Understanding Racial Socialization and Fear of Crime

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Understanding Racial Socialization and Fear of Crime A Test of Social Structure Social Learning Theory
Physical Description:
1 online resource (226 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Price, Ashley N
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.A.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Criminology, Law, and Society, Sociology and Criminology & Law
Committee Chair:
Lane, Jodi S
Committee Members:
Levett, Lora M.
Akers, Ronald L

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
crime -- fear -- race -- socialization
Sociology and Criminology & Law -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Criminology, Law, and Society thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
Although fear of crime is a widely researched topic, theoretical explanations for fear of crime continue to be refined.  However, the process of socialization may be able to explain disparities in fear levels among groups.  Using a sample of 394 undergraduate students, this study tests two types of socialization related to fear of violent, property, and threat-based crimes: racial socialization and crime messages.  Racial socialization is cultural socialization, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust.  Crime messages are conceptualized using applications of social learning theory: differential association, differential reinforcement, and imitation.  Additionally, the study determines whether the impact of socialization on fear of crime differs across racial groups. Using original data, this study finds that both socialization models predict fear of crime.  For racial socialization, promotion of mistrust was the only type of message that predicted fear.  Participant’s parents that provided messages about distrusting other races were strongly related to participants’ fear of crime.  Social learning of crime messages also predicted fear of crime.  Primary and secondary group fear of crime was strongly related to participants’ fear of crime.  Primary group differential reinforcement was related to fear of violent and threat-based crimes.  Additionally, social learning models were able to explain more variance in fear of crime than racial socialization models.  Race of the participant did not consistently impact socialization.  Implications for theoretical models explaining fear of crime are discussed in detail.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Ashley N Price.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local:
Adviser: Lane, Jodi S.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-06-30

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2012
System ID:
UFE0045051:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 UNDERSTANDING RACIAL SOCIALIZATION AND FEAR OF CRIME: A TEST OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY By ASHLEY PRICE KUHN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Ashley P. Kuhn

PAGE 3

3 To my sweet madr e, I know she is with me always

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am very grateful for the help, gu idance, and motivation of many people during the process of this research and degree. First, I would like to thank my husband, Alton Kuhn, for his love, support, and patience during this project. I also owe many thanks to my family members, Dad, Bird, an d Banyan for always believing in me every step of the way. Next I would like to express my extensive appreciation to my chair, Dr. Jodi Lane, with confidence to s ucceed in the project and extensive encouragement through a particularly hard time in my life. I truly look forward to working with Dr. Jodi Lane throughout my time in the program and beyond. I would like to express the same gratitude to the members of m y committee, Dr. Ronald Akers and Dr. Lora Levett for their assistance in completing this paper. I am very thankful for the mentoring, advice, and encouragement of my fellow graduate students. Specifically, Saskia Santos and Kathy Zambrana, I have truly a ppreciated you taking me under your wing and showing me how to be a researcher. I look up to your ability and willingness to always put others first. I know that whatever you do in life you will be amazing. Thank you for being a great example for me to look up to. I would also like to extend my gratitude to the many research assistants that have helped me with this project: Kayla Allen, Kayla Johnson, Emily Kasper, Taylor Price, and Aisha Shotande. This research would have been impossible without your time and quality interviewing skills.

PAGE 5

5 Most importantly, I am so grateful and blessed for the constant love and encouragement from my mother. She always made sure I had every opportunity to succeed and achieve my goals. Even though she wanted to be a part of my thesis defense so badly, I know she is always with me. I am so lucky to have had her as my mom and best friend. I am the person I am today because of her.

PAGE 6

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 9 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 14 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 17 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 20 Fear of Crime as a Social Process ................................ ................................ ......... 20 Racial/Ethnic Socialization and Fear of Crime ................................ ........................ 21 Theoretical Background ................................ ................................ .......................... 25 Social Structure and Social Learning Theory ................................ ................... 25 Differential Social Organization and Fear of Crime ................................ .......... 26 Differential Location in the Social Structure and Fear of Crime ........................ 29 Differential Social Location and Fear of Crime ................................ ................. 31 Social Disorganization and Fear of Crime ................................ ........................ 32 Differential Association and Fear of Crime ................................ ....................... 34 Definitions and Fear of Crime ................................ ................................ ........... 36 Differential Reinforcement and Fear of Crime ................................ .................. 37 Imitation and Fear of Crime ................................ ................................ .............. 37 Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ..... 37 Research Question One ................................ ................................ ................... 37 Research Question Two ................................ ................................ ................... 38 Research Question Three ................................ ................................ ................ 39 Research Question Four ................................ ................................ .................. 39 Research Question Five ................................ ................................ ................... 40 Research Question Six ................................ ................................ ..................... 40 Research Questions Seven ................................ ................................ .............. 41 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ............... 45 Research Design ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 45 Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 45 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 46 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 47 Fear of Crime ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 47

PAGE 7

7 Racial/Ethnic Socialization ................................ ................................ ............... 48 Perceptions of Social Disorganization ................................ .............................. 50 Social Learning ................................ ................................ ................................ 53 Social Structure ................................ ................................ ................................ 54 Controls ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 56 Analytic Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 56 Research Question One ................................ ................................ ................... 57 Research Question Two ................................ ................................ ................... 57 Research Questions Three ................................ ................................ ............... 58 Research Questions Four ................................ ................................ ................. 58 Research Questions Five ................................ ................................ ................. 59 Research Question Six ................................ ................................ ..................... 59 Research Question Seven ................................ ................................ ................ 59 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 67 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 67 Fear of Crime ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 67 Racial Socialization ................................ ................................ .......................... 68 Social Disorganization. ................................ ................................ ..................... 68 Social Learning Variables ................................ ................................ ................. 70 Social Structure Variables ................................ ................................ ................ 71 Research Question 1: Racial Socialization and Fear of Crime ............................... 72 Bivariate Correlations ................................ ................................ ....................... 72 OLS Regression Models for the Entire Sample ................................ ................ 72 OLS Regression Models by Race and Clogg Coefficien t Comparison Tests ... 74 Research Question 2: Social Disorganization and Racial Socialization .................. 81 Bivariate Correlations ................................ ................................ ....................... 81 OLS Regression Models for the Entire Sample ................................ ................ 82 OLS Regression Models by Race and Clogg Coefficient Comparison Tests ... 83 Research Question 3: Social Disorganization and Fear of Crime ........................... 87 Bivariate Correlations ................................ ................................ ....................... 88 OLS Regression Models ................................ ................................ ................... 88 OLS Regression Models by Race and Clogg Coefficient Comparison Tests ... 89 Research Question 4: Social Learning and Fear of Crime ................................ ...... 91 Bivariate Correlations ................................ ................................ ....................... 9 1 OLS Regression Models ................................ ................................ ................... 92 OLS Regression Models by Race and Clogg Coefficient Comparison Tests ... 95 Research Question 5: Racial Socialization vs. Social Learning Theory ................ 103 Research Question 6: Social Structure and Fear of Crime ................................ ... 106 Bivariate Correlations ................................ ................................ ..................... 106 OLS Regression Models ................................ ................................ ................. 107 Research Question 7: Social Structure Social Learning and Fear of Crime .......... 108 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 175 Revisiting Research Questions ................................ ................................ ............. 175

PAGE 8

8 Research Question 1: Racial Socialization and Fear of Crime ....................... 175 Research Question 2: Social Disorganization and Racial Socialization ......... 177 Research Question 3: Social Disorganization and Fear of Crime ................... 178 Research Question 4: Social Learning and Fear of Crime ............................. 178 Research Question 5: Racial Socialization vs. Social Learning Theory ......... 180 Research Question 6: Social Structure and Fear of Crime ............................. 181 Research Question 7: Social Structure Social Learning and Fear of Crime ... 182 Implications of Research ................................ ................................ ....................... 183 Theoretical Implications ................................ ................................ .................. 183 Limitations and Sugges tions for Future Research ................................ .......... 186 APPENDIX A IRB PROTOCOL ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 188 B INFORMED CONSENT ................................ ................................ ........................ 192 C COLORED CARDS ................................ ................................ ............................... 194 D INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT ................................ ................................ ................. 196 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 220 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 226

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Factor analysis for fear of crime variables ................................ .......................... 61 3 2 Factor analysis for racial socialization scales ................................ ..................... 62 3 3 Factor analysis for disorder variables ................................ ................................ 63 3 4 Factor analysis for social cohesion ................................ ................................ ..... 64 3 5 Factor analysis for low informal social control ................................ .................... 65 3 6 Sum of enti ties for primary and secondary groups for social learning variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 66 4 1 Sample description ................................ ................................ ........................... 111 4 2 Percentage for fear of cri me scales and variables for entire sample ................ 112 4 3 ANOVA results for fear of crime by race ................................ ........................... 113 4 4 ANOVA results for racial socia lization by race ................................ .................. 114 4 5 ANOVA results for social disorganization variables by race ............................. 115 4 6 Descriptive statistics for social le arning variables for entire sample ................. 116 4 7 ANOVA results for social learning variables by race ................................ ........ 117 4 8 Correlations of fear of c rime scales and racial socialization variables .............. 118 4 9 OLS regression predicting fear of crime with racial socialization for the entire sample ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 119 4 10 Correlations of fear of violent crime and racial socialization variables by race 120 4 11 OLS regression using racial socialization to predict fear of violent crime by race ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 121 4 12 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for racial socialization variables predicting fear of violent crime ................................ ................................ .......... 122 4 13 Correlations of fear of property crime and racial socialization variables by race ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 123 4 14 OLS regression predicting fear of property crime by race ................................ 124

PAGE 10

10 4 15 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for racial socialization variables predicting fear of property crime ................................ ................................ ....... 125 4 16 Correlations of fear of crimes p ossibly leading to violence and racial socialization variables by race ................................ ................................ .......... 126 4 17 OLS regression predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence by race 127 4 18 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for racial socialization variables predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence ................................ ....... 128 4 19 Correlati ons of fear of burglary and racial socialization variables by race ........ 129 4 20 OLS regression predicting fear of burglary by race ................................ .......... 130 4 21 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for racial socialization variables predicting fear of burglary ................................ ................................ ................. 131 4 22 Correlations of racial socialization and social disorganization var iables ........... 132 4 23 OLS regression predicting racial socialization with social disorganization for the entire sample ................................ ................................ .............................. 133 4 24 Correl ations of cultural socialization and social disorganization variables by racial group ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 134 4 25 OLS regression predicting cultural socialization using social disorganization variables by race ................................ ................................ .............................. 135 4 26 Correlations of preparation for bias and social disorganization variables by racial group ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 136 4 27 OLS regression predic ting preparation for bias using social disorganization variables by race ................................ ................................ .............................. 137 4 28 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for social disorganization variables predicting preparation for b ias ................................ ........................... 138 4 29 Correlations of promotion of mistrust and social disorganization variables by racial group ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 139 4 30 OLS regression using social disorganization to predict promotion of mistrust by race ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 140 4 31 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for social disorganization variables predicting promotion of mistrus t ................................ ........................ 141 4 32 Correlations of fear of crime and social disorganization variables .................... 142

PAGE 11

11 4 33 OLS regression predicting fear of violent crimes with social disorganization variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 143 4 34 Correlations of fear of violent crime and social disorganization variables by race ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 144 4 35 OLS regression predicting fear of violent crimes using social disorganization variables by race ................................ ................................ .............................. 145 4 36 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for social disorganizat ion variables predicting fear of violent crime ................................ .......................... 146 4 37 Correlations of fear of property crime and social disorganization variables by race ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 147 4 38 Correlations of fear of crimes possibly leading to violence and social disorganization variables by race ................................ ................................ ..... 148 4 39 Correlations of fear of burglary and social disorganizati on variables by race ... 149 4 40 Correlations of fear of crime scales and social learning variables .................... 150 4 41 OLS regression predict ing fear of violent crime with social learning variables 151 4 42 OLS regression predicting fear of property crime with social learning variables ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 152 4 43 OLS Regression predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence with social learning variables ................................ ................................ ................... 153 4 44 OLS regression predicting fear of burglary with social learning variables ......... 154 4 45 Correlations of fear of violent crime and social learning variables by race ....... 155 4 46 OLS regression predicting fear of violent crimes using social learning variables by race ................................ ................................ .............................. 156 4 47 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for social learning variables predicting fear of violent crime ................................ ................................ .......... 157 4 48 Correlations of fear of property crime and social learning variables by race .... 158 4 49 OLS regression predicting fear of property crimes using social learning variables by race ................................ ................................ .............................. 159 4 50 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for social learning variables predicting fear of property crime ................................ ................................ ....... 160

PAGE 12

12 4 51 Correlations of fear of crimes possibly leading to violence and social learning variables by race ................................ ................................ .............................. 161 4 52 OLS regression predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence using social learning variables by race ................................ ................................ ....... 162 4 53 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for social learning variables predicting fear of crimes po ssibly leading to violence ................................ ....... 163 4 54 Correlations of fear of burglary crime and social learning variables by race ..... 164 4 55 OLS re gression predicting fear of burglary using social learning variables by race ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 165 4 56 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for social learning variables predicting fear of burglary ................................ ................................ ................. 166 4 57 Step wise regression predicting fear of violent crime with racial socialization and social learning theory ................................ ................................ ................. 16 7 4 58 Step w ise regression predicting fear of property crime with racial socialization and social learning theory ................................ ................................ ................. 168 4 59 Step wise regression predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence with racial socialization and social learning theory ................................ ........... 169 4 60 Step wise regression predicting fear of burglary with racial socialization and social learning theory ................................ ................................ ........................ 170 4 61 Correlations of fear of crime scales and social structure variables ................... 171 4 62 OLS regression predicting fear of crime with social structure variables for entire sample ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 172 4 63 OLS regression predicting fear of violent crime with social structure social learning variables ................................ ................................ ............................. 173

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Research question one ................................ ................................ ....................... 43 2 2 Research question two ................................ ................................ ....................... 43 2 3 Research question three ................................ ................................ .................... 43 2 4 Research question four ................................ ................................ ...................... 43 2 5 Research questions six. ................................ ................................ ..................... 43 2 6 Research question seven ................................ ................................ ................... 44

PAGE 14

14 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S OLS Ordinary Least Squares SSSL Social Structure Social Learning

PAGE 15

15 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the Universit y of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts UNDERSTANDING RACIAL SOCIALIZATION AND FEAR OF CRIME: A TEST OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY By Ashley N. Price December 2012 Chair : Jod i Lane Major: Criminology, Law and Society Although fear of crime is a widely researched topic, theoretical explanations for fear of crime continue to be refined. However, the process of socialization may be able to explain disparities in fear levels amo ng groups. Using a sample of 394 undergraduate students, this study tests two types of socialization related to fear of violent, property, and threat based crimes: racial socialization and crime messages. Racial socialization is cultural socialization, p reparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust. Crime messages are conceptualized using applications of social learning theory: differential association, differential reinforcement, and imitation. Additionally, the study determines whether the impact of socialization on fear of crim e differs across racial groups. Using original data, this study finds that both socialization models predict fear of crime. For racial socialization, promotion of mistrust was the only type of message that predicted fear. Par d messages a bout distrusting other races were of crime messages also predicted fear of crime. Primary and secondary group fear of crime was strongly related t p differential reinforcement

PAGE 16

16 was related to fear of violent and threat based crimes. Additionally, social learning models were able to explain more variance in fear of crime than racial socialization model s. Ra ce of the participant did not consistently impact socialization. Implications for theoretical models explaining fear of crime are discussed in detail.

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION A social problem that has become a popular topic in criminological research is fear of crime. National s tudies indicate fear of crime remains high despite a decrease in the U.S. crime rate ( Cordner, 2010; Truman & Rand, 2010 ) Studies suggest that fear among individuals can affect psychological well being, precautionary behaviors, and even criminal activity (Lane, 2006; Norris & Kaniasty, 1992; Rader, May, & Goodrum, 2007). An accurate measure of community fear is also important as for being tough on crime and pa ss ing of punitive sentencing policies against criminals (Cook & Lane, 2009; Scheingold, 1995; Warr, 2000). Although fear of crime is a widely researched topic, theoretical explanations for fear of crime are still being refined. The most salient theoretica l explanation for fear of crime is rooted in social disorganization theory where the characteristics of an (Covington & Taylor, 1991; Franklin, Franklin, & Fearn, 2008; LaGrange, Ferraro, Supanci c, 1992; Lane & Meeker, 2003; May, 2001). However, a ctual neighborhood conditions do not necessarily explain the fear victimization paradox, because some research has shown that groups least likely to be victimized are the most afraid and those most likel y to be victimized are the least af raid. However, perceptions of neighborhood factors do predict fear ( Ferraro, 1996; Warr, 2000). More specifically, s ocial disorganization theory do es not fully explain the increased fear levels of minorities compared wi th whites and women compared to males (Lane & Fox, 2012; Lane & Meeker, 2003 ; Lane & Meeker, 2004; Rohe & Burby, 1988). Perhaps, the process of socialization can explain the disparities

PAGE 18

18 in fear levels among groups. Associating with parents and/or peers w ho are fearful of on two types of socialization related to fear of crime : racial/ethnic and crime messages. Racial/ethnic socialization includes mechanisms through whi ch messages about race or ethnicity are transmitted (Hughes et al., 2006). Most of the literature on racial socialization ethnicity (Hughes & Chen, 1997; k, 2006; Hughes et al., 2006 ; Huynh & Fuligni, 2008 ) The three most common ways in which parents communicate messages about race or ethnicity are: cultural socialization, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust (Hughes & Chen, 1997). Although so me types of racial/ethnic socialization are healthy for the development of chil dren, some messages parents transmit to their children may be detrimental ( Lohrfink, 2006; Huynh & Fuligni, 2008) Research has found messages promoti ng mistrust of other races/ethnicities are related to poor academic achievement a nd behavior problems in school (Huynh & Fuligini, 2008). Promotion of mistrust messages may also be related to increased fear of crime, although no studies have specifically examined this question. This study will be the first to do so. The second type of socialization, crime messages, is best explained through social learning variables differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation ( Burgess & Akers, 1966; Akers & Sellers, 2009). The basic concept of the socialization of crime messages is that fear of crime is learned (Akers, 1998). Rader and Haynes (2011) also extended the social learning process to explain gender differences in fea r of crime, which they refer to as the gendered fear of crime

PAGE 19

19 socialization process. However, components of the social structure that impact fear of crime cannot be ignored, like social disorganization theory knowledge, this i learning theory can at least partly explain fear of crime (Akers, 1998).

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Fear of Crime as a Social P rocess Fear of crime may be in part a product of socializati on (DeGroof, 2008). Warr (1990) explains that fear develops from symbols, which derive their meaning from the phenomena they represent. It may be from social sources, like family and friends, which people learn to associate certain symbols with crime and therefore become afraid. Fear of crime attitudes are more likely to develop during childhood or youth because social institutions, like family and fri lives during that time ( Akers, 1998 ). In an extension of a social le arning theory, Ronald attitude, then theoretically it should be learned in the same way that definitions 98, p. 308 309). In addition to the learning process, neighborhood or social conditions surrounding the person may influence the types of socialization messages they are exposed to (Akers, 1998 ). Social disorganization theory has been the most common th eory used to explain individual and commun ity fear of crime, in which those living in structurally and socially disorganized neighborhoods are more fearful of crime. A theory combining social structure and socialization has the potential to explain the de velopment of fear of crime attitudes among individuals. Therefore, community level factors may influence socialization, which together impact fear of crime. The current study is the first to examine whether an integration of micro and macro theories exp lain fear of crime.

PAGE 21

21 One phenomena of fear of crime, that has not fully been explained by current theoretical models, is that minorities are more fearful than whites. Several studies have indicated non whites score higher on fear of crime measures than whi tes (Lane & Fox, forthcoming; Lane & Meeker, 2003 ; Lane & Meeker, 2004; Liska, Lawrence, & Sanchirico, 1982; Rohe & Burby, 1988 ; Taylor & Covington, 1993 ). Many studies have argued that this finding is a result of minorities living in more crime filled ne ighborhoods thereby increasing their perceived risk ( Lane & Meeker, 2004; Liska et al., 1982 ). Other studies have indicated that when perceptions of neighborhood chara cteristics are controlled for, minorities continue to report higher rates of fear than n on whites (Lane & Fox, forthcoming ). One possibility is that minorities may be racially or ethnically socialized differently than whites, affecting their fear. This study aims to identify whether racial/ethnic socialization is associated with higher fear levels in minorities and its possible relationship to fear among whites. Racial/E thn ic Socialization and Fear of C rime According to the literature, there are three ways in which parents communicate messages about race or ethnicity to their children cult ural socialization, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust (Hughes & Chen, 1997). One of the primary goals of racial/ethnic socialization is to teach children how to cope with discrimination (Hughes et socialization techniques have been found to impact children in a number of unique ways. First, cultural socialization messages involve teaching children about their own race/ethnicity through heritage and history, more specifically building cultural, ra cial, or ethnic pride (Hughes et al., 2006). Cultural socialization messages are the most frequently reported type s of racial/ethnic socialization reported by parents and children

PAGE 22

22 (Hughes & Chen, 1997). Children whose parents socialized them with cultura l socialization messages have been found to have better problem solving skills, fewer lph, & Nickerson, 2002; Caughy et al., 2006). Second, preparation for bias messages refers to teac hing children about their race/ethnicity through awareness of prejudice and discrimination (Hughes & Chen, 1997). These messages are less common than cultural socialization messages, but are given at the same frequency as promotion of mistrust messages (H ughes & Chen, racial identity exploration (Hughes & Johnson, 2001). Parental job stressors and beliefs that their child has been treated unfairly have been found to predict p reparation for bias messages (Hughes & Chen, 1997; Hughes & Johnson, 2001). Finally, promotion of mistrust messages are those messages that teach children to mistrust other races (Hughes & Chen, 1997). These messages are different from preparation for bi as messages in that they do not contain advice for coping with discrimination but rather alertness of other racial groups Research has consistently found promotion of mistrust messages to be re lated to negative outcomes, including poor academic achieveme nt and behavior problems in school (Caughy et al., 2006; Huynh & Fuligni, 2008) Caughy et al. (2006) found parental messages of mistrust and bias were positively associated with negative neighborhood climate. Negative neighborhood climate included measu res of physical and social disorder, fear of retaliation, and fear of victimization. Therefore, children socialized with promotion of

PAGE 23

23 mistrust messages have heightened emotions and behaviors, which could be impacted by neighborhood conditions. Several st udies have found a link between ethnocentric attitudes and fear of crime, where negative attitudes toward other race s /ethnicities were associated with fear of crime referred to in the literature as subcultural diversity ( Merry, 1981; Covington & Taylor, 1 991; Cops, 2010 ). Merry (1981) conducted an ethnographic study of multiethnic families in an urban housing project, and found that residents were uncertain of neighbors who had differe nt backgrounds than them. For the study participants, fear was not det ermined by the presence of a particular race, culture or ethnicity, but by the understanding of the race, culture, or ethnicity For example, she found Chinese residents were fearful of Black residents because they did not understand their manners and be haviors. subcultural diversity model through qua ntitative methods examining racial differences in randomly sampled neighborhoods in Baltimore. The researchers found that residents who dif fe red by race (black or non black) compared to a majority of their neighborhood had higher levels of fear. Therefore, we may be able to better explain fear of crime through the process of socialization; more specifically, the different types of racial soc ialization messages parents give their children. Studies examining specific fear of crime also f ind support for subcultural diversity as a predictor of fear (Lane & Me eker, 2000; Lane & Meeker, 2003 ; Lane & Meeker, 2004). Lane and Meeker (2000) examine M subcultural diversity and fear of gang crime among residents living in Orange County, CA. Diversity was measured by how often

PAGE 24

24 L ane & Meeker, 2000, pp. 507). U sing a variety of statistical measures to control for extraneous variables, the researchers found that subcultural diversity significantly explained fear of crime and fear of gangs. Th e researchers also found significant differences for age. S ubcultural diversity was a strong predictor of fear of crime and gangs for older people but was not significantly related to sex Therefore, stronger measures of fear of crime, which measure conc rete fears operationalized as specific LaGrange, 1987). Two later studies conducted by Lan e and Meeker (2003 2004) assessed subcultural diversity through survey quest ions regarding strangers moving in and out, and language, cultural, and racial differences among residents. Both studies used the same data to find that subcultural diversity was a significant predictor of fear of gang crime. However, subcultural diversit y had smaller direct effects on fear of gang crime than other social mechanisms, such as community conce rn or incivilities. Although both studies only looked at fear of a specific crime, gang crime, they still showed support for the idea that individuals who perceived those around them to be different than them had elevated fear levels. Based on these findings and previous findings, it is possible that through both the process of racial/ethnic socialization, children learn fear of others and/or crime. Th erefore, it is important to understand what type of racial and ethnic socialization messages parents are giving their children and how those messages influences fear The current study aims to discover the relationship between racial socialization and fea r of crime.

PAGE 25

25 Theoretical Background Social Struc ture and Social Learning Theory Social learning theory ranks among one of the most commonly tested theories in criminology ( Pratt et al., 2010 ). It is an expansion of Edwin differentia l association and his nine propositions regarding how learned It adds components of psychology and operant conditioning (Burgess & Akers, 1966; Sutherland, 1947 pp. 6 7 ). Research has found social learning variables to be consist ent and moderate predictors of crime. However, very few studies have directly e ability to explain fe ar of crime (Akers, 1998 ). Fear of crime can be conceptualized in the same way behaviors or attitudes toward committing c rime are, as an attitude learned through definitions favorable or unfavorable to fear (Akers, 1998). Fear of crime is learned, just like criminal and other behavior is learned (Akers, 1998) The four elements of social learning theory are: differential a ssociation, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation (Burgess & Akers, 1966; Akers & Sellers, 2009). Differential association involves direct and indirect association with others who engage in certain kinds of behavior or have certain attitu des. This interaction can take place with primary, secondary, or virtual peer groups. Definitions are one s own beliefs and attitudes toward a certain behavior or attitude. These definitions may serve as a discriminative stimulus or cue as to how a pers on should appropriately respond in certain situation s (Akers, 1998) Differential reinforcement involves a balance of anticipated rewards and punishments for behavior or attitudes. Attitudes that are positively reinforced are more likely to occur in the future. And finally, imitation is engaging in a behavior after seeing someone else engage in the behavior.

PAGE 26

26 Where social learning theory is a micro level theory focusing on how the individual learns behaviors and attitudes, social structure and social lea rning is an integration of macro and micro level theories attributing learning, in part, to the social environment (Akers, 1998). Theoretical integration of macro and micro theories may be used to explain larger variation in human behavior or attitudes specifically fear of crime. Social structure social learning theory (SSSL) proposes that social structural variables will be mediated by social learning variables, which will in turn affect individual behavior (Akers, 1998). There are four elements of the social structure expected to relate to social learning variables: differential social organization, differential social location, differential location in the social structure, and theoretically defined structural causes. Differential Social Organizatio n and Fear of C rime In relation to crime and deviance, differential social organization refers to the structural correlates or characteristics of different social systems that are expected to influence crime (Akers, 1998). This aspect of the SSSL model in corporates factors describing how the population of the community is organized. Some of the most common measures of differential social organization include population size and density, demographic composition, and economic attributes ( Akers, 1998; Lee, A kers, & Borg, 2004 ). The best way to obtain a representative measure of this construct is through census tract data. However, when sampling university students from a wide range of communities the most efficient way to measure this construct is by askin g Akers, 1998; Lee et al., 2004; Schafer, Huebner, & Bynum, 2006 ).

PAGE 27

27 Although Akers (1998) does not address how fear of crime is specifically explained by differen tial social organiza tion, it is possible that the process would be the same for any attitude or behavior as it would be for criminal behavior With regard to fear of crime specifically, differential social organization refers to the structural correlates or characteristics o f different communities that are expected to influence fear (Akers, 1998) The most common structural correlates measured in fear of crime research are physical and social disorder (Rohe & Burby, 1988; LaGrange et al., 1992; Franklin et al. 2008). Physi cal and social disorder serve as a warning sign s and are brought about by unmanageable physical surroundings and social behaviors (Covington & Taylor, 1991; LaGrange et al., 19 92). Physical disorder includes: litter, trash, graffiti, abandoned buildings, a nd unkempt lots; whereas social disorder includes : public drunkenness, drug use or sales, loiterers, unsupervised you th, and inconsiderate neighbors (Covington & Taylor, 1991; LaGrange et al. 1992). There are several studies that show support for the rela tionship between neighborhood conditions and fear of crime. Rohe and Burby (1988) examined victimization, personal characteristics, and social control influences on fear of crime among individuals living in low income housing projects. P erceive d social a nd physical disorder showed significant positive relationships with fear of crime. More specifically, the researchers found the strongest relationship with fear of crime and perceived social disorder, which was indicated by the presence of drug users and gangs in their community. LaGrange et al. (1992) found similar results through conducting a national telephone survey, which examined perceived social and physical disorder in relation to fear of crime and perceived risk of victimization. The researchers found a strong

PAGE 28

28 statistically significant relationship between fear of crime and both perceived social and physical disorder, with social disorder having the strongest relationship. A more recent study by Franklin et al. (2008), examined the efficacy of t hree theoretical models in explaining fear of crime in a rural sample. The study also found social and physical disorder to explain the most variance in perceived risk and worry of victimization compared to other theoretical models of vulnerability and so cial integration. Therefore, research has consistently found across national, rural, and urban populations that perceived disorder in one s community is very influential in explaining fear of crime. Researchers have also compared actual or objective disor der of communities to individual perceived disorder ( Covingt on & Taylor, 1991; Perkins, Florin, Rich, & Wandersman 1990; Perkins, Meeks, & Taylor, 1992; Schafer et al. 2006; Maxfield, 1984; Taylor, Shumaker, & Gottfredson, 1985 ) Objective measures, inc luding officia l crime rates for a community and police beats, are associated with fear of crime (Perkins et al ., 1990; Perkins et al. 1992). Although, results have been mixed as to whether perceived or objective disorder is more predictive of fear of cri me after controlling for other variables ( Covington & Taylor, 1991; Taylor et al. 1985; Schafer et al., 2006) Schafer et al. (2006) examined t hree measures of fear of crime: perceived safety fear of personal and property victimization. The results did not find any objective measures of crime rates to be a statistically significant predictor of fear. These researchers did find perceived disorder to be a statistically significant predicto r of fear Overall, research indicates perceived disorder appears to be a stronger predictor of fear compared to objective disorder ( Covington & Taylor, 1991; Taylor et al. 1985; Schafer et al., 2006).

