unidimensional, that is, ". the component items must a l l measure movement towards or away from a single underlying object" ( N i e et a l . , 1975:529). Secondly, the scale, and hence the items, must be cumulative since the l a t t e r c r i t e r i o n is the one property which differentiates Guttman s c a l e s from almost a l l other types of scales. 8 I t was also necessary that the data consist of dichotomous categories since the Guttman scale requires that for each i t e m the response must be classified as either pass or f a i l , yes or no. This was accomplished by scoring as l a response of yes and by scoring as 0 a response of no. g The expectation, then, is that the items w i l l be patterned in a hierarchical order from minimal fear of crime to maximum fear of crime,lO Therefore, i f the respondent answers yes to an item in the scale he would then answer yes to a l l items in the scale up to that point. For example, i f he answers yes to the fourth item, then he would be expected to answer yes to the f i r s t , second, and third items, but not necessarily to the i t e m s above the fourth item. Moreover, i f he answers yes to the highest item in the scale--in this case, fear of walking alone within one block of the respondent's home at night i f accompanied by a friend--then he would be expected to answer unusual i f a l l responses followed a perfect pattern. For example, a respondent might answer yes to the fourth item, as well as the f i r s t and second items, but not to the t h i r d item. Therefore, the Guttman evaluating procedure takes into account these "errors" a n d , based on consistency in predicted response patterns, calculates two principal s t a t i s t i c s for evaluating the scale. The f i r s t statistic is the coefficient of reproducibility which is " a measure of the extent to which a respondent's scale score is a 283

predictor of one's response pattern" (Nie et a l . , 1975:532). The coefficient of reproducibility varies from 0 to l and, in general, should exceed .9 in order to indicate a valid score. The second s t a t i s t i c is the coefficient of s c a l a b i l i t y , which also varies from 0 to l , and serves to assess the extent to which the scale meets the two c r i t e r i a of unidimensionality and cumulativeness. In order to assume that the scale is b o t h unidimensional and cumulative the coefficient of s c a l a b i l i t y should be above .6. The eight original items were examined using the Guttman evaluation procedure and i t was evident, based on the interitem correlations, that two of the items not only failed to contribute to the scale, but were negatively affecting b o t h the reproducibility and scalabilityo Therefore, these items were removed from the scale. At this point six scale items were retained. The coefficient of s c a l a b i l i t y is .745 and the coefficient of reproducibility is . 9 0 8 . B o t h indicators, then, are above minimum acceptable levels. The next step in the process was to assign a scale score to each of the respondents. According to Nie et al. " . i f a group of items passes the rather stringent requirement of the Guttman evaluating procedure, assigning each case as scale score based on the number of items passed (whether or not they are perfect scale types) is a sound procedure" (1975:533). Therefore, each respondent was assigned a scale score by calculating the t o t a l number of ones (1) scored by that individual. The distribution of the scale scores is presented in Table 4. The scores range from O, indicating that the respondent did not answer yes to any of the six items, to 6, indicating that the respondent answered yes to all six of the items. In theory, a score of 6 would indicate maximum fear of crime. In other words, the higher the score the greater the fear of crime. One central concern, of course, is that the scale scores are distributed in such a way that they can be used for s t a t i s t i c a l analysis. I f , for example, they were highly skewed to one or the other end of the scale, then the u t i l i t y of the scale for research purposes, and for theory building, would be marginal. Examination of the scale scores suggests an acceptable
284

d i s t r i b u t i o n , with minimum skewness (skewness = .25). However, the scores are somewhat " f l a t " in t h e i r d i s t r i b u t i o n , although they do peak near the mean (kurtosis = -.62). Moreover, the mean (2.63), median (2.00) and mode (2.00) are close together. In summary, a l l indicators support the position that the six-item scale is well within acceptable l i m i t s for use in s t a t i s t i c a l analysis.

TABLE 4 DISIRIBUTION O F SCALE SCORES* Number W i t h This Score 162 IB7 355 263 240 gl 94 Percent W i t h This Score 12 13 25 19 17 7 7 Cumulative Percent 12 25 50 69 86 93 1O0

Score 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

TOTAL

1,392

lO0

lO0

*NOTE: The greater the scale score, the more intense the fear. Mean = 2.63 Median = 2.00 Mode = 2.00 Standard Deviation = 1.66 Skewness = .25 Kurtosis = -.62 Coefficient of Reproducibility = .gOB Coefficient of S c a l a b i l i t y = .745

