A Gendered Assessment of the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’: Examining Gender Differences in Fear of Crime, Perceived Risk, Avoidance, and Defensive Behaviors

• Author: David C. May,Sarah Goodrum,Nicole E. Rader
• Date: 01 June 2010
• Published date: 01 June 2010
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016809349166
• Subject Matter: Articles

A Gendered Assessment of

the ‘‘Threat of Victimization’’:

Examining Gender Differences

in Fear of Crime, Perceived

Risk, Avoidance, and Defensive

Behaviors

David C. May,

1

Nicole E. Rader,

2

and Sarah Goodrum

3

Abstract

Rader has called for a change in how researchers study fear of crime, suggesting that fear of crime,

perceptions of risk, and experiences with victimization are interrelated dimensions of the larger

‘‘threat of victimization’’ concept. In this study, the authors examine how each independent

dimension affects additional theoretical dimensions of the ‘‘threat of victimization’’ and how these

relationships vary by gender. Using data from residents of Kentucky, the authors estimate a

series of multivariate linear and logistic regression models. The findings presented here suggest

that gender differences do exist in the components of the threat of victimization and that many

of the relationships in the Rader model are multifaceted, including the relationship between

perceived risk, fear of crime, and avoidance and defensive behaviors. Implications of these

findings for future research regarding predictors of the threat of victimization are discussed.

Keywords

fear of crime, threat of victimization, perceived risk, avoidance behaviors, defensive behaviors

Introduction

Fear of crime is an important area of research that has become increasingly popular in the last 30

years. Historically, researchers have questioned the conceptualization and operationalization of fear

of crime. Several researchers have argued that the emotive feeling of fear differs significantly from

cognitive perceptions of risk, suggesting that these two constructs should be measured separately

(Dubow, McCabe, & Kaplan, 1979; Ferraro & LaGrange, 1987; Garafalo, 1981), although the

1

Department of Safety, Security, and Emergency Management, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, Kentucky

2

Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi

3

Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Centre College, Danville, Kentucky

Corresponding Author:

David C. May, Department of Safety, Security, and Emergency Management, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY

40475. Email: david.may@eku.edu

Criminal Justice Review

35(2) 159-182

ª2010 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016809349166

http://cjr.sagepub.com

159

debate over the measurement of the two concepts continues (Ferraro, 1995; Hale, 1996; May &

Dunaway, 2000; Mesch, 2000; Rader, 2004; Rountree & Land, 1996; Warr & Ellison, 2000; Warr

& Stafford, 1983; Williams, McShane, & Akers, 2000).

A third construct often discussed in the fear of crime literature involves the behavioral actions

individuals taken to protect themselves from crime. Constrained behaviors include avoidance beha-

viors (e.g., staying home at night) and defensive (or protective) behaviors (e.g., owning a gun, instal-

ling a burglar alarm) (Ferraro & LaGrange, 1987). A number of researchers have examined the place

of constrained behaviors in formulating fear of crime and perceived risk (Chan & Rigakos, 2002;

Ferraro, 1995; Hale, 1996; Keane, 1998; Liska, Sanchirico, & Reed, 1988; Mesch, 2000; Pain,

2001). Traditionally, perceived risk and constrained behaviors were thought to cause fear of crime;

however, Rader (2004) and her colleagues (Rader, May, & Goodrum, 2007) have reconsidered this

connection, arguing that fear of crime, perceived risk, constrained behaviors, and victimization

experience may all be components of a multifaceted construct called the threat of victimization.

Rader et al. (2007) found partial support for this argument when they determined that, although fear

of crime was reciprocally related to perceived risk and avoidance/defensive behaviors, perceived

risk and avoidance/defensive behaviors were not related. In this study, we expand the literature

on fear of crime, perceived risk, and the threat of victimization by addressing gender differences

in demographic, contextual, and theoretical predictors of perceived risk, fear of crime, and defensive

and avoidance behaviors.

Gender and Fear of Crime

Although there are many predictors of fear of crime (e.g., age, race, victimization experience), per-

haps the most well-documented indicator of fear of crime is gender. Research suggests that when

controlling for other factors, gender is the most stable predictor of a person’s fear of crime (Day,

1994; Ferraro, 1996; Gilchrist, Bannister, Ditton, & Farrall, 1998; Haynie, 1998; Madriz, 1997;

Rountree, 1998; Stanko, 1995). Women are much more likely to self-report fear of crime than men,

even though they are less likely, according to official data, to experience victimization (with the

exceptions of sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking, and sexual harassment). This discrepancy

is often called the ‘‘gender-fear paradox’’ because women’s fear of crime is incongruent with the

reality of their criminal victimization (Ferraro, 1996). These elevated fear levels increase womens’

perceptions of risk and may cause women to be more likely to engage in constrained behaviors,

including a dependence on male protectors (Chan & Rigakos, 2002; Gardner, 1989; Hollander,

2001; Keane, 1998; Madriz, 1997; Pain, 2001; Rader, 2008; Rountree, 1998; Stanko, 1990; 2001).

Popular explanations for the gender-fear paradox include the idea that women have a greater fear

of crime, and indeed a greater fear than necessary, in part because of their smaller physical stature

that makes them less able to resist attack (Hale, 1996; Killias & Clerici, 2000; Smith & Torstensson,

1997). This approach stems from the sociology of gender literature, arguing that men and women are

socialized differently and that this socialization often enhances gender inequality (Kimmel, 2004).

Another explanation involves the gendered nature of decision making, suggesting that men and

women vary in the emotional aspects of the decision-making process, and that women are more

likely to have elevated levels of emotive fear (Hale, 1996; Lupton & Tulloch, 1999; Walklate, 2001).

The most popular and recently researched explanation of the gender-fear paradox, however, is

called the ‘‘shadow hypothesis.’’ Put forth by Warr (1984; 1985) and Ferraro (1995; 1996), this

hypothesis suggests that women fear crime at higher levels than their chances of victimization war-

rant because of an overarching fear of sexual assault. Fear of sexual assault thus escalates women’s

fear of other types of crimes, making women afraid of all crime. As Warr (1984) notes, for most

women ‘‘fear of crime is fear of rape’’ (p. 700). This argument is rooted in the feminist

160 Criminal Justice Review 35(2)

160