Visser Et Al-2013-The Sociological Quarterly

bs_bs_banner
The Sociological Quarterly ISSN 0038-0253
FEAR OF CRIME AND FEELINGS OF UNSAFETY

IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES: Macro and Micro
Explanations in Cross-National Perspective
Mark Visser*
Marijn Scholte
Peer Scheepers
Radboud University Nijmegen
In this study, we set out to explain fear of crime and feelings of unsafety, using two waves of
the European Social Survey (2006 and 2008) covering 25 European countries (N = 77,674). The
results of our multilevel analyses showed varying effects of contextual- and individual-level
characteristics on our two outcomes. Higher crime levels in countries increase the fear of crime;
however, they do not affect feelings of unsafety. Social protection expenditure proves to be an
important determinant of both fear of crime and feelings of unsafety. Moreover, distrust in the
police, generalized social distrust, and perceived ethnic threat induce fear of crime as well as feel-
ings of unsafety. Finally, policy implications are discussed.
INTRODUCTION AND QUESTIONS

Crime, fear of becoming a victim, and feelings of unsafety can have detrimental
effects, not only on individuals but also on social networks, neighborhoods, and societ-
ies as a whole (Hale 1996). Fear of crime has been associated with lower levels of self-
reported health (Chandola 2001; Jackson and Stafford 2009), with lower levels of trust
in others and with less participation in social activities (Stafford, Chandola, and
Marmot 2007).
The European Union (EU) recognizes these negative effects of (fear of) crime and
feelings of unsafety related to crime. In 2009, the Council of the EU adopted an act
for the reestablishment of the European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN), which
core objective is to reduce crime and feelings of unsafety among European citizens (EU
2009). For policymakers, insights into the causal mechanisms are crucial to reduce
these feelings of unsafety within European societies; cross-national research on this
important issue is vital.
As yet, comparative research on this subject has focused mainly on differences
between large cities or areas in the United States (Covington and Taylor 1991; Adams
and Serpe 2000; Eitle and Taylor 2008; Franklin, Franklin, and Fearn 2008) or in the
United Kingdom (Stafford et al. 2007; Jackson and Stafford 2009). To our knowledge,
only three studies performed cross-national analyses to explain the fear of crime in
*Direct all correspondence to Mark Visser, Department of Sociology, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O.
Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, the Netherlands; e-mail: m.visser@maw.ru.nl
278 The Sociological Quarterly 54 (2013) 278–301 © 2013 Midwest Sociological Society
Mark Visser et al. Fear of Crime and Feelings of Unsafety
European countries (Wittebrood 2002; Hummelsheim et al. 2011; Semyonov,

Gorodzeisky, and Glikman 2012). However, these studies do not consider mediating
mechanisms in explaining the fear of crime. We propose to include factors that mediate
the influence of country circumstances on the individual level, fear of crime. Addition-
ally, the number of European countries Wittebrood (2002) compared was relatively
small. Our data cover a larger number of countries, which improves cross-national
comparability between European societies. Hummelsheim et al. (2011) focused on the
effects of welfare state policies to explain the differences between countries. Other (eco-
nomic and demographic) factors at the country level were taken into account, but they
were (only) tested by assessing the reduction in country-level variability in fear of
crime that each contextual determinant contributes separately. In this study, we rigor-
ously test several country characteristics.1 We consider the lack of comparative research
on European countries to be a serious lacuna in the scientific body of knowledge con-
cerning fear of crime and feelings of unsafety.
There has been a scientific debate on how to measure fear of crime. Researchers
have distinguished two different components: fear of specific crimes and feelings of
unsafety (Rountree 1998). To do justice to this accepted distinction, we propose to
explain separately both components. This provides us with the possibility to examine
the varying effects of the determinants of fear of crime and feelings of unsafety for the
first time in Europe, since previous European studies have not made this distinction
(Wittebrood 2002; Hummelsheim et al. 2011; Semyonov et al. 2012). We therefore pose
the following research questions: (1) To what extent are there differences between indi-
viduals and between European societies with respect to (a) fear of crime and (b) feelings
of unsafety, and (2) to what extent can we explain such differences with contextual and
individual characteristics?
Our research questions will be answered by taking advantage of high-quality data
derived from the European Social Survey (ESS), which contain valid measurements
regarding fear of crime, feelings of unsafety, and their determinants. We will apply
structural equation modeling in a multilevel framework to account for the hierarchical
structure in our data. Moreover, it enables us to innovatively test factors suggested to
mediate previously assessed effects of sociodemographic and contextual characteristics
on our two outcomes.
THEORETICAL ISSUES, MODELS, AND HYPOTHESES

Conceptual Issues
Measuring fear of crime has been the subject of a lively debate among researchers from
the late 1970s until the present times (Ferraro and LaGrange 1987; Eitle and Taylor
2008; Franklin et al. 2008; Taylor, Eitle, and Russell 2009; Gray, Jackson, and Farrall
2011b). In earlier research, fear of crime was measured by feelings of unsafety or the
fear that people had to walk alone in their neighborhood at night (Baumer 1985;
Taylor and Covington 1993). Later studies showed that fear of crime is multidimen-
sional in nature (Rountree 1998). Two components were proposed: the risk perception
The Sociological Quarterly 54 (2013) 278–301 © 2013 Midwest Sociological Society 279
Fear of Crime and Feelings of Unsafety Mark Visser et al.
of the respondent, often operationalized by feelings of unsafety; and the emotional

aspect or the fear of different types of crimes (Ferraro and LaGrange 1987). This con-
ceptual distinction is widely accepted in studies concerning fear of crime (LaGrange,
Ferraro, and Supancic 1992; Ferraro 1995; Hale 1996; Rountree and Land 1996;
Rountree 1998; Eitle and Taylor 2008).
The determinants of both components could very well differ, as has been suggested
by Rountree and Land (1996). Chiricos, McEntire, and Gertz (2001) indeed found that
the effects of several determinants differ for both components of fear of crime. The
latter study, however, assumed that feelings of unsafety precede the fear of crime, an
assumption that is accepted in some previous studies (LaGrange et al. 1992; Ferraro
1995; Hale 1996). However, this causal order could easily be reversed, as argued by
others (Gabriel and Greve 2003; Rader 2004; Elchardus, De Groof, and Smits 2005). To
avoid these causality issues, we propose to include both fear of crime and feelings of
unsafety as separate outcomes.2
Explanations at the Micro Level

A considerable amount of research has been published on the individual-level determi-
nants of fear of crime and feelings of unsafety. We will not formulate hypotheses on
these individual determinants because they are well documented already. Nevertheless,
because of their relevance as well as to consider compositional differences between
countries, we will account for them in the present study.
Previous studies have assessed the effects of, among others, victimization. The
impact of victimization on fear of crime and feelings of unsafety is rather ambiguous,
as some scholars have found a strong positive relationship (Skogan 1990; Taylor 1995;
Zani, Cicognani, and Albanesi 2001; Wittebrood 2002), and other scientists have
reported a weak association or even no effect at all (Skogan and Maxfield 1981;
Covington and Taylor 1991; Hale 1996).
Earlier research often confirmed “vulnerability theory,” which states that certain
social groups (such as women, elderly people, people with a lower social status, and
migrants) feel more unsafe because they are and/or feel physically and socially more
vulnerable (Skogan and Maxfield 1981; Ferraro and LaGrange 1987; Covington and
Taylor 1991; Ferraro 1995; Hale 1996; Rountree and Land 1996; Rountree 1998; Adams
and Serpe 2000; Kanan and Pruitt 2002).
Previous research has also shown that people living in cities have more feelings of
unsafety as compared with people in rural areas (LaGrange et al. 1992; Zani et al. 2001)
because individualization and diversity in urban areas increases social isolation, loneli-
ness, and ultimately feelings of unsafety (Hale 1996).
Explanations and Hypotheses at the Macro Level

