Public Stranger Violence—What Makes You Vulnerable?A Comparison of Perspectives From Young Adults and Industry Experts

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine the situational and individual factors that influence vulnerability to public stranger violence (PSV) from the perspective of young adults and industry professionals. In total, 25 young adults aged between 18 and 29 years formed one sample and participated in one of four focus groups. The second sample consisted of 10 industry professionals with backgrounds in policing, corrections, and forensic psychology. Each professional participated in an individual semistructured interview. Both samples were asked questions regarding vulnerability and safety in public, where responses were analyzed using a thematic analysis. Multiple themes were identified and categorized into situational and individual factors associated with victimization. Situational factors referred to aspects of the environment that may influence vulnerability to PSV and included visibility, location, and level of support for potential victims. Individual factors referred to aspects about the person that may influence vulnerability to PSV and included unpredictability, ease of target, stereotypes, in-groups versus out-groups, distractions, and personality traits. Although both samples identified similar situational factors, young adults were found to be either unaware of individual factors identified by industry professionals as influencing vulnerability or at least misunderstood some of these factors. This is problematic as young adults may be basing their public behaviors on misinformation that may in fact increase, rather than decrease, vulnerability to PSV. The findings from this study have implications for the design of personal safety programs as well as community-based interventions to reduce vulnerability, the prevalence of PSV, and the negative outcomes associated with PSV, including anxiety and fear of crime.

Keywords

community violence homicide sexual assault situational factors prevention

Introduction

The Problem

Over the past few decades, the number of reported physical and sexual assaults in Australia has increased at an alarming rate. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC), both physical and sexual assaults respectively increased at a rate of 5% and 4% per year from 1995 to 2007, with young adults aged 15 to 24 years experiencing the highest rates of victimization (AIC, 2013). An area of growing concern has been the increase in assaults committed by perpetrators unknown to their victims (i.e., strangers). For example, in Victoria, sexual assaults committed by strangers increased from 16.9% in 2011 (678 victims) to 20.4% in 2016 (1,096 victims) and homicides increased from 13.1% in 2010 (13 victims) to 18.3% in 2016 (21 victims; Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2017; comparative national statistics are unavailable due to differences in data reporting methods). A significant proportion of these stranger crimes are committed in public settings, henceforth referred to as public stranger violence (PSV). This is a serious problem as not only is PSV costly in terms of the financial costs associated with the criminal justice system, hospitalization (Kenny, 2012; Smyth, 2011), negative health-related outcomes, loss of productivity, and the implementation of awareness campaigns and interventions, these crimes also elicit significant fear and avoidant behaviors that may exclude individuals from participating in society (Blobaum & Hunecke, 2005).

Previous research has been conducted on fear of crime or the extent to which an individual worries about becoming a victim of crime (Smolej & Kivivuori, 2006). The fear of crime literature has generally looked at vulnerability as the subjective likelihood or level of worry associated with becoming a victim of crime (see Smolej & Kivivuori, 2006). In contrast, the psychological literature on vulnerability investigates the objective or actual likelihood of becoming a victim of crime (i.e., risk), as identified by offenders or by risk factors derived from crime-based statistics (Perloff, 1983). However, there is often a discrepancy between people’s fear of crime and their actual level of risk (Custers & Van den Bulck, 2011; Lee & Hilinski-Rosick, 2012). As such, it is important to differentiate between the factors that people believe make them feel unsafe (fear of crime) and the factors they believe influence their actual likelihood of becoming a victim (vulnerability). Although researchers have primarily focused on fear of crime, little is known about the perceptions that people hold which they believe make them vulnerable to PSV.

Theoretical Framework for Offending Behavior

Previous research with violent offenders has indicated that when offenders have no pre-existing relationship with their victims, they rely on variables such as presence of witnesses or size of the victim to determine the likelihood of success in committing the crime (Beauregard & Bouchard, 2010; Beauregard, Proulx, & Rossmo, 2005; Beauregard, Rossmo, & Proulx, 2007). An underlying assumption of previous research is that perpetrators employ a rational approach when reasoning and deciding to commit crimes. Rational choice theory (RCT; Cornish & Clarke, 1986) was developed as a framework to understand criminal decision making and behavior as well as how specific elements related to crimes are considered in a cost–benefit analysis (Beauregard & Bouchard, 2010; Beauregard et al., 2005; Beauregard et al., 2007; Cornish & Clarke, 1986). For instance, previous research applying RCT to property and other crimes has highlighted that offenders consider situational aspects concerning the crime (e.g., the presence of CCTV cameras, alarm systems, and lighting) before committing it as these variables influence the likelihood of being caught or later identified.

