Inbound 1064406330786939469 Nananba

The Impact of Media on Fear of Crime
among University Students:

A Cross-National Comparison1
Steven A. Kohm
University of Winnipeg
Courtney A. Waid-Lindberg
North Dakota State University
Michael Weinrath
University of Winnipeg
Tara O’Connor Shelley
Colorado State University
Rhonda R. Dobbs
University of Texas at Arlington
La peur de la criminalité a fait l’objet d’une recherche considérable au Canada

et aux États-Unis depuis les cinquante dernières années. Les chercheurs
s’interrogent toujours sur l’effet de diverses formes de média sur la peur de
la criminalité. En particulier, est-ce que la prégnance d’une attitude de la
part de certains types de médias particuliers et l’ampleur de l’exposition
à des médias d’information en particulier – journaux, télévision, radio, et
Internet – a un effet sur la peur de la criminalité? À l’aide de données d’en-
quête recueillies à trois universités américaines et une université canadienne,
le présent article compare l’effet des médias sur la peur de la criminalité chez
les étudiants d’université. Les résultats indiquent des différences marquées
entre les étudiants canadiens et américains, les étudiants canadiens affichant
des niveaux plus élevés de peur, en particulier des crimes violents. L’effet des
médias sur la peur n’était pas constant entre les deux groupes mais les médias
avaient tendance à exercer hors tout une plus grande influence sur la peur de
la criminalité des étudiants américains.
Mots clés : peur de la criminalité, analyse comparative, étudiants
d’université, Canada, États-Unis
Fear of crime has been the focus of considerable research in Canada and the
United States over the past five decades. An enduring question for researchers
is the impact of various forms of media on fear of crime. Specifically, do the
salience of specific media types and the amount of exposure to specific news
media – newspapers, television, radio, and Internet – affect fear of crime?
6 2012 CJCCJ/RCCJP doi:10.3138/cjccj.2011.E.01

68 Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale janvier 2012
Using survey data collected at three universities in the United States and one
in Canada, this article comparatively examines the impact of media on fear
of crime among university students. The results show distinct differences
between Canadian and U.S. students, with Canadian students reporting
significantly higher levels of fear, particularly of violent crime. The impact of
media on fear was inconsistent between the two groups, but media tended to
exert a broader range of influence on the American students’ fear of crime.
Keywords: fear of crime, comparative analysis, university students, Canada,
United States
Introduction
This exploratory study examines the impact of media on fear of crime

in a cross-national context. Using samples of university students in
Canada and the United States, we explore the fear–media relationship
alongside more traditional predictors of fear of crime. Our study adds
a new wrinkle to a well-established literature in criminology. Since the
1960s, fear of crime has been a significant research issue for Canadian
and American scholars (Conklin 1975; Kohm 2009; McIntyre 1967;
Roberts 2001; Skogan and Maxfield 1981; Stanko 1995; Weinrath,
Clarke, and Forde 2007). Much of the research is motivated by the as-
sumption that fear itself can be debilitating and produce harmful social
outcomes. Fear is thought to produce avoidance and protective behav-
iours including restricting movement and constraining socialization,
both of which can erode informal control and impede life satisfaction
(Clemente and Kleiman 1977; Dobbs, Waid, and Shelley 2009; Ferraro
1995, 1996; Hale 1996; Warr 1984, 2000). Over the decades there has
been considerable debate about how the fear of crime is conceptual-
ized. Sacco (2005) has suggested that fear of crime has several dimen-
sions: (1) cognitive, which focuses on citizens’ estimation of their like-
lihood of victimization; (2) emotional, which centres on individuals’
feelings about crime; and (3) behavioural, which focuses on how people
respond to fear of perceived risk of victimization. Killias and Clerici
(2000) have argued that vulnerability (the perceived ability to escape
or defend against a youthful attacker) is also an important concept
underlying fear. However, several researchers argue that fear of crime
is a distinctly affective – thus emotional – and physiologic response to
perceived danger (Ferraro 1995; Warr 2000) and is conceptually differ-
ent from the cognitive component of perceived risk of victimization
(Chiricos, Eschholz, and Gertz 1997; Eschholz, Chiricos, and Gertz
2003; Rountree and Land 1996). Most recently, Gray, Jackson, and Farrall
(2011) have argued that fear of crime ought to be conceptualized by
The Impact of Media on Fear of Crime: A Cross-National Comparison 69
distinguishing between generalized anxieties and more concrete epi-

sodes of fear, as well as by differentiating ‘‘functional/productive
and dysfunctional/counterproductive effects of everyday worries and
anxieties’’ (76). This revised conceptualization of fear is thought to
allow for a better understanding of how citizens are motivated to pro-
tect themselves in specific situations by engaging in precautionary be-
haviours (Gray et al. 2008, 2011; Jackson and Gray 2010). Limitations
of space prevent us from a more detailed review of these conceptual
issues. Nevertheless, we acknowledge that this is an evolving area of
scholarship, and we are sensitive to the complexities of conceptualiz-
ing fear. However, as an exploratory study, we hope this article may
contribute to the literature by illuminating the impact of media on
fear of crime in a cross-national perspective. We believe our conclu-
sions, though somewhat tentative, set the stage for further research on
fear of crime in an international context.
Indirect victimization and fear of crime
Conceptual debate aside, it is perhaps surprising that fear levels have

not changed among citizens of either Canada or the United States
despite decreases in crime rates, especially violent crimes such as
murder (Forde 1993; Roberts 2001; Weinrath et al. 2007). It has been
hypothesized that elevated levels of fear are the result of perceived
vulnerability to crime, which can occur because of past victimization
events or through indirect victimization via media exposure to crime
news or crime fiction. Through media exposure, individuals learn of
crime events that have occurred at the local or national level (Skogan
and Maxfield 1981; Taylor and Hale 1986; Weinrath et al. 2007). Studies
have shown that news reports concentrate heavily on crime and crimi-
nal justice (Chermak 1995; Ericson, Baranek, and Chan 1991; Garofalo
1981; Graber 1980; Reiner 2002; Surette 2007). Much of what the public
knows about crime and criminal justice is constructed from media
accounts, and fear of crime may increase because of such exposure
(Dowler 2003; Gilchrist, Bannister, Ditton, and Farrall 1998; Roberts
and Doob 1990; Surette 1998). It has been suggested that media reports
on crime can generate fear among the public and perhaps even create
moral panics (Chermak 1994).
Comparing fear of crime
International comparative research on fear of crime is relatively rare,

but several recent studies have used the United Nations International
70 Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice January 2012
Crime Victims Survey (ICVS) (e.g. van Dijk, van Kesteren, and Smit
2007). The ICVS incorporates one measure of fear of crime (‘‘How safe
do you feel walking alone in your area after dark?’’) and one question
measuring perceived risk of burglary (‘‘What would you say are the
chances that over the next twelve months someone will try to break
into your home?’’). According to van Dijk et al. (2007), of the 30 coun-
tries surveyed, the United States reported the second lowest level of
concern about burglary (16% felt a burglary in the next 12 months
was likely or very likely), while Canadians reported much higher levels
of concern (25%) closer to the average of 29% across all nations. How-
ever, for both nations, the level of concern had declined since 1989. The
proportion of citizens reporting feeling somewhat or very unsafe walk-
ing alone at night was comparable between the United States (19%)
and Canada (17%), with fear levels tending to decrease over time (van
Dijk et al. 2007: 132).
Like all fear-of-crime research, the ICVS can be subject to methodolog-

ical criticism. The two perceptual items discussed above may not fully
measure fear – which can be thought of as ‘‘an emotion, a feeling of
alarm or dread caused by an awareness or expectation of danger’’
(Warr 2000: 453). Instead, such questions only measure perceived risk
or require participants to speculate about a hypothetical scenario (e.g.,
walking alone after dark). Researchers who are interested in fear of
crime would be better advised to ask very specific questions about
particular crime types (e.g., ‘‘How fearful are you about having some-
one break into your home?’’). A considerable strength of the present
study is that it uses offence-specific measures to analyse fear of crime
among Canadian and American university students comparatively.
The present study seeks to fill a gap in the fear-of-crime literature by
cross-nationally comparing fear levels among students in the United
States and Canada. Furthermore, this study seeks to determine what
impact, if any, different types of media, and the level of exposure to
specific sources, might have on fear of crime among American and
Canadian respondents.
Theorizing media and fear of crime
Several frameworks have been developed to explain how media affect