PAGE 29

29 In social structure social learning terms, the literature indicates structural correlates (e.g. physical and social disorder) are important predictors of fear of crime (Rohe & Burby, 1988; L aGrange et al., 1992; Franklin et al. 2008) Primarily, ( Covington & Taylor, 1991; Taylor et al. 19 85; Schafer et al., 2006) Consequently, the current study proposes that the learning process might also mediate structural correlates Differential Location in the Social Structure and Fear of C rime Differential location in the social structure refers t o individual social attributes and characteristics that determine where individuals stand in the overall social structure (Akers, 1998). Some of the most common measures of differential social location in the social structure include age, gender, race, ma rital status, and socioeconomic status ( Akers, 1998; Lee et al. 2004). Fear of crime attitudes and behaviors differ widely based on the characteristics of the individual. Several researchers have found support for t he fear victimization paradox, in whi ch groups least likely to be victimized are the most afraid and those most likely to be victimized are the least afrai d ( Ferarro, 1996; Truman & Rand, 2010; Warr, 2000). Fear of crime research has found the se paradoxes to exist for females (Ferraro, 1996 ; McGarrell, Giacomazzi, & Thurman, 1997; May, Rader, & Goodrum, 2010; Schafer et al., 2006; Warr, 1984, 2000 ) and sometimes the elderly (Lindquist & Duke, 1982; Lane & Meeker, 2000; Maxfield, 1984; McCoy, Wooldredge, Cullen, Dubeck, & Browning, 1996; McGar rell et al. 1997) The fear victimization paradox for elderly has been largely explained away using strong measures with multiple item indices examining specific fear rather than a single item measure of fear (Ferraro & LaGrange,

PAGE 30

30 1987; McCoy et al., 1996 ). Most theories used to explain fear of crime, like social disorganization, are not able completely to explain away these paradoxes for females. That is, the findings on these measures still hold, even after controlling for perceptions of neighborhood f actors. However, several researchers have pointed to socialization as an explanation for fear (Rader & Haynes, 2011; Goody, 1997). For example, some research finds that associated with what society finds desirable (Rader, 2010; Sut ton & Farrall, 2005). Researchers found males with the highest scores on a social desirability scale had the lowest levels of fear (Sutton & Farrall, 2005) A qualitative study found that men changed their levels of fear of crime following marriage (Rade r, 2010). Although this study had a small number of participants (n = 28) males gave invaluable information as to why their fear levels increa sed when they got married, with m ost of the reasons centered on socialization. For example, they felt it was im portant to protect their wives and provide for their family. Therefore, a theory that accounts for both social structural and social process variables might bet ter explain these discrepancies between gender and fear. Fear of crime research has also found minorities are more fearful than whites (Lane & Meeker, 2003 ; Lane & Meeker, 2004; Jordan & Gabbidon, 2010; Rohe & Burby, 1988) However unlike the elderly and females, minorities generally have a higher statistical risk of victimization than other groups (Truman & Rand, 2010) This can be partially explained by social disorganization theory because minorities are more likely to live in communities characterized by social disorganization and therefore may be more fearful (Lane & Meeker, 2003 ; Lane & Meeke r, 2004). However, Lane and

PAGE 31

31 Meeker (2003 ) found differences in how social disorganization affected fear of gang crime among minorities and whites. Whites were more likely to have an increase in fear if they perceived disorder and community decline, while minorities were more likely to have more fear if they perceived disorder in their neighborhood but n ot decline (Lane & Meeker, 2003 ). These findings are important because it is possible that the socialization messages individuals receive from family a nd friends influence what community factors impact fear of crime Differential Social L oc ation and Fear of C rime Differential social location refers to characteristics of individuals in primary, secondary, or reference groups that provide socialization of att itudes or behavior (Akers, 1998). One of the most common measures of this concept is family structure: one parent, two parents, or other ( Lee et al., 2004 ). In relation to crime and deviance, research has found children in two parent families are less li kely to engage in delinquent behavior than children raised in single parent homes (Johnson, 1986; Apel & Kaukinen, 2008 ). Neighborhoods characterized with a large proportion of single parent households also have higher crime rates than neighborhoods with two parent households (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). It is important to examine the impact of family level variables on fear of crime because they may account for neighborhood level effects (Levanthal & Brooks Gunn, 2000). Very few fear of crime studies have used family structure as an explanatory variable or found it to be a significant predictor. A two parent family structure may involve more crime messages than one parent family structure, leading to increased fear of crime. Lane (2006) exami ned family structure impact on fear by asking juvenile probationers about their living arrangements whether they were living with both parents

PAGE 32

32 or other. However, she found the variable to be insignificant in predicting fear of crime at the bivaria te leve l and did not include it in the multivariate analysis. Social Disorganization and F ear of C rime The third variable identified by Akers for social structural variables is theoretically defined structural causes (Akers, 1998). This variable includes element s of already defined structural theories in the criminological literature. These theories offer explanations for the correlations between the dependent variable (in the present study, fear of crime) and other explanatory variables (such as race, class, ge nder, etc). Examples of these are social disorganization, anomie, and conflict theories (Akers, 1998). However, the current study will only focus on social disorganization theory. Social disorganization theory has been widely used by scholars to explain fear of crime, relating neighborhood disorganization to an increase of fear of crime. Social disorganization theory was first developed in the Chicago studies of residential patterns of delinquency conducted by Shaw and McKay (1942; 1969). Shaw and McKay hypothesis argues that structural factors including socioeconomic status, social mobility, and ethnic heterogeneity, influence community social organization, including solidarity, cohesion, and integration, which foster informal social control, which t hen influences crime rates ( Akers & Sellers, 2009; Shaw & McKay, 1942; 1969). Following the initial theory, Sampson and Groves (1989) clarified the relationship between neighborhood structural characteristics and crime to be mediated by community social di sorganization, more specifically local friendship networks, supervision of youth peer groups, and organizational participation. A dditionally, Sampson et al. (1997) proposed the concept of collective efficacy to describe community social disorganization, w hich involves trust and confidence between

PAGE 33

33 community members in enforcing informal social control for the common good. Several studies have shown support for the concept of collective efficacy as an explanation for crime, showing that communities with low er collective efficacy yield higher crime rates and self reported violence (Morenoff, Sampson, & Raudenbush, 2001; Sampson et al., 1997). Social disorganization has been used to explain deviant behavior and crime, but it can also be used to explain individ ual and community fear of crime (Sampson & Groves, 1989 ). Skogan (1986 1990 ) explains negative feedback loops are created in communities with crime, structural deterioration, and disorder. Fear of crime results from neighborhood decline, which in turn i ncreases withdrawal from the community and decreases informal social control (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Skogan (1986, 1990) describes crime and fear as indirectly affected by disinvestment of properties, demagoguery, deindustrialization, demolition and con struction in the community, which (1942; 1969). The most common social mechanisms used to explain the relationship between fear of crime and disorganization are subcult ural diversity, disorder, and community concern (Lane & Meeker, 2003). Perceived disorder or neighborhood incivility is the most commonly studied aspect of social disorganization in predicting fear of crime (Covi ngton & Taylor, 1991; Franklin et al., 2008 ; LaGrange et al., 1992; Lane & Meeker, 2003; May, 2001; Taylor & Hale, 1986). However, Lane and Meeker (2003) found each of the three mechanisms subcultural diversity, disorder, and community concern, to significantly explain fear of gang crime among Cal ifornia residents. M inorities perceived

PAGE 34

34 more disorder which was directly associated to their fear, where whites perceived more community decline which was directly associated to their fear. It is one goal of this study to better understand the difference s in how these factors relate to fear for whites and minorities. One possibility is that t he process of socialization may help explain these differences. Differential Association and Fear of C rime Differential association involves direct and indirect asso ciation with others who engage in certain kinds of behavior or have certain attitudes (Akers & Sellers, 2009). In terms of fear of crime, this would be the association with others who have fear of crime attitudes. This interaction can take place with pri mary (family and friends), secondary (church, school, or law and authority), or virtual peer groups (media and internet) ( Akers, 1998; Akers & Sellers, 2009). ning variables impact on fear (Akers, 1998). Akers (1998) concept of differential association was measured by examining participants how worried about crime their primary and secondary groups were. His sample was collected in Texas through mailed surveys and consisted of only the elderly (ages 60 and older). Results showed differential association variables explained 53% of the variance in general fear of crime for men and 24% for women (Akers, 1998). Additionally, the study found primary groups had th e strongest e ffect and relationship with the fear of crime measures. Another study by May (2001) found differential association to be a good predictor of fear of crime and protective factors in his study of incarcerated male ncept of differential association was measured by Therefore,

PAGE 35

35 secondary group fear of crime was indirectly measured through secondary group delinquent behavior. Cops (2010) did not direc explaining fear of crime, but did measure the impact of primary and virtual peer groups (family, peers, and media) on fear of crime for Flemish youth. First, Cops (2010) found that youth who indicated a po sitive relationship with their mothers and higher levels of parental control increased fear of crime compared to youth with negative relationships with their mothers and lower levels of parental control Second, as the number of best friends increased, th e less fear of crime youth had. Third, the more popular media that youth reported watching, the more fear of crime they had. De Groof (2008) also found increased parental supervision increased fear of crime for Flemish youth, supporting the possibility t hat socialization impacts fear. A study of American male adolescents, also found parental supervision to be the strongest significant predictor of adolescent fear of criminal victimization, controlling for age, economic status, perceived neighborhood inc ivility, perceived risk, and parental attachment (May, Vartanian, & Virgo, 2002) Adolescents with parents who actively supervised them were more fearful than adolescents whose parents were less supervisory. However, youth who are supervised closely are less likely to perceive risk of victimization. The researchers also found adolescents who reported weak attachment to their parents had more fear than those who had stronger attachments. The researchers suggested that parents who supervise their children closely may create a which leads parents to not offer youth suggestions on how to deal with risk of victimization. It is possible that parents who supervise their children closely

PAGE 36

36 have fear of crime attitudes or behaviors, and expose these fear attitudes or behavior with their children through association and interaction. Although the previously discussed studies support the possibility that socialization is related to fear of crime, the measures do not directly ask whether associating with parents, peers, or media had exposed them to fear of crime attitudes or messages (Cops, 2010, De Groof, 2008; May et al., 2002). Therefore, it can only be interpreted from the literature that more parental supervision or control leads to direct or in direct association with fear of crime attitudes or behaviors from parents. The current stu dy aims to expand the current body of by determining whether differentially associating with primary and secondary groups who have fear of crime attitudes influences one s own fear. Definitions and Fear of C rime Definitions are one s own beliefs and attitudes toward a certain behavior or attitude (Akers & Sellers, 2009). In terms of fear of crime, definitions are own fear of crime attitudes. These fear defini tions may also serve as a discriminative stimulus or cue s as to how a person should appropriately respond in a certain situation. A person with fearful attitudes may respond with protective or avoidance behaviors, such as carrying a gun or avoiding certai n areas of the neighborhood at night. Therefore, precautions are measure of behavior that one would hypothesize results from definitions favorable to fear of crime (Akers, 1998). In the before mentioned study of Texas elderly, Akers (1998) found fear of crime had a direct effect on precautionary behaviors for both men and women. He also found an indirect effect of differential asso ciation (associating with other s who engage in fearful attitudes) on behavioral precautions, fear of crime attitudes.

PAGE 37

37 Differential Reinforcement and Fear of Cr ime Differential reinforcement involves a balance of anticipated and actual rewards and punishments for fear of crime attitudes or behaviors (Akers & Sellers, 2009). From the standpoint of social learning theory, fear of crime attitudes that are reinforced are more likely to occur in the future (Akers, 1998) Alternatively, fear of crime attitudes that are punished are less likely to occur in the future. Additionally, precautionary behavi ors that are reinforced or punished affect the likelihood of future behavior ( Akers, 1998 ). In the study of Texas elderly, Akers (1998) found social reinforcement for fear of crime ary behavior. Imitation and Fear of C rime Imitation is engaging in fear of crime attitudes or behaviors after seeing someone else that you admire engage in the behavior (Akers & Sellers, 2009). Imitation is more important at the initiation of the behavi or or attitudes rather than the persistence over time. According to social learning theory, after behavior is first modeled reinforcement or punishment for the behavior will determine whether definitions favorable or unfavorable to fear will develop (Ake rs, 1998; Akers & Sellers, 2009). This was the only element of social learning theory not measured in the Texas elderly study of fear of crime (Akers, 1998). Therefore, there are no known studies that specifically examine whether imitation is associated with fear of crime. Research Questions and Hypotheses Research Question One One of the primary goals of racial/ethnic socialization is to teach children how to cope with or protect themselves from discrimination (Hughes et al., 2006). Fear of crime may be a coping or protection mechanism for children who receive certain types

PAGE 38

38 of messages. Specifically, promotion of mistrust messages are those that teach children to mistrust other races (Hughes & Chen, 1997). This idea is very similar to subcultura l diver sity theory of fear of crime, where fear is developed from residents being unable to understand and predict the behaviors of the people living around them (Merry, 1981) It may be through the process of racial/ethnic socialization that individuals learn t o mistrust groups that are different from them, which in turn impacts their fear of crime. whether racial/ethnic socialization messages predict fear of crime. Therefore, the following resear ch questions are proposed in this study: Does racial socialization affect fear of crime? Hypothesis: Racial socialization will be positively associated with fear of crime Are individuals socialized with promotion of mistrust messages more afraid than th ose socialized differently? Hypothesis: Promotion of mistrust messages will impact fear of crime more than other racial socialization messages Are certain racial groups racially socialized differently than others and if so, does this impact fear? Hypoth esis: Minorities will be racially socialized differently than whites, which impacts their fear of crime Research Question Two Previous racial/ethnic socialization studies have found different types of messages are more common in certain types of neighborh oods. Specifically, Caughy et al. (2006) found promotion of mistrust is more common in integrated neighborhoods than predominately black or predominately white neighborhoods. They also found preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust messages are asso ciated with a negative neighborhood social environment (Caughy et al., 2006). However, their measure of negative neighborhood social environment included physical/social disorder, fear of retaliation, and fear of victimization. The current study would li ke to separate these

PAGE 39

39 measures and do a more complete test of social disorganization. Therefore, research question two is: Do perceived neighborhood characteristics affect racial socialization of college students? Hypothesis: Social disorganization will b e positively associated with racial socialization Do certain racial groups perceive neighborhood conditions where they grew up dif ferently than others and if so, does this impact racial socialization? Hypothesis: Minorities perceive neighborhood conditions differently than White s which impacts their racial socialization Research Question Three Social disorganization theory has been the most common theory used to explain individual and community fear of crime. However, many studies only examine structural characteristics of the community or neighborhood, for example disorder. This study will explore whether there is a relationship between neighborhood structural characteristics and fear of crime that is mediated by community social organization more spec ifically ept of collective efficacy ( Figure 2 3). Therefore, research question three is: Do perceived neighborhood characteristics of social disorganization predict Hypothesis: Perceived neighb orhood characteristics of social disorganization will be associated with fear of crime Do certain racial groups perceive neighborhood conditions differently than others and if so, does this impact fear? Hypothesis: Minorities will perceive neighborhood con ditions differently than Whites, which impacts their fear of crime Research Question Four The study of Texas elderly showed good support for social learning theory as an explanation for fear of crime (Akers, 1998). However, was an incomplete test of the theory, with imitation not included in the model. Therefore, this study

PAGE 40

40 expands on the theory by testing a complete model of social learning on fear of crime ( Figure 2 4). Research question four is: Do social learning variables predict fear of crime for university students? Hypothesis: Social learning variables will be positively associated with fear of crime Do certain racial groups socialize differently than others with regard to their safety from crime and if so, does this impact fear? Hypothesis: Rac ial groups will not be socialized differently with regard to their safety, which in turn impacts fear Research Question Five Although both socialization models presented in this study are similar, they are different in the types of messages individuals re ceive. Racial socialization messages are about race or ethnicity (Hug hes et al., 2006), whereas social learning messages are about crime and safety (Akers, 1998). Racial socialization focuses on discrimination from and mistrust towards other groups of pe ople, so implies fear comes from a negative view of other groups. Social learning theory focuses on a social problem theory also includes components of operant condi tioning differential reinforcement and imitation. Therefore, research question five is: Which socialization model is a better predictor of fear of crime racial socialization or social learning theory? Hypothesis : Social learning theory will predict fe ar of crime better than racial socialization theory Research Question Six Several studies have show n support for macro theories, such as social disorganization, in explaining fear of crime (Covi ngton & Taylor, 1991; Franklin et al., 2008; LaGrange et al. 1992; Lane & Meeker, 2003; May, 2001). This supports social structure social learning theory because it expects social structure variables to be

PAGE 41

41 related to the behavior or attitude, in this case fear of crime (Akers, 1998). However, social disorganizati on is only one component of the social structure. Therefore, research question six is: Do the social structure components differential social organization, differential social location, differential location in the social structure, and social disorgani zation predict fear of cri me for university students ( Figure 2 5)? Hypothesis: Social structure components will be positively associated with fear of crime Research Questions Seven There has been no prior research that has explored whether micro theory o f social learning mediates the effects of social structure for fear of crime. However, several studies show support for macro theories, including social disorganization, in explaining fear of crime (Covington & Taylor, 1991; Franklin et al., 2008; LaGrang e et al., 1992; Lane & Meeker, 2003; May, 2001). This at least indirectly supports social structure social learning theory, because it expects social structure variables to be related to the behavior or attitude, in this case fear of crime (Akers, 1998). Also, Akers (1998) study of Texas elderly found social learning variables of differential association, definitions, and differential reinforcement to predict fear of crime. However, the main proposition of social structure social learning is the effects of the social structure to be mediated by the social learning process, which in turn affects fear of crime. Therefore, according to the theory one or more of the dimensions in social structure and social learning with fear of crime as the dependent variab le could show: (1) direct significant effects of the structural factors on social learning variables, (2) non significant or substantially reduced direct effects of the structural factors on fear of crime with social learning in the model, and (3) substant ial and significant direct effects of social learning

PAGE 42

42 variables on fear of crime (Lee et al., 2004, p. 19). A primary research question, then, is: rime among college students ( Figure 2 6)? Hypothesis: Adding social learning variables will substantially reduce the direct effect of structural factors on fear of crime

PAGE 43

43 Figure 2 1. Research question o ne Figure 2 2. Research question t wo Figure 2 3. Research question t hree Figure 2 4 Research question f our Figure 2 5. Research q uestions six.

PAGE 44

44 Figure 2 6 Research question s even

PAGE 45

45 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Research Design Sample Data were collected during the summer and fall semester s of 2011 at the University of Florida. Participants were recruited through two methods The first was Students who participated in the pool receive d either course credit or extra credit in exchange for pa r ticipation Those in the participant pool who did not wish to participate in the studies w ere offered an alternative assignment to complete. The second way the study recruit ed participants was by announcing the opportunity to undergraduate classes not i nvolved in the participant pool Undergraduate instructors allowed the researcher to present the study and provide students with an opportunity to participate. All participating instructors chose to provide extra credit for student participation During t he class announcement, students were informed of the opportunity and provided with contact information to set up an interview date and time via email. Therefore, the sampling method employed was a convenience sample. A convenience sample was implemented p rimarily because this research project does not have funding, making it difficult to gain a sample that is representative of the university population. In addition, this study is exploratory in that it is the first to examine key research questions regard ing the effect of racial/ethnic socialization on fear. Consequently, it will provide information that may allow for the development of a more representative study at a later date. The unit of analysis is individuals with 400

PAGE 46

46 undergraduate students recru ited to complete the interview, to allow for enough power to examine differences among racial groups. Procedure After receiving Institutional Review Board approval from the University of Florida ( Appendix A) researchers conduct ed face to face semi structu red interviews with 400 university students. The interviews averaged 36.6 minutes, but ranged from 19 to 98 minutes willingness to share on open ended questions. All interviews were c onducted in a room on campus and p articipant s were abl e to choose a time slot that was convenient for them on the participant pool website. For t hose not in the participant pool but recruited through undergraduate classes t hey were able to set up a time by emailing the researcher and selecting a t ime at their convenience. O nce the participant arrived for the interview, (s) he was given an informed consent form ( Appendix B) The informed consent form was read aloud and (s) he was asked to follow along. Af ter the consent form was read and the partic ipant agreed to participate, (s)he was asked to sign and return it to the researcher. The researcher then placed the signed informed consent in an envelope and gave the participant an extra copy of the consent. Once a signed informed consent was obtained, the researcher completed the first p age of the interview instrument The first page was to ensure the participant got credit in the participant pool or extra credit in the class for participating. It also provide d information on the interview date, time and length. Once the cover sheet was completed and th e Study ID number was noted on both the cover sheet and first page of the interview instrument, the interview bega n. The interview consisted of both open and close ended responses. T o fully obtain o pen ended responses, researchers were

PAGE 47

47 instructed on the interview instru ment when to turn on and off a digital voice recorder. Participants had the option to stop the voice recording at any time, or to opt to not have their interview voice recorded. If p articipan ts did not want their responses to be recorded, researchers wrot e their response to the best of their ability in the answer blanks Additionally, researchers were instructed when to give participants a colored card to help them answer close ended questions with L ikert scale answer options ( Appendix C) The researcher only ga ve a card with answer optio ns to the participant when it was related to a specific question and collect ed it when it was not rel evant. Measures Fear of C rime The fear of cri me scale used was adapted from Lane and Meeker (2003), Lane (2006), and Lane (2009). Participants were verbally asked how personally afraid they were of nineteen crimes, while the interviewer recorded their answers. Response options included: not afraid (1 ), somewhat afraid (2), afrai d (3), and very afraid (4) ( Appendix D, questions 58 78). The fear items represented a variety of personal crimes (rape/sexual assault, murder, being attacked with a weapon, robbed, threatened, beaten up, shot at, drive by sho oting, physical assault, harassment, carjacking, and property taken with force), property crimes (break in, car theft, property damage, property damage by graffiti, break in while away, home invasion robbery, having money or property taken without force), and one drug related crime. A Principal Component factor analysis using Varimax rotation of the fear of crime items revealed four constructs (four Eigenvalues greater than 1.0). These four constructs were used to create four fear of crime scales: fear of violent crimes, fear of property crimes, fear of crimes possibly leading to violence, and fear of burglary. The

PAGE 48

48 fear of violent crime scale consists of 11 items, with factor loadings ranging from 0.65 (robbery) to 0.89 (drive by or random shooting). The f ear of property crime scale consists of three items, with factor loadings ranging from 0.59 (property damage) to 0.63 (property damage by graffiti or tagging). Fear of crimes possibly leading to violence consists of two items, with factor loadings ranging from 0.57 (harassed) to 0.68 (threatened). Fear of burglary consists of one item, with a factor loading of 0.57 (break in while away from home). See Table 3 1 for scale factor loadings and reliability coefficients. Racial/Ethnic Socialization T he racia l socialization scale was used in two ways in this study. The f irst was to predict fear of crime in research question one. The second is as a dependent variable in research question two. The racial socialization scale used was adapted from Hughes and Che n (1997) and Hughes and Johnson (2001). Participants were verbally asked to indicate how often their parents engaged in the following behaviors when they were growing up. Response options included: never (1), sometimes (2), regularly (3), and all the tim e (4). Racial socialization is divided into four types of messages: (1) cultural socialization, (2) preparation for bias, and (3) promotion of mistrust The following eight items measure d cultural socialization messages: talked to you about important peo ple about your own race or ethnicity, talked to you about discrimination against your own racial or ethnic group, and did or said things to show that all are equal regardl ess of race or ethnicity, talked to you about important people or events in history of different racial or ethnic groups, encouraged you to read books about other racial or ethnic groups, talked to you about discrimination against a racial or ethnic group that is not

PAGE 49

49 your own, explained something on TV that showed discrimination ( Appendix D, questions 18 25). The following five items measure preparation for bias messages: talked to you about others trying to limit you because of your race or ethnicity, tol d you that you must be better to get same rewards because of your race or ethnicity, told you your own race or ethnicity is an important part of self, talked to someone else about discrimination when you could hear, and talked to you about unfair treatment due to your race or ethnicity ( Appendix D, questions 26 30). The following two items measure promotion of mistrust: did or said things to you to keep you from trusting kids of other races or ethnicities, and did or said things to encourage you to keep yo distance from people of other races or ethnicities ( Appendix D, questions 31 32). A Principal Components factor analysis using Varimax rotation of the racial socialization items represented three constructs (three Eigenvalues greater than 1.0). These constructs were used to create three racial socialization scales: cultural socialization, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust. The cultural socialization scale consists of four items, with loadings ranging from 0.64 (talked to you abou t important people or events in history of different racial or ethnic groups) to 0.71 (encouraged you to read books about other racial or ethnic groups). The preparation for bias scale consists of 5 items, with factor loadings ranging from 0.55 (told you your own race or ethnicity is an important part of self) to 0.82 (talked to you about unfair treatment due to your race or ethnicity). The promotion of mistrust scale consists of two items with factor loadings ranging from 0.63 (did or said things to keep you from trusting kids of other races or ethnicities) to 0.64 (did or said things to encourage you to keep your

PAGE 50

50 distance from people of other races or ethnicities). See Table 3 2 for scale factor loadings and reliability coefficients. Perceptions of Soci al D isorganizati on The perceptions of social disorganization measures are based on a variety of established measures. Structural characteristics of social disorganization are physical and social disorder, diversity, residential mobility, and racial hetero geneity (Shaw & McKay, 1942; 1969). Physical disorder, social disorder, and d iversity. The diversity, physical, and social disorder scales are adapted from Lane (2006). Participants were asked to indicate whether or not the following problems characteriz e the neighborhood where they grew up. The following items measure d physical disorder ( Appendix D, questions 278 281, 294, 296 297) : litter, trash, broken glass, graffiti, buildings falling apart, vacant or deserted homes and cars, dark areas with no or l ittle lighting, areas that feel strange or unknown, and decreasing housing values. The following items measure social disorder ( Appendix D, questions 282 285, 289 293, 295, 298) : unattended kids, people selling drugs, people drunk or high on the street, drinking in public, kids misbehaving, people hanging out and causing trouble, poverty, language and cultural difference, too many people living in one home, gangs, people moving in and out a lot, and people using drugs. Additionally, participants were ask ed to indicate whether language, cultural, and racial differences between residents are a problem in the neighborhood they grew up in. The latter measures are int ended to measure diversity ( Appendix D, questions 286 288). Response options included: not a problem (1), somewhat of a problem (2), a problem (3), and a big problem (4).

PAGE 51

51 A Principal Components factor analysis using Varimax rotation of the disorder items represented three constructs (three Eigenvalues greater than 1.0). These constructs were use d to create three scales: social disorder, physical disorder, and diversity. The social disorder scale consists of 6 items, with factors ranging from 0.64 (gangs and increasing crime) to 0.78 (people drunk or high on the street). The physical disorder sca le consists of 2 items, with factors ranging from 0.69 (vacant or deserted homes) to 0.71 (buildings falling apart or run down). The diversity scale consists of three items, with factors ranging from 0.64 (language differences between residents) to 0.81 ( cultural and racial differences between residents). See Table 3 3 for scale items and reliability coefficients. Residential mobility. Residential mobility was measured by asking participants, ghborhood ( Appendix D, question 277). Response options included: not often (1), somewhat often (2), often (3), and very often (4). Racial heterogeneity. Third, racial heterogeneity was measured by asking participants to describe the people in th eir neighborhood where they grew up in terms of race/ethnicity ( Appendix D, question 263). Response options included: the majority the same race/ethnicity as you (1), 50/50 (2), and the majority a different race/ethnicity as you (3). Collective e fficacy. clarified the relationship between neighborhood structural characteristics and crime to be mediated by community social disorganization Therefore, the two components of

PAGE 52

52 collective efficacy, social c ohesion and informal social control, are measured to more fully test the full model of social disorganization (Sampson et al., 1997). To measure social cohesion, participants were asked to indicate how strongly they agree d with statements about the neigh borhood they grew up in. These statements included ( Appendix D, questions 264 268): the neighborhood you grew up in was close knit, people in the neighborhood you grew up in could be trusted, people in the neighborhood you grew up in generally do not get along with each other, people in the neighborhood you grew up in do not share the same values, people in the neighborhood you grew up in are willing to help their neighbors. Response options included: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agre e (4), and strongly agree (5). Two items (people in the neighborhood you grew up in generally do not get along with each other and people in the neighborhood you grew up in do not share the same values) were reverse coded so that higher score indicated gr eater social cohesion. A Principal Component Factor analysis using Varimax rotation of the social cohesion items represented one construct (one Eigenvalues greater than 1.0). This construct was used to create the scale. The social cohesion scale consists of 3 items, with factors ranging from 0.64 (neighborhood was close knit) to 0.67 (people in the neighborhood could be trusted). See Table 3 4 for scale items and reliability coefficients. To measure informal social control, participants were asked to indi cate how likely neighbors could be counted on to intervene if a variety of things happened in their neighbor hood. The following items measure d low informal social control ( Appendix D, questions 272 276): children skipping school and hanging out on street corners,

PAGE 53

53 children spray painting graffiti on a local building, children showing disrespect to an adult, a fight broke out in front of their house, and the fire station closest to their home was threatened with budget cuts. Response options included: very unlikely (1), unlikely (2), neither likely nor unlikely (3), likely (4), and very likely (5). A Principal Component Factor analysis using Varimax rotation of the low informal social control items resulted in one construct (one Eigenvalues greater than 1. 0). This construct was used to create the scale, with those items not loading deleted from the scale. The low inform al social control scale consisted of 2 items, with factors ranging from 0.58 (children showing disrespect to adults) to 0.64 (children ski pping school and hanging out on street corners). See Table 3 5 for scale items and reliability coefficients. Social Learning Measures for social learning theory, as they are related to fear of crime, are adapted from Akers study of the elderly in Texas (1 998). Differential association. There are three measures of differential asso ciation. The first measure asked participants how fearful p rimary and secondary groups were about crime in general on a scale of one (not fearful at all) to ten (very fearful) ( Appendix D, questions 194 206). Not all participants have the same number of entities in their primary and secondary groups. Therefore to avoid list wise deletion of cases, scales were created manually on a case by case basis for primary and secondary groups by taking the average for each case. See Table 3 6 for sums and proportions in primary and secondary groups. Primary groups consist of: mother, father, grandfather, sisters, brothers, church members and best friends (Cronbach = 0.87). Secondary g roups consist of: work associates, fraternity and sorority members, and club members (Cronbach = 0.86).

PAGE 54

54 The second differential association measure asks participants how often their parents and friends talk to them about crime. Response options include: never (1), sometimes (2), regularly (3), and all the time (4). The third differential association measure asks participants how often they see reports of violent crime on TV, the internet, or the newspaper. Akers (1998) refers to these as virtual groups. Response options include: less than once a month (1), once a month (2), a couple times a month (3), once a week (4), more than a week (5), and every day (6). Differential reinforcement. Differential reinforcement for fear of crime is measured by asking participants how primary and secondary groups would react to their concern about fear. Again to avoid list wise deletion of cases, scales were created manually on a case by case basis for primary and secondary group reinforcement by taking the average fo r each case. See Table 3 6 for sums and proportions in primary and secondary groups. Response options included: positive (1), neutral (0), and negative ( 1). Imitation. Imitation is measured by asking participants if they have ever imitated a behavior th at they observed someone they admire do to prevent themselves from becoming a victim of crime. Response options included: yes (1) or no (0). Social Structure Differential social o rganization. The measure of differential social organization is adapted from Lee et al. (2004). Although t he best way to get a representative measure of this construc t is through census tract data, when sampling university students from a wide range of communities the best way to measure this construct is by asking about the stud Akers,

PAGE 55

55 1998; Lee et al., 2004; Schafer et al., 2006 ). Participants are asked to describe their hometown ( Appendix D, question 12). Response options include: small rural (1), medium suburban (2), and large metropolitan (3). Dummy variables were then created for each of the three types of hometowns. Differential social l ocation. The measure of differential social location is also adapted from Lee et al. (2004). Participants were asked about the structure of their family ( Appendix, question 15). Response options include: two parent family (1), single parent family (2), or family in which parents were absent with others serving as parents or guardians (3). Dummy variables were then created for e ach of the three family structure type. Differential location in the social s tructure. There are four measures of differential location in the social structure in this study. Based on Akers (1998), gender, age, race, and socioeconomic status determine wh ere the individual stands in the social structure. Therefore, the following demographic characteristics were asked of the participants. Partici pants were asked their sex ( Appendix D, question 1). Response options include: male (1) and female (0). Parti cipants wer e asked their date of birth ( Appendix D, question 2), which was converted to age at interview. Participants are asked to indicate th eir racial/ethnic identity ( Appendix D, question 3). Dummy variables were created for four racial groups: Black /African American, White/Caucasian, Latino/Hispanic, and Other. Participants were asked to indicate their parent/guardian yearly household income ( Appendix D, question 17). To effectively measure the income growing up, I used participants reports of their p arent/guardian income. Response options include: less than $15,000 (1), between $15,000 and

PAGE 56

56 $24,999 (2), between $25,000 and $34,999 (3), between $35,000 and $49,999 (4), between $50,000 and $74,999 (5), between $75,000 and $99,999 (6) $100,000 or more (7). Theoretically defined structural c auses. The last aspect of the social structure is theoretically defined structural causes (Akers, 1998). The theory that is used in this study is social disorganization, which measures are descri bed above. Controls Personal c haracteristics The following controls are used throughout analyses focusing on research questions where they are not key variables: age, sex, race, and income. A nalytic Plan To start the analysis the researcher ran severa l descriptive analyses to retrieve information regarding the distributions of each variable. The researcher then estimated bivariate correlations for each of the variables to determine the direction and strength of relationships. The researcher also perf ormed factor and reliability analyses for each scale created. Additionally, each reported regression model was checked for heteroskedasticity 1 and multicollinearity 2 1 Heteroskedasticity is the tendency for the error te rms to have a non constant variance around the predicted regression line, which is a violation of the Gauss Markov OLS regression assumptions. Each regression model is checked for heteroskedasticity using the Breusch & Pagan test (1979). In the models whe re the test statistic is significant, the model is re run with a robust regression estimate, which takes into account all the outliers and weighs them differently than central cases. The r squared and betas remain the same in robust regression, but the st andard errors of the betas do not assume normality. Models run with robust regression estimates standard errors will be noted as RSE. 2 Multicollinearity is examined for regression models containing more than one independent variable. A diagnostic for mu lticollinearity is variance inflation factor (VIFs). They are estimates of how much multicollinearity has increased the variance of an estimated coefficient. The VIFs for the independent variables reveal multicollinearity is not an issue.