When applied to violent crimes, RCT suggests that offenders assess factors related to a potential target that determine the perceived likelihood of being able to successfully attack an individual without being caught. Targets are vulnerable to selection by an offender if they appear less likely or unable to ward off an attack (e.g., the elderly, the young, or those under the influence or alcohol; Kenny, 2012). Being vulnerable may also be signaled by individuals who are not paying attention to their surroundings or are preoccupied. More specifically, body language is significant in appraising dominance or submissiveness of women, where submissive women may be perceived as more vulnerable to violent victimization than those perceived as being dominant (see Richards, Rollerson, & Phillips, 1991). Hence, offenders often undertake a deliberate and careful process of selecting victims, where perceived vulnerability is a critical factor in the target selection process.

It is important to note that previous research on factors related to vulnerability has largely been established from studies conducted with criminal offenders. These studies are essential to gain an understanding of offenders’ decision-making processes as they relate to target selection. However, it is likely that many offenders withhold certain aspects of their target selection processes, as well as use deception to create more socially desirable responses (Porter, Doucette, Woodworth, Earle, & MacNeil, 2008). Some offenders also want to protect the details of their target selection process to use the same tactics in the future (Stevens, 1994). Thus, validity is a specific methodological concern in offender-based research where it is difficult to validate the findings from these studies or determine whether these studies only provide partial knowledge regarding victim selection.

One approach to offset this limitation is to gain insights from experts, which is often common practice when it comes to defining and operationalizing psychological constructs. In this regard, experts are those who have worked with violent offenders, victims of violence or victims in environments where they are exposed to offender behavior. Industry experts (henceforce refered to as industry professionals) possess unique insight into both the psyches of offenders and details about their crimes, and as a result of their professional contact with offenders and victims, can offer expertise into the circumstances that violent offenders deem favorable for committing violent crimes in public. Yet there is very little, if any, research that draws upon industry professionals with expertise in violent offending behavior to inform our understanding of what makes people vulnerable to PSV, especially, young adults who are the most likely to be targeted.

The Current Research

The current study addresses the lack of research on vulnerability to PSV by employing an exploratory qualitative design to compare similarities and differences in perceived vulnerabilities to PSV between young adults and industry experts. The research questions were as follows:

Research Question 1: What are the situational and individual factors that young adults believe make them vulnerable to PSV?

Research Question 2: What are the situational and individual factors that industry professionals believe influence vulnerability to PSV?

Research Question 3: Are young adult perspectives’ regarding vulnerability to PSV consistent with industry expert perspectives?

Method

Participants: Sample 1

A sample of 25 young adults (14 females and 11 males) aged between 19 and 29 years (M = 23.82 years, SD = 2.89 years) participated in the study. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling within personal and professional networks.

Participants: Sample 2

The sample of 10 industry professionals (3 females and 7 males) comprised of two police detectives, one police officer, one victimologist, two prison officers, one police analyst, and three forensic psychologists. Participants had been working in industry for an average of 13.50 years (SD = 11.33), with eight employed and two retired at the time of the interviews. Participants were also recruited via snowball sampling within personal and professional networks.

Materials: Sample 1

A semistructured interview guide was developed for data collection using focus groups. Participants were asked questions about what they believe make them vulnerable to PSV and what they believe makes them safe in the same circumstances. It should be noted that questions were targeted at what participants believe actually make them more or less likely to be attacked (vulnerability), as opposed to how safe or vulnerable they feel (fear of crime).

Materials: Sample 2

A semistructured interview guide was also developed for the individual interviews. The interview guide included questions about what situational factors industry professionals believe are associated with influencing PSV, what individual factors industry professionals associate with PSV, and what situational and individual factors industry professional believe influence their own vulnerability when working with violent offenders. Some of the questions were adapted to cater for each participant’s professional background. For example, participants working with offenders of violence (rather than victims) were asked additional questions regarding perceptions of their own safety, both in the workplace and in public.

Procedure: Sample 1

As the aim was to gain insight into young adults’ general beliefs rather than to document personal experiences of victimization, research questions were better addressed through focus group discussions where participants could respond to each other’s opinions, therefore providing new insights and understanding among participants.

Focus groups consisted of five to eight participants per group, consistent with qualitative research guidelines that describe the ideal size of a focus group to promote participation without members fragmenting into small groups (Kruger & Casey, 2009). Four focus groups were conducted in a meeting room at a metropolitan university, with one exclusively male group (n = 6), one female-only group (n = 6), and two mixed groups (n₁ = 5; 2 males, 3 females and n₂ = 8; 3 males, 5 females, respectively). Both the male and female exclusive groups were created in an attempt to prevent responses being restricted by the presence of the opposite sex (e.g., to prevent female participants from withholding opinions about when they feel vulnerable around unknown males).