Many efforts have gone into studying individual-level determinants and, moreover,
explanatory factors at the community level. Levels of fear of crime and feelings of
unsafety vary over neighborhoods as studies by Rountree and Land (1996), Sampson
(2001), and Maas-de Waal and Wittebrood (2002) have shown. This variation between
neighborhoods has primarily been related to the prevalence of crime (Covington and
Taylor 1991; Liska and Warner 1991; LaGrange et al. 1992; Ferraro 1995; Rountree
1998; Chiricos et al. 2001; Sampson 2001) and the ethnic composition of the neighbor-
hood (Stinchcombe 1980; Liska, Lawrence, and Sanchirico 1982; Moeller 1989; Skogan
1995; Chiricos et al. 2001; Quillian and Pager 2001; Eitle and Taylor 2008; Taylor et al.
2009). These contextual factors have proven to be important at the neighborhood level.
We build on these previous findings by testing the determinants at the country level,
arguing that mass media give widespread national coverage to crime-related issues
occurring in neighborhoods.3
A theory previously tested thoroughly at the contextual level is social disorganization
theory (Sampson and Groves 1989). Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) argued that a lack
of social cohesion causes incivilities and deprivation as well as crime. In these deprived
areas, (violent) crime rates tend to be higher (Pain 2000; Sampson 2001). The higher
the level of social disorder or the lack of social cohesion, the higher the levels of crime
and the higher the levels of fear of crime and feelings of unsafety. We expect that higher
crime levels may also display an effect at the country level, as mass media portray
neighborhood-level crimes on national television, making local social disorganiza-
tion apparent and more tangible for national audiences. Through exposure to various
national media (e.g., television, newspapers, and websites), opportunities are provided to
self-identify with victims of crime when they are portrayed on television, inducing fear of
crime and feelings of unsafety (Heath and Gilbert 1996; Altheide 1997; Eschholz 1997;
Romer, Jamieson, and Aday 2003). In addition, mass media contribute to shape the
public image of certain ethnic minority groups, the police, and the severity of crime
levels. Media exposure tends to be especially influential when it matches the experiences
of crime victims or the crime reality of people (Chiricos, Padgett, and Gertz 2000). We
hypothesize that through mass media:
Hypothesis 1: A higher level of crime in a country increases fear of crime and feel-
ings of unsafety.
Apart from this direct effect of the level of crime in a country, we also propose an
indirect effect. Some studies have shown a relationship between crime rates and dis-
trust in the police. High crime rates are perceived as an indicator of poor police per-
formance (Goldstein 1977; Kelling 1996). When levels of crime in a country are high
and the public perceives this as a lack of control by the police, trust in the police
declines (Jang, Joo, and Zhao 2010). People who show less confidence in the effective-
ness of the police will feel less protected in public space. Previous findings support the
view that distrust in the police serves as a determinant of fear of crime and feelings of
unsafety (Nofziger and Williams 2005; Quinton and Morris 2008). There was,
however, some discussion about the causal order of this relationship. Using panel data,
Skogan (2009) ascertained that distrust in the police induces fear of crime and feelings
of unsafety.
Moreover, Oppelaar and Wittebrood (2006) argued that a lack of social cohesion—
like higher levels of crime—increases general social distrust, which in turn affects levels
of fear of crime and feelings of unsafety. If people distrust other persons, they will
experience more feelings of anxiety in proximity to others as compared with people
who display higher levels of social trust. Seen in this light, distrust can be interpreted as
the perception that there are people who are out to get you (Ross and Jang 2000). Thus,
next to distrust in the police, we build on previous propositions and expect that general
distrust may also increase the fear of crime and feelings of unsafety (Skogan 2009). To
summarize, we expect that:
Hypothesis 2: A higher level of crime in a country increases (2a) distrust in the
police and (2b) generalized social distrust, which in turn (2c) induce fear of crime
and feelings of unsafety.
European societies have become increasingly ethnically diverse. In several studies, the
(perceived) ethnic composition of a social context is directly associated with both fear
of crime and feelings of unsafety (Liska et al. 1982; Moeller 1989; Covington and
Taylor 1991; Chiricos et al. 2001; Quillian and Pager 2001; Wilcox, Quisenberry, and
Jones 2003; Eitle and Taylor 2008; Semyonov et al. 2012). We expect that this direct
relationship will also hold at the country level because national mass media often
portray ethnic minorities negatively (Hurwitz and Peffley 1997; Ter Wal 2002). Our
next hypothesis reads:
Hypothesis 3: A larger size of the migrant population in a country increases fear of
crime and feelings of unsafety.
Some of the studies mentioned earlier give a theoretical explanation for the effect of
the size of the migrant population. Both Stinchcombe (1980) and Skogan (1995)
already recognized that perceptions of ethnic threat would increase feelings of unsafety
(even when controlling for the ethnic composition of the neighborhood). Moreover,
Quillian and Pager (2001) suggested that perceived ethnic threat influences fear of
crime and feelings of unsafety.
These suggestions can be elaborated by building on ethnic competition theory,
arguing that the size of the migrant population and subsequent proximity to minority
groups may increase perceptions of threat and derogation of ethnic minorities because
of competition between ethnic groups over scarce resources, such as jobs, power, and
status (Coser 1956; Blalock 1967; Scheepers, Gijsberts, and Coenders 2002; McLaren
2003). We similarly argue that a larger migrant population in a country will increase
the probability that people perceive minorities as a threat, since ethnic minority groups
are often associated with aggressiveness, violence, and criminal behavior (Sniderman
and Piazza 1993; Devine and Elliot 1995; Semyonov, Raijman, and Gorodzeisky 2006;
Ceobanu 2011). These perceptions of threat may in turn induce fear of crime and feel-
ings of unsafety because people believe that ethnic minorities will harm them or may
otherwise cause trouble. There is also evidence indicating that higher levels of ethnic
diversity decrease levels of social trust (Adams and Serpe 2000; Putnam 2007;
Crime level
1
Size of the migrant Country-level
population characteristics
4b 2a
Contextual level
Individual level 2b 3
Distrust in the police
2c
Fear of crime
Individual-level Generalized social 2c, 4c
characteristics distrust Feelings of unsafety
4a 4c
Perceived ethnic threat
FIGURE 1. Theoretical Framework of Fear of Crime and Feelings of Unsafety.

Note: The numbers refer to our hypotheses. Dotted lines represent controlled paths.
Gesthuizen, Van der Meer, and Scheepers 2009). Trust is easier to develop when
surrounding people are similar and their customs are familiar to us (Miller 1995;
McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001). We hypothesize that:
Hypothesis 4: A larger size of the migrant population in a country increases (4a)

perceived ethnic threat and (4b) generalized social distrust, which in turn (4c)
induce fear of crime and feelings of unsafety.
Figure 1 provides an overview of our full theoretical framework.
DATA AND MEASUREMENTS

