A Neglected Population: Media Consumption,Perceived Risk,and Fear of Crime Among International Students

Abstract

The 4.5 million international students worldwide bring in multifold benefits to the advancement of culture, economy, and national security in education host countries. Surprisingly, few prior studies have explored international students’ fear of crime, which may harm their mental and physical health and undermine their educational achievements. The current study aims to fill in this research void by investigating international students’ fear of crime in line with the cultivation theoretical framework, which postulates that media consumption cultivates fear of crime. The analyses draw on a sample of 398 international students attending nine different public and private universities across the United States. Using structural equation modeling (SEM), I investigate the extent and correlates of students’ fear of crime. The findings reveal that international students are more fearful in the United States than in their home countries. SEM results show that controlling for students’ fear in their home countries, attention paid to crime news is positively related to fear in the United States, through perceived victimization risk. The SEM results also suggest that exposure to non-U.S. social media (e.g., WeChat and Weibo) is positively related to respondents’ fear of crime, whereas exposure to U.S. social media (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) is not related to fear of crime. The current study highlights the importance of studying the impact of fear of crime and social media use on international students.

Keywords

international students fear of crime perceived risk cultivation theory attention paid to crime news social media

Introduction

Fear of crime may be an important factor influencing international students’ global mobility (Marginson, Nyland, Sawir, Forbes-Mewett, 2010) and may impact their mental health (e.g., Jackson & Stafford, 2009) and academic success overseas (e.g., Bowen & Bowen, 1999). The 4.5 million international students worldwide (Institute of International Education [IIE], 2015) bring in multifold benefits to the advancement of culture, economy, and national security in host countries (Pandit, 2007). Surprisingly, fear of crime research concerning international students is rare. Few researchers have examined international students’ fear of crime systematically in line with the cultivation theory framework.¹

Cultivation theorists argue that fear of crime is cultivated by the media (Gerbner & Gross, 1976; Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1980). Most people lack direct contact with the criminal justice system and rely on the media to learn about crime (Surette, 1992). Crime stories are framed to be more violent and scary than the actual crime picture (Beckett & Sasson, 2004). Therefore, people who consume media heavily may come to hold a distorted view about crime and criminal justice, similar to that depicted in media coverage (Gerbner et al., 1977). Consistent empirical findings suggest that fear of crime is dependent on attention paid to crime news (e.g., O’Keefe & Reid-Nash, 1987), and exposure to TV news (e.g., Chiricos, Padgett, & Gertz, 2000). The cultivation effects of exposure to media on emotional fear might also be mediated by respondents’ cognitive perception of victimization risk (e.g., LaGrange & Ferraro, 1989; LaGrange, Ferraro, & Supancic, 1992; Rountree & Land, 1996).

The cultivation effect is closely related to respondents’ media choice (Chiricos, Eschholz, & Gertz, 1997a; Roche, Pickett, & Gertz, 2016). As the landscape of media consumption changes, cultivation theorists are expected to expand their scope of measurement of media consumption (Potter, 2014). Currently, an increasing number of people are switching from local TV to social media to learn about news (Mitchell, Gottfried, & Matsa, 2015). Compared with traditional types of media, social media viewership is more informal (Sayre, Bode, Shah, Wilcox, & Shah, 2010), personalized (Oates, 2008), and discretional (Bennett, 2012). Assumedly, exposure to social media may have differential cultivation effects on users’ fear of crime because of the differences in media viewership. Moreover, users may question the credibility of information on the Internet (Flanagin & Metzger, 2000; Kiousis, 2001). Nonetheless, this theoretical possibility requires empirical testing.

Fear of Crime: Consequences for Everyday Life and Education

Fear of crime can lead to multifold negative consequences for the public. Individuals who are overly anxious about victimization are likely to suffer from reduced psychological health and physical functioning (Jackson & Stafford, 2009). Symptoms range from limited mobility, depression to mental disorder (Stafford, Chandola, & Marmot, 2007). Anxious individuals also tend to take excessively precautious measures including public avoidance and curtailed social engagement (Melde, Berg, & Esbensen, 2016; Warr, 1994). On an aggregate level, erosion of personal welling is associated with tangible and intangible social and economic costs, including monetary loss on public health and reduced quality of life (Dolan & Peasgood, 2007).

The social ill of fear of crime has additional implications for the student population. From an educational perspective, fear of crime is negatively related to youths’ school engagement and academic success (Bowen & Bowen, 1999). Violence-related perceptions are also harmful to students’ IQ and reading achievement (Delaney-Black et al., 2002). Emotional distress might further trigger problematic behaviors including substance abuse (Kilpatrick et al., 2000) and aggressive peer relations (Attar, Guerra, & Tolan, 1994; Scarpa et al., 2002; Schwartz & Proctor, 2000). Lack of feelings of personal safety can result in defensive actions including weapon carrying (Goldstein, Young, & Boyd, 2008) and gun ownership (Hauser & Kleck, 2013; Kleck, Kovandzic, Saber, & Hauser, 2011). Female college students are particularly concerned about sexual assaults (Fisher & Sloan, 2003). In addition, students’ levels of emotional fear are likely to be elevated following massive on-campus shootings (Kaminski, Koons-Witt, Tompson, & Weiss, 2010).

The unfavorable repercussions of fear of crime might be exacerbated among international students who are often abroad and alone. On one hand, foreign students’ baseline level of fear might be higher than local students due to isolation and the absence of their families and familiar social network (Sawir, Marginson, Deumert, Nyland, & Ramia, 2007). English is a commonly used language in many education host nations (e.g., America, Britain, and Australia), whereas most of the international students come from nations where English is not the primary language (e.g., China, India, and Saudi Arabia). If international students cannot speak English fluently, it may be more difficult for them to assimilate into local communities or establish intimate friendship with domestic students (Sawir, Marginson, Forbes-Mewett, Nyland, & Ramia, 2012). Meanwhile, foreign students may encounter racial and cultural discrimination from host societies. For example, Middle Eastern students are sometimes mistreated at American airports and Mexican students in the United States may feel discriminated against because of boarder issues (J. J. Lee & Rice, 2007). Consequently, international students might develop the perception that they live in a neighborhood of strangers and perceive greater danger relative to reality (Coston, 2004). Moreover, researchers studying fear of crime in Chinese cultures have found that social capital is an important part of Chinese citizens’ perceptions about personal safety (Zhang, Messner, Liu, & Zhuo, 2009). Thus, students who originate from Chinese cultures may be particularly fearful of crime due to lack of social ties in a new and strange environment.

