Fear of Crime Online? Examining the Effect of Risk,Previous Victimization,and Exposure on Fear of Online Interpersonal Victimization

Abstract

Research exploring the extent and nature of fear of crime has spanned decades; it has been examined in many contexts, among varied populations, and from different theoretical perspectives. However, researchers have been slow to estimate or explain individuals’ fear of online crime. The current study is among the first to address this issue by examining experiences from a random sample of undergraduate students enrolled at a large public university. In particular, we explore the links between perceived risk, online victimization, and fear of online interpersonal victimization (OIPV) and how these relationships vary by the victim–offender relationship. The effects of online exposure and demographic characteristics were also estimated. Results suggest that perceived risk of OIPV was significantly related to fear of OIPV for all types of victim–offender relationships, while previous online victimization was significant for fear of OIPV by intimate partners and friends/acquaintances only.

Keywords

fear of crime cybercrime online victimization perceived risk

Introduction

Over the last 50 years, scholars’ inquisitiveness about the correlates of fear of crime has produced hundreds of studies examining a wide range of factors. This research has made great strides in explaining the extent and nature of fear of crime; yet, there is a key area that has been overlooked, specifically in the last decade—fear of crime online. As the Internet only really began to be widely used by the general public in the early 1990s, it is understandable that fear of online victimization would be absent during most of the history of fear of crime research. However, with the almost universal and unprecedented use of the Internet and related electronic devices in the last decade among a substantial portion of the population, the failure to examine fear of online victimization is a major oversight. This omission is even more apparent when one considers online victimization to be one of the fastest-growing, most prevalent forms of crime in the world (Mueller, 2012).

Researchers’ understanding of traditional fear of crime has gradually evolved, but whether these findings are applicable to fear of online crimes remains an open question. Research has revealed that fear of crime is more prevalent than crime itself and that the intensity of fear of crime varies depending on the type of crime under consideration (Warr, 2000; Warr & Stafford, 1983). However, the intensity of fear of online crime has not been empirically estimated. Furthermore, one of the most consistent predictors of fear of crime is perceived risk of victimization. Yet, the relationship between perceived risk of online victimization and fear has received almost no empirical study. Likewise, although prior research has often identified previous victimization (Ferraro, 1995; Wilcox Rountree, 1998), exposure to risk (Stafford & Galle, 1984), and individual characteristics such as gender and age (Warr, 1984, 2000) as influencing the likelihood that individuals will be fearful, few of these relationships have been examined with respect to online crimes.

Overall, to date, there have been only a handful of empirical studies that discuss fear of online crime (Higgins, Ricketts, & Vegh, 2008; Roberts, Indermaur, & Sprianovic, 2012). Of those studies that have been published, none provide estimates of the intensity of fear of online crime. Studies investigating explanations of fear of online crime provide a valuable starting point for its study, but more research is needed to fully explore whether and why individuals experience fear of online crime. Given the use of and dependency on the Internet, the lack of online victimization-related fear research is an issue that needs to be addressed. The current exploratory study attempts to provide much-needed insight by examining the intensity of fear of online interpersonal victimization (OIPV) and its predictors. Fear of OIPV, which includes many types of online victimization (e.g., harassment, sexual solicitations, stalking, intimidation, or threats of violence), is examined among a large sample of college students enrolled at a university in the Midwest. Particular attention is given to the relationships between online victimization, perceived risk of OIPV, and fear of OIPV by different types of offenders.

Explaining Fear of Crime

Examined collectively, the results produced by the hundreds of previous fear of crime studies proffer several clear themes (Ferraro, 1995; Ferraro & LaGrange, 1987; Hale, 1996). First, there is a clear relationship between perceived risk of crime and fear of crime (e.g., Chadee, Austen, & Ditton, 2007; Ferraro & LaGrange, 1987; Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996). Second, individuals who were previously victimized usually have higher levels of fear of crime than those who have not experienced victimization (e.g., Fox, Nobles, & Piquero, 2009; Keane, 1995; Skogan, 1987; Smith & Hill, 1991; Wilcox Rountree, 1998). Third and relatedly, fear of crime can be driven by exposure to victimization risk (Rengifo & Bolton, 2012; Stafford & Galle, 1984). Fourth, the relationship between the victim and the would-be offender can influence whether individuals are fearful, as well as the intensity of that fear (Jackson, 2009; Scott, 2003; Wilcox, Jordan, & Pritchard, 2007). Although the vast majority of fear of crime research has not tested these relationships with respect to online forms of crime, the exploratory research that has been conducted suggests that these factors may also explain fear of online crime (Higgins et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 2012).

Intensity of Fear of Crime

The measurement of fear of crime directly affects estimates of its prevalence, frequency, and intensity. Yet, a conclusion that much of the fear of crime literature shares is that fear of crime is not only an important social problem, but it also affects a significant portion of the population. Furthermore, the intensity with which individuals experience fear is crime-specific, with individuals being more fearful of certain offenses (e.g., rape, assault) than others (e.g., property). Measurement decisions surrounding intensity of fear have been approached differently by researchers across studies, with some measuring intensity with Likert-type scales ranging from very unafraid to very afraid (Fox et al., 2009; Wilcox et al., 2007). Others have asked participants to rate their fear along a 10-point scale, with 1 representing no fear to 10 representing high fear (Fisher & Sloan, 2003; Hilinski, 2009). In either case, research suggests that the intensity of fear will vary according to the type of crime individuals consider when asked to rate their fear. For example, one of the enduring research questions in the fear of crime literature is why females consistently report higher levels of fear of crime than males. Warr (1984), and much successive research (e.g., Ferraro, 1996; Fisher & Sloan, 2003) found support for the notion that for females, being asked about fear of crime conjures images of being sexually assaulted, and because females have higher risks and more intense fears of sexual assault, they also have higher levels of fear of crime more generally.

Building on these arguments, it stands to reason that online crimes will generate different levels of fear than other forms of crime. Even though the intensity of online fear has yet to be studied empirically, we expect that individuals will have relatively low fear of online crimes. Considering the findings of previous fear of crime research in the context of the online environment, it seems that the threat of potential online victimization, for many individuals, may be seen as less serious than potential face-to-face encounters, which pose a more immediate threat or action. Opportunities for online victimization present a somewhat different context than those offline. The physical distance that often separates individuals interacting online, the lack of an apparent immediate physical threat, and/or the ability to simply ignore potential offenders online could greatly reduce the level of fear someone may feel as a result of possible online victimization.

