Understanding the Fear of Crime and Perceived Risk Across Immigrant Generations: Does the Quality of Social Ties Matter?

Abstract

The current study examines the relationships between immigration, social ties, and perceptions of safety. We estimated immigrant generation by race/ethnicity interactions to uncover unique patterns across subpopulations of immigrants while controlling for important neighborhood contextual factors. Immigrant generation was negatively associated with feelings of fear. First-generation Asian immigrants reported the greatest level of fear in the sample. High-quality social ties were negatively associated with fear of crime, while the number of social ties was unrelated to fear. Results suggest first-generation immigrants are in a precarious position in society with respect to feeling safe in their neighborhoods. Local officials should seek ways to provide accurate messaging on the threat of victimization in immigrant communities.

Keywords

Fear of crime perceived risk social ties immigration

Introduction

Because fear of crime can impact behavior, health, and quality of life (Jackson & Stafford, 2009; Melde et al., 2016; Stafford et al., 2007; Warr, 1994; Yuan & McNeeley, 2018), greater insights into how people perceive their risk for victimization and respond emotionally may be vital for understanding social outcomes. Notably, scholars have distinguished between separate components of fear of crime, including a cognitive assessment of one’s risk of victimization (here referred to as “perceived risk”) and an emotional assessment of one’s concern about crime (here referred to as “fear of crime”). While these components are similar, they are conceptually and empirically distinct (e.g., Ferraro & LaGrange, 1987; Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996). The literature has identified a number of predictors of these aspects of fear of crime, including personal characteristics (e.g., Killias, 1990; Lewis & Salem, 1986), prior victimization (Garofalo, 1979; Hindelang et al., 1978; Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996; Yuan & McNeeley, 2017), routine activities (Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996; Stafford & Galle, 1984), and neighborhood context (Gates & Rohe, 1987; Gibson et al., 2002; Hartnagel, 1979; Lee et al., 2020; McGarrell et al., 1997; Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996; Skogan & Maxfield, 1981; Taylor & Hale, 1986; Taylor et al., 1984; Yuan & An, 2017; Yuan & McNeeley, 2017). This study examines both the emotional fear of crime and the cognitive-based perceived risk among immigrants, a population that has not been given much attention in the fear of crime literature.

Despite the robust association between socioeconomic disadvantage and the risk of negative social outcomes—such as criminal behavior, victimization, academic failure, and health problems—first-generation immigrants (i.e., those who are foreign-born) fare better on these measures than similarly-situated native-borns (Hernández & Charney, 1998; Markides & Coreil, 1986; Martinez & Lee, 2000; Sampson, 2008; Viruell-Fuentes et al., 2013). However, second-generation immigrants (i.e., those who are native-born but have at least one foreign-born parent) do not always experience the same benefits (North, 2009). Additionally, immigration at larger units of analysis—such as neighborhoods or cities—is associated with positive outcomes, such as lower crime rates (Desmond & Kubrin, 2009; Kubrin, 2013; Lee & Martinez, 2002). Explanations for what appears to be a protective impact of immigration have drawn upon factors associated with what is commonly referred to as immigrant revitalization theory (e.g., Lee & Martinez, 2009).

To date, however, there have only been a handful of qualitative or small-scale quantitative studies examining fear of crime among immigrants (Ackah, 2000; Lee & Ulmer, 2000; Menjívar & Bejarano, 2004; Yun et al., 2010). These have typically suffered from limitations such as immigrant samples with no comparison group of native-born individuals, a narrow focus on immigrants from specific ethnic groups, and a lack of consideration of second-generation immigrants. At the same time, research suggests the negative consequences of fear of crime may be especially salient for this population (Sawir et al., 2008; Shi, 2021), as fear of crime may inhibit social processes associated with assimilation due to increased social isolation as a means of avoiding dangerous social environments. To address the lack of research in this area, we compare self-reported fear of crime and perceived risk of victimization between first-, second-, and third-or-greater-generation immigrants. In particular, the current study uses survey data derived from a probability sample of residents of San José, California, a city with a large, diverse immigrant population that allows for robust comparisons across immigrant generations.

We also examine whether and how other factors moderate the relationship between immigration and fear of crime or perceived risk of victimization. First, we test whether this association varies by race or ethnicity. In March 2020, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) warned of a likely increase in hate crimes against Asian Americans during the Covid-19 pandemic. On January 26, 2021, President Biden signed an executive order to condemn racism, xenophobia, and intolerance against Asian and Pacific Island communities, with additional actions to respond to anti-Asian violence, xenophobia, and bias taken in March 2021. Reports by government agencies and news media of hate crimes against Asians living in the United States highlight the need to study how this stigma may affect Asian Americans (Gover et al., 2020; Misra et al., 2020), especially regarding fear and perceived risk of violence among the Asian immigrant population. Based on this recent increase in violence toward Asians living in the United States and the increased media attention to this problem, we examine whether Asian immigrants experience higher levels of fear and perceived risk than immigrants from other racial/ethnic groups.

Second, a particular strength of this data source is that it allows for not only an examination of the influence of immigrant generation on fear and perceived risk across a number of racial-ethnic groups, but also the exploration of the situational contexts associated with these personal assessments. Given the role of immigrant revitalization theory in explaining the protective role of immigration, which suggests strong social ties and social institutions in immigrant communities provide social benefits not found in similarly-situated non-immigrant neighborhoods (Chiswick & Miller, 2005; Feldmeyer et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2001; Martinez & Lee, 2000; Martinez et al., 2004; McNeeley & Wilcox, 2015; Nielsen et al., 2005; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; Wright & Benson, 2010), we examine how the nature of social ties influences fear and perceived risk across immigrant generations. That is, if strong social networks can lead to greater informal social control and lower rates of crime and victimization (Bellair, 1997; Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Shaw & McKay, 1942), one might expect that, to the degree respondents are embedded in such networks, they may view these threats as both less threatening and less likely to occur.

Theoretical Framework

The Immigrant Paradox and Immigrant Revitalization Theory

The term “immigrant paradox” refers to the common finding that first-generation immigrants display better social, behavioral, and health outcomes than native-born persons or later-generation immigrants (Hernández & Charney, 1998; Lee & Martinez, 2009; Markides & Coreil, 1986; Martinez & Lee, 2000; Sampson, 2008; Sam et al., 2006; Viruell-Fuentes et al., 2013; Xie & Baumer, 2021). The children of immigrants (i.e., second-generation immigrants) also typically fare better on these outcomes than native-borns, although to a lesser degree than their parents (Sam et al., 2006). Accordingly, research suggests a negative relationship between immigration and crime (for a review of recent research, see Ousey & Kubrin, 2018). Specifically, although immigrants tend to resemble those at highest risk for criminal behavior—teenage or young adults, with lower income and less education, who reside in disadvantaged urban areas and are more likely to have experienced trauma during childhood (Desmond & Kubrin, 2009; Kubrin, 2013; Lee & Martinez, 2002; Vaughn et al., 2017)—they are significantly less likely to engage in criminal or otherwise antisocial behavior than similarly-situated peers (Bersani et al., 2018; Butcher & Piehl, 1998a, 1998b; Hagan & Palloni, 1999; Nowrasteh, 2018; Ousey & Kubrin, 2009; Rumbaut & Ewing, 2007; Rumbaut et al., 2006; Vaughn, Salas-Wright, DeLisi, et al., 2014; Vaughn & Salas-Wright, 2018). However, this appears to only be the case for first-generation immigrants; second- or third-generation immigrants appear to be similar to native-borns in terms of their propensity for crime (Bersani, 2014a, 2014b; Vaughn, Salas-Wright, Maynard, et al., 2014).

