Fear of Victimization and Religiosity

Running head: FEAR OF VICTIMIZATION AND RELIGIOSITY 1

Fear of Victimization and Religiosity

December 2, 2011

CRJS 623

FEAR OF VICTIMIZATION AND RELIGIOSITY 2

Statement of Problem

The relationship between religion and fear of crime is one that is often overlooked. This

is rather surprising when one considers how large a role religion plays in shaping people’s

attitudes and perceptions in society. Particularly, religion has been found to foster a general sense

of trust and in return a lower level of misanthropy, including a general fear of crime. There have

been many inconsistencies in studies of religion and crime in the past. (Matthews, Johnson, &

Jenks, 2011) Controlling for variables such as demographics, community involvement, prior

victimization, and political ideology, an inverse relationship between an individual’s level of

religiosity and their fear of crime can be found.

Literature Review

Hirschi and Stark’s study of religiosity and delinquency provides the basis for much of

the research on what effect religion has on crime, including the commission of offenses and the

public opinion on crime as a whole. While they concluded that religiosity is not related to

delinquency, a replication of their study (Burkett & White, 1974) and other subsequent studies

(Higgins & Albrecht, 1977) conclude that the findings in this situations can vary based on

geographic area. Hirschi & Stark’s findings were applicable to Northern California, Burkett &

White replicated the study throughout the Pacific Northwest, and Higgins & Albrecht chose the

Atlanta metropolitan area for the population to examine in their study. It was determined that the

relationship between religiosity and delinquent behavior was stronger in the South than in the

Northwest. (Higgins & Albrecht, 1977).

These studies can also differ as a result of other variables that were not considered in

earlier research and were therefore not controlled, which could lead one to conclude that the


relationship between religion and crime is spurious in nature. Tittle & Welch (1983) reviewed

previous research on religion and crime and found that 59 out of 65 studies they reviewed used

samples of adolescents and college students. Using a sample from that age group may provide

useful results but there is difficulty in extrapolating results from adolescents to adults. As

adolescents mature, they are in the process of internalizing the values taught to them by their

parents while simultaneously turning away from them in an attempt to assert their own identities.

(Bock, Cochran, & Beeghley, 1987)

Another variable that was not considered was the degree to which differing religious

beliefs could affect the perception of what is permissible and what is considered amoral. Out of

the 65 studies that Tittle & Welch (1983) cited, only two of them involve Protestant

denominations. This can be problematic due to the fact that denominations have varying ideas of

what is or is not moral, such as the use of alcohol. (Bock, Cochran, & Beeghley, 1987)

The affect that religiosity can have on adolescents and their perceptions of delinquent

behavior is further explored by Pearce & Haynie (2004), whose findings suggest that a child’s

religiosity has an inverse relationship with their likelihood of engaging in delinquent behavior

when their mother is similarly religious. When the mother and child are religiously different, the

children are more likely to be delinquent. While they were unable to determine in their study if

children’s religiosity is equally affected by their fathers, it is suggested that religiosity offers its

strongest protection against delinquent behavior when the family shares a religious solidarity

compared to there being different religious views, and that this protection diminishes when any

member of the family has differing views from the rest. (Pearce & Haynie, 2004)

Fear of crime and victimization is a topic that has been studied extensively in the later

part of the 20th century. Much of this research concludes that women are more fearful than men


of crime, making gender the primary predicting factor of fear of crime. Despite men being the

victims of crime far more often than women in nearly every category of crime except for sexual

assault, women are more afraid of all types of crime. (Ferraro, 1996) Much of the literature on

fear of crime since the mid-1970s has included analysis of the data from the National Crime

Survey (NCS) and General Social Survey (GSS). These surveys asked general questions about

hypothetical experiences in which one would rate their level of fear, such as walking home alone

at night.

Ferraro (1996) refers to Warr & Stafford (1983) and discusses how they expanded the

study of fear of crime to make a distinction between fear of crime and perceived risk of crime.

They first pointed out that “fear is an affective response distinct from judgments of victimization

risk, and, second, that perceived risk has a potent influence on fear.” (p.688) Other studies have

found the NCS and GSS to be misguided in their approach. When Ferrero & Lagrange (1992)

made a distinction between fear and perceived risk, they found that older people were not more

afraid of victimization than their younger counterparts. This finding contradicts many studies that

used data from the NCS and GSS. (Ferraro, 1996)

Lane, Gover & Dahod (2009) build on previous research done by Ferraro (1996) and

Fisher & Sloan (2003) to examine the impact of perceived rick and fear of sexual assault on fear

of robbery and assault on college students. They found that fear of sexual assault is a stronger

predictor of fear of crime for women while perceived risk is the stronger predictor for men.