fear of crime. Unlike the real world thesis (i.e., direct experience with
crime influences fear), these perspectives stem from the indirect victim-
ization model (Weinrath et al. 2007). According to this model, second-
hand information like the news – not direct experience with crime –
raises citizens’ fears and makes them feel that victimization is likely
(Covington and Taylor 1991; Lane and Meeker 2003; Skogan and
Maxfield 1981). Thus, individuals receiving media messages about
crime become indirect victims through their fear. Three perspectives
on media and fear derived from the indirect victimization model –
cultivation, substitution, and resonance – are discussed, in turn, below.
Cultivation theory holds that there will be an increase in fear of crime

as media consumption of violent crime stories increases. Over a period,
most residents of a particular media market will be exposed, albeit
at varying levels, to the patterns of programming on television. These
effects can accumulate and affect fear levels over time. Media stories
are organized in a fashion that leaves the consumer with the impres-
sion that violent crime is random, likely, and inexplicable (Gerbner
and Gross 1976; Heath and Petraitis 1987; Surette 1998; Weitzer and
Kubrin 2004). Cultivation theory has garnered little empirical support
and is vulnerable to a number of criticisms (Cumberbatch and Howitt
1989; Gunter 1987; Heath and Gilbert 1996; Sparks 1992; Zillman and
Wakshlag 1985). From a substantive angle, cultivation does not ade-
quately explain differential effects of news reports on individuals, as
some viewers may also have real world experiences that contribute to
their fear. In addition, others have postulated that media content has a
limited effect and consumers will choose items that resonate with their
worldview (Shrum 2002). Methodologically, it is difficult to determine
if media consumption, specifically television viewing, causes citizens
to be fearful or if fear debilitates individuals, keeping them in their
homes to view more television (Doyle 2006).
The substitution perspective holds that crime-related media stories

cause increased fear among individuals with no personal victimization
experience (Gunter 1987; Weaver and Wakshlag 1986; Weitzer and
Kubrin 2004). This perspective builds on the cultivation framework
but accounts for audience characteristics. Individuals who are insulated
from crime (i.e., those living in low crime areas who have never been
victimized) are thought to be more susceptible to media images. While
intuitively appealing, this perspective has not received much empirical
attention from criminologists. Chiricos et al. (1997) found limited sup-
port for substitution among high income ‘white’ women only. Simi-
larly, Weaver and Wakshlag (1986) have demonstrated some support
for this perspective.
The resonance perspective states that the media will increase fear
when the media content is consistent with experience (Gerbner, Gross,
Morgan, and Signorielli 1980; Weitzer and Kubrin 2004). Thus, the
media reinforce what individuals experience in the real world. As

Eschholz (1997) states, ‘‘[I]ndividuals who live in high-crime areas
may be particularly sensitive to crime on television because of their
direct knowledge of a crime problem in their neighborhoods’’ (47).
This perspective received empirical support in a study by Doob and
MacDonald (1979), who note that exposure to television in general
(not just news) increases fear among residents of neighbourhoods
with high levels of crime, while television viewing had no effect on
fear in communities with low levels of crime. Similar relationships
were noted by Heath and Petraitis (1987) as well as Chiricos, Padgett,
and Gertz (2000), lending more support to the perspective.
Crime news and media format
Most people receive information about crime from news reports (Barak
1994; Surette 1984, 1990, 1998; Vandiver and Giacopassi 1997). American
studies show that most local television stations begin the evening news
with a story focusing on a criminal event, that one third of news stories
focus on crime, and that crime news is twice as common as political
news (Angotti 1997; Beale 2006; Klite, Bardwell, and Salzman 1997).
Dowler’s (2004) recent comparative research suggests that local televi-
sion crime coverage in Canada is very similar to American coverage.
How crime is reported will vary according to the nature of the offence
and the community context in which it occurs (Weitzer and Kubrin
2004). For example, smaller suburban and rural areas are more likely
to report all homicides while large urban areas may be more selective
(Heath and Gilbert 1996; Lane and Meeker 2003). Chermak (1998) in-
dicates that crimes with multiple victims or other elements deemed
newsworthy (e.g. rare victim characteristics or firearm use) are given
precedence over stories involving a single victim.
Regarding media format, research focusing on newspaper reports and

their impact on the fear of crime is inconclusive. Some studies have
shown an impact on fear levels if print stories are about violence
(Heath and Gilbert 1996; Jaehnig, Weaver, and Fico 1981; Liska and
Baccaglini 1990; Williams and Dickinson 1993). Other researchers
suggest newspaper stories do not affect fear because people self-select
which stories they read or ‘‘people who are interested in crime stories
already protect themselves and feel safer’’ (Lane and Meeker 2003: 7).
Similarly, some studies refute the link between television news and
fear (Ditton, Chadee, Farrall, Gilchrist, and Bannister 2004), while
other research supports the hypothesis (Romer, Jamieson, and Aday
2003). Early research was criticized for not examining differences be-
tween different types of television news stories (i.e., local vs. national),
variation in audience characteristics, or urban and rural differences
(Hirsch 1980; Hughes 1980; Lane and Meeker 2003). However, televi-
sion news is an especially salient predictor of fear when considering
the personal and demographic characteristics of respondents, as well
as community-level (i.e., rural vs. urban) determinants (Chiricos et al.
1997; Chiricos et al. 2000; Heath and Gilbert 1996; Lane and Meeker
2003). Chiricos et al. (2000) note that local and national television news
stories are related to fear of crime but the effects of local news tend to
be stronger, which mirrors earlier findings of Liska and Baccaglini
(1990). When considering all news media together, Weitzer and Kubrin
(2004) note that local television news induces the highest level of fear
among viewers.
There is limited knowledge about the Internet as a news source (Flanagin

and Metzger 2000, 2001). However, it is important to consider the impact
of Internet news on fear of crime, given its rapid growth as an in-
formation source (Rainie 2010). Little is known about how Internet
news affects its consumers. There is a tremendous array of information
sources available online, with varying degrees of credibility or accu-
racy. At the same time, Internet users can be more selective and inter-
active in the way they use information resources online. As a result,
Internet crime news could have a variable impact on users, depending
on their individual characteristics and the online sources they utilize.
Weitzer and Kubrin (2004) examined the impact of all media sources,
including the Internet, on the fear of crime. Although only 12.3% of the
sample reported using the Internet as the primary source of crime
news, these respondents indicated that they were less fearful than indi-
viduals who indicated local television news as their primary news
source.
Predictors of fear of crime
Fear of crime is related to demographic factors, such as gender, age,

and race/ethnicity, and other situational factors, which can include
prior criminal victimization, perceived risk of victimization, and con-
cern about crime in the local community. It has been widely noted
that females are more fearful of crime than males (Chiricos et al. 1997;
Dobbs et al. 2009; Hale 1996; Ortega and Myles 1987; Warr 1984).
While males tend to experience higher levels of victimization, it has
been established in the literature that women feel less able to defend
against physical threat, thus increasing their vulnerability to crime

and, in turn, heightening their levels of fear (Gordon, Riger, LeBailly,
and Heath 1980; Killias and Clerici 2000; Riger, Gordon, and LeBailly
1978). Additional research has noted that the fear that women experi-
ence may, in fact, be fear of rape, and many women feel that rape may
lead to other violent offences, with the result that such fear is quite
generalized and pervasive (Dobbs et al. 2009; Ferraro 1996; Warr
1984). While the association of gender and fear is established, there
are inconsistencies with age as a predictor of fear (Ferraro 1995). Warr
(1984) found older respondents to be more fearful, while Rountree and
Land (1996) note that younger individuals experienced more fear.
African Americans have reported higher levels of fear than whites
(Lane and Meeker 2003; Ortega and Myles 1987; Parker and Ray 1990;
Skogan and Maxfield 1981; Warr 1984). Aboriginal Canadians are
not appreciably more fearful than other Canadians (Weinrath 2000).
Among college and university students, criminology and criminal
justice majors appear to be less fearful of crime (del Carmen, Polk,
Segal, and Bing 2000; Dobbs, Stickels, and Mobley 2008). Prior victim-
ization is an inconsistent predictor of fear, with some studies showing
that victimization increases fear, while others find no relationship
or, in some studies, a lessening of fear (Ferraro 1995; Weinrath and
Gartrell 1996). Perceived risk and concern about crime/victimization
are considered by some researchers to be conceptually distinct from
fear (Chiricos et al. 1997; Eschholz et al. 2003; Rountree and Land
1996) and can predict higher levels of fear. The present study examines
all these predictors of fear alongside the media to determine how
the fear–media relationship may be conditioned by more traditional
demographic and situational factors.
The current study
Much of the existing literature on media and fear of crime examines