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Whereas the coefficient of reproducibility and the coefficient of scalability are above acceptable levels and, since the distribution of the scores supports the position that the scale can readily be used for statistical analysis requiring interval level data, a regression equation was calculated in order to illustrate the utility of the scale and to identify factors which might help to explain variations in levels of fear of crime. The stepwise
285

multiple regression procedure was used to regress a set of 12 selected independent variables on the dependent variable, that is, scores derived from the fear of crime scale, yielding a multiple R of .500 and a R of .250.I I Out of the 12 factors analyzed, eight (B) of the independent variables served to explain 25 percent of the variation in fear of crime. The independent variable accounting for the greatest amount of variation was sex (13.6%). Size of home town was next adding an additional 5.5 percent for a total explained variation of 19.1 percent. The remaining variables and the amount they contributed, in descending order, were perception of the community crime problem during the next three years (2.3%), family income (I.8%), perception of the community crime problem during the previous three years (I.0%), race--White/nonWhite (.3%), age (.2%), and whether or not the individual had been the victim of at least one crime during the previous year (.3%). The regression results are presented below in Table 5. A complete l i s t i n g of the 12 variables, and the corresponding "product moment correlations," is presented in Table 6.

TABLE 5 S U M M A R YO F REGRESSION ANALYSIS USING THE SIX POINT "FEAR CRIME" SCALE AS T H E DEPENDENI VARIABI_E Variable Sex Size of Home Town Crime Problem: Next 3 Years Family Income Crime Problem: Previous 3 Years White/nonWhite Age Victim of At Least One Crime: Previous Year
*Rounded from .4997 and .2497

Multiple R .369 .437 .463 .481 .492 .495 .497 .500*

R _ .136 .Igl .214 .232 .242 .245 .247 .250"

286

IABLE 6 P R O D U C T M O M E N IC O R R E L A T I O N SB E T W E E N FEAR O F CRIME SCALE S C O R E SA N D SELECIED INDEPENDEN1 VARIABLES Socioeconomic Sex Age Family Income (1) Size of Hometown (2) Education (3) Race White/nonWhite Black/nonBlack Hispanic/nonHispanic Other Race/nonOther Race Perception of Crime Problem in Community Previous 3 Years Next 3 Years Victimization Durin9 Previous Year At Least One Property Crime At Least One Violent Crime At Least One Crime Knew Victim of Crime During Previous Years Knew At Least One Victim *p .05 .369" .019 -.083* .242* -.016 -.079* .071" .044 .005 .180" .169"
.073" .048" .OB6*

.086"

(i)

Ordinal data divided into 7 categories. Ordinal data divided into 9 categories beginning with "rural area" and up to "over 500,000." Ordinal data grouped into 4 categories: less than h i g h school; h i g h school or GED; some college; and, college degree (including advanced college degree). The respondents were asked: "Over the past three years, do you feel the crime problem in your community is: (1) getting better; (2) about the same; or, (3) getting worse?" Based on previous experience in analysing these data, the researchers dichotomized the data by grouping together "getting better" and "about the same."
287

(2) (3)

(4)

(5)

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

C O N C L U S I O N In summary, a six-item Guttman scale was developed which should prove pragmatic for the understanding and f u r t h e r explanation of the phenomenon fear of crime. H i s t o r i c a l l y , researchers studying fear of crime have been r e s t r i c t e d in two respects: (1) they have had to consistently rely on a single indicator focusing on a single specific circumstance or projected circumstance; and, (2) they have been r e s t r i c t e d to treating the indicators used to measure the dependent variable, fear of crime, as nominal or, at best, ordinal data. Therefore, the six-item scale presented in this paper should prove useful to researchers in helping to overcome both of these l i m i t a t i o n s . 12 Both the coefficient of r e p r o d u c i b i l i t y and the c o e f f i c i e n t of s c a l a b i l i t y are above acceptable levels and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the scale scores supports the position that the scale can readily be used for statistical analysis requiring interval level data. By using the scale in a multiple regression analysis, including 12 independent variables, 8 of w h i c h contributed significantly to the regression equation, the researchers were able to account for 25 percent of the total variation in fear of crime. Hopefully, the scale w i l l be used by other researchers using different sampling frames, as well as additional independent variables, thereby leading to a greater understanding of factors which influence and cause fear of crime. NOTES l i t should be noted that fear of crime has been operationalized in ways other than fear of being out alone in one's neighborhood at night. Furstenberg, for example, has developed an index of fear " based on the i n d i v i d u a l ' s perception of v u l n e r a b i l i t y to eight d i f f e r e n t crimes" (1971:604). However, he
288

was restricted to a nominal level of analysis. Another example can be found in the work of Hartnagel who relied on two measures of fear of crime, " the degree of personal safety Rs f e l t in their own neighborhoods; and the safety of the c i t y as a whole as they rated i t " (1979:181). Again, analysis of the data was restricted to nominal or, at best, ordinal level of analysis. 2The researchers recognize that attitudes consist of several components and, in developing the scale, focused on only one aspect of an attitude, the cognitive. Moreover, the respondents were asked only i f they would be afraid under certain circumstances and not about the extent to which fear of crime actually affects their behavior in regard to these circumstances. 3The reader is reminded that, conceptually, fear of crime is equated to feelings of vulnerability. 41tems 3 and 5 have been included in all Texas Crime Poll surveys, beginning in 1977. For a review of the responses to these items from each of the surveys, see Teske et al. (1983). 5For a complete discussion procedures and response patterns, (]983). of the research see Teske et al.