Prior Research on Fear Among International Students

Research on international students is surprisingly rare in fear of crime studies, and thus, it is currently unclear whether they are more afraid abroad than at home, and if so, what explains their elevated fear. This is notable given their potential vulnerability, unique circumstances, and the economic and cultural contribution to the host nations. The inflow of international students brings in considerable monetary benefits including tuition fees and is a boost to tertiary industries (Naidoo, 2006). International students also play crucial roles in advancement of disciplines such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Pandit, 2007). They further act as cross-cultural ambassadors between third world and developed countries (Altbach, 1989), promoting border security and global image of host nations at the same time (Pandit, 2007). When choosing education destinations, students rarely set aside safety-related issues in their decision making (Nyland, Forbes-Mewett, & Marginson, 2010). Therefore, to be competitive in the worldwide student education market, policy makers must take efforts to address international students’ safety concerns.

So far, there are only two articles examining predictors of international students’ fear of crime. More than three decades ago, Sundeen (1984) studied fear of crime of 117 students from developing countries, who were then studying in one large urban university in the United States. The author found that participation in cultural events and activities and perceived neighborhood danger were positively associated with feelings of fear while length of time spent in the United States was negatively associated with international students’ fear of crime. More recently, Xiong, Nyland, Fisher, and Smyrnios (2017) studied international students’ fear of crime in Australia. The authors collected data from six different institutions in Melbourne between 2009 and 2010. Based on their analysis of 610 international students, they found that opportunities for socialization and perceived social disorder were positively related to the respondents’ fear of crime.

These two previous studies shed light on the rarely studied international student population. However, both studies overlooked one of the most important potential predictors of fear of crime among international students: news consumption. It is crucial to examine the relationship between media consumption and fear of crime because the media effect on fear of crime might be particularly pronounced for international students (e.g., Woo & Dominick, 2001). Audiences who have no previous crime experiences are more likely to have increased fear of crime when they are exposed to crime reports (also known as the substitution hypothesis, for example, Liska & Baccaglini, 1990; Weaver & Wakshlag, 1986). The media effect also tends to be stronger for those who feel they are more vulnerable to crime (also known as the vulnerability hypothesis, for example, Skogan & Maxfield, 1981). International students who are unlikely to be acquainted with the criminal justice system in host societies may lack knowledge about crime and justice, and feel vulnerable to discrimination and hate crimes (e.g., J. J. Lee & Rice, 2007). Accordingly, as discussed below, they may be particularly likely to believe and rely on media depictions to familiarize themselves with the host societies and estimate risk, and may become more fearful with greater exposure to media accounts.

Cultivation Theory: Understanding Media Effects on Fear

Examining the public’s crime concern, cultivation theorists argue that heavy media consumption helps explain the public’s salient fear of crime (Gerbner & Gross, 1976; Gerbner et al., 1980). Ever since the late 1960s, there has been a sharp upturn of crime reports aired via major television networks in nations such as the United States (Gerbner et al., 1977). The increasing prevalence of crime in the media is further companioned with an overemphasis on violence (Gilliam & Iyengar, 2000). Crime is often framed as a failure of the criminal justice system (Beckett & Sasson, 2004). Journalists also prefer to report incidents in which offenders are strangers, perhaps because they are more startling (Reiner, 1997). Given that the majority of the public are not direct victims of violence, and rely on the media to learn about crime (Surette, 1992), cultivation theorists hypothesize that people who are frequently exposed to media are likely to have a distorted view about crime and criminal justice system (Gerbner et al., 1977).

Consistent empirical evidence has shown that exposure to TV news is positively related to viewers’ fear of crime (e.g., Chiricos et al., 2000; Eschholz, Chiricos, & Gertz, 2003). More recently, recognizing the changing media landscape, and the increasing popularity of online news websites, a small number of studies have investigated the cultivation effect of exposure to online news (Roche et al., 2016; Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004). Thus far, little evidence has emerged that exposure to online news is related to fear of crime.

However, a novel and increasingly popular type of news delivery mechanism that has not been examined in cultivation studies is social media (e.g., Facebook and Twitter). News on social media may be particularly relevant to international students, who tend to be young and skilled with Internet technology. News stories on social media are not simple replications from TV news to a different platform. Instead, posts on social media are written and shared by other social media users, also known as the citizen journalists, to express their responses to mainstream news coverage (Sayre et al., 2010). Social media users are more likely to disseminate minority viewpoints when such information is not covered in mass media (Oates, 2008). Surprisingly, the relationship between exposure to social media and fear of crime has yet to be explored.

Social media is increasingly popular both in developed and many developing nations. In 2016, one in six Americans got news from social media (Gottfried & Shearer, 2016). The overwhelming popularity of social media is also emerging in other nations, including developing countries. Since 2002, there has been a sharp increase in smartphone ownership in nations including China, Turkey, and Chile, accompanied by a rise of access to social media (Rainie & Poushter, 2014). Although variations exist among different countries, the rising trend of use of social media is common and ostensible around the globe.

