No abstract

Various recent developments in the fear-of-crime literature have led scholars to the general conclusion that fear is a multidimensional concept. For instance, methodological work in the fear-of-crime tradition has recognized various dimensions of the concept of “fear,” suggesting that there are cognitive (e.g., risk perception) and emotional (e.g., being afraid) components that need to be theoretically and empirically distinguished from one another. Related to this, the fear literature has also established the value in examining crime-specific fears, recognizing that the proximate causes of fear can vary depending on the crime fear in question. This article extends the notion of “the multidimensional nature of fear of crime” by comparing multilevel models of fear of violence versus fear of burglary with a specific focus on the crime-fear relationship for each type of fear. Using data from 4,638 individuals living in 100 Seattle neighbor-hoods, hierarchical logistic models of fear of violent victimization and fear of property victimization are estimated. Findings suggest that individual- and neighborhood-level crime experiences have differential effects on fear of violence in comparison to fear of burglary, thus providing further evidence of the multidimensional nature of fear of crime.

No abstract

Recent contextual analyses of victimization survey data are extended by application of hierarchical logistic model techniques. Using a multistage sample of 5,090 Seattle residents, we estimate models for individuals' risks of violent crime and burglary victimization as a function of both individual crime opportunity factors (routine activity and personal lifestyle) and contextual indicators of neighborhood social disorganization (neighborhood incivilities on conditions of disorder, ethnic heterogeneity, and neighborhood density in terms of both residents and strangers). Strong contextual direct effects of density, disorder, and heterogeneity are observed for violent andor burglary risks. Further, the hierarchical method used here provides a richer type of contextual analysis, indicating that neighborhood factors also "condition" the impact of crime opportunity factors for risk of both violent and burglary victimization. Implications for theoretical integration, victimization prevention strategies, and crime control policies are discussed.Recent research has emphasized the complementary nature of macrosocial (group, contextual, or aggregate) and micro (individual-level) factors in the explanation of variation in crime and delinquency (see, e.g., Bursik, 1988;Simcha-Fagan and Schwartz, 1986). This multilevel approach contrasts with classical macro-social analyses of the effects of characteristics of aggregate units (e.g., neighborhoods, schools, cities, nations) on crime and with conventional micro-level analyses of variations in crime across individuals with different characteristics. The new focus is on the CRIMINOLOGY VOLUME 32 NUMBER 3 1994 387 2. These brief summaries of the social disorganization and criminal opportunity approaches focus on their applications to explaining variations in criminal victimization. Each theory is more general than this, and has been applied to explain variation in crime rates across geographical units and in crime rates over time.

This study extends previous research on the effects of victimization in terms of fear of crime and constrained behavior by examining both micro- and macrolevel factors. In particular, we address the way in which contextual indicators of ambient risk can affect individuals' perceived risk and lifestyles through both main effects and moderating effects—where the latter cause the effects of individual-level factors on risk perception and routine activities to vary across residential communities. Results presented here suggest that increased levels of crime (as indicated by tract-level burglary rates) and disorganization (as indicated by high levels of neighborhood incivilities, for instance) have important direct positive effects on perceived crime risk, whereas neighborhood social integration decreases perceived risk. Further, tract-level crime rates have direct positive effects on protective behaviors, but community disorder, for the most part, does not lead to an increase in precautionary measures. Important moderating effects of crime and disorganization are also found. For instance, the tendency for non-Whites to perceive lower crime risk (or to feel less unsafe) than Whites is intensified in disorderly areas.