Scholars have put forth immigrant revitalization theory as an explanation of the immigrant paradox; while this perspective is typically used to explain community crime rates, it can also help us understand individual differences between immigrants and native-borns. The theory maintains there are benefits that come along with immigration that can shield immigrants from social problems such as crime (Desmond & Kubrin, 2009; Martinez et al., 2010; Ousey & Kubrin, 2009; Sampson & Bean, 2006; Velez, 2006). One of the most recognized of these benefits is that immigration can strengthen social networks among residents of local communities (Chiswick & Miller, 2005; Feldmeyer et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2001; Martinez & Lee, 2000; Martinez et al., 2004; McNeeley & Wilcox, 2015; Nielsen et al., 2005; Portes & Rumbaut, 2001; van Geel & Vedder, 2011; Viruell-Fuentes et al., 2013; Wright & Benson, 2010). New migrants often live in areas where they fit into existing interpersonal networks of friendship and kinship groups who can provide resources and social support (Alba & Nee, 1997; Logan et al., 2002; Massey, 1985; Portes & Rumbaut, 2006). This creates “ethnic enclaves” that are inviting to other new immigrants who may also choose to live there (Harris & Feldmeyer, 2015; Portes & Rumbaut, 2006; Portes & Stepick, 1993). Because of this, some immigrants’ social ties are quite strong, with neighbors willing to support each other despite trying socioeconomic circumstances that inhibit these connections in similar communities (Martinez, 2002; Ousey & Kubrin, 2009; Shihadeh & Winters, 2010; Velez, 2006).

It is important to recognize, however, that these positive qualities associated with immigrant communities are not universal. Immigrant communities vary in their ability to organize and support protective social institutions and networks. As Glaser et al. (2003, p. 526) suggested, there are substantive differences between communities that develop out of “choice or refuge” and those that can best be characterized as “ghettos of last resort.” In the former, residents have a vested interest in relationship building and long-term investment in social structures, while residents in the latter may be dissuaded from investing in a community they wish to leave. Varady (2005, p. xiv) highlighted the important role of choice along the spectrum of community organization across what are called “ethnic enclaves” on one end and “ghettos” on the other, but added that “living in an ethnic minority enclave is not good—even when segregation is voluntary—if this clustering undercuts social cohesion.” Thus, there is likely heterogeneity between and, more importantly, within immigrant communities in the strength of social networks and social cohesion that protects against crime and other social ills, which may then influence resident perceptions of safety. In this way, communities with large concentrations of immigrants are not necessarily protective for all immigrants, but rather these benefits may be most pronounced for those most embedded in strong social networks. The strength of social ties experienced among individuals from different immigrant generations, therefore, likely shapes their experiences with respect to the threat of victimization.

Social Ties and Fear of Crime

Strong social networks have long been recognized as important for understanding crime. Shaw and McKay (1942) partially attributed geographic variations in crime to the extent to which a community’s residents were able to form relationships with one another, explaining that interpersonal relationships within the neighborhood were important for the successful exercise of informal social control (see also Kornhauser, 1978). Later studies confirmed crime rates were affected by friendship networks (Lowenkamp et al., 2003; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Sun et al., 2004), although weak social ties may be sufficient to reduce crime rates (Bellair, 1997; Wilcox Rountree & Warner, 1999) and there is some evidence that strong social ties can discourage informal social control (Pattillo, 1998; Wilkinson, 2007).

Theoretically, strong social ties might also influence residents’ fear of crime. Fear of crime is “an emotional response of dread or anxiety to crime or symbols that a person associates with crime” (Ferraro, 1995, p. 4). Theory and research on the etiology of fear of victimization is clear that people’s fear is not based solely on actual levels of crime in one’s immediate environment or one’s personal experiences of victimization. Rather, fear is largely the product of perceptual processes and information gleaned through associations with others and the environment. Signs of physical disorder (e.g., abandoned or run-down buildings or cars) and social disorder (e.g., groups of teenage boys hanging out on the street unsupervised, loud parties) are primary examples of perceptual cues to danger that are not necessarily criminal, but are theoretically relevant because they can increase perceptions of the likelihood of victimization or evoke emotional reactions related to the possibility of crime. People also learn of the threat of victimization through others, including friendship networks, social media, and the press. The degree to which one is embedded in a social or friendship network, and the messages received through these channels, therefore, can have a profound influence on the perceived risk of victimization and emotional fear of crime, irrespective of one’s personal experiences with victimization or crime rates in an area.

Consistent with theory, the literature suggests strong social ties may be an important predictor of fear of crime (Gates & Rohe, 1987; Gibson et al., 2002; Hartnagel, 1979; Lewis & Salem, 1986; McGarrell et al., 1997; Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996). However, as with the literature testing the social ties-crime rate relationship, the fear of crime literature has been inconsistent regarding the effect of social ties. On one hand, some studies suggest those who have close relationships with their neighbors or who live in close-knit communities are better able to distinguish strangers from residents, can count on social support, and feel a sense of belonging in the community, which can make them feel safe from potential victimization and/or reduce fear of crime (Gibson et al., 2002; Hartnagel, 1979; Lee et al., 2020; Sargeant et al., 2017; Skogan & Maxfield, 1981; Taylor et al., 1984; Yuan & An, 2017; Yuan & McNeeley, 2017). However, some of the support for a protective effect of social ties against fear of crime has been limited. For example, Yuan and McNeeley (2017) found individuals with more social ties in the neighborhood had lower perceived risk of victimization, but this did not affect emotional fear. Still other research found no relationship between the number of social ties and fear (Bolger & Bolger, 2019; Sargeant et al., 2017).

On the other hand, some studies found close-knit communities may have higher fear of crime (Gates & Rohe, 1987; Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996; Taylor & Hale, 1986). Those who are close to their neighbors may be more likely to learn about nearby crime problems (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993; Menjívar & Bejarano, 2004), making them view the neighborhood as more dangerous and causing them to feel more fear. While Yuan and An (2017) found adolescents with more friends reported lower perceived risk of victimization, perceived risk was higher if those friends engaged in delinquency and violence, a known risk factor for victimization. This suggests a level of information sharing between peers that might influence individual judgments about personal risk for victimization.

This inconsistency regarding the relationship between social ties and fear of crime may come from imprecise measurement of social ties. In particular, many studies do not measure the quality of personal relationships, instead relying on the number of friends or relatives living in the neighborhood (e.g., Bolger & Bolger, 2019; Yuan & An, 2017; Yuan & McNeeley, 2017) or questions about relatively impersonal interactions between neighbors (e.g., Gibson et al., 2002; Hartnagel, 1979; Taylor et al., 1984). High-quality friendships with neighbors, in which one can count on their neighbors to assist them with problems, are likely to have a greater protective effect against fear of crime. In contrast, more superficial friendships may actually increase fear by increasing one’s knowledge about local crime problems through information sharing, without the concomitant reassurance of mutual aid. Despite the potential importance of high-quality social ties, only a couple of studies examining fear of crime have used survey items that tap this qualitative component of relationships by asking participants about things such as doing favors for neighbors or helping neighbors with problems (Lee et al., 2020; Ross & Jang, 2000; Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996; Sargeant et al., 2017). However, those survey questions did not specifically refer to emergency situations and therefore may not have accurately measured the type of social relationship that one might expect to protect against victimization or provide support after becoming a victim of crime.

The Present Study: Fear of Crime Among Immigrants

Only a handful of studies have examined fear of crime among immigrants, and few of these included a comparison group of non-immigrants. Still, the literature suggests immigrants may have higher levels of fear of crime than non-immigrants. Ackah’s (2000) survey of Ghanaian immigrants living in the Washington, DC area revealed high levels of fear of crime; between 68% and 81% of the sample reported feeling fearful, depending upon the type of crime in question. Lee and Ulmer (2000) reported their sample of Korean immigrants living in Chicago suffered from substantially higher levels of fear than was reported in studies using similar measures among the general US population. Additionally, Brown and Benedict (2004) examined fear of crime among 230 high school students in Texas. Although they did not measure immigrant status directly, they included a measure of language spoken at home, assuming those who spoke Spanish rather than English at home were from immigrant families. They concluded students from immigrant families were more fearful of being attacked with a weapon than were students whose families spoke English at home.