PAGE 57

57 Research Question One The following questions encompass Research Question O ne: Does ra cial socialization affect fear of crime? Are individuals socialized with promotion of mistrust messages more afraid than those socialized differently? Are certain groups (racial/ethnic) socialized differently than others with regard to their safety from crime and does this impact fear? responses to fear of crime and racial socialization variables. Then, correlation results are reported to determine significant relationships at the bivariate level. I ran Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) multiple regression that regresses fear of violent crimes, fear of property crimes, fear of crimes possibly leading to violence, and fear of burglary (the dependent variables) onto the three types of racial socialization messages: cultural socialization, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust (the independent variables). The model also includes control variables of sex, age, gender, race, and income. OLS multivariate regressions are reported for the entire samp le and racial/ethnic group. Additionally, to determine whether there is a difference in racial socialization on fear for certain racial groups, I ran a regression coefficient comparison tests, as developed by Clogg, Petkova, and Haritou (1995) (Paternost er et al., 1998). Research Question Two R esearch Question T wo was : do perceived neighborhood characteristics affect racial socialization of college students? To assess research question two, I ran bivariate correlations to determine significant associat ions between the independent (physical and social disorder, diversity, residential mobility, racial heterogeneity, and collective efficacy) and dependent variables (cultural socialization, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust) Of those variabl es that were significantly associated, OLS

PAGE 58

58 models were run to predict the three racial socialization types. The models also include control variables that were significantly associated with the dependent variables at the bivariate level. Additionally, to determine whether there was a difference in perceived social disorganization on racial socialization for certain racial groups, I ran the regression coefficient comparison test developed by Clogg, Petkova, and Haritou (1995) (Paternoster et al., 1998). Re search Questions Three R esearch Question T hree is: do perceived neighborhood characteristics of social To assess research question three, I ran OLS multiple regression that regressed the fear of cri me scales (the dependent variables) onto neighborhood structural characteristics and collective efficacy (the independent variables). If the effect of neighborhood structural characteristics is substantially reduced in the model with collective efficacy t hen the researcher will have support for the theoretical model of social disorganization theory proposed by Sampson et al. (1997) and Sampson and Groves (1989). The models will also include control variables of age, sex, race, and income. Research Questio ns Four Research Question F our is: do social learning variables predict fear of crime for university students? To assess research question four, I first ran bivariate correlations to determine significant associations between the fear of crime scales (the dependent variables) and the social learning variables: differential association, definitions, differential reinforcement, and imitation (the independent variables). More specifically, step wise linear regression analyses were performed with each model pr ogressively incorporating additional independent variables. The independent variables alternating

PAGE 59

59 within the blocks of models are personal characteristics and social learning variables. The purpose of running more than one model is to determine the combi ned effect of social learning variables. However, independent variables that were not significant at the bivariate level were not included in the regression models. Research Questions Five Research Question F ive is: which socialization model is a better predictor of fear of crime racial socialization or social learning theory? To assess research question five, I ran run step wise linear regression analyses with each model progressively incorporating additional independent variables. The independent var iables alternating within the blocks of models are racial socialization and social learning variables. Research Question Six Research Question S ix is: do the social structure components differential social organization, differential social location, diff erential location in the social structure, and social disorganization predict fear of crime for university students ? To assess research question six the researcher ran OLS mu ltiple regression that regressed the fear of crime scales (the dependent variabl es) onto the social structure variables: differential social organization, differential social location, differential location in the social structure, and social disorganization (the independent variables). Research Question Seven Research Q uestio n S even was theory explain fear of crime among college students? To assess research question seven, I ran OLS multiple regression that regressed the fear of crime scales (the dependent variables) onto both the social learning and social structure variables (the independent variables). I compared the effects of the social structure variables to the

PAGE 60

60 effect in the research question five to determine whether the mediation hypothesis is correct. If the effect of social st ructure variables is substantially reduced in the model social learning theory in explaining fear of crime.

PAGE 61

61 Table 3 1 Factor analysis for fear of crime variables Scales Factor l oading Scales Factor l oading Fear of violent c rimes Fear of property c rimes Item 1: Break in while home 0. 66 Item 1: Car stolen 0.6 0 Item 2: Rape 0.7 5 Item 2: Property damage 0. 59 Item 3: Murder 0.8 5 Item 3: Property d amage by graffiti or tagging 0. 63 Item 4: Attacked with a weapon 0.80 = 0.76 Item 5: Robbery 0.65 Fear of crimes possibly leading to v iolence Item 6: Shot at 0.8 6 Item 1: Threatened 0.6 8 Item 7: Home invasion robbery 0.6 9 Item 2: Harassment 0. 57 Item 8: Drive by or random shooting 0.8 9 = 0.78 Item 9: A ssault 0.80 Fear of b urglary Item 10: Carjacking 0. 70 Item 1: Break in while away from home 0.5 7 Item 11: Money or property taken away with force 0.7 0 = 0.96 C ronbach's alpha =

PAGE 62

62 Table 3 2 Factor analysis for racial soci alization scales Scales Factor loadings Cultural socialization Item 1: Talked to you about important people or events in history of different racial or ethnic groups 0.54 Item 2: Encouraged you to read books about other racial or ethnic groups 0 .71 Item 3: Talked to you about important people or events in your racial or ethnic group's history 0.69 Item 4: Encouraged you to read books about your own race or ethnicity 0.69 Preparation for bias Item 1: Talked to you about discrimination against your own racial or ethnic group 0.61 Item 2: Talked to you about others trying to limit you because of your race and ethnicity 0.76 Item 3: Told you that you must be b etter to get the same rewards because of your race or ethnicity 0.78 Item 4: Told you your own race or ethnicity is an important part of self 0.55 Item 5: Talked to you about unfair treatment due to your race or ethnicity 0.82 Promotion of mistrust Item 1: Did or said things to keep you from trusting kids of other races or ethnicities 0.63 Item 2: Did or said things to encourage you to keep your distance from people of other races or ethnicities 0.64

PAGE 63

63 Table 3 3. Factor analysis for disorder variables Scales Factor l oading Scales Factor l oading Social d isorder Physical d isorder Item 1: Drinking in public 0.65 Item 1: Vacant or deserted homes 0.69 Item 2: Selling drugs on the street 0. 76 Item 2: Buildings falling apart or run down 0.71 Item 3 : Gangs 0.64 = 0.83 Item 4 : People drunk or high on the street 0.78 Diversity Item 5 : People using drugs 0.77 Item 1: Language differences between residents 0.64 Item 6 : Increasing crime 0.64 Item 2: Cultural differences between residents 0.81 = 0.93 Item 3: Racial differences between residents 0.81 = 0.85 Cronbach's alpha =

PAGE 64

64 Table 3 4 Factor analysis for social cohesion Scales Factor l oading Social c ohesion Item 1: Neighborhood was close knit 0.64 Item 2: People in the neighborhood could be trusted 0.67 Item 3: People in the neighborhood are willing to help 0.67 = 0.78 Cronbach's alpha =

PAGE 65

65 Table 3 5 Factor analysis for low informal social control Scales Factor l oading Low informal social c ontrol Item 1: Children skipping school and hanging out on street corners 0.64 Item 2: Children showing disrespect to adults 0.58 = 0.70 Cronbach's alpha =

PAGE 66

66 Table 3 6 Sum of entities for primary and secon dary groups for social learning variables N = 394 Sum of entities n % Differential association Primary groups (ranged from 0 to 7) 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 0.25 3 20 5.08 4 69 17.51 5 130 32.99 6 129 32.74 7 45 11.42 Secondary groups (ranged from 0 to 3) 1 157 49.22 2 134 42.01 3 28 8.78 Differential reinforcement Primary groups (ranged from 0 to 7) 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 3 19 4.82 4 72 18.27 5 126 31.98 6 132 33.50 7 45 11.42 Secondary groups (ranged from 0 to 3) 1 157 49.22 2 134 42.01 3 28 8.78

PAGE 67

67 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Demographics The sample consisted of 394 undergraduate students ( Table 4 1 for descriptive statistics). A majority o f the sample (n = 262; 66.5%) was female. The rac ial composition of the sample was a majority White (n = 203; 51.5%), with 22.1% Black (n = 87), 14.2% Hispanic (n = 56), 5.8% Asian (n = 23), 4.8% Mixed Race/Biracial (n = 19), and 1.5% Other (n = 6). However to allow for comparison througho ut the study, the group Other was comprised of Asian, Mixed Race/Birac ial, and Other, which represented 33, a majority of the sample was young (mean, median and mode of 20 years old). The mean income score was 5.03, which is equal to their parents making between $50,000 and $74,999 (scale 1 to 7). The percentage frequencies break down to 1.7% reporting less than $15,000 (n = 6), 8.2% between $15,000 and $24,999 (n = 29), 10.7% between $25,000 and $34,999 (n = 38), 17.5% between $35,000 and $49,999 (n = 62), 17.5% between $50,000 and $74,999 (n = 62), 16.1% between $75,000 and $99,999 (n = 57), and 28.5% $100,000 or more (n = 101). Additiona lly, a majority of the sample was comprised of criminology m ajors (n = 257; 65.2%), which was expected because half the sample was recruited from the criminology law & society and law participant pool. Fear of Crime Results indicate d that the mean of the fear of violent crime scale for the entire sample was 2.68 (sd = 1.02), meaning they were generally af raid of crime. See Table 4 2 for scale items descriptive statistics for the entire sample. Additionally, one way

PAGE 68

68 analyses of variance (ANOVA) results found no significant differences between racial groups in any of the fear of crime scales ( Table 4 3 sho ws group comparisons). Racial Socialization Results indicate d that the mean of the cultural socializatio n scale for the entire sample was 2.39 (sd = 0.75); meaning participants were generally given cultural socialization messages by their parents. The mea n for the preparation for bia s scale for the entire sample was 2.08 (sd = 0.82); meaning participants were generally given some preparation for bias messages by their parents. The mean for the promotion of mistrust scale for the entire sample is 1.25 (sd = .47); meaning participants generally were given very little promotion of mistrust messages by their parents. Therefore, cultural socialization messages (such as talking to participants about important people or event story) are the most common type of racial socialization message, with promotion of mistrust messages (such as saying things to keep participants from trusting kids of other races or ethnicities) being the least common. Additionally, ANOVA results found th e only significant differen ces between racial groups was in pre paration for bias messages ( Table 4 4). Significant differences using Tukey HSD find Blacks report ed more preparation for bias than Whites, Hispanics, and Others. Hispanics and Others both rep ort more preparation for bias than Whites. Therefore, white participants are given the least amount of preparation for bias messages than all other racial groups. Social Disorganization. Social disorder. Results indicate d the mean of the social disorder scale for the entire sample was 1.57 (sd = 0.77); meaning respondents generally considered this a small problem in their neighborhoods of origin. Additionally, ANOVA results found

PAGE 69

69 significant differe nces between racial groups ( Table 4 5). Significant dif ferences using Tukey HSD find Blacks and Others perceive more social disorder than Whites. Physical d isorder. Results indicate d the mean of the physical disorde r scale for the entire sample was 1.36 (sd = 0.65); meaning respondents generally considered t his a small problem in their neighborhoods of origin. A dditionally, ANOVA results found significant differe nces between racial groups ( Table 4 5). Significant differences using Tukey HSD finds Blacks perceive more physical disorder than Whites and Hispan ics. Others perceive more physical disorder than Hispanics. Hispanics perceive significantly more physical disorder than Whites. Diversity. Results indicate d th e mean of the diversity scale was 1.50 (sd = 0.70). Additionally, ANOVA results found signi ficant differences between racial groups ( Table 4 5). Significant differences using Tukey HSD finds Blacks perceive d significantly more diversity in their neighborhood than Whites, Hispanics, and Others. Racial mobility. Results indicate d the mea n of th e racial mobility scale was 1.58 (sd = 0.77); meaning respondents generally did not report a lot of people moving in and out of th eir hometowns. ANOVA results did not show significant differences between racial groups. Racial h eterogeneity. A majority of participants describe d people in their neighborhood as a majority the same race/ethnicity as themselves (n = 219; 55.7%), 26.5% answered 50/50 (n = 104), and 17.8% answered the majority a difference race/ethnicity as themselves (n = 70). Additionally, ce rtain racial groups did report more racial heterogeneity in their neighborhoods of origin than others. Pearson Chi square test results did find a statistically significant relationship between racial heterogeneity

PAGE 70

70 and race (X = 78.34, p < .001). Whites were more likely to grow up in neighborhoods with people the same race or ethnicity as them, where non Whites were more likely to grow up in neighborhoods with people a majority a different race than them. Collective efficacy. Results indicate d the mean o f the low informal social con trol scale was 3.26 (sd = 0.82); meaning participants generally reported growing up in neighborhoods with low informal social control. Addition ally, ANOVA results did not show significant difference between racial groups. Res ults indicate d the mean of the social cohesion scale is 3.51 (sd = 1.05); meaning participants generally reported high social cohesion in their hometowns. Additionally, ANOVA results show significant differences between racial groups. Whites report signi ficantly more social cohesion in their neighborhoods then Blacks and Hispanics. Social Learning Variables See Table 4 6 for social learning variables descriptive statistics and Table 4 7 for ANOVA results by race. Differential a ssociation. Results indi cate d the mean of primary group differential association is 5.25 (sd = 1.78); meaning participants reported their primary groups are moderately afraid of crime (scale of 1 to 10). Additionally, ANOVA results found significant differences between racial gr oups on the primary group differe ntial association measure ( Table 4 7). Hispanics report significantly more primary group fear of crime than Blacks and Whites. The mean for secondary g roup differential association was 4.80 (sd = 1.91); meaning participa nts reported their secondary groups are moderately afraid of crime (scale of 1 to 10). The mean for how o ften parents talk about crime was 2.37 (sd = 0.78); meaning participants parents sometimes talk to them about crime. The mean for

PAGE 71

71 how o ften friends t alked about crime was 1.96 (sd = 0.60); meaning participants friends sometimes talk to them about c rime. ANOVA results did not show significant differences between racial groups for any other differen tial association variables ( Table 4 7). Differential r einforcement. The mean for primary gro up differential reinforcement was 0.45 (sd = 0.46); meaning primary groups positively reinforced p differential reinforcement was 0.35 (sd = 0.54); meaning seco of c rime behavior. ANOVA results did not show significant differences between racial groups for either differe ntial reinforcement measure ( Table 4 7). Imitation. A majority of participants (60.2%) did not imitate a precautionary behavior that they observed someone they admire do (n = 236). Chi square test results did not show statistically significant relationships between imitation and racial group of the respondents (X = 5.97, p > .05). Social Struc ture Variables Differential s ocial o rganization. Results indicate d that 48.6% of participants reported living in medium suburban hometowns (n = 191), 31.8% in large metropolitan hometowns (n = 125), and 19.6% in small rural hometowns (n = 77). Differenti al social l ocation. Results indicate d that 71.8% of participants had two parent families (n = 283), 25.1% had single parent families (n = 99), and 3.1% had families in which parents were absent with others serving as parents or guardians (n = 12). Differ ential l ocat ion in the social s tructure. Descriptive statistics for g ender, age, race, and socioeconomic status are discussed above in demographics.

PAGE 72

72 Theoretically defined structural c auses. Descriptive statistics for social disorganization variables are discussed above. Research Question 1: Racial Socialization and Fear of Crime The first resear ch question this report examined the relationship between racial socialization and fear of crime for the entire sample and by racial group. Bivariate Correlatio ns Table 4 8 shows a bivariate correlation matrix with fear of crime scales, racial socialization scales, and control vari ables. Younger participants were significantly more fearful of violent, property, and crimes possibly leading to violence than older participants, even though there is not much age varia tion in the sample. Females were significantly more fearful in all four fear of crime scales than males. Whites were significantly less fearful of violent cri mes than non whites. Blacks were significa ntly more fearful of violent crime t han non Blacks. There was also a significant negative association between family income and fear of violent crime. The personal characteristics significantly associa ted with fear of crime types are included as control variables throughout the study. As for racial socialization scales, there were significant positive relationships between all three types of racial socialization messages and each type of fear of crime (except for cultural socialization and fear of burgla ry). Therefore, as racial socialization messages increase d fear of crime increased OLS Regression Models for the Entire Sample Table 4 9 shows the ordinary least squares (OLS) regression results for the entire sample to determine whether racial socialization predicts fear of crime while

PAGE 73

73 controlling for other variables. Only independent variables significant at the bivariate level were included in the models. Predicting fear of violent c rime. The overall model pre dicting fear of violent crime was significant (F = 16.69, p < .001, R = .24). H owever, promotion of mistrust was the only racial socialization measure that remains significant while controlling for other variables. The more promotion of mistrust messages a participant receives the more fearful they are of violent crimes (b = 0.24, p < .05). Additionally, the personal characteristics of age (b = 0.05, p < .05), gender (b = 0.79, p < .001), and being White (b = 0.28, p < .05) remain ed significant while controlling for other v ariables. Younger parti cipants were significantly more fearful than older participants. Females were significantly more fearful of violent crimes than males. Whites are less fearful than Hispanics and Others. Predicting fear of p roperty c rime The ove rall model predicting fear of property crime was significant (F = 7.53, p < .001, R = .08). Again, promotion of mistrust was the only significant predictor of fear out of the types of racial socialization messages, while controlling for other variables. The more promotion of mistrust messages a participant receives the more fearful they are of property crimes (b = 0.19, p < .05). Additionally, females were significantly more fearful of property crimes than males (b = 0.23, p < .01), while controlling f or other variables. Pred icting f ear of c rime s possibly leading to v iolence. The overall model predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence was significant (F = 24.70, p < .001, R = .21). Again, promotion of mistrust was the only significant pr edictor of fear out of the types of racial socialization messages, while controlling for other variables.

PAGE 74

74 The more promotion of mistrust messages a participant receives the more fearful they are of crimes leading to violence (b = 0.21, p < 05). Addition ally, females were significantly more fearful of crimes leading to violence than males (b = 0.75, p < .001) while controlling for other variables. Predicting fear of b urglary. The overall mode l predicting fear of burglary was significant (F = 13.96, p < .001, R = .11). Again, promotio n of mistrust was the only significant predictor of fear out of the three types of racial socialization messages, while controlling for other variables. The more promotion of mistrust messages a participant receives the mo re fearful they are of burglary (b = 0.25, p < .01). Additionally, females were significantly more fearful of burglary than males (b = 0.56, p < .001) while controlling for other variables. OLS Regression Models by Race and Clogg Coefficient Comparison T est s Predicting fear of v iolen t c rime by racial g roup Table 4 10 shows the bivariate correlation matrix of fear of violent crime and racial socialization by race. Age was only significantly associated with fear of violent crime for Whites, meaning young er whites are more afraid of violent cri me than older whites. Gender was significantly associated to fear of violent crime across all races, with females being more afraid than males. Preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust were only significantly associated to fear of violent crime for Whites, meaning Whites that received more preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust messages are more afraid of violent crime than Whites who do not receive those messages. Independent variables that were sign ificantly associated at the bivariate level with at least one of the racial groups were entered into OLS regression models to predict fear of violent crime. More specifically, OLS regression models were run for each race

PAGE 75

75 using age, gender, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust. Table 4 11 shows OLS regression results predicting fear of violent crime by race. For Whites, the overall model was significant (F = 18.16, p < .001, R = .21). On ly promotion of mistrust remained significant out of th e types of racial socialization messages, while controlling for other variables (b = 0.35, p < .05). Additionally, age (b = 0.11, p < .001) and gender (b = .64, p < .001) were significant predictors of fear of violent crime. Specifically, white women a nd younger whites were more afraid of violent crime. For Blacks, Hispanics, and Others, the overall models were significant (Blacks: F = 6.73, p < .001, R = .22; Hispanics: F = 3.75, p < .01, R = .22; Others: F = 4.93, p < .01, R = .26). Across all th ree racial groups none of the racial socialization variables were significant predictors of fear of violent crime. The only significant predictor of fear of violent crimes for Blacks, Hispanics, and Others was gender (Blacks: b = 1.11, p < .001; Hispanic s: b = 0.87, p < .01; Others: b = 0.83, p < .01). For all racial groups, women were more afraid. In order to determine significant differences in the impact of racial socialization on fear of violent crime by racial group I ran a regression coefficient comparison test developed by Clogg, Petkova, and Hari tou (1995). The test determined there were not significant differences in the impact of each type of racial socialization message on fear of vio lent crime by racial group ( Table 4 12 for report of z val ues associated with each racial socialization variable and racial group). Therefore, the impact of racial socializat ion on fear of violent crimes was not different for Whites, Black, Hispanics, and Others.

PAGE 76

76 Predicting fear of property c rime by racial g rou p. Table 4 13 shows the bivariate correlation matrix of fear of property crime and racial socialization by race Younger Whites and Blacks were more afraid of property crime than older Whites and Blacks. White, Black, and Hispanic females were more afra id of property crime than males. As for racial socialization variables, Whites given more preparation for bias messages were more fearful of property crimes than Whites who are given less preparation for bias messages. Blacks given more of all three type s of racial socialization messages were more fearful of property crime than Blacks who are given less racial socialization messages. Also, Others given more promotion of mistrust messages were more fearful of property crime than Others given less promotio n of mistrust messages. Independent variables that were significantly associated at the bivariate level with at least one of the racial groups were entered into OLS regression models to predict fear of property crime while controlling for each other. More specifically, OLS regression models were run for each race using age, gender, cultural socialization, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust. Table 4 14 shows OLS regression results predicting fear of property crime by race. For Whites, the ov erall model was significant (F = 10.35, p < .001, R = .16). Preparation for bias was the only significant predictor of fear property crime out of the types of racial socialization messages for Whites, while controlling for other variables (b = 0.29, p < .01). The more preparation for bias messages White students received, the more fear of property crime they had. Additionally, age was a significant predictor for

PAGE 77

77 Whites (b = 0.08, p < .01). White younger participants had more fear of crime than White o lder participants. For Blacks the overall model was not significant (Blacks: F = 0.64, p > .05, R = .03). However, for Hispanics and Others, the overall models were significant (Hispanics: F = 2.85, p < .05, R = .17; Others: F = 4.52, p < .01, R = .28 ). For Hispanics, the only significant predictor of fear of property crime was gender (b = 0.54, p < .01). Hispanic females were more afraid of property crime than Hispanic males. For Others, the only significant predictor of fear of property crime was promotion of mistrust (b = 0.73, p < .01). More specifically, Others that received promotion of mistrust messages from their parents were more fearful of property crime than Others that received less messages. In order to determine significant difference s in the impact of racial socialization on fear of property crime by racial group I ran a regression coefficient comparison test developed by Clogg, Petkova, and Haritou (1995). This test determines there were significant differences concerning the impact of each type of racial socialization message on fear of property crime by ra cial group ( Table 4 15 for report of z values associated with each racial socialization v ariable and racial group The only differences exist ed between Whites Others Whites Blac ks, Blacks Others, and Hispanics Whites. Whites ha d significantly more preparation for bias messages that impact their fear of property crime than Hispanics (z = 2.16, p < .05) and Blacks (z =2.16, p < .05) Additio nally, Whites Blacks, and Hispanics ha d significantly less promotion of mistrust messages that impact their fear of property crime than Others (Whites: z = 2.53, p < .05; Blacks: z = 3.00, p < .05; Others: z = 2.24, p < .05).

PAGE 78

78 Predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence by racial g roup Table 4 16 shows the bivariate correlation matrix of fear of crimes possibly leading to violence and racial socialization by race. Younger whites were significantly more afraid of crimes possibly leading to violence than older whites. White, Blac k, and Hispanic females were more afraid of crimes possibly leading to violence than White, Black, and Hispanic males. Whites given more cultural socialization, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust messages were significantly more afraid of cri mes possibly leading to violence than Whites with less racial socialization messages. Variables that were significantly associated at the bivariate level with fear of crimes possibly leading to violence for at least one of the racial groups are entered in to OLS regression models to control for each other. More specifically, OLS regression models were run for each race using age, gender, cultural socialization, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust. Table 4 17 shows OLS regression results predic ting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence by race. For Whites, the overall model was significant (F = 22.05, p < .001, R = .29). None of the racial socialization variables were significant predictors of fear of crimes possibly leading to violenc e for Whites. Additionally, younger whites (b = 0.09, p < .001) and white females (b = 0.73, p < .001) were more afraid of crime than older whites and white males. For Blacks and Hispanics, the overall models were significant (Blacks: F = 8.44, p < .00 1, R = .23; Hispanics: F = 4.64, p < .01, R = .28). None of the racial socialization variables were significant predictors of fear of crimes possibly leading to violence for Blacks. However, preparat ion for bias was significant for Hispanics (b =

PAGE 79

79 0.38, p < .05), meaning Hispanics who were given more preparation for bias messages were more fearful of crimes possibly leading to vi olence. Additionally, gender was a significant predictor for both Blacks and Hispanics (Blacks: b = 0.96, p < .001; Hispanics : b = 0.88, p < .01). Black and Hispanic females were significant ly more afraid of crimes possibly leading to violence than Black and Hispanic males. For Others, the overall model was not significant (F = 1.32, p > .05, R = .12). The regression coeffi cient comparison test developed by Clogg, Petkova, and Haritou (1995) determines there were not significant differences concerning the impact of each type of racial socialization message on fear of crimes possibly leading t o violence by racial group ( Table 4 18 report s the z values associated with each racial socialization v ariable and racial group ). Predicting fear of burglary by racial g roup. Table 4 19 shows the bivariate correlation matrix of fear of burglary and racial socialization by race. White an d Black females were significantly more afraid of burglary than White and Black males. As for racial socializatio n variables, White students who were given more preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust messages are more afraid of burgla ry. Also, Bl ack students that were given more preparation for bias messages have more fear of bu rglary than those Blacks who were Independent variables that were significantly associated at the bivariate level with fear of burglary for at l east one of the racial groups are entered into OLS regression models. More specifically, OLS regression models were run for each race using gender, preparation for bias, and promotion of mistrust. Table 4 20 shows OLS regression results predicting fear o f burglary by race.

PAGE 80

80 For Whites, the overall model was significant (F = 12.15, p < .001, R = .13). Promotion of mistrust was the only significant predictor of fear burglary out of the types of racial socialization messages for Whites, while controlling for other variables (b = 0.29, p < .05). The more promotion of mistrust m essages a White student received the more fear of property crime they have compared to those that received less promotion of mistrust messages. Additionally, white females had more fear of crime than white males (b = 0.58, p < .001). For Blacks, the overall model was significant (F = 5.54, p < .01, R = .13). However, none of the ra cial socialization variables were significant predictors of fear of burgla ry. Black females were si gnificantly more fearful of burglary than Black males (b = 0.78, p < .001). For Hispanics, the overall model was significant (F = 8.28, p < .001, R = .27). Both preparation for bias (b = 0.58, p < .001) and promotion of mistrust ( bb = 0.41, p < .01) me ssages were significant predictors of fear of burglary for Hispanics. The more preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust messages Hispanics receive d the more fear of burglary they had compared to those Hispanics that receive d fewer messages. The ove rall model for Others was not significant (F = 1.27, p > .05, R = .07). The regression coefficient comparison test developed by Clogg, Petkova, and Har itou (1995) determined there were significant differences concerning the impact of each type of racial s ocialization message on fear o f burglary by racial group ( Table 4 21 reports the z values associated with each racial socialization variable and racial gr oup). The only significant differences that impacted fear of burglary in race exist for preparation f or bias. B oth Whites (z = 2.42, p < .05), Blacks (z = 2.88, p < .05) and

PAGE 81

81 Others (z = 2.91, p < .05) had significantly less preparation for bias messages that impact ed their fear of burglary than Hispanics. Research Question 2 : Social Disorganization a nd Racial Socialization The second research question of this report examines the relationship between neighborhood characteristics and racial socialization for the entire sample and by race. Bivariate Correlations Table 4 22 shows a bivariate correlation matrix with racial socialization scales, social disorganization variables, and control variables. Females had significantly more cultural socialization and preparation for bias than males. Whites had significantly less preparation for bias and promotion o f mistru st than non Whites. Blacks had significantly more cultural socialization and preparation for bias than non Blacks. Hispanics had significantly more preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust than non Hispanics. Par ticipants with lower income had significantly more preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust than those with higher income. As for social d isorganization scales, there were no significant relationships between social disorganization variables and cultural socialization message s. However, there were significant positive relationships between several social disorganization variables (social disorder, physical disorder, and diversity) and preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust. As d diversi ty in the neighborhood increased messages of preparation for bias and promotion of mistrust also increase d Additionally, participants who lived in neighborhoods that consist ed of a majority of people a different race than them were given more p reparation for bias messages. Alternatively, participants who lived in neighborhoods with a majority the same race as themselves had less preparation for bias messages.

PAGE 82

82 OLS Regression Models for the Entire Sample Table 4 23 shows the ordinary least square s (OLS) regression results for the entire sample to determine whether social disorganization variables predict ed racial socialization while controlling for personal characteristics The overall model predicting cultural socializati on was significant (F = 4.83 p < .01, R = .0 2 ). However, none of the social disorganization variables were significant at the bivariate level, so were not included in the model. Females report ed significantly more cultural socialization messages than males (b = 0.20, p < .05 ), controlling for race. The overall model predicting preparation for bias was significant (F = 16.80, p < .001, R = .33). However, none of the social disorganization variables were significant predictors of preparation for bias messages after controllin g for pe rsonal characteristics. Race was still a significant predictor after controlling for social disorganization. Blacks report ed significantly more preparation for bias messages than Others (b = 0.46, p < .01). Whites report ed significantly less pre paration for bias messages than Others (b = .52, p < .001). The overall model predicting promotion of mistrust was significant (F = 5.97, p < .001, R = .09). None of the social disorganization variables were significant predictors of racial socializatio n, after controlling for personal characteristics. However, Hispanics report ed more promotion of mistrust messages than Blacks and Others (b = 0.20, p < .01) controlling for other variables. Also, individuals coming from families with lower incomes repor t ed significantly more promotion of mistrust messages than those coming from families with higher incomes (b = 0.05, p < .01).