one news format (Weitzer and Kubrin 2004). However, sources vary
in content and style and may affect individuals differently, depending
on demographics, social and living situations, and preferences for
receiving news. Therefore, all media sources, including the Internet,
are considered in the present study. Moreover, this study breaks new
ground in that it compares samples from populations in Canada and
the United States. Although exploratory, this study allows for the
examination of the three indirect victimization perspectives as re-
spondents’ social and personal situations vary across the different
sample sites.
Methodology
A self-administered survey was given to undergraduate student volun-

teers at three American universities (Colorado State University [CSU],
University of Texas at Arlington [UTA], and Florida State University
[FSU]) and one Canadian university (University of Winnipeg [UW]).
The three American universities were surveyed first; UTA in April
2007, FSU in August of 2007, and CSU in March 2008. To extend the
analysis to a Canadian student population, the survey was adapted
and administered at UW in September 2010. While the Canadian
sample was taken some time after the American samples, we note
that there was no significant media event of the magnitude noted
by Stretesky and Hogan (2001) that could have significantly elevated
student fears during the intervening time period. The Canadian survey
was adapted to reflect differences in Canadian terminology and criminal
justice practices. For example, questions concerning capital punishment
were omitted from the Canadian instrument.
There are several similarities and differences among the four univer-
sities. With the exception of CSU, the campuses are located in higher
crime urban areas. Violent- and property-crime rates in Tallahassee, FL,
Arlington, TX are higher than the United States average and violent-
and property-crime rates in Winnipeg, MB are higher than the Canadian
national average (Dauvergne and Turner 2010; Federal Bureau of Inves-
tigation 2010). The U.S. schools are relatively large graduate and under-
graduate institutions (26,000 to 40,000 students), while UW is a smaller
primarily undergraduate university of about 10,000 students. The U.S.
schools are located in suburban or semi-rural areas within a larger
urban or metropolitan area, while UW is located in the downtown
core of Winnipeg adjacent to a high crime, low income, inner city
residential community. Nevertheless, most UW students live in the
suburbs and commute to campus and thus do not necessarily live in a
higher crime inner-city neighbourhood.
The researchers employed a purposive sampling strategy and sought

out a diversity of undergraduate students by approaching instructors
in a variety of departments and classes at all levels of instruction.
While this strategy precludes us from definitively generalizing to all
Canadian or American students, or to the general public, it is con-
sistent with numerous other exploratory studies in criminology (e.g.,
Byers and Powers 1997; Farnworth, Longmire, and West 1998; Hensley,
Tewksbury, Miller, and Koscheski 2002; Lam, Mitchell, and Seto 2010;
Lambert 2005, 2004; Lambert, Baker, and Tucker 2006; Lambert and
Clarke 2004; Mackey and Courtright 2000; Ricciardelli, Bell, and Clow
2009; Tomsich, Gover, and Jennings 2011; Tsoudis 2000; Winterdyk
and Thompson 2008). Furthermore, a recent methodological note by
Wiecko (2010) pointed out that student samples are in fact very similar
to non-student populations and ‘‘questions surrounding the validity of
college samples may not be as warranted as once thought’’ (1198). As
well, Straus (2009) has argued that ‘national context effects’ can be
measured using convenience samples of students in different coun-
tries. Straus (2009) empirically validated this assertion by comparing
non-random student samples to national level random samples and
concluded that, where it is not practical to collect representative national
samples, convenience samples may be used productively in cross-
national research. Thus, although we suggest our findings be viewed
with a measure of caution, we believe the results presented below
capture broad differences in attitude between the campuses in the
two nations.
The sample breakdown across the four campuses is summarized in

Table 1 below. Of the 1,466 students sampled, just over 27% of the
sample (397) was Canadian while the remaining 73% (1,069) were
attending university at the three American campuses. The sample was
fairly evenly divided among the four campuses, although compara-
tively fewer students were sampled from FSU (242). The FSU and
UW samples contained a larger proportion of students with a major
or minor in criminology/criminal justice (54.5% and 50.9%) relative
to the other two campuses (25.8% and 15.5%). The differences were
Table 1: University attended by declared or intended major

University Where Survey Conducted
Declared or Intended Major UTA FSU CSU UW Total
Criminology criminal justice major 117 132 58 202 509

(25.8%) (54.5%) (15.5%) (50.9%) (34.7%)
Other or undecided 297 100 277 150 824
(65.4%) (41.3%) (74.3%) (37.8%) (56.2%)
Missing 40 10 38 45 133
(8.8%) (4.1%) (10.2%) (11.3%) (9.1%)
Total 454 242 373 397 1466
2
w ¼ 178.512***
*** p < 0.001
statistically significant, not surprisingly, given the large sample and

substantive differences among the universities.2
The samples of Canadian and American students were very similar in

terms of the characteristics of interest in this study (see Table 2). Both
Canadian and U.S. sub-samples contained more females than males.
This is not unusual in survey research, particularly when involving
university students (see Lavrakas 1987; Mackey and Courtright 2000).
At all four campuses, females make up more than half of the student
body. The Canadian sample tended to be younger than the U.S.
sample owing to the fact that more first-year (i.e., Freshman) students
were surveyed at UW. While this difference was statistically signifi-
cant, substantively the difference was only a year. The racial mix of
the U.S. and Canadian samples was similar in that both were more
than two thirds ‘white.’ The proportion of ‘white’ respondents was
slightly higher in the Canadian sample (73.5%), which reflected the
racial composition of UW. A larger proportion of American students
reported ‘black’ racial background, while a larger proportion of Cana-
dian students reported ‘Asian’ or ‘Native American / Aboriginal.’ These
differences simply reflect the varying racial composition of the cam-
puses surveyed. It should be noted that the category ‘Hispanic / Latino’
was not used in Canada as there were too few responses. Again, the
differences were substantive and quite reliable. Canadian student vic-
timization rates (48.6%) were very similar to those of U.S. students
(45.4%) surveyed.
The Canadian and American sub-samples were very similar in terms

of the proportion who reported local TV news (34.5% and 35.0%
respectively) and the Internet (31.8% and 34.3% respectively) as their
primary source of crime news. However, more U.S. students (19.0%)
reported national TV news than Canadian students (12.8%) and more
Canadians (17.9%) reported newspapers or newsmagazines than the
U.S. sub-sample (7.6%). Finally, the American students (18.9%) were
slightly more inclined toward heavier weekly Internet use (21 or more
hours per week) than the Canadians (16.4%). However, both groups
were roughly similar in their pattern of weekly Internet use; both close
to an average of about 14 hours a week. Internet use saw a fair bit of
variation in individual use; note that the standard deviations indicate
considerable variability and that the range was 99 hours.
Finally, the Canadian and U.S. samples reported similar levels of con-
cern about crime. On a scale of 1–10, both came in around 7, showing
a fair-sized concern about crime. Canadians were slightly more apt to
Table 2: Comparison of American and Canadian students by key

study variables
American Canadian
Students Students Total Chi or t
Sex
Male 40.7% 41.7% 41.0%
Female 59.3% 58.3% 59.0% 0.128
Age 21.10 20.16 20.85 4.247***
(3.67) (3.67) (3.69)
Racial Background
White 68.0% 73.5% 69.4%
Black 13.1% 4.7% 10.9%
Asian 6.4% 10.0% 7.4%
Native American / Aboriginal 0.5% 10.3% 3.1%
Other 12.0% 1.4% 9.2% 148.318***
Student Major
Criminology / Criminal Justice 31.3% 57.4% 38.2%
Other / Undecided 68.7% 42.6% 61.8% 74.714***
Victim of Crime
Yes 45.4% 48.6% 46.3%
No 54.6% 51.4% 53.7% 1.211
Primary Source of Crime News
Internet 34.3% 31.8% 33.6%
Local TV News 35.0% 34.4% 34.8%
National TV News 19.0% 12.8% 17.2%
Newspaper/Newsmagazine 7.6% 17.9% 10.5%
Other 4.2% 3.1% 3.9% 38.992***
Internet Usage (hours per week) 14.03 13.46 13.89 0.705
(12.54) (13.20) (12.7)
Concern about Crime (0–10) 6.82 6.66 6.78 1.244
(2.12) (2.00) (2.09)
Risk of Violent Victimization (0–10) 2.26 2.81 2.41 3.247***
(2.26) (2.81) (2.52)
Risk of Property Victimization (0–10) 3.5 3.29 3.44 1.252
(3.50) (3.29) (2.77)
Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses.
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
report that they felt likely to be a victim of violent crime in the next
year (2.8 to 2.3 for American students), although both groups rate low
on a 10-point scale. Despite a fair skew in this variable, the difference
was large enough to be statistically significant. Conversely, the Ameri-
can students reported that they were more likely to be a victim of
property crime in the next year (3.5 compared to 3.3 in the Canadian
sample, a small difference that was not significant).
Analysis
Dependent variables
Fear of crime was measured by asking how fearful respondents were

of being the victim of 10 specific crimes (murder, rape/sexual assault,
attack with a weapon, robbed/mugged, beaten up/assaulted by
strangers, approached on street by beggars, home broken into, car
stolen, property vandalized/damaged, cheated/conned out of money).
These items have been used in previous fear-of-crime research (see
Chiricos et al. 1997; Chiricos et al. 2000; Chiricos, Welch, and Gertz
2004). Each of these items was measured on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0
representing no fear. A fear-of-crime scale was created by summing
these items. TOTALFEAR combined all 10 variables into a general index
of fear of crime (Cronbach’s alpha 0.946), with a high score denoting
more fear of crime (range 0–100). Factor analysis was carried out on
the 10 items comprising TOTALFEAR. All items loaded acceptably in
a one factor solution.
We used t tests to assess the reliability of mean differences between