Overall, the literature on fear of crime among immigrants identifies many risk factors similar to those recognized in the broader fear of crime literature, including gender, age, income, media exposure, prior victimization, and routine activities (Ackah, 2000; Lee & Ulmer, 2000; Shi, 2021; Sundeen, 1984; Yun et al., 2010).When examining alternative explanations for fear of crime that are relevant for an immigrant population, one of the most important findings is that acculturation reduces fear. First, length of residence in the United States may be a protective factor against fear of crime (Lee & Ulmer, 2000; Sundeen, 1984), although Ackah (2000) found this was related to higher fear. Second, fear of crime is lower among those with greater English language proficiency (Brown & Benedict, 2004; Yun et al., 2010). Third, Lee and Ulmer (2000) reported fear of crime was higher among Korean immigrants who preferred to consume ethnic Korean media rather than American media. Similarly, Shi (2021) found those who were exposed to non-US social media were more fearful, even when controlling for the level of fear they experienced in their home countries. Fourth, immigrants who spend more time socializing with others from their ethnic groups or participating in their country of origin’s cultural activities experience greater fear of crime (Ackah, 2000; Sundeen, 1984). This could also reflect an accurate assessment of risk, as racially-biased victimization is more likely among those who socialize with others from their ethnic group or participate in ethnic activities (McNeeley & Overstreet, 2018).

Hypotheses

Following the literature on fear of crime within immigrant groups, it is expected that perceived risk of victimization and fear of crime will be higher among first- and second-generation immigrants than among third-or-greater-generation immigrants. More specifically, given the negative relationship between acculturation and fear of crime identified by prior research, we predict fear and perceived risk will be highest among first-generation immigrants, lower among second-generation immigrants, and lowest among those from later generations.

However, based on the broader phenomena of the “immigrant paradox” and the hypothesis that social ties may account for more positive outcomes among immigrants than among the native-born, we expect the presence and quality of social ties to alleviate the higher levels of fear of crime and perceived risk among immigrants. Prior research confirms social ties interact with other factors to influence fear of crime. For example, Ross and Jang (2000) found strong social ties significantly reduced the impact of social and physical disorder on fear of crime, suggesting that strong social ties acted as a protective factor against fear for those living in more disordered environments. This is consistent with what Henig and Maxfield (1978) referred to as symbolic reassurance, whereby relationships and social interactions reduce uncertainties about potential dangers in the community that may drive resident fear. The current study extends prior research on the relationship between social ties and fear of crime by including improved measures that account for not only how many friends or relatives are nearby, but also how many of those social ties the individual trusts would help in an emergency. We hypothesize a negative interaction between immigration status and social ties, in which the greater fear of crime among immigrants is less pronounced among immigrants with more social ties, especially more high-quality social ties.

Finally, a major criticism of the broader research on immigration is that immigrants are treated as a homogenous population, while there is actually significant variation across groups of immigrants based on race and ethnicity (e.g., Kubrin et al., 2018). Indeed, this criticism is likely important for our study examining fear of crime and perceived risk among immigrants. The literature suggests fear of crime differs across racial and ethnic groups, with some studies indicating Blacks experience higher levels of fear than other groups (e.g., Ortega & Myles, 1987; Scarborough et al., 2010). Furthermore, prior research suggests race moderates the effects of several predictors of fear of crime, including media consumption, neighborhood context, and personal characteristics (Callanan, 2012; Houts & Kassab, 1997; Ortega & Myles, 1987). Therefore, this study examines whether the differences between first-, second-, and later-generation immigrants vary across racial groups. In particular, due to the recent, high-profile increase in hostility and crime against Asians, we expect fear of crime and perceived risk of victimization may be especially high among Asian immigrants.

Methods

Data and Sample

We collected survey data using a multi-stage, address-based clustered sampling design, following well-established practices in the literature (Dillman et al., 2014; Millar & Dillman, 2011). First, we randomly selected census tracts in San José, CA, based on stratification on race/ethnicity and poverty. We performed stratification using race/ethnicity and poverty from the 2018 American Community Survey. A proportional allocation method was used to select census tracts within each stratum. We also performed disproportionate random sampling for census tracts with higher non-response rates in the 2020 Census (Erdman & Bates, 2017).

Then, households within each census tract were randomly selected to participate in this study. An adult (18 years of age or older) in each selected household was invited to take the survey. The survey collection involved a series of mailings, non-response reminder postcards, and second invitation letters. Specifically, we used a multi-mode survey design in which participants were first invited to take the survey via a website. Seven days after the initial survey invitation letter, we sent a postcard to all non-responding addresses. After 2 weeks, a second invitation letter was sent to all non-responding addresses. In addition, a computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) follow-up was utilized for non-responders if a telephone number associated with the address was available. To improve participation rates among various racial/ethnic groups, the survey instrument and recruitment materials were translated into Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese, and Vietnamese. Between late 2020 and early 2021, we sent out 25,000 mail invitation to residents living in San José and our final sample size was 3,756 individuals who lived in 82 of the 213 San José census tracts. About a third (33.04%) of respondents reported as White, 21.51% as Latino/Hispanic, 2.42% as African American, 34.85% as Asian, and 6.82% as an “other” race. According to the most recent U.S. Census Data in 2021, 37.5% of San José residents identified as White, 2.9% as African American, 37% as Asian, and 31% as Hispanic or Latino We calculated survey weights to make our sample representative of the San José population.

Dependent Variables

Fear of violence was measured by asking respondents the following three questions: “How afraid are you of someone assaulting you in your neighborhood?,” “How afraid are you of someone breaking into your house while you are home?,” and “How afraid are you of someone robbing you with a gun or knife in your neighborhood?” Available responses ranged from 1 (Not at all afraid) to 4 (Very afraid). We created a mean scale (Cronbach’s α = .94) to indicate the overall level of fear of crime.

Perceived risk of being attacked was measured by asking respondents how likely they think it is that someone will assault them, break into their house while they are home, or try to rob them with a gun or knife in their neighborhood. Answers ranged from 1 (Very likely) to 4 (Very unlikely). We reverse coded these answers so that higher scores indicated a higher level of perceived risk. A mean scale (Cronbach’s α = .85) was created to capture residents’ perceived risk of victimization.

Key Independent Variables

Immigration generation status

Respondents’ immigration generation status was measured by asking respondents if they were a first-generation immigrant (born outside of the United States), second-generation immigrant (born in the United States but have at least one parent who was born outside of the United States), or third-or-greater-generation immigrant (born in the United States with parents who were also born in the United States).

Social ties

Respondents’ integration into social networks was measured by asking a series of three questions: (1) Not counting those who live with you, how many of your relatives or in-laws live in your neighborhood, that is the three-block area on each side of your home?; (2) Not counting those who live with you, how many close friends do you have in your neighborhood?; and (3) How many close friends do you have who live outside of your neighborhood? Responses to each of these questions were on a scale of one to three, with one equal to “none,” two equal to “a few (1–4 people),” and three equal to “a lot (5 or more people).” Responses to these three questions were summed to create a social ties scale.

To measure high-quality social ties, we asked respondents, “How many people can you count on when you are in a dire situation (e.g., a car accident or hospitalization)?” This item had an open-ended response, whereby people could enter the total number of people in their lives that fit that description. Both social ties and high-quality ties were standardized (i.e., z-scores) in the regression analyses.

Individual-Level Control Variables

We also include a number of theoretically relevant covariates as controls. Research suggests victimization is a strong predictor of fear of crime and perceived risk (e.g., Garofalo, 1979; Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996; Yuan & McNeeley, 2017). We measured direct violent victimization with a dichotomous variable indicating whether the respondent reported being physically attacked, mugged, threatened with violence, or forced to engage in unwanted sex or sex-related activity (including an attempt to force to engage in unwanted sex). Indirect violent victimization was measured with a dichotomous survey item asking whether the respondent had witnessed another person, including a household member, get shot at, stabbed, mugged, beaten, or otherwise physically attacked.

Gender was a categorical variable indicating whether the respondent was female, male, or other. We controlled for age in years. Household income was measured on a 13-point scale, with 1 equal to “Less than $10,000” and 13 equal to “$300,000 or above.” Education was a categorical variable indicating whether the respondent had completed a high school diploma/GED or less (reference group), some college or technical school, a Bachelor’s degree, or a Master’s degree or higher. Marital status included the categories married, never married, and other. Race and ethnicity was indicated by five categories: White, Latino/Hispanic, African American, Asian, and other race,¹ with White serving as the reference group.