Before each focus group, participants were informed about the purpose and structure of the focus group and were reminded that participation was voluntary. Focus groups were conducted by a registered clinical and counseling psychologist who is an experienced qualitative researcher. Each focus group lasted approximately 60 min and was audio recorded and later transcribed verbatim. The first author was also present as a notetaker during each of the focus groups. Following the transcription of the focus group data, all participants’ names were substituted with pseudonyms.

Procedure: Sample 2

The decision was made to conduct individual interviews with industry professionals due to the unique and sensitive nature of participants’ personal experiences working with violent offenders and victims of crime. There was also a requirement for confidentiality for selected professionals. The first author conducted all interviews at a time and location convenient to participants. The nature of the interview was explained to each participant, and consent was obtained before the interview commenced. Each interview lasted between 60 and 120 min and was audio recorded and later transcribed verbatim.

Data Analysis: Thematic Analysis

A thematic analysis was used to examine both the focus group and individual interview data. This iterative form of data analysis was an ongoing process from initial data collection in both samples, until the completion of the studies.

Transcripts of the focus groups and interviews were read several times by the first author, and recurring thoughts and ideas of the participants were identified. Initial coding was performed, whereby phrases and sentences from the data were found, and similar content was organized into preliminary categories. Overlapping categories were collapsed and examined and elaborated into themes, as described by Creswell (2014).

Several steps were taken to validate the process of data collection and analysis. Member checking was a validation strategy used during each of the focus groups and interviews to ensure that the interviewer was not misinterpreting participant’s views. Also, the authors analyzed the data independently and agreed upon a coding scheme to classify codes into themes. This was undertaken to verify that the identification of themes was appropriate. The outcome from this process did not alter the themes identified from the raw data.

Findings and Discussion

The thematic analysis identified several situational and individual factors associated with vulnerability to PSV. These themes are described below (see situational themes and individual themes represented in Online Supplementary Appendixes A and B, respectively).

Situational Themes

The situational themes identified by participants included visibility, location and support.

Visibility

Young adults consistently identified time of day and lighting as important factors influencing vulnerability to PSV. In particular, participants reported feeling safer during the day, when they can identify a potential offender and prevent an attack from happening and when witnesses can see and intervene in the case of a violent attack. Industry professionals also identified these two categories for the same reasons, where poorly lit spaces and night time are considered most dangerous. However, industry professionals believed the distinction between the number of incidents occurring during the day compared with that at night was becoming less prominent. Industry professionals acknowledged that from their experience, offenders have become less concerned with visibility due to an increased confidence that witnesses will not intervene. This was also attributed to the perceived increase in the use of the methamphetamine Ice, making offenders more violent but less rational in their behavior, as well as significantly more impervious to pain inflicted in an attempt to stop an attack. It is important to note that young adults did not identify that time of day is becoming less of a deterrent to offenders than in the past. Indeed, the increasing number of violent homicides occurring in Melbourne during daylight hours (e.g., 28% day-time increase in assaults on public transport) seems to support this as being problematic, given that young adults feel safe during the day and as a result tend not to engage in protective behaviors during these hours. In addition, industry professionals identified concealment and CCTV as influencing both offenders’ and potential victims’ visibility, neither of which were identified by the young adult sample. For instance, concealment refers to structures or objects that obstruct a person from view, such as facades and shrubbery, which offer places for offenders to hide prior to an attack. Young adults noted that increased lighting makes it more difficult for offenders to hide, but did not identify concealment as an independent factor contributing to vulnerability, which may indicate that they are unaware of specific environments being particularly dangerous (e.g., concealed pathways, parks).

Industry professionals also believed that potential victims are more vulnerable to a premeditated assault in locations where there is no CCTV, or where CCTV is not easily detected. As noted earlier, offenders are less likely to commit violent acts when CCTV is present as it increases the likelihood that they will be identified post attack (AIC, 2009). Thus, potential victims were identified as being more vulnerable to premeditated PSV in areas where CCTV is either not present or not easily identified by offenders. Industry professionals stated that CCTV cameras do not generally act as a deterrent in cases of impulsive acts of violence. Furthermore, neither concealment nor CCTV cameras were identified by young adults as important aspects of visibility, and thus may be factors that can be targeted for increased awareness. This finding is consistent with existing theories and past research, which highlights lighting, visibility, concealment, and CCTV as influencing offender choices (Wortley, 2011).

Location

Young adults discussed vulnerability to PSV as being dependent on their current location. Two categories were identified as contributing to the location, namely perceived socioeconomic status (SES) and familiarity with the area. Young adults stated feeling less vulnerable to violence in locations that they are familiar with, and therefore know where to seek help from if necessary. In addition, participants believed that people who reside or spend time in the same areas as them were like them in regard to temperament and moral beliefs. This assumption results in young people believing that they can trust others in familiar neighborhoods to not bring them harm. Young adults highlighted that the presence of commission housing and halfway houses were indicators of a low SES suburb, and that lower SES suburbs were associated with an increased risk of violence. This finding is consistent with crime statistics where lower SES areas are often associated with higher crime rates (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997).