PAGE 83

83 OLS Regression Models by Race and Clogg Coefficient Comparison Test s Predicting cultural s ocialization by racial g roup Althoug h none of the social disorganization variables were significantly associated with cultural socialization at the bivariate level for the entire sample, there were social disorganization variables significantly associated with cultural socialization at the b ivariate level for certain racial groups (Table 4 24 shows bivariate correlation matrix by racial group). Hispanics who grew up in neighborhoods with a majority the same race as them were given more cultural socialization messages than Hispanics that did not grow up in those neighborhoods. Alternatively, Hispanics who grew up in racially diverse neighborhoods (50/50) were given less cultural socialization messages than Hispanics that did not grow up in those neighborhoods. Others who grew up in neighborh oods with social cohesion and low informal social control were given more cultural socialization messages than those who do not grow up in neighborhoods with informal social control and social cohesion. Social disorganization variables that were significan tly associated with at least one of the racial groups were entered into OLS regression models to pred ict cultural socialization ( Table 4 25). More specifically, OLS regression models were run for each race using residential mobility and racial heterogenei ty variables. However, only Hispanics had a significant overall model predicting cultural socialization (F = 4.48, p < .01, R = .21), even though none of the individual social disorganization variables were significant (residential mobility: b = 0.06, p > .05; majority the same race: b = 0.46, p > .05; 50/50: b = 0.34, p > .05). Therefore, social disorganization variables were not significant predictors of cultural socialization for the entire sample and by racial group.

PAGE 84

84 I did not determine whether there were significant differences concerning the impact of social disorganization on cultural socialization message s because only one racial groups overall models was significant. The beta coefficients and standard errors for Whites, Blacks, and Others are to o unstable to conduct a regression coefficient comparison test (Clogg, Petkova, & Haritou, 1995). Predicting preparation for b ias by racial g roup Several social disorganization variables were significantly associated with preparation for bias at the biva riate level for the entire sample; there are also differences by racial g roup ( Table 4 26 for bivariate correlation matrix by racial group). For Whites, those that grew up in neighborhoods with a majority a different race and perceived diversity were give n more preparation for bias messages. For Blacks, those that grew up in neighborhoods with low informal social control were given more preparation for bias messages. For Hispanics, those that grew up in neighborhoods with a majority the same race were gi ven more preparation for bias messages. Alternatively, Hispanics that grew up in diverse neighborhoods (50/50) were given less preparation for bias messages. For Others, those that perceived social disorder and low informal social control in their hometo wns were given more preparation for bias messages. Social disorganization variables that were significantly associated with at least one of the racial groups were entered into OLS regression models to predict preparation for bias. More specifically, OLS r egression models were run for each race using social disorder, diversity, racial heterogeneity, and low informal social control. Table 4 27 shows OLS regression results predicting preparation for bias by race.

PAGE 85

85 For Whites, the overall model was significa nt (F = 3.14, p < .01, R = .07 ). Concern about diversity was a significant positive predictor of preparation for bias messages for Whites (b = 0.27, p < .01). Additionally for Whites, growing up in neighborhoods with a majority the same race and 50/50 w ere significant negative predictors of preparation for bias messages (b = 0.64, p < .05). Therefore, whites growi ng up in these neighborhoods were given less preparation for bias messages than those growing up in neighborhoods with a majority a different than them. For Blacks, the overall model was not significant (F = 1.69, p > .05, R = .10 ). However, both overall models for Hispanics and Others were significant (Hispanics: F = 3.45, p < .01, R = .36; Others: F = 6.14, p < .001, R = .42) For Hispani cs, the only significant pred ictor of preparation for bias was majority the same race (b = 0.53, p < .05), meaning Hispanics who grew up in neighborhoods with a majority the same race were given more preparation for bias messages than Hispanics who grew up in neighborhoods with a majority a different race than them. For Others, those that perceived more social disorder were given more preparation for bias messages (b = 0.46, p < .01). Others living in neighborhoods with a majority the same race as them we re given significantly less preparation for bias messages than Others living in neighborhoods with a majority a different race than them (b = 0.62, p < .05). Additionally, Others growing up in neighborhoods with low informal social control were given sig nificantly more preparation for bias messages than Others in hometowns with high informal social control (b = 0.36, p < .001). The regression coefficient comparison test developed by Clogg, Petkov a, and Haritou (1995) determined there were significant diff erences concerning the impact of

PAGE 86

86 each social disorganization variables on preparatio n for bias by racial group ( Table 4 28 report s the z values associated with each racial socialization v ariable and racial group). Whites perceive d significantly less soci al disorder in their hometowns that impacts their preparation for bias compared to Blacks (z = 2.29, p < .05) and Others (z = 3.84, p < .05) The impact of diversity on preparation for bias was more for Whites than Blacks (z = 2.38, p < .05). The impa ct of growing up in a neighborhood with a majority the same race on preparation for bias was less for Whites (z = 3.25, p < .05) Blacks (z = 2.18, p < .05), and Others (z = 3.32, p < .05) than Hispanics. The impact of low informal social control on pr eparation for bias was significantly less for Whites than Others (z = 3.25, p < .05). Additionally, the impact of low informal social control on preparation for bias was significantly more for Others than Hispanics (z = 3.15, p < .05). Predicting p romot i on of m istrust by racial g roup Several social disorganization variables were significantly associated with promotion of mistrust at the bivariate level for the entire sample; there are also d ifferences by racial group ( Table 4 29 for bivariate correlatio n matrix by racial group). Less family income was significantly associated with greater messages promoting mistrust for Blacks and Hispanics than those with higher family incomes. Blacks with higher perceptions of residential mobility, social disorder, a nd physical disorder were significantly associated with more promotion of mistrust messages than those with lower perceptions of disorder and residential mobility. Whites with higher perceptions of physical disorder and diversity in their hometown were al so related to more promotion of mistrust messages. Others with high perceptions of social disorder were also significantly associated with more promotion of mistrust messages than those with lower perceptions of social disorder.

PAGE 87

8 7 Personal characteristics a nd social disorganization variables that were significantly associated with at least one of the racial groups were entered into OLS regression models to predict promotion of mistrust. More specifically, OLS regression models were run for each race using i ncome, social disorder, physical disorder, diversity, and racial heterogeneity. Table 4 30 shows OLS regression results predicting promotion of mistrust by race. For whites, the overall model was significant (F = 2.46 p < .05 R = .07 ). Diversity was the only significant predictor of promotion of mistrust for Whites, while controlling for other variables (b = 0.15, p < .05). Whites who perceive d more diversity in their hometowns were given more promotion of mistru st messages than Whites who perceive less diversity in their hometowns. For Blacks, the overall model was significant ( F = 2.79 p < .05 R = .16 ). However, there were no significant predictors in the model for Blacks. The overall models for Hispanics ( F = 1.69, p < .05 R = .16) and Oth ers (F = 1.13, p > .05 R = .13) were not significant. The regression coefficient comparison test developed by Clogg, Petkov a, and Haritou (1995) determined there were no significant differences concerning the impact of each social disorganization variabl es on promotion of mistrust by racial group ( Table 4 31 report s the z values associated with each racial socialization variable and racial group). Research Question 3: Social Disorganization and Fear of Crime The third research question of this report ex amines the relationship between neighborhood characteristics and fear of crime for the entire sample and by racial group.

PAGE 88

88 Bivariate Correlations Table 4 32 shows a bivariate correlation matrix with fear of crime scales, social disorganization variables an d personal characteristics. Control variables/personal characteristics significantly associated with fear of crime scales are discussed in research question 1 results. Social disorder, physical disorder, and diversity were significantly positively associ ated with fear of violent crime. OLS regression models will not be run to predict fear of property crime, burglary, or crimes possibly leading to violence because none of the social disorganization variables were significantly associated at the bivariate level. Since neither of the collective efficacy variables (Informal social control and social cohesion) were significantly associated with fear of crime scales at the bivariate level, the study will not assess its mediation effect proposed by Sampson et a l. (1997). OLS Regression Models Predicting fear of violent c rime. Table 4 33 shows the OLS regression models predicting fear of violent crime. Model 1 shows the effect of personal characteristics on fear of violent crime, with the overall model signific ant (F = 21.55, p < .001, R = .21). Personal characteristics that were significant follow the trends found throughout the literature. Younger participants were significantly more afraid of violent crime than older participants (b = 0.06, p < .05), even though there is not much age var iation in these data. Females were significantly more fearful of violent crime than males (b = 0.81, p < .001). Hispanics and people in the other category were significantly more afraid than Whites (b = 0.38, p < .01). The model with only the personal characteristics explained 21% of the variance in predicting fear of violent crime

PAGE 89

89 Findings from Model 2 predicted fear of violent crime using personal characteristics and social disorganization as independent variables, w ith the overall model significant (F = 14.52, p < .001, R = .21). Even after adding social disorganization variables, both females were more fearful of crime than males. Additionally, Whites were less fearful of violent crime th an Hispanics and Others. Age was no longer significant after controlling for social disorganization variables. More importantly, none of the social disorganization variables were significant after controlling for personal characteristics. Furthermore, adding the soci al disorgan ization variables did not significantly explain more variance from the previous model with personal characteristics (F = 0.54, p > .05). OLS Regression Models by Race and Clogg Coefficient Comparison Test s Predicting fear of violent crime by r ace. Table 4 34 shows a bivariate correlation matrix with fear of violent crime by racial group. None of the social disorganization variables were significantly associated with fear of violent crime for Whites, Blacks, or Hispanics. However, social disorder, diversi ty, and residential mobility were positively associated with fear of violent crime for Others, meaning individuals in the Other category who perceived more social disorder, diversity, and residential mobility in their hometowns were more afraid of violent crime. Personal characteristics and social disorganization variables that were significantly associated with at least one of the racial groups were entered into OLS regression models to predict fear of violent crime. More specifically, OLS regression mode ls were run for each race using age, gender, social disorder, diversity, and residential mobility. Table 4 35 shows OLS regression results predicting fear of violent crime race.

PAGE 90

90 For Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics, the overall models were significant (White s: F = 13.56, p < .001, R = .19; Blacks: F = 5.25, p < .001, R = .22; Hispanics: F = 2.57, p < .05, R = .19). None of the social disorganization variables were significant predictors of fear of violent crime, as expected from their bivariate relationsh ips. For Others, the overall model was significant (F = 3.61, p < .01, R = .29). Other females were significantly more fearful of violent crime than males in the Other category (b = 0.68, p < .05 ). Only social disorder remained significant of the soci al disorganization variables after controlling for other variables (b = 0.22, p < .05). An individual in the Other category who perceived greater social disorder in their hometown was more fearful of violent crime than Others who perceive d less social dis order. The regression coefficient comparison test developed by Clogg, Petkov a, and Haritou (1995) determined there was a significant difference concerning the impact of each social disorganization variables on fear of vio lent crime by racial group ( Table 4 36 for report of z values associated with each social disorganization variable and racial group). Blacks perceive d significantly less residential mobility in their hometowns which impacted their fear of violent crime compared to Others (z = 2.06, p < .0 5). Predicting fear of property c rime crimes possibly l eading to violence, and burglary by r ace. Tables 4 37, 4 38, and 4 39 show the bivariate correlation matric es with social disorganization variables and fear of property crimes, crimes possibly leadin g to violence, and burglary. Similar to the relationship between social disorganization and the same fear scales for the entire model, there were no social disorganization variables significantly associated to fear at the bivariate level broken up

PAGE 91

91 b y raci al group. Therefore, I did not run OLS regression models or determine significant differences between racial groups. Research Question 4: Social Learning and Fear of Crime The fourth research question of this report examines the relationship between socia l learning variables and fear of crime. Bivariate Correlations Table 4 40 shows a bivariate correlation matrix with fear of crime scales, social learning variables, and personal characteristics. Control variables/personal characteristics significantly ass ociated with fear of crime types are discussed in research question 1 results. As for differential association variables, both primary and secondary groups fear of crime were significant predictors of all fear of crime types. There was a positive relation ship, the more fear of crime primary and secondary groups ha d the more fear of all crime types participants ha d Media exposure was only significant for fear of burgl ary, as media exposure increased partici pants fear of burglary increased How often par ents talked about crime was also a significant positive predictor of all fear of crime types. The more parents talked to respondents about crime the more fear of all crime types the respondents ha d Therefore, several of the differential association vari ables were significant predictors of fear of crime at the bivariate level. As for differential reinforcement variables primary groups reinforcement was a significant predictor of fear of violent, property, and crimes possibly leading to violence. Seconda ry group reinforcement was only a significant predictor of fear of crimes possibly leading to violence. The more secondary groups reinforce d fear of cri me, the crimes possibly leading to violence. Overall, primary group

PAGE 92

92 reinforc ement was a better predictor of fear of crime types than secondary groups reinforcement at th e bivariate level because it had a significant association with all four fear of crime types. Imitation was only a significant predictor of fear of property crime s; the more an individual imitated a precautionary behavior of someone they admire the higher their fear of property crime. OLS Regression Models Predicting fear of violent c rime. Table 4 41 shows the OLS regression models predicting fear of violent crime Model 1 shows the effect of only personal characteristics on fear of violent crime, and the overall model was significant (F = 21.55, p < .001, R = .21 ). Personal characteristics that were significant follow the trends found throughout the literature. Younger participants were significantly more afraid of violent crime than older participants ( b = 0.06, p < .05). Females were significantly more fearful of violent crime than males (b = 0.81, p < .001). People in the Other and Hispanic categories we re significantly more afraid than Whites (b = 0.38, p < .01). When compared to the subsequent model (described next), the model with only the personal characteristics explains the least amount of variance (21% of the variance). Model 2 shows the effect o f personal characteristics and social learning variables, and the overall model was significant (F = 23.93, p < .001, R = .35 ). After adding social learning variables, the only pers onal characteristic that remained significant was gender. Females remain ed significantly more fearful of violent crime than males (b = 0.59, p < .001). Both primary and secondary group differential association were significant positive predictors of fear of violent crime (primary: b = 0.13, p < .001; secondary: b = 0.08, p < .05), meaning primary and secondary groups with fear of crime increased participants fear of crime. Additionally, primary group

PAGE 93

93 differential reinforcement was a significant positive predictor of fear of violent crime (b = 0.25, p < .01), meaning primary group reinforcement of f ear of crime attitudes increased ial learning variables increased the explained variance by to 35% (from 21%). The increase was a significant R change (F = 12.52, p < .0 01). Predicting f ear of property crime. Table 4 42 shows the OLS regression models predicting fear of property crime. Model 1 shows the effect of personal characteristics on fear of property crime, and the overall model was significant (F = 9.46, p < .0 01, R = .04 ) Females were significantly more fearful of property crime than males (b = 0.26, p < .01) controlling for age. Age was no longer significant controlling for gender. When compared to the subsequent models (described next), the model with o nly the personal characteristics explained the least amount of variance (4%). Model 2 shows the effect of personal characteristics and social learning variables on fear of property crimes, and the overall model was significant (F = 7.92, p < .001, R = .13 ). After adding the social learning variables, the only variable t hat remained significant was secondary differential association (b = 0.09, p < .001). Secondar y groups fear of crime increased so c ial learning variables increased the explained variance by to 35% (from 21%). The increase was a significant R change (F = 12.52, p < .001). Predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence Table 4 43 shows the OLS regression models predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence. Model 1 shows the effect of personal characteristics, and the overall model was significant (F = 57.74, p < .001, R = .20) Females were significantly more fearful of crimes possibly

PAGE 94

94 leading to violence than males (b = 0.78, p < .001). When compared to the subsequent model (described next), the model with only the p ersonal characteristics explained the least amount of variance (20% of the variance). Model 2 shows the effect of personal characteristics, diffe rential association, and differential reinforcement on fear of crimes possibly leading to violence, and the overall model was significant (F = 23.84, p < .001, R = .30 ). After adding differential reinfor cement variables, gender remained significant (b = 0.54, p < .001). Both primary and secondary group differential association remain ed significant predictors of fear of crimes possibly leading to violence (primary: b = 0.11, p < .001; secondary: b = 0.06, p < .05), meaning primary and seconda ry group fea r of crime increased of crimes possibly leading to violence. Additionally, primary group differential reinforcement was a significant predictor of fear of crimes possibly leading to violence (b = 0.20, p < .05), meaning primary group re ear of crime attitudes increased fear of crimes possibly leading to violence. Although adding differential r einforcement variables increased the explained variance by 1%, the R change was significant (F = 11.08, p < .05). Fe ar of burglary Table 4 44 shows the OLS regression models predicting fear of burglary. Model 1 shows the effect of the only personal characteristic significant at the bivariate level, gender (F = 39.11, p < .001, R = .09) Females were significantly mo re fearful of burglary than males (b = 0.57, p < .001). When compared to the subsequent model (described next), the model with only the personal c haracteristics (gender) explained the least amount of variance (9% of the variance).

PAGE 95

95 Findings from Model 2 p redict fear of burglary using personal characteristic and differential association as independent variables, and the overall model was significant (F = 13.39, p < .001, R = .17 ). After adding differential assoc iation variables, gender remained significan t (b = 0.44, p < .001). Females were more afraid of burglary than males. As for differential association variables, secondary group differential association was a significant predictor of fear of burglary (b = 0.07, p < .05) controlling for gender, mean ing secondary group fear of crime increase d exposure was also significant (b = .09, p < .05) controlling for gender, meaning the more often participants learn about crime from media sources the more fear of burglary t hey ha d Furthermore, adding differential association v ariables significantly increased the explained variance to 17% (F = 8.10, p <.001). Since none of the differential reinforcement or imitation variables were significant at the bivariate level, they w ere not added to the models. OLS Regression Models by Race and Clogg Coefficient Comparison Test s Predicting fear of v iolent c rime Table 4 45 shows the bivariate correlation matrix for social learning variables and fear of violent crime by racial group. Primary group fear of crime, secondary group fear of crime, and primary group differential reinforcement were significantly positively associated with fear of violent crime for Whites. Primary group fear of crime, secondary group fear of crime, and parent s and were significantly positively associated with fear of violent crime for Blacks. Primary and secondary group fear of crime was significantly positively associated with fear of violent crime for Hispanics. Pr imary group fear of crime and parents frequency talking about crime was significantly positively

PAGE 96

96 associated with fear of violent crime. Across all races, social learning variables that were violent crime. Personal characteristics and social learning variables that were significantly associated with at least one of the racial groups were entered into OLS regression models to predict fear of violent crime. More specifically, OLS regression mo dels were run for each race using age, gender, primary group differential association, secondary group differential association, parents talk about crime, friends talk about crime, and primary group differential reinforcement. Table 4 46 shows OLS regress ion results predicting fear of violent crime for each race. For Whites, the overall model was significant (F = 14.09, p < .001, R = .29 ). White females (b = 0.53, p< .01) and younger Whites (b = 0.08, p < .01) were more fearful of violent crime than White males and older Whites. As for social learning variables, primary group differential associatio n was a significant predictor of fear of violent crime d with primary groups with hig h fear of crime levels increased their own fear of violent crime. Additionally for Whites, primary group differential reinforcement was a significant predictor of fear of violent crime (b = 0.42, p < .01), meaning primary groups that reinforce d White participant s f ear of crime attitudes increased fear of violent crime. For Blacks, the overall model was significant (F = 10.31, p < .001, R = .46 ). Black females ha d significantly more fear of crime than Black males (b = 0.83, p < .001). As for social learning va riables, parents talking abo ut crime significantly increased fear of violent crime for Blacks (b = 0.25, p < .05).

PAGE 97

97 For Hispanics, the overall model was significant (F = 4.61, p < .01, R = .37 ). However, none of the individual independent variables were s ignificant predictors of fear of violent crime. For Others, the overall model was significant (F = 2.92, p < .05, R = .35 ). Other females ha d significantly more fear of crime than Other males (b = 0.75, p < .05). A regression coefficient comparison deve loped by Clogg, Petkov a, and Haritou (1995) determined there were significant differences concerning the impact of social learning variables on fear of violent crime by racial group ( Table 4 47 for report of z values associated with each social learning va riable and racial group). The impact of was more for them about crime on fear of violent crime was less for Whites than Blacks (z = 2.12, p < .05). Alternatively, the impact of primary groups reinforcing fear of crime attitudes on fear of violent crime was more for Whites than Blacks (z = 2.04, p < .05). Predicting fear of property crime b y racial g roup. Table 4 48 shows the bivariate correlation matrix for social learning variables and fear of property crime by racial group. Primary and secondary group fear of crime, parents and friends talking about crime, and primary grou p differential reinforcement had a significant positive association to fear of property crime for Whites. Primary and secondary gro up fear of crime had a significant positive association to fear of property crime for Blacks and Hispanics. Personal characteristics and s ocial learning variables that were significantly associated with at least one of the racial groups were entered into OLS regression

PAGE 98

98 models to predict fear of property crime. More specifically, OLS regression models were run for each race using age, gender primary group differential association, secondary group differential association, parents talk about crime, friends talk about crime, and primary group differential reinforcement. Table 4 49 shows OLS regression results predicting fear of property crime for each race. F or Whites, the overall model was significant (F = 11.42, p < .001, R = .25 ). Younger Whites were more fearful of property crime than older Whites (b = 0.06, p < .01). As for social learning variables, secondary group fear of crime (b = 0.08, p < .05) and friends talking about crime (b = 0.22, p < .01) significantly increase d fear of property crime. For Hispanics, the overall model was significant ( F = 3.07, p < .05, R = .24 ). However, none of the independent variables we re significant predictors of fear of property crime. For Blacks and Others, the overall models were not significant (Blacks: F = 1.96, p > .05, R = .14; Others: F = 1.00, p > .05, R = .11 ). Due to unstable estimates, Blacks and Others were not be used for the regression comparison test. A regression coefficient comparison developed by Clogg, Petkova, and Haritou (1995) deter mined there were significant differences concerning the impact of social learning variables on fear of property crime by racial gro up ( Table 4 50 reports the z values associated with each social learning variable and racial group). The impact of friends talking to participants about crime on fear of property crime was greater for Whites than Hispanics (z = 2.57, p < .05). The impact of primary group differential reinforcement is greater for Whites than Blacks (z = 2.15, p < .05).

PAGE 99

99 Predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence by racial g roup. Table 4 51 shows the bivariate correlation matrix for social learning variables and fear of crimes possible leading to violence by racial group. Primary and secondary group fear of crime, parents talking about crime, and primary and secondary grou p differential reinforcement had a significant positive association to fear of crimes possib ly leading to violence for Whites. Primary and secondary group fear of crime, parents talking about crime, and primary group differential reinforcement ha d a significant positive association to fear of crimes possibly leading to violence for Blacks. Prim ary and secondary gr oup differential association had a significant positive association to fear of crimes possibly leading to violence for Hispanics. The only social learning variables associated to participants in the category of Other was primary group fear of crime. Personal characteristics and social learning variables that were significantly associated with at least one of the racial groups were entered into OLS regression models to predict fear of crimes possibly leading to violence. More specifica lly, OLS regression models were run for each race using age, gender, primary group differential association, secondary group differential association, parents talk about crime, and primary and secondary group differential reinforcement. Table 4 52 shows O LS regression results predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence for each race. For Whites, the overall model was significant (F = 18.00, p < .001, R = .40 ). Female and younger Whites were significantly more fearful of crimes possibly leadi ng to violence than male and older Whites (Age: b = 0.05, p < .05; Gender: b = 0.62, p < .001). Two social learning variables significantly predicted fear of crimes possibly leading to violence for Whites primary and secondary group differential associ ation.

PAGE 100

100 Primary and secondary group fear of crime significantly increased fear of crimes possibly leading to violence (Primary: b = 0.08, p < .05; Secondary: b = 0.12, p < .01). For Blacks, the overall model was significant ( F = 10.21, p < .001, R = .39 ). Black females were significantly more fearful of crimes possibly leading to violence than Black males (b = 0.63, p < .01). Only one social learning variable significantly predicted fear of crimes possibly leading to violence for Bla cks Parents talking about crime (b = 0.29, p < .01). The more their parents talked to participants about crime the greater fear of crimes possibly leading to violence for Blacks. For Hispanics, the overall model was significant ( F = 8.15, p < .001, R = .49 ). The only significant predictor of fear of crimes possibly leading to violence for Hispanics was secondary group differential association (b =0.22, p < .05). Secondary group fear of crime significantly increased possibly leading to violence. For Others, the overall model was significant ( F = 2.69, p < .05, R = .27 ). Younger Others were significantly more fearful of crime possibly leading to violence than older Others (b = 0.11, p < .05). Only one social learni ng variable significantly predicted fear of crimes possibly leading to violence for Others secondary group differential association (b = 0.13, p < .05). Secondary group fear of crime significantly decreased rime possibly leading to violence. However, the relationship between secondary group differential association and fear of crimes possibly leading to violence was negative, which is opposite to the social learning models.

PAGE 101

101 A regression coefficient compariso n developed by Clogg, Petkov a, and Haritou (1995) determined there were significant differences concerning the impact of social learning variables on fear of crimes possibly leading to violence by racial group (Table 4 53 report s the z values associated w ith each social learning variable and racial group). The impact of secondary group differential association on fear of crimes possibly leading to violence was greater for Whites (z = 3.47, p < .05) and Hispanics (z = 3.50, p < .05) than Others. Additiona lly, the impact of secondary group differential association was less for Blacks than Hispanics (z = 2.00, p < .05). The impact of parents talking about crime of fear was less for Whites than Blacks (z = 2.45, p < .05). Predicting fear of burglary by raci al g roup. Table 4 54 shows the bivariate correlation matrix for social learning variables and fear of burglary by racial group. For Whites, primary and secondary group differential association, parents and friends talking about crime, and primary group d ifferential reinf orcement significantly increased fear of burglary. For Blacks, primary and secondary group differential association, and parents talking abo ut crime significantly increased fear of burglary. For Hispanics, primary and secondary group dif ferential association and i mitation significantly increased fear of burglary. For students in the category Other, only friends talking about crime was significantly associated to fear of burglary. Personal characteristics and social learning variables tha t were significantly associated with at least one of the racial groups were entered into OLS regression models to predict fear of burglary. More specifically, OLS regression models were run for each race using gender, primary group differential associatio n, secondary group differential association, parents talk about crime, friends talk about crime, primary group

PAGE 102

102 differential reinforcement, and imitation. Table 4 55 shows OLS regression results predicting fear of burglary for each race. For Whites, the ov erall model was significant (F = 7.66, p < .001, R = .22 ). White females were significantly more fearful of burglary than White males (b = 0.56, p < .001). Only one social learning variable significantly predicted fear of burglary primary group differ ential reinforcement (b = 0.25, p < .05). The more primary groups reinforce d fear of crime attitudes the more fear of burglary Whites ha d For Blacks, the overall model was significant (F = 3.82, p < .01, R = .24 ). Black females were significantly more f earful of burglary than Black males (b = 0.62, p < .05). However, none of the social learning variables were significant after controlling for other variables. For Hispanics, the overall model was significant ( F = 5.83, p < .001, R = .43 ). Secondary g roup differential association was significantly related to fear of burglary (b = 0.22, p < .05), meaning seconda ry group fear of crime increased burglary. Additionally, imitation was significantly related to fear of burglary (b = 0.58, p < .05). Individuals who imitate precautionary behavior from someone they admire ha d less fear of burglary. For Others, the overall model was significant ( F = 3.25, p < .05, R = .27 ). Other females were significantly more fearfully of burglary than Oth er males (b = 0.67, p < .05). However, none of the social learning variables were significant after controlling for other variables. A regression coefficient comparison developed by Clogg, Petkov a, and Haritou (1995) determined there were significant dif ferences concerning the impact of social

PAGE 103

103 learning variables on fear of burglary by racial group (Table 4 56 report s the z values associated with each social learning variable and r acial group). Imitation impacted fear of burglary more for Hispanics than f or all other racial groups. (Whites: z = 2.37, p <.05; Blacks: z = 2.02, p < .05; Others: z = 2.37, p < .05). Research Question 5: Racial Socialization vs. Social Learning Theory Predicting fear of violent c rime. Table 4 57 shows the step wise regression models predicting fear of violent crime. Model 1 shows the effect of racial socialization variables, with the overall model significant (F = 16.69, p < .001, R = .24). As described in the results for research question one, the only significant racial soc ialization variable was promotion of mistrust (b = 0.24, p < .05). Those students who heard more messages in their home suggesting that they should mistrust other races were more afraid of violent crime. Additionally, age (b = 0.05, p< .05), gender (b = 0.79, p < .001), White (b = 0.28, p < .05) were significant predictors of fear of violent crime. Younger people, females, and minorities were more afraid of violent crime. When compared to the subsequent model (described next), the model with only rac ial socialization variables explained 24% of the variance. Findings from Model 2 predicted fear of violent crime using personal characteristics, racial socialization variables, and social learning variables, and the overall model was significant (F = 21.0 3, p < .001, R = .36). After adding social learning variables, the only personal characteristic that was significant was gender. Females were still significantly more fear of violent crime than males (b = 0.59, p < .001). Promotion of mistrust was no longer significant after controlling for social learning variables. However, primary group differential association (b = 0.13, p < .01) and differential reinforcement were significant predictors of fear of violent crime after

PAGE 104

104 controlling for racial social ization variables, meaning students whose primary groups were fearful of crime and had primary groups reinforce their fear of crime attitudes were more afraid of violent crime. Furthermore, adding soc ial learning variables increased the explained variance to by 12% (to 36% from 24%), which was significant based on the R change (F = 11.03, p < .001). Predicting fear of property c rime. Table 4 58 shows the step wise regression models predicting fear of property crime. Model 1 shows the effect of racial so cialization variables, and the overall model was significant (F = 7.53, p < .001, R = .08). As described in the results for research question one and in other models presented before, the only significant racial socialization variable was promotion of mi strust (b = 0.19, p < .05). Additionally, gender was significant (b = 0.23, p < .01), women were again more afraid of property crime compared to men. When compared to the subsequent model (described next), the model with only racial socialization varia b les explained 8% of the variance. Findings from Model 2 predicted fear of property crime using personal characteristics, racial socialization variables, and social learning variables, and the overall model was significant (F = 6.58, p < .001, R = .15). A s shown in the models predicting fear of violent crime, after adding social learning variables, gender and promotion of mistrust were no longer significant. However, primary group different association was a significant predictor of fear of property crime (b = 0.09, p < .001). Furthermore, adding soc ial learning variables increased the explained variance to by 7% (to 15% from 8%), which was significant based on the R change (F = 6.05, p < .001).

