Quantitative conclusions

The quantitative analyses presented in this chapter will form the basis of a conclusion to answer the research question of this chapter. This conclusion will be based on the empirical assessment of our initial hypotheses, based on the theoretical framework and qualitative findings of this study.

We will assess the tenability of these hypotheses in light of the descriptive and inferential results.

H1 Citizens’ personal fear of crime is experienced as relatively less problematic, since general fear of crime is experienced as more problematic.

This hypothesis is verified by the descriptive statistics. ‘General fear of crime’ and especially ‘societal fear of crime’ exceed 'personal fear of crime’ in occurrence, frequency and problematic nature.

H2 Most citizens experience the risk of crime to be controllable at their personal level, but uncontrollable at the societal level.

As psychological distance grows - from the private self to the neighbourhood, to society – respondents’ perceived influence over the prevention of crime did indeed decrease.

H3 The situational fear of falling victim of crime is, to citizens, a psychologically different concept from ‘personal fear of crime’ and ‘general fear of crime’.

Factor analysis for the items of ‘situational fear of crime’ and ‘personal fear of crime’ showed two factors and this verified the two theoretical concepts to be empirically separate concepts.

H4 Citizens experience the situational fear of falling victim of crime as relatively more disturbing, because they are confronted with clear situations that people associate with a high potential or acute risk of personal victimisation of crime.

KEEPING TROUBLE AT A SAFE DISTANCE

The respondents – men included – did indeed express more fear of crime when reacting to the situational items and photograph items than they reflected on the measurement items of ‘personal fear of crime’.

H5 Citizens are aware of crime risks to their private self in daily life and try to avoid falling victim of crime by adjusting their behaviour.

‘Situational fear of crime’ turned out to be a stronger predictor for ‘avoidance behaviour’ than ‘personal fear of crime’. So, the more specific the items were, the more they actually predicted ‘avoidance behaviour’. The respondents’ cognitions about their personal chance of falling victim of crime primarily led them to avoidance behaviour in order to consciously mitigate the personal risk of crime.

H6 Personal fear of crime is fed by the psychological trait of risk sensitivity.

The direct influence of risk sensitivity on ‘personal fear of crime’ could not be verified, but there was an indirect effect through the related ‘societal conservatism’

and ‘authoritarian sentiments’. The influence of these traits and sentiments suggests a basic risk sensitivity underlying ‘the fear of crime’ at multiple levels of reference.

H7 Avoidance behaviour operates as a fear suppressor in respect of the personal fear of crime.

‘Avoidance behaviour’ could not be verified as a negative predictor of ‘personal fear of crime’. It even emerged as being predicted by ‘personal fear of crime’.

‘Avoidance behaviour’ is therefore more the result of ‘personal fear of crime’ than a suppressor of it. To be more precise: ‘avoidance behaviour’ is the result of the cognition of ‘crime as a problem to the private self’.

H8 Psychological defense mechanisms suppress personal fear of crime.

‘Personal fear of crime’ is indeed strongly suppressed by ‘psychological defenses’.

H9 When citizens experience collective efficacy at the neighbourhood level, their fear of crime will be suppressed at this particular level.

This hypothesis was verified with collective inefficacy being part of a larger set of indicators for ‘neighbourhood problems’ that predicts ‘neighbourhood fear of crime’ to a considerable extent. The assessment of collective efficacy turned out to have an indirect effect on ‘personal fear of crime’ through its correlation with

‘neighbourhood fear of crime’.

H10 The absence of personal influence over the risk of crime at the societal level functions as a catalyst for general fear of crime.

Experienced influence over the prevention of crime could not be verified as having a direct effect on societal fear of crime, but thoughts about crime did become less specific from the neighbourhood to the place of residency, to society, logically leading to fewer possibilities to prevent or avoid crime.

MEASURING ‘THE FEAR OF CRIME’

H11 The experience of societal discontent functions as a catalyst for societal fear of crime.

‘Societal discontent’ - with multiple indicators related underlying to societal problems – did indeed strongly predict ‘societal fear of crime’.

H12 Societal fear of crime is best understood as an expression of societal discontent.

The direct influence of ‘societal discontent’ could not be verified for ‘situational’,

‘personal’ or ‘neighbourhood fear of crime’. And ‘societal fear of crime’ and

‘societal discontent’ appeared to share their predictors. ‘Societal fear of crime’

therefore seems to co-exist with ‘societal discontent’, rather than being a direct expression of it – especially in light of the fact that ‘societal fear of crime’ and

‘societal discontent’ share predictors.

It is time to answer the research question for this chapter:

What are the relative roles of ‘personal fear of crime’ and ‘general fear of crime’ in the generic explanation of ‘the fear of crime’ and what are the explanatory elements for these sub-concepts?

The descriptive statistics made clear that ‘general fear of crime’ and, especially,

‘societal fear of crime’ exceed 'personal fear of crime’ in assessed occurrence, frequency and problematic nature. ‘Neighbourhood fear of crime’ had a significant correlation with ‘personal fear of crime’, which highlights an indirect importance of the assessment of the local social climate to ‘personal fear of crime’.

In general, the respondents reflected a sense of ‘control’ over the risk of crime at the personal level. But their control over crime becomes increasingly tenuous as psychological distance increases from the private self to the neighbourhood to society. As this psychological distance grows, perceived influence over the prevention of crime decreases, while crime is assessed to occur more and is perceived to be more problematic. Thoughts about specific personal risks of crime appeared to be quite vague, although respondents simultaneously had clear ideas about specific crime risks in their neighbourhood. Personal thoughts about specific crime risks seemed to be suppressed in some way: respondents appeared

motivated not to think about specific personal risks of crime.

Inferential statistics showed that all of the fear of crime’s sub-concepts share the related predictors of ‘societal conservatism’ and ‘authoritarian sentiments’, both of which are related to the trait of ‘dispositional fear’. This indicates a general risk sensitivity for the risk of crime to be at the root of the fear of crime, at all explored levels of reference.

The respondents’ ‘avoidance behaviour’ was best predicted by ‘situational fear of crime’, which was a theoretically and statistically separate concept from ‘personal fear of crime’. A broader ‘societal discontent’ amplifies ‘societal fear of crime’, while ‘personal fear of crime’ was strongly suppressed by ‘psychological defenses’.

KEEPING TROUBLE AT A SAFE DISTANCE

Assessing crime as a significant threat psychologically nearby the private self leads to a stronger activation of avoidance behaviour. In addition, psychological defenses suppress personal fear of crime in general. Together, these two concepts explain the reflected sense of ‘control’ experienced by the respondents over the risk of crime at the personal level: the risk of crime to the private self is suppressed unconsciously through psychological defenses in general; and the nearer one experiences the threat of crime to the private self, the more one will additionally restrain one’s personal fear of crime by adopting more avoidance behaviour.