Perhaps this can be explained by the “shadow of sexual assault” thesis. This thesis, examined by

Ferraro (1995, 1996) and Warr (1984, 1985) posits that women more afraid of other crimes like

burglary, robbery, and assault because they can lead to sexual assault. Additionally, fear of sexual

assault can be a predictor of fear of other types of crime. (Lane, Gover, & Dahod, 2009)


Research Hypothesis

As previously stated, it is the intention of this study to show an inverse relationship

between religiosity and fear of victimization. This study hypothesizes that individuals who are

more fearful of victimization are more likely to have higher religiosity than individuals who are

less fearful of victimization. The independent variable is fear of victimization. This variable can

be operationalized using a measure created by Ferraro and LaGrange and utilized by Matthews,

Johnson, & Jenks (2011). From a series of ten statements, an index was created and respondents

were asked to use a scale of 1-10 to rate their fear in response to the statements with 1 indicating

no fear, and 10 being very afraid. The indicators of fear of property crime included:

• being approached on the street by a beggar or panhandler

• being cheated, conned, or swindled out of your money

• having someone break into your home while you are away

• having your car stolen

• having your property damaged by vandals

The indicators of fear of violent crime included:

• having someone break into your home while you are there

• being raped or sexually assaulted

• being murdered

• being attacked by someone with a weapon

• being robbed or mugged on the street

The dependent variable is religiosity. To operationalize religiosity in a previous study, Thomson

& Revke (2003) refer to Wallace & Williams’ (1997) description of religiosity as a

“multidimensional construct consisting of three components: organizational affiliation, behavior

(attendance at religious meetings), and attitude (the expressed importance of religion in one’s


life).” (p. 98) Their measure of religiosity was created by using a numerical scale to quantify the

responses to three questions: “How often do you attend Sabbath day religious services?” using a

four-point scale with 0 meaning never and 3 meaning weekly, “How often do you attend

weekday religious services?” with a five-point scale with 0 meaning never and 4 meaning more

than once a week, and “How important is religion in your life?” using a three-point scale with 0

meaning not very important to 2 meaning very important. (Thomson & Revke, 2003)

In the design from which Matthews, Johnson, & Jenks (2011) utilized Ferraro’s measures,

the importance of accounting for control variables is emphasized. Control variables consists of

age, gender, race, education, health, housing tenure, direct victimization, indirect victimization,

community type, region, reported official crime, presence of a neighborhood crime watch

program and neighborhood perceptions. (Ferraro, 1996) These variables are operationalized by

assigning numerical values to personal characteristics such as number of years for age; 1 for

female and 0 for male regarding gender; 1 for nonwhite and 0 for white regarding race; 5 for a

post graduate degree and 1 for a grade school education; a self-assessment of health with 4 being

excellent health and 1 being poor health; 6 for 31+ years to 1 for 1 year or less for housing

tenure; 2 for prior victimization (direct or indirect) in the past year, 1 for victimization within a

year, and 0 for no prior victimization; 1 for metropolitan area and 0 for nonmetropolitan area for

community type; Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data for rape, murder, robbery, assault, burglary,

and auto theft; 1 for a crime watch being present in a neighborhood and 0 for there not being

one; and using a 1 for yes and 0 for no for the answers to the following questions to measure

neighborhood perceptions:

1) Trash and litter lying around your neighborhood?2) Neighborhood dogs running loose?3) Inconsiderate or disruptive neighbors?4) Vacant houses and unkempt lots?


5) Unsupervised youth?6) Too much noise?7) People drunk or high on drugs in public?8) Abandoned cars or car parts lying around?

In Ferraro’s measures, only victimizations that occurred within one year of the study were being

considered in the study. Russo and Roccato (2010) believe that victimization can still affect a

person’s level of fear toward future victimization much longer after an incident albeit at a lesser

level. The measures in the study reflect that observation by distinguishing between victimizations

over a longer time period than Ferraro suggests.