PAGE 105

105 Predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to v iolence. Ta ble 4 59 shows the step wise regression models predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence. Model 1 shows the effect of racial socialization variables, with the overall model significant (F = 24.70, p < .001, R = .21). As described in the res ults for research question one, the only significant racial socialization variable was promotion of mistrust (b = 0.21, p < .05). Additionally, gender was significant (b = 0.75 p < .001). When compared to the subsequent model (described next), the model with only racial socialization variables explained 21% of the variance. Findings from Model 2 predicted fear of crimes possibly leading to violence using personal characteristics, racial socialization variables, and social learning variables, and the over all model was significant (F = 17.60, p < .001, R = .32). In contrast to fear of violent and property crime models, after adding social learning variables, promotion of mistrust was still significant (b = 0.19, p < .05). As for social learning variables primary group differential association (b = 0.10, p < .01), secondary group differential association (b = 0.06, p < .05), and primary group differential reinforcement (b= 0.21, p < .05) were significant predictors of fear of crimes possibly leading to vi olence. Although the effect of promotion of mistrust was not reduced, adding social learning v ariables significantly increased the explained variance by 11% (to 32% from 21%), as indicated by the R change (F = 10.10, p < .001). Predicting fear of b urglar y. Table 4 60 shows the step wise regression models predicting fear of burglary. Model 1 shows the effect of racial socialization variables, with the overall model significant (F = 13.96, p < .001, R = .11). As described in the results for research que stion one, the only significant racial socialization variable was

PAGE 106

106 promotion of mistrust (b = 0.25, p < .01). Additionally, gender was significant (b = 0.56, p < .001) females were more afraid of burglary than males. When compared to the subsequent model (described next), the model with only racial socialization variables explained 11% of the variance. Findings from Model 2 predicted fear of burglary using personal characteristics, racial socialization variables, and social learning variables, and the ove rall model was significant (F = 9.93, p < .001, R = .18). As in fear of violent and property crime models, after adding social learning variables, promotion of mistrust was no longer significant. Gender was still significant (b = 0.45, p < .001) and wo men were still more afraid than males. As for social learning variables, secondary group different association was a significant predictor of fear of burglary (b = 0.07, p < .05), meaning Furthermore, adding soc ial learning variables increased the explained variance to by 7% (to 11% from 18%), which was significant based on the R change (F = 6.92, p < .001). Research Question 6: Social Structure and Fear of Crime The sixth research quest ion examines the relationship between social structural components and fear of crime for the entire sample and by racial group. Bivariate Correlations Table 4 61 shows a bivariate correlation matrix with fear of crime scales, differential social organizati on, differential social location, differential location in the social structure, and social disorganization. As for differential social organization, there were significant relationships between fear of violent crimes and individuals from hometowns in med ium suburban and large metropolitan areas. Individuals from hometowns in large metropolitan areas were more likely to fear violent crime and

PAGE 107

107 individuals from hometowns in medium suburban areas were less likely to fear violent crimes. However, differentia l social organization variables were not significantly associated with the other fear of crime types. None of the differen tial social location variables were significantly associated with the fear of crime scales. Variables representing differential locat ion in the social structure were the same as control variables used throughout the study, with results discussed in research question 1. Additionally, social disorganization variables significantly associated with fear of crime types were discussed in res earch question 3 results. OLS Regression Models Predicting fear of violent crime. Table 4 62 shows the OLS regression model predicting fear of violent crime. The overall model was significant (F = 9.81 p < .0 0 1, R = .22 ). However, since none of the di fferential social location variables were significan t at the bivariate level, they were not included in the model. Controlling for other social structure variables, differential social organization variables were no longer significant predictors of fear o f violent crime. As for differential location in the social structure vari ables, younger participants had significantly more fear of violent crime than older participants (b = 0.06, p < .05) and females had significantly more fear of violent crime than m ales (b = 0.79, p < .001), controlling for other social structure variables. None of the social disorganization variables were significant after controlling for other social structure variables. Predicting fear of property crime. Table 4 62 also shows th e OLS regression model predicting fear of property crime. The overall model was significant (F = 9.46, p < .001, R = .04). However, since there were only two variables significant at the bivariate

PAGE 108

108 level, those were the only two entered into the model. Controlling for age, females were more fearful of property crime than males (b = 0.26, p < 0.01). Age was no longer significant after controlling for gender. Predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence. Table 4 62 also shows the OLS regressio n model predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence. The overall model was significant (F = 57.74, p < .001, R = .20). However, since there were only two variables significant at the bivariate level, those were the only two entered into the m odel. Controlling for age, females were more fearful of property crime than males (b = 0.78, p < 0.001). Age was no longer significant after controlling for gender. Predicting fear of burglary Table 4 62 also shows the OLS regression model predicting fear of burglary. The overall model was significant (F = 21.90, p < .001, R = .10 ). However, since there were only two variables significant at the bivariate level, those are the only two entered into the model. Controlling for gender, individuals from large metropolitan hometowns were more fearful of burglary (b = 0.23, p < .05). Additionally, controlling for large metropolitan hometowns, females were still more fearful of burglary than males (b = 0.56, p < .001). Research Question 7: Social Structure Social Learning and Fear of Crime The seventh research question examines the social structural social learning of social learning variables in the model substant ially reduce social structure variables influence. Predicting fear of violent crime. Table 4 63 shows the OLS regression model predicting fear of violent crime. The overall model was significant (F = 15.57, p < .001,

PAGE 109

109 R = .35). More specific to the hypo thesis, age and race (White) were no longer significant predictors of fear of violent crime after controlling for social learning variables. Gender was still significant (b = 0 .58, p < .001), but the effect was reduced after adding social learning variab les. Furthermore, adding social learning variables increased the explained variance to 35% (from 22%), the R change was significant (F = 12.28, p < .001). Predicting fear of property crime. Table 4 63 shows the OLS regression model predicting fear of pr operty crime. No additional variables were added from overall model was significant (F = 7.92, p < .001, R = .13). The only significant predictor of fear of property cr ime was secondary group differential association (b = 0.09, p < .001). Secondar y groups fear of crime increased crime. Furthermore, adding soc ial learning variables increased the explained variance by to 35% (from 21%). The increase was a significant R change (F = 12.52, p < .001). Predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence. Table 4 63 shows the OLS regression model predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence. No additional variables were added from significant at the bivariate level. The overall model was significant (F = 23.84, p < .001, R = .30). Females were more fearful of crime possibly leading to violence than males (b = 0.54, p < .001). Primary and secondary group fear of crime sig nificantly increased secondary: b = 0.06, p < .05). Primary group different ial reinforcement also increased student fear of crime poss ibly leading to violence (b = 0.20, p < .05). Although adding

PAGE 110

110 differential r einforcement variables increased the explained variance by 1%, the R change was significant (F = 11.08, p < .05). Predicting fear of burglary. Table 4 63 also shows the OLS regr ession model predicting fear of burglary. The overall model was significant (F = 12.87, p < .001, R = .18). More specific to the hypothesis, size of hometown (large metropolitan) was no longer significant after adding socia l learning variables. Gender was still significant (b = 0.41, p < .001 ), but the effect was reduced after adding social learning variables. Furthermore, adding soc ial learning variables increased the explained variance to 18% (from 10%), the R change was significant (F = 7.88, p < .001).

PAGE 111

111 Table 4 1 Sample d escription N = 394 Codes N % Demographics Age Mean age 20.06 Age range 18 33 Gender Female 0 262 66.5 Male 1 132 33.5 Race White/Caucasian 203 51.5 Black/African America n 87 22.1 Latino/Hispanic 56 14.2 Asian/Pacific Islander 23 5.8 Mixed Race/Biracial 19 4.8 Other 6 1.5 Income Mean income 5.03 Less than $15,000 1 6 1.7 Between $15,000 and $24,999 2 29 8.2 Between $25,000 and $34,999 3 38 10.7 Between $35,000 and $49,999 4 62 17.5 Between $50,000 and $74,999 5 62 17.5 Between $75,000 and $99,999 6 57 16.1 $100,000 or more 7 101 28.5 Major Non criminology m ajor 0 137 34.8 Criminology m ajor 1 257 65.2

PAGE 112

112 Table 4 2 Percentage for fear of crime scales and variables for entire sample Fear of crime scales N = 394 n Not Afraid Somewhat Afraid Afraid Very Afraid Mean Fear of violent crime Break in while home 394 19.8 22.1 23.1 36.0 2.73 Rape 394 25.6 10.9 11.4 52.0 2.90 Murder 394 23.9 11.9 9.1 55.1 2.95 Attacked with a weapon 394 15.7 20.8 23.1 40.4 2.88 Robbery 394 17.3 30.2 26.1 26.4 2.62 Shot at 394 32.7 10.9 10.9 45.4 2.69 Home invasion robbery 394 19.0 26.1 28.2 26.7 2. 62 Drive by or random shooting 394 34.0 12.2 14.0 39.9 2.60 Assault 394 24.6 21.6 20.1 33.8 2.63 Carjacking 394 36.6 24.9 20.6 18.0 2.20 Money or property taken away with force 394 18.0 28.4 24.6 28.9 2.64 Fear of property crimes Car stole n 394 27.9 37.1 23.6 11.4 2.19 Property damage 394 27.7 45.4 20.6 6.4 2.06 Property damage by graffiti or tagging 394 53.6 32.5 11.7 2.3 1.63 Fear of crimes possibly leading to violence Threatened 394 31.2 37.6 22.1 9.1 2.09 Harassment 394 3 2.5 36.6 19.8 11.2 2.10 Fear of burglary Break in while away from home 393 19.1 37.4 32.1 11.5 2.36 Likert Scale: Not Afraid = 1, Somewhat Afraid = 2, Afraid = 3, Very Afraid = 4

PAGE 113

113 Table 4 3 ANOVA results for fear of crime by race F ear of violent crime Fear of property crime Fear of crimes possibly leading to violence Fear of burglary Whites N 203 203 203 203 Blacks N 87 87 87 86 Hispanics N 56 56 56 56 Other N 48 48 48 48 Whites x bar (SD) 2.49 (0.99) 1.91 (0.69) 2.01 (0.85) 2.35 (0.91) Blacks x bar (SD) 2.90 (1.02) 1.95 (0.76) 2.07 (0.90) 2.30 (0.93) Hispanics x bar (SD) 2.83 (1.05) 2.04 (0.81) 2.29 (0.95) 2.43 (0.99) Other x bar (SD) 2.91 (0.95) 2.06 (0.64) 2.24 (0.78) 2.40 (0.84) F 5.14** 0.90 2.03 0.24 Df 393 393 393 392 Significant contrasts none none none none Tukey HSD Note. **p < .01

PAGE 114

114 Table 4 4 ANOVA results for racial socialization by race Race Indicators of racial socialization Cultural socialization Preparation for bias Promotion of mistrust Whites N 203 202 202 Blacks N 87 87 87 Hispanics N 56 56 56 Other N 48 48 48 Whites x bar (SD) 2.32 (0.72) 1.69 (0.59) 1.20 (0.41) Blacks x bar (SD) 2.54 (0.81) 2.7 3 (0.83) 1.24 (0.46) Hispanics x bar (SD) 2.35 (0.75) 2.35 (0.72) 1.39 (0.62) Other x bar (SD) 2.41 (0.70) 2.29 (0.85) 1.29 (0.46) F 1.81 50.60*** 2.84* Df 393 392 392 Significant contrasts B > W Tukey HSD B > H B > O H > W O > W Note. *p < .05, ***p < .001

PAGE 115

115 Table 4 5 ANOVA results for social disorganization variables by race Social disorder Physical disorder Diversity Social cohesion Low Informal social control Residential mobility Whites N 202 203 203 203 203 203 Blacks N 87 87 87 87 86 87 Hispanics N 56 56 56 56 56 56 Other N 48 48 48 48 48 48 Whites x bar (SD) 1.34 (0.49) 1.22 (0.45) 1.34 (0.54) 3.67 (0.76) 3.31 (1.00) 1.49 (0.66) Blacks x bar (SD) 1 .92 (0.99) 1.60 (0.87) 1.66 (0.76) 3.27 (0.80) 3.27 (1.10) 1.70 (0.93) Hispanics x bar (SD) 1.63 (0.74) 1.25 (0.56) 1.70 (0.90) 3.28 (0.89) 3.20 (1.15) 1.71 (0.85) Other x bar (SD) 1.83 (0.94) 1.59 (0.82) 1.68 (0.77) 3.53 (0.88) 3.09 (1.07) 1.60 (0.76) F 15.67*** 10.31*** 7.91*** 6.65*** 0.64 2.18 Df 392 393 393 393 392 390 Significant contrasts B > W B > W B > W W > B Tukey HSD O > W B > H B > H W > H H > W B > O O > H Note. ***p < .001

PAGE 116

116 Table 4 6 Descriptive statistics for social learning variables for entire sample N = 394 n Mean SD Differential association Primary groups fear of crime (scale 1 to 10) 394 5.25 1.78 Mother 389 6.35 2.36 Father 357 4.82 2.31 Grandfather 225 4.92 2.49 Sisters 244 5.45 2.49 Brothers 249 4.20 2.32 Best friends 392 4.99 2.22 Church members 221 5.55 2.31 Secondary groups fear of crime (scale 1 to 10) 319 4.80 1.91 Work associate s 222 4.90 2.02 Fraternity or sorority members 78 4.85 2.34 Club members 209 4.76 1.99 Media exposure 359 4.30 1.16 TV 390 4.41 1.45 Internet 361 3.86 1.53 Newspaper 394 4.56 1.45 Parents talk about crime 394 2.37 0.78 Friends talk abo ut crime 393 1.96 0.60 Differential reinforcement Primary groups differential reinforcement 394 0.45 0.46 Mother 388 0.44 0.81 Father 358 0.55 0.64 Grandfather 227 0.39 0.68 Sisters 247 0.49 0.63 Brothers 249 0.27 0.69 Best friends 393 0.56 0.62 Church members 220 0.31 0.69 Secondary groups differential reinforcement 319 0.35 0.54 Work associates 225 0.25 0.58 Fraternity or sorority members 77 0.65 0.56 Club members 207 0.36 0.58 Imitation 392 0.40 0.49

PAGE 117

117 Table 4 7 ANOVA results for social learning variables by race Primary group fear of crime Secondar y group fear of crime Media exposure Parents talk about crime Friends talk about crime Primary group reinforceme nt of fear of crime Secondar y group reinforceme nt of fear of crime Whites N 203 163 184 203 203 203 163 Blacks N 87 74 81 87 86 87 75 Hispanics N 56 44 51 56 56 56 44 Other N 48 38 43 48 48 48 37 Whites x bar (SD) 4.92 (1.63) 4.67 (1.73) 4.36 (1.15) 2.27 (0.74) 1.91 (0.52) 0.44 (0.47) 0.38 (0.52) Blacks x bar (SD) 5.33 (1.88) 5.21 (2.13) 4.14 (1.17) 2.51 (0.87) 2.11 (0.71) 0.45 (0.44) 0.27 (0.54) Hispanics x bar (SD) 6.08 (1.63) 4.53 (2.03) 4.22 (1.21) 2.46 (0.74) 1.91 (0.75) 0.48 (0 .50) 0.25 (0.58) Other x bar (SD) 5.54 (2.02) 4.85 (2.01) 4.45 (1.16) 2.44 (0.82) 1.96 (0.50) 0.43 (0.40) 0.48 (0.58) F 7.09*** 1.68 1.00 2.47 2.52 0.11 1.88 Df 393 318 358 393 392 393 318 Significant contrasts H > B Tukey HSD H > W Note. ***p < .001

PAGE 118

118 Table 4 8 Correlations of fear of crime scales and racial socialization variables Fear of violent crime Fear of property crime Fear of crimes possibly leading to violence Fear of burglary P ersonal characteristics Age 0.17*** 0.12* 0.15** 0.07 Male 0.40*** 0.19** 0.44*** 0.30*** White 0.19*** 0.07 0.09 0.00 Black 0.12* 0.00 0.02 0.03 Hispanic 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.03 Other 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.02 Income 0.13* 0.0 2 0.04 0.01 Racial socialization Cultural socialization 0.12* 0.13** 0.12* 0.10 Preparation for bias 0.22*** 0.16** 0.15** 0.11* Promotion of mistrust 0.13* 0.12* 0.12* 0.13* Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 119

119 Table 4 9 OLS regression predicting fear of crime wit h racial socialization for the entire s ample Variable Fear of violent crime Fear of property crime Fear of crimes possibly leading to violence Fear of burglary b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Personal characteristics Age 0.05* 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.02 0.07 Male 0.79*** 0.11 0.36 0.23** 0.08 0.15 0.75*** 0.08 0.41 0.56*** 0.09 0.29 White 0.28* 0.16 0.14 Black 0.08 0.18 0.03 Latino Income 0.00 0.03 0.00 Racial socialization Cultural socialization 0.09 0.08 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.06 Preparation for bias 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.07 0.02 Promotion of mistrust 0.24* 0.11 0.11 0.19* 0.08 0.12 0.21* 0.09 0.11 0.25** 0.08 0.13 Constant 3.42*** 0.67 2.14*** 0.47 2.52*** 0.50 2.03 0.19 R square 0.24 0.08 0.21 0.11 df 8 5 5 4 F value 16.69*** 7.53*** 24.70*** 13.96*** N 353 391 391 391 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 120

120 Table 4 10 Correlations of fear of violent crime and racial socialization variables by race White Black Hispanic Other Personal characteristics Age 0.28*** 0.02 0.04 0.09 Male 0.36*** 0.46*** 0.42** 0.42** Income 0.06 0.08 0.16 0.01 Racial socialization Cultural socialization 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.24 Preparation for bias 0.15* 0.04 0.24 0.28 Promotion of mistrust 0.17* 0.00 0 .01 0.23 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 121

121 Table 4 11 OLS regression using racial socialization to predict fear of violent crime by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Personal charact eristics Age 0.11*** 0.02 0.23 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.04 Male 0.64*** 0.13 0.31 1.11*** 0.23 0.47 0.87** 0.29 0.41 0.83** 0.30 0.42 Racial socialization Preparation for bias 0.13 0.10 0.08 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.32 0.19 0.22 0.14 0.19 0.12 Promotion of mistrust 0.35* 0.15 0.15 0.07 0.25 0.03 0.14 0.18 0.09 0.46 0.25 0.22 Constant 4.33*** 0.54 2.54 1.86 1.73 1.43 1.96 1.18 R square 0.21 0.22 0.22 0.26 df 4 4 4 4 F value 18.16*** 6.73*** 3.75** 4.93** N 201 87 55 48 Note p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

PAGE 122

122 Table 4 12 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for racial socialization variables predicting fear of violent crime Pr eparation for bias Promotion of mistrust z z Whites v. Blacks 0.45 1.44 Whites v. Hispanics 0.88 0.90 Whites v. Others 0.05 0.38 Blacks v. Hispanics 1.16 0.81 Blacks v. Others 0.36 1.50 Hispanics v. Others 0.67 1.04 Note No signi ficant differences

PAGE 123

123 Table 4 13 Correlations of fear of property crime and racial socialization variables by race White Black Hispanic Other Personal characteristics Age 0.28*** 0.14* 0.04 0.15 Male 0.19** 0.20*** 0.31* 0.05 Incom e 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.10 Racial socialization Cultural socialization 0.13 0.15* 0.23 0.06 Preparation for bias 0.27*** 0.24*** 0.24 0.10 Promotion of mistrust 0.12 0.17** 0.06 0.50*** Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 124

124 Table 4 14 OLS re gression predicting fear of property crime by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Personal characteristics Age 0.08*** 0.02 0.25 0.01 0.10 0.01 0.04 0.07 0.09 0.03 0 .03 0.10 Male 0.17 0.10 0.12 0.27 0.21 0.16 0.54* 0.24 0.32 0.18 0.22 0.13 Racial socialization Cultural socialization 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.12 0.15 0.13 0.10 0.17 0.09 0.05 0.14 0.05 Preparation for bias 0.29** 0.09 0.24 0.07 0.14 0.08 0.18 0.15 0.16 0.07 0.14 0.09 Promotion of mistrust 0.14 0.12 0.08 0.02 0.15 0.01 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.73** 0.20 0.52 Constant 3.08*** 0.42 1.84 2.10 0.64 1.51 0.62 0.79 R square 0.16 0.03 0.17 0.28 df 5 5 5 5 F valu e 10.35*** 0.64 2.85* 4.52** N 201 87 55 48 Note p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

PAGE 125

125 Table 4 15 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for racial socialization variables predicting fear of property crime Cultural social ization Preparation for bias Promotion of mistrust z Z z Whites v. Blacks 0.86 2.16* 0.83 Whites v. Hispanics 0.68 0.63 0.16 Whites v. Others 0.48 2.16* 2.53* Blacks v. Hispanics 0.09 1.22 0.90 Blacks v. Others 0.34 0 3.00* Hispanic s v. Others 0.23 1.22 2.24* Note p < .05

PAGE 126

126 Table 4 16 Correlations of fear of crimes possibly leading to violence and racial socialization variables by race White Black Hispanic Other Personal characteristics Age 0.27*** 0.02 0.09 0 .09 Male 0.48*** 0.47*** 0.48*** 0.22 Income 0.05 0.07 0.16 0.17 Racial socialization Cultural socialization 0.16* 0.03 0.16 0.08 Preparation for bias 0.20** 0.02 0.03 0.12 Promotion of mistrust 0.15* 0.11 0.12 0.20 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 127

127 Table 4 17 OLS regression predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robus t SE B Personal characteristics Age 0.09*** 0.02 0.20 0.03 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.16 Male 0.73*** 0.10 0.41 0.96*** 0.16 0.46 0.88** 0.25 0.46 0.45 0.25 0.28 Racial socialization Cultural socialization 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.16 0.05 0.11 0.1 8 0.09 0.03 0.14 0.02 Preparation for bias 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.07 0.16 0.07 0.38* 0.17 0.29 0.02 0.21 0.03 Promotion of mistrust 0.22 0.13 0.11 0.19 0.22 0.10 0.06 0.16 0.04 0.32 0.29 0.19 Constant 3.35 0.44 1.58 1.50 1.74 1.45 0.70 1.10 R square 0.29 0.23 0.28 0.12 df 5 5 5 5 F value 22.05*** 8.44*** 4.64** 1.32 N 201 87 55 48 Note p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

PAGE 128

128 Table 4 18 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for racial socialization variables predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence Cultural socialization Preparation for bias Promotion of mistrust z z z Whites v. Blacks 0 1.13 0.12 Whites v. Hispanics 0.80 1.14 0.78 Whites v. Others 0.12 0.55 0.31 Blac ks v. Hispanics 0.66 1.93 0.48 Blacks v. Others 0.09 0.34 0.36 Hispanics v. Others 0.61 1.33 0.79 Note. No significant differences

PAGE 129

129 Table 4 19 Correlations of fear of burglary and racial socialization variables by race White Black Hispani c Other Personal characteristics Age 0.12 0.04 0.02 0.08 Male 0.32*** 0.36*** 0.23 0.23 Income 0.01 0.16 0.22 0.16 Racial socialization Cultural socialization 0.09 0.13 0.21 0.06 Preparation for bias 0.16* 0.03 0.42** 0.0 4 Promotion of mistrust 0.16* 0.05 0.18 0.03 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 130

130 Table 4 20 OLS regression predicting fear of burglary by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Persona l characteristics Male 0.58*** 0.13 0.30 0.78*** 0.19 0.36 0.43 0.24 0.21 0.47 0.25 0.27 Racial socialization Preparation for bias 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.03 0.13 0.02 0.58*** 0.14 0.42 0.13 0.20 0.13 Promotion o f mistrust 0.29* 0.12 0.13 0.04 0.24 0.02 0.41** 0.15 0.26 0.16 0.27 0.09 Constant 1.98*** 0.21 2.38*** 0.41 0.66 0.43 2.64*** 0.43 R square 0.13 0.13 0.27 0.07 df 3 3 3 3 F value 12.15*** 5.54** 8.28*** 1.27 N 201 86 56 48 Note p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

PAGE 131

131 Table 4 21 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for racial socialization variables predicting fear of burglary Preparation for bias Promotion of mistrust z z Whites v. Bla cks 0.70 0.93 Whites v. Hispanics 2.42* 0.62 Whites v. Others 1.23 0.44 Blacks v. Hispanics 2.88* 1.31 Blacks v. Others 0.67 0.33 Hispanics v. Others 2.91* 1.31 Note. *p < .05

PAGE 132

132 Table 4 22 Correlations of racial s ocializat ion and social disorganization v ariables Cultural s ocialization Preparation for b ias Promotion of m istrust Personal c haracteristics Age 0.07 0.08 0.04 Male 0.13** 0.14** 0.00 Race White 0.09 0.50*** 0.11* Black 0.11* 0.42*** 0.00 Hispanic 0.02 0.13** 0.13* Other 0.01 0.09 0.04 Income 0.05 0.26*** 0.21*** Social d isorganization Social d isorder 0.07 0.30*** 0.17*** Physical d isorder 0.03 0.21*** 0.18*** Diversity 0.00 0.21*** 0.16** Residential m obility 0.02 0.08 0.09 Racial h eterogeneity Majority same r ace 0.04 0.16** 0.01 50/50 0.03 0.03 0.05 Majority different r ace 0.08 0.24*** 0.04 Low informal social c ontrol 0.08 0.06 0.08 Social c ohesion 0.07 0.09 0.07 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ** *p < .001

PAGE 133

133 Table 4 23 OLS regression predicting racial socialization with social disorganization for the entire sample Variable Cultural socialization Preparation for bias Promotion of mistrust b SE B b SE B b SE B Personal characteristics Male 0.20* 0.08 0.12 0.15 0.08 0.09 White 0.52*** 0.13 0.31 0.07 0.06 0.07 Black 0.12 0.07 0.08 0.46** 0.13 0.23 Latino 0.13 0.15 0.05 0.20** 0.08 0.15 Income 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05** 0.02 0.16 Social diso rganization Social disorder 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.02 0.05 0.03 Physical disorder 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.10 0.05 0.14 Diversity 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.08 Majority same race 0.11 0.09 0.06 Majority Different race 0.21 0.12 0.10 Constant 2.51*** 0.06 1.79*** 0.23 1.16*** 0.12 R square 0.02 0.33 0.09 Adjusted R square 0.02 0.31 0.08 Df 2 10 6 F value 4.83** 16.80*** 5.97*** N 394 353 353 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 134

134 Table 4 24 Correlations of cultural socialization and social disorganization variables by racial group White Black Hispanic Other Personal characteristics Age 0.08 0.10 0.05 0.14 Male 0.11 0.09 0.20 0.18 Income 0.13 0.15 0.07 0. 16 Social disorganization Social disorder 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.09 Physical disorder 0.02 0.01 0.15 0.07 Diversity 0.08 0.17 0.01 0.07 Residential mobility 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.29* Racial heterogeneity Majority same race 0.05 0.12 0.42* 0.13 50/50 0.01 0.08 0.38** 0.01 Majority different race 0.09 0.05 0.05 0.13 Low i nformal social control 0.04 0.21 0.13 0.29* Social cohesion 0.02 0.20 0.01 0.32* Note. *p < .05, ** p < .01

PAGE 135

135 Table 4 25 OLS regression predicting cultura l socialization using social disorganization variables by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others b SE B b SE B b SE B B SE B Social disorganization Residential mobility 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.07 0.30* 0.13 0.32 Racial heterogeneity Majority same race 0.34 0.26 0.21 0.19 0.22 0.12 0.46 0.24 0.30 0.30 0.23 0.20 50/50 0.34 0.28 0.20 0.03 0.23 0.02 0.34 0.24 0.22 0.11 0.26 0.06 Constant 2.59*** 0.29 2.54*** 0.22 2.21*** 0.2 4 3.01*** 0.26 R square 0.01 0.02 0.21 0.12 Df 3 3 3 3 F value 0.70 0.48 4.48** 2.04 N 203 87 55 48 Note p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

PAGE 136

136 Table 4 26 Correlations of preparation for bias and social diso rganization variables by racial group White Black Hispanic Other Personal characteristics Age 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.24 Male 0.13 0.01 0.11 0.23 Income 0.11 0.03 0.17 0.11 Social disorganization Social disorder 0.06 0.10 0.24 0 .38** Physical disorder 0.08 0.06 0.18 0.21 Diversity 0.18** 0.03 0.13 0.24 Residential mobility 0.10 0.06 0.03 0.22 Racial heterogeneity Majority same race 0.06 0.01 0.42** 0.14 50/50 0.02 0.03 0.35** 0.09 Majority different race 0.20** 0.04 0.07 0.20 Low inf o rmal social control 0.01 0.23* 0.14 0.38** Social cohesion 0.07 0.16 0.12 0.23 Note. *p < .05, ** p < .01

PAGE 137

137 Table 4 27 OLS regression predicting preparation for bias using social disorganization variables by r ace Whites Blacks Hispanics Others b SE B b SE B b SE B b SE B Social disorganization Social disorder 0.14 0.1 0 0.11 0.20 0.11 0.25 0.16 0.13 0.16 0.46** 0.12 0.52 Diversity 0.27** 0.1 0 0.25 0.12 0.13 0.11 0.11 0.12 0 .14 0.01 0.15 0.01 Racial heterogeneity Majority same race 0.56* 0.2 2 0.42 0.21 0.24 0.13 0.53* 0.24 0.35 0.62* 0.25 0.35 Majority different race 0.63** 0.2 3 0.45 0.18 0.24 0.11 0.22 0.23 0.15 0.10 0.26 0.05 Low inform al social control 0.04 0.0 4 0.06 0.19* 0.08 0.26 0.02 0.08 0.03 0.36*** 0.09 0.46 Constant 1.93*** 0.3 3 2.07*** 0.39 1.84*** 0.45 0.56 0.43 R square 0.07 0.10 0.36 0.42 df 5 5 5 5 F value 3.14** 1.69 3.45** 6.14*** N 201 86 55 48 Note p < .05,** p < .01, *** p < .001.