International students are likely to rely heavily on social media to adjust to dramatic environmental and cultural changes (Lin, Peng, Kim, Kim, & LaRose, 2011). International students are likely to use social media based in the host nations (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) frequently to stay informed of their new and yet unfamiliar neighborhood and cultural surroundings (e.g., W. Lee & Tse, 1994). If international students are handicapped by their limited English proficiency and the lack of home TV programming, newspaper, and radio broadcasting, they may frequently use social media based in their home countries (e.g., Weibo and Wechat in China) to get updates in their home countries. Indeed, social media is popular among international students. As illustrated by Reddy (2014), more and more Western universities are using social media such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google+, and YouTube instead of traditional print and broadcast media to reach international students during the students’ college selection process.

Beyond consuming specific types of media, prior studies have also found that attention paid to crime news is positively related to fear of crime (Graber, 1980; O’Keefe & Reid-Nash, 1987). Attention paid to crime news might be a more precise measure of news consumption in the cultivation context because the extent of crime reporting might vary depending on the specific news outlet (e.g., Jaehnig, Weaver, & Fico, 1981). Thus, in addition to measuring the amount of media exposure, measuring attention paid to crime news may effectively capture how crime journalism translates into audiences’ actual reactions to crime (O’Keefe & Reid-Nash, 1987).

Importantly, prior research has found that the relationship between media exposure and fear of crime is indirect, being mediated by perceived victimization risk. Fear of crime and perceived risk of victimization are distinct constructs (e.g., LaGrange & Ferraro, 1989; LaGrange et al., 1992; Rountree & Land, 1996). While fear of crime taps emotional anxiety, perceived risk measures cognitive estimates of victimization likelihood (Ferraro, 1995). Scholars have distinguished between the two concepts and found that perceived risk is one of the strongest and most proximate predictors of fear of crime (e.g., Chiricos, Hogan, & Gertz, 1997b; Jackson, 2009; Warr & Stafford, 1983).

The Current Study

The current study aims to shed light on the rarely studied international student population in the fear of crime literatures in line with cultivation theory. In so doing, the article provides the first test of the relationship between media consumption and fear of crime among international students, using a sample of international students studying in the United States during the time period from September 2015 to October 2016. The present study is also the first to assess the effects of social media on fearfulness. Based on the cultivation theoretical framework, the following hypotheses are tested:

Hypothesis 1: Controlling for international students’ fear in their home countries, their consumption of television news, online news, and social media in the United States will be positively related to their fear of crime in the United States.

Hypothesis 2: Controlling for international students’ fear in their home countries, their attention paid to crime news in the United States will be positively related to their fear of crime in the United States.

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between media consumption in the United States and fear of crime in the United States will be mediated by students’ perceived risk of victimization.

Method

Data

An original survey was administered to international students (18 and older) attending several different universities across the United States starting from September 2015. International student and scholar offices at several large universities in different regions of the United States were asked to forward the survey link to their international student email list, which maximized the heterogeneity of the sample. In total, nine separate universities in the Northeast, Midwest, and South across the United States agreed to help. Supplementary sampling procedure with a snowball sampling technique was conducted through social networking websites to reach students at other universities. Bhutta (2012) shows that conducing snowball sampling online is an effective method to survey specific subpopulations who are difficult to reach through other methods. The survey link was posted on several international student online chat groups. The group members were encouraged to share my post and forward the survey link to their international student friends.

The survey administration period ended in October 2016. The IIE (2015) shows that individuals from five countries (China, 31.5%; India, 15.9%; Saudi Arabia, 5.9%; South Korea, 5.8%; Canada, 2.6%) compose the majority of international students in the United States. Similarly, in the sample, although students came from a total of 54 different countries and areas, 64.4% of the respondents were from those five countries (China, 46.7%; India, 11.1%; Saudi Arabia, 2.1%; South Korea, 2.8%; Canada, 1.8%).

In the sample of 431 respondents, 21% of international students were undergraduates, 74% were graduate students, 42% were males, and 58% were females. There were 28 missing cases. Little’s Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test showed that the data were missing completely at random (p = .539; Little, 1988). Based on the MCAR assumption, missing data were deleted listwise.

Measures

Fear of crime in the United States and home countries

Fear in the United States is a latent construct measuring participants’ emotional fear of victimization for six different offenses (“Being murdered,” “Being raped,” “Being robbed on a street with a gun,” “Being beaten up because of your race/ethnicity,” “Having property stolen,” and “Being cheated out of money by a friend”) in the United States (α = .892). The question is “Please think about when you are in the UNITED STATES, how unafraid or afraid are you that you will become a victim of the following crimes in the NEXT 12 MONTHS?” (1 = very unafraid, 7 = very afraid).²

Virtually, all previous studies of media effects on fear have been cross-sectional, and excluding control for prior fear (e.g., Chiricos et al., 1997a; Roche et al., 2016; Weitzer & Kubrin, 2004). However, to strengthen inferences, efforts were made to control for students’ prior levels of fear before entering the United States. Retrospective reports are one method for measuring prior fear in a cross-sectional survey, assuming the absence of systematic bias in reporting. Although longitudinal data would be preferable, retrospective reports represent a stronger approach than the alternative of simply excluding any control for prior fear. Therefore, in the survey, respondents were asked about their emotional fear of the same six offenses when they were in their home countries, and used responses to create a latent construct measuring Fear in Home Countries (α = .854).

Perceived victimization risk in the United States

Perceived Risk in the United States was also measured, which should mediate the relationship between media consumption and fear of crime. It is a latent construct measuring respondents’ cognitive perceived risk of victimization of the same crimes (α = .868). The question is “When you are in the United States, how unlikely or likely are you that you will become a victim of the following crimes in the NEXT 12 MONTHS?” (1 = very unlikely, 7 = very likely). According to results from a factor analysis using oblique rotation (not shown), indicators of Fear of Crime in the United States and Perceived Victimization Risk in the United States loaded on two separate factors, confirming that although fear of crime and perceived risk of victimization were correlated (r = .611), they were two distinct constructs.