Canadian and American students in the overall sample for each item
as well as TOTALFEAR (Table 3). For each fear indicator of violent
crime, as well as for the index TOTALFEAR, Canadians reported
significantly higher mean levels of fear. However, mean levels of prop-
erty crime fear were very similar between the Canadian and American
samples, and there were no statistically significant differences between
the two groups.
From the above analysis, it is evident that the key differences between
Canadians and Americans are to be found in fear of violent forms of
crime rather than property crime. Higher levels of fear of violent crime
drove the statistically significant difference between Canadians and
Americans on the TOTALFEAR index and overshadowed any similar-
ities between the groups on the property crime items. In short, the
Table 3: Mean differences in fear by nation

Means
USA Canada
Being murdered 4.40 4.90*

Being raped/sexually assaulted 4.62 5.18*
Being attacked by someone with a weapon 5.17 5.95***
Being robbed or mugged on the street 4.69 5.86***
Being approached on street by a beggar or panhandler 3.52 4.01*
Being beaten up or assaulted by strangers 4.03 5.28***
Fear someone breaking into your home 5.59 5.55
Fear having your car stolen 4.82 5.07
Fear having your property vandalized/damaged 4.88 5.09
Fear being cheated, conned, or swindled out of $ 4.48 4.43
TOTALFEAR (0–100) 45.94 51.65***
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
observed difference between Canadian and U.S. student fear of crime

is largely the result of higher levels of fear of violent crime among
Canadian students.
Independent variables
Media salience was measured by asking respondents which media

source was their primary source of crime news. The salience variables
included local TV News (LOCALTV), Internet news (NETNEWS), na-
tional TV news (NATIONALTV), and newspaper news (PAPERNEWS).
Each of these items was dichotomized (1, 0) so that respondents could
only select one primary news source.
Media consumption levels were measured by asking respondents

to estimate the number of hours they watched TV in a typical day
(TVHOURS), the number of hours they used the Internet in a typical
week (NETHOURS), and the number of times they listened to local
news on the radio in a week (RADIOWEEK). Other measures of online
activity included how often respondents used the Internet to create a
web blog (OFTENBLOG) and how often respondents used the Internet
to access social networking or dating websites (OFTENDATE), both
measured on an 8-point scale where 1 is never and 8 is several times
per day.
Other variables included in the analysis were dichotomous variables

measuring race: BLACK, ABORIGINAL, ASIAN, and OTHER. In addi-
tion, using three risk items that asked respondents to estimate the likeli-
hood of being a victim of violent crime, property crime, or Internet
crime in the next year (0–10, where 0 is unlikely), a risk index variable
(RISK) was computed (Cronbach’s alpha 0.782) that ranged from 0 to
30. To measure concern about crime (CONCERN), respondents were
asked ‘‘On a scale from 0–10, with 0 being not at all concerned and 10
being very concerned, how concerned are you about crime?’’ Those
students reporting a declared or intended major or minor in Crimi-
nology or Criminal Justice (CRCJ) were coded as 1 and all others as 0.
Victimization was measured by asking respondents if they had ever
been a crime victim. Those respondents indicating crime victimization
(VICTIM) were coded as 1 and all others as zero. Those respondents
from UW (CANADIAN) were coded 1 and all others as zero. While
we refer to UW students as ‘Canadian,’ we urge caution in the inter-
pretation of our findings. We do not suggest that UW students are for-
mally representative of all Canadians, or even all Canadian students.
However, consistent with Strauss’s (2009) theory of ‘‘national context
effects’’ it is more than likely that our sample still reflects broad differ-
ences in attitudes between individuals socialized in the two nations.
Methods of analysis
Through the use of ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression, this study

comparatively examines the effect of media in different news formats
(i.e., local television and the Internet) and Internet use on fear of crime
among Canadian and American university students. Given the dearth
of research in this area among university students, our study should
be treated as exploratory in nature.
We will compare sub-samples in our analysis to further explore

Canadian-American variation in possible influences on fear of crime.
We will consider the substantive size of differences, but also look to
test for the equality of regression coefficients. We favour the formula-
tion developed by Clogg and his colleagues (1995) and further advo-
cated by Paternoster et al. (1998): b1 b 2 /((SEb 12 þ SEb 22 ).
Findings
Table 4 summarizes the regression results for the full sample of Cana-
dian and American university students.3 Following Weitzer and Kubrin
Table 4: Regression results for fear of crime on media and Internet

Model 1 Model 2
Std. Std.
B Error Beta B Error Beta
(Constant) 0.928 4.932 4.329 5.085

BLACK 0.808 2.559 0.008 0.701 2.568 0.007
ABORIGINAL 9.831* 4.050 0.063 10.285* 4.060 0.066
ASIAN 11.762*** 2.749 0.107 12.044*** 2.758 0.109
OTHER 4.203* 2.117 0.050 4.081^ 2.123 0.049
RISK 1.413*** 0.105 0.343 1.423*** 0.106 0.345
CONCERN 4.234*** 0.333 0.328 4.271*** 0.334 0.331
FEMALE 14.463*** 1.374 0.266 14.604*** 1.376 0.269
AGE 0.423* 0.202 0.055 0.422* 0.203 0.055
VICTIM 2.945* 1.371 0.055 3.003* 1.376 0.056
CRCJ 2.833* 1.425 0.052 2.915* 1.429 0.053
CANADIAN 6.413*** 1.693 0.103 6.632*** 1.722 0.106
LOCALTV 4.677** 1.400 0.084 – – –
NETNEWS – – – 4.488** 1.609 0.079
NATIONALTV – – – 1.841 1.897 0.026
PAPERNEWS – – – 4.575* 2.290 0.053
TVHOURS 0.446 0.330 0.035 0.421 0.333 0.033
RADIOWEEK 0.013 0.233 0.001 0.025 0.234 0.003
NETHOURS 0.063 0.051 0.031 0.063 0.052 0.031
OFTENBLOG 0.644^ 0.347 0.046 0.673^ 0.348 0.048
OFTENDATE 0.473* 0.238 0.050 0.510* 0.239 0.054
Adjusted R2 0.458 0.456

N 926 926
^ p < 0.08, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
(2004), Model 1 includes only salience of local TV news as well as all

media consumption and Internet use variables. This model explains
45.8% of the variation in fear of crime (adjusted R2 ¼ 0.458). Consistent
with previous research, the present analysis demonstrates that media
salience is a significant predictor of fear of crime even when control-
ling for respondent characteristics, estimated risk of victimization,
and concern about crime. Those who identified local TV news as their
primary source of crime news were significantly more fearful of crime.
Conversely, overall level of media consumption (in any form) did not
significantly predict fear. However, respondents who often used the

Internet for dating and social networking were more fearful. Although
modest, these effects are consistent with the literature.
The traditional predictors of fear – age, female gender, and previous

victimization experience – were significantly related to fear of crime
in this model. However, age and previous victimization were asso-
ciated with lower levels of fear. ‘Black’ racial background did not sig-
nificantly predict fear among Canadian and U.S. students. However,
‘Asian,’ ‘Aboriginal,’ and ‘Other’ racial backgrounds were significant
predictors of fear in this model. Of particular interest in our compara-
tive analysis, we note that ‘Canadian’ was a significant predictor of
fear of crime. Lastly, criminology and criminal justice majors and
minors were somewhat less apt to be fearful.
Model 2 omits local TV news salience and enters all other media
salience variables into the regression equation along with the other
media consumption and Internet use variables. This model explains
45.6% of the variation in fear of crime (adjusted R2 ¼ 0.456). As in
Weitzer and Kubrin’s (2004) analysis, the impact of local TV news
salience on fear is thrown into stark relief. Respondents identifying
the Internet and newspaper as their primary source of crime news
were significantly less likely to be fearful. Those who identified na-
tional TV news as their primary source of crime news were also less
likely to be fearful, but the results were not statistically significant.
Therefore, local TV news salience is clearly the most powerful media
predictor of higher levels of fear of crime. The only other media or
Internet variable that is associated with increased levels of fear is
OFTENDATE, which predicted higher levels of fear in both models.
To compare the impact of news media and Internet separately on