Both familiarity and SES were consistent with those identified by industry professionals. For instance, SES was perceived as influencing the likelihood of experiencing PSV, with lower SES and high-density areas being associated with increased risk compared with high SES areas. Industry professionals also differentiated between commercial, industry, and residential areas, where industrial and commercial areas were recognized as increasing vulnerability to victimization compared with residential areas. In particular, entertainment districts and public transport were identified as the riskiest public areas, especially at night. This was attributed to the large number of people in these areas at night, the lack of proper authorities to deal with violence and the level of intoxicated individuals present. This is consistent with multiple studies which have highlighted the increased level of alcohol-related violence in and around licensed premises (Graham & Homel, 2008; Martin, Freeman, & Davey, 2012; Mcilwain & Homel, 2009). Furthermore, it was the industry professionals’ view that entertainment districts draw violent offenders to them as these environments are ideal locations for victim trolling.

Although it is expected that entertainment districts will experience greater levels of alcohol-related violence at night, it is not anticipated by members of the public that these locations act as hunting grounds for violent offenders, where they do not have to actively seek out suitable victims (as suitable victims are present throughout). It should be noted that young adults did discuss Melbourne city as being more dangerous at night due to high levels of intoxication but did not identify it as a potential hunting ground for individual offenders. Instead, intoxicated groups looking to cause trouble were identified as being more of a problem. Given the likelihood that young adults spend a greater amount of time in entertainment districts than other age groups, this is an important factor for them to be aware of.

Similarly, familiarity with the area for both the offender and victim was identified by industry professionals, where potential victims may believe that they know an area, the character of residents, and the likelihood of a violent attack occurring in that neighborhood. Equally, this sense of familiarity may increase the confidence in offenders for similar reasons, making them more dangerous when they feel comfortable in the area in which they are “hunting”. This assertion is consistent with evidence-supporting “morphology”, a concept examined in geographical profiling explaining that many offenders hunt close to their home (Canter, Hammond, Youngs, & Juszczak, 2013). Furthermore, individuals offending in areas in which they are familiar will increase their comfort level as they will not stand out to others in the neighborhood as being out of place.

Support

It is apparent that young adults explicitly or implicitly delegate responsibility for their safety into the hands of others. The theme of support is based on the assumption that having others present in public means that someone would prevent a violent attack or intervene if one was to occur. Most young adults did not discuss preventive measures taken to be safer in public, but all mentioned that having other people present reduces vulnerability to PSV. In fact, it was rarely mentioned by young adults in this sample that other people might not step in to prevent an attack or call emergency services for assistance (only one young adult from the sample raised this issue). This assumption may be problematic as research and high-profile PSV cases (e.g., Jill Meagher, Masa Vukotic, Renea Lau, David Cassai, and Morgan Huxley) indicate that witnesses to violence do not necessarily intervene, either through fear of becoming a victim themselves or because others are also present to intervene. This diffusion of responsibility (see Garcia, Weaver, Moskowitz, & Darley, 2002) is identified as the bystander effect and is a well-established phenomenon in psychological research.

Male participants identified that being outnumbered by offenders was a significant factor in increasing their vulnerability to becoming a victim of violence. It was evident that male participants were discussing the lack of support they would have to help them should they be physically assaulted by another group of males. They suggested that groups of other men feel invincible when together and therefore may be more likely to engage in violence against others. This again highlights the importance young adults place on other people to be able to assist them in a situation where they may become a victim of violence. Being outnumbered, and thus having little or no physical support, would significantly reduce the ability of an individual to defend themselves, making them more vulnerable.

Industry professionals stated that having a greater number of bystanders present is seen to somewhat decrease vulnerability to PSV as it becomes more difficult for an offender to complete the crime without some form of intervention. However, although the presence of others does mitigate vulnerability to an extent, bystanders were considered unlikely to intervene if they witnessed a violent attack. Industry professionals were confident that eye-witnesses would fail to step in out of fear they themselves would be a victim of violence. It is more likely that bystanders would use their phone to call emergency services and film the attack, assisting in identifying the offender post attack, but not directly intervening to prevent the crime or assist the victim. This has important consequences as it highlights the discrepancy between the belief that others would intervene, and the actual likelihood of whether or not they do and how they intervene.

Interestingly, although not explicitly mentioned by the sample of young adults, it was not clear that they themselves would intervene to help others who were being targeted. However, industry professionals noted that from their experience, onlookers are unlikely to intervene against someone being attacked, and notably, they believe that offenders are aware of this. As a result, the intervention of others is seen by industry professionals as being less relevant in terms of influencing offender decision making than in the past. As young adults in this study reported relying on the intervention of others to decrease their vulnerability to PSV, this finding suggests that young adults need to take more individual control over their own vulnerability to PSV.

