The Concept and Measurement of Fear of Crime - Essay Example

THE CONCEPT AND MEASUREMENT OF FEAR OF CRIME The Concept and Measurement of Fear of Crime Introduction The fear of crime refers to the fear that people usually have of being victims of crime. Pain asserts that “wide range of emotional and practical responses to crime that individuals and communities may make” (Pain, 2000). Feelings, behaviour, and thoughts can have some extent of influence on individuals or society. This depended on the risks that are posed by a certain crime. People usually respond to crime risks in different ways. However, it should be noted that much of the influence in a society is always psychological. According to Ferraro, “an emotional response of dread or anxiety to crime or symbols that a person associates with crime” (Ferraro, 1995). The fear of crime alters the way people behave towards certain situations. In some cases, it might also change the beliefs of a person and the manner in which they conduct themselves on a daily basis. The fear of being a victim of crime can also be of influence in the manner in which people interact with the society (Walklate, 2007). The bottom-line is that the fear of crime can be of both positive and negative effects to individuals and societies. This report discusses the concept and measurement of fear of crime. Discussion As mentioned earlier, people usually have different responses to their fear of victimisation by criminal activities. It is believed that the fear of responses in responsible for the differences in the effect to an individual or society (Uludag, 2007). Studies have it that some people respond to their fear of victimization by criminal activities by coming up with possible solutions and thus practical actions such as installation of alarms or fencing their perimeters. Such responses might not be any negative effect in the lives of people as long as they lead to more comfortable lives with less worry about crime related risks (Bongar et al. 2006). People can either not be worried about the risks of being victims of crimes while others have been observed to be either functional or functionally worried about the risk of being victims of crime (Webster, 2007). Functional worriers are those who fear being victims of crime and do take precautions, but agree that the quality of their lives are not affected by either the fear of crime nor the precaution that they have taken to reduce the probability of being victims of crime (European Society of Criminology & Kury, 2008). Dysfunctional worriers fear being victims of crime and do take precautions and have the quality of their lives affected by either the fear of crime or the precautions that they have taken to prevent the occurrences of crimes (Moser, 2004). Some people might respond to their fear of crime by avoidance. Avoidance simply implies that individuals will have to avoid certain places or thing that lead to risks of being victims of crime (Schaut, 2008). However, the response that is taken usually affects the level to which an individual’s life is affected. For instance, insecurity can lead to either an individual avoiding going out at night or moving out of a certain area that is believed to be highly insecure (Grohe, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses& University of Texas at Arlington 2006). However, moving out of an insecure area seems to be more convenient than staying indoors at night. This means that the highest level of avoidance might result to a greater sense of security. Notably, the more effective action comes with the greatest change in an individual’s life. People also tend to react to their fear of victimization through having protective behaviours. People can always protect themselves personally and also protect their homes. These protective actions usually hinder the manner in which people interact with the society (Cools, 2009). For instance, it would be hard reaching a person who is in a highly protected home. Sometimes people in the society never look at these protection activities as a security measure, but a way through which individuals use to exclude themselves from the society (Jansson, 2008). These protection activities can lead to decline in social trust in the society. Such measures will generally reduce the rate at which people in the society interact. Immediately people take action to protect themselves against possible crime the rest of the society usually tend to gradually withdraw any sort of social ties. In the UK, it has been observed that there is generally very low social association in residential areas where homes are fortified as compared to the neighbourhoods where people live in flats where they have to interact with each other more (Cools, 2010). In the flats neighbourhood, people can take collective measures in enhancing their security (Gray, Jackson & Farrall, 2008). However, it should not be taken for granted that most people would feel more secure when they are within the fortified homesteads. It should also be noted that the extra protection measure usually come at a cost, which implies that it encourages social class profiling in the society. It is certain that the fear of being a victim of crime usually brings some changes in the lives of individuals and the society. In some cases, it is always seen that the fear of being victims of crime can bring members of a society together (Ruth & Reitz, 2003). A good example of such cases is a case whereby members of a given community come together to fight a recent rise in robbery cases in their locality after the emergence of a gang in the locality (Boran, 2002). The community might participate by revealing any kind of information that they have about the gang activities in the area. The community can also be brought together through gatherings that are aimed at discussing the possible solutions to the insecurity issues that the society is facing. In such cases, it is always seen that if an individual helps in protecting their neighbour against crime, then, the neighbour will also be of help when the individual is in the same situation (Kury & Winterdyk, 2013). Therefore, the it can be said to be one factor that can contribute to cohesion in the society. However, it is not in all cases that dreading crime might lead to collective action. In some cases, it can lead to less social trust, especially when everyone in the society has the impression that whoever is responsible for the crime is right in the society. This kind of uncertainty always implies that imply that an individual will perceive every member of the society unless convinced otherwise (Snell, 2001). When there is