Neighborhood-Level Control Variables

Neighborhood collective efficacy was measured by combining eight items representing social cohesion and informal social control (Cronbach’s α = .85). First, the social cohesion questions asked respondents whether they strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following four statements: (1) This is a close-knit neighborhood, (2) People around here are willing to help their neighbors, (3) People that live in your neighborhood are generally friendly, and (4) People in your neighborhood can be trusted. Second, the informal social control items asked respondents how likely they believed it was that their neighbors would do something about the following four situations: (1) if a group of neighborhood children were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner, (2) if some children were spray-painting graffiti on a local building, (3) if a child was showing disrespect to an adult, and (4) if children were fighting out in the street of your neighborhood. We performed factor analysis using these eight items (factor loadings ranged from .60 to .72), and a single factor solution was predicted to indicate collective efficacy. This factor score was then averaged within census tracts to measure neighborhood-level collective efficacy.

Neighborhood disorder was measured by combining five questions asking respondents how much of a problem each of the following was in their neighborhood, within three blocks of their home: (1) groups of teenagers hanging around the street being disruptive, (2) spray-paint and graffiti on buildings and streets, (3) abandoned houses or run-down buildings, (4) neighbors who cause trouble or make noise, and (5) litter/garbage/trash on the streets. The answers ranged from 1 (“Not a problem”) to 3 (“A big problem).” Factor analysis was conducted for these measures with factor loadings ranging from .69 to .73 (Cronbach’s α = .81). A factor solution was estimated to indicate perceived disorder. The factor score was then averaged within census tracts to indicate neighborhood-level disorder.

Statistical Analysis

We first examined bivariate relationships between the main categorical variables, fear of crime, and perceived risk of victimization. We also examined multicollinearity of continuous variables and found that variance inflation factors were acceptable, varying from 1.1 to 1.81. Then we performed hierarchical linear regression models with fear of crime and perceived risk as dependent variables. Specifically, we first examined the intraclass correlation coefficients to ensure the variance of the two outcome variables was significant across the 82 neighborhoods. We found that 9.5% of the variance in fear of crime and 9% of the variance in perceived risk can be explained by neighborhood characteristics. We then added individual- and neighborhood-level variables to the regression models. Missing data were imputed using chained equations and conditional distributions for each variable using the Stata mi impute option. Results are pooled estimates from five datasets. All statistical analyses were conducted in Stata 15 software.

Results

Bivariate Results

The descriptive statistics presented in Table 1 revealed meaningful patterns of fear of crime and perceived risk across the independent variables. The ANOVA results suggest a significant difference in fear of crime across the three generations of immigrants (F = 249, p < .001). The mean score for first-generation immigrants’ fear (Mean = 2.41) was significantly higher than second-generation (Mean = 1.99) and third-and-greater generation immigrants’ fear (Mean = 1.62). The difference between second-generation and third-and-greater-generation immigrants was also significant. In addition, first-generation (Mean = 1.90) and second-generation immigrants (Mean = 1.95) reported higher perceived risk of victimization than third-or-greater-generation immigrants (Mean = 1.78).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variable	Mean/%	SD	Min	Max	Group mean	ANOVA (fear) F ratio/T test	Group mean	ANOVA (perceived risk) F ratio/T test	N
Individual-level variables
Fear of crime	2.04	0.98	1.00	4.00					3,699
Perceived risk	1.88	0.69	1.00	4.00					3,654
Immigration status						249.00**		17.74**	3,453
First-generation	40.25	—	—	—	2.41		1.90
Second-generation	22.10	—	—	—	1.99		1.95
Third-or-greater generation	37.65	—	—	—	1.62		1.78
Number of social ties	10.08	8.60	0.00	53.00					2,756
Number of high-quality ties	6.50	5.23	0.00	25.00					3,063
Age	49.04	17.66	18.00	100.00					3,184
Gender						20.94**		28.84***	3,587
Male	50.66	—	—	—	1.92		1.79
Female	48.40	—	—	—	2.14		1.96
Other gender	0.95	—	—	—	2.06		2.17
Income	8.25	3.16	1.00	13.00					2,862
Race						154.00**		29.00***	3,705
White	33.50	—	—	—	1.59		1.73
Latino	21.81	—	—	—	2.04		2.05
African American	2.46	—	—	—	1.94		1.91
Asian	35.33	—	—	—	2.49		1.91
Other race	6.91	—	—	—	1.99		1.98
Education						24.56**		19.65**	3,617
High school diploma or GED or less	12.25	—	—	—	2.30		2.04
Some college or technical school	23.83	—	—	—	2.12		1.95
Bachelor’s degree	36.27	—	—	—	1.97		1.84
Master’s degree or higher	27.65	—	—	—	1.90		1.78
Marital status						3.38*		8.82**	3,501
Married	56.84	—	—	—	2.04		1.85
Never married	26.56	—	—	—	2.03		1.95
Other	16.60	—	—	—	1.92		1.85
Direct violent victimization	3.52		0.00	1.00		t = 1.25	t = 7.85***		3,717
Yes					2.14		2.35
No					2.03		1.86
Indirect violent victimization	6.15		0.00	1.00		t = 2.47***	t = 12.35**		3,171
Yes					2.30		2.46
No					2.04		1.85
Neighborhood level variables
Collective efficacy	0.00	0.43	−1.0	0.76					82
Perceived disorder	0.00	0.17	−0.26	0.55					82

Note. Neighborhoods (N = 82); Individuals (N = 3,756).

***

p < .001; **p < .01; *p < .05.

The ANOVA results also indicate that there was a significant difference in fear across males, females, and those who report other sex (F = 20.94, p < .001). Using Tukey’s HSD test, we found males reported lower levels of fear (Mean = 1.92) compared to females (Mean = 2.14), but those who report another sex (Mean = 2.06) did not significantly differ from males or females. Female respondents also reported higher levels of perceived risk (Mean = 1.96) than male respondents (Mean = 1.79).

ANOVA results indicate a significant difference in fear of crime across the five racial/ethnic groups (F = 154.84, p < .001). Tukey’s HSD test shows, for example, that Asians report higher fear (Mean = 2.49) than Whites (Mean = 1.59), Latinos/Hispanics (Mean = 2.04), African Americans (Mean = 1.94), and those of another race (Mean = 1.99), while there is no significant difference between Latinos and African Americans, Latinos and other race respondents, and African Americans and other race respondents. In addition, in regards to perceived risk of victimization, Latino respondents reported higher perceived risk (Mean = 2.05) than Whites (Mean = 1.73), Asians (Mean = 1.91), and African Americans (Mean = 1.91).

We also conducted bivariate hypothesis tests across demographic groups for social ties and high-quality social ties. We found social ties and high-quality social ties vary significantly across racial/ethnic groups and immigration statuses. Specifically, White respondents (Mean = 11.5) appeared to have more social ties than Asian (Mean = 8.7) and Latino/Hispanic respondents (Mean = 9.2). For high-quality social ties, White respondents also reported more such ties (Mean = 7.54) than Asian (Mean = 5.31), Latino/Hispanic (Mean = 6.47), and African American respondents (Mean = 5.21).

Finally, Table 2 shows the Pearson correlations between continuous variables. Fear of crime and perceived risk were moderately correlated with an r value of .38 (p < .05), while the correlation between social ties and high-quality ties was stronger with an r value of .51 (p < .05). In regard to the study hypotheses, social ties were negatively correlated with both fear of crime (r = −.09, p < .05) and perceived risk (r = −.07, p < .05). Similarly, high-quality ties were related to lower levels of fear of crime (r = −.15, p < .05) and perceived risk (r = −.10, p < .01).

Table 2.

Pearson Correlations for Continuous Variables.

	Fear of crime	Perceived risk	Age	Income	Social ties	High-quality ties
Fear of crime	1.00
Perceived risk	0.38*	1.00
Age	−0.07*	−0.17*	1.00
Income	−0.17*	−0.15*	−0.09*	1.00
Social ties	−0.07*	−0.06*	0.17*	0.10*	1.00
High-quality ties	−0.14*	−0.10*	0.07*	0.17*	0.52*	1.00

p < .05.

Multivariable Results

Fear of crime

Table 3 shows the results from the multilevel models predicting fear of crime. First-generation immigrants (b = 0.405, p < .001) reported higher fear than third-and-greater-generation immigrants. Consistent with the bivariate analyses presented above, high-quality ties were statistically, although weakly, associated with fear (b = −0.05, p < .05), while general social ties were not associated with fear of crime. Latino (b = 0.144, p < .001), Asian (b = 0.605, p < .001), and other race respondents (b = 0.257, p < .001) reported greater fear of crime than White respondents.