Data
To test our hypotheses, we use individual-level data from two cross-sectional waves of
the ESS, conducted in 2006 and 2008. Data were collected through face-to-face inter-
views with individuals aged 15 and over living in private households. Samples are
representative at the country level, and on average, response percentages are high. The
overall response rate is above 60 percent, and the measurements are both reliable and
valid (Jowell and The Central Coordinating Team 2007). More information is available
at: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org.
The pooled data set contains information about 84,566 individuals across 25
countries: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, the Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the
United Kingdom. Croatia, Israel, the Russian Federation, Turkey, and Ukraine were
not included because of missing information on key contextual-level variables. After
removing all respondents with missing values, we estimate our models with 77,674
respondents. As some countries are available in both 2006 and 2008, and others in only
2006 or 2008, there are 45 country-year combinations.
Measurements
To measure fear of crime, respondents were asked how often, if at all, they worry
about their home being burgled and about becoming a victim of a violent crime. The
answering categories were: never, just occasionally, some of the time, and all or most
of the time. We computed a scale by summing the scores of both items (Cronbach’s
a = 0.71). In other studies, these items were frequently used, often as part of a scale
that contains more items to tap fear of crime (Ferraro 1995; Eitle and Taylor 2008;
Taylor et al. 2009). Unfortunately, we were not able to use more items to measure fear
of crime because the data only contain the two items mentioned previously.
Feelings of unsafety was measured by asking the respondents: “How safe do you—
or would you—feel walking alone in this area after dark?” The four answering
categories—very safe (25.3 percent), safe (50.4 percent), unsafe (19.6 percent), and
very unsafe (4.7 percent)—are considered continuous.4 Although single-item indica-
tors might be less reliable and less valid, this question is straightforward, which makes
it less likely for interpretation issues to arise. Additionally, other studies in this field
of research also relied on this single-item measure (Rountree and Land 1996;
Hummelsheim et al. 2011; Semyonov et al. 2012).
Perceived ethnic threat was measured using the following three items: “Immigration
is bad or good for country’s economy” (0 = immigration is good and 10 = immigration
is bad); “Country’s cultural life is undermined or enriched by immigrants” (0 = cul-
tural life is enriched and 10 = cultural life is undermined); and “Immigrants make
country worse or better place to live” (0 = better place to live and 10 = worse place to
live). We constructed a reliable scale of this factor (Cronbach’s a = 0.85). Furthermore,
these items equivalently measure perceived ethnic threat across all countries in the ESS
(Coenders, Lubbers, and Scheepers 2004).
We also used three items (scores ranged from 0 to 10) to measure generalized social
distrust, namely “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted, or
that you cannot be too careful in dealing with people?”; “Do you think that most
people would try to take advantage of you if they got the chance, or would they try to
be fair?”; and “Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful or that they
are mostly looking out for themselves?” Previous research demonstrated that general-
ized social (dis)trust is equivalently measured by these items across all EU countries
(Reeskens and Hooghe 2008). We operationalized generalized social distrust by con-
structing a scale (Cronbach’s a = 0.79). We also measured the extent to which respon-
dents have distrust in the police on a score of 0–10: 0 means one has complete trust and
10 means one does not trust the police at all.
At the individual level, we control for various characteristics, which have been
discussed in our theory section. First, actual victimization was measured by asking if
the respondent or a member of the respondent’s household had been the victim of a
burglary or assault in the last five years (0 = no and 1 = yes). Urbanization was coded in
rural area, small city, and big city. Next, the respondent’s television exposure is a con-
tinuous variable ranging from no time at all to more than three hours per day. Social
isolation was measured by asking how often one meets socially with friends, relatives,
or work colleagues (measured in seven categories ranging from every day to never).
The normally distributed nature of these categories resulted in a continuous variable.
The absence of social ties (especially with neighbors) is an important indicator of
social disorganization, which induces higher levels of fear of crime (Sampson and
Groves 1989; Taylor and Shumaker 1990; Maas-de Waal and Wittebrood 2002). We are
aware of the fact that neighbors are not mentioned in this question. Nonetheless, this is
the best approximation available.
Following vulnerability theory, we control for age (in years), gender (0 = male and
1 = female), ethnicity (0 = native and 1 = migrant), educational level, and income. To
ease interpretation of the coefficients, age is divided by 10 so that, for instance, a coef-
ficient of 0.0007 becomes 0.007. Respondents’ highest level of education completed is
condensed to primary, secondary, and tertiary education. Yearly household income is
represented by dummy variables for the lowest quartile, second quartile, third quartile,
and highest quartile. To prevent losing a large number of respondents, a dummy vari-
able for the missing values on income was also included.
At the contextual level, we added four variables. We computed the national victimiza-
tion rate by aggregating the data on individual-level victimization for each combination
of country and ESS round. We consider the victimization rate to be an indicator of the
level of crime in a country. The size of the migrant population in a country is the percent-
age of immigrants in a county in 2005, obtained from the “World Population Policies
2005” report (UN 2006). Following a study by Hummelsheim et al. (2011), we added the
total expenditure on social protection as a percentage of the gross domestic product
(GDP) in 2005 (for ESS round 3) and 2007 (for ESS round 4), available at the Eurostat
website. This measurement includes various social benefits such as old age, health care,
and unemployment benefits. Finally, we controlled for the national unemployment rate
the year prior to ESS round 3 and 4, which was obtained from the statistics database of
the International Labour Organization (ILO). Unemployment is a structural factor iden-
tified by Shaw and McKay (1942) that leads to a lack of value consensus, which reduces
social control and increases (fear of) crime. Descriptive statistics and the correlations
between the contextual-level variables are provided in Tables 1 and 2. The highest corre-
lation in Table 2 is -0.323 (between the size of the migrant population and the unem-
ployment rate), which does not pose any problems regarding multicollinearity.5
Analyses
To take into account the hierarchical structure in our data (i.e., individuals nested
within 45 country-year combinations), we applied multilevel linear regression analyses,
which produces more reliable parameter estimates and standard errors (Snijders and
Bosker 1999). We used the MIXED procedure within SPSS (IBM Corp, Armonk,
NY). Our first step involved estimating empty models to calculate the intra country
TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics (N = 77,674; 45 Country-Year Combinations)
Minimum Maximum Mean S.D.

Dependent variables
Fear of crime 2 8 3.749 1.528
Feelings of unsafety 1 4 2.036 0.797
Individual-level mediators
Distrust in police 0 10 4.048 2.523
Generalized social distrust 0 30 14.358 5.876
Perceived ethnic threat 0 30 14.264 6.258
Individual-level variables
Victimization 0 1 0.186
Urbanization
Rural area 0 1 0.372
Small city 0 1 0.305
Big city 0 1 0.323
TV exposure 0 7 4.270 2.023
Social isolation 1 7 3.030 1.572
Age (/10) 1.42 10.1 4.744 1.822
Gender (1 = female) 0 1 0.530
Ethnicity (1 = migrant) 0 1 0.080
Education
Primary 0 1 0.327
Secondary 0 1 0.389
Tertiary 0 1 0.285
Income
Lowest quartile 0 1 0.178
Second quartile 0 1 0.183
Third quartile 0 1 0.179
Highest quartile 0 1 0.189
Missing values income 0 1 0.271
Contextual-level variables
Victimization rate 0.060 0.290 0.184 0.062
Size of migrant population 0.600 22.890 9.020 5.491
Social protection 11.280 31.520 22.824 5.748
Unemployment rate 2.500 17.700 6.973 3.014
Source: European Social Survey (2006, 2008).
S.D., standard deviation.
correlations. The findings of our empty models are shown in Tables 3 and 4 (model 0)
in our results section. The country-level variance is highly significant (P < 0.001) for
fear of crime and feelings of unsafety (as well as for our mediating variables), justifying
the use of multilevel modeling. Moreover, we found relatively high intra-country corre-
lations. Regarding our dependent variables—fear of crime and feelings of unsafety—
7.8 percent (0.183/(0.183 + 2.167)) and 9.6 percent (0.247/(0.247 + 2.315)) of the total
variance is attributed to the country level.
TABLE 2. Pearson Correlations between Contextual Variables (45 Country-Year Combinations)
Victimization Size of migrant Social Unemployment

rate population protection rate
Victimization rate 1
Size of migrant -0.023 1
population
Social protection 0.187 0.178 1
Unemployment rate -0.024 -0.323 -0.034 1
Note: Bold estimates indicate significance at p < 0.05.
In model 1 (Tables 3 and 4), we included individual- and contextual-level determi-

nants of fear of crime and feelings of unsafety. In subsequent steps (models 2–4 in
Tables 3 and 4), we added each mediating variable separately to assess whether or not
contextual and individual effects are (partially) explained by each of the mediators. In
model 5, all mediators are included simultaneously. In Table 5, we present the direct
contextual and individual effects on our mediating variables.
We performed additional analyses to check for multicollinearity. These sensitivity
analyses show that adding all the contextual-level variables simultaneously in a model
does not significantly change our estimates. To detect possible influential cases, we used
Cook’s Distance and DFBETAS following the approach suggested by Van der Meer, Te
Grotenhuis, and Pelzer (2010). We performed some robustness checks by leaving out
countries or different clusters of countries in our models. Our findings indicate that
the presented results are robust.
RESULTS
Cross-National Differences in Levels of Fear of Crime and Feelings of Unsafety
Levels of fear of crime and feelings of unsafety show much variation between coun-
tries, as can be seen from Figure 2. Note that, here, the scale of feelings of unsafety
is multiplied by two to match the scale of fear of crime. Especially some countries
in Eastern Europe show high levels of fear of crime and feelings of unsafety, whereas
Nordic countries show relatively low levels of fear of crime and feelings of unsafety.
Based on other data, Van Dijk, Van Kesteren, and Smit (2007) reached very similar
findings. They found that fear of crime was lowest in Austria, the Netherlands and
Scandinavian countries; feelings of unsafety were highest in Bulgaria, Greece, and
Poland. Next, Figure 2 shows that within countries, levels of fear of crime and feelings
of unsafety differ considerably. This already supports our choice to separately explain
both components.
Country-Level Determinants
The results of our contextual-level variables are shown in Tables 3 and 4 (model 1). We
expected that a higher level of crime in a country increases levels of fear of crime and
TABLE 3. Direct Unstandardized Effects on Fear of Crime (N = 77,674; 45 Country-Year