Canadian and U.S. students, OLS regressions were carried out on two
sub-samples of American and Canadian respondents (see Table 5). The
sex of the respondent (i.e., female), risk, and concern are the strongest
predictors of fear for both sub-samples. Risk had a much larger effect
for the U.S. sub-sample, and in testing the equality of the regression
coefficients, this difference was significant (t ¼ 1.720, p < 0.05 one
tailed). However, the impact of local TV salience and the Internet
variables disappears for the Canadian sub-sample. For the U.S. sub-
sample, the effect of local TV news salience remains significant, if
only moderately strong; the Canadian sub-sample shows roughly
similar effects but they are not reliable enough to achieve statistical
significance, nor are the differences between the two sub-samples large
Table 5: Regression results by nation

Canadian Students American Students
Std. Std.
(Constant) 13.184 9.512 0.023 5.926

BLACK 11.484 9.092 0.066 0.168 2.682 0.002
ABORIGINAL 10.452* 4.711 0.128 4.892 11.496 0.012
ASIAN 5.258 5.085 0.058 14.428*** 3.367 0.122
OTHER 14.933 10.235 0.077 3.704 2.173 0.049
RISK 1.059*** 0.224 0.269 1.497*** 0.121 0.361
CONCERN 4.448*** 0.724 0.341 4.177*** 0.380 0.327
FEMALE 15.683*** 2.884 0.296 14.173*** 1.578 0.261
AGE 0.667^ 0.353 0.109 0.372 0.252 0.045
VICTIM 0.262 2.937 0.005 3.527* 1.570 0.066
CRCJ 1.808 2.825 0.034 3.226^ 1.678 0.056
LOCALTV 3.526 2.933 0.067 4.757** 1.616 0.084
TVHOURS 0.384 0.871 0.024 0.530 0.359 0.043
RADIOWEEK 1.147^ 0.623 0.099 0.141 0.258 0.016
NETHOURS 0.066 0.105 0.035 0.102 0.059 0.050
OFTENBLOG 0.195 0.813 0.013 0.753^ 0.389 0.055
OFTENDATE 0.503 0.472 0.058 0.430 0.277 0.044
Adjusted R2 0.413 0.461

N 224 701
^ p < 0.08, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
enough to be significant (t ¼ 0.368, ns). The effects of race also

become clearer when the sample is disaggregated by nationality.
Aboriginal Canadian respondents were substantively more fearful
than Americans, but the large standard error for the American sub-
sample does not allow this to achieve statistical significance when the
two groups are compared (t ¼ 0.448, ns). Asian Americans had ele-
vated levels of fear, but this difference does not quite achieve statistical
significance, just under the threshold for a one-tailed test (t ¼ 1.504,
ns). Previous victimization is not a significant predictor of fear for
Canadian students, but it is associated with lower levels of fear for
the Americans (again, not significant, t ¼ 1.138, ns).
Table 6: Regression Results by Area Crime Rate

High Crime Campus Area Low Crime Campus Area
Std. Std.
(Constant) 0.592 5.830 14.682 9.869

BLACK 0.664 2.734 0.007 28.011* 9.355 0.159
ABORIGINAL 10.339* 4.229 0.074 6.246 18.702 0.018
ASIAN 10.773*** 2.906 0.107 6.928 10.773 0.034
OTHER 4.620^ 2.530 0.054 2.784 3.750 0.040
RISK 1.325*** 0.118 0.329 1.665*** 0.234 0.398
CONCERN 4.482*** 0.390 0.342 2.894*** 0.678 0.246
FEMALE 15.526*** 1.634 0.281 11.050*** 2.598 0.235
AGE 0.381 0.231 0.051 0.639 0.432 0.083
VICTIM 2.184 1.604 0.040 4.892^ 2.613 0.106
CRCJ 4.693** 1.623 0.086 0.854 3.593 0.013
CANADIAN 5.068** 1.837 0.087 – – –
LOCALTV 3.937* 1.616 0.071 5.136^ 2.847 0.096
TVHOURS 0.673 0.394 0.050 0.272 0.604 0.025
RADIOWEEK 0.162 0.266 0.017 0.203 0.484 0.022
NETHOURS 0.041 0.058 0.021 0.146 0.108 0.072
OFTENBLOG 0.383 0.398 0.028 0.943 0.716 0.070
OFTENDATE 0.569* 0.278 0.059 0.110 0.440 0.013
2
Adjusted R 0.465 0.375
N 689 236
^ p < 0.08, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
To assess the impact of campus location, the sample was disaggregated

by area crime rate. Those campuses located in metropolitan areas with
crime rates higher than the national average (FSU, UTA, and UW)
were analysed separately from CSU, which had violent crime rates
lower than the U.S. average. The results presented in Table 6 demon-
strate that the ‘Canadian’ effect remains significant even when the low
crime campus students are removed from the regression equation.
Within the high crime campus equation, ‘Canadian’ is a moderately
strong and significant predictor of fear (B ¼ 5.068; p < 0.05). The
regression coefficient for local TV news on fear of crime is slightly less
stable for the low crime campus sub-sample (B ¼ 5.136; SE ¼ 2.847;
p < 0.08), but remains a moderately strong predictor of fear in both
high and low crime campus areas; the difference between the two sub-
samples for LocalTV is not significant (t ¼ 0.366, ns). Consistent with
the resonance perspective, fear levels of students in high crime areas
appear to be elevated by local crime news. At the same time, in con-
gruence with the substitution perspective, student fear of crime in low
crime areas is also elevated by local TV news. One could argue that,
since our results are consistent with both resonance and substitution,
both perspectives must be negated. However, we can’t necessarily in-
fer by process of elimination that cultivation theory is supported. Cul-
tivation theory suggests that increased consumption of violent media
stories increases fear. However, none of our media consumption varia-
bles (TVHOURS, RADIOWEEK, NETHOURS) predicts higher levels
of fear in any of our models.
Lastly, OFTENDATE is a significant predictor of fear among the high

crime campus sub-sample only. It appears that frequent social net-
workers may be more attuned to local crime issues in high crime urban
contexts. Since they are more likely to encounter strangers met online,
frequent social networkers may have a heightened sense of fear in
cities with higher than average violent crime rates. Again the difference
between the two samples for OFTENDATE is not significant, mostly
because of the large standard error affecting the low crime student
group. Overall, the equation for the low crime rate area sub-sample
explains the least amount of variation of fear of crime of any of the
models (adjusted R2 ¼ 0.375). Part of this may be due to the lower
sub-sample size impairing the stability of the predictors or the attenua-
tion of some effects due to the low crime location. Conversely, the
estimate for high crime areas accounts for a greater amount of the
variance (adjusted R2 ¼ 0.465) and is, in fact, the best fit of all models
considered in this study.
Discussion and conclusion
The above analysis demonstrates that many of the usual predictors of

fear of crime – female gender, concern about crime, and perceived risk
of victimization, in particular – continue to explain a considerable
amount of the variation among both American and Canadian univer-
sity students. This was the case in both higher- and lower-crime-rate
urban areas. Surprisingly, UW students were more fearful of crime
than American students. This ‘Canadian’ effect on fear remained even
after disaggregating the sample by local crime rate level. As with pre-
vious research (e.g. Weitzer and Kubrin 2004) local TV news salience
was found to be the strongest and most consistent predictor of

increased fear of crime of all the media and Internet related variables
examined in this study. Interestingly, the effect of media and Internet
on fear of crime almost entirely disappeared for UW students when
the sample was disaggregated by nationality. Local TV news salience
was not a significant predictor of fear for the Canadian student sub-
sample; neither was frequent social networking or blogging. Con-
versely, local TV news salience and frequent Internet blogging pre-
dicted higher fear for the U.S. student sub-sample. The effect of local
TV news salience persisted even when the total sample of Canadian
and U.S. students was disaggregated by high- and low-crime-rate
urban areas. Overall, we were able to explain a larger amount of the
variation in fear of crime for the high crime area sub-sample.
We cautiously infer from these findings that the resonance perspective