Table 3.

Multi-Level Linear Regression Models Predicting Fear of Crime.

	b	SE
Individual-level variables
First-generation Immigrant	0.393***	0.043
Second-generation Immigrant	0.079	0.051
Number of social ties	−0.001	0.020
Number of high-quality ties	−0.042	0.020
Age	0.002	0.001
Female	0.289***	0.030
Other gender	0.193	0.147
Income	−0.032***	0.006
Latino	0.128**	0.046
African American	0.085	0.094
Asian	0.584***	0.046
Other race	0.251***	0.063
Some college or technical school	−0.004	0.052
Bachelor’s degree	−0.131**	0.053
Master’s degree or higher	−0.216***	0.059
Never married	−0.118**	0.040
Other marital status	−0.184***	0.048
Direct violent victimization	0.014	0.081
Indirect violent victimization	0.298***	0.066
Neighborhood level variables
Collective efficacy	−0.249***	0.043
Perceived disorder	0.355***	0.106

Note. Neighborhoods (N = 82); Individuals (N = 3,756).

***

p < .001; ^**p < .01; ^*p < .05.

The results from Model 1 also show that being female (b = 0.285, p < .001), income (b = −0.036, p < .001), being never married (b = −0.116, p < .001), and indirect victimization (b = 0.269, p < .01) were statistically associated with fear of crime. At the neighborhood level, neighborhood collective efficacy was negatively associated with fear of crime (b = −0.249, p < .001), while neighborhood disorder was positively associated with fear of crime (b = 0.355, p < .01).

In addition, we also performed two-way interactions between race and immigration statuses as well as social ties and immigration statuses in the full model (see Table 4). The results show that first-generation Asian immigrants reported greater fear than first-generation immigrants of other racial/ethnic groups, while we did not find significant interactions between immigration status and high-quality social ties.

Table 4.

Summary of Two-Way Interactions Between Key Variables for Fear of Crime.

Interactions between immigration and race	b	SE
First-gen × Latino	−0.0002	0.107
First-gen × African American	−0.241	0.246
First-gen × Asian	0.655***	0.142
First-gen × Other	0.419**	0.148
Second-gen × Latino	0.069	0.111
Second-gen × African American	0.057	0.614
Second-gen × Asian	0.241	0.155
Second-gen × Other	0.217	0.172
Interactions between immigration and high-quality ties	b	SE
First-gen × High-quality ties	−0.074	0.049
Second-gen × High-quality ties	−0.033	0.039

***

p < .001; ^**p < .01; ^*p < .05.

Perceived risk

Table 5 shows the results from the multilevel models predicting perceived risk. Unlike fear of crime, immigrant generation was not associated with perceived risk. Similar to the associations between high-quality ties and fear of crime, high-quality social ties (b = −0.038, p < .01) were statistically, albeit weakly, associated with perceived risk, while general social ties were not. Latino/Hispanic (b = 0.108, p < .01), Asian (b = 0.123, p < .001), and other racial groups (b = 0.174, p < .001) reported higher perceived risk than Whites.

Table 5.

Multi-Level Linear Regression Models Predicting Perceived Risk.

	b	SE
First-generation immigrant	−0.017	0.032
Second-generation immigrant	−0.024	0.034
Number of social ties	0.006	0.014
Number of high-quality ties	−0.035*	0.014
Age	−0.002*	0.001
Female	0.159	0.022
Other gender	0.200	0.125
Income	−0.014	0.006
Latino	0.100**	0.034
African American	−0.016	0.072
Asian	0.115***	0.035
Other race	0.170***	0.046
Some college or technical school	0.009	0.042
Bachelor’s degree	−0.040	0.041
Master’s degree or higher	−0.037	0.045
Never married	−0.089**	0.031
Other marital status	−0.087**	0.035
Direct violent victimization	0.203***	0.061
Indirect violent victimization	0.469***	0.057
Neighborhood level variables
Collective efficacy	−0.291*	0.040
Perceived disorder	0.010	0.099

Note. Neighborhoods (N = 82); Individuals (N = 3,756).

***

p < .001; ^**p < .01; ^*p < .05.

In addition, the results presented in Table 5 reveal that age (b = −0.002, p < .01), income (b = −0.016, p < .05), being female (b = 0.158, p < .001), being never married (b = −0.084, p < .05), direct victimization (b = 0.212, p < .001), and indirect victimization (b = 0.473, p < .001) were statistically associated with perceived risk of victimization in the neighborhood. Finally, at the neighborhood level, only collective efficacy (b = −0.291, p < .001) was statistically associated with perceived risk of victimization.

We also tested interactions between the key independent variables (see Table 6). First-generation African Americans perceived their risk as lower than first-generation immigrants from other racial/ethnic groups. Interactions between immigration statuses and high-quality ties were not significant.

Table 6.

Summary of Two-Way Interactions Between Key Variables for Perceived Risk.

Interactions between immigration and race	b	SE
First-gen × Latino	0.069	0.082
First-gen × African American	−0.378	0.185
First-gen × Asian	0.00008	0.107
First-gen × Other	0.165	0.116
Second-gen × Latino	0.002	0.092
Second-gen × African American	−0.169	0.342
Second-gen × Asian	−0.109	0.118
Second-gen × Other	−0.026	0.133
Interactions between immigration and high-quality ties	b	SE
First-gen × High-quality ties	0.018	0.027
Second-gen × High-quality ties	−0.008	0.031

***

p < .001; ^**p < .01; ^*p < .05.

Discussion

Research on the association between immigration and crime has repeatedly identified what is commonly referred to as the “immigrant paradox” at both the individual and community levels. Specifically, although first-generation immigrants are often poor and live in “at-risk” communities, research suggests they often fare better than similarly-situated native-born residents across a host of health, education, and behavioral outcomes. A leading explanation for this paradox is that immigrants may fare better than native-born residents due to the social networks developed among immigrant groups, which leads to the development and maintenance of high-quality neighborhood institutions (e.g., family, businesses, religion) that are associated with positive neighborhood dynamics. It is not surprising, then, that research on immigration has consistently demonstrated a pattern of intergenerational assimilation and progress in terms of socioeconomic attainment in the United States (Drouhot & Nee, 2019), with later generations attaining greater levels of education and wealth than their predecessors.

While there is a robust literature on the positive aspects of immigration in the United States, the lived experience of immigrants and their families is often challenging. Newly-arriving immigrants are faced with the challenges of navigating a new social world that is full of risk and uncertainty, which are anxiety inducing. The social climate of the host country may play a large role in how comfortable immigrants feel in their new surroundings, including how safe they may feel in their communities. It is not yet clear how community dynamics and friendship ties influence the immigrant experience with respect to feelings of safety, or whether generational status impacts such feelings. This is important because fear of victimization can lead to social isolation, which is found to negatively impact physical and emotional health (Stafford et al., 2007), undermining the purported mechanisms associated with the immigrant paradox. The current study explored the associations between fear of crime and perceptions of victimization risk and both the number and strength of social ties and community dynamics across immigrant generations.

With respect to the perceived risk of victimization, our results suggest that immigrant generation is not associated with the perceived likelihood of being the victim of a crime. Race-ethnicity, however, was associated with the perceived likelihood of being victimized, with Asian, Latino, and other race respondents all reporting a greater perceived likelihood of victimization than White respondents. Important social ties were negatively associated with perceptions of risk, while general social ties were unassociated with such perceptions. At the community level, high collective efficacy was associated with lower perceptions of victimization risk, indicating community norms are associated with individual threat perceptions.

Results suggested that immigrant generation was negatively associated with feelings of fear, with first-generation immigrants reporting the greatest level of fear in the sample. First-generation Asian immigrants, in particular, reported the highest levels of fear in the study relative to other racial/ethnic groups. Consistent with expectations, high-quality social ties were negatively associated with fear of crime, while the number of social ties was unrelated to fear in multivariate models. The impact of social ties on fear of crime did not vary across respondents from different immigrant generations, suggesting the influence of important social ties on fear of crime is universal. Finally, community levels of collective efficacy and disorder were strongly associated with fear of crime, an indication that fear is ecologically patterned and influenced by neighborhood-level norms and structural characteristics.