Combinations)
M0 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE
Victimization rate 2.308 0.903 2.500 0.861 3.078 0.782 2.561 0.885 3.211 0.775
Size of migrant population -0.009 0.011 -0.008 0.010 -0.006 0.009 -0.011 0.010 -0.007 0.009
Social protection -0.018 0.010 -0.014 0.009 -0.010 0.009 -0.017 0.010 -0.009 0.009
Unemployment rate 0.016 0.020 0.012 0.019 0.001 0.017 0.016 0.019 0.002 0.017
Distrust in police 0.039 0.002 0.012 0.002
Generalized social distrust 0.044 0.001 0.039 0.001
Perceived ethnic threat 0.027 0.001 0.019 0.001
Actual victimization 0.675 0.014 0.660 0.014 0.640 0.013 0.668 0.013 0.635 0.013
Urbanization
Rural area (ref.)
Small city 0.139 0.013 0.135 0.013 0.129 0.013 0.147 0.013 0.135 0.013
Big city 0.248 0.013 0.244 0.013 0.243 0.013 0.266 0.013 0.255 0.013
TV exposure 0.011 0.003 0.012 0.003 0.008 0.003 0.006 0.003 0.005 0.003
Social isolation 0.059 0.004 0.056 0.004 0.045 0.004 0.053 0.004 0.042 0.004
Age (/10) 0.013 0.003 0.016 0.003 0.019 0.003 0.008 0.003 0.016 0.003
Gender (1 = female) 0.364 0.010 0.370 0.010 0.376 0.010 0.360 0.010 0.373 0.010
Ethnicity (1 = migrant) 0.014 0.019 0.018 0.019 -0.004 0.019 0.085 0.019 0.049 0.019
Education
Primary (ref.)
Secondary 0.008 0.013 0.006 0.013 0.019 0.013 0.028 0.013 0.032 0.013
Tertiary -0.030 0.015 -0.025 0.015 0.025 0.014 0.038 0.015 0.067 0.015
Income
Lowest quartile (ref.)
Second quartile 0.001 0.018 0.006 0.017 0.022 0.017 0.013 0.017 0.029 0.017
Third quartile 0.018 0.018 0.029 0.018 0.055 0.018 0.034 0.018 0.065 0.018
Highest quartile 0.006 0.019 0.023 0.019 0.053 0.018 0.036 0.018 0.072 0.018
Missing values income -0.028 0.018 -0.022 0.018 -0.003 0.018 -0.021 0.018 -0.001 0.018
ESS round (1 = ESS 3) -0.070 0.115 -0.070 0.110 -0.064 0.100 -0.073 0.113 -0.067 0.099
Intercept 3.737 3.001 0.314 2.717 0.300 2.101 0.273 2.568 0.308 1.828 0.271
Individual-level variance 2.167 2.045 2.037 1.999 2.021 1.980
Country-level variance 0.183 0.128 0.117 0.096 0.123 0.094

ESS, European Social Survey; SE, standard error.
feelings of unsafety. We found a positive effect of victimization rate on fear of crime

(b = 2.308). However, crime levels in a country do not affect feelings of unsafety. These
findings corroborate Hypothesis 1 when looking at fear of crime, but not for feelings of
unsafety. This again supports our choice to separately explain both components.
Next, we tested if a larger migrant population increases fear of crime and feelings of
unsafety. Although previous research showed that the size of the migrant population
in a neighborhood does have an effect on fear of crime and feelings of unsafety, our
TABLE 4. Direct Unstandardized Effects on Feelings of Unsafety (N = 77,674; 45 Country-Year

Combinations)
M0 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
B SE B SE B SE B SE B SE
Victimization rate 0.169 0.886 0.377 0.835 0.809 0.804 0.480 0.862 1.000 0.784
Size of migrant population -0.007 0.010 -0.005 0.010 -0.004 0.010 -0.009 0.010 -0.006 0.009
Social protection -0.040 0.010 -0.036 0.009 -0.034 0.009 -0.039 0.009 -0.033 0.009
Unemployment rate 0.017 0.019 0.013 0.018 0.005 0.018 0.017 0.019 0.006 0.017
Distrust in police 0.043 0.002 0.018 0.002
Generalized social distrust 0.037 0.001 0.029 0.001
Perceived ethnic threat 0.033 0.001 0.027 0.001
Actual victimization 0.411 0.013 0.395 0.013 0.382 0.013 0.403 0.013 0.375 0.013
Urbanization
Rural area (ref.)
Small city 0.420 0.013 0.416 0.013 0.412 0.013 0.430 0.013 0.420 0.013
Big city 0.590 0.013 0.586 0.013 0.585 0.013 0.613 0.013 0.603 0.013
TV exposure 0.035 0.003 0.036 0.003 0.033 0.003 0.030 0.003 0.029 0.003
Social isolation 0.055 0.004 0.053 0.004 0.043 0.004 0.048 0.004 0.039 0.004
Age (/10) 0.060 0.003 0.064 0.003 0.065 0.003 0.055 0.003 0.061 0.003
Gender (1 = female) 0.724 0.010 0.730 0.010 0.734 0.010 0.718 0.010 0.730 0.010
Ethnicity (1 = migrant) 0.005 0.019 0.010 0.019 -0.010 0.019 0.093 0.019 0.065 0.019
Education
Primary (ref.)
Secondary -0.125 0.013 -0.126 0.013 -0.115 0.013 -0.100 0.013 -0.098 0.013
Tertiary -0.313 0.014 -0.307 0.014 -0.267 0.014 -0.229 0.015 -0.207 0.014
Income
Second quartile -0.132 0.017 -0.126 0.017 -0.115 0.017 -0.118 0.017 -0.105 0.017
Third quartile -0.217 0.018 -0.205 0.018 -0.186 0.018 -0.196 0.018 -0.172 0.018
Highest quartile -0.320 0.018 -0.302 0.018 -0.281 0.018 -0.284 0.018 -0.253 0.018
Missing values income -0.059 0.018 -0.052 0.018 -0.039 0.018 -0.051 0.018 -0.033 0.018
ESS round (1 = ESS 3) 0.023 0.113 0.023 0.106 0.028 0.102 0.019 0.110 0.024 0.100
Intercept 4.074 3.786 0.308 3.473 0.291 3.035 0.281 3.248 0.300 2.642 0.274
Individual-level variance 2.315 2.025 2.015 1.988 1.988 1.963
Country-level variance 0.247 0.123 0.109 0.102 0.117 0.096

results did not reveal a relationship between the size of the migrant population at the
country level and our two outcomes. Therefore, we must reject Hypothesis 3.
A control variable at the contextual level, social protection expenditure, proves to
be an important determinant. In countries where governments spent more on social
protection, people fear crime less (b = -0.018) and feel less unsafe (b = -0.040). This is
in line with previous research (Hummelsheim et al. 2011). An explanation for this
finding could be that in welfare states, people feel more in control because their gov-
ernment reduces social and economic risks and thus people display less general anxiety.
Higher unemployment rates do not induce fear of crime and feelings of unsafety.
To assess the relative importance of the country-level effects, we also performed
an analysis in which we standardized the country-level variables. Our findings indicate
TABLE 5. Direct Unstandardized Effects on Distrust in Police, Generalized Social Distrust, and
Perceived Ethnic Threat (N = 77,674; 45 Country-Year Combinations)
Generalized Perceived ethnic

Distrust in police social distrust threat
B SE B SE B SE
Victimization rate -4.881 1.756 -17.370 3.727 -9.348 4.244
Size of migrant population -0.035 0.021 -0.077 0.044 0.067 0.050
Social protection -0.091 0.019 -0.170 0.041 -0.044 0.047
Unemployment rate 0.088 0.039 0.326 0.082 0.010 0.093
Actual victimization 0.367 0.022 0.791 0.049 0.250 0.054
Urbanization
Rural area (ref.)
Small city 0.095 0.021 0.218 0.047 -0.306 0.051
Big city 0.091 0.021 0.114 0.047 -0.689 0.052
TV exposure -0.025 0.004 0.068 0.010 0.163 0.011
Social isolation 0.065 0.006 0.325 0.013 0.217 0.014
Age (/10) -0.084 0.005 -0.140 0.011 0.161 0.012
Gender (1 = female) -0.151 0.017 -0.268 0.038 0.175 0.041
Ethnicity (1 = migrant) -0.110 0.031 0.414 0.071 -2.627 0.078
Education
Primary (ref.)
Secondary 0.028 0.021 -0.265 0.049 -0.753 0.053
Tertiary -0.148 0.023 -1.262 0.053 -2.536 0.058
Income
Second quartile -0.113 0.028 -0.467 0.064 -0.437 0.070
Third quartile -0.275 0.029 -0.831 0.066 -0.610 0.073
Highest quartile -0.430 0.030 -1.046 0.068 -1.092 0.074
Missing values income -0.167 0.029 -0.548 0.067 -0.261 0.074
ESS round (1 = ESS 3) -0.015 0.224 -0.141 0.474 0.113 0.540
Intercept 7.322 0.610 20.345 1.295 16.160 1.474
Individual-level variance 5.227 27.122 32.829
Country-level variance 0.487 2.192 2.841
that in explaining fear of crime, the victimization rate (b = 0.140) is more important
than social protection expenditure (b = -0.099). In the analysis of feelings of unsafety,
social protection expenditure (b = -0.233) is the only significant effect and, hence, the
only relevant factor.
FIGURE 2. Country Means of Fear of Crime and Feelings of Unsafety.