Media consumption in the United States

The independent variables concentrate on measuring participants’ media exposure frequency and attention paid to crime-related media reports both in the United States and in their home countries. Exposure to TV in the United States, Exposure to Online News in the United States, Exposure to U.S. Social Media in the United States, and Exposure to Non-U.S. Social Media in the United States measure respondents’ exposure to media on a weekly basis. The question is “When you are in the UNITED STATES, how often do you do each of the following (watch TV, read news on the Internet, use U.S.-based social media, and use social media that are based outside the United States)?” (1 = never, 5 = everyday). Attention Paid to Crime News in the United States is measured with the following question: “When you are in the United States, how much attention do you pay to crime-related stories in the news?” (1 = none, 5 = very much).

Control variables

Previous cultivation studies often include measures on respondents’ previous victimization experiences and gender to avoid omitted variable bias (e.g., Chiricos et al., 1997a; Chiricos et al., 2000; Eschholz et al., 2003). Accordingly, in the current study, participants’ previous victimization experiences (0 = no, 1 = prior victimization) and gender (0 = male, 1 = female) are controlled for. Table 1 presents descriptive statistics of key variables used in the analyses.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics (N = 395).

Variable	M	SD	Range
Fear of Crime in the United States
Being murdered	2.879	2.009	1-7
Being raped	2.780	1.967	1-7
Being robbed on a street with a gun	3.881	1.855	1-7
Being beaten up because of your race/ethnicity	2.984	1.873	1-7
Having property stolen	3.467	1.732	1-7
Being cheated out of money by a friend	2.401	1.588	1-7
Fear of Crime in Home Countries
Being murdered	2.297	1.798	1-7
Being raped	2.447	1.892	1-7
Being robbed on a street with a gun	2.237	1.805	1-7
Being beaten up because of your race/ethnicity	1.609	1.403	1-7
Having property stolen	3.859	1.876	1-7
Being cheated out of money by a friend	2.560	1.751	1-7
Perceived Victimization Risk in the United States
Being murdered	2.101	1.359	1-7
Being raped	2.208	1.455	1-7
Being robbed on a street with a gun	3.147	1.693	1-7
Being beaten up because of your race/ethnicity	2.523	1.497	1-7
Having property stolen	2.925	1.600	1-7
Being cheated out of money by a friend	2.082	1.346	1-7
Media Consumption in the United States
Attention paid to crime news	3.230	1.028	1-5
Exposure to TV	2.472	1.411	1-5
Exposure to online news	4.240	1.048	1-5
Exposure to U.S. social media	4.366	1.064	1-5
Exposure to non-U.S. social media	3.332	1.854	1-5
Controls
Prior Victimization	0.299	—	0-1
Female	0.582	—	0-1

Note. Standard deviations are omitted for dummy variables.

Results

Bivariate correlations for the variables used in the analysis were presented in Table 2. The analysis started with comparison between respondents’ fear of crime in the United States and in their home countries. In their home countries, the average score of respondents’ fear of crime was 2.475. When they were in the United States, the average score of perceived victimization risk was 3.057. The t test statistic showed that the difference was statistically significant (t = 9.273, p < .001).

Table 2.

Bivariate Correlations for the Variables Used in the Analysis (N = 398).

Variable	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Fear in the United States	.608***	.622***	.313***	−.068	−.050	−.176**	.258***	.030	.176**
2. Fear in home countries	1.000	.352***	.129*	−.068	−.158**	−.192**	.101*	.120*	.137**
3. Perceived victimization risk in the United States		1.000	.314***	−.101*	−.074	−.061	.082	.042	.161*
4. Attention paid to crime news in the United States			1.000	.043	.072	−.005	.066	.023	.157*
5. Exposure to TV in the United States				1.000	.246***	.197**	−.086	.065	−.022
6. Exposure to online news in the United States					1.00	.183**	.020	.107*	−.121
7. Exposure to U.S. social media in the United States						1.00	−.163*	−.028	.041
8. Exposure to non-U.S. social media in the United States							1.000	−.079	.080
9. Prior victimization								1.000	−.068
10. Female									1.000

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Structural equation models (SEM) were then estimated using Stata 13 to show the relationships between respondents’ media consumption in the United States and fear of crime in the United States. The SEM analyses took place in two steps. First, standardized measurement models for the three latent variables were estimated separately (not shown). All of the factor loadings were above .400 with R² above .900 and the models fit the data well. Second, structural models were estimated. The model fit the data well (χ² = 38.132 and df = 1, p < .001; standardized root mean square residual [SRMR] = .039).³ The SEM model was presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Estimated structural model (N = 398).

Direct, indirect, and total effects of variables with bootstrapped standard errors (k = 5,000) were summarized and presented in Table 3. Test results from Breusch–Pagan Lagrange multiplier (LM) test and likelihood ratio (LR) test rejected the null hypothesis of no overall system heteroscedasticity (in both tests, p < .001). Test results from Mardia skewness and kurtosis tests rejected the null hypothesis of multivariate normality (in both tests, p < .001). For remedy, bootstrapping was used to compute the standard errors as recommended by West, Finch, and Curran (1995). As shown in Table 3, respondents’ amount of exposure to non-U.S. social media had a positive direct relationship with their fear of crime in the United States, even after respondents’ fear of crime in home countries have been accounted for (b = .128, p < .001). In comparison, the direct relationship between exposure to U.S. social media and fear of crime in the United States was negative though statistically insignificant (b = –.079, p = .089). Exposure to TV was not directly related to fear of crime in the United States (b = .015, p = .665). In accordance with findings from prior research, exposure to online news was not related to fear of crime in the United States (b = .074, p = .125). Attention paid to crime news in the United States had a positive direct relationship with respondents’ perceived victimization risk in the United States, even after respondents’ fear of crime in home countries has been accounted for (b = .344, p < .001). It also had a positive relationship with fear of crime in the United States, though the effect size was smaller (b = .154, p = .001). The results were consistent with findings from previous literatures (e.g., Graber, 1980; O’Keefe & Reid-Nash, 1987).