Perceived Risk of Victimization

Researchers have identified perceived risk of victimization as one of the most robust predictors of fear of crime and often refer to it as fear’s cognitive counterpart. Perceived risk of victimization is an individual’s assessment of his or her likelihood of criminal victimization and can be influenced by one’s vulnerability to victimization, the immediate environment, or the level of exposure to risk (Rengifo & Bolton, 2012). Like fear of crime, perceived risk has not been extensively studied as it applies to the cyberspace environment. However, Reisig, Pratt, and Holtfreter (2009) studied perceived risk of Internet theft victimization by asking adult Internet users in Florida how likely they thought it was that their credit card information would be stolen and misused if they made an online purchase. Nearly 60% of respondents indicated that it was somewhat or very likely, suggesting that their perceived risk of online victimization is fairly high. Perceived risk also significantly and negatively affected individuals’ online behaviors, reducing their likelihood of making online purchases or spending time online. Unfortunately, this study did not assess whether perceived risk of online crime affected fear of online crime.

In one of the few empirical studies focused on fear of online crime, Higgins and colleagues (2008) examined the relationship between self-control, perceived risk of online victimization, and fear of online victimization. For their study, Higgins and colleagues used a small convenience sample of college student Facebook users. They reported a number of findings relevant to the current study. They found that perceived risk of online victimization was significantly related to fear of online victimization, with individuals who had higher levels of perceived risk also reporting higher levels of fear. Furthermore, perceived risk of online victimization mediated the relationship between self-control and fear of online victimization. While this study addressed different research questions than the present study, its findings provide an empirical basis for further investigating the relationship between perceived risk of victimization and fear of online crime. Because the main focus of Higgins et al.’s study was the relationship between self-control and online fear, they neither discussed fear in relation to online victimization nor estimated the intensity of fear of online crime. On the whole, the extant fear of crime literature coupled with the limited research into online fear suggests that perceived risk of victimization could be an important consideration in explaining fear of crime online.

Previous Victimization

Numerous research studies also have examined the impact of prior victimization on fear of crime. Much of the past research has focused on the link between previous direct victimization (personal experience) and fear of crime. However, there also is a growing body of research linking previous indirect victimization (vicarious experience) and fear of crime (Ferraro, 1995; Russo & Roccato, 2010; Tseloni & Zarafonitou, 2008; Wilcox Rountree, 1998).

Generally, researchers have found that an individual’s level of fear of crime is often influenced by his or her previous experience with crime. For example, with her study examining the multidimensional nature of fear of crime, Wilcox Rountree (1998) reported that individuals in her sample who had been previously mugged or physically assaulted were significantly more likely to be afraid of violent victimization than those who had not been previously victimized. In addition, she reported that individuals who lived in neighborhoods with higher rates of violent crime (i.e., indirect victimization) were also more likely to be afraid of violent victimization. Similarly, with their longitudinal study examining the link between previous victimization and fear of crime, Russo and Roccato (2010) reported that individuals who had experienced either direct or indirect victimization (someone within respondent’s social network) were significantly more likely to fear for their safety.

While the link between previous victimization and fear of crime has received considerable attention in the traditional fear of crime literature, the relationship has not yet been examined in fear of online crime research. Of those few studies that have been published, not one includes measures of previous online victimization—direct or indirect. These are clearly relationships that warrant further attention.

Exposure to Crime

One of the most commonly examined factors in the last 30 years of victimization research has been exposure to crime. Either as an individual factor or as a component of a larger theoretical framework (i.e., lifestyle-routine activity theory), researchers have consistently included exposure in their analyses. To that end, numerous studies have indicated that exposure to motivated offenders can increase an individual’s likelihood of victimization (e.g., Fisher, Sloan, Cullen, & Lu, 1998; Mustaine & Tewksbury, 2002).

While often examined, the impact of exposure in fear of crime research has been a point of contention. In their study of the relationship between victimization and fear of crime, Stafford and Galle (1984) make a point to control for the influence of exposure to crime. The most significant link between victimization and fear of crime was found in models that controlled for exposure to risk of victimization. When doing so, they reported a significant and positive relationship between victimization and fear.

Albeit limited, the impact of exposure on fear of crime online has received some attention. With their recent study, Roberts and colleagues (2012) examined fear of online identify theft, using data from the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes. As noted by the authors, their study was exploratory, focusing specifically on the predictors of fear of online identity theft. They found that online exposure was one of the most significant factors in predicting fear of online identify theft. As the role of exposure has only been examined in one study of online victimization, there undoubtedly needs to be further research performed.

The Role of the Victim–Offender Relationship

One key area that has begun to receive attention from fear of crime researchers in the last decade is the role of victim–offender relationship in explaining fear of crime. The importance of this relationship has received much attention in many other areas of victimization research as well, including sexual victimization (Logan, Cole, & Capillo, 2007; Wilcox et al., 2007), stalking victimization (Cass, 2007; Fisher, Cullen, & Turner, 2002; Reyns & Englebrecht, 2010), and even homicide victimization (Cao, Hou, & Huang, 2008). As reported in numerous studies, the victim–offender relationship also plays an important role when examining fear of crime.

The majority of fear of crime studies simply distinguish between strangers and nonstrangers when investigating the victim–offender relationship (Jackson, 2009; Scott, 2003; Warr & Stafford, 1983). As such, it is often reported that individuals are more afraid of being victimized by strangers than people they know (Barberet, Fisher, & Taylor, 2004; Jackson, 2009; Scott, 2003; Wilcox et al., 2007). For example, Wilcox and colleagues (2007) examined fear of sexual assault by acquaintances and strangers with a sample of college women. They reported that respondents were more afraid of being sexually assaulted by strangers than individuals they know. As a notable exception to the statement above, Keane (1995) used a more expansive victim–offender relationship measure with his fear of victimization study and found that women in his sample were significantly more afraid of offenses that were perpetrated by male strangers than those of boyfriends, current/former spouses, or other male acquaintances.