holds more potential to explain the impact of media on fear of crime
than the substitution hypothesis, particularly for the U.S. student sub-
sample. We also note that, while fear of crime was higher among the
UW students, it appears that they were less affected by media expo-
sure and may, in fact, have been reacting to their perceptions of real
world conditions. As mentioned above, the Canadian students were
drawn from a campus adjacent to a higher crime inner city area, while
the U.S. students – even those in higher crime cities – were drawn
from suburban campuses. It is possible that the Canadian students in
this study felt they were exposed to a greater risk of criminal victim-
ization in their day-to-day lives in and around the campus. As previ-
ously noted, the Canadian students’ perceived risk of violent victim-
ization was significantly higher than for their American counterparts.
Thus, we cautiously speculate that the Canadian students’ fear of
crime was likely driven by their own risk assessments.
This study allowed us to examine various forms of media and deter-

mine whether these outlets had differential impacts on levels of fear.
As noted in the literature, television news salience has long been
shown to have an effect on fear of crime (Chiricos et al. 1997; Chiricos
et al. 2000; Health and Gilbert 1996; Lane and Meeker 2003; Weitzer
and Kubrin 2004). This was confirmed in the present study. National
TV news, newspapers, and Internet news salience were associated
with lower levels of fear for the full sample of Canadian and U.S.
students, which mirrors the findings of Weitzer and Kubrin (2004).
However, fear levels tended to increase when the Internet was used
for dating and social networking. Given this as well as the vast change
in the Internet as an educational and social networking tool in recent

years, additional theoretical development is warranted.
It is important to note some limitations of the present study. One

weakness in the foregoing analysis is the considerable amount of
missing data in the regressions (approximately 35%–40%). Given the
number of variables and the nature of the cross-national sample, this
was largely unavoidable. Nevertheless, our sample was large enough
to allow for robust analysis even with several missing cases. A pur-
posive, non-random sample makes our results hard to generalize to
the wider student population in any event. Moreover, nuances in the
location of students and campuses within high crime cities were not
fully captured by the survey used in the present study. More infor-
mation about campus location and where participants lived within
the broader urban area could help researchers tease out some of the
relationships between local context, media, and fear of crime. In the
present study, we recognize that the location of UW in the inner city
may not be exactly equivalent to that of FSU or UTA, even though all
three campuses are located in higher crime cities. As well, a future
cross-national study could utilize an additional sub-sample from a
northern American university geographically and perhaps culturally
closer to Canada. Adding these data to future analyses may allow for
a more balanced examination of cultural differences between the two
nations.
In spite of the limitations noted above, the findings of this study will
be of value to policy makers and university administrators as well as
criminologists interested in crime and the new online social media.
Much discussion has centred on the cyber activities of university students
in recent years, and university-age individuals are the demographic
group using the Internet the most to facilitate personal communi-
cation, social networking, and dating opportunities. Thus, it is not
surprising that students in our study reported higher fear when the
Internet was used for these activities. Orientation programs on univer-
sity campuses for first-year and transfer students should stress the
dangers of cyber-bullying, online sexual harassment, and other nega-
tive consequences of these behaviours but also highlight what uni-
versities are doing to protect and aid students who find themselves
affected by these activities.
More research is needed to clarify the relationship of online activity to

fear of crime. Specifically, it would be useful to explore more fully the
broad range of online activities associated with social networking,
dating, and communication. The present study was carried out just
as social networking utilities like Facebook and Twitter were in their
infancy. As these online tools have become increasing popular, users
of these sites have become more attuned to issues of privacy, confiden-
tiality, and personal safety. Criminologists interested in the fear–media
relationship need to better understand these new social media, espe-
cially since Facebook and Twitter are growing media of communi-
cation among young people and students, in particular, despite being
associated with higher levels of fear of crime.
Likewise, additional research is needed to fully explore differences in

the fear–media relationship between U.S. and Canadian students. In
the present study, we can only speculate about the nature and cause
of these differences. It is possible that American students in our study
showed stronger media effects because of the nature of crime news
reporting in the United States. It may be that American local TV news
coverage – particularly in higher crime metropolitan areas – elevates
fear even more than in a higher crime Canadian city such as Winnipeg.
Moreover, a significantly higher percentage of UW students reported
newspapers as their primary source of crime news. Given that news-
paper salience is associated with lower levels of fear, it is possible that
this attenuated the media effects for our Canadian sub-sample. In
addition to examining students’ living and social situations, future
research should more carefully examine the similarities and differences
between local TV news in Canada and the United States. While Dowler
(2004) noted many similarities between local television news casts
in Ontario and the Midwestern United States, there may be regional
differences not detected by his study. In particular, there may be differ-
ences in local TV crime reporting in the higher crime cities of Western
Canada and the Southern United States. Given this possibility, future
research could examine the content of television news in the study
sites used here to determine if key differences exist.
Notes
1 The authors wish to thank David Forde for helpful comments on an

earlier version of this paper. We also wish to thank our university faculty
colleagues for allowing us to enter their classrooms to administer this
survey. Special thanks are owed to the Brandon University Research Ethics
Committee for providing vital assistance with the Canadian ethics review
process.
2 We concede that, given our non-random sampling strategy, tests of signif-

icance may appear moot. Still, we feel that they allow readers to ‘‘ground’’
themselves in assessing differences in the data and the reliability of find-
ings. In addition, others have argued that there is value in examining
large convenience samples and testing for effects that can be followed up
on in later studies (Baron 2011; Hagan and McCarthy 1997). Observing the
direction, size of effects, and magnitude and reliability of differences can
chart important territory for future investigations.
3 Correlation matrixes and collinearity diagnostics indicate no serious colli-

nearity among any of the independent variables.
References
Angotti, Joseph
1997, 6 May
National survey finds crime dominates local TV news. Press release
from University of Miami Office of Media and External Relations.
Baron, Stephen W.
2011 Street youths’ fear of violent crime. Deviant Behavior 32(6): 475–502.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639621003800554.
Barak, Gregg
1994 Media, Process, and the Social Construction of Crime. New York:
Garland.
Beale, Sara S.
2006 The news media’s influence on criminal justice policy: How market-
driven news promotes punitiveness. William and Mary Law Review
48: 397–481.
Byers, Bryan and William B. Powers

1997 Ethical orientations and criminal justice: The effects of major and
gender. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 8(2): 163–79. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511259700086281.
Chermak, Steven M.
1994 Crime in the news media: A refined understanding of how crime be-
comes news. In Media, Process and the Social Construction of Crime:
Studies in Newsmaking Criminology, ed. G. Barak. New York: Garland.
Chermak, Steven M.
1995 Victims in the News: Crime and the American News Media. San
Francisco: Westview Press.
Chermak, Steven M.
1998 Predicting crime story salience: The effects of crime, victim, and
defendant characteristics. Journal of Criminal Justice 26(1): 61–70.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(97)00055-X.
Chiricos, Ted, Sarah Eschholz, and Marc Gertz

1997 Crime, news, and fear of crime: Toward an identification of audience
effects. Social Problems 44(3): 342–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/
sp.1997.44.3.03x0119o.
Chiricos, Ted, Kathy Padgett, and Marc Gertz

2000 Fear, television news, and the reality of crime. Criminology 38(3):
755–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00905.x.
Chiricos, Ted, Kelly Welch, and Marc Gertz

2004 Racial typification of crime and support for punitive measures. Crim-
inology 42(2): 358–89.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00523.x.
Clemente, Frank and Michael B. Kleiman

1977 Fear of crime in the United States: A multivariate analysis. Social
Forces 56(2): 519–31.
Clogg, Clifford C., Eva Petkova, and Adamantios Haritou

1995 Statistical methods for comparing regression coefficients between
models. American Journal of Sociology 100(5): 1261–93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/230638.
Conklin, John
1975 The Impact of Crime. New York: MacMillan.
Covington, Jeanette and Ralph B. Taylor

1991 Fear of crime in urban residential neighborhoods. Sociological Quar-
terly 32: 231–49.
Cumberbatch, Guy and Dennis Howitt

1989 A Measure of Uncertainty: The Effects of the Mass Media. London:
John Libbey.
Dauvergne, Mia and John Turner

2010 Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2009. Juristat 30(2).
del Carmen, Alejandro, O. Elmer Polk, Caryl Segal, and Robert L. Bing III
2000 Fear of crime on campus: Examining fear variables of CRCJ majors
and nonmajors in pre-and post-serious crime environments. Journal
of Security Administration 23(1): 21–47.
Ditton, Jason, Derek Chadee, Stephen Farrall, Elizabeth Gilchrist, and Jon
Bannister
2004 From imitation to intimidation: A note on the curious and changing
relationship between the media, crime and fear of crime. British
Journal of Criminology 44(4): 595–610. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
bjc/azh028.
Dobbs, Rhonda R., John W. Stickels, and Sara Jane Mobley