Table 3.

Summary of Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects on Fear of Crime in the United States (N = 398).

Variable	Direct Effects			Indirect Effects			Total Effects
Variable	b	Bootstrapped SE	β	b	Bootstrapped SE	β	b	Bootstrapped SE	β
Perceived Victimization Risk in the United States	.535***	.056	.446	—	—	—	.535***	.056	.446
Media Consumption in the United States
Attention paid to crime news	.154**	.053	.112	.184***	.036	.134	.338***	.060	.247
Exposure to TV	.015	.034	.015	−.040	.023	−.040	−.025	.041	−.025
Exposure to online news	.074	.046	.054	−.038	.031	−.028	.035	.055	.026
Exposure to U.S. social media	−.079	.053	−.060	−.015	.027	−.011	−.094	.058	−.070
Exposure to non-U.S. social media	.128***	.026	.167	.016	.016	.021	.144***	.032	.189
Controls
Prior Victimization	−.113	.109	−.037	.079	.068	.026	−.034	.130	−.011
Female	.080	.099	.028	.133*	.060	.047	.213	.117	.075
Fear of Crime in Home Countries	.482***	.058	.450	—	—	—	.482***	.058	.450

Note. b = unstandardized regression coefficient; robust SE = robust standard error; β = standardized regression coefficient.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed).

Next, perceived risk mediated the relationship between attention paid to crime news and fear of crime (indirect effect = .184, p < .001). Perceived victimization risk also mediated the relationship between gender and fear of crime in the United States (indirect effect = .133, p = .032).

Finally, the control variables, including victimization experiences and gender were not directly related to fear of crime in the United States. However, controlling for media consumption, female respondents perceived higher victimization likelihood in the United States, and gender was indirectly related to fear of crime via perceived victimization risk (b = .249, p = .030).

Discussion

The current study is an endeavor to investigate the relationship between media consumption and fear of crime among international students in the United States. With originally collected survey data, SEM modeling, and factor analysis, the results lead to three conclusions in relation to each tested hypothesis. First, exposure to non-U.S. social media was directly related to respondents’ fear of crime. Second, attention paid to crime news was both directly related to respondents’ fear of crime and indirectly related to fear of crime via perceived risk of victimization. Third, fear of crime and perceived risk of victimization emerged as two distinct aspects of respondents’ reactions to crime. Taken together, the results strongly supported the assumption that media consumption is an important source of crime-related anxieties among international students. The implications of the findings are discussed below.

Regarding the first finding, the results first show that consuming non-U.S. social media plays a more important role than traditional media in elevating international students’ fear of crime. This contrasts most research on other populations, where television news, especially local television news, has had the largest effects (e.g., Chiricos et al., 1997a; Chiricos et al., 2000; Roche et al., 2016). The finding is important because, across different countries, social media has increasingly become a popular platform to get news, especially among young adults (Mitchell, Simmons, Masta, & Silver, 2018). One previous study also that found that college students’ fear of crime is related to exposure to crime stories on Facebook and Twitter (Intravia, Wolff, Paez, & Gibbs, 2017). However, the results herein are different from Intravia et al. (2017) in that those authors only focused on U.S. social media, whereas the current study suggests that for international students, only non-U.S. social media is related to their fear of crime.

Social media may exert larger influences than traditional media on younger populations, such as college students, both because of their high rates of usage and because the interactive features of social media allow users to produce, share, and engage with stories (e.g., by posting comments) (Morgan, Shanahan, & Signorielli, 2014). However, the current findings suggest that among international students, social media effects are limited to non-U.S. social media. This may reflect the different type of crime stories covered in these different media, or differences in trust in these different media across native versus international students. The rampant number of crime stories in U.S. media is driven by the profit-making mantra “if it bleeds, it leads” (Hamilton, 2000). Nonetheless, not every crime incident draws the journalists’ attention equally under this rationale. Media outlets with different targeting racial/ethnic audience groups are likely to have dissimilar coverage patterns (Fleras, 2015). In Canada, a content analysis has revealed that unlike major Canadian news outlets, ethnic newspapers often tailor the domestic news stories to play up the tensions between the minorities and the criminal justice system. A similar, albeit informal, processes may be at work for non-U.S. social media. Furthermore, some research suggests cultivation effects are stronger when the consumers and the victims portrayed in the media share similar characteristics (Hirsch, 1980), as would be likely for international students and crime in non-U.S. social media. In short, future studies are needed that explore the content of different types of media in relation to coverage of crimes against nonnative U.S. residents, and also test whether there are differences in trust in various media across native and international students.

Second, the results show that attention paid to crime is the most important media-related predictor of fear of crime, exerting effects both directly and indirectly. This finding may also be attributable to the nuances of media consumption patterns captured by this measure. As Weitzer and Kubrin (2004, p. 506) explain, “the common practice of measuring respondents’ overall exposure to a medium (e.g., newspapers)” fails to take into account “the content of what people take in.” For example, news consumption measures may classify someone as a frequent viewer even if they only pay attention to sports news. The finding herein indicates that cultivation effects hinge largely on attention specifically to crime news. The implication is that research focusing only on measures of consumption, but not attention to content, may underestimate the effects of media on both cognitive and emotional reactions to crime. Such overall measures may be especially deficient with international students if they rely on social media to get news, which provide them with opportunity to personalize what and what not to receive instead of being fed passively (Bennett, 2012).