Previous examinations of the relationship between victims and offenders have proven valuable in gaining a better understanding of how individuals process the potential threat of criminal victimization and particularly how their relationship with the offender influences their level of fear. Research reports that individuals are more likely to be victimized by someone they know, yet for most types of crime, they are generally more afraid of strangers (Wilcox et al., 2007). While this may be the case for traditional street crime, there is no published research describing what, if any, impact the victim–offender relationship may have on fear of crime online.

OIPV

The current study is focused on OIPV. There are clear differences between traditional and online forms of interpersonal victimization. For example, traditional interpersonal victimization often involves face-to-face, physical interaction, which, as mentioned, may play a big role in determining the intensity of fear associated with these types of crimes (e.g., assault, robbery, rape). There are also similarities between offline interpersonal victimization and interpersonal victimization, such as the strong possibility that victims will suffer some form of emotional reaction, such as anger, stress, or grief.

OIPV is a broad category that includes many types of online behaviors against individuals, such as harassment, sexual solicitations, stalking, intimidation, or threats of violence. These individual behaviors have garnered a growing number of researchers’ attention in the last decade, particularly those using college student samples (e.g., Bossler & Holt, 2010; Henson, Reyns, & Fisher, 2011; Lindsay & Krysik, 2012; Marcum, Higgins, & Ricketts, 2010; Reyns, Henson, & Fisher, 2011). These OIPV researchers have focused predominantly on behaviors such as harassment, stalking, and unwanted sexual exposure. While these studies have used disparate definitions and differing methodologies, most have found that OIPV is experienced by a fairly substantial number of individuals. Considering the prevalence of OIPV and the growth of online victimization generally, an examination of fear of OIPV is a necessary next logical step toward understanding the complex nature of fear of crime in another domain.

Explaining Fear of OIPV

Drawing from two bodies of research—the previously reviewed offline fear of crime research and the OIPV research—we are able to make several unique contributions to this body of work regarding fear of OIPV. First, we expect that individuals will have relatively low levels of fear of OIPV. Past research suggests that many individuals do not take the threat of online victimization seriously. For example, many social network users often extensively post personal information that could be used to stalk, harass, or commit identity theft (Acquisti & Gross, 2006; Wilson, Gosling, & Graham, 2012). The lack of physical presence of would-be offenders and increased level of anonymity afforded by the Internet may greatly reduce individuals’ fear of experiencing OIPV. There is no previous research to confirm or refute this possibility.

Second, based on the well-established relationship between perceived risk of victimization and fear in the offline fear of crime literature, and the findings of Higgins et al. (2008), we expect this relationship to persist online—that is, individuals with high perceived risk of victimization will be more likely to fear OIPV. Even though one’s actual fear of victimization may be lower for OIPV than it would otherwise be for offline forms of interpersonal victimization, there is no reason to doubt that one’s cognitive estimations of his or her risk of victimization will affect his or her fear any differently in online environments than they do in offline environments.

Third, it is hypothesized that those who have either direct or indirect victimization experiences with OIPV will be more likely than those who do not to be fearful of OIPV. Previous victimization signals to individuals that they are vulnerable and, therefore, potential targets of a future victimization. In cyberspace, we expect that this relationship operates in essentially in the same manner as it does offline, although an argument can be made that OIPV is qualitatively different than its offline counterparts. For example, being threatened face-to-face may be more fear-inducing than being threatened online. With this qualification in mind, it may be the case that previous victimization has less of an effect on online fear than it otherwise would for offline fear.

Fourth, individuals who spend more time online or are engaged in certain online activities may reason that these behaviors also make them potential targets for OIPV. This may be particularly true for those activities that involve contact with others who are online. Furthermore, based on the previously discussed extant offline fear literature and informed by Roberts et al.’s (2012) results, we hypothesize that greater online exposure will be associated with higher fear of online victimization.¹

Fifth, as previously discussed, the victim–offender relationship has been identified as influencing individual’s intensity of fear of crime. It may be that individuals express greater fear if the offender is a stranger because he or she may remain anonymous, and, thus, the threat of harm is unknown. At the same time, it may be that individuals are more fearful when the offender is known to them because a stranger can be more easily avoided online than a person with whom he or she already has an offline relationship. As such, we make no predictions as to whether the intensity of fear of OIPV or its predictors may vary across different types of victim–offender relationships.

Present Study and Methodology

The purpose of the current study is to address the previously discussed gaps in the research base by answering the following research questions:

Research Question 1: How fearful of OIPV are respondents?

Research Question 2: Do levels of fear of OIPV differ based on different types of victim–offender relationships?

Research Question 3: Does one’s perceived risk of online victimization influence his or her level of fear of OIPV?

Research Question 4: Does previous online victimization play a role in fear OIPV?

Research Question 5: Does one’s online exposure to potential online offenders influence his or her level of fear of OIPV?

Data Collection

Data were collected with a self-report web-based survey. To improve the flow and structure of the survey, design elements were adapted from previous online surveys and Dillman’s Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2007; Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2008). Furthermore, prior to administering the survey, a pilot test was conducted to examine the wording of the survey questions. The pilot test was administered to students in a master’s-level criminal justice research methods class. Students’ comments were used to correct technical issues (i.e., skip patterns) and improve the likelihood of respondent comprehension of the questions.

Once a sample of potential student participants was obtained (see sample selection below), the university registrar’s staff, with approval from the Institutional Review Board, emailed each individual an invitation to participate in a study about their experiences with online victimization. The email briefly described the study’s protocol, the protections to participant confidentiality, and instructed respondents to follow an embedded link if interested in participating. The first page of the survey contained an information sheet describing the study, which concluded with a statement alerting respondents that by continuing with the survey, they were consenting for their responses to be used for research purposes. Two additional waves of follow-up emails were sent 2 and 4 weeks after the initial invitation. In an effort to prevent the data from being influenced by individuals completing the survey multiple times, the survey administration was designed so individuals could only complete it once.