PAGE 138

138 Table 4 28 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for social disorganization variables predicting preparation for bias Social disorder Diversity Majority the same race Maj ority different race Low informal social control z z z z z Whites v. Blacks 2.29* 2.38* 1.08 1.35 1.68 Whites v. Hispanics 1.83 1.02 3.25* 1.26 0.67 Whites v. Others 3.84* 1.55 0.18 1.53 3.25* Blacks v. Hispanics 0.23 1.30 2.18* 0. 12 1.86 Blacks v. Others 1.60 0.55 1.18 0.23 1.41 Hispanics v. Others 1.70 0.62 3.32* 0.35 3.16* Note. p < .05

PAGE 139

139 Table 4 29 Correlations of promotion of mistrust and social disorganization variables by racial group White Black Hispanic Other Personal characteristics Age 0.00 0.05 0.12 0.14 Male 0.06 0.06 0.14 0.08 Income 0.05 0.26* 0.35* 0.21 Social disorganization Social disorder 0.07 0.24* 0.12 0.29* Physical disorder 0.19** 0.27* 0.08 0.28 Di versity 0.18** 0.20 0.02 0.10 Residential mobility 0.03 0.30** 0.04 0.00 Racial heterogeneity Majority same race 0.00 0.16 0.07 0.03 50/50 0.01 0.06 0.20 0.01 Majority different race 0.03 0.11 0.14 0.04 Low informal social control 0.05 0.15 0.09 0.03 Social cohesion 0.00 0.06 0.15 0.08 Note. *p < .05, ** p < .01

PAGE 140

140 Table 4 30 OLS regression using social disorganization to predict promotion of mistrust by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others b SE B b SE B b SE B b SE B Personal characteristics Income 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.20 0.12* 0.05 0.34 0.05 0.05 0.19 Social disorganization Social disorder 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.20 0.18 0.15 0.19 0.06 0.12 0.12 Physica l disorder 0.13 0.08 0.14 0.15 0.09 0.29 0.24 0.25 0.15 0.09 0.13 0.17 Diversity 0.15* 0.07 0.20 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.01 Residential mobility 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.19 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.12 Constant 1.09*** 0. 17 1.16*** 0.23 1.93*** 0.41 1.41*** 0.36 R square 0.07 0.16 0.16 0.13 df 5 5 5 5 F value 2.46* 2.79* 1.69 1.13 N 178 78 52 45 Note *p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

PAGE 141

141 Table 4 31 Z values comparing be ta coefficients by race for social disorganization variables predicting promotion of mistrust Social disorder Physical disorder Diversity Residential mobility z z z z Whites v. Blacks 0.17 0.17 0.85 1.51 Whites v. Hispanics 1.47 1.41 1.15 0. 50 Whites v. Others 0.90 0.26 1.07 0.27 Blacks v. Hispanics 1.54 1.47 0.49 0.54 Blacks v. Others 1.00 0.38 0.37 1.31 Hispanics v. Others 0.05 1.17 0.12 0.61 Note. p < .05

PAGE 142

142 Table 4 32 Correlations of fear of crime and social dis organization variables Fear of violent crime Fear of property crimes Fear of crimes possibly leading to violence Fear of burglary Personal characteristics Age 0.17*** 0.12* 0.15** 0.07 Male 0.40*** 0.19*** 0.44*** 0.30*** Race White 0.19*** 0.07 0.09 0.00 Black 0.12* 0.00 0.02 0.03 Hispanic 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.03 Other 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.02 Income 0.13* 0.02 0.04 0.01 Social disorganization Social disorder 0.13* 0.02 0.07 0.03 Physical disorder 0.11* 0. 05 0.07 0.02 Diversity 0.11* 0.01 0.06 0.05 Residential mobility 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.02 Racial heterogeneity Majority same race 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.07 50/50 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.05 Majority different race 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.02 Informal soci al control 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.03 Social cohesion 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.06 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 143

143 Table 4 33 OLS regression predicting fear of violent crimes with social disorganization variables Variable Model 1 Model 2 b Ro bust SE B b Robust SE B Personal characteristics Age 0.06* 0.03 0.10 0.06 0.03 0.10 Male 0.81*** 0.11 0.37 0.80*** 0.11 0.37 White 0.38** 0.12 0.19 0.36** 0.12 0.18 Black 0.06 0.14 0.02 0.08 0.15 0.03 Income 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.01 Social disorganization Social disorder 0.04 0.09 0.03 Physical disorder 0.06 0.09 0.04 Diversity 0.01 0.07 0.01 Constant 4.31*** 0.55 4.10*** 0.58 R square 0.21 0.21 df 5 8 F value 21.55*** 14.52*** N 354 353 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 144

144 Table 4 34 Correlations of fear of violent crime and social disorganization variables by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others Personal characteristics Age 0.28*** 0.0 2 0.04 0.09 Male 0.36*** 0.46*** 0.42** 0.42** Income 0.06 0.08 0.16 0.01 Social disorganization Social disorder 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.30* Physical disorder 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.22 Diversity 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.30* Residential mobility 0.04 0.05 0.16 0.29* Racial heterogeneity Majority same race 0.09 0.05 0.18 0.00 50/50 0.04 0.07 0.18 0.20 Majority different race 0.10 0.12 0.00 0.16 Informal social control 0.09 0.06 0.07 0.14 Social cohesion 0.05 0.02 0.14 0.04 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 145

145 Table 4 35 OLS regression predicting fear of violent crimes using social disorganization variables by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Pers onal characteristics Age 0.11*** 0.02 0.23 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.01 Male 0.67*** 0.13 0.32 1.11*** 0.23 0.46 0.90** 0.28 0.42 0.68* 0.33 0.34 Social disorganization Social disorder 0.04 0.17 0.02 0.10 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.20 0.09 0.22* 0.10 0.22 Diversity 0.09 0.14 0.05 0.03 0.13 0.03 0.10 0.15 0.09 0.08 0.14 0.06 Residential mobility 0.08 0.09 0.05 0.11 0.11 0.10 0.06 0.17 0.05 0.24 0.13 0.19 Constant 4.78*** 0.54 2.60 1. 82 2.82 1.51 2.29*** 1.27 R square 0.19 0.22 0.19 0.29 df 5 5 5 5 F value 13.56*** 5.25*** 2.57* 3.61** N 202 87 55 48 Note p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

PAGE 146

146 Table 4 36 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for social disorganization variables predicting fear of violent crime Social disorder Diversity Residential mobility z Z z Whites v. Blacks 0.67 0.31 1.34 Whites v. Hispanics 0.65 0.93 0.73 Whites v. Others 1.32 0.05 1.01 Blacks v Hispanics 0.13 0.65 0.25 Blacks v. Others 0.77 0.26 2.06* Hispanics v. Others 0.40 0.88 1.40 Note. *p < .05

PAGE 147

147 Table 4 37 Correlations of fear of property crime and social disorganization variables by race Whites Blacks Hispani cs Others Personal characteristics Age 0.28*** 0.14* 0.04 0.15 Male 0.19** 0.20*** 0.31* 0.05 Income 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.10 Social disorganization Social disorder 0.09 0.12 0.02 0.12 Physical disorder 0.09 0.04 0.07 0.04 D iversity 0.02 0.05 0.19 0.09 Residential mobility 0.02 0.15 0.04 0.07 Racial heterogeneity Majority same race 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.14 50/50 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.19 Majority different race 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.02 Informal social control 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.19 Social cohesion 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.08 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 148

148 Table 4 38 Correlations of fear of crimes possibly leading to violence and social disorganization variables by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others Personal characteristics Age 0.27*** 0.02 0.09 0.09 Male 0.48*** 0.47*** 0.48*** 0.22 Income 0.05 0.07 0.16 0.17 Social disorganization Social disorder 0.08 0.14 0.14 0.35* Physical disorder 0.01 0.05 0.13 0.40** Diversi ty 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.09 Residential mobility 0.03 0.04 0.09 0.31* Racial heterogeneity Majority same race 0.11 0.02 0.15 0.12 50/50 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.09 Majority different race 0.05 0.06 0.03 0.04 Informal social control 0.03 0. 06 0.08 0.04 Social cohesion 0.08 0.07 0.15 0.04 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 149

149 Table 4 39 Correlations of fear of burglary and social disorganization variables by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others Personal characteristics Age 0.12 0.04 0.02 0.08 Male 0.32*** 0.36*** 0.23 0.23 Income 0.01 0.16 0.22 0.16 Social disorganization Social disorder 0.04 0.01 0.15 0.03 Physical disorder 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 Diversity 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.05 Residential mobility 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.08 Racial heterogeneity Majority same race 0.10 0.09 0.19 0.14 50/50 0.06 0.05 0.12 0.18 Majority different race 0.11 0.05 0.08 0.01 Informal social control 0.01 0.12 0.12 0.14 Social cohesion 0.04 0. 09 0.21 0.13 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 150

150 Table 4 40 Correlations of fear of crime scales and social learning variables Fear of violent crime Fear of property crime Fear of crimes possibly leading to violence Fear of burglary Perso nal characteristics Age 0.17*** 0.12* 0.15** 0.07 Male 0.40*** 0.19** 0.44*** 0.30*** White 0.19*** 0.07 0.09 0.00 Black 0.12* 0.00 0.02 0.03 Hispanic 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.03 Other 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.02 Income 0.13* 0.02 0 .04 0.01 Differential association Primary groups fear of crime 0.41*** 0.23*** 0.39*** 0.28*** Secondary groups fear of crime 0.37*** 0.31*** 0.36*** 0.31*** Media exposure 0.07 0.04 0.01 0.15** Parents talk about crime 0.23*** 0.18*** 0.22*** 0.18*** Friends talk about crime 0.07 0.09 0.06 0.08 Differential reinforcement Primary groups differential reinforcement 0.14** 0.13** 0.16** 0.08 Secondary groups differential reinforcement 0.10 0.04 0.13* 0.07 Imitation Imitate behav ior of someone admired 0.08 0.19*** 0.04 0.04 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 151

151 Table 4 41 OLS regression predicting fear of violent crime with social learning variables Variable Model 1 Model 2 b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Personal characteri stics Age 0.06* 0.03 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.06 Male 0.81*** 0.11 0.37 0.59*** 0.12 0.27 White 0.38** 0.12 0.19 0.22 0.13 0.11 Black 0.06 0.14 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.01 Income 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.06 Differential associati on Primary group 0.13*** 0.04 0.22 Secondary group 0.08* 0.03 0.15 Parents talk about crime 0.10 0.07 0.07 Differential reinforcement Primary group 0.25** 0.11 0.11 Constant 4.31*** 0.55 2.31*** 0.63 R square 0.21 0.35 df 5 9 F value 21.55*** 23.93*** N 354 282 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 152

152 Table 4 42 OLS regression predicting fear of property crime with social learning variables Variable Model 1 Model 2 b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Personal characteristics Age 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.01 0.02 0.03 Male 0.26** 0.08 0.17 0.09 0.09 0.06 Differential association Primary group 0.02 0.03 0.04 Secondary group 0.09*** 0.02 0.24 Parents talk about crim e 0.09 0.05 0.11 Differential reinforcement Primary group 0.14 0.08 0.09 Imitation Imitate behavior 0.01 0.07 0.01 Constant 2.73*** 0.43 1.35** 0.49 R square 0.04 0.13 df 2 7 F value 9.46*** 7.92*** N 393 31 7 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 153

153 Table 4 43 OLS Regression predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence with social learning variables Model 1 Model 2 b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Personal characteristics Age 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.01 Male 0.78*** 0.08 0.42 0.54*** 0.09 0.30 Differential association Primary group 0.11** 0.03 0.22 Secondary group 0.06* 0.03 0.14 Parents talk about crime 0.05 0.06 0.04 Differential reinfor cement Primary group 0.20* 0.10 0.11 Secondary group 0.09 0.08 0.06 Constant 2.99*** 0.47 1.24* 0.52 R square 0.20 0.30 Df 2 7 F value 57.74*** 23.84*** N 393 316 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 154

154 Tab le 4 44 OLS regression predicting fear of burglary with social learning variables Variable Model 1 Model 2 b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Personal characteristics Male 0.57*** 0.09 0.30 0.44*** 0.11 0.23 Differential association Primary group 0.06 0.04 0.12 Secondary group 0.07* 0.03 0.15 Media exposure 0.09* 0.04 0.11 Parents talk about crime 0.03 0.07 0.03 Constant 2.55*** 0.06 1.37*** 0.25 R square 0.09 0.17 Df 1 5 F value 39.11*** 13.39 *** N 393 294 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 155

155 Table 4 45 Correlations of fear of violent crime and social learning variables by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others Personal Characteristics Age 0.28*** 0.02 0.04 0.0 9 Male 0.36*** 0.46*** 0.42** 0.42** SES 0.06 0.08 0.16 0.01 Differential Association Primary groups fear of crime 0.35*** 0.46*** 0.45*** 0.38** Secondary groups fear of crime 0.29*** 0.48*** 0.46** 0.26 Media exposure 0.08 0.13 0.03 0.18 Parents talk about crime 0.13 0.35*** 0.18 0.29* Friends talk about crime 0.10 0.21* 0.19 0.08 Differential Reinforcement Primary groups differential reinforcement 0.23*** 0.08 0.01 0.05 Secondary groups differential reinforcement 0.1 5 0.05 0.10 0.02 Imitation Imitate behavior of someone admired 0.05 0.11 0.00 0.27 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 156

156 Table 4 46 OLS regression predicting fear of violent crimes using social learning variables by race Whites Blacks Hisp anics Others b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Personal characteristics Age 0.08** 0.02 0.16 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.05 0.15 0.02 0.07 0.06 Male 0.53** 0.16 0.26 0.83** 0.26 0.37 0.62 0.35 0.28 0.75* 0.37 0.38 Differential association Primary group 0.14** 0.05 0.22 0.10 0.09 0.18 0.05 0.14 0.08 0.18 0.08 0.39 Secondary group 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.12 0.06 0.25 0.17 0.11 0.34 0.02 0.07 0.04 Parents talk about crime 0.05 0.10 0.04 0.25* 0.10 0.21 0.03 0.28 0.02 0.09 0.18 0.08 Friends talk about crime 0.18 0.13 0.09 0.05 0.10 0.03 0.30 0.19 0.23 0.23 0.33 0.12 Differential reinforcement Primary group 0.42** 0.15 0.20 0.14 0.23 0.07 0.14 0.29 0.06 0.13 0.39 0.06 Constant 2.90*** 0.70 0.44 1.73 1.10 1.19 2.38 1.61 R square 0.29 0.46 0.37 0.35 df 7 7 7 7 F value 14.09*** 10.31*** 4.61** 2.92* N 163 74 43 38 Note p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

PAGE 157

157 Table 4 47 Z va lues comparing beta coefficients by race for social learning variables predicting fear of violent crime Primary group differential association Secondary group differential association Parents talk about crime Friends talk about crime Primary group diffe rential reinforcement z z z z z Whites v. Blacks 0.39 1.02 2.12* 0.79 2.04* Whites v. Hispanics 0.61 1.08 0.07 2.08* 1.72 Whites v. Others 0.42 0.23 0.24 0.14 1.32 Blacks v. Hispanics 0.30 0.40 0.94 1.63 0.00 Blacks v. Others 0.66 1.08 1.65 0.52 0.02 Hispanics v. Others 0.81 1.15 0.23 1.39 0.02 Note. *p < .05

PAGE 158

158 Table 4 48 Correlations of fear of property crime and social learning variables by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others Personal Characteristics Age 0 .28*** 0.14* 0.04 0.15 Male 0.19** 0.20*** 0.31* 0.05 Income 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.10 Differential Association Primary groups fear of crime 0.22** 0.24* 0.31* 0.10 Secondary groups fear of crime 0.33*** 0.27* 0.37* 0.27 Media exposure 0.1 0 0.03 0.05 0.09 Parents talk about crime 0.20** 0.14 0.21 0.12 Friends talk about crime 0.20** 0.05 0.09 0.07 Differential Reinforcement Primary groups differential reinforcement 0.17* 0.04 0.18 0.23 Secondary groups differential reinforc ement 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.08 Imitation Imitate behavior of someone admired 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.19 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 159

159 Table 4 4 9 OLS regression predicting fear of property crimes using social learning variables by race White s Blacks Hispanics Others b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Personal characteristics Age 0.06** 0.02 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.11 0.09 0..06 0.24 0.04 0.05 0.14 Male 0.11 0.11 0.08 0.27 0.28 0.16 0.10 0.3 1 0.06 0.07 0.26 0.06 Differential association Primary group 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.01 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.06 Secondary group 0.08* 0.03 0.22 0.11 0.06 0.30 0.14 0.07 0.37 0.06 0.06 0.18 Parents talk about crime 0.10 0. 06 0.11 0.12 0.09 0.13 0.12 0.20 0.10 0.03 0.15 0.04 Friends talk about crime 0.22** 0.08 0.18 0.06 0.14 0.06 0.24 0.16 0.25 0.08 0.32 0.06 Differential reinforcement Primary group 0.21 0.09 0.15 0.32 0.23 0.20 0.09 0.36 0.05 0.16 0. 30 0.10 Constant 1.89 0.41 0.04 2.07 0.13 1.73 0.63 1.17 R square 0.25 0.14 0.24 0.11 df 7 7 7 7 F value 11.42*** 1.96 3.07* 1.00 N 163 74 43 38 Note p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

PAGE 160

160 Table 4 50 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for social learning variables predicting fear of property crime Primary group differential association Secondary group differential association Parents talk about crime Friends talk about crime Primary group different ial reinforcement z z z z z Whites v. Blacks 0.50 0.45 0.18 1.74 2.15* Whites v. Hispanics 0.16 0.79 0.10 2.57* 0.32 Whites v. Others 0.12 0.30 0.43 0.42 0.16 Blacks v. Hispanics 0.14 0.33 0.00 0.85 0.96 Blacks v. Others 0.51 0.60 0.51 0.4 0 1.27 Hispanics v. Others 0.22 0.87 0.36 0.89 0.15 Note. *p < .05

PAGE 161

161 Table 4 51 Correlations of fear of crimes possibly leading to violence and social learning variables by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others Personal Characteristics Age 0.27*** 0.02 0.09 0.09 Male 0.48*** 0.47*** 0.48*** 0.22 Income 0.05 0.07 0.16 0.17 Differential Association Primary groups fear of crime 0.36*** 0.35*** 0.51*** 0.30* Secondary groups fear of crime 0.43*** 0.30** 0.64** 0.09 Media exposure 0.05 0.11 0.03 0.19 Parents talk about crime 0.18** 0.30** 0.20 0.21 Friends talk about crime 0.12 0.07 0.03 0.06 Differential Reinforcement Primary groups differential reinforcement 0.21** 0.23* 0.09 0.14 Seconda ry groups differential reinforcement 0.21** 0.03 0.17 0.05 Imitation Imitate behavior of someone admired 0.06 0.02 0.11 0.07 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 162

162 Table 4 52 OLS regression predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to viole nce using social learning variables by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Personal characteristics Age 0.05* 0.02 0.12 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.09 0.11* 0.05 0.36 Male 0.62*** 0.12 0.35 0.63** 0.21 0.32 0.52 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.26 0.20 Differential association Primary group 0.08* 0.04 0.16 0.12 0.08 0.25 0.04 0.11 0.07 0.11 0.06 0.29 Secondary group 0.12** 0.04 0.23 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.22* 0.08 0.50 0.13* 0.06 0.35 Parents talk about crime 0.04 0.10 0.04 0.29** 0.09 0.28 0.12 0.22 0.09 0.23 0.15 0.28 Differential reinforcement Primary group 0.24 0.14 0.13 0.25 0.21 0.13 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.12 0.31 0.07 Secondary group 0.1 0 0.12 0.06 0.25 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.25 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.10 Constant 2.19*** 0.55 0.08 1.46 0.66 1.17 0.42 1.02 R square 0.40 0.39 0.49 0.27 df 7 7 7 7 F value 18.00*** 10.21*** 8.15*** 2.69* N 162 74 43 37 Note p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

PAGE 163

163 Table 4 53 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for social learning variables predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence Primary group differential association Secondary group differential asso ciation Parents talk about crime Primary group differential reinforcement Secondary group differential reinforcement z z z z z Whites v. Blacks 0.45 1.39 2.45* 0.04 1.68 Whites v. Hispanics 0.34 1.12 0.33 0.92 0.07 Whites v. Others 0.42 3.47* 1. 50 1.06 0.10 Blacks v. Hispanics 0.59 2.00* 1.72 0.82 1.22 Blacks v. Others 0.10 1.77 0.34 0.99 1.58 Hispanics v. Others 0.56 3.50* 1.31 0.32 0.00 Note p < .05

PAGE 164

164 Table 4 54 Correlations of fear of burglary crime and social learning variables by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others Personal Characteristics Age 0.12 0.04 0.02 0.08 Male 0.32*** 0.36*** 0.23 0.23 Income 0.01 0.16 0.22 0.16 Differential Association Primary groups fear of crime 0.23** 0.33 ** 0.46*** 0.19 Secondary groups fear of crime 0.27*** 0.34** 0.56*** 0.13 Media exposure 0.17* 0.21 0.01 0.20 Parents talk about crime 0.20** 0.24* 0.17 0.04 Friends talk about crime 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.31* Differential Reinforcement Primary groups differential reinforcement 0.16* 0.01 0.05 0.00 Secondary groups differential reinforcement 0.06 0.05 0.17 0.02 Imitation Imitate behavior of someone admired 0.04 0.15 0.31* 0.22 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 165

165 Table 4 55 O LS regression predicting fear of burglary using social learning variables by race Whites Blacks Hispanics Others b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Personal characteristics Male 0.56*** 0.15 0.20 0.6 2* 0.26 0.32 0.08 0.25 0.04 0.67* 0.26 0.37 Differential association Primary group 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.08 0.02 0.10 0.11 0.16 0.09 0.07 0.21 Secondary group 0.07 0.05 0.13 0.12 0.08 0.28 0.22* 0.08 0.45 0.02 0.08 0.04 Parents talk about crime 0.07 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.24 0.07 0.28 0.19 0.28 Friends talk about crime 0.21 0.12 0.12 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.05 0.17 0.04 0.40 0.29 0.23 Differential reinforcement Primary group 0.25* 0.12 0.13 0.23 0.21 0.12 0.17 0.29 0.08 0.00 0.41 0.00 Imitation Imitate behavior of someone admired 0.10 0.14 0.05 0.08 0.21 0.04 0.58* 0.25 0.29 0.21 0.22 0.12 Constant 1.36*** 0.35 1.57** 0.45 1.26 0.76 3.33*** 0.68 R square 0.22 0. 24 0.43 0.27 df 7 7 7 7 F value 7.66*** 3.82** 5.83*** 3.25* N 163 72 44 38 Note p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

PAGE 166

166 Table 4 56 Z values comparing beta coefficients by race for social learning variables predicting fear of burglary P rimary group differential association Secondary group differential association Parents talk about crime Friends talk about crime Primary group differential reinforcement Imitation z z z z z z Whites v. Blacks 0.21 0.53 0.21 1.24 1.98 0.08 Whites v. H ispanics 0.58 1.59 0.62 0.77 1.34 2.37* Whites v. Others 0.70 0.53 1.63 1.94 0.59 0.42 Blacks v. Hispanics 0.66 0.88 0.73 0.28 0.17 2.02* Blacks v. Others 0.75 0.88 1.77 1.23 0.50 0.43 Hispanics v. Others 0.08 1.77 0.62 1.34 0.34 2.37* No te. *p < .05

PAGE 167

167 Table 4 57 Step wise regression predicting fear of violent crime with racial socialization and social learning theory Model 1 Model 2 b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Personal characteristics Age 0.05* 0.03 0.0 9 0.03 0.02 0.05 Male 0.79*** 0.11 0.36 0.59*** 0.12 0.27 White 0.28* 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.06 Black 0.08 0.18 0.03 0.01 0.15 0.01 Income 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.03 Racial socialization Cultural socialization 0.09 0.08 0. 06 0.01 0.08 0.00 Preparation for bias 0.09 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.09 0.09 Promotion of mistrust 0.24* 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.10 0.08 Differential association Primary group 0.13** 0.04 0.22 Secondary group 0.08 0.03 0.15 Parents talk about crime 0.07 0.07 0.05 Differential reinforcement Primary group 0.25* 0.11 0.11 Constant 3.42*** 0.67 1.78* 0.69 R square 0.24 0.36 df 8 12 F value 16.69*** 21.03*** N 353 291 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 168

168 Table 4 58 Step wise regression predicting fear of property crime with racial socialization and social learning theory Model 1 Model 2 b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Personal characteristics Age 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.03 Male 0.23** 0.08 0.15 0.09 0.09 0.06 Racial socialization Cultural socialization 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.06 0.03 Preparation for bias 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.05 Promotion of mistrust 0.19* 0.08 0.12 0.14 0.08 0.10 Differential association Primary group 0.01 0.03 0.03 Secondary group 0.09*** 0.02 0.24 Parents talk about crime 0.07 0.05 0.08 Differential reinforcement Primary group 0.15 0.08 0.10 Imitation 0.00 0.07 0.00 Constant 2.14*** 0.47 1.08* 0.51 R square 0.08 0.15 df 5 10 F value 7.53*** 6.58*** N 391 316 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 169

169 Table 4 59 Step wise regression predicting fear of crimes possibly leading to violence with racial socialization and social learning theory Model 1 Model 2 b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Personal characteristics Age 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.01 Male 0.75*** 0.08 0.41 0.53*** 0.09 0.30 Racial socialization Cultural socialization 0.04 0.06 0. 04 0.02 0.07 0.02 Preparation for bias 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.03 0.07 0.03 Promotion of mistrust 0.21* 0.09 0.11 0.19* 0.09 0.11 Differential association Primary group 0.10** 0.03 0.21 Secondary group 0.06* 0.03 0.14 Parents talk about cri me 0.03 0.07 0.03 Differential reinforcement Primary group 0.21* 0.10 0.11 Secondary group 0.10 0.09 0.06 Constant 2.52*** 0.50 0.95 0.53 R square 0.21 0.32 df 5 10 F value 24.70*** 17.60*** N 391 315 Note. *p < 05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 170

170 Table 4 60 Step wise regression predicting fear of burglary with racial socialization and social learning theory Model 1 Model 2 b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Personal characteristics Male 0.56*** 0.09 0.29 0.45*** 0.11 0.24 Racial socialization Cultural socialization 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.02 Preparation for bias 0.02 0.07 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.02 Promotion of mistrust 0.25** 0.08 0.13 0.17 0.09 0.09 Differential association Primary group 0.06 0.04 0.11 Secondary group 0.07* 0.03 0.15 Media exposure 0.09 0.04 0.11 Parents talk about crime 0.01 0.07 0.01 Constant 2.03*** 0.19 1.16*** 0.29 R square 0.11 0.18 df 4 8 F value 13.96*** 9.93*** N 386 284 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 171

171 Table 4 61 Correlations of fear of crime scales and social structure variables Fear of violent crime Fear of property crime Fear of crimes possibly leading to violence Fear of burglary Differential social organization Small rural hometown 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.06 Medium suburban hometown 0.10* 0.04 0.05 0.08 Large metropolitan hometown 0.15** 0.08 0.07 0.13** Differential social location Two parent family 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.07 Single parent family 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.05 Family with parents absent 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.05 Differential location in the social structure Age 0.17*** 0.12* 0.15** 0.07 Male 0.40*** 0.19** 0.44*** 0.30*** White 0.19*** 0. 07 0.09 0.00 Black 0.12* 0.00 0.02 0.03 Hispanic 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.03 Other 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.02 Income 0.13* 0.02 0.04 0.01 Social disorganization Social disorder 0.13* 0.02 0.07 0.03 Physical disorder 0.11* 0.05 0.07 0.02 Diversi ty 0.11* 0.01 0.06 0.05 Residential mobility 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.02 Racial heterogeneity Majority same race 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.07 50/50 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.05 Majority different race 0.04 0.01 0.03 0.02 Informal social control 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.03 Social cohesion 0.08 0.01 0.06 0.06 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 172

172 Table 4 62 OLS regression predicting fear of crime with social structure variables for entire sample Fear of violent crime Fear of property crime Fear of crimes possibly leading to violence Fear of burglary b Robus t SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Differential social organization Medium suburban hometown 0.04 0.13 0.02 Large metropolitan hometown 0 .20 0.14 0.09 0.23* 0.10 0.11 Differential location Age 0.06* 0.03 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.03 0.02 0.07 Male 0.79*** 0.11 0.36 0.26** 0.08 0.17 0.78*** 0.08 0.42 0.56*** 0.09 0.29 White 0.21* 0.13 0.15 Black 0.09 0.15 0.04 Income 0.01 0.03 0.02 Social disorganization Social disorder 0.02 0.09 0.01 Physical disorder 0.06 0.10 0.04 Diversity 0.00 0.08 0.00 Constant 4.13*** 0.66 2.73*** 0.43 2.99*** 0.47 2.48*** 0.06 R square 0.22 0.04 0.20 0.10 Df 10 2 2 2 F value 9.81*** 9.46*** 57.74*** 21.90*** N 353 393 393 392 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 173

173 Table 4 63 OLS regression predicting fear of violent crime with social structure social learning variables Fear of violent crime Fear of property crime Fear of crimes possibly leading to violence Fear of burglary B Robus t SE B b Robust SE B b Robust S E B b Robust SE B Differential social organization Medium suburban hometown 0.08 0.14 0.04 Large metropolitan hometown 0.10 0.14 0.05 0.22* 0.10 0.11 Differential location Age 0.03 0.02 0. 06 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 Male 0.58*** 0.12 0.27 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.54*** 0.09 0.30 0.41*** 0.11 0.22 White 0.20 0.14 0.10 Black 0.01 0.15 0.01 Income 0.04 0.03 0.06 Social disorganizatio n Social disorder 0.01 0.09 0.01 Physical disorder 0.02 0.09 0.02 Diversity 0.04 0.07 0.03 Differential association Primary group 0.13** 0.04 0.22 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.11** 0.03 0.22 0.06 0.04 0.11 Secondary group 0.08* 0.03 0.15 0.09*** 0.02 0.24 0.06* 0.03 0.14 0.07* 0.03 0.15 Media exposure 0.09* 0.04 0.11 Parents talk about crime 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.09 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.02 Differential reinforcement Primary group 0.24* 0.11 0.11 0.14 0.08 0.09 0.20* 0.10 0.11 Secondary group 0.09 0.09 0.06

PAGE 174

174 Table 4 63. Continued Fear of violent crime Fear of property crime Fear of crimes possibly leading to violence Fear of burg lary B Robus t SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B b Robust SE B Imitation 0.01 0.07 0.01 Constant 2.42*** 0.65 1.35** 0.49 1.24* 0.52 1.30*** 0.26 R square 0.35 0.13 0.30 0.18 Df 14 7 7 6 F value 15.57*** 7.92** 23.84*** 12.87*** N 276 317 316 286 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

PAGE 175

175 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Revisiting Research Questions Research Question 1: Racial Socialization and Fear of Crime Consistent with the literature, cultural socialization messages were the most common type of racial socialization message among the sample of undergraduates followed by preparation for bias, and with promotion of mistrust being the least common (Hughes & Chen, 1997). Also co nsistent with the literature, Black partic ipants had more preparation for bias messages than all other racial groups ( Biafora, Warheit, Zimmerman, & Gil, 1993; Hughes, 2003; Hughes & Chen, 1999; Phinney & Chavira, 1995). Increased preparation for bias messages for Blacks could be explained by the ir history of discrimination in the US. Ward (1991) discovered this theme in narratives with African American adults about racial conflict. African Americans often connect their present conflicts with their collective history as a people and slave past ( Ward, 1991). Alternatively, Whites had the least preparation for bias messages than all other groups, which could be explained by their opposite discrimination history to Blacks. To address the research questions regarding racial socialization and fear of crime, the only racial socialization measure that was a significant predictor of fear of crime was promotion of mistrust (across all four fear of crime measures). Promotion of mistrust messages are those that teach children to mistrust other groups (Hugh es & Chen, 1997). The more promotion of mistrust messages students heard from their parents the more fear of crime they reported. The idea of promotion of mistrust is fear is developed from r esidents being unable to understand and predict the behaviors of the people living

PAGE 176

176 around them Based on these findings, it is through the process of racial socialization that individuals learn to mistrust groups that are different from them, which in tur n impacts their fear of crime. Additionally, g ender was a significant predictor of fear of crime (across all four fear of crime measures). Consistent with the literature, f emales are more afraid of crime than males, even after controlling for racial socia lization measures and other personal characteristics (Ferraro, 1996 ; McGarrell, Giacomazzi, & Thurman, 1997; May, Rader, & Goodrum, 2010; Schafer et al., 2006; Warr, 1984, 2000 ). Therefore, the fear victimization paradox still exists for females even afte r controlling for racial socialization. However, race is no longer significant after controlling for racial socialization measures. Therefore, the fear victimization paradox for minorities is explained away by racial socialization. More specifically, to address research question 1c, looking at the impact of race on racial socialization and fear of crime, this study found some significant differences in the impact of racial socialization messages on fear of crime. These differences were present for racial socializations impact on fear of property crimes and burglary. Preparation for bias messages significantly impacted fear of property crime for Whites more than Others. Promotion of mistrust messages significantly impacted fear of burglary for Whites and Hispanics less than Others. Additionally, preparation for bias messages significantly impacted fear of burglary for Whites and Blacks less than Hispanics. There was no significant difference in racial socializations impact on fear of violent crime and c rimes possibly leading to violence. These findings are interesting because Blacks had the highest frequency of preparation for bias messages compared