Individual Themes

Several individual themes were identified by participants, including unpredictability, ease of target, stereotypes, in-groups versus out-groups, distractions, and personality traits.

Unpredictability

Young adults identified intoxication of either a victim or an offender as a central factor influencing vulnerability to PSV. Intoxication affects reaction time and decision making for young adults as potential victims, negatively influencing their ability to respond to an attack. Alcohol can also make offenders more violent and unpredictable due to the effects on decision-making processes. As such, normally nonviolent individuals can display violent behavior that they otherwise may not. This is supported by statistics that highlight both victims and/or perpetrators of violence are often under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol at the time of violent crimes. For example, from 1990 to 2005, 92% of offenders apprehended for murder in Victoria had consumed alcohol at the time of the crime (Sentencing Advisory Council, 2007). However, the young adults did not express that they avoid drinking alcohol, moderate their drinking behavior, or avoid others who are intoxicated, despite the perceptions that alcohol increases vulnerability.

Industry professionals equally discussed the consumption of drugs and alcohol as increasing an individual’s vulnerability to PSV. Ice was identified as the most prominent substance that contributes to people acting violently, which coincides with a substantial increase (i.e., 30% between 2011 and 2012) in amphetamine-related arrests (AIC, 2013). Alcohol was also mentioned as a factor that significantly increases the vulnerability of potential victims, where those under the influence of alcohol underestimate the level of danger they could find themselves in, lose their sense of situational awareness and their ability to identify potential threats. A retired police officer specializing in licensing and alcohol safety estimated that crimes such as thefts and assaults would decrease by 90% if alcohol and drugs were no longer a contributing factor. Again, this assertion is supported by statistical evidence suggesting perpetrators are often under the influence of alcohol at the time of arrest (AIC, 2013).

Ease of target

The theme ease of target captured several categories of individual factors that highlight the perceived ability of individuals to adapt to potentially violent situations. These categories included level of assertiveness, ability to blend in and not draw attention to themselves, and levels of confidence. Assertiveness was of particular importance to female participants who felt that they were reducing their vulnerability by taking small actions (e.g., carrying their car keys in their hands on the way to the car and talking on their phones to others while walking alone). These actions gave participants a feeling of control that they were actively taking steps to reduce their vulnerability. However, the majority of participants did not express engaging in risk-reduction behaviors, even when they may fear the situation they are in. Furthermore, some of the behaviors undertaken by participants to reduce vulnerability may in fact be increasing their vulnerability (e.g., talking on the phone while walking alone).

Industry professionals acknowledged that assertiveness is a factor that reduces vulnerability to PSV. Looking self-assured and in control will decrease the likelihood of being targeted as this will require greater effort on behalf of the offender to carry out an attack (Grayson & Stein, 1981; Richards et al., 1991; Sakaguchi & Hasegawa, 2006). However, some of the risk-reduction behaviors engaged in by young adults which they deemed as being assertive may in fact increase rather than decrease their vulnerability to PSV. This is expanded below in the “Distractions” section.

Young adults noted that being able to blend in with the crowd and not draw attention to oneself reduces vulnerability. It was believed by young adults that becoming “invisible” means you are less likely to be noticed by an offender, and therefore unlikely to be targeted. Factors that were seen to counteract this strategy were being loud, intoxicated, and wearing flamboyant clothing. Industry professionals described being assertive as paying attention to one’s surroundings, speaking and standing up for oneself, and appearing strong willed. Again, this was seen to decrease vulnerability as offenders would have to exert greater effort to victimize a dominant individual.

Perceived confidence was identified across all focus groups as being central in reducing vulnerability to PSV. It was recognized by participants that walking in a confident manner (e.g., with your shoulders back and head up) projects confidence and reduces vulnerability and that offenders will be more likely to target an individual with low levels of perceived confidence who is less likely to fight back. Industry professionals reiterated this point, indicating body language is the first characteristic offenders pick up on. Importantly, this is consistent with past research which suggests that confident individuals are less likely to be targeted (Grayson & Stein, 1981; Richards et al., 1991; Sakaguchi & Hasegawa, 2006).

Stereotypes

Participants reported using stereotypes based on an individual’s style of clothing to assess both their own safety and other people’s level of vulnerability to PSV. Young adults stated that males who are dressed down (e.g., in a singlet as opposed to a shirt) are seen to been more threatening, though they also noted that standing out too much based on your clothing (i.e., underdressed or overdressed) increases one’s vulnerability. Females who are dressed in a more revealing manner are seen to be more vulnerable. For instance, female participants reported feeling more vulnerable when they are wearing high heels as it makes it more difficult to escape from a potential attacker. However, it should be noted that only one participant expressed that they altered their selection of footwear based on this perception. That is, all other female participants expressed awareness that their choices may increase their vulnerability but did not appear to alter their choice of footwear.