Third, similar to many previous studies of the U.S. population, factor analysis shows that perceived risk of victimization and fear of crime are two distinct aspects of international students’ reactions to crime. The distinction is a critical first step for developing an accurate understanding of international students’ emotional fear about crime, because it indicates that fear is influenced by other factors besides perceived risk. Although prior studies have not examined international students, extant research on the “risk sensitivity model” of fear suggests that fear is a multiplicative function of perceived risk, perceived severity, and perceived control over victimization (Jackson, 2011; Warr, 1987). However, while the current study supports the risk-fear relationship for international students, it is not clear whether or how perceived severity and control might matter, or whether unique factors may exert influences on international students. For example, perceived system responsiveness may be important for understanding the relationship between risk and fear among international students, because they may have less trust or confidence in American institutions. Future research is needed that tests the risk sensitivity model of fear among international students, and also explores whether other factors, such as trust in the criminal justice system, may moderate the effects of perceived risk on fear.

Finally, when demographic characteristics are taken into consideration, gender has pronounced effects on international students’ perceived risk of victimization and indirect effect on fear of crime. Prior research suggests that the effects of gender on crime-related anxieties reflects differences between men and women in fear of sexual assault—the “shadow of sexual assault” hypothesis (Ferraro, 1996; Warr, 1984, 1985). Because of the current salience of sex crimes on campus, the shadow of sexual assault may be particularly important for understanding gender differences in perceived risk and fear among college students, and especially international students. Specifically, there has been considerable public discussion of sex crimes against students in recent years; indeed, the publicity surrounding this issue has led many states in the United States to implement mandatory reporting of sexual assaults on campus and strengthen the connection between university Title IX coordinators and law enforcement (Mancini et al., 2019). It is possible that this publicity may also have increased concerns among female college students that any victimization is likely to lead to sexual assault, thereby deepening the gender divide (Mancini, Pickett, Call, & Roche, 2016). This may be especially true for students from other countries who are less familiar with U.S. society. Future studies should explore this possibility, and test whether attention to news about sex crimes on campus increases the gender gap in risk fear.

For future researchers who are interested in examining the population of international students, the findings in the current study suggest several future directions. First, research is needed that explores the impact of media consumption and fear of crime on international students’ behaviors. For example, increased fear may diminish international students’ ability to learn while studying abroad. Another important avenue of inquiry is to study whether international students’ fear of crime affects their social interactions while in the United States and job choices after obtaining a degree—that is, whether they choose to return home or not. Moreover, in addition to perceived victimization risk, future researchers may explore whether other factors, including international students’ social isolation in local U.S. communities, lifestyle changes after migrating to new countries, and financial status, moderate the relationship between media consumption and fear of crime. It is also important that qualitative research be conducted to develop a deeper understanding of how international students grapple with their fears while they are in the host nations.

In addition, future researchers may investigate altruistic fear of crime among parents of international students. Similar to fear for oneself, altruistic fear (e.g., fear of children/spouses being victimized) may result in precautious actions and withdrawal from social interactions (Drakulich, 2015; Warr & Ellison, 2000). Nonetheless, studies on altruistic fear of crime are rare (Warr, 1992), especially in relation to students’ parents. Yet, parents are likely to exert a great degree of influence over students’ decisions about studying abroad. One approach for future research may be to interview students and parents as pairs and explore the relationship between students’ fear of crime, parents’ fear for themselves and for their children, and views about studying abroad in different countries.

A major limitation of the present study is that the analyses drew on a convenience sample instead of a nationwide representative one. This limitation has also characterized the few previous studies that have examined international students’ fear of crime (Sundeen, 1984; Xiong et al., 2017). Therefore, future research is needed to test the generalizability of the findings herein. Comparable samples of American students or foreign students who have yet to come to the United States were not obtained. It would be informative to explore differences between different groups of students—native, international in the United States, and international in other countries. The current research is also cross-sectional in nature, as is most of the extant research on media effects on fear of crime. Even though I controlled for respondents’ fear of crime in their home countries, the validity of the findings depends on the assumption that the students’ retrospective reports are unbiased. Future research is thus needed that utilizes longitudinal surveys to analyze fear measured in different time periods. In addition, the model fit statics of the SEM model are not ideal, which may result from the low df (Kenny, Kaniskan, & McCoach, 2014). Future researchers may test this model with additional predictors including international students’ trust in the U.S. criminal justice system, length of stay in the United States, English proficiency, and the number of American friends.

In conclusion, the current study sheds light on the underrepresented population of international students in the fear of crime literature. Fear of crime may heavily influence international students’ decision to come to the United States, and exert impact on their mental health and physical behaviors while they stay in the United States. While the current study represents an important first step toward understanding crime-related anxieties among this largely overlooked population, it is only a first step. Additional research is needed to fully understand the sources and consequences of fear of crime among international students, and nonnatives more broadly, in the United States.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Luzi Shi is a PhD student in the School of Criminal Justice at the State University of New York at Albany. Her research interests center on public opinion and criminal justice. She is also interested in victimology, gender, survey research methods, and cross-national theory testing.

References

Altbach

P. G.

(1989). The new internationalism: Foreign students and scholars. Studies in Higher Education, 14, 125-136.

Attar

B. K.

Guerra

N. G.

Tolan

P. H.

(1994). Neighborhood disadvantages, stressful life events, and adjustment in urban elementary-school children. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 23, 391-400.

Beckett

Sasson

(2004). The politics of injustice: Crime and punishment in America (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Bennett

W. L.

(2012). The personalization of politics political identity, social media, and changing patterns of participation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 644(1), 20-39.

Bentler

P. M.

Bonett

D. G.

(1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.

Bhutta

C. B.

(2012). Not by the book: Facebook as a sampling frame. Sociological Methods & Research, 41, 57-88.

Bollen

K. A.

(1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bowen

N. K.

Bowen

G. L.

(1999). Effects of crime and violence in neighborhoods and schools on the school behavior and performance of adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Research, 14, 319-342.

Chiricos

Eschholz

Gertz

(1997a). Crime, news and fear of crime: Toward an identification of audience effects. Social Problems, 44, 342-357.

10.

Chiricos

Hogan

Gertz

(1997b). Racial composition of neighborhood and fear of crime. Criminology, 35, 107-131.

11.