2008 Fear of crime on campus and other perceptions: The impact of being a
CRCJ major. Law Enforcement Executive Forum 8(2): 147–66.
Dobbs, Rhonda R., Courtney A. Waid, and Tara O’Connor Shelley

2009 Explaining fear of crime as fear of rape among college females: An
examination of multiple campuses in the United States. International
Journal of Social Inquiry 2(2): 105–22.
Doob, Anthony and Glenn MacDonald

1979 Television viewing and fear of victimization. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 37(2): 170–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.37.2.170.
Doyle, Aaron
2006 How not to think about crime in the media. Canadian Journal of
Criminology and Criminal Justice 48: 867–85.
Dowler, Kenneth
2003 Media consumption and public attitudes toward crime and justice:
The relationship between fear of crime, punitive attitudes, and per-
ceived police effectiveness. Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular
Culture 10: 109–26.
Dowler, Kenneth
2004 Comparing American and Canadian local television crime stories:
A content analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal
Justice 46: 573–96.
Ericson, Richard, Patricia Baranek, and Janet Chan

1991 Representing Law and Order: Crime, Law and Justice in the News
Media. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Eschholz, Sarah
1997 The media and fear of crime: A survey of the research. University of
Florida Journal of Law and Public Policy 9: 37–59.
Eschholz, Sarah, Ted Chiricos, and Marc Gertz

2003 Television and fear of crime: Program types, audience traits and the
mediating effect of perceived neighborhood racial composition. Social
Problems 50(3): 395–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.2003.50.3.395.
Farnworth, Margaret, Dennis R. Longmire, and Vincent M. West

1998 College Students’ Views on Criminal Justice. Journal of Criminal Justice
Education 9(1): 39–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511259800084171.
Ferraro, Kenneth F.
1995 Fear of Crime: Interpreting Victimization Risk. New York: State Uni-
versity of New York.
Ferraro, Kenneth F.
1996 Women’s fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault? Social
Forces 75: 667–90.
Flanagin, Andrew J. and Miriam J. Metzger

2000 Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly 77: 515–40.
Flanagin, Andrew J. and Miriam J. Metzger

2001 Internet use in the contemporary media environment. Human Com-
munication Research 27(1): 153–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hcr/
27.1.153.
Forde, David R.
1993 Perceived crime, fear of crime, and walking alone at night. Psycholog-
ical Reports 73(2): 403–07.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1993.73.2.403.
Garofalo, James
1981 Crime and the mass media: A selective review of research. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency 18(2): 319–50. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/002242788101800207.
Gerbner, George and Larry Gross

1976 Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication
26(2): 172–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1976.tb01397.x.
Gerbner, George, Larry Gross, Michael Morgan, and Nancy Signorielli

1980 The mainstreaming of America: Violence profile No. 11. Journal of
Communication 30(3): 10–29.
Gilchrist, Elizabeth, Jon Bannister, Jason Ditton, and Stephen Farrall

1998 Women and the fear of crime: Challenging the accepted stereotype.
British Journal of Criminology 38: 283–98.
Gordon, Margaret T., Stephanie Riger, Robert K. LeBailly, and Linda Heath
1980 Crime, women, and the quality of urban life. Signs 5(3): S143–60.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/495716.
Graber, Doris
1980 Crime New and the Public. New York: Praeger.
Gray, Emily, Jonathan Jackson, and Stephen Farrall

2008 Reassessing the fear of crime. Journal of European Criminology 5(3):
363–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1477370808090834.
Gray, Emily, Jonathan Jackson, and Stephen Farrall

2011 Feelings and functions in the fear of crime. British Journal of Crimi-
nology 51(1): 75–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azq066.
Gunter, Barrie
1987 Television and the fear of crime. London: John Libbey.
Hagan, John and Bill McCarthy

1997 Mean streets: Youth crime and homelessness. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625497.
Hale, Chris
1996 Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of
Victimology 4: 79–150.
Heath, Linda and John Petraitis

1987 Television viewing and fear of crime. Basic and Applied Social Psy-
chology 8: 97–123.
Heath, Linda and Kevin Gilbert

1996 Mass media and fear of crime. American Behavioral Scientist 39(4):
379–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0002764296039004003.
Hensley, Christopher, Richard Tewksbury, Alexis Miller, and Mary Koscheski

2002 Criminal justice and non-criminal justice students’ views of U.S.
correctional issues. Justice Professional 15(4): 303–11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0888431022000070421.
Hirsch, Paul M.
1980 The ‘‘scary world’’ of the nonviewer and other anomalies: A re-
analysis of Gerbner et al.’s findings on cultivation analysis. Part 1.
Communication Research 7: 403–56.
Hughes, Michael
1980 The fruits of cultivation analysis: A reexamination of some effects
of television watching. Public Opinion Quarterly 44(3): 287–302.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/268597.
Jackson, Jonathan and Emily Gray

2010 Functional fear and public insecurities about crime. British Journal of
Criminology 50(1): 1–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azp059.
Jaehnig, Walter B., David H. Weaver, and Frederick Fico

1981 Reporting crime and fearing crime in three communities. Journal of
Communication 31(1): 88–96.
Killias, Martin and Christian Clerici

2000 Different measures of vulnerability in their relation to different
dimensions of fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology 40(3):
437–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjc/40.3.437.
Klite, Paul, Robert A. Bardwell, and Jason Salzman

1997 Bad News: Local TV News in America. Denver, CO: Rocky Mountain
Media Watch.
Kohm, Steven
2009 Spatial dimensions of fear in a high crime community: Fear of crime
or fear of disorder? Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal
Justice 51(1): 1–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.51.1.1.
Lam, Anita, Jennifer Mitchell, and Michael C. Seto

2010 Lay perceptions of child pornography offenders. Canadian Journal of
Criminology and Criminal Justice 52(2): 173–201. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3138/cjccj.52.2.173.
Lambert, Eric
2005 Worlds apart: A preliminary study of the views on crime and punish-
ment among white and minority college students. Criminal Justice
Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society 18: 99–121.
Lambert, Eric
2004 Assessing the crime and punishment views of criminal justice majors:
How different are they from other majors? Criminal Justice Studies: A
Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and Society 17: 245–57.
Lambert, Eric, David Baker, and Kasey Tucker

2006 Two Americas: Capital punishment views among Canadian and U.S.
college students. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences 1:
1–21.
Lambert, Eric and Alan Clarke

2004 Crime, capital punishment, and knowledge: Are criminal justice
majors better informed than other majors about crime and capital
punishment? Social Science Journal 41(1): 53–66. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.soscij.2003.10.005.
Lane, Jodi and James W. Meeker

2003 Women’s and men’s fear of gang crimes: Sexual and nonsexual
assault as perceptually contemporaneous offenses. Justice Quarterly
20(2): 337–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07418820300095551.
Lavrakas, Paul J.
1987 Telephone Survey Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Liska, Allen E. and William Baccaglini

1990 Feeling safe by comparison: Crime in the newspapers. Social Problems
37(3): 360–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.1990.37.3.03a00060.
Mackey, David A. and Kevin E. Courtright

2000 Assessing punitiveness among college students: A comparison of
criminal justice majors with other majors. Justice Professional 12(4):
423–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2000.9959561.
McIntyre, Jennie
1967 Public attitudes toward crime and law enforcement. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 374(1): 34–46.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000271626737400104.
Ortega, Suzanne T. and Jessie L. Myles

1987 Race and gender effects on the fear of crime: An interactive model
with age. Criminology 25(1): 133–52.
Parker, Keith D. and Melvin C. Ray

1990 Fear of crime: An assessment of related factors. Sociological Spectrum
10(1): 29–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02732173.1990.9981910.
Paternoster, Raymond, Robert Brame, Paul Mazerolle, and Alex Piquero

1998 Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coeffi-
cients. Criminology 36(4): 859–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
9125.1998.tb01268.x.
Rainie, Lee
2010 Internet, Broadband and Cell Phone Statistics. Pew Research Center.
http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_
December09_update.pdf.
Reiner, Robert
2002 Media made criminality: The representation of crime in the mass
media. In The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, ed. M. Maguire
Reiner, and R. Morgan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ricciardelli, Rosemary, James G. Bell, and Kimberley A. Clow