Sample Selection

A random sample was drawn from the population of students at a large, urban university in the Midwest. The original population from which the sample was taken was limited to students who were undergraduate, attending full-time, enrolled in Spring 2009 term, and 18 to 24 years old. According to the Digest of Higher Education Statistics, this population would be the most representative of the typical college student (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). These criteria produced a sampling frame of 16,592 students from which the sample was drawn. In an effort to obtain a large enough sample to perform appropriate statistical analyses, a sample of 10,000 individuals was chosen.² This sample was selected, with the help of the university registrar’s office, by using simple random sampling techniques. Seven numbers were randomly chosen between 0 and 9. Students whose university ID number ended in one of the seven chosen numbers were selected until a sample of 10,000 individuals was obtained.

After sending 10,000 email invitations, it was determined that 74 students were unable to participate due to technical issues with their email addresses (e.g., email was undeliverable). Of the remaining 9,926 individuals who received the email invitation, 1,252 students completed the survey. While examining the data from the individuals who completed the survey, a number of cases were missing data for the dependent variables. Although a number of statistical techniques have been proposed for handling missing data (e.g., mean substitution, maximum likelihood estimation, and multiple imputation), they can produce biased outcomes if the missing values are on the dependent variable (Allison, 2001; Little & Rubin, 2002; Pallant, 2007). To produce the most reliable data possible, complete case analysis (i.e., listwise deletion) was used to manage the missing data. As a result, all cases containing missing data on the dependent variable were removed from the sample.³ There is very little difference between the demographic characteristics (i.e., gender, race, age) of the complete cases and the cases with missing data.

The final analytical sample for the current analysis includes 838 students. As a result of the low response rate, it should not be assumed that the sample is representative of the larger student body of the university or even college students more generally. However, this is meant to be an exploratory study, and the goal is simply to examine the intensity of fear of OIPV and its correlates rather than to generalize the findings. As a result, we believe that the use of this sample is still appropriate for this analysis. A comparison of the sample and university population characteristics can be seen in Table A1 of the appendix.

Measures

Dependent variables

Fear of OIPV

Researchers have begun to incorporate the victim–offender relationship into the measurement of fear of crime (e.g., Jackson, 2009; Keane, 1995; Scott, 2003). Therefore, the current study uses three dependent variables that reflect possible victim–offender relationships: (a) fear of OIPV by a current/former intimate partner, (b) fear of OIPV by a friend/acquaintance, and (c) fear of OIPV by a stranger. Each of these variables are multi-item composite measures, including three different forms of online victimization—online harassment, cyberstalking, and online threats of violence. Respondents were asked how afraid they were that a current/former intimate partner may use the information on their social network/blog account to (a) harass, (b) stalk, or (c) threaten them online. They were then asked how afraid they were that a current/former intimate partner may use the information on their other online programs (e.g., email, instant messenger) to (a) harass, (b) stalk, or (c) threaten them online. Identical questions were also asked in reference to friends/acquaintances and strangers, respectively.

The fear of victimization survey questions each contained a 10-point response scale ranging from 1 (not afraid at all) to 10 (very afraid). Numerous fear of victimization studies have used similar Likert-type scales (e.g., Ferraro, 1996; Fisher & Sloan, 2003; Warr, 1984), as they allow researchers to examine the intensity of reported fear rather than just the presence of fear. To help make the scores easier to interpret, the scale was recoded to 0 (not afraid at all) to 9 (very afraid). Typically, with this type of scale, any response above the minimum value is considered fearful, although the level of fear may be high or low. In total, each of the three fear of OIPV measures (i.e., fear of OIPV by intimate partner, fear of OIPV by friend/acquaintance, fear of OIPV by stranger) includes data from six different survey items. A mean of the six survey items was calculated and used to represent each of these fear measures. To ensure that it was appropriate to combine these items, we performed a reliability analysis and a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation (see Table A2 of the appendix). For these items, the Cronbach’s alpha statistics ranged from .93 to .95, and the factor loadings ranged from .83 to .90, indicating a high degree of internal consistency. Descriptive statistics for the dependent variables are displayed in Table 1 below.

Table 1.

Variables, Scales Coding, and Descriptive Statistics (N = 838).

Variables	Scale/coding	M	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Dependent variables
Fear of OIPV
By intimate partners	(0 = not afraid at all to 9 = very afraid)	0.66	1.24	0	9
By friends/acquaintances	(0 = not afraid at all to 9 = very afraid)	0.57	1.01	0	9
By strangers	(0 = not afraid at all to 9 = very afraid)	1.17	1.63	0	9
Independent variables
Perceived risk of OIPV
By intimate partners	(0 = not likely to 9 = very likely)	1.02	1.46	0	9
By friends/acquaintances	(0 = not likely to 9 = very likely)	0.92	1.22	0	9
By strangers	(0 = not likely to 9 = very likely)	1.42	1.66	0	9
Online victimization
Direct victimization	(0 = no, 1 = yes)	0.24	0.43	0	1
Indirect victimization	(0 = no, 1 = yes)	0.60	0.49	0	1
OIPV victim	(0 = no, 1 = yes)	0.42	0.49	0	1
Online exposure
Internet use	(0-16 hr)	3.98	2.63	1	16
Use social networks	(0 = no, 1 = yes)	1.00	0.00	0	1
Use dating sites	(0 = no, 1 = yes)	0.01	0.11	0	1
Use online groups	(0 = no, 1 = yes)	0.14	0.35	0	1
Use instant messengers	(0 = no, 1 = yes)	0.37	0.48	0	1
View YouTube	(0 = no, 1 = yes)	0.84	0.37	0	1
Demographics
Gender	(0 = male, 1 = female)	0.61	0.49	0	1
Race	(0 = White, 1 = non-White)	0.12	0.33	0	1
Age	(age in years)	20.17	1.32	18	24
Relationship status	(0 = single, 1 = nonsingle)	0.57	0.50	0	1

Independent variables

Perceived risk of OIPV

Previous research has shown that there is a significant link between perceived risk of victimization and fear of victimization (e.g., Ferraro, 1995; Warr & Stafford, 1983; Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996). As a result, it was appropriate and necessary to include measures of perceived risk of victimization in our analysis. The wording of the perceived risk of OIPV questions were designed to intentionally parallel the fear of OIPV questions (see Table A3 in appendix).