Chiricos

Padgett

Gertz

(2000). Fear, TV news, and the reality of crime. Criminology, 38, 755-785.

12.

Coston

T. M.

(2004). Worries about crime among foreign students studying in the United States. In Coston

C. T. M.

(Ed.), Victimizing vulnerable groups: Images of uniquely high-risk crime targets (pp. 161-176). Westport, CT: Praeger.

13.

Delaney-Black

Covington

Ondersma

S. J.

Nordstrom-Klee

Templin

Ager

Sokol

R. J.

(2002). Violence exposure, trauma, and IQ and/or reading deficits among urban children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 156, 280-285.

14.

Dolan

Peasgood

(2007). Estimating the economic and social costs of the fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 121-132.

15.

Drakulich

K. M.

(2015). Concerns for self or family? Sources of and responses to altruistic fear. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30, 1168-1207.

16.

Eschholz

Chiricos

Gertz

(2003). Television and fear of crime: Program types, audience traits, and the mediating effect of perceived neighborhood racial composition. Social Problems, 50, 395-415.

17.

Ferraro

K. F.

(1995). Measuring risk and fear of crime. In Ferraro

K. F.

(Ed.), Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk (pp. 21-39). New York City: State University of New York Press.

18.

Ferraro

K. F.

(1996). Women’s fear of victimization: Shadow of sexual assault? Social Forces, 75, 667-690.

19.

Fisher

B. S.

Sloan

J. J.

(2003). Unraveling the fear of victimization among college women: Is the “shadow of sexual assault hypothesis” supported? Justice Quarterly, 20, 633-659.

20.

Flanagin

A. J.

Metzger

M. J.

(2000). Perceptions of Internet information credibility. Journal of Mass Communication Quarterly, 77, 515-540.

21.

Fleras

(2015). Multicultural media in a post-multicultural Canada? Rethinking integration. Global Media Journal, 8(2), 25-47.

22.

Gerbner

Gross

(1976). Living with television: The violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26, 173-199.

23.

Gerbner

Gross

Eleey

M. F.

Jackson-Beeck

Jeffries-Fox

Signorielli

(1977). TV violence profile No. 8: The highlights. Journal of Communication, 27, 171-180.

24.

Gerbner

Gross

Morgan

Signorielli

(1980). The “mainstreaming” of America: Violence profile No. 11. Journal of Communication, 30, 10-29.

25.

Gilliam

F. D.

Iyengar

(2000). Prime suspects: The influence of local television news on the viewing public. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 560-573.

26.

Goldstein

S. E.

Young

Boyd

(2008). Relational aggression at school: Associations with school safety and social climate. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 37, 641-654.

27.

Gottfried

Shearer

(2016). News use across social media platforms 2016. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/

28.

Graber

D. B.

(1980). Crime news and the public. New York, NY: Praeger.

29.

Hamilton

J. T.

(2000). Channeling violence: The economic market for violent television programming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

30.

Hauser

Kleck

(2013). Guns and fear: A one-way street?’. Crime & Delinquency, 59, 271-291.

31.

Hirsch

P. M.

(1980). The “scary world” of the nonviewer and other anomalies: A reanalysis of Gerbner et al.’s findings on cultivation analysis part I. Communication Research, 7, 403-456.

32.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.

33.

Institute of International Education [IIE]. (2015). Open doors 2015: International students in the U.S. up ten percent to nearly one million; study abroad by American students picks up momentum [Press release]. Available from http://www.iie.org

34.

Intravia

Wolff

K. T.

Paez

Gibbs

B. R.

(2017). Investigating the relationship between social media consumption and fear of crime: A partial analysis of mostly young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 158-168.

35.

Jackson

(2009). A psychological perspective on vulnerability in the fear of crime. Psychology, Crime & Law, 15, 365-390.

36.

Jackson

(2011). Revisiting risk sensitivity in the fear of crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48, 513-537.

37.

Jackson

Stafford

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

38.

Jaehnig

W. B.

Weaver

D. H.

Fico

(1981). Reporting crime and fearing crime in three communities. Journal of Communications, 31(1), 88-96.

39.

Kaminski

R. J.

Koons-Witt

B. A.

Tompson

N. S.

Weiss

(2010). The impacts of the Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois university shootings on fear of crime on campus. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 88-98.

40.

Kenny

D. A.

Kaniskan

McCoach

D. B.

(2014). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods & Research, 44, 486-507.

41.

Kilpatrick

D. G.

Acierno

Saunders

Resnick

H. S.

Best

C. L.

Schnurr

P. P.

(2000). Risk factors for adolescent substance abuse and dependence data from a national sample. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 19-30.

42.

Kiousis

(2001). Public trust or mistrust? Perceptions of media credibility in the information age. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 381-403.

43.

Kleck

Kovandzic

Saber

Hauser

(2011). The effect of perceived risk and victimization on plans to purchase a gun for self-protection. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 312-319.

44.

LaGrange

R. L.

Ferraro

K. F.

(1989). Assessing age and gender differences in perceived risk and fear of crime. Criminology, 27, 697-719.

45.

LaGrange

R. L.

Ferraro

K. F.

Supancic

(1992). Perceived risk and fear of crime: Role of social and physical incivilities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 29, 311-334.

46.

Lee

J. J.

Rice

(2007). Welcome to America? International student perceptions of discrimination. Higher Education, 53, 381-409.

47.

Lee

Tse

D. K.

(1994). Channing media consumption in a new home: Acculturation patterns among Hong Kong immigrants to Canada. Journal of Advertising, 23(1), 57-70.

48.

Lin

Peng

Kim

S. Y.

LaRose

(2011). Social networking and adjustments among international students. New Media & Society, 14, 421-440.

49.

Liska

A. E.

Baccaglini

(1990). Feeling safe by comparison: Crime in the newspaper. Social Problems, 37, 360-374.

50.

Little

R. J. A.

(1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198-1202.

51.