According to industry professionals, stereotypes based on clothing are utilized by offenders. Those individuals who are perceived as dressing “rough” or very casually are generally seen as having more life experience and also as being more likely to defend themselves if required. Dressing rough (e.g., an inexpensive singlet and ripped jeans) was seen as an indicator of low SES, previous exposure to violence, and one’s ability to defend himself or herself. In contrast, individuals who are seen to be well dressed (e.g., business attire) are not perceived as being streetwise and therefore present easier targets who are unlikely to defend themselves. Moreover, those who are dressed impractically to put up a fight, (e.g., in high heels or restrictive clothing) are also seen as being more vulnerable as they are easier for an offender to overpower. This finding was unsurprising as it is rational that those who are dressed in a way that restricts their movement are not as able to resist physical confrontations as those dressed in a way that gives them freedom of movement.

It is important to emphasize that industry professionals were not blaming the victim for being targeted, agreeing that individuals should be able to dress in any manner they wish, without it being perceived as an invitation for violence. However, participants stated that although it is unfortunate, from a policing point of view, dress does play a role in vulnerability.

In-groups versus out-groups

Within the theme of in-groups versus out-groups, cultural background was seen by industry professionals as a significant factor contributing to vulnerability. Individuals who are believed to be from non-Western backgrounds are seen by offenders as easy targets due to a perceived lack of familiarity with their surroundings and societal customs. Also, such individuals may not speak English as their first language, increasing their vulnerability in terms of not knowing how to respond to strangers, identify threats, where to go for help, and how to communicate fear or danger to others. Those individuals from other cultural backgrounds were assumed to have differing cultural norms, where woman in particular may be viewed as having different roles compared with men. This was seen by industry professionals as increasing the likelihood of sexual attacks on Western women, who may be viewed as second class by offenders from selected cultural backgrounds. Dress is also relevant here where Western women may be perceived as promiscuous due to their choice of clothing.

Finally, industry professionals associated with the police force identified a lack of reporting an offender’s ethnicity to the public as a significant factor influencing vulnerability to PSV. It is believed that aspects of appearance related to differing ethnic and cultural backgrounds (e.g., skin color, religious dress) are underreported in the media out of fear of appearing racist. Yet, industry professionals identified this information as vital in identifying suspects and protecting the public when violent offenders are yet to be apprehended. It was maintained that such information is necessary for identification purposes and should not be excluded regardless of the background of the offender. The concern held by police, governments, and the media is that such reporting would fuel racial tensions, potentially leading to extreme and violent behavior between cultural groups and a loss of trust in police. It should be noted that cultural factors or media reporting was not identified by young adults.

Distractions

Industry professionals deemed items that distract individuals from their surroundings as problematic and increasing vulnerability to PSV. More specifically, using mobile phones and headphones when alone in public were viewed as particularly troublesome. Participants stipulated that these actions limit visual and auditory cues by diverting attention away from the immediate environment. As such, those using phones or headphones are easier for an offender to approach without their knowledge, thus making an attack more likely. This has been highlighted in some of the PSV cases that have occurred in Victoria in recent years (e.g., Jill Meagher, Prabha Arun Kumar, and Masa Vukotic). This finding is significant as young adults in the first sample, especially females, stated they use their mobile phones when alone in public as it makes them safer. These participants assumed the use of a mobile phone would indicate to an offender that someone would know of their location should they be attacked. However, as the industry professionals discussed, this would not be a deterrent, but rather a factor making them more vulnerable to being targeted.

Personality traits

The final individual factor identified by industry professionals was an individual’s personality traits. Based on their experience, industry professionals stated that naive and “nice” individuals are branded as gullible by offenders, making them more likely to be targeted.

Fear of Crime Versus Vulnerability

An interesting finding from this study was that young adults assumed the factors that they perceive make them feel safe when out in public are the same factors that actually reduce vulnerability. However, some of the factors that make an individual feel safer (e.g., reducing fear of crime) may actually be increasing their vulnerability to PSV (e.g., talking on your phone when alone in public). In other words, not only are there some factors that young adults are not aware of that increase their vulnerability to PSV (e.g., personality factors), there are other factors which young adults incorrectly assume make them less vulnerable but, in fact, may have the opposite result of increasing their vulnerability.

It appears that young adults’ public behaviors are less about reducing vulnerability and more about making the individual feel psychologically comforted by reducing fear of crime, whether or not the behavior is actually effective in terms of reducing vulnerability. When comparing the findings from young adults with those from industry professionals, it was evident that young adults were generally aware of the situational factors that influence their vulnerability to violent crime but have very limited knowledge of the individual factors that influence their vulnerability. Moreover, they also hold misconceptions about the outcomes associated with other factors. This is problematic because young adults may not be aware that certain controllable factors may be increasing their vulnerability and therefore the likelihood of victimization.