Identical to the fear of crime responses, the risk of victimization survey questions contained a 10-point response scale. The final scale was recoded so to range from 0 (not likely at all) to 9 (very likely).Using the same techniques as the fear of OIPV questions described previously, three measures of perceived risk of OIPV were created for each of the three victim–offender relationships. Again, to ensure that it was appropriate to combine these items, we performed a reliability analysis and a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation (see Table A3 of the appendix). For these items, the Cronbach’s alpha statistics ranged from .86 to .92, and the factor loadings ranged from .73 to .87, indicating a high degree of internal consistency. Descriptive statistics of these and each of the other independent variables are displayed in Table 1.

Previous online victimization

As with perceived risk of victimization, numerous fear of crime researchers have reported that previous victimization has a significant and positive effect on one’s level of perceived risk and fear of victimization (e.g., Skogan, 1987; Wilcox Rountree, 1998). To determine whether similar relationships may exist for fear of online crime, several measures of previous online victimization are also included in the current analysis. As seen in Table 1, the measures include (a) direct victimization, (b) indirect victimization, and (c) OIPV victim.

The measure of direct victimization is a composite measure, created using two forms of online victimization—hacking and identity theft. An argument can be made that an individual’s fear of OIPV can be influenced by hacking and/or identify theft because both behaviors may make that individual feel as though he or she is being specifically targeted by an offender, which could increase general fear of online victimization. Respondents were asked whether someone had ever tried to hack any of their online programs (e.g., email, social network). Similarly, they were asked whether someone had ever pretended to be them online without their permission, indicating online identity theft.⁴ The values of the responses for these two questions were summed. The resulting variable was then recoded as dichotomous; experiencing either or both forms of behavior or neither form of behavior.

In addition to direct victimization, many researchers have provided evidence that an individual’s level of fear of crime also may be influenced by indirect victimization, meaning that someone they are close to has been victimized (e.g., Russo & Roccato, 2010; Tseloni & Zarafonitou, 2008). To capture any possible effects of indirect victimization, individuals were also asked about their friends’ experiences with online victimization during their lifetime. Respondents were asked whether someone had ever hacked into any of their friends’ online programs (e.g., email, social network) and whether someone had ever pretended to be their friend online without permission. The values of the responses for these two questions were summed. The resulting variable was then recoded as dichotomous so that having friends who experienced either or both forms of behavior was considered experiencing indirect victimization.

Finally, a measure of previous OIPV experience was included. To create a comprehensive measure of OIPV, information was collected about individuals’ lifetime experiences with four types of online behaviors: (a) unwanted contact, (b) harassment, (c) unwanted sexual advances, and (d) threats of violence. Information about these types of behavior was obtained using dichotomous responses to measure having experienced OIPV or not. Respondents were asked whether they had ever been or had (a) contacted online by the same individual after asking/telling that individual to stop, (b) persistently harassed or annoyed online by the same individual, (c) the same individual make unwanted sexual advances toward them online, and (d) someone speak to them in a violent manner or threatened to physically harm them online. Using the responses for each of the four questions, a composite measure of OIPV was created by summing the response values for each type of behavior, with a range of values of 0 to 4. These values then were recoded into a dichotomous measure, indicating whether a respondent ever had been a victim of OIPV or not.

Online exposure

Fear of crime studies have examined the relationship between exposure to crime and fear of crime (Rengifo & Bolton, 2012; Stafford & Galle, 1984). This relationship also has garnered some interest among online victimization researchers, with both of the previously discussed fear of online victimization studies (Higgins et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 2012) focusing heavily on the role of online exposure. The current study also examines this relationship by focusing on respondents’ potential online exposure to motivated offenders. Respondents were asked how many hours they spent online each day (maximum limit of 16 hr). Furthermore, they were asked which types of online programs they frequently use (e.g., social networks, dating sites, online groups, instant messengers, and YouTube). For each type of online program, a dichotomous measure was created indicating whether the respondent used it or not.

Demographics

In line with this past research, the present analysis also includes several demographic characteristics as control variables. These variables include gender, race, and age. Respondents were also asked their current relationship status. For this measure, nonsingle refers to individuals who are married or in a long-term dating relationship.

Results

Intensity of Fear of OIPV

Among the central purposes of this analysis was to assess how fearful individuals are of experiencing OIPV and whether there are significant differences between the intensity of OIPV by different victim–offender relationships. Table 1 reports the intensity of fear by type of victim–offender relationship.⁵ Given that the OIPV fear measures ranged from 0 to 9, it is evident that the mean level of fear reported by respondents for all types of victim–offender relationships is rather low, ranging from 0.57 to 1.17. However, a paired-samples t test indicated that students are significantly more afraid of OIPV by strangers (M = 1.17, SD = 1.63) than by either a current/former intimate partner (M = 0.66, SD = 1.24) or by a friend/acquaintance (M = 0.57, SD = 1.01), t(837) = 11.28, p < .0001 and t(837) = 12.83, p < .0001, respectively.

Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) Multivariate Regression

To answer our remaining research questions, we also estimated effects of perceived risk, previous online victimization, and online exposure on fear of OIPV, while controlling for demographics. As seen in Table 2, perceived risk of OIPV has a significant influence on the respondents’ fear of OIPV for all three types of victim–offender relationships. Respondents who reported having a higher level of perceived risk of OIPV also reported a higher level of fear of OIPV. This finding echoes many traditional fear of crime studies, which often report a strong link between perceived risk and fear (e.g., Chadee et al., 2007, Wilcox Rountree & Land, 1996). It appears that fear of traditional crime and online victimization may have a similar relationship with perceived risk of victimization.

Table 2.

OLS Regression of Independent Variables on Fear of Online Interpersonal Victimization by Victim–Offender Relationship.