Together, the results suggest measures of personal safety are strongly associated with race/ethnicity and immigrant generation in the city of San José. Latino and “other” race respondents reported elevated fear and perceived risk of victimization relative to Whites. Asian respondents, in particular, reported substantially higher fear of victimization than other ethnic groups, and reported elevated perceptions of victimization risk compared to White respondents. Importantly, exploration of immigrant generation by race/ethnicity interactions demonstrated that while first-generation immigrants report higher fear across all race/ethnicities, first-generation Asian immigrants, in particular, reported substantially higher levels of fear than other race/ethnicities.

The finding that Asian respondents, especially first-generation Asian residents, report higher fear of crime than other groups is consistent with prior research. For example, ethnographic research of an urban housing development by Merry (1981) suggested that Chinese immigrants were particularly prone to interpreting the behaviors of other residents of the housing development as threatening, especially their Black neighbors. Watkins and Melde (2009) found a sample of Asian immigrant students assessed their school environments as being more disorderly than Latino immigrant youth, despite performing better academically and attending smaller schools with lower dropout rates. Lee and Ulmer (2000) found Korean immigrants in Chicago reported substantially higher fear than national estimates using similar instruments. These results suggest the threat of victimization is particularly salient among Asian immigrants. Lee and Ulmer (2000) suggested these higher levels of anxiety and perceptions of disorder may be rooted in cultural differences between Asian and Western nations, as well as the fact that many Asian countries are racially homogenous. Thus, the heterogeneity in race/ethnicity found in many U.S. cities may produce anxiety due to feelings of uncertainty regarding community norms and behaviors. Unfortunately, given their relative economic and educational success, problematic experiences among Asian immigrants may remain hidden or ignored given “the myths perpetuated by the Asian American success story” (Ngo, 2006, p. 61). Bankston and Zhou (2002) also highlighted this possibility, as they described the disconnect between “being well versus doing well.” This suggests that a concerted effort should be made to better understand the nature of Asian immigrants’ fear of crime and to develop ways to assuage the anxiety felt in these communities. This is especially pressing given the recent spike in anti-Asian hate crimes reported by law enforcement, in the news, and across social media. The long history of anti-Asian discrimination in the United States (see Gover et al., 2020) should motivate an intentional and culturally-appropriate response to this issue.

There are several limitations of this paper that need to be acknowledged. First, the nature of the survey is cross-sectional. Therefore, we cannot determine whether the relationship between social ties and fear of crime is causal. Second, we asked respondents to self-report fear of crime and perceived risk along with victimization experiences in the past 12-month period. Self-reported behaviors are subject to response bias, which may impact estimates of victimization, in particular, given the long recall period and our focus on underrepresented groups who may be less likely to respond to surveys (Cantor & Lynch, 2000). Third, our measures of high-quality social ties might include social networks outside of one’s residing neighborhood, which may undermine the utility of these relationships in response to victimization events. Finally, to advance the understanding of the relationship between social ties and fear of crime, future research should use social network methodologies to capture individuals’ network properties such as density and heterogeneity more directly, as these methods may offer both subjective and objective indicators of relationships and their influence on perceptions and feelings. Future studies should also explore how immigration intersects with racial threat and resentment as well as economic and social anxieties in predicting fear of crime. While we acknowledge these as limitations of the current paper, we believe our findings make significant contributions to the fear of crime literature by demonstrating the importance of high-quality ties among different generations of immigrants in understanding fear of crime and perceived risk.

While limited, the body of work on immigration and fear of crime suggests that first and second-generation immigrants experience greater anxiety about the threat of victimization than third-and-greater-generation immigrants in the United States. Asian immigrants, in particular, report higher fear than other racial/ethnic groups. What is less clear, however, is the impact of elevated fear on the lived experiences of these groups. Future research should focus on how immigrants cope with fear of victimization, and whether or not their quality of life is significantly impacted by their anxiety associated with the threat of crime. To the extent that fear of crime reduces quality of life, research also needs to be done on policy and practice that can help reduce fear of crime in ways that are culturally responsive and do not lead to unintended consequences, such as increased risk of actual victimization.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This project is funded by the National Institute of Justice. Award number: 2019-R2-CX-0055

ORCID iDs

Yue Yuan

Susan McNeeley

Notes

Author Biographies

Yue Yuan is an Associate Professor in the Justice Studies Department at San Jose State University. His research interests include the study of perceptions of crime, criminal victimization, immigration, theories of crime and deviance, and quantitative methods.

Susan McNeeley is a senior research analyst with the Minnesota Department of Corrections. In addition to corrections, her research interests in criminological theory and victimology.

Chris Melde is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. His primary research interests include street gangs, youth violence, crime prevention, individual and community reactions to crime and victimization risk, and program evaluation.

References

Ackah

(2000). Fear of crime among an immigrant population in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. Journal of Black Studies, 30(4), 553–573. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F002193470003000405

Alba

Nee

(1997). Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. International Migration Review, 31, 826–874. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F019791839703100403

Bankston

C. L.

Zhou

(2002). Being well vs. doing well: Self-esteem and schoolperformance among immigrant and non-immigrant racial and ethnic groups. International Migration Review, 36, 389–415. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1747-7379.2002.tb00086.x

Bellair

P. E.

(1997). Social interaction and community crime: Examining the importance of neighbor networks. Criminology, 35(4), 677–704. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1997.tb01235.x

Bersani

Fine

A. D.

Piquero

A. R.

Steinberg

Frick

P. J.

Cauffman

(2018). Investigating the offending histories of undocumented immigrants. Migration Letters, 15(2), 147–166. https://doi.org/10.33182/ml.v15i2.366

Bersani

B. E.

(2014a). A game of catch-up? The offending experience of second-generation immigrants. Crime and Delinquency, 60(1), 60–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128713502406

Bersani

B. E.

(2014b). An examination of first and second generation immigrant offending trajectories. Justice Quarterly, 31(2), 315–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2012.659200

Bolger

M. A.

Bolger

P. C.

(2019). Predicting fear of crime: Results from a community survey of a small city. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 334–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-018-9450-x

Brown

Benedict

W. R.

(2004). Bullets, blades, and being afraid in Hispanic high schools: An exploratory study of the presence of weapons and fear of weapon-associated victimization among high school students in a border town. Crime & Delinquency, 50(2): 372–394. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0011128703254916

10.

Bursik

R. J.

Grasmick

H. G.

(1993). Neighborhoods and crime. Lexington.

11.

Butcher

K. F.

Piehl

A. M.

(1998a). Recent immigrants: Unexpected implications for crime and incarceration. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 51(4), 654–679. https://doi.org/10.2307/2525013

12.

Butcher

K. F.

Piehl

A. M.

(1998b). Cross-city evidence on the relationship between immigration and crime. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(3), 457–493. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1520-6688(199822)17:3<457::aid-pam4>3.0.co;2-f

13.

Callanan

V. J.

(2012). Media consumption, perceptions of crime risk and fear of crime: Examining race/ethnic differences. Sociological Perspectives, 55(1), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1525%2Fsop.2012.55.1.93

14.

Cantor

Lynch

J. P.

(2000). Self-report surveys as measures of crime and criminal victimization. Criminal Justice, 4(2000), 85–138.

15.

Chiswick

B. R.

Miller

P. W.

(2005). Do enclaves matter in immigrant adjustment? City and Community, 4(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1535-6841.2005.00101.x

16.

Desmond

S. A.

Kubrin

C. E.

(2009). The power of place: Immigrant communities and adolescent violence. Sociological Quarterly, 50(4), 581–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2009.01153.x

17.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. JohnWiley & Sons.

18.

Drouhot

L. G.

Nee

(2019). Assimilation and the second generation in Europe and America: Blending and segregating social dynamics between immigrants and natives. Annual Review of Sociology, 45(1), 177–199.

19.

Erdman

Bates

(2017). The Low Response Score (LRS): A metric to locate, predict, and manage hard-to-survey populations. Public Opinion Quarterly, 81(1), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw040

20.

Feldmeyer

Madero-Hernandez

Rojas-Gaona

C. E.

Sabon

L. C.

(2019). Immigration, collective efficacy, social ties, and violence: Unpacking the mediating mechanisms in immigration effects on neighborhood-level violence. Race and Justice, 9(2), 123–150. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2153368717690563

21.