Proposed Mediating Mechanisms

Our next step involves separately adding our mediating variables. As Tables 3 and 4
(models 2 and 3) show, both distrust in the police and generalized social distrust posi-
tively affect fear of crime (b = 0.039; b = 0.044) and feelings of unsafety (b = 0.043;
b = 0.037). People who distrust the police and others in general fear crime and feel
unsafe more than those who show lower levels of distrust. This confirms Hypothesis
2c.
However, these effects are not due to the level of crime in a country. Table 5 shows
the direct effect of victimization rate on distrust in the police and generalized social
distrust. Our expectation was that a higher level of crime in a country would increase
distrust in the police and generalized social distrust. Yet we found the opposite: a
higher level of crime in a country decreases distrust in the police (b = -4.881) and gen-
eralized social distrust (b = -17.370).6 Hence, we have to refute Hypotheses 2a and 2b.
An additional analysis revealed that in countries where the victimization rates are
relatively high, the group of nonvictims, in general, shows very high levels of trust in
the police and in others. This especially holds for Scandinavian countries, which
display the highest victimization rates, however, also the highest levels of trust, previ-
ously shown to be due to high levels of social security, low levels of income inequality
and unemployment, and a long-standing tradition of democracy (Rothstein and
Uslaner 2005; Gesthuizen, Van der Meer, and Scheepers 2008). These favorable societal
circumstances are likely to ensure procedural justice, which is important in shaping
public trust in the police (Sunshine and Tyler 2003; Tyler and Wakslak 2004).
Ultimately, the counterintuitive effect of victimization rate is explained by favorable
(economic) conditions that induce procedural justice and, in turn, trust.
Our fourth expectation read that a larger size of the migrant population in
a country increases perceived ethnic threat and generalized social distrust, which in
turn induces fear of crime and feelings of unsafety. As can be seen from Tables 3 and 4
(models 3 and 4), perceived ethnic threat does not only have a positive effect on fear of
crime (b = 0.027) but also induces feelings of unsafety (b = 0.033). People who perceive
minorities as a threat are more afraid to become a victim of a crime and have more
feelings of unsafety, confirming Hypothesis 4c.
However, perceived ethnic threat is not induced by the size of the migrant popula-
tion in a country. We did not find any relationship between this contextual-level deter-
minant and our mediating variables (Table 5). This means that Hypotheses 4a and 4b
are rejected.
Another interesting finding is that the effect of social protection expenditure in
Table 3 (model 1) is mediated by distrust in the police (model 2) and general social dis-
trust (model 3), as the effect becomes nonsignificant. This is due to the influence of the
social protection rate on distrust in the police and generalized social distrust in Table 5.
The higher the social protection expenditure, the less distrust people have in the police
(b = -0.091) and in others (b = -0.170). Furthermore, Table 5 shows that a higher
unemployment rate increases distrust in the police (b = 0.088) and general distrust
(b = 0.326).
Finally, when adding all our mediating variables in model 5 (Tables 3 and 4)
simultaneously, the estimates only slightly change. It does not affect the direction nor
significance of the effects with regard to our hypotheses. We ran an additional model in
which we entered standardized versions of the mediators. This model tells us that
general distrust (b = 0.227) is more relevant in explaining fear of crime than perceived
ethnic threat (b = 0.117) and especially distrust in the police (b = 0.031). However, the
differences between generalized social distrust (b = 0.168) and perceived ethnic threat
(b = 0.166) to contribute to the explanation of feelings of unsafety are equally strong
and stronger as compared with distrust in the police (b = 0.045).
Individual-Level Determinants
We also briefly discuss our findings at the individual level (Tables 3 and 4). Actual vic-
timization tends to increase both fear of crime and feelings of unsafety in European
countries, which is interesting as previous studies showed rather ambiguous effects. We
also found positive effects of urbanization, television exposure, social isolation, and age
on fear of crime and feelings of unsafety. Furthermore, women show higher levels of
fear of crime and feelings of unsafety than men. For education and income, we did not
find clear effects on fear of crime. However, we did find a clear negative relationship
between education and income, on the one hand, and feelings of unsafety, on the other
hand: people with more resources show lower levels of feelings of unsafety as com-
pared with people with fewer resources. Again, we find support for our view that both
Crime level Country-level

2.308*
characteristics
-4.881
Contextual level
Individual level
-17.370
Distrust in the police
0.039; 0.043
Fear of crime
Individual-level Generalized social 0.044; 0.037
characteristics distrust Feelings of unsafety
0.027; 0.033
Perceived ethnic threat
FIGURE 3. Results of Fear of Crime and Feelings of Unsafety.

*Direct effect on fear of crime in model 1. Estimate in model 2 is 2.500 (controlled for distrust in
police). In model 3, the estimate is 3.078 (controlled for generalized social distrust).
Note: Only significant effects presented. In case of two estimates, the first is the direct effect on
fear of crime; the second is on feelings of unsafety. Dotted lines represent controlled paths.
outcomes are affected differently by the same determinants. Figure 3 provides a graphi-
cal overview of all our results. To summarize our findings in a comprehensible manner,
we combine the results of separate analyses into one path model.
Variance Reduction
Finally, now that we assessed the relationships between our independent and dependent
variables, we will assess the reduction in variance between country-period combinations
in Tables 3 and 4. Adding individual- and contextual-level characteristics to our empty
models led to a reduction in variance of 30 and 50 percent, respectively, for fear of crime
and feelings of unsafety. The individual-level variance is also reduced, but relatively less
as opposed to the variance between country-years. Adding the different mediating vari-
ables even further reduced the variances at both levels. This indicates a good model fit.
All our predictor variables combined, explain differences between countries and ESS
rounds in their levels of fear of crime and feelings of unsafety fairly well. Thus, we iden-
tified sources of cross-national variation in fear of crime and feelings of unsafety.
CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