	Fear of online interpersonal victimization
	Intimate partner		Friend/acquaintance		Stranger
	b	SE	b	SE	b	SE
Perceived risk of
OIPV by intimate partner	0.63***	0.02
OIPV by friend/acquaintance			0.56***	0.02
OIPV by stranger					0.72***	0.02
Online victimization
Direct victimization	0.13*	0.07	0.02	0.06	0.10	0.10
Indirect victimization	−0.14**	0.06	−0.12**	0.06	0.02	0.08
Previous OIPV victim	0.06	0.06	0.00	0.06	0.09	0.08
Online exposure
Internet use	0.01	0.01	0.00	0.01	0.01	0.02
Use dating sites	−0.01	0.25	−0.02	0.23	−0.13	0.33
Use online groups	−0.01	0.08	−0.01	0.08	−0.13	0.11
Use instant messengers	0.05	0.06	0.07	0.06	0.10	0.08
Use YouTube	−0.03	0.08	0.02	0.07	−0.01	0.10
Demographics
Gender	0.19***	0.06	0.09*	0.06	0.25***	0.08
Race	0.09	0.09	0.13	0.08	0.09	0.12
Age	−0.05**	0.02	−0.04**	0.02	−0.05	0.03
Relationship status	0.02	0.06	0.05	0.05	0.10	0.08
Adjusted R²	.58		.45		.56

Note. OLS = ordinary least squares; OIPV = online interpersonal victimization.

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

In terms of the online victimization measures, the relationship between previous victimization and fear of OIPV is only statistically significant for current/former intimate partner and friend/acquaintance victim–offender relationships. There is a significant and positive relationship between direct victimization and fear of OIPV by a current/former intimate partner. This indicates that respondents who were previously victimized online reported a higher level of fear of OIPV by intimate partners than those who did not experience previous victimization online. Interestingly, however, there is a significant but negative relationship between experiencing indirect victimization and fear of OIPV by current/former intimate partners and friends/acquaintances. This indicates that respondents who know someone who was previously victimized online have lower levels of fear of OIPV by intimate partners and/or friend/acquaintances.

None of the measures of online exposure was significantly associated with fear of OIPV for any of the victim–offender relationship categories. This indicates that online exposure has no influence on an individual’s level of fear of OIPV, which contradicts the results presented by Roberts and her colleagues (2012). However, as this is only the second study to examine the relationship between exposure and the level of fear of OIPV and both studies are exploratory in nature, the true significance of this relationship can only be determined with continued research.

Discussion and Conclusion

Although significant progress has been made by researchers in understanding the predictors of fear of crime, fear of online crime has remained a relatively uncharted topic in criminology and victimology—until now. As a result, very little is known of the impact of online victimization on an individual’s fear of crime. The current study, albeit exploratory, helps to advance the understanding of this phenomenon on several dimensions.

First, the current study’s results suggest that cyberspace environments—and a corresponding lack of physical proximity to potential offenders—may have a very different impact on an individual’s level of fear of crime than the physical environment. The levels of fear of OIPV reported by respondents were extremely low; mean fear was close to or just above a value of 1, with 0 representing no fear at all (0 = not afraid at all to 9 = very afraid).Supportive of our expectations, individuals simply are not that fearful of online victimization.

Second, it appears that the victim–offender relationship does play an important role with regard to fear of OIPV. While each mean level of reported fear was low, the level of fear of experiencing OIPV by a stranger was significantly higher than for intimate partners or friend/acquaintances. Although respondents are not that afraid of experiencing OIPV, they are more afraid of experiencing it by a stranger, a finding consistent with previous fear of crime research (Barberet et al., 2004; Jackson, 2009; Scott, 2003; Wilcox et al., 2007).

Third, the current study also examined the possibility that fear of OIPV is influenced by known correlates of traditional fear of crime, especially prior victimization, exposure, and perceived risk. Results suggest that online fear is not unlike traditional fear of other types of crimes. For example, perceived risk stood out as a strong and positive predictor of fear of online crime regardless of the relationship between victim and offender. Consistent with previous fear of crime research, prior online victimization also emerged as a significant positive influence on online fear (Ferraro, 1995; Russo & Roccato, 2010; Tseloni & Zarafonitou, 2008; Wilcox Rountree, 1998). Interestingly, however, while the relationship between direct victimization and fear of OIPV was significant and positive for intimate partners, the relationship between indirect victimization and fear of OIPV was significant but negative for intimate partners and friends/acquaintances. These findings suggest that respondents who know someone who was previously victimized online are less fearful of experiencing OIPV. This seems to contradict previous traditional fear of crime research (e.g., Wilcox Rountree, 1998).Several reasons for this relationship are plausible. For example, it may be that the victimized friends downplayed their experience or simply did not take their online victimization that seriously, which could directly influence the respondents’ perceptions of online victimization.

Perhaps one of the most interesting results was in fact the lack of a significant relationship between previous OIPV experience and fear of OIPV. As displayed in Table 1, a large percentage of respondents reported that they had experienced OIPV in their lifetime (i.e., 42%). Based on findings from previous traditional fear of crime studies, it seems that previous OIPV experience would be one of the main predictors of fear of OIPV. While it is not known at this time why there is no comparative relationship in the current analysis, several possible reasons can be hypothesized. First, as discussed previously, it may be that individuals simply do not take online victimization that seriously, reporting low levels of fear even though they were previously victimized. Second, as the measure of previous OIPV experience was a lifetime measure, it may simply be that the respondents’ were victimized a year or more ago, and their level of fear resulting from that incident has simply diminished over time. Further research is needed to determine whether this nonrelationship does, in fact, exist or whether it is simply an artifact of the current analysis.

In addition to correlates discussed in the results section, we also included a number of demographic characteristics in our analysis. Consistent with traditional fear of crime research, it appears that being female was also indicative of fear of crime online (e.g., Ferraro, 1996; Fisher & Sloan, 2003; Warr, 1984). For all three types of victim–offender relationships, female respondents reported significantly higher levels of fear than male respondents. It seems that no matter what the environment—online or offline—females are more fearful of being victimized than males. This finding warrants additional study, as current explanations of the gendered nature of fear focus on females’ fear of sexual assault vis-à-vis the shadow hypothesis—a topic that has not been studied with respect to online victimization. The age of the respondents was also found to be significantly related to fear of OIPV by intimate partners and friends/acquaintances, although the coefficients are negative. This indicates that younger respondents were more fearful of OIPV than older respondents. Again, this finding justifies further research attention, as age has not been as consistent in predicting fear of crime as gender.