Research Design

The time dimension of this study is cross-sectional because the dependent variable,

religiosity, is measured at one point in time. It measures the effects of the stimulus after it has

been applied and measures it at one particular moment in time as opposed to repeatedly over an

extended period of time. A cross-sectional time dimension is also useful for this study because

the research being done is explanatory in nature. The research is focused on explaining people’s

attitudes at one point in time. The subjects of this study cannot be assigned into groups; therefore

it is a one-group design. This study employs a non-experimental design because there is no

subject assignment involved. In addition to the subjects of the study not being able to be assigned

to groups, there is a natural variance in the stimulus applied. In this case, the stimulus being

applied is the independent variable of fear of victimization. This is a one group post-test only

design because the degree of fear of victimization being measured is something that was in place

before the testing began. The notation for the one group post-test only design is as follows:

X→O1


Sampling

For this study, the target population is a list of addresses of adults that are the age of 18

and over in the Virginia counties and cities that are part of the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan

Statistical Area. Due to the large number of people in this area, it is appropriate to select a

sample that is representative of the population and whose study results can be generalized back

to the rest of the rest of the population. The addresses to be used in this study will be selected

using a probability method of sampling because each member of the target population has an

equal chance of being selected. Another benefit of using this method is that issues such as

sampling error and confidence levels can be estimated. Specifically, a simple random survey will

be used with a computer-generated table of numbers being used to select the participants for the

study.

Data Collection

Quantitative methods will prove to be useful in this study by using specific, narrow

questions and assigning a numerical value to the answers to obtain a result that can be

generalized to the entire population while attempting to avoid results that are biased due to

variables that were not initially controlled for. For this study, the measures of the independent,

dependent, and control variables lend themselves to survey research in a self-administered

format. In particular, a survey will be mailed to the selected participants that they will complete

on their own and return. It is understood that mailed surveys generally have a low response rate

relative to other observation methods. Utilizing the Dillman method of reminding nonresponsive


participants and subsequently re-mailing the survey will assist in reaching a satisfactory response

rate.

IRB Approval/Ethics

In the interest of ensuring that this study is beneficial to the field of social research with

these benefits outweighing any potential costs to the participants and that the procedures used

incorporate adequate safeguards to protect the identity, safety, and well-being of the participants,

an institutional review board will be consulted. The appropriate level of review for this study is

expedited. The reason for this level is due to the fact that despite the participants’ demographic

information will be held in strict confidentiality for the purpose of accounting for any unforeseen

trends based on previously identified control variables, they may feel apprehension in answering

questions of prior victimization. In controlling for the variable of victimization, questions may be

asked that compel the participants to refer to incidents that they may not have reported to

authorities or that they feel uncomfortable discussing or recalling. The reluctance to answer these

questions can be exacerbated by the need to maintain record of personally identifiable

information. The names of participants will be substituted with pseudonyms should there be a

need for a person’s information to be publicized. To ensure that participation in the study remains

voluntary without the subjects feeling an unfair obligation, the participants will be informed of

the purpose of the research, the risks, benefits, and will informed in clear writing that their

participation is voluntary and will be given a guarantee of strict confidentiality. A small incentive

can be provided as a token of appreciation for those who choose to participate.


References

Bock, E. W., Cochran, J. K., & Beeghley, L. (1987). Moral messages: The relative influence of

denomination on the religiosity-alcohol relationship. The Sociological Quarterly, 28(1),

89-103.

Ferraro, K. F. (1996). Women's fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault?. Social

Forces, 75(2), 667-690.

Higgins, P. C., & Albrecht, G. L. (1977). Hellfire and delinquency revisited. Social

Forces, 55(4), 952-958.

Lane, J., Gover, A. R., & Dahod, S. (2009). Fear of violent crime among men and woman on

campus: The impact of perceived risk and fear of sexual assault. Violence and

Victims, 24(2), 172-192.

Matthews, T., Johnson, L. M., & Jenks, C. (2011). Does religious involvement generate or

inhibit fear of crime?. Religions, 4(3), 485-503.

Pearce, L. D., & Haynie, D. L. (2004). Intergenerational religious dynamics and adolescent

delinquency. Social Forces, 82(4), 1553-1572.

Russo, S., & Roccato, M. (2010). How long does victimization foster fear of crime? a

longitudinal study. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(8), 960-974.

Thomson, S. R., & Revke, D. (2003). The influence of religiosity on reaction to alcohol

advertisements and current drinking among seventh and eighth graders. Journal of Media

and Religion, 2(2), 93-107.

Documents

Fear of Victimization and Religiosity