Ferraro

K. F.

(1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. SUNY press.

22.

Ferraro

K. F.

LaGrange

R. L.

(1987). The measurement of fear of crime [Article]. Sociological Inquiry, 57(1), 70–101.

23.

Garofalo

(1979). Victimization and the fear of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 16, 80–97.

24.

Gates

L. B.

Rohe

W. M.

(1987). Fear and reactions to crime. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 22(3), 425–453. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F004208168702200305

25.

Gibson

C. L.

Zhao

Lovrich

N. P.

Gaffney

M. J.

(2002). Social integration, individual perceptions of collective efficacy, and fear of crime in three cities. Justice Quarterly, 19(3), 537–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820200095341

26.

Glaser

M. A.

Parker

L. E.

(2003). Community of choice or ghetto of last resort: Community development and the viability of an African American community. Review of Policy Research, 20(3), 525–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-1338.00034

27.

Gover

A. R.

Harper

S. B.

Langton

(2020). Anti-Asian hate crime during the COVID-19 pandemic: Exploring the reproduction of inequality. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 647–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09545-1

28.

Hagan

Palloni

(1999). Sociological criminology and the mythology of Hispanic immigration and crime. Social Problems, 46(4), 617–632. https://doi.org/10.2307/3097078

29.

Harris

C. T.

Feldmeyer

(2015). A shot of morality? Hispanic immigration, religious contextual characteristics, and violence. Sociological Spectrum, 35, 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2015.1021062

30.

Hartnagel

T. F.

(1979). The perception and fear of crime: Implications for neighborhood cohesion, social activity, and community affect. Social Forces, 58(1), 176–193. https://doi.org/10.2307/2577792

31.

Henig

Maxfield

M. G.

(1978). Reducing fear of crime: Strategies for intervention. Victimology, 3, 297–313.

32.

Hernández

Charney

(Eds.). (1998). From generation to generation: The health and well-being of children of immigrant families. National Academy Press.

33.

Hindelang

M. J.

Gottfredson

M. R.

Garofalo

(1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Ballinger Pub. Co.

34.

Houts

Kassab

(1997). Rotter’s social learning theory and fear of crime: Differences by race and ethnicity. Social Science Quarterly, 78(1), 122–136.

35.

Jackson

Stafford

(2009). Public health and fear of crime: A prospective cohort study. The British Journal of Criminology, 49, 832–847.

36.

Kasarda

J. D.

Janowitz

(1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review, 39(3), 328–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094293

37.

Killias

(1990). Vulnerability: Towards a better understanding of a key variable in the genesis of fear of crime. Violence and Victims, 5, 97–108.

38.

Kubrin

C. E.

(2013). Immigration and Crime. In Cullen

F. T.

Wilcox

(Eds.), The Handbook of Criminological Theory (pp. 440–455). Oxford University Press.

39.

Kubrin

C. E.

Hipp

J. R.

Kim

Y. A.

(2018). Different than the sum of its parts: Examining the unique impacts of immigrant groups on neighborhood crime rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 34(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-016-9320-y

40.

Kornhauser

R. R.

(1978). Social sources of delinquency: An appraisal of analytic models.

41.

Lee

H. D.

Reyns

B. W.

Kim

Maher

(2020). Fear of crime out west: Determinants of fear of property and violent crime in five states. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 64(12), 1299–1316. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0306624X20909238

42.

Lee

M. S.

Ulmer

J. T.

(2000). Fear of crime among Korean Americans in Chicago communities. Criminology, 38(4), 1173–1206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb01418.x

43.

Lee

M. T.

Martinez

(2009). Immigration reduces crime: An emerging scholarly consensus. Immigration, Crime and Justice, 13: 3–16. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.1108/S1521-6136(2009)0000013004

44.

Lee

M. T.

Martinez

Jr . (2002). Social disorganization revisited: Mapping the recent immigration and black homicide relationship in northern Miami. Sociological Focus, 35(4), 363–380.

45.

Lee

M. T.

Martinez

Rosenfeld

(2001). Does immigration increase homicide? Negative evidence from three border cities. Sociological Quarterly, 42(4), 559–580. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2001.tb01780.x

46.

Lewis

D. A.

Salem

(1986). Fear of crime: Incivility and the production of a social problem. Transaction Books.

47.

Logan

J. R.

Zhang

Alba

R. D.

(2002). Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communities in New York and Los Angeles. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 299–322. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088897

48.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Cullen

F. T.

Pratt

T. C.

(2003). Replicating Sampson and Groves’s test of social disorganization theory: Revisiting a criminological classic. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(4), 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0022427803256077

49.

Markides

K. S.

Coreil

(1986). The health of Hispanics in the southwestern United States: an epidemiologic paradox. Public Health Reports, 101(3), 253.

50.

Martinez

R. J.

(2002). Latino homicide: Immigration, violence, and community. Routledge.

51.

Martinez

Lee

M. T.

(2000). Comparing the context of immigrant homicides in Miami: Haitians, Jamaicans, and Mariels. International Migration Review, 34(3), 794–812. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F019791830003400306

52.

Martinez

Lee

M. T.

Nielsen

A. L.

(2004). Segmented assimilation, local context and determinants of drug violence in Miami and San Diego: Does ethnicity and immigration matter? International Migration Review, 38(1), 131–157. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1747-7379.2004.tb00191.x

53.

Martinez

Stowell

J. I.

Lee

M. T.

(2010). Immigration and crime in an era of transformation: A longitudinal analysis of homicides in San Diego neighborhoods, 1980-2000. Criminology, 48, 797–829. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00202.x

54.

Massey

D. S.

(1985). Ethnic residential segregation: A theoretical synthesis and empirical review. Sociology and Social Research, 69, 315–350.

55.

McGarrell

E. F.

Giacomazzi

A. L.

Thurman

Q. C.

(1997). Neighborhood disorder, integration, and the fear of crime. Justice Quarterly, 14(3), 479–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829700093441

56.

McNeeley

Overstreet

(2018). Lifestyle-routine activities, neighborhood context, and ethnic hate crime victimization. Violence and Victims, 33(5), 932–948. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-17-00136

57.

McNeeley

Wilcox

(2015). Neighborhoods and delinquent behavior. In Krohn

Lane

(Eds.), Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice (pp. 217–235). Wiley.

58.

Melde

Berg

M. T.

Esbensen

F. A.

(2016). Fear, social interactions, and violence mitigation. Justice Quarterly, 33, 481–509.

59.

Menjívar

Bejarano

(2004). Latino immigrants’ perceptions of crime and police authorities in the United States: A case study from the Phoenix metropolitan area. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 27(1), 120–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141987032000147968

60.

Merry

S. E.

(1981). Urban danger: Life in a neighborhood of strangers. Temple University Press.

61.

Millar

M. M.

Dillman

D. A.

(2011). Improving response to web and mixed-mode surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(2), 249–269. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfr003

62.

Misra

P. D.

Goldmann

Yang

L. H.

(2020). Psychological impact of anti-Asian stigma due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A call for research, practice, and policy responses. Psychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and Policy, 12(5), 461–464. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000821

63.

Nielsen

A. L.

Lee

M. T.

Martinez

(2005). Integrating race, place and motive in social disorganization theory: Lessons from a comparison of black and Latino homicide types in two immigrant destination cities. Criminology, 43(3), 837–872. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0011-1348.2005.00025.x

64.

Ngo

(2006). Learning from the margins: The education of Southeast and South Asian Americans in context. Race Ethnicity and Education, 9(1), 51–65.

65.

North

D. S.

(2009). The immigrant paradox: The stalled progress of recent immigrants’ children. Center for Immigration Studies. https://cis.org/sites/cis.org/files/articles/2009/immigrant_paradox.pdf

66.

Nowrasteh

(2018). Criminal immigrants in Texas: Illegal immigrant conviction and arrest rates for homicide, sexual assault, larceny and other crimes. Research and Policy Brief. Cato Institute. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irpb-4-updated.pdf

67.

Ortega

S. T.

Myles

J. L.

(1987). Race and gender effects on fear of crime: An interactive model with age. Criminology, 25(1), 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00792.x

68.