The results also raise questions about the nature of fear in online environments. While much of the existing fear of crime literature suggests that a relationship exists between exposure to potential offenders and a corresponding fear of crime, this was not the case in our study. Notably, none of the exposure variables exhibited statistically significant effects on online fear. It seems then that the nature of fear may be qualitatively different in online environments than it is in physical or offline environments—that is, perhaps exposure does not influence fear in cyberspace environments the same way it does in offline environments. However, as our findings contradict those of Roberts et al. (2012), it also may be that our measures of exposure do not reflect the theoretical concept of exposure, or that the concept of exposure itself takes on different meanings in different social environments (i.e., offline vs. online environments).

Recommendations for Future Research

While this is an exploratory study, our results indicate directions for future fear of online victimization research. First and foremost, we have provided empirical evidence that the level of fear of online crime may not necessarily mirror that produced by face-to-face street crimes. As previous studies have suggested, fear of crime is likely crime-specific and specific to the victim–offender relationship—and this specificity also includes online victimization. To that end, future research should continue to explore the nature and predictors of online fear in its various forms. While the measure of OIPV in this analysis includes several types of behaviors, there are numerous other forms of online victimization that still need to be studied in regard to fear. For example, as opportunities for online identity theft multiply with technological innovations, examining fear of this form of victimization would be appropriate (e.g., Reyns, 2013). Furthermore, other studies examining fear of crime indicate that fear of certain crimes can affect fear of other crimes, notably the shadow hypothesis (Fisher & Sloan, 2003), which suggests that fear of sexual assault increases females’ fear of other types of crime, especially face-to-face crimes such as robbery. A similar relationship may exist with respect to online fear, but to date, no published research has investigated this possibility. Finally, these results highlight differences in the intensity and predictors of online fear across categories of the victim–offender relationship. Future research should continue to unpack these relationships, especially given the lack of statistically significant findings in the friend/acquaintance fear of crime category.

Current Study’s Limitations

This study is not without its limitations, and while these limitations should be acknowledged, they also provide an opportunity for improvement in future research. First, the response rate to the survey was low by conventional standards. While this is not unusual for online surveys—especially online surveys of college students (Dillman et al., 2009), it does impact the generalizability of our sample to the larger university population. As seen in Table A1 of the appendix, male and White respondents are overrepresented in our sample. However, given the absence of other research on the topic, our results provide valuable insights on which others can build and improve. Second, the research design is cross-sectional, making it difficult to establish causality. While many fear of crime studies also suffer this deficiency, subsequent studies should strive toward collecting longitudinal data. Third, the analyses were based on a sample of college students from a single university, which limits the generalizability of our findings. Accordingly, it would be useful to study online fear among college students nationally, as well as other diverse populations of Internet users (e.g., adolescents, the elderly).

Research and Policy Implications

Although exploratory, the current study does provide evidence of potential future implications for research and policy. First, in terms of research implications, more attention needs to be given to the operationalization and assessment of fear of OIPV, and online victimization more generally. While the methodology used to measure fear of OIPV in the current study somewhat mirrors the one used in previous traditional fear of crime studies (e.g., the use of a 10-point fear scale), the extremely low levels of fear of OIPV found may indicate that this is not the most appropriate measurement technique for future fear of OIPV studies. It may be necessary for future researchers to use various measurement techniques to ensure that the levels of fear of OIPV reported in this analysis are not simply artifacts of the way we operationalized the fear measures. As a field of study, fear of OIPV research is still young enough that researchers can afford to experiment with their measures.

In terms of policy implications, the low levels of fear of OIPV reported by students in this analysis should alert college administrators and law enforcement to the need for OIPV educational programs. While there is strong evidence that OIPV can cause serious financial and emotional harms to victims, the findings of this study indicate that college students do not see OIPV as that serious. As a result, college students may not be taking the necessary precautions to protect themselves from potential online victimization. It could be very beneficial if college campuses develop and administer programs that will educate students about the potential consequences of OIPV, in an effort to reduce any potential online harm they may experience.

Footnotes

Appendix

Table A3.

Risk of Crime Measures: Survey Items, PC Varimax Factoring Loadings, and Reliability.

Risk of crime questionHow afraid are you that a [victim–offender relationship] may use the information on your [specific source] to [type of crime] you online?		Scale0 (not likely at all) to 9 (very likely)
Victim–offender relationshipSpecific source	Type of crimeFactor loadings			ReliabilityCronbach’s α
Victim–offender relationshipSpecific source	Harass	Stalk	Threaten	ReliabilityCronbach’s α
Intimate partner				.89
Social network account	0.78	0.86	0.78
Other online programs	0.85	0.81	0.85
Friend/acquaintance				.86
Social network Account	0.74	0.82	0.73
Other Online programs	0.82	0.81	0.84
Stranger				.92
Social network account	0.85	0.84	0.82
Other online programs	0.85	0.86	0.87

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 Biographies

Billy Henson is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Shippensburg University. He has research studies appearing in Police Quarterly, Victims and Offenders, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Violence and Victims, and Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice. His research interests include cybercrime victimization, interpersonal victimization, fear of crime, and criminology theory.

Bradford W. Reyns is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at Weber State University. His research interests are wide ranging but have mostly focused on issues in victimology, including theories of victimization, cybercrime victimization, and stalking victimization with recent research on these topics appearing in Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Criminal Justice and Behavior, and Crime & Delinquency.

Bonnie S. Fisher is a professor of Criminal Justice in the School of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati, where she also is a fellow of the Graduate School. Her research interests include the sexual victimization of college women, repeat victimization, fear of crime, and bystander intervention effectiveness. Her work has appeared in outlets including Criminology, Justice Quarterly, and Violence Against Women and has been funded by the U.S. Department of Justice.

References

Acquisti

Gross

(2006). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In 6th Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Allison

P. D.

(2001). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Barberet

Fisher

B. S.

Taylor

(2004). University student safety in the East Midlands. London, England: Home Office.

Bossler

A. M.

Holt

T. J.

(2010). The effect of self-control on victimization in the cyberworld. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 227-236.

Cao

Hou

Huang

(2008). Correlates of the victim-offender relationship in homicide. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 52, 658-672.