PAGE 177

177 to all other racial groups. However, preparation for bias messages did not influence ent crime more than other racial groups. Additionally, there is no consistent pattern by racial group in the differences that were found for fear of burglary and property crime. For the non significant differences explaining fear of violent crime and crim es possibly leading to violence, the findings would imply racial socialization messages have a similar cognitive/emotional impact on all racial groups. Research Question 2: Social Disorganization and Racial Socialization Although previous racial socializat ion studies have indicated promotion of mistrust messages to be more common in racially diverse neighborhoods (Caughy et al., 2006), this study did not find similar results. None of the racial heterogeneity variables were associated with promotion of mist rust or preparation for bias. This finding runs counter to findings throughout the literature, where racial socialization messages are more frequent in socially integrated neighborhoods (Brown, Tanner Smith, Lesane Brown, & Ezeil, 2007; Caughy et al., 2006 ). The same was true for other social disorganization variables, such as physical disorder, social disorder, and diversity. Therefore, racial socialization messages are not predicted by neighborhood characteristics, as defined by social disorganization t heory. Additionally, there were no differences in the impact of neighborhood conditions on cultural socialization and promotion of mistrust by racial group. These results indicate that parents relay all types of racial socialization messages regardless of their race and neighborhood the live in. However, there were significant differences in the impact of neighborhood conditions on preparation for bias. Whites preparation for bias was impacted significantly less by neighborhood conditions (social disorde r, low informal social control, and racial heterogeneity) than Others and Hispanics. However,

PAGE 178

178 this may be due to Whites reporting less negative neighborhood conditions in their hometowns compared to other racial groups. Research Question 3: Social Disorga nization and Fear of Crime The third research question of this report examined the relationship between neighborhood characteristics of social disorganization and fear of crime. Social disorganization theory has been one of the most common theories to exp lain fear of crime. However, this study indicates social disorganization variables were only associated with fear of violent crime, as none of the variables were associated with fear of property crime, burglary, or crimes possible leading to violence. Ad ditionally after running multivariate models controlling for personal characteristics, none of the social disorganization variables were related to fear of violent crime. More specifically, both gender and race remained significant predictors of fear of vi olent crime controlling for social disorganization variables. Social disorganization theory was unable to explain the fear victimization paradox for women. Additionally, social disorganization variables were not able to control for non Whites (mostly ind ividuals in the category of Other) having increased levels of fear of crime. Lane and Fox (2012) also indicated similar results, when perceptions of neighborhood characteristics were controlled for, minorities continued to report higher rates of fear than non whites. Therefore, other theoretical options involving individual level factors, like socialization (described next), may have more power in explaining fear of crime. Research Question 4: Social Learning and Fear of Crime The results of research qu estion four expanded on Akers (1998) study of Texas elderly, which applied social learning theory to fear of crime. The findings indicated social learning variables predicted several fear of crime types. Differential association

PAGE 179

179 variables were the most c onsistent and powerful social learning variable to predict fear of crime, with at least one differential association variable being significant for each fear of crime type. More specifically, both primary and secondary group fear of crime were significant positive predictors for fear of violent crimes and crimes possibly leading to violence. Secondary group fear of crime and exposure to media were both significant predictors of fear of burglary. Secondary group fear of crime was also a positive predictor of fear of property crime. Therefore, association with others who have fear of Additionally, primary group differential reinforcement was only a significant predictor of fear of violent crime a nd crimes possibly leading to violence after controlling for other variables. One possible explanation for this is that primary groups emphasize crimes that are more personal and can actually hurt themselves or others close to them, leading to positive re inforcement for fear of crime attitudes. Warr (1992) proposed the idea of altruistic fear, or fear for other persons. Research has found altruistic fear to be more common in primary groups (like family households) than personal fear of crime (Warr & Elli son, 2000). More specifically, Warr and Ellison (2000) found women expressed more fear of crime for children (parental fear) and men expressed more fear of crime for their wives (spousal fear). Another possible explanation may be violent crimes are more personal and sensitive to talk about with others. Therefore, individuals are more likely to about their fear of violent crimes with those they are closest to (i.e. parents and best friends) than secondary group members. Different from fear of violent crim e and crimes possibly leading to violence, secondary group fear of crime increases fear of burglary and property crime. It may be

PAGE 180

180 that participants hear messages from work associates, fraternity and sorority members, and club members regarding more common and less personal crimes, like theft, which increases their fear of burglary and property crime. Although social learning variables explained a significant amount of variance in fear of crime between models, gender was still the most influential variable. Females are significantly more fearful than males after controlling for social learning variables (except of property crimes). Therefore, the fear victimization paradox still exists, that females are more fearful of crime even though they are less likel y to be victimized than males (Ferraro, 1996; Hale, 1996; LaGrange & Ferraro, 1989; Warr, 2000). Research Question 5: Racial Socialization vs. Social Learning Theory The fifth research question explored the impact of two types of socialization on fear of c rime: racial messages and crime messages. Racial socialization is the process through which parents relay messages to their children about culture, discrimination, and mistrust of other races (Hughes & Chen, 1997). Burgess and Akers ( 1966 ) social learnin g theory describes the learning process of crime messages. Primary groups, secondary groups, and media deliver crime messages through definitions favorable or unfavorable to fear of crime and reinforcement (Akers, 1998). Both of these methods of socializ ation share the same assumptions of learning, which focus on overt behavior or attitude formulation (Akers, 2009). However, social learning theory includes principles of modern learning theory, such as the reinforcement process (Akers, 1999). In this stud y, racial socialization, specifically promotion of mistrust, is a significant positive predictor of fear of crime. However, when social learning variables are included in the models, promotion of mistrust is no longer significant (except for fear of crime s possibly leading to violence). Therefore, social learning theory has more explanatory

PAGE 181

181 power for fear of crime. One reason for this finding is that racial socialization includes three types of messages about other racial groups, which are similar to the concept of differential association of crime messages in social learning theory. Promotion of mistrust messages contribute to definitions favorable to fear of crime. However, social learning theory goes further to include components of operant condition ing in differential reinforcement and imitation. Also, social learning theory incorporates messages delivered by primary, secondary, and media groups, where racial socialization only includes messages delivered by parents. Therefore, this study indicates that social learning theory offers a more complete picture of how fear of crime develops. Research Question 6: Social Structure and Fear of Crime The sixth research question examined the relationship between social structural components of Akers (1998) SSS L theory and fear of crime. Several studies have shown support for macro theories, like social disorganization, in explaining fear of crime ( Covi ngton & Taylor, 1991; Franklin et al., 2008; LaGrange et al. 1992; Lane & Meeker, 2003; May, 2001). However, social disorganization is only one component of Akers (1998) SSSL theory. For all four fear of crime types, variables representing differential location in the social structure predicted fear of crime. Females and younger participants were more fearful o f property crime and crimes possibly leading to violence. Female, non White and younger participants were more fearful of violent crime than male, White, and older participants. Additionally, females had more fear of burglary than males. Therefore, indi vidual social attributes and characteristics that determine where individuals stand in the overall social structure impact fear of crime.

PAGE 182

182 A variable representing differential social organization was only predictive of fear of burglary. Participants who gr ew up in large metropolitan areas were more fearful of burglary than those who were not. Therefore, the structure and organization of a community influences fear of burglary. No variables representing social disorganization and differential social locati on were significant in multivariate analyses. The measure used for differential social location was family structure, which studies have found to be a significant predictor of fear of crime (Lane, 2006). Research question three discusses the lack of rela tionship between social disorganization theory and fear of crime variables. Although social disorganization theory is one of the most notable macro theories to explain fear of crime, other components of Akers (1998) SSSL theory were better predictors for this sample. Research Question 7: Social Structure Social Learning and Fear of Crime The seventh research question explored Ak ability to explain fear of crime. There has been no prior research exploring whether the micro theory of social learning theory mediates the effect of social structure for fear of crime. explanation of fear of crime. According to the theory, one or more of the dimensions in soci al structure and social learning with fear of crime as the dependent variable should: (1) have direct significant effects of the structural factors on social learning variables, (2) have non significant or substantially reduced direct effects of the struct ural factors on fear of crime with social learning in the model, and (3) have substantial and significant direct effects of social learning variables on fear of crime ( Lee et al., 2004 p. 19). For all four fear of crime types, there are non significant or substantially reduced direct effects of the structural factors on fear of crime with social learning variables in

PAGE 183

183 the model. More specifically, age and race is reduced to non significance for fear of violent crime. Gender is reduced to non significance for fear of property crime and substantially reduced for all other fear of crime types. Large hometown size was also substantially reduced for fear of burglary. Research questions four and six support that there are direct significant effects between soc ial structure variables and fear of crime and social learning variables and fear of crime. Therefore, this study shows support for Implications of Research Theoretical Implications This study shows strong support f or ability to predict fear of crime. Both racial socialization and social learning theory were significant positive predictors of several different fear of crime types. Both crime and racial messages were shown to promote definitions favorable to fear of crime. These theories indicate it is through social sources, like family and friends, which people learn to associate certain symbols with crime and therefore become more afraid. However, social learning theory adds compo nents of modern learning theory, including differential reinforcement (Akers, 2009). From the standpoint of social learning theory, fear of crime attitudes that are reinforced are more likely to occur in the future (Akers, 1998) This study showed stronge st support for social learning theory. Social learning theory is widely recognized in the criminological literature explaining crime and deviance (Stitt & Giacopassi, 1992). Akers (1998) expanded the theory to explain the formulation of other behaviors o should be learned in the same way that definitions favorable or unfavorable to

PAGE 184

184 committing crime 309). In the Texas elderly study, Akers (1998) found primary group differential association of fear of crime messages Akers (1998) found social reinforcemen definitions and precautionary behavior. This supports the findings of the current study, where both differential association and reinforcement of crime messages increased individuals fear of crime. Interestingly, previous theories used to predict fear, such as social disorganization theory, were not strong predictors of fear in this sample. Although throughout the literature neighborhood variables have been found to predict fear (Covi ngto n & Taylor, 1991; Franklin et al., 2008; LaGrange et al., 1992; Lane & Meeker, 2003; May, 2001; Taylor & Hale, 1986 ), they have mostly been unable to explain racial and gender differences in fear levels (Lane & Fox, forthcoming; Lane & Meeker, 2003 ; Lane & Meeker, 2004; Rohe & Burby, 1988). More specifically, the fear victimization hypothesis, where minorities and females have higher fear or crime levels than whites and males ( Ferraro, 1996; Warr, 2000) However, this may be the effect of using a convenie nce sample of college students, which generally did not report much social disorganization in their own neighborhoods. Social learning theory and racial socialization variables were able to explain racial differences in fear of crime away and reduce the i mpact of gender on fear of crime. Therefore, learning models may be more powerful in explaining fear of crime than neighborhood conditions. Although social disorganization theory was not predictive of fear, this study does show some support for So cial Str ucture Social Learning t heory (Akers, 1998). For each

PAGE 185

185 crime type, gender had the strongest impact on fear. Gender is a social attribute and characteristic that determines where individuals stand in the overall social location in the social structure (Ake rs, 1998). Differential social location in the social structure is a macro level component of SSSL. Adding the micro level component of social learning variables substantially reduced the impact of gender on fear of crime. Therefore, social learning med iated the effect of social structure for fear of crime. Additionally, controlling for social learning variables decreased the effect of age and race on fear of violent crime to non significance and substantially reduced the effect of hometown size on fear of burglary. However, more research is needed using a nested design to fully evaluate SSSL ability to predict fear of crime. Race did not show a clear or consistent pattern in its impact on racial socialization or crime socialization on fear of crime. Most of the racial socialization literature focuses on African Americans, with little emphasis on other groups (Huynh & Fuligni, 2008). Therefore, this study adds to the literature by examining racial socialization across Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, and O thers. These findings imply socialization messages have a similar cognitive/emotional impact on all racial groups. There was another finding that showed up separate from the original research questions. Similar to findings throughout the literature, gend er was the most consistent and influential variable in explaining fear of crime, even after controlling for socialization and neighborhood variables (Ferraro, 1996 ; McGarrell, Giacomazzi, & Thurman, 1997; May, Rader, & Goodrum, 2010; Schafer et al., 2006; Warr, 1984, 2000 ). Rader and Haynes (2011) extended the social learning process to explain gender differences in fear of crime, which they refer to as the gendered fear of crime socialization process.

PAGE 186

186 Similar to how this study connected racial socializat ion and fear of crime socialization, Rader and Haynes built a theory fusing concepts of gender socialization and fear of test their theoretical model. Limitations and S uggestions for Future Research While the current study expands on previous fear of crime literature and theoretical understanding, some limitations exist. First, the data are cross sectional and self reported from university undergraduates. Future resear ch should consider examining individuals overtime and in a more diverse setting, such as other universities or communities. One reason neighborhood effects may not have been significant in this sample is the nature of the design. A nested design with ind ividual level and neighborhood level data may have provided a more complete prospective on understanding fear of crime (Scarborough et al., 2010). Additionally, the study is not able to determine feedback effects with a cross sectional design. This is es pecially important with the socialization variables, with both social learning of crime messages Akers & Sellers, 2009). More specifically, whether individuals with high fear of crime definitions look to interact with others who have similar definitions or peers fear of crime definitions influence individuals definitions. Secon fear of crime. Since this is the first study to do a complete test of social learning theory components on fear of crime, measures for social learning component are still being r efined. Specifically, the imitation measure contains only one item and is binary

PAGE 187

187 (yes/no). Additionally, individuals reported their peers definitions and reinforcement of fear of crime. Individuals may reflect their own fear of crime definitions on thei r peers. Third, the current study does not include macro level variables, which several studies show support in explaining fear of crime, including social disorganization (Covington & Taylor, 1991; Franklin et al., 2008; LaGrange et al., 1992; Scarborough et al., 2010). Future studies should expand on this research by including social structure variables in Akers (1998) SSSL theory. These findings are important because it is possible that socialization messages individuals are receiving from family and f riends are influences by community factors that in turn impact fear. Even though there are these limitations, this study does expand on previous fear of crime and socialization research. First, it connects two socialization models that t together before, racial socialization and social learning. Second,

PAGE 188

188 APPENDIX A IRB PROTOCOL This appendix contains the Institutional Review Board (IRB) Protocol for the current study that was submitted. UFIRB 02 Social & Behavioral Research Protocol Submission Form This form must be typed. Send this form and the supporting documents to IRB02, PO Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611. Should you have questions about compl eting this form, call 352 392 0433. Title of Protocol: University of Florida Student Experiences and Attitudes Interview Principal Investigator: Ashley Price UFID #: 1805 1521 Degree / Title: M.A. student Mailing Address: ( If on campus include PO Box address ): 3323 Turlington Hall, P.O. Box 117330 Gainesville, FL 32611 7330 Email : aprice@ufl.edu Department: Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law Telephone #: 239 331 6270 Co Investigator(s): UFID#: Email: Supervisor (If PI is stude nt) : Jodi Lane UFID# : 6776 5790 Degree / Title: Ph.D., Associate Professor Mailing Address: ( If on campus include PO Box address ): 3323 Turlington Hall, P.O. Box 117330 Gainesville, FL 32611 7330 Email : jlane@ufl.edu Department: Department of Sociol ogy and Criminology & Law Telephone #: (352) 392 0265 x 212 Date of Proposed Research: From May 1 2011 to April 30, 2012 Source of Funding (A copy of the grant proposal must be submitted with this protocol if funding is involved): Unfunded/None

PAGE 189

189 Scientific Purpose of the Study: The primary goal of the proposed research is to contribute and extend current theories on individual fear of crime by gaining in depth qualitative and quantitative data from university students. Research regarding fear of crime as a process of socialization is extremely under developed; a majority of research has focused on how neighborhood factors impact fear. However, it may be through both neighborhood conditions and socialization factors that fear of crime develops. The neighborhood where a person grows up may influence how a family member or friend views and reinforces crime. Messages about ones own or others races and ethnicities may fear of crime as it is influenced by demographic factors, neighborhood conditions, racial socialization and crime socialization. A secondary goal of this study is to explore whether fear of crime is influenced by attitudes toward the criminal justice syst em in general. Describe the Research Methodology in Non Technical Language: ( Explain what will be done with or to the research participant. ) The sample will be recruited from undergraduate students choosing to participate from the Department of Soci offer extra credit to students for their participation. Researchers will conduct face to face interviews with a maximum of 400 university students. T he interviews will last from 30 to 60 minutes, but may last longer or ended questions. All interviews will be conducted in a room on campus or in a location convenient for the students. Participants will be able to choose a time slot that is convenient for them on the participant pool website. For those not in the participant pool who are recruited through undergraduate classes allowing us to recruit students, they are able to set up a time by emailing t he researcher and selecting a time at their convenience. Once the participant has arrived he or she will be a given an informed consent form. The informed consent form will be read aloud and he or she will be asked to follow along ( please see attached i nformed consent ). After reading the consent form, if the participant agrees to participate, (s)he will be asked to sign and return it to the researcher The researcher will then placed the signed informed consent in an envelope and will give the particip ant an extra copy of the consent. Once a signed informed consent has been obtained, the researcher will complete the first page of the interview instrument. The first page of the interview is to ensure the participant gets credit in the participant pool or extra credit in their class for participating. It will also provide information on the interview date, time, and length. Once the cover sheet has been completed and the Study ID number is noted on both the cover sheet and first page of the instrument, the interview will begin. The interview will have both open and close ended responses. In order to fully obtain open ended responses, researchers will be instructed on the interview instrument when to turn on and off a tape recorder. Participants have t he option to stop the tape recording at any time, or to opt to not have their interview tape recorded. If participants do not want their responses to be tape recorded, researchers will write their response to the best of their ability in the answer blanks Additionally, researchers are instructed when to give participants a colored card to help them answer close ended questions ( please see attached cards ). The researcher will only give a card with answer options to the participant when it is related to a specific question and collect it when it is not relevant. After the interviews are complete, researchers will remove the cover sheet from the interview instrument and placed in a separate envelope, which will later be locked in a cabinet at the Universit y of Florida. Researchers will transcribe the tapes verbatim except any names or personal identifiers will be removed. Only the study ID # will be on the transcriptions to allow matching with the quantitative responses. Once transcription and analyses a re complete, the tapes will be destroyed. Researchers will also enter the data from quantitative responses into a data file in SPSS, and this data will not include any indentifying information.

PAGE 190

190 Describe Potential Benefits: There are no known benefits t o individual study participants. Describe Potential Risks: ( If risk of physical, psychological or economic harm may be involved, describe the steps taken to protect participant.) This study poses l ittle risk to the participants. However, a numbers of pr ocedures will be taken to greatly reduce this risk. researchers plan to keep the answers confidential, as noted in the informed consent. To ensu re the interviews removed from the instrument at the end of the interview and placed in a locked cabinet at the University of Florida. Names and other identifying information tape recorded for open ended questions will not be transcribed. The second risk is the possibility that some quest ions may be uncomfortable to answer. To minimize this risk, the consent for indicates participants may choose to stop participating at any time during the interview and do not have to answer any particular questions. In addition, participants have the op tion to stop tape recording the interview at any time. Therefore, subjects do not have to answer questions that make them feel uncomfortable to answer. Describe How Participant(s) Will Be Recruited : Participants will be recruited in two ways. The first is throu gh the Department of Sociology and Criminology & participant pool and by announcing the opportunity to undergraduate classes not involved in the participant pool. Students who participate in the pool will receive either course credit or ext ra credit in exchange for participating. Those in the participant pool who do not wish to participate in studies are given an alternative assignment to complete. The second way we are recruiting participants is by asking instructors to allow us to announc e and describe the study in their classes; some of them may choose to give extra credit. If the instructor course. Those who do not wish to participate in research will be given an alternative academic assignment to complete of equal time and effort The researcher will inform students about the opportunity and tell them to contact the researcher via email to set up an interview time. Fo r those courses that offer extra credit, the researcher will notify instructors the names of people who participated. Maximum Number of Participants (to be approached with consent) N = 400 Age Range of Participants: All participants will be over the age o f 18. Amount of Compensation/ course credit: 2 course credits or variable, depending on instructor Describe the Informed Consent Process. (Attach a Copy of the Informed Consent Document See http://i rb.ufl.edu/irb02/samples.html for examples of consent.) Once the respondents choose to participate and att end the designated time slot an informed consent will be given to them. Before the interview proceeds, t he informed consent will be read allowed and they will be asked to follow along. The consent will describe the purpose of the study, lack of compensation, voluntary participation ability to withdraw without penalty, and cont act information of the principal investigator and IRB. Participants will be given one copy to read and sign and return to the researcher. The participants will also receive a copy to take with them. (SIGNATURE SECTION)

PAGE 191

191 Principal Investigator(s) Signature: Date: Co Investigator(s) Signature(s): N/A Date: re (if PI is a student): Date: Department Chair Signature: Date:

PAGE 192

192 APPENDIX B INFORMED CONSENT This is the Informed Consent document that will be signed by all participants in order to participate in the study. A copy of the Informed Consent will also be given to the participants to take home. The following page show the full informed consent document. Informed Consent Title: University of Florida Student Experiences and Attitudes Interview Please read this consent document carefully before you decide d to participate in the study. Purpose of the research study: about their lives, including the things that worry them (including crime), t heir life experience, their families and friends, and their communities. What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to answer a series of questions about your personal characteristics, your family life, your experiences, feelings, and r esponses to crime and law enforcement. Additionally, you will be asked about your feelings towards your neighbors and community. With your permission, I would like to tape record some of your answers, so that I may describe your thoughts in your own word s rather than from my notes. The tapes will be kept in a locked filing cabinet in an office at the University of Florida. Your name will not be put on the tape. In addition, you have the option to stop the tape recording at any time, or to opt to not ha ve your interview tape recorded. For some of these questions, I will present you with a card with the answer options, and you will be asked to pick which option best fits your answer. I will then record the option you selected in the interview. If you a gree to let me interview you, please sign this consent form and return it to me. Please note that I will not place your name or anything that could be used to figure out who you are on the interview instrument or the tapes. The transcription also will not identify your name, and if you mention indentifying information throughout the interview, that information will not be transcribed. I will keep your identifying information separate from am interested in understanding your views and feelings about your life experience and community. Time required: It should take 30 60 minutes to complete the interview, but it could be longer depending on your pace and the length of your answers to open ended questions. The length of the interview will depend on how much you would like to share with me. Benefits: There are no known benefits to you. Compensation: You will not be compensated for participating in this study, unless your instructor choose s to give you course credit or extra credit for participation. If this is the case, we will notify your instructor that you participated. Credit for your cipant pool you will receive two course credits for your participation. Should you not choose to participate in research, there are alternative assignments available that are of equal time and effort. Risks and confidentiality: Taking part in this study create little risk for you. There is a slight risk that you may feel discomfort after answering some of the questions. If you need to talk to someone after the interview, you may contact the Alachua County Crisis Line at (352) 264 6789.

PAGE 193

193 Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law when reporting research findings. No one other than those working on this study will know your specific responses. We will not put your name or other identifiers on any of the responses you give. Rather, the interview instrument will have a subject number attached to it. We will keep a list of names and subject numbers separate to ensure that if someone reads your answers or interview transcription, he or she would not be able to determine that the respons es are yours. The cover page of the interview instrument will be removed and stored with the master list in a locked filing cabinet at the University of Florida. Your tape recorded answers will be transcribed using only the subject number. The tapes will be kept in a locked filing cabinet at the University of Florida. The list that connects your name to the subject number will be kept in a locked file in a research office at the University of Florida, separate from the tapes. Tapes will be destroyed once they are transcribed. Your name will not be used in any report. Instead, I will only report answers for the group as a whole (for example, how people answer in each response category). Voluntary Participation: You do not have to answer the questions. You r participation is completely voluntary. Nothing negative will happen if you do not want to join this study. An alternative assignment is available to you should you not want to participate in research. Right to withdraw from the study: You have the righ t to leave the study and stop the interview at any time. You also can choose to answer some questions and not answer other questions. Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Ashley Price, M.A. Student, Department of Sociology and Criminolog y & Law, 3332 Turlington Hall, P.O. Box 117330, Gainesville, FL 32611 7330, telephone (352) 392 0265, fax (352) 392 6568, email aprice@ufl.edu Jodi Lane, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Sociology and Crimin ology & Law, 3332 Turlington Hall, P.O. Box 117330, Gainesville, FL 32611 7330, telephone (352) 392 0265 x212, fax (352) 392 6568, email jlane@ufl.edu Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in thi s study: If you have questions about being involved in this research, you may contact: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250, telephone (352) 392 0433 Agreement: I have read this consent form. I voluntary AGREE to an swer the questions for this study (knowing that I can cease participation at any time without penalty), and I have received a copy of this form. ________________________________________________ ______ _________________ Sign your name above if you agree to participate Date ________________________________________________ Print your name above ________________________________________________ ______ _________________ Principal Investigator Date

PAGE 194

194 APPENDIX C COLORED CARDS WHITE CARD NEVER SOMETIMES REGULARLY ALL THE TIME 1 2 3 4 YELLOW CARD NOT AFRAID SOMEWHAT AFRAID AFRAID VERY AFRAID 1 2 3 4 ORANGE CARD VERY UNLIKELY UNLIKELY NEITHER LIKELY NOR UNLIKELY LIKELY VERY LIKELY 1 2 3 4 5 RED CARD MOTHER FATHER FRIEND NO ONE OTHER 1 2 3 4 5 GREEN CARD NOT SIMILAR SOMEWHAT SIMILAR SIMILAR VERY SIMILAR 1 2 3 4

PAGE 195

195 PINK CARD POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE 1 2 3 PURPLE CARD NOT A PROBLEM SOMEWHAT A PROBLEM A PROBLEM A BIG PROBLEM 1 2 3 4 BROWN CARD RECIVED WHAT THEY DESERVED RECEIVED TOO MUCH RECEIVED TOO LITTLE 1 2 3 BLUE CARD STRONGLY DISAGREE SOMEWHAT DISAGREE SOMEWHAT AGREE STRONGLY AGREE 1 2 3 4

PAGE 196

196 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT This interview instrument will be given to ea ch participant. The proposed instrument is 23 pages in length and contains 302 questions that are both open and close ended.

PAGE 197

197 _____________ Study ID # TO BE COMPLETED BY INTERVIEWER: Interview Number: Participants Name: Recruited through CLS parti cipant pool: Yes No Recruited through class: Yes No Instructor Name: Course Name: Extra credit offered? Consent Date: (dd/mm/yy) Date of Interview: (dd/mm/yy) Location of Interview: Interviewer Name: Time Interview Began: AM PM Time I nterview Ended: AM PM

PAGE 198

198 _____________ Study ID # First, I would like to know some background information about you. (Interviewer: Please circle only one answer for each question) 1. What is your sex? (Circle one) 1 Male 2 Female 2. What is you r date of birth? _______________________ (Interviewer: please enter date mm/dd/yy) 3. Which of the following comes closest to describing your racial/ethnic identity (Interviewer: read answer options and circle one) 1 Black/African American 2 White/Cauc asian 3 Latino/Hispanic 4 Asian/Pacific Islander 5 Mixed race/Biracial (Please specify _____________________________) 6 Other (Please specify _____________________________) 4. What is your religious preference? (Interviewer: do not read answer optio ns and circle one) 1 Catholic 2 Jewish 3 Baptist 4 Methodist 5 Episcopalian 6 Lutheran 7 Presbyterian 8 Pentecostal 9 Muslim 10 Buddhist 11 Hindu 12 None 13 Other (Please specify _____________________________) 5. What is your class level in college? (Interviewer: do not read answer options and circle one) 1 Freshman 2 Sophomore 3 Junior 4 Senior 5 Other (Please specify _____________________________)

PAGE 199

199 6. In which of the following general fields is your major (first major if you have more than one)? 1 Natural Science or Math (physics, chemistry, etc.) 2 Social or Behavioral Science (sociology, psychology, criminology, anthropology, etc.) 3 Humanities (language, philosophy, history, etc.) 4 Business (accounting, business administration, etc.) 5 Fine arts (music, drama, art, etc.) 6 Undecided 7 Other (Please specify _____________________________) 7. Is your major criminology? (Intervi ewer: do not read answer options and circle one) 1 Yes 2 No 8. Politically, how would you de (Interviewer: read answer options and circle one) 1 Very Liberal 2 Liberal 3 Middle of the Road 4 Conservative 5 Very Cons ervative 6 9. What is your current marital status? (Interviewer: do not read answer options and circle one) 1 Married 2 Widowed 3 Divorced 4 Separated 5 Never Married/Single 6 Living with a Partner 10. During the school year, do you liv e with your parents? (Interviewer: do not read answer options and circle one) 1 Yes 2 No 11. 1 On campus student housing 2 On campus fraternity or sorority h ouse 3 Off campus apartment, condo, or house

PAGE 200

200 12. How would you describe your hometown, would you say it is: (Interviewer: read answer options and circle one) 1 Small rural 2 Medium suburban 3 Large metropolitan 13. How many brother s do you have? ________ (Interviewer: Enter #) 14. How many sisters do you have? ________ (Interviewer: Enter #) 15. Is the family in which you were reared for all or most of your adolescent years best described as? (Interviewer: read answer options and c ircle one) 1 Two Parent Family (go to question 16) 2 Single Parent Family (skip to question 17) 3 Family in which parents were absent with others serving as parents or guardians (skip to question 17) 16. answer options and circle one) 1 Biological Family 2 Step Family 3 Other (Please specify _____________________________) 17. To the best of your knowledge, which of the following categories best fits your (Inte rviewer: read answer options and circle one) 1 Less than $15,000 2 Between $15,000 and $24,999 3 Between $25,000 and $34,999 4 Between $35,000 and $49,999 5 Between $50,000 and $74,999 6 Between $75,000 and $99,999 7 $100,000 or more 8 Not sure 9 N /A I would like you to indicate how often your parents engaged in the following behaviors when (Interviewer: hand respondent white card and circle one answer f or each question) Never Sometimes Regularly All the time 18. Talked to you about important people or events in history of different racial or ethnic groups, other than your own 1 2 3 4 19. Encouraged you to read books about other racial or ethnic groups 1 2 3 4

PAGE 201

201 Never Sometimes Regularly All the time 20. Talked to you about important people or events in your racial or ethnic history 1 2 3 4 21. Talked to you about discrimination against a racial or ethnic group that is not your own 1 2 3 4 22 Explained something on TV that showed discrimination 1 2 3 4 23. Talked to you about discrimination against your own racial or ethnic group 1 2 3 4 24. Encouraged you to read books about your own racial or ethnic group 1 2 3 4 25. Did or said things t o show that all are equal regardless of race or ethnicity 1 2 3 4 26. Talked to you about others trying to limit you because of your race or ethnicity 1 2 3 4 27. Told you that you must be better to get same rewards because of your race or ethnicity 1 2 3 4 28. Told you your own race or ethnicity is an important part of self 1 2 3 4 29. Talked to someone else about discrimination when you could hear 1 2 3 4 30. Talked to you about unfair treatment due to your race or ethnicity 1 2 3 4 31. Did or sai d things to you to keep you from trusting kids of other races or ethnicities 1 2 3 4 32. Did or said things to encourage you to keep your distance from people of other races or ethnicities 1 2 3 4 The following questions are about your racial or ethnic group and how you feel about or react to it. Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements. Would you say that you respondent blue card and circle one answer option) (Phinney, 1992) Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree 33. I have spent time trying to find out more about my own ethnic or racial group, such as its history, traditions, and customs 1 2 3 4

PAGE 202

202 Strongly Disagree S omewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree 34. I am active in organizations or social groups that include mostly members of my own ethnic or racial group 1 2 3 4 35. I have a clear sense of my ethnic or racial background and what it means for me 1 2 3 4 36. I like meeting and getting to know people from ethnic or racial groups other than my own 1 2 3 4 37. I think a lot about how may life will be affected by my ethnic or racial group membership 1 2 3 4 38. I am happy that I am a member of the group I belong to 1 2 3 4 39. I sometimes feel it would be better if different ethnic or racial groups 1 2 3 4 40. I am not very clear about the role of my ethnicity or race in my life 1 2 3 4 41. I often spend time with people fro m ethnic or racial groups other than my own 1 2 3 4 42. I really have not spend much time trying to learn more about the culture and history of my ethnic or racial group 1 2 3 4 43. I have a strong sense of belonging to my own ethnic or racial group 1 2 3 4 44. I understand pretty well what my ethnic or racial group membership means to me, in terms of how to relate to my own group and other groups 1 2 3 4 45. In order to learn more about my ethnic or racial background, I have often talked to other peop le about my group 1 2 3 4 46. I have a lot of pride in my ethnic or racial group and it accomplishments 1 2 3 4 people from other ethnic or racial groups 1 2 3 4