Strengths and Limitations

This was the first known study to examine young adults’ perspectives regarding what makes them vulnerable to PSV. Given the propensity for young adults to be involved in PSV, it is important to understand whether their perceptions and assessments of vulnerability are congruent with the factors actually influencing their vulnerability in these instances. This is also the first known study to examine vulnerability to PSV from the perspective of industry professionals. Industry professionals have expertise into the decision-making choices of violent offenders and thus can offer a unique insight into this topic. In light of the limitations of relying solely on offender studies, (e.g., socially desirable responses, withholding decision-making choices), it is important to gain understanding from informed others. Importantly, this study combined the perspectives from young adults and industry professionals with already existing literature from offenders. The consolidation of these three perspectives allows for a greater and more complete understanding of vulnerability to PSV.

However, the research was not without its limitations. First, Sample 1 consisted of 25, primarily university-educated young adults from middle-class backgrounds. Although 64% of women and 61% of men aged 15 to 24 years were enrolled in higher education in 2016 (ABS, 2016), inferences based on these findings to young adults who are not university educated should be made with caution. Second, ethnic diversity of the sample was limited. Data were not collected on SES, and as a result, the findings may not be consistent with the experience of all young adults. Third, it was not clear whether the young adults in the first sample had been victims or perpetrators of PSV. Due to ethical considerations about minimizing and mitigating distress, victims of crime were not specifically targeted for participation. In this regard, the lack of victims in the sample is taken into account during the interpretation of the data. Finally, as the sample was self-selected, those with the highest levels of vulnerability and fear of crime may have chosen not to participate in the research.

Implications

Given the increasing prevalence of violent crime in Australia, it is apparent that existing strategies have not been sufficient in reducing violence in public spaces (i.e., late-night lockout laws). Such strategies have primarily been aimed at changing situational factors relating to violence, such as taxes on alcohol which is intended to increase prices and therefore reduce consumption (which indirectly target younger and low SES adults), increased security presence in and around entertainment venues, and reduction in the number of patrons allowed in licensed premises. These factors are all associated with the overall issue of public victimization, but these interventions have had limited implementation and limited success when implemented, as highlighted by the increasing prevalence of violent crime and associated fear of crime. The findings from this research could be used to inform personal safety programs designed to increase individuals’ knowledge and inform individual decision making when in public, as well as broadening community understanding of vulnerability to PSV. Educational interventions designed for the public may be more effective in reducing vulnerability to, and instances of, PSV if used in combination with empowering individuals to make more informed, evidence-based decisions about their personal safety.

Industry professionals identified that educating the public on factors associated with vulnerability could increase safety in public. Such information may decrease fear of PSV by empowering individuals to take control over their own personal safety.

As young adults are unaware of some of the factors that make them vulnerable, as well as misinterpret other factors that they believe reduce vulnerability to PSV, future research should utilize an experimental research design to test whether knowledge of these factors influences behavioral intentions and actions when in public.

Supplemental Material

Online_appendices – Supplemental material for Public Stranger Violence—What Makes You Vulnerable?A Comparison of Perspectives From Young Adults and Industry Experts

Supplemental material, Online_appendices for Public Stranger Violence—What Makes You Vulnerable?A Comparison of Perspectives From Young Adults and Industry Experts by Lucy Maxwell, Jason Skues, Lisa Wise, Stephen Theiler, and Jeffery Pfeifer in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

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.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Lucy Maxwell has completed a Bachelor of Social Science (Psychology) at Swinburne University of Technology (Hawthorn) and a master’s degree in criminology and criminal justice from Griffith University. She is currently completing her PhD. She teaches criminology major at Swinburne University of Technology. Her thesis is examining vulnerability to public stranger violence, and she has presented at both a national and international conference in this area.

Jason Skues currently works as a senior lecturer in the Department of Psychological Sciences at Swinburne University of Technology. He has expertise in educational interventions and the role of technologies in educational and social environments. His recent research focuses on learning and motivation in vocational education. He has published more than 25 papers using quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods research designs.

Lisa Wise is a senior lecturer with expertise in human factors psychology and educational design and spent a number of years as an academic in psychology at Monash University, before working as a web application and e-learning specialist at Monash University and at The University of Melbourne, with a particular focus on online learning and the use of simulation in training. Over the past decade, she returned to cognitive science research with defense science and technology partners and at Swinburne University of Technology, where she teaches psychology and undertakes research into digital technologies and training, and the cognitive ergonomics of expert-skilled performance. She has over 40 peer-reviewed publications.