In this study, we set out to explain fear of crime and feelings of unsafety among
European citizens. Our integrated approach provided possibilities to assess whether
contextual and individual determinants matter, and moreover, to assess if and which
mediating mechanisms are important. Additionally, we modeled the same determinants
on both our outcomes, which enabled us to examine possible differential effects of these
determinants. This analytic strategy has not been used before in Europe in this field of
study. To address our first research question, we showed huge differences between Euro-
pean countries in their levels of fear of crime and feelings of unsafety. We found rather
high levels of fear of crime and feelings of unsafety in Eastern Europe and rather low
levels in Nordic countries. To answer our second question on these differences, we con-
sidered and tested previously proposed contextual- and individual-level determinants.
At the country level, we found partial support for a particular aspect of social dis-
organization theory, that is, the national level of crime that we proposed to be spread
through mass media to the national audiences: the higher the level of crime in a
country, the higher the level of fear of crime. However, the level of crime does not
affect feelings of unsafety. Next, the size of the migrant population in a country does
not prove to have an effect on fear of crime and feelings of unsafety. This is in contrast
with findings from previous research, in which ethnic composition (of a neighbor-
hood) was linked to fear of crime and feelings of unsafety (Chiricos et al. 2001;
Quillian and Pager 2001; Eitle and Taylor 2008). Moreover, in countries with higher
social protection rates, people show lower levels of fear of crime and less feelings
of unsafety. According to Hummelsheim et al. (2011), a comprehensive welfare state
enhances cognitive and social skills, promoting an internal locus of control. In turn,
people are more confident in dealing with demanding situations, and as a result, they
fear crime less and feel safer.
The findings of this study strongly suggest that individual perceptions are
important as mediators. Both distrust in the police and generalized social distrust
increase fear of crime as well as feelings of unsafety, which concurs with several studies
(Nofziger and Williams 2005; Quinton and Morris 2008; Skogan 2009). People who
show higher levels of distrust feel less protected in public space and are more afraid
that other people will harm them. Moreover, people who perceive ethnic minorities as
threatening actually fear crime more and feel less safe. Taken together, the factors that
have been previously suggested as mediators are now rigorously tested and empirically
supported. Both distrust and perceived ethnic threat are of clear empirical importance,
which supports basic social capital arguments (Putnam 2007).
However, our mediators were not influenced by the contextual-level determinants
in the way we expected. Higher crime levels in a country decrease, counterintuitively,
both distrust in the police and distrust in others. The latter findings are not in line with
previous research, which suggested that high crime levels are perceived by the public
as a lack of control by the police and thus would increase distrust in the police (Jang
et al. 2010). It turned out that inhabitants of Scandinavian countries show the highest
levels of trust (in the police as well as in general) because of ensured procedural justice
(Sunshine and Tyler 2003; Tyler and Wakslak 2004) as a result of high levels of equality,
a long democratic history and more comprehensive welfare state arrangements
(Rothstein and Uslaner 2005). Despite the relatively high victimization rates in Scandi-
navian countries, the socioeconomic and political conditions of those countries are so
favorable for procedural justice and trust of its citizens that it manifests in a negative
effect of victimization rate on distrust.
Next, the size of the migrant population does not have an effect on perceived ethnic
threat, although earlier research confirmed this mechanism (Scheepers et al. 2002;
McLaren 2003). However, recent studies have also found that the size of the migrant
population is unrelated to perceived ethnic threat (Schlueter and Scheepers 2010;
Savelkoul, Gesthuizen, and Scheepers 2011). This could be explained by the possibility
that our (national level) measure does not capture the concentration of migrants
and clustering of migrants in ethnic enclaves, which are likely to increase perceptions
of ethnic threat. Another plausible explanation is offered by contact theory, which
argues that a larger migrant population provides more opportunities to positively
interact with ethnic minorities (Allport 1954). Nonetheless, two of our mediators, that
is, distrust in the police and generalized social distrust, are affected by social security
expenditure and the unemployment rate in a country. This again confirms that distrust
is the key in understanding the mechanisms that induce fear of crime and feelings of
unsafety. For instance, higher levels of unemployment increase fear of crime through a
lack of value consensus, which reduces social control and trust (Shaw and McKay
1942).
At the individual level, victims of crime show higher levels of fear of crime and
feelings of unsafety than nonvictims. Although previous studies reported ambiguous
effects of victimization, we found a rather strong influence of victimization. This cor-
roborates the findings by Wittebrood (2002). We also found support for our choice to
separately explain both our outcomes: education and income do not have clear effects
on fear of crime; however, they do negatively affect feelings of unsafety. Next, we found
clear effects of other individual characteristics. Fear of crime and feelings of unsafety
are higher among urban and older people, those frequently exposed to television, and
socially isolated people.
Yet our research has an important limitation. We proposed to test mediating
factors. However, cross-sectional data do not offer a solution to causality issues, which
is a caveat that limits many studies in this field of research (Rader 2004). We provided
theoretical arguments to support the proposed mediating mechanisms. Nonetheless, to
disentangle causal effects more rigorously, the use of panel data is highly recom-
mended. Future studies should therefore concentrate on the use of longitudinal, if pos-
sible, panel research designs, not yet available in a cross-national format. Scientific
progress may also be made by including the frequency and intensity of fear of crime
and feelings of unsafety, as suggested by various scholars (Gray, Jackson, and Farrall
2008, 2011a; Farrall, Jackson, and Gray 2009; Jackson 2009; Gray et al. 2011b).
Another issue possibly affecting our findings is related to the fact that we were
only able to test our theoretical framework at the country level, whereas, for instance,
social disorganization is typically a neighborhood-level phenomenon. Unfortunately,
our data did not allow us to perform analyses at this level. However, cross-national data
including a neighborhood-level perspective would be preferred.
To summarize, crime is an important determinant of the level to which people fear
crime. Crime levels in a country do not influence feelings of unsafety, but the social
protection rate does have a direct effect. In countries with better economic safety nets,
people generally feel safer walking their streets. Social welfare state arrangements are
also important in reducing levels of fear of crime. In sum, our findings show general
support for basic ecological perspectives of fear of crime and feelings of unsafety. These
outcomes also prove the importance for policymakers to distinguish between the two
components to prepare policies that reduce these negative feelings. Only focusing on
reducing the probability of becoming a victim of crime will not influence levels of feel-
ings of unsafety. To tackle this issue, creating a safer economic environment by stimu-
lating social security seems a more fruitful approach: it will reduce fear of crime and
feelings of unsafety simultaneously. In conclusion, policies improving social protection
will not only decrease fear of crime and feelings of unsafety directly; such policies will
also decrease distrust in society, which will further diminish the negative effects of (fear
of) crime and feelings of unsafety. Nevertheless, crime control still remains a valuable
policy option since victimization is a strong determinant of both fear of crime and
feelings of unsafety.
NOTES
1
In our analyses, we include all our contextual determinants in one model to avoid
spurious findings. Also, we make use of significance tests to assess the effects of country-level
characteristics.
2
More recently, researchers have developed new approaches to conceptualize fear of crime.
Jackson (2006) argued that standard questions to measure fear of crime often reflect an emo-
tionally assessed risk of victimization rather than fear of crime resulting from actual threatening
situations. Therefore, in various studies, the frequency (how often people worry), intensity (how
fearful people are), and impact (on the quality of life) of fear of crime are considered (Gray
et al. 2008, 2011a, 2011b; Farrall et al. 2009; Jackson 2009). Elaborating even further on these
new conceptualizations, Jackson (2011) proposes that perceived control and perceived conse-
quence are also important in measuring the fear of crime. However, our data only allow partial
coverage of the complex nature of fear of crime (Van de Vijver and Leung 1997). The ESS con-
tains questions on fear of crime, the impact of fear of crime on the quality of life, and feelings of
unsafety. Thus, how often people are fearful and the intensity of these occasions are not covered,
whereas more recent studies propose to include these measures. Since we are only able to reach
partial coverage, we have chosen not to incorporate the impact of fear of crime in our research.
In addition, European studies that assess the differential effects of the determinants of both fear
of crime and feelings of unsafety are scarce.
3
We cannot test these determinants at the neighborhood level since the ESS does not indicate
in which neighborhood a respondent lives because of privacy policies. Information about the
region is available, but because of a lack of validly comparable contextual information, we are
not able to test determinants at this level either.
4
Our choice to consider feelings of unsafety as continuous is supported by linearity tests. The
results of these tests show that the relationship between our mediating variables and feelings
of unsafety are indeed linear. In all cases, h2 is (almost) equal to R2, which indicates that there
is hardly any difference between feelings of unsafety as a categorical or continuous outcome
variable. In addition, we considered feelings of unsafety as a dichotomous dependent variable
(0 = safe and 1 = unsafe), and we ran a logistic multilevel regression analysis in MLwiN (Centre
for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK). Our findings indicate that the
results with regard to our hypotheses are substantially the same compared with the results pre-
sented in this study.
5
We also investigated the correlations between all the individual-level variables. These correla-
tions do not indicate that multicollinearity affects our estimates. The correlations between
the mediators are 0.362 (between the distrust variables), 0.176 (between distrust in the police
and perceived ethnic threat), and 0.270 (between generalized social distrust and perceived
ethnic threat). Moreover, the correlation between distrust in the police and generalized distrust
is the highest coefficient of all possible combinations at the individual level.
6
Both distrust in the police and general distrust exert a suppressor effect on the relationship
between the national victimization rate and the fear of crime. In models 2 and 3, the effect of
victimization rate becomes stronger after adding the mediating distrust variables (from 2.308 to
2.500 and 3.078, respectively). This suppressor effect is due to the combination of the positive
effect of victimization rate on the fear of crime, the positive effect of distrust on the fear of
crime, and the unexpected negative effect of victimization rate on distrust.
REFERENCES
Adams, Richard E. and Richard T. Serpe. 2000. “Social Integration, Fear of Crime, and Life Satis-
faction.” Sociological Perspectives 43:605–29.
Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Boston: Beacon Press.
Altheide, David L. 1997. “The News Media, the Problem Frame, and the Production of Fear.” The
Sociological Quarterly 38:647–68.
Baumer, Terry L. 1985. “Testing a General Model of Fear of Crime: Data from a National
Sample.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 22:239–55.
Blalock, Hubert M. 1967. Toward a Theory of Minority Group Relations. New York: Wiley.
Ceobanu, Alin M. 2011. “Usual Suspects? Public Views about Immigrants’ Impact on Crime in
European Countries.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 52:114–31.
Chandola, Tarani. 2001. “The Fear of Crime and Area Differences in Health.” Health and Place
7:105–16.
Chiricos, Ted, Ranee McEntire, and Marc Gertz. 2001. “Perceived Racial and Ethnic Composition
of Neighborhood and Perceived Risk of Crime.” Social Problems 48:322–40.
Chiricos, Ted, Kathy Padgett, and Marc Gertz. 2000. “Fear, TV News, and the Reality of Crime.”
Criminology 38:755–85.
Coenders, Marcel, Marcel Lubbers, and Peer Scheepers. 2004. Majorities’ Attitudes towards
Minorities in Western and Eastern European Societies: Results from the European Social Survey