sufficient evidence that the culprits within the society are yet not sufficient evidence to point at any particular person, the relationship between members of a society can be strained. As a result, people might not socialize with much freedom, as they would have done if there were no fear of being victims of crimes within the society (Callanan, 2005). Measurement of ‘fear of crime’ Dreading crime can be measured through surveys that aim at identifying the level to which people in the society are afraid of being victims of crime. Through such surveys it can be observed the level to which individuals and societies have to change their ways of lives as a result of being afraid of crime (Coston, 2004). Not everyone fears being a victim of crime. Even the people who happen to fear being victims of crime do not have the same level of fear. Subsequently, not everyone has the same response to it (Doran & Burgess, 2012). With such information, it can be determined the level to which people and societies are affected by the fear of being a victim of crime. It has been observed that over the last decade, there has been a significant increase in the number of people having a hard time in controlling it. The fear of crime can also be measured by the nature of the response. For instance, the individual living in a neighbourhood known for night attacks can either opt to stop going out at night or moving to a different neighbourhood. It is most likely that the individual who is most affected by the fear of being victims of crime will be the one to move to a new neighbourhood. Interestingly, there is the group of people who will do absolutely nothing (Farrall, Jackson &Gray, 2009). These are the people who will not make any changes in their way of life despite the fact that they are aware of the crimes taking place in the neighbourhood. The strongest predictor of worry is perceived likelihood. Perceived control is also considered to be another indicator that can be very important when it comes to measuring fear of crime. Perceived control and consequence can be used in prediction of perceived likelihood of worry in human beings (Jackson, 2010). Perceived control and consequence is also important in determining the relationship between frequency and likelihood of worry. In measurement of fear there is the use of general question such as, “How safe do you feel and question that seek to look for specific aspects of crime such a robbery and rape. However, both types of questions have been proved to be ineffective in determining stable concepts. Affective, cognitive and behavioural have also been used in some instances in measuring fear. These factors have been particularly been effective in measuring the difference in reaction to fear of crime by people from different genders. Fear versus risk can also be used in measuring fear. A study carried out on the same revealed that race and age had some level of influence on the reaction of people to certain crimes. Conclusion It is clearly evident that the fear of crime is becoming a more serious social issue in the modern society. As discussed herein, the effect of the dreading crime can either be positive or negative depending on the level to which a person is affected psychologically by the fear. Some people tend to adopt more responsible lifestyles while others are forced to adopt lifestyles that are not comfortable with. Some people even find themselves having to spend money in term of protection actions so that they can live safely. Many societies have suffered due to the fact that they dread crime. With every member of the society being cautious of possible crime, it can be easily concluded that members of a society might not maintain close ties with each other. References Bongar, B., Brown, L. M., Beutler, L. E., Breckenridge, J. N., &Zimbardo, P. G. (2006). Psychology of Terrorism. New York: Oxford University Press. Boran, A. (2002).Crime: Fear or fascination? papers from a conference held at Chester College of Higher Education, November 2000. Chester: Chester academic Press. Callanan, V. J. (2005). Feeding the fear of crime: Crime-related media and support for three strikes. New York: LFB Scholarly Pub. LLC. Cools, M. (2009).Contemporary issues in the empirical study of crime.Antwerpen: Maklu. Cools, M. (2010).Safety, societal problems and citizens perceptions: New empirical data, theories, and analyses. Antwerpen: MakluUitgevers N.V. Coston, C. T. M. (2004). Victimizing vulnerable groups: Images of uniquehigh-risk crime targets. Westport, CT: Praeger. Doran, B. J., & Burgess, M. B. (2012).Putting fear of crime on the map: Investigating perceptions of crime using geographic information systems. New York: Springer. European Society of Criminology.,&Kury, H. (2008). Fear of crime-- punitivity: New developments in theory and research. Bochum: UniversitätsverlagBrockmeyer. Farrall, S., Jackson, J., &Gray, E. (2009).Social order and the fear of crime in contemporary times. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gray, E., Jackson, J. &Farrall, S. (2008). Reassessing the Fear of Crime.European Journal of Criminology, 5, 363- 380. Grohe, B. R., ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (Electronic resource collection), & University of Texas at Arlington. (2006). Perceptions of crime, fear of crime, and defensible space in Fort Worth neighborhoods. Jansson, K. (2008). British Crime Survey: Measuring crime for 25 years. London: Home Office. Available from: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.go v.uk/rds/pdfs07/bcs25.pdf Kury, H., &Winterdyk, J. (2013).Fear of crime and punitiveness: Results from international student surveys. Bochum: Brockmeyer. Moser, C. O. N. (2004). Urban violence and insecurity. London [etc.: International institute for environment and development (IIED). Human settlements programme [etc.. Ruth, H. S., & Reitz, K. R. (2003).The challenge of crime: Rethinking our response. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Schaut, A. (2008). The Fear of Victimization-Paradox: Disproportional fear of women and the elderly - rational or irrational?.München: GRIN Verlag. Snell, C. (2001). Neighborhood structure, crime, and fear of crime: Testing Bursik and Grasmicksneighborhood control theory. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. Uludag, S. (2007).Democracy, crime victimization and fear of crime: The effect of democratic quality on citizens fear of criminal victimization. Walklate, S. (2007).Imagining the victim of crime. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Webster, C. (2007). Understanding race and crime. Berkshire, Eng: Open University Press. Read More