6Using discriminant validation, Skogan and Maxfield concluded that the General Social Survey question---"Is there any area around here--that is, within l mile--where you would be afraid to walk alone at night?"--is clearly a valid indicator of fear of crime (1981:55-58). A l s o , when the context in which these questions were asked in the Texas Crime Poll survey is taken into consideration, i t is also reasonable to assume that the respondents to the survey understood that the questions were asked in relation to their fear of crime. 7The two reasons given which did not appear to relate directly to fear of crime were "afraid of dogs" (n=5) and "located near a busy highway" (n=6). However, i t is reasonable to assume that, i f dogs are loose and generate fear in the respondents, this is s t i l l an indicator of a relative breakdown in social control, even within one block of the respondent's home. Also, since the question asked only about

289

walking within one block of the respondent's home at night, i t may be possible that "location near a busy highway" translates into fear of strangers. BFor additional information regarding the Guttman Scale technique the reader should refer to Nie et al. (1975:528-535), Goodenaugh (1944), and Edwards (194B). 91ndividuals who did not respond to any one of the s c a l e items were excluded f r o m the scale development process. Therefore, of the 1,442 respondents 50 (3%) were excluded. lOA score of zero would indicate no fear of crime as measured by the items in the scale. Therefore, the scale does contain a value of absolute zero. llOne of the variables, race, was divided into four dummy variables. I f each of the dummy variables is taken to be a single variable, then there were a total 15 variables entered into the equation. 12The scale, of course, could be expanded by the researchers, or others, i f new items could be identified that conform to the same theoretical framework. Also, the two excluded items referring to walking alone during the daytime probably should be reworded to refer to "within one block" or "within one mile," rather-than "in your community" and then reexamined in relation to the scale. Moreover, the researchers certainly realize that the items in the scale refer to very specific location in reference to the respondent's home and do not measure fear in relation to other circumstances, for example, place of work, school, parking lot at a shopping center, and so forth.
R E F E R E N C E S

Brooks, 3. (1974) "The Fear of Crime in the United States." Crime and Delinquency 20: 241-244.
Clemente, F. and Michael B. Kleiman (1977) "Fear of Crime in the United States: A Multivariate Analysis." Social Forces 56: 51g-531.

290

Edwards, A. L. (1948) "On Guttman Scale Analysis." Educational and Psychological Measurement 8: 313-318. Furstenberg, F. F., Jr. (Ig7l) "Public Reaction to Crime in the Street." American Scholar 40: 601-610. Garofalo, J. (1981) "The Fear of Crime: Causes and Consequences." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 72: 839-857. (197g) "Victimization and Fear of Crime." Journal of Research in Crime and D@linquenc~ 16: 80-g7. (1977) P ub l i c Opinion About Crime: The Attitudes of Victims and Nonvictims in Selected Cities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Goodenaugh, W . H . (1944) "A Technique for Scale Analysis." Educational and Psychologica ~ Measurement 4: 179-190. Hartnagel, T . F . (lg79) "Perceptions and Fear of Crime: Implications for Neighborhood Cohesion, Social Activity, and Community Affect." Social Forces 58: 176-193. McIntyre, J. (1967) "Public Attitudes Toward Crime and Law Enforcement." The Annals of the American Academy 374: 34-46. National Opinion Research Center (1978) National Data Program for the Social Sciences: General Socia! Survey Cumulative Codebook 1972-1977. Chicago: University of Chicago. Nie, N.H., C.H. Hull, J.G. Jenkins, K. Steinbrenner, and D.H. Bent (1975) Statistical package for the Social Sciences. New Y o r k : McGraw-Hill Book Company. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice (1967) The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

291

Skogan, W. G. and M. G. Maxfield (IgBl) Coping With Crime: Individual and Neighborhood Reactions. Beverly H i l l s : Sage Publications. Smith, O. L. (1976) "The Aftermath of Victimization: Fear and Suspicion," pp. 203-21g in E. C. Viano (ed.) Victims and Society. Washington, D.C.: Visage Press, Inc. Sundeen, R. and J. Mathieu (1976) "The Urban Elderly: Environments of Fear," p. 55 in 5. Goldsmith and S. Goldsmith (eds.) Crime and the Elderly: Challenge and Response. Lexington, Mass.: Heath. leske, R. H. C., Jr., M. H. Hazlett, and M. L. Parker (1983) T e x a s C r i m e Poll: 1982 Survey. Huntsville, Texas: Sam Houston State University. Yin, P. P. (lgBO) "Fear of Crime Among the Elderly: Some Issues and Suggestions." Social Problems 27: 492-504.

292