2002–2003. Vienna, Austria: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.
Coser, Lewis A. 1956. The Function of Social Conflict. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Covington, Jeanette and Ralph B. Taylor. 1991. “Fear of Crime in Urban Residential Neighbour-
hoods: Implications of between- and within-Neighborhood Sources for Current Models.”
The Sociological Quarterly 32:231–49.
Devine, Patricia G. and Andrew J. Elliot. 1995. “Are Racial Stereotypes Really Fading? The
Princeton Trilogy Revisited.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21:1139–50.
Eitle, David and John Taylor. 2008. “Are Hispanics the New “Threat”? Minority Group Threat
and Fear of Crime in Miami-Dade County.” Social Science Research 37:1102–15.
Elchardus, Mark, Saskia De Groof, and Wendy Smits. 2005. “Rational Fear or Collective Repre-
sentation of Social Malaise.” Mens en Maatschappij 80:48–68.
Eschholz, Sarah. 1997. “The Media and Fear of Crime: A Survey of the Research.” Journal of Law
and Public Policy 9:37–59.
European Union (EU). 2009. Council Decision 2009/902/JHA of 30 November 2009 setting
up a European Crime Prevention Network (EUCPN) and repealing Decision 2001/427/JHA,
Official Journal of the European Union: Brussels.
Farrall, Stephen, Jonathan Jackson, and Emily Gray. 2009. Social Order and the Fear of Crime in
Contemporary Times. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ferraro, Kenneth. 1995. Fear of Crime: Interpreting Victimization Risk. New York: State University
of New York Press.
Ferraro, Kenneth and Randy LaGrange. 1987. “The Measurement of Fear of Crime.” Sociological
Inquiry 57:70–101.
Franklin, Travis W., Cortney A. Franklin, and Noelle E. Fearn. 2008. “A Multilevel Analysis of the
Vulnerability, Disorder, and Social Integration Models of Fear of Crime.” Social Justice
Research 21:204–27.
Gabriel, Ute and Werner Greve. 2003. “The Psychology of Fear of Crime. Conceptual and Meth-
odological Perspectives.” British Journal of Criminology 43:600–14.
Gesthuizen, Maurice, Tom Van der Meer, and Peer Scheepers. 2008. “Education and Dimensions
of Social Capital: Do Educational Effects Differ due to Educational Expansion and Social
Security Expenditure?” European Sociological Review 24:617–32.
——. 2009. “Ethnic Diversity and Social Capital in Europe: Tests of Putnam’s Thesis in European
Countries.” Scandinavian Political Studies 32:121–42.
Goldstein, Harvey. 1977. Policing a Free Society. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Gray, Emily, Jonathan Jackson, and Stephen Farrall. 2008. “Reassessing the Fear of Crime.”
European Journal of Criminology 5:363–80.
——. 2011a. “Feelings and Functions in the Fear of Crime. Applying a New Approach to
Victimisation Insecurity.” British Journal of Criminology 51:75–94.
——. 2011b. “In Search of the Fear of Crime: Using Interdisciplinary Insights to Improve the
Conceptualisation and Measurement of Everyday Insecurities.” Pp. 268–81 in Handbook of
Criminological Research Methods, edited by David Gadd, Susanne Karstedt, and Steven
Messner. London: Sage.
Hale, Chris. 1996. “Fear of Crime: A Review of the Literature.” International Review of Victimol-
ogy 4:79–150.
Heath, Linda and Kevin Gilbert. 1996. “Mass Media and Fear of Crime.” American Behavioural
Scientist 39:379–86.
Hummelsheim, Dina, Helmut Hirtenlehner, Jonathan Jackson, and Dietrich Oberwittler. 2011.
“Social Insecurities and Fear of Crime: A Cross-National Study on the Impact of Welfare
State Policies on Crime-Related Anxieties.” European Sociological Review 27:327–45.
Hurwitz, Jon and Mark Peffley. 1997. “Public Perceptions of Race and Crime: The Role of Racial
Stereotypes.” American Journal of Political Science 41:374–401.
Jackson, Jonathan. 2006. “Introducing Fear of Crime to Risk Research.” Risk Analysis 26:253–64.
——. 2009. “A Psychological Perspective on Vulnerability in the Fear of Crime.” Psychology,
Crime and Law 15:365–90.
——. 2011. “Revisiting Risk Sensitivity in the Fear of Crime.” Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency 48:513–37.
Jackson, Jonathan and Mai Stafford. 2009. “Public Health and Fear of Crime: A Prospective
Cohort Study.” British Journal of Criminology 49:832–47.
Jang, Hyunseok, Hee-Jong Joo, and Jihong Zhao. 2010. “Determinants of Public Confidence in
Police: An International Perspective.” Journal of Criminal Justice 38:57–68.
Jowell, Robert and The Central Coordinating Team. 2007. European Social Survey 2006/2007:
Technical Report. London: Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University.
Kanan, James W. and Matthew V. Pruitt. 2002. “Modeling Fear of Crime and Perceived
Victimization Risk: The (In)significance of Neighborhood Integration.” Sociological Inquiry
4:527–48.
Kelling, George. 1996. “Defining the Bottom Line in Policing: Organizational Philosophy
and Accountability.” Pp. 23–36 in Quantifying Quality in Policing, edited by L. T. Hoover.
Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.
LaGrange, Randy, Kenneth Ferraro, and Michael Supancic. 1992. “Perceived Risk and Fear of
Crime: Role of Social and Physical Incivilities.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency
29:311–34.
Liska, Allen E., Joseph J. Lawrence, and Andrew Sanchirico. 1982. “Fear of Crime as a Social
Fact.” Social Forces 60:760–70.
Liska, Allen E. and Barbara D. Warner. 1991. “Functions of Crime—A Paradoxical Process.”
American Journal of Sociology 96:1441–63.
Maas-de Waal, Cora and Karin Wittebrood. 2002. “Sociale cohesie, fysieke buurtkenmerken
en onveiligheid in de grote(re) steden.” Pp. 279–315 in Zekere banden: sociale cohesie, leef-
baarheid en veiligheid, edited by J. de Hart. The Hague, the Netherlands: Sociaal en Cultureel
Planbureau.
McLaren, Lauren M. 2003. “Anti-Immigrant Prejudice in Europe: Contact, Threat Perception,
and Preferences for the Exclusion of Migrants.” Social Forces 81:909–36.
McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homoph-
ily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:415–44.
Miller, David. 1995. On Nationality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Moeller, Gertrude. 1989. “Fear of Criminal Victimization: The Effect of Neighborhood Racial
Composition.” Sociological Inquiry 59:208–21.
Nofziger, Stacey and L. Susan Williams. 2005. “Perceptions of Police and Safety in a Small Town.”
Police Quarterly 8:248–70.
Oppelaar, Janneke and Karin Wittebrood. 2006.Angstige Burgers? De determinanten van gevoelens
van onveiligheid onderzocht. The Hague, the Netherlands: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Pain, Rachel H. 2000. “Place, Social Relations, and the Fear of Crime: A Review.” Progress in
Human Geography 24:365–87.
Putnam, Robert D. 2007. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First
Century.” Scandinavian Political Studies 30:134–67.
Quillian, Lincoln and Devah Pager. 2001. “Black Neighbors, Higher Crime? The Role of Racial
Stereotypes in Evaluations of Neighborhood Crime.” American Journal of Sociology 107:717–
67.
Quinton, Paul and Julia Morris. 2008. Neighbourhood Policing: The Impact of Piloting and Early
National Implementation. London, UK: Home Office.
Rader, Nicole E. 2004. “The Threat of Victimization: A Theoretical Reconceptualization of Fear
of Crime.” Sociological Spectrum 24:689–704.
Reeskens, Tim and Marc Hooghe. 2008. “Cross-Cultural Measurement Equivalence of General-
ized Trust. Evidence from the European Social Survey (2002 and 2004).” Social Indicators
Research 85:515–32.
Romer, Daniel, Kathleen H. Jamieson, and Sean Aday. 2003. “Television News and the Cultiva-
tion of Fear of Crime.” Journal of Communication 53:88–104.
Ross, Catherine E. and Sung Joon Jang. 2000. “Neighborhood Disorder, Fear, and Mistrust: The
Buffering Role of Social Ties with Neighbors.” American Journal of Community Psychology
28:401–20.
Rothstein, Bo and Eric Uslaner. 2005. “All for One. Equality, Corruption, and Social Trust.”
World Politics 8:41–72.
Rountree, Pamela W. 1998. “A Reexamination of the Crime-Fear Linkage.” Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency 35:341–72.
Rountree, Pamela W. and Kenneth C. Land. 1996. “Perceived Risk versus Fear of Crime:
Empirical Evidence of Conceptually Distinct Reactions in Survey Data.” Social Forces
74:1353–76.
Sampson, Robert J. 2001. “Crime and Public Safety: Insights from Community-Level Perspec-
tives on Social Capital.” Pp. 89–114 in Social Capital and Poor Communities, edited by
S. Saegert, J. P. Thompson, and M. R. Warren. New York: Russell Sage.
Sampson, Robert J. and Byron W. Groves. 1989. “Community Structure and Crime: Testing
Social-Disorganization Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 94:774–802.
Sampson, Robert J. and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1999. “Systematic Social Observation of Public
Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Sociology
105:603–51.
Savelkoul, Michael, Maurice Gesthuizen, and Peer Scheepers. 2011. “Explaining Relationships
between Ethnic Diversity and Informal Social Capital across European Countries and
Regions: Tests of Constrict, Conflict and Contact Theory.” Social Science Research 40:1091–
107.
Scheepers, Peer, Mérove Gijsberts, and Marcel Coenders. 2002. “Ethnic Exclusionism in
European Countries. Public Opposition to Civil Rights for Legal Migrants as a Response to
Perceived Ethnic Threat.” European Sociological Review 18:17–34.
Schlueter, Elmar and Peer Scheepers. 2010. “The Relationship between Outgroup Size and
Anti-Outgroup Attitudes: A Theoretical Synthesis and Empirical Test of Group Threat- and
Intergroup Contact Theory.” Social Science Research 39:285–95.
Semyonov, Moshe, Anastasia Gorodzeisky, and Anya Glikman. 2012. “Neighborhood Ethnic
Composition and Resident Perceptions of Safety in European Countries.” Social Problems
59:117–35.
Semyonov, Moshe, Rebecca Raijman, and Anastasia Gorodzeisky. 2006. “The Rise of Anti-
Foreigner Sentiment in European Societies, 1988–2000.” American Sociological Review
71:426–49.
Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency in Urban Areas. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Skogan, Wesley G. 1990. Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neigh-
borhoods. Berkeley: University of California Press.
——. 1995. “Crime and the Racial Fears of White Americans.” Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science 539:59–71.
——. 2009. “Concern about Crime and Confidence in the Police. Reassurance or Accountabil-
ity?” Police Quarterly 12:301–18.
Skogan, Wesley G. and Michael Maxfield. 1981. Coping with Crime: Individual and Neighborhood
Reactions. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Sniderman, Paul M. and Thomas Piazza. 1993. The Scar of Race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Snijders, Tom A.B. and Roel J. Bosker. 1999. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and
Advanced Multilevel Modeling. London, UK: Sage.
Stafford, Mai, Tarani Chandola, and Michael Marmot. 2007. “Association between Fear of Crime
and Mental Health and Physical Functioning.” American Journal of Public Health 97:2076–81.
Stinchcombe, Arthur. 1980. Crime and Punishment: Changing Attitudes in America. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sunshine, Jason and Tom R. Tyler. 2003. “The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in
Shaping Public Support for Policing.” Law and Society Review 37:513–47.
Taylor, John, David Eitle, and David Russell. 2009. “Racial/Ethnic Variation in the Relationship
between Physical Limitation and Fear of Crime: An Examination of Mediating and Moderat-
ing Factors.” Deviant Behavior 30:144–74.
Taylor, Ralph B. 1995. “The Impact of Crime on Communities.” Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science 539:28–45.
Taylor, Ralph B. and Jeanette Covington. 1993. “Community Structural Change and Fear of
Crime.” Social Problems 40:374–97.
Taylor, Ralph B. and Sally A. Shumaker. 1990. “Local Crime as a Natural Hazard: Implications
for Understanding the Relationship between Disorder and Fear of Crime.” American Journal
of Community Psychology 18:619–41.
Ter Wal, Jessika, ed. 2002. Racism and Cultural Diversity in the Mass Media: An Overview of
Research and Examples of Good Practice in the EU Member States, 1995–2000. Vienna, Austria:
European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.
Tyler, Tom R. and Cheryl J. Wakslak. 2004. “Profiling and Police Legitimacy: Procedural Justice,
Attributions of Motive, and Acceptance of Police Authority.” Criminology 42:253–82.
United Nations (UN). 2006. World Population Policies 2005. New York: United Nations.
Van de Vijver, Fons and Karey Leung. 1997. Methods and Data Analysis for Cross-Cultural
Research. London, UK: Sage.
Van der Meer, Tom, Manfred Te Grotenhuis, and Ben Pelzer. 2010. “Influential Cases in Multi-
level Modeling: A Methodological Comment.” American Sociological Review 75:173–8.
Van Dijk, Jan, John Van Kesteren, and Paul Smit. 2007. Criminal Victimisation in International
Perspective. Key Findings from the 2004–2005 ICVS and EU ICS. The Hague, the Netherlands:
WODC.
Wilcox, Pamela, Neil Quisenberry, and Shayne Jones. 2003. “The Built Environment and Com-
munity Crime Risk Interpretation.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40:322–45.
Wittebrood, Karin. 2002. “Fear of Crime and Victimization in Western Industrialized Countries.
A Multilevel Analysis.” Pp. 285–300 in Crime Victimization in Comparative Perspective. Results
from the International Crime Victims Survey, 1989–2000, edited by P. Nieuwbeerta. The
Hague, the Netherlands: Boom Juridische uitgevers.
Zani, Bruna, Elvira Cicognani, and Cinzia Albanesi. 2001. “Adolescents’ Sense of Community
and Feeling of Unsafety in the Urban Environment.” Journal of Community and Applied
Social Psychology 11:475–89.