Mancini

Pickett

J. T.

Call

McDougle

R. D.

Brubaker

S. J.

Brownstein

H. H.

(2019). Sexual assault in the ivory tower: Public opinion on university accountability and mandatory reporting. Sexual Abuse, A Journal of Research and Tratment, 31(3), 344-365.

52.

Mancini

Pickett

J. T.

Call

Roche

S. P.

(2016). Mandatory reporting (MR) in higher education: College students’ perceptions of laws designed to reduce campus sexual assault. Criminal Justice Review, 41, 219-235.

53.

Marginson

Nyland

Sawir

Forbes-Mewett

(2010). International student security. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

54.

Melde

Berg

M. T.

Esbensen

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

55.

Mitchell

Gottfried

Matsa

K. E.

(2015). Millennials and political news: Social media-the local TV for the next generation? Washington, D. C.: Pew Research Center.

56.

Mitchell

Simmons

Masta

K. E.

Silver

(2018). Across countries, large demographic divides in how often people use the internet and social media for new. Washington, D. C.: Pew Research Center.

57.

Morgan

Shanahan

Signorielli

(2014). Cultivation theory in the twenty-first century. In Fortner

R. S.

Fackler

P. M.

(Eds.), The handbook of media and mass communication theory (pp. 480-497). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

58.

Naidoo

(2006). International education: A tertiary-level industry update. Journal of Research in International Education, 5, 323-345.

59.

Nyland

Forbes-Mewett

Marginson

(2010). The international student safety debate: Moving beyond denial. Higher Education Research & Development, 29, 89-101.

60.

Oates

(2008). Introduction to media and politics. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

61.

O’Keefe

G. J.

Reid-Nash

(1987). Crime news and real-world blues: The effects of the media on social reality. Communication Research, 14, 147-163.

62.

Pandit

(2007). The importance of international students on our campuses. Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, 69, 156-159.

63.

Potter

W. J.

(2014). A critical analysis of cultivation theory. Journal of Communication, 64, 1015-1036.

64.

Rainie

Poushter

(2014). Emerging nations catching up to U.S. on technology adoption, especially mobile and social media use. Washington, DC: U.S. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/02/13/emerging-nations-catching-up-to-u-s-on-technology-adoption-especially-mobile-and-social-media-use/

65.

Reddy

V. P.

(2014). The influence of social media on international students’ choice of university and course. Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/79391/

66.

Reiner

(1997). Media made criminality: The representation of crime in the mass media. In Maguire

Morgan

Reiner

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of criminology (4th ed., pp. 376-415). Clarendon Press.

67.

Roche

S. P.

Pickett

J. T.

Gertz

(2016). The scary world of online news? Internet news exposure and public attitudes toward crime and justice. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 32, 215-236.

68.

Rountree

P. A.

Land

K. L.

(1996). Perceived risk versus fear of crime: Empirical evidence of conceptually distinct reactions in survey data. Social Forces, 74, 1353-1376.

69.

Sawir

Marginson

Deumert

Nyland

Ramia

(2007). Loneliness and international students: An Australian study. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12, 148-180.

70.

Sawir

Marginson

Forbes-Mewett

Nyland

Ramia

(2012). International student and English language proficiency. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16, 434-454.

71.

Sayre

Bode

Shah

Wilcox

Shah

(2010). Agenda setting in a digital age: Tracking attention to California proposition 8 in social media, online news, and conventional news. Policy & Internet, 2(2), 7-32.

72.

Scarpa

Fikretoglu

Bowser

Hurley

J. D.

Pappert

C. A.

Romero

Voorhees

(2002). Community violence exposure in university students: A replication and extension. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 253-272.

73.

Schwartz

Proctor

L. J.

(2000). Community violence exposure and children’s social adjustment in the school peer group: The mediating roles of emotion regulation and social cognition. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 670-683.

74.

Skogan

Maxfield

(1981). Coping with crime. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

75.

Stafford

Chandola

Marmot

(2007). Association between fear of crime and mental health and physical functioning. Research and Practice, 91, 2076-2081.

76.

Sundeen

R. A.

(1984). Explaining the fear of crime among international students from developing countries: A revised model. Criminal Justice Review, 9(7), 7-13.

77.

Surette

(1992). Media, crime and criminal justice: Images, realities and politics. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.

78.

Warr

(1984). Fear of victimization: Why are women and the elderly more afraid? Social Science Quarterly, 65, 681-702.

79.

Warr

(1985). Fear of rape among urban women. Social Problems, 32, 238-250.

80.

Warr

(1987). Fear of victimization and sensitivity to risk. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 29-46.

81.

Warr

(1992). Altruistic fear of victimization in households. Social Science Quarterly, 73, 723-736.

82.

Warr

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

A. J.

Roth

J.A.

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

83.

Warr

Ellison

C. G.

(2000). Rethinking social reactions to crime: Personal and altruistic fear in family households. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 551-578.

84.

Warr

Stafford

(1983). Fear of victimization: A look at the proximate causes. Social Forces, 61, 1033-1043.

85.

Weaver

Wakshlag

(1986). Perceived vulnerability to crime, criminal victimization experience, and television viewing. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 30, 141-158.

86.

Weitzer

Kubrin

C. E.

(2004). Breaking news: How local TV news and real-world conditions affect fear of crime. Justice Quarterly, 21, 497-520.

87.

West

S. G.

Finch

J. F.

Curran

P. J.

(1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In Hoyle

R. H.

(Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

88.

Woo

Dominick

J. R.

(2001). Daytime television talk shows and the cultivation effect among U.S. and international students. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 598-614.

89.

Xiong

Nyland

Fisher

B. S.

Smyrnios

K. X.

(2017). International students’ fear of crime: An Australian case study. Australia & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 50, 77-99.

90.

Zhang

Messner

S. F.

Liu

Zhuo

Y. A.

(2009). Guanxi and fear of crime in contemporary urban China. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 472-490.