Cass

A. I.

(2007, November). Individual perceptions of stalking: An examination of the influence of gender and relational distance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Atlanta, GA.

Chadee

Austen

Ditton

(2007). The relationship between likelihood and fear of criminal victimization: Evaluating risk sensitivity as a mediating concept. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 133-153.

Dillman

D. A.

(2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Dillman

D. A.

Phelps

Tortora

Swift

Kohrell

Berck

Messer

B. L.

(2009). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research, 38, 1-18.

10.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(2008). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

11.

Ferraro

K. F.

(1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

12.

Ferraro

K. F.

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

13.

Ferraro

K. F.

LaGrange

(1987). The measurement of fear of crime. Sociological Inquiry, 57, 70-97.

14.

Fisher

B. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Turner

M. G.

(2002). Being pursued: Stalking victimization in a national study of college women. Criminology & Public Policy, 1, 257-308.

15.

Fisher

B. S.

Sloan

J. J.

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

16.

Fisher

B. S.

Sloan

J. J.

Cullen

F. T.

(1998). Crime in the ivory tower: Level and sources of student victimization. Criminology, 36, 671-710.

17.

Fox

K. A.

Nobles

M. R.

Piquero

A. R.

(2009). Gender, crime victimization, and fear of crime. Security Journal, 22, 24-39.

18.

Hale

(1996). Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of Victimology, 4, 79-150.

19.

Henson

Reyns

B. W.

Fisher

B. S.

(2011). Security in the 21st century: Examining the link between online social network activity, privacy, and interpersonal victimization. Criminal Justice Review, 36, 253-268.

20.

Higgins

G. E.

Ricketts

M. L.

Vegh

D. T.

(2008). The role of self-control in college student’s perceived risk and fear of online victimization. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 223-233.

21.

Hilinski

C. M.

(2009). Fear of crime among college students: A test of the shadow of sexual assault hypothesis. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 84-102.

22.

Jackson

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

23.

Keane

(1995). Victimization and fear: Assessing the role of the offender and the offence. Canadian Journal of Criminology, 37, 431-455.

24.

Lindsay

Krysik

(2012). Online harassment among college students: A replication incorporating new Internet trends. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 703-719.

25.

Little

R. J. A.

Rubin

D. B.

(2002). Statistical analysis with missing data (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

26.

Logan

T. K.

Cole

Capillo

(2007). Differential characteristics of intimate partner, acquaintance, and stranger rape survivors examined by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE). Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22, 1066-1076.

27.

Marcum

C. D.

Higgins

G. E.

Ricketts

M. L.

(2010). Potential factors of online victimization of youth: An examination of adolescent online behaviors utilizing routine activity theory. Deviant Behavior, 31, 381-410.

28.

Mueller

(2012). Combating threats in the cyber world: Outsmarting terrorists, hackers, and spies. Speech given at RSA Cyber Security Conference. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/combating-threats-in-the-cyber-world-outsmarting-terrorists-hackers-and-spies

29.

Mustaine

E. E.

Tewksbury

(2002). Sexual assault of college women: A feminist interpretation of a routine activities analysis. Criminal Justice Review, 27, 89-123.

30.

Pallant

(2007). SPSS survival manual: A step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows, version 15 (3rd ed.). Crows Nest, New South Wales, Australia: Allen and Unwin.

31.

Reisig

Pratt

Holtfreter

(2009). Perceived risk of internet theft victimization: Examining the effects of social vulnerability and financial impulsivity. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 369-384.

32.

Rengifo

Bolton

(2012). Routine activities and fear of crime: Specifying individual-level mechanisms. European Journal of Criminology, 9, 99-119.

33.

Reyns

B. W.

(2013). Online routine activities and identity-theft victimization: Further expanding routine activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 50, 216-238.

34.

Reyns

B. W.

Englebrecht

C. M.

(2010). Stalking victim’s decision to contact the police: A test of Gottfredson and Gottfredson’s theory of criminal justice decision making. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 998-1005.

35.

Reyns

B. W.

Henson

Fisher

B. S.

(2011). Being pursued online: Applying cyber lifestyle-routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1149-1169.

36.

Roberts

L. D.

Indermaur

Spiranovic

(2012). Fear of cyber-identity theft and related fraudulent activity. Psychiatry, Psychology, & Law doi:10.1080/13218719.2012.672275

37.

Russo

Roccato

(2010).How long does victimization foster fear of crime? A longitudinal study. Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 960-974.

38.

Scott

(2003). Stranger danger: Explaining women’s fear of crime. Western Criminology Review, 4, 203-214.

39.

Skogan

W. G.

(1987). The impact of victimization on fear. Crime & Delinquency, 33, 135-154.

40.

Smith

L. N.

Hill

G. D.

(1991). Victimization and fear of crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 18, 217-239.

41.

Stafford

M. C.

Galle

O. R.

(1984). Victimization rates, exposure to risk, and fear of crime. Criminology, 22, 173-86.

42.

Tseloni

Zarafonitou

(2008). Fear of crime and victimization: A multivariate multilevel analysis of competing measurements? European Journal of Criminology, 5, 387-409.

43.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Digest of education statistics, 2011 (NCES 2012-001, Chapter 3). Washington, DC: Institution of Education Sciences.

44.

Warr

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

45.

Warr

(2000). Fear of crime in the United States: Avenues for research and policy. In Duffee

(Ed.), Measurement and analysis of crime and justice (Vol. 4, pp. 452-489). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

46.

Warr

Stafford

M. C.

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

47.

Wilcox

Jordan

C. E.

Pritchard

A. J.

(2007). A multidimensional examination of campus safety: Victimization, perceptions of danger, worry about crime, and precautionary behavior among college women in the post-Clery era. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 219-254.

48.

Wilcox Rountree

(1998). A reexamination of the crime-fear linkage. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 35, 341-372.

49.

Wilcox Rountree

Land

K. C.

(1996). Burglary victimization, perceptions of crime risk, and routine activities: A multilevel analysis across Seattle neighborhoods and census tracts. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 33, 147-180.

50.

Wilson

Gosling

Graham

(2012). A review of Facebook research in the social sciences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 203-220.