Visser Et Al-2013-The Sociological Quarterly

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Visser Et Al-2013-The Sociological Quarterly

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

bs_bs_banner

The Sociological Quarterly ISSN 0038-0253

FEAR OF CRIME AND FEELINGS OF UNSAFETY

INTRODUCTION AND QUESTIONS

European countries (Wittebrood 2002; Hummelsheim et al. 2011; Semyonov,

THEORETICAL ISSUES, MODELS, AND HYPOTHESES

of the respondent, often operationalized by feelings of unsafety; and the emotional

Explanations at the Micro Level

Explanations and Hypotheses at the Macro Level

Perceived ethnic threat

FIGURE 1. Theoretical Framework of Fear of Crime and Feelings of Unsafety.

Hypothesis 4: A larger size of the migrant population in a country increases (4a)

DATA AND MEASUREMENTS

TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics (N = 77,674; 45 Country-Year Combinations)

Minimum Maximum Mean S.D.

TABLE 2. Pearson Correlations between Contextual Variables (45 Country-Year Combinations)

Victimization Size of migrant Social Unemployment

In model 1 (Tables 3 and 4), we included individual- and contextual-level determi-

TABLE 3. Direct Unstandardized Effects on Fear of Crime (N = 77,674; 45 Country-Year

Note: Bold estimates indicate significance at p < 0.05.

feelings of unsafety. We found a positive effect of victimization rate on fear of crime

TABLE 4. Direct Unstandardized Effects on Feelings of Unsafety (N = 77,674; 45 Country-Year

Note: Bold estimates indicate significance at p < 0.05.

Generalized Perceived ethnic

FIGURE 2. Country Means of Fear of Crime and Feelings of Unsafety.

Proposed Mediating Mechanisms

Crime level Country-level

Perceived ethnic threat

FIGURE 3. Results of Fear of Crime and Feelings of Unsafety.

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

You might also like