Ousey

G. C.

Kubrin

C. E.

(2009). Exploring the connection between immigration and violent crime rates in U.S. cities, 1980–2000. Social Problems, 56, 447–473. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2009.56.3.447

69.

Ousey

G. C.

Kubrin

C. E.

(2018). Immigration and crime: Assessing a contentious issue. Annual Review of Criminology, 1(1), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092026

70.

Pattillo

M. E.

(1998). Sweet mothers and gangbangers: Managing crime in a Black middle-class neighborhood. Social Forces, 76(3), 747–774. https://doi.org/10.2307/3005693

71.

Portes

Rumbaut

R. G.

(2001). Legacies: The Story of the immigrant second generation. University of California Press.

72.

Portes

Rumbaut

R. G.

(2006). Immigrant America: A portrait. University of California Press.

73.

Portes

Stepick

(1993). City on the edge: The transformation of Miami. University of California Press.

74.

Ross

C. E.

Jang

S. J.

(2000). Neighborhood disorder, fear, and mistrust: The buffering role of social ties with neighbors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 401–420. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005137713332

75.

Rumbaut

R. G.

Ewing

(2007). The myth of immigrant criminality and the paradox of assimilation: Incarceration rates among native and foreign-born men. Immigration Policy Center. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/myth-immigrant-criminality-and-paradox-assimilation

76.

Rumbaut

R. G.

Gonzales

R. G.

Komaie

Morgan

C. V.

Tafoya-Estrada

(2006). Immigration and incarceration: Patterns and predictors of imprisonment among first- and second-generation young adults. In Martinez

Valenzuela

(Eds.), Immigration and crime: Ethnicity, race, and violence (pp. 64–89). New York University Press.

77.

Sam

D. L.

Vedder

Liebkind

Neto

Virta

(2008). Immigration, acculturation and the paradox of adaptation in Europe. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(2): 138–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405620701563348

78.

Sampson

R. J.

(2008). Rethinking crime and immigration. Contexts, 7, 28–33. https://doi.org/10.1525%2Fctx.2008.7.1.28

79.

Sampson

R. J.

Bean

(2006). Cultural mechanisms and killing fields: A revised theory of community-level racial inequality. In Peterson

Krivo

Hagan

(Eds.), The many colors of crime: Inequalities of race, ethnicity and crime in America (pp. 8–36). New York University Press.

80.

Sampson

R. J.

Groves

W. B.

(1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774–802. https://doi.org/10.1086/229068

81.

Sargeant

Liu

St John

Fong Hong

Huu

Chen

Mazerolle

(2017). Social capital and fear of crime in Brisbane. Journal of Sociology, 53(3), 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783317704992

82.

Sawir

Marginson

Deumert

Nyland

Ramia

(2008). Loneliness and international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12, 148–180.

83.

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. Criminal Justice Journal, 38(4), 819–826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.05.010

84.

Shaw

C. R.

McKay

H. D.

(1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas: A study of rates of delinquency in relation to differential characteristics of local communities in American cities. University of Chicago Press.

85.

Shihadeh

E. S.

Winters

(2010). Church, place, and crime: Latinos and homicide in new destinations. Sociological Inquiry, 80, 628–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2010.00355.x

86.

Shi

(2021). A neglected population: Media consumption, perceived risk, and fear of crime among international students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5-6), n2482–n2505. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0886260518766428

87.

Skogan

Maxfield

(1981). Coping with crime: Individual and neighborhood reactions. SAGE Publications.

88.

Stafford

Chandola

Marmot

(2007). Association between fear of crime and mental health and physical functioning. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 2076–2081.

89.

Stafford

M. C.

Galle

O. R.

(1984). Victimization rates, exposure to risk, and fear of crime. Criminology, 22, 173–185.

90.

Sun

I. Y.

Triplett

Gainey

R. R.

(2004). Neighborhood characteristics and crime: A test of Sampson and Groves’ model of social disorganization. Western Criminology Review, 5(1): 1–16.

91.

Sundeen

R. A.

(1984). Explaining the fear of crime among international students from developing countries: A revised model. Criminal Justice Review, 9(2): 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F073401688400900202

92.

Taylor

R. B.

Gottfredson

S. D.

Brower

(1984). Block crime and fear: Defensible space, local social ties, and territorial functioning. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21(4), 303–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427884021004003

93.

Taylor

R. B.

Hale

(1986). Testing alternative models of fear of crime. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77(1), 151–189. https://doi.org/10.2307/1143593

94.

van Geel

Vedder

. (2011). The role of family obligations and school adjustment in explaining the immigrant paradox. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-009-9468-y

95.

Varady

D. P.

(2005). Desegregating the city: Ghettos, enclaves, and inequality. State University of New York Press.

96.

Vaughn

M. G.

Salas-Wright

C. P.

DeLisi

Maynard

B. R.

(2014a). The immigrant paradox: Immigrants are less antisocial than native-born Americans. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 49(7), 1129–1137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-013-0799-3

97.

Vaughn

M. G.

Salas-Wright

C. P.

Maynard

B. R.

Qian

Terzis

Kusow

A. M.

DeLisi

(2014b). Criminal epidemiology and the immigrant paradox: Intergenerational discontinuity in violence and antisocial behavior among immigrants. Criminal Justice Journal, 42(6), 483–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2014.09.004

98.

Vaughn

M. G.

Salas-Wright

C. P.

(2018). Immigrants commit crime and violence at lower rates than the US-born Americans. Annals of Epidemiology, 28(1), 58–60.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2017.10.016

99.

Vaughn

M. G.

Salas-Wright

C. P.

Huang

Qian

Terzis

L. D.

Helton

J. J.

(2017). Adverse childhood experiences among immigrants to the United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 32(10), 1543–1564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515589568

100.

Velez

M. B.

(2006). Toward an understanding of the lower rates of homicide in Latino versus Black neighborhoods: A look at Chicago. In Peterson

Krivo

Hagan

(Eds.), Many colors of crime: Inequalities of race, ethnicity, and crime in America (pp. 91–107). New York University Press.

101.

Viruell-Fuentes

E. A.

Morenoff

J. D.

Williams

D. R.

House

J. S.

(2013). Contextualizing nativity status, Latino social ties, and ethnic enclaves: An examination of the ‘immigrant social ties hypothesis. Ethnicity and Health, 18(6), 586–609. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2013.814763

102.

Warr

Jr. (1994). Public perceptions and reactions to violent offending and victimization. In Reiss

A. J.

Roth

J. A.

(Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence, Volume 4: Consequences and control (pp. 1–66). National Academies Press.

103.

Watkins

A. M.

Melde

(2009). Immigrants, assimilation, and perceived school disorder: An examination of the "other" ethnicities. Criminal Justice Journal, 37(6), 627–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.09.011

104.

Wilcox Rountree

Land

K. C.

(1996). Perceived risk versus fear of crime: Empirical evidence of conceptually distinct reactions in survey data. Social Forces, 74(4), 1353–1376. https://doi.org/10.2307/2580354

105.

Wilcox Rountree

Warner

B. D.

(1999). Social ties and crime: Is the relationship gendered? Criminology, 37(4), 789–814. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1999.tb00505.x

106.

Wilkinson

D. L.

(2007). Local social ties and willingness to intervene: Textured views among violent urban youth of neighborhood social control dynamics and situations. Justice Quarterly, 24(2), 185–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820701294771

107.

Wright

E. M.

Benson

M. L.

(2010). Immigration and intimate partner violence: Exploring the immigrant paradox. Social Problems, 57(3), 480–503. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2010.57.3.480

108.

Xie

Baumer

E. P.

(2021). Immigrant status, citizenship, and victimization risk in the United States: New findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). Criminology, 59(4), 610–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12278

109.

Yuan

(2017). Context, network, and adolescent perceived risk. Social Science Research, 62, 378–393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.08.018

110.

Yuan

McNeeley

(2017). Social ties, collective efficacy, and crime-specific fear in Seattle neighborhoods. Victims & Offenders, 12(1), 90–112.

111.

Yuan

McNeeley

(2018). Fear of crime and behavioral adaptations: Testing the effects of fear of violence on unstructured socializing with peers. Deviant Behavior, 39(12), 1633–1646. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2017.1410625

112.

Yun

Kercher

Swindell

(2010). Fear of crime among Chinese immigrants. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 8(2), 71–90.