PAGE 203

203 53. Have you spent time tryin g to find out more abou t peop le of your own r ace or ethnicity, such as history, traditions, and customs? (Interviewer: Do not read response options and circle one) ( Hughes & Johnson, 2001) 1 Yes 2 No (Interviewer: Turn on tape recorder) 54. If yes, please explain what you did to find out more ab out people of you race or ethnicity? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ( Interviewer: Turn off tape recorder) 55. Now I would like to ask you some questions about crime, how often do you see reports of (Akers, 1998) Less than once a month Once a month A couple times a month Once a week More than once a week Everyday 1 2 3 4 5 6 (Interviewer: Read answer options and circle one) (Akers, 1998) Less than once a m onth Once a month A couple times a month Once a week More than once a week Everyday 1 2 3 4 5 6 Strongly Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Strongly Agree 48. I participate in cultural practices of my own group, such as special food, music, or customs 1 2 3 4 49. I am involved in activities with people from other ethnic or racial groups 1 2 3 4 50. I feel a strong attachment towards my own ethnic or racial group 1 2 3 4 51. I enjoy being around people from ethnic or racial groups other than my own 1 2 3 4 52. I feel good about my cultural background 1 2 3 4

PAGE 204

204 (Interviewer: Read answer options and circle one) (Akers, 1998) Less than once a month Once a month A couple times a month Once a week More than once a week Everyday 1 2 3 4 5 6 I would like to ask you about how personally afraid you are of the following crimes. For each of the following crimes please indicate if you are not afraid, somewhat afraid, afraid, or very afraid. In the past year how personally afraid have you been of: (Interviewer: Hand participant yellow card and circle one answer for each question) Not Afraid Somewhat Afraid Afraid Very Afraid 58. Be ing ap proached by a beggar or panhandler 1 2 3 4 59. Having someone break into your home while you are there 1 2 3 4 60. Be ing raped or sexually assaulted 1 2 3 4 61. Be ing murdered 1 2 3 4 62. Be ing attacked by someone with a weapon 1 2 3 4 63. Having y our car stolen 1 2 3 4 64. Be ing robbed or mugged on the street 1 2 3 4 65. Having your property damaged 1 2 3 4 66. Be ing threatened by someone 1 2 3 4 67. Be ing beaten up by someone 1 2 3 4 68. Be shot at while walking down the street 1 2 3 4 69 Having your property damaged by graffiti or tagging 1 2 3 4 70. Having someone break into your home while you are away 1 2 3 4 71. Having someone commit a home invasion robbery against you 1 2 3 4 72. Be ing the victim of a drive by or random shootin g 1 2 3 4 73. Be ing physically assaulted or attacked by someone 1 2 3 4 74. Be ing harassed by someone 1 2 3 4

PAGE 205

205 Not Afraid Somewhat Afraid Afraid Very Afraid 75. Be ing a victim of a car jacking 1 2 3 4 76. Having your money or property taken from you without using force or weapon 1 2 3 4 77. Having your money or property taken from you with force or weapon 1 2 3 4 78. Be ing around drug use or sales 1 2 3 4 (Interviewer: Turn on tape recorder and read the following questions) 79. Are there any ot her crimes that you are personally afraid of that are not listed here? Please explain. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ _____________ _______________________________________________ Now that you have indicated how personally afraid you are, I would like to know if you have (Interviewer: Read answe r options and circle yes or no to the following crimes they indicate they were victims of) Yes No 80. Approached by a beggar or panhandler 1 0 81. Someone break into your home while you were there 1 0 82. Raped or sexually assaulted 1 0 83. Attacked by someone with a weapon 1 0 84. Car stolen 1 0 85. Robbed or mugged on the street 1 0 86. Property damaged 1 0 87. Threatened by someone 1 0 88. Beaten up by someone 1 0 89. Shot at while walking down the street 1 0 90. Property damaged by graff iti or tagging 1 0 91. Someone break into your home while you are away 1 0 92. Someone commit a home invasion robbery against you 1 0 93.Victim of drive by or random shooting 1 0 94. Physically assaulted or attacked by someone 1 0 95. Harassed by som eone 1 0 96. Victim of a car jacking 1 0 97. Money or property taken away without force or weapon 1 0

PAGE 206

206 Yes No 98. Money or property taken away with force or weapon 1 0 99. Around drug use or sales 1 0 100. If yes, please describe which ones and wha t happened to you? (Interviewer: indicate crime from previous response and write out response from participant) ______________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ____________ ____________________________________________________________ Has anyone in your family been a victim of the previously listed crimes in the last year? Has to the following crimes they indicate someone in their family was a victim of) Yes No 101. Approached by a beggar or panhandler 1 0 102. Someone break into your home while you were there 1 0 103. Raped or sexually assaulted 1 0 104. Attacked by som eone with a weapon 1 0 105. Car stolen 1 0 106. Robbed or mugged on the street 1 0 107. Property damaged 1 0 108. Threatened by someone 1 0 109. Beaten up by someone 1 0 110. Shot at while walking down the street 1 0 111. Property damaged by graff iti or tagging 1 0 112. Someone break into your home while you are away 1 0 113. Someone commit a home invasion robbery against you 1 0 114.Victim of drive by or random shooting 1 0 115. Physically assaulted or attacked by someone 1 0 116. Harassed b y someone 1 0 117. Victim of a car jacking 1 0 118. Money or property taken away without force or weapon 1 0 119. Money or property taken away with force or weapon 1 0 120. Around drug use or sales 1 0 121. If yes, please describe which ones and what happened to them? (Interviewer: indicate crime from previous response and write out response from participant) ______________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ ____________ ____________________________________________________________ (Interviewer turn tape recorder off)

PAGE 207

207 I would like you to indicate how likely you think it is that in the next year you will become a victim of the following crimes. Is it not likely somewhat likely, likely, or very likely that you for each question) Very unlikely Unlikely Neither likely nor unlikely Likely Very Likely 122. Be approached by a beggar or panhandler 1 2 3 4 5 123. Have someone break into your home while you are there 1 2 3 4 5 124. Be raped or sexually assaulted 1 2 3 4 5 125. Be murdered 1 2 3 4 5 126. Be attacked by someone with a weapon 1 2 3 4 5 127. Have your car st olen 1 2 3 4 5 128. Be robbed or mugged on the street 1 2 3 4 5 129. Have your property damaged 1 2 3 4 5 130. Be threatened by someone 1 2 3 4 5 131. Be beaten up by someone 1 2 3 4 5 132. Be shot at while walking down the street 1 2 3 4 5 133. H ave your property damaged by graffiti or tagging 1 2 3 4 5 134. Have someone break into your home while you are away 1 2 3 4 5 135. Have someone commit a home invasion robbery against you 1 2 3 4 5 136. Be the victim of a drive by or random shooting 1 2 3 4 5 137. Be physically assaulted or attacked by someone 1 2 3 4 5 138. Be harassed by someone 1 2 3 4 5 139. Be a victim of a car jacking 1 2 3 4 5 140. Have your money or property taken from you without using force or weapon 1 2 3 4 5 141. Hav e your money or property taken from you with force or weapon 1 2 3 4 5 142. Be around drug use or sales 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 208

208 In order to feel safer from being a victim of crime in the neighborhood you grew up in did r options and circle one answer for each question) Yes No DK 143. Buy or secure a gun 1 0 98 144. Carry a gun 1 0 98 145. Carry a weapon other than a gun when you went out 1 0 98 146. Arrange to go out with someone so you would not be alone 1 0 98 147. Avoid certain areas of your neighborhood or community 1 0 98 148. Join a gang for protection 1 0 98 149. Hangout with gang members 1 0 98 150. Buy an alarm or security system 1 0 98 151. Install extra locks on your home or car 1 0 98 152. Buy a watchdog 1 0 98 153. Add outside lighting 1 0 98 154. Learn more about self defense 1 0 98 155. Limit or change your daily routine because of crime 1 0 98 156. Generally avoid unsafe areas during the day because of crime 1 0 98 157. Avoid unsafe are as during the night because of crime 1 0 98 158. Have you ever imitated a behavior that you observed someone you admire (family member or friend) do to prevent themselves from becoming a victim of crime 1 0 98 (Interviewer: Turn tape recorder on and rea d the following questions) 159. What crime or crimes were you trying to avoid by taking the previously listed precautions? Please explain. ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________ __________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 160. What do you think the consequences would be if you had not taken these precautions? _______________________________________________________________ _______________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________

PAGE 209

209 161. Do you feel that doing these things has helped keep you safe? Please explain how. _____________ _________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Interviewer: Turn tape recorder off) Please indic ate who is most likely to talk to you about being a victim of the following crimes? (Interviewer: Give respondent red card and circle one answer for each question) (Busselle, 2003) Mother Father Friend No one Other (Please specify __ _______ _____ ___ ) 162. Be ing approached by a beggar or panhandler 1 2 3 4 5 163. Having someone break into your home while you are there 1 2 3 4 5 164. Be ing raped or sexually assaulted 1 2 3 4 5 165. Be ing murdered 1 2 3 4 5 166. Be ing attacked by someone with a w eapon 1 2 3 4 5 167. Having your car stolen 1 2 3 4 5 168. Be ing robbed or mugged on the street 1 2 3 4 5 169. Having your property damaged 1 2 3 4 5 170. Being threatened by someone 1 2 3 4 5 171. Be ing beaten up by someone 1 2 3 4 5 172. Be ing shot at while walking down the street 1 2 3 4 5 173. Having your property damaged by graffiti tagging 1 2 3 4 5 174. Having someone break into your home while you are away 1 2 3 4 5 175. Having someone commit a home invasion robbery against you 1 2 3 4 5 176. Being the victim of a drive by or random shooting 1 2 3 4 5 177. Be ing physically assaulted or attacked by someone 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 210

210 Mother Father Friend No one Other (Please specify __ ______ _____ ___) 178. Be ing harassed by someone 1 2 3 4 5 179. B e ing a victim of a car jacking 1 2 3 4 5 180. Having your money or property taken from you without using force or weapon 1 2 3 4 5 181. Having your money or property taken from you with force or weapon 1 2 3 4 5 182. Being around drug use or sales 1 2 3 4 5 183. How often do you think your parents think about you being a victim of crime? (Interviewer: read respondent answer choices and circle response) (Tulloch, 2004) Not Often Somewhat Often Often Very Often 1 2 3 4 184. How often do your parent s talk to you about crime? (Interviewer: read respondent answer choices and circle response) Never Sometimes Regularly All the time 1 2 3 4 185. How often do your friends talk to you about crime? (Interviewer: read respondent answer choices and circle r esponse) Never Sometimes Regularly All the time 1 2 3 4 (Interviewer: Turn on tape recorder and read the following questions) 186. Do your parents ask you to do anything to protect yourself against crime? (Interviewer: circle response) (Tulloch, 2004) 1 Yes 2 No 187. If yes, please explain what they ask you to do. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________ 188. Do you take your parents advice about protecting yourself against crime? (Interviewer: circle response) (Tulloch, 2004) 1 Yes 2 No

PAGE 211

211 189. Please explain why or why not you choose or do not choose to take your parents advic e about protecting yourself about crime. ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ 190. Do your friends ask you to do anything to protect yourself against crime? (Interviewer: circle response) (Tulloch, 2004) 1 Yes 2 No 191. If yes, please explain what they ask you to do. ____________________________________________________________ __________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ 192. Do you take your friends advice about protecting yourself against crime? (Interviewer: circle response) (Tulloch, 2004) 1 Yes 2 No 193. Please explain why or why not you choose or do not choose to take your friends advice about protecting yourself about crime. ______________________________________________________________________________ _______ _______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Interviewer: Turn tape recorder off) To the best of your knowledge, on a scale of 1 (not fearful at all) to 10 (very fea rful) how fearful is each of the groups about crime in general? (Akers, 1998) Scale of 1(not fearful at all) to 10 (very fearful ) N/A 194. Spouse or significant other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97 195. Mother 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97 196. Father 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97 197. Grandmother 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97 198. Grandfather 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97 199. Sisters 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97 200. Brothers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97 201. Best friends 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97 202. Neighbors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97 203. Work associates 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97 204. C hurch members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97

PAGE 212

212 Scale of 1(not fearful at all) to 10 (very fearful ) N/A 205. Fraternity or Sorority members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97 206. C lub members 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 97 How similar are the following groups fear of crime to yours? For each of the following groups please indicate whether they are not similar, somewhat similar, similar, or ve ry similar. (Interviewer: Please hand respondent green card and circle one answer for each question) Not Similar Somewhat Similar Similar Very Similar N/A 207. Spouse or significant other 1 2 3 4 97 208. Mother 1 2 3 4 97 209. Father 1 2 3 4 97 210. G randmother 1 2 3 4 97 211. Grandfather 1 2 3 4 97 212. Sisters 1 2 3 4 97 213. Brothers 1 2 3 4 97 214. Best friends 1 2 3 4 97 215. Neighbors 1 2 3 4 97 216. Work associates 1 2 3 4 97 217. Church members 1 2 3 4 97 218. Fraternity or Sorority mem bers 1 2 3 4 97 219. Club members 1 2 3 4 97 If you were to express your fear of crime, how do you think the following groups would react to respondent pink c ard and circle one answer for each question) Positive Neutral Negative N/A 220. Spouse or significant other 1 2 3 97 221. Mother 1 2 3 97 222. Father 1 2 3 97 223. Grandmother 1 2 3 97 224. Grandfather 1 2 3 97 225. Sisters 1 2 3 97 226. Brothers 1 2 3 97 227. Best friends 1 2 3 97 228. Neighbors 1 2 3 97 229. Work associates 1 2 3 97 230. Church members 1 2 3 97 231. Fraternity or Sorority members 1 2 3 97

PAGE 213

213 Positive Neutral Negative N/A 232. Club members 1 2 3 97 (Interviewer: Turn on tap e recorder and read the following question) 233. Is there anything about fear of crime that you feel is important for me to know that I have not asked you about? ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________ ______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Interviewer: Turn off tape recorder) Now I would like to ask you some questions about law enforcement where you grew up or lived i n for the longest period of time before coming to college. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements about the police force where you grew up. (Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Fagan, 2008) (Interviewer: hand participant blue card a nd read answer options and circle one answer for each question) Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 234. You should accept the decisions made by police, even if you think they are wrong 1 2 3 4 5 235. You should do what the police te ll you to do even when you do not understand the reasons for their decisions 1 2 3 4 5 236. You should do what the police tell you to do, even when you disagree with their decisions 1 2 3 4 5 237. You should do what the police tell you to do even when y ou do not like the way they treat you 1 2 3 4 5 238. There are times when it is ok for you to ignore what the police tell you 1 2 3 4 5 239. Sometimes you have to bend the law for things to come out right 1 2 3 4 5 240. The law represents the values of the people in power, rather than the values of people like you 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 214

214 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 241. People in power use the law to try to control people like you 1 2 3 4 5 242. The law does not protect your interests 1 2 3 4 5 243. Overall, the police where you grew up is a legitimate authority and people should obey they decisions that officers make 1 2 3 4 5 244. I have confidence that the police in the neighborhood I grew up can do their job well 1 2 3 4 5 245. I trust the leaders of the police in my hometown to makes decisions that are good for everyone in the city 1 2 3 4 5 well protected by the police 1 2 3 4 5 247. The police care about the well being of everyone they deal wi th 1 2 3 4 5 248. I am proud of the work of the police in my hometown 1 2 3 4 5 249. The police in my hometown are often dishonest 1 2 3 4 5 250. Some of the things the police do embarrass the city where I grew up 1 2 3 4 5 251. There are many things a bout the police in my hometown and its policies that need to be changed 1 2 3 4 5 252. I agree with many of the values that define what the police in my hometown stand for 1 2 3 4 5 253. If you talked to most of the police officers who worked in your hom etown, you would find they have views to your own on many issues 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 215

215 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 254. You can usually understand why the police who work in your hometown are acting as they are in a particular situation 1 2 3 4 5 255. You generally like the police officers who work in your hometown 1 2 3 4 5 256. If most of the police officers who work in your hometown knew you, they would respect your values 1 2 3 4 5 257. Most of the police officers who work in your neighborhood would value what you contribute to your hometown 1 2 3 4 5 258. Most of the police officers who work in your hometown would approve of your life 1 2 3 4 5 259. I am proud of the work of my hometown police 1 2 3 4 5 Now I would like to ask you some questions about the neighborhood you grew up in or lived for the longest period before coming to college. Please think about the neighborhood you grew up in while answering the following questions. 260. How long did you live in this neighborhood ? __________ Year/Months/Days (Interviewer: enter number and circle unit of time) best applies) 1 Apartment 2 Condo 3 Duplex 4 Group home 5 Single family house 6 Trailer 7 Other (Please specify _____________________________)

PAGE 216

216 262. How would you define the neighborhood you grew up in? (Interviewer: read answer options and circle one) 1 The block you live on 2 The block around your ho me 3 Your housing development 4 A section of your city 5 Your entire city 6 Your region of the county 7 Your county 8 Other (Please specify _____________________________) 263. How would you describe the people in your neighborhood where you gre w up in terms of race/ethnicity? (Interviewer: read answer options and circle one) The majority the same race/ethnicity as you 50/50 The majority a different race/ethnicity as you 1 2 3 I am going to ask you some more questions about the neighborhood yo u grew up in, as you define it. With regard to the neighborhood that you consider to be your home neighborhood please indicate how strongly you agree with the following statements. Please indicate whether you strong disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, or s trongly agree. (Sampson et al., 1997) (Interviewer: hand participant blue card and read answer options and circle one answer for each question) Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree 264. The neighborhood you grew up in was a close knit neighborhood 1 2 3 4 5 265. People in the neighborhood you grew up in could be trusted 1 2 3 4 5 266. People in the neighborhood you grew up in generally do not get along with each other 1 2 3 4 5 267. People in the neighborhood you grew up in do not s hare the same values 1 2 3 4 5 268. People in the neighborhood you grew up in are willing to help their neighbors 1 2 3 4 5 (Interviewer: Turn tape recorder on a read the following questions) 269. What specifically, do you think you could rely on the people in the neighborhood you grew up in for? Why? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________ ____________

PAGE 217

217 270. What could you NOT rely on the people in the neighborhood you grew up in for? Why? ______________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ __ ____________________________________________________________ 271. Why or why not could the people in the neighborhood you grew up be trusted? Please describe. ______________________________________________________________________________ ________________ ______________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Interviewer: Turn off tape recorder) With regard to the neighborhood that you consider to be your home neighborhood please indicat e how likely neighbors could be counted on to intervene if the following things occurred in your neighborhood. Would you say it is very likely, likely, neither likely nor unlikely, or very 1997) (Interviewer: Hand respondent orange card and circle answer options) Very unlikely Unlikely Neither likely nor unlikely Likely Very Likely 272. Children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner 1 2 3 4 5 273. Children were spray p ainting graffiti on a local building 1 2 3 4 5 274. Children were showing disrespect to an adult 1 2 3 4 5 275. A fight broke out in front of their house 1 2 3 4 5 276. The fire station closest to their home was threatened with budget cuts 1 2 3 4 5 277. How often do individuals move in and out of the neighborhood you grew up in? Not Often Somewhat Often Often Very Often 1 2 3 4

PAGE 218

218 With regard to the neighborhood that you consider to be your home neighborhood please indicate whether or not th e following problems characterize your neighborhood Please indicate if the following item s are a big problem, a problem, somewhat of a problem, or not a problem. (Lane, 2006) (Interviewer: Hand respondent purple card and circle one answer for each questio n) Not a problem Somewhat of a problem A problem A big problem 278. Litter, broken glass, or trash on sidewalks or streets 1 2 3 4 279. Graffiti on buildings or walls 1 2 3 4 280. Vacant or deserted homes, cars, or storefronts 1 2 3 4 281. Buildings t hat are falling apart or run down 1 2 3 4 282. Drinking in public 1 2 3 4 283. People selling drugs on the streets 1 2 3 4 284. Youths hanging out unsupervised 1 2 3 4 285. Poverty or financial hardship 1 2 3 4 286. Language differences between resid ents 1 2 3 4 287. Cultural differences between residents 1 2 3 4 288. Racial difference between residents 1 2 3 4 289. Too many people living in one home 1 2 3 4 290. Gunfire 1 2 3 4 291. Gangs 1 2 3 4 292. People drunk or high on the streets 1 2 3 4 293. Too much noise 1 2 3 4 294. Decreasing housing values 1 2 3 4 295. People moving in and out a lot 1 2 3 4 296. Dark areas with no or little lighting at night 1 2 3 4 297. Areas feel strange or unknown 1 2 3 4

PAGE 219

219 Not a problem Somewhat of a probl em A problem A big problem 298. People using drugs 1 2 3 4 299. Increasing crime 1 2 3 4 300. The community is no longer the way it used to be 1 2 3 4 (Interviewer: Turn on tape recorder and read the following questions) 301. Specifically, what crim es were MOST problematic to you in the neighborhood you grew up in? Why? ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________ _________________________________ 302. Specifically, what crimes were LEAST problematic to you in the neighborhood you grew up in? Why? ______________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________ _____________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ (Interviewer: Turn off tape recorder and thank respondent for their participation )

PAGE 220

220 LIST OF REFERENCES Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social struct ure. Northeastern University Press: Boston. Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2009). Criminological Theories. (5th ed.). New York: Oxford Press. Apel, R., & Kaukinen, C. (2008). On the relationsh ip between family structure and antisocial behavior: Parental c ohabitation and blended households. Criminology, 46(1), 35 70. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1979). A simple test for heteroskedasticity and random coefficient variation. Econometrica, 47, 1287 1294. Brown, T. N., Tanner Smith, E. E., Lesane Brown, C. L. & Ezeil, M. E. (2007). Child, parent, and situational correlates of familial ethnic/race socialization. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69(1), 14 25. Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L. (1966). A differe ntial association reinforcement theory of criminal behav ior. Social Problems, 14, 128 147. M., & Nickerson, N. (2002). The influence of racial socialization practices on the cognitive and behavioral competence of African American preschoolers. Child Development, 73(5) 1611 1625. ). Neighborhood matters: Racial socialization of African American children. Child Development, 77(5), 1220 1236. Clogg, C. C., Petkova, E., & Haritou, A. (1995). Statistica l methods for comparing regression coefficients between models. American Journal of Sociology, 100 1261 1293. Cook, C. L., & Lane, J. (2009). Legislator ideology and corrections and sentencing policy in Florida. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 20(2), 209 235. Cops, D. (2010). Socializing into fear: The impact of socializing institutions on adolescents' fear of crime. Young, 18, 385 402 Cordner, G. (2010). Reducing fear of crime: Strategies for police. Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from http://www.popcenter.org/library/reading/p dfs/ReducingFearGuide.pdf Covington, J., & Taylor, R. (1991). Fea r of crime in urban residential neighborhoods: Implications of between and within neighborhood sources for current models. The Sociological Quarterly, 32(2), 231 249.

PAGE 221

221 De Groof, S. (2008). A nd my mama said: The (relative) parental influence on fear of crime among adolescent girls and boys. Youth Society, 39(3), 267 293. DeLone, G. (2008). Public housing and the fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(2), 115 125. Ferraro, K. F. (1995) Fear of Crime: Interpreting victimization risk. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY. Social Forces, 75, 667 690. Ferraro, K. F. & LaGrange, R. (1987). The measure ment of fear of crime. Sociological Inquiry, 57, 70 101. Franklin, T. W., Franklin, C. A., & Fearn, N. E. (2008). A multilevel analysis of the vulnerability, disorder, and social integration models of fear of crime. Social Justice Research, 21, 204 227. Go The British Journal of Criminology, 37 (3), 401 418. Hale, C. (1996). Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of Victimology, 4, 79 150. Hughes, D., & Chen, L. (1997). When and what paren ts tell chil dren about race: An examination of race related socialization among African A merican families. Applied Developmental Science, 1(4), 200 214. racial socialization behaviors. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 981 995 Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., John son, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42(5), 747 770. Huynh, V. W., & Fuligni, A. J. (2008). Ethnic socialization and the academic adjustment of adolescents from Mexican, Chinese, and European backgrounds. Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 1202 1208. Johnson, R. E. (1986). Family s tructure and de linquency: general patterns and gender differences. Criminology, 24(1), 65 84. Jordan, K. L., & Gabbidon, S. L. (2010). Race/ethnicity and perceptions of safety among a national sample of Americans. Criminal Justice Review, 35, 281 294. LaGr ange, R., & Ferraro, K. (1989). Assessing age and gender differences in perceived risk and fear of crime. Criminology, 27(4), 697 720.

PAGE 222

222 LaGrange, R., Ferraro, K., & Supancic, M. (19 92). Perceived risk and fear of crime: Role of social and physical incivilit ies. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29(3), 311 334. Lane, J. (2006). Exploring fear of general and gang crimes among juveniles on probation: The impacts of delinquent behaviors. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(1), 34 54. Lane, J. (200 9). Perceptions of neighborhood problems, fear of crime, and resulting behavioral precautions: Comparing institutionalized girls and boys in Florida. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25, 264 281. Lane, J. & Fox, K. A. (forthcoming ). Fear of crime among gang and non gang offenders: Comparing the impacts of perpetration, victimization, and neighborhood factors. Justice Quarterly. Lane, J., & Meeker, J. W. (2000). Subcultural diversity and fear of crime and gangs. Crime and Delinquency, 46, 497 521. La ne, J., & Meeker, J. (2003 ). Fear of Gang Crime: A Look at Three Theoretical Models. Law & Society Review 37 (2), 425 456. Lane, J., & Meeker, J. (2004). Social disorganization, fear of gang crime, and behavioral precautions among whites, latinos, and v ietnamese. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 49 62. Lee, G. Akers, R. L., & Borg, M. (2004 ). Social learning and structural factors in adolescent substance use. Western Criminology Review, 5(1), 17 34. Levanthal, T., & Brooks Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborh oods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 309 337. Lindquist, J. H., & Duke, J. M. (1982). The elderly victi m at risk: Explaining the fear victimization paradox. Criminology, 20, 115 126. Liska, A. E., Lawrence, J. J., & Sanchirico, A. (1982). Fear of crime as a social fact. Social Forces, 60(3), 760 770. May, D. C. (2001). Adolescent fear of crime, perceptions of risk, and defensive behaviors. Sociological Spectrum, 21, 141 17 4. May, D. C., Rader, N. E., & Goodrum, S. (2010). A gendered assessment of the avoidance, and defensive behaviors. Criminal Justice Review, 35, 159 182.

PAGE 223

223 May, D. C., Vartanian, L. R., & Virgo, K. (2002). The impact of parental attachment and supervision on fear of crime among adolescent males. Adolescence, 37, 267 287. McCoy, H. V., Wooldredge, J. D., Cullen, F. T., Dubeck, P. J., & Browning, S. L. (1996). Lifestyles Journal of Criminal Justice, 24(3), 191 205. McGarrell, E. F., Giacomazzi, A. L., & Thurman, Q. C. (1997). Neighborhood disorder, integration, and the fear of crime. Justice Qu arterly, 14(3), 479 500. Merry, S. E. (1981). Urban danger: Life in a neighborhood of strangers. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spati al dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39(3), 517 558. Norris, F. H., & Kaniasty, K. (1992). A longitudinal study of the effects of various crime prevention strategies on criminal victimization, fear of crime, and psychological distress. American Jour nal of Community Psychology, 20(5), 625 648. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859 866. Perkins, D., Florin, P., Rich, R., & Wan dersman, A. (1990). Pa rticipation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime a nd community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 83 115. Perkins, D. D., Meeks, J. W., & Taylor, R. B. (1992). The physical enviro nment of street blocks and resident perceptions of crime and disorder: Implications for theory and measurement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 21 34. Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Sellers, C. S., Winfree, L. T., Madensen, T. D., Daigle, L. E., Fea rn, N. E., & Gau, J. M. (2010). The empirical status of social learning theory: A meta analysis. Justice Quarterly, 27(6), 765 802. Rader, N. E. (2010). Until death do us part? Husba nd perceptions and responses to fear of crime. Deviant Behavior, 31, 33 59. Rader, N. E., & Haynes, S. H. (2011). Gendered fear of crime socialization: An Feminist Criminology, 6(4), 291 307. Rader, N. E., May, D. C., & Goodrum, S. (2007). An empi rical assessment of the of vict defensive behaviors. Sociological Spectrum, 27, 475 505.

PAGE 224

224 Rohe, W. M., & Burby, R. J. (1988). Fear of crime and public housing. Environment and Behavior, 20(6), 700 720. R usselle, R. W. ( warnings, and Communication Research, 30(5), 530 556. Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social disorganization theory. Ameri can Journal of Sociology, 94, 774 802. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W. & Earls, F. (1 997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918 924. Scarborough, B. K., Like Haislip, T. Z., Novak, K. J., Lucas, W L., & Alarid, L. F. (2010). Assessing the relationship between individual characteristics, neighborhood context, and fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 819 826. Schafer, J. A., Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (20 06). Fear of crime and crimina l victimization: Gender based contrasts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(3), 285 301. Scheingold, S. A. (1995). Politics, public policy and street crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 539(1), 155 168. Shaw, C., & McKay H. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Shaw, C., & McKay, H. (1969). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas Revised Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Skogan, W. G. (1986). Fear of crime and nei ghborhood change. Crime and Justice, 8, 203 229. Skogan, W. G. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American Neighborhoods. New York: Free Press. Stitt, G. B., & Giacopassi, D. J. (1992). Trends in the connectivity of theory and r esearch in criminology. Criminologist, 17(1), 3 6. Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of Criminology Philadelphia: Lippincott. Sutton, R. M., & Farrall, S. (2005). Gender, socially de sirable responding and the fear of crime. British Journal of Criminolo gy, 45(2), 212 224. Taylor, R. B., & Hale, M. (1986). Testing alternative models of fear of crime. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77(1), 151 189.

PAGE 225

225 Taylor, R. B., Shumaker, S. A., & Gottfredson, S. D. (1985). Ne ighborhood level links between ph ysical features and local sentiments: Deterioration, fear of crime, and confidence. Journal of Architectural Planning and Research, 2, 261 275. Truman, J. L., & Rand, M. R. (2010). Criminal victimization, 2009. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf Tulloch, M. I. (2004). Parental fear of crime. Journal of Sociology, 40, 362 377. Ward, J. V. (1991). Eyes in the back of your head: Moral themes in African American narratives of racial conflict. Journal of Moral Education, 20 (3), 267. Warr, M. (1990). Dangerous situations: Social context and the fea r of victimization. Social Forces, 68(3), 891 907. Warr, M. (2000). Fear of crime in the United States: A venues for research and policy Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Warr, M., & Ellison, C. G. (2000). Rethinking social reactions to crime: Personal and altruistic fear in family households. American Journal of Sociology, 106(3), 551 578. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. K. (1982). Broken windows. Atlantic Monthly, 249, 29 38.

PAGE 226

226 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ashley P. Kuhn was born in 1988 in Naples, Florid a, where she was raised. She earned a Bachelor of Science degree in p sychology and Bachelor of Arts degree in c riminology from the University of Florida in 2010. Currently, she is a graduate student of the Department of Sociology, Criminology and Law in the division of Criminology, Law & Society at the University of Florida where she plans to continue her pursuit of a PhD. Her research interests include fear of crime, corrections, and juvenile justice