2009 Student Attitudes toward Wrongful Conviction. Canadian Journal of
Criminology and Criminal Justice 51(3): 411–27. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3138/cjccj.51.3.411.
Riger, Stephanie, Margaret T. Gordon, and Robert K. LeBailly

1978 Women’s fear of crime from blaming to restricting the victim. Victim-
ology 3: 274–84.
Roberts, Julian V.
2001 Fear of Crime and Attitudes to Criminal Justice in Canada: A Review
of Recent Trends. Report of the Ministry of the Solicitor General of
Canada. Ottawa: Ministry of the Solicitor General.
Roberts, Julian V. and Anthony N. Doob

1990 News media influences on public views of sentencing. Law and Hu-
man Behavior 14(5): 451–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01044222.
Romer, Daniel, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, and Sean Aday

2003 Television news and the cultivation of fear of crime. Journal of Com-
munication 53(1): 88–104.
Rountree, Pamela and Kenneth Land

1996 Perceived risk versus fear of crime: Empirical evidence of con-
ceptually distinct reactions in survey data. Social Forces 74: 1354–77.
Sacco, Vincent
2005 When Crime Waves. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shrum, L. J.
2002 Media consumption and perceptions of social reality: Effects and
underlying processes. In Media Effects: Advances in Theory and
Research, ed. J. Bryant and D. Zillmann. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Skogan, Wesley and Michael Maxfield

1981 Coping with Crime: Individual and Neighborhood Reactions. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Sparks, Richard
1992 Television and the Drama of Crime. Philadelphia, PA: Open Univer-
sity Press.
Stanko, Elizabeth
1995 Women, crime, and fear. Annals of the American Academy of Politi-
cal and Social Science 539(1): 46–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0002716295539001004.
Straus, Murray
2009 The national context effect: An empirical test of the validity of cross-
national research using unrepresentative samples. Cross-Cultural Re-
search 43(3): 183–205.
Stretesky, Paul and Michael Hogan

2001 Columbine and student perceptions of safety: A quasi-experimental
study. Journal of Criminal Justice 29(5): 429–43.
Surette, Ray
1984 Justice and Media: Issues and Research. Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.
Surette, Ray
1990 Media and Criminal Justice Policy: Recent Research and Social Effects.
Springfield, IL: C.C. Thomas.
Surette, Ray
1998 Media Crime, and Criminal Justice: Images and Realities. 2nd ed.
New York: Wadsworth.
Surette, Ray
2007 Media Crime, and Criminal Justice: Images and Realities. 3rd ed.
New York: Wadsworth.
Taylor, Ralph B. and Margaret Hale

1986 Testing alternative models of fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology 77(1): 151–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1143593.
Tomsich, Elizabeth, Angela Gover, and Wesley Jennings

2011 Examining the Role of Gender in the Prevalence of Campus Victim-
ization, Perceptions of Fear and Risk of Crime, and the Use of Con-
strained Behaviors among College Students Attending a Large Urban
University. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 22(2): 181–202.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511253.2010.517772.
Tsoudis, Olga
2000 Does Majoring in Criminal Justice Affect Perceptions of Criminal
Justice? Journal of Criminal Justice Education 11(2): 225–36. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511250000084881.
Federal Bureau of Investigation

2010 Crime in the United States 2010. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/
ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010.
van Dijk, Jan, John van Kesteren, and Paul Smit

2007 Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective: Key findings from
the 2004–2005 ICVS and EU ICS. The Hague: Boom Legal.
Vandiver, Margaret and David Giacopassi

1997 One million and counting: Students’ estimates of the annual number
of homicides in the U.S. Journal of Criminal Justice Education 8(2):
135–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10511259700086261.
Warr, Mark
1984 Fear of victimization: Why are women and the elderly more afraid?
Social Science Quarterly 65: 681–702.
Warr, Mark
2000 Fear of crime in the United States: Avenue for research and policy.
In Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, ed. D. Duffee.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Weaver, James and Jacob Wakshlag

1986 Perceived vulnerability to crime, criminal victimization experience,
and television viewing. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media
30(2): 141–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08838158609386616.
Weinrath, Michael and John Gartrell

1996 Victimization and fear of crime. Violence and Victims 11: 187–97.
Weinrath, Michael
2000 Violent victimization and fear of crime among Canadian Aboriginals.
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 30(1–2): 107–20.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J076v30n01_07.
Weinrath, Michael, Kristin Clarke, and David Forde

2007 Trends in fear of crime in a Western Canadian city: 1984, 1994, and
2004. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 49(5):
617–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.49.5.617.
Weitzer, Ronald and Charis E. Kubrin

2004 Breaking news: How local TV news and real-world conditions affect
fear of crime. Justice Quarterly 21(3): 497–520. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/07418820400095881.
Wiecko, Filip
2010 Research note – Assessing the validity of college samples: Are stu-
dents really that different? Journal of Criminal Justice 38(6): 1186–90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.09.007.
Williams, Paul and Julie Dickinson

1993 Fear of crime: Read all about it. British Journal of Criminology 33: 33–
56.
Winterdyk, John and Nikki Thompson

2008 Student and non-student perceptions and awareness of identity theft.
Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 50(2): 153–86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.50.2.153.
Zillman, Dolf and Jacob Wakshlag

1985 Fear of victimization and the appeal of crime drama. In Selective
Exposure to Communication, ed. D. Zillman and J. Bryan. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Copyright of Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice is the property of University of Toronto
Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Inbound 1064406330786939469 Nananba

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Inbound 1064406330786939469 Nananba

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Impact of Media on Fear of Crime

among University Students:

La peur de la criminalité a fait l’objet d’une recherche considérable au Canada

6 2012 CJCCJ/RCCJP doi:10.3138/cjccj.2011.E.01

This exploratory study examines the impact of media on fear of crime

distinguishing between generalized anxieties and more concrete epi-

Indirect victimization and fear of crime

Conceptual debate aside, it is perhaps surprising that fear levels have

Comparing fear of crime

International comparative research on fear of crime is relatively rare,

Like all fear-of-crime research, the ICVS can be subject to methodolog-

Theorizing media and fear of crime

Several frameworks have been developed to explain how media affect

Cultivation theory holds that there will be an increase in fear of crime

The substitution perspective holds that crime-related media stories

media reinforce what individuals experience in the real world. As

Crime news and media format

Regarding media format, research focusing on newspaper reports and

There is limited knowledge about the Internet as a news source (Flanagin

Predictors of fear of crime

Fear of crime is related to demographic factors, such as gender, age,

against physical threat, thus increasing their vulnerability to crime

The current study

Much of the existing literature on media and fear of crime examines

A self-administered survey was given to undergraduate student volun-

The researchers employed a purposive sampling strategy and sought

The sample breakdown across the four campuses is summarized in

Table 1: University attended by declared or intended major

Declared or Intended Major UTA FSU CSU UW Total

Criminology criminal justice major 117 132 58 202 509

statistically signiﬁcant, not surprisingly, given the large sample and

The samples of Canadian and American students were very similar in

The Canadian and American sub-samples were very similar in terms

Table 2: Comparison of American and Canadian students by key

Fear of crime was measured by asking how fearful respondents were

We used t tests to assess the reliability of mean differences between

Table 3: Mean differences in fear by nation

Being murdered 4.40 4.90*

observed difference between Canadian and U.S. student fear of crime

Media salience was measured by asking respondents which media

Media consumption levels were measured by asking respondents

Other variables included in the analysis were dichotomous variables

Through the use of ordinary least-squares (OLS) regression, this study

We will compare sub-samples in our analysis to further explore

Table 4: Regression results for fear of crime on media and Internet

(Constant) 0.928 4.932 4.329 5.085

Adjusted R2 0.458 0.456

(2004), Model 1 includes only salience of local TV news as well as all

signiﬁcantly predict fear. However, respondents who often used the

The traditional predictors of fear – age, female gender, and previous

To compare the impact of news media and Internet separately on

Table 5: Regression results by nation

(Constant) 13.184 9.512 0.023 5.926

Adjusted R2 0.413 0.461

enough to be signiﬁcant (t ¼ 0.368, ns). The effects of race also

Table 6: Regression Results by Area Crime Rate

(Constant) 0.592 5.830 14.682 9.869

To assess the impact of campus location, the sample was disaggregated

Lastly, OFTENDATE is a signiﬁcant predictor of fear among the high

Discussion and conclusion

The above analysis demonstrates that many of the usual predictors of

was found to be the strongest and most consistent predictor of

We cautiously infer from these ﬁndings that the resonance perspective