Stephen Theiler has been teaching at Swinburne since 1996. At present, he teaches counseling in the postgraduate area and supervises a full load of master’s and PhD students in their research and clinical work. His teaching achievements include National Carrick Citation for Outstanding Contributions to Student Learning and Vice-Chancellor Excellent Teaching Awards. He is a member of the Australian Psychological Society and is a counseling and clinical psychologist.

Jeffery Pfeifer has been teaching and researching in policing and correctional psychology for over 20 years and has published numerous articles as well as testified as an expert witness in both Canada and the United States. His research has been cited by the Supreme Court of Canada and Appellate Courts in Ontario and British Columbia and has had reports tabled by the State Parliament of Western Australia as well as the Provincial Parliament of Saskatchewan.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2016, November 29). Media release: More Australians are studying. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/lookup/6227.0Media%20Release1May%202016

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017, July 6). 4510.0—Recorded crime—Victims, Australia, 2016. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4510.0Main+Features12016?OpenDocument

Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC). (2009). AICrime reduction matters (No. 80). Retrieved from https://aic.gov.au/publications/crm/crm080

Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC). (2013). Australian crime facts and figures. Canberra, NSW: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Beauregard

Bouchard

(2010). Cleaning up your act: Forensic awareness as a detection avoidance strategy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1160-1166.

Beauregard

Proulx

Rossmo

K. D.

(2005). Spatial patterns of sex offenders: Theoretical, empirical, and practical issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 579-603.

Beauregard

Rossmo

K. D.

Proulx

(2007). A descriptive model of the hunting process of serial sex offenders: A rational choice perspective. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 449-463.

Blobaum

Hunecke

(2005). Percieved danger in urgan public space: The imapcts of physical features and personal factors. Environment and Behaviour, 37, 465-486.

Canter

Hammond

Youngs

Juszczak

(2013). The efficacy of ideographic models for geographical offender profiling. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29, 423-446.

10.

Cornish

Clarke

(1986). The reasoning criminal. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

11.

Creswell

J. W.

(2014). Research design: Qualitative and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

12.

Custers

Van den Bulck

(2011). The relationship of dispositional and situational fear of crime with television viewing and direct experience with crime. Mass Communication and Society, 14, 600-619.

13.

Garcia

S. M.

Weaver

Moskowitz

G. B.

Darley

J. M.

(2002). Crowded minds: The implicit bystander effect. The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 843-853.

14.

Graham

Homel

(2008). Raising the bar: Preventing aggression in and around bars, clubs and pubs. Devon, UK: Willan.

15.

Grayson

Stein

M. I.

(1981). Attracting assault: Victim’s nonverbal cues. Journal of Communication, 31, 68-75.

16.

Kenny

J. F.

(2012). Criminal foreplay: The process from target selection to victimization. Journal of Applied Security Research, 7, 439-451.

17.

Krueger

R. A.

Casey

M. A.

(2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Lee

D. R.

Hilinski-Rosick

C. M.

(2012). The role of lifestyle and personal characteristics on fear of victimization among university students. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 647-668.

19.

Martin

Freeman

Davey

(2012). Officers’ perspectives of policing alcohol-related incidents in and around licensed premises. Police Practice and Research, 14, 193-204.

20.

Mcilwain

Homel

(2009). Sustaining a reduction of alcohol-related harms in the licensed environment: A practical experiment to generate new evidence. Australia: Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance, Brisbane, QLD: Griffith University.

21.

Perloff

L. S.

(1983). Perceptions of vulnerability to victimisation. Journal of Social Issues, 39, 41-61.

22.

Porter

Doucette

N. L.

Woodworth

Earle

MacNeil

(2008). Halfe the world knowes not how the other halfe lies: Investigation of verbal and non verbal signs of deception exhibited by criminal offenders and non-offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 13, 27-38.

23.

Richards

Rollerson

Phillips

(1991). Perceptions of submissiveness: Implications for victimization. The Journal of Psychology, 125, 407-441.

24.

Sakaguchi

Hasegawa

(2006). Person perception through gait information and target choice for sexual advances: Comparison of likely targets in experiments and real life. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 30, 63-85.

25.

Sampson

R. J.

Raudenbush

S. W.

Earls

(1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 227, 918-924.

26.

Sentencing Advisory Council. (2007, November). Homicide in Victoria: Offenders, victims and sentencing. Melbourne, VIC: Sentencing Advisory Council.

27.

Smolej

Kivivuori

(2006). The relation between crime news and fear of violence. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 7, 211-227.

28.

Smyth

(2011). Costs of crime in Victoria, Monsh University (Department of Economics Discussion Paper 1441-5429). Retrieved from https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/925395/costs_of_crime_in_victoria.pdf

29.

Stevens

D. J.

(1994). Predatory rapists and victim selection techniques. Social Science Journal, 31, 421-433.

30.

Wortley

(2011). “Cognition” in R. Wortely, psychological criminology: An integrative approach. Oxon, UK: Routledge.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.55 MB