Fear Of Crime Female Vs Male Criminology Essay

Fear Of Crime Female Vs Male Criminology Essay Introduction The level of fear of crime across different groups within the community is a major contributor to the Governments focus on the type of support communities require to maintain the feeling of safety. By understanding the dynamics of fear, we are able to predict areas of likely crime through understanding the psyche of the predator and alpha type crimes along with other illegal activities. Due to the generally accepted level of safety within the majority of Australias westernised communities, a common low level of continuous fear to immediate self is evident. Therefore, to qualify this assessment, the Fear of Crime between genders will be considered across multiple situations rather than localities. The analyses derived in this paper are borne from research surveys delivered across a general and random sample of the local community. This will provide an insight into the relationship between gender and vulnerability to crime; whether it is perceived or actual. The study is limited by num ber of people in one country and can be treated as base for developing further research. Previous Research We all must know and understand fear of crime which is explained as peoples emotional response to crime. It can be safely admitted from the surveys conducted that women has more fear of crime than other population groups. Fear of crime is associated with perceptions of local problems, derived mainly from a high incidence of physical and social incivility. Women have been observed to be amongst the most vulnerable groups. There are number of communities having large fear of crime amongst all the population. The problem can be classified as crime as it serious for any segment of population to live with fear of crime. The fear problem has emerged as serious concern since last three decades, and statistical figures of Australian women indicate that womens fear of crime is greater among those who have lower incomes, those in the older age groups, and those living with a partner. Women fear is characterised by dual nature namely: concrete and formless fear. Concrete fear is the fear associated with certain crimes. The implicit assumption here is that some criminal activities cause more fear than others. For example, rape fear is much more than fear than theft. Formless fear, however, is a more generic or less specific fear of crime. Younger generations have reported higher levels of both types of fear. Studies conclude that younger women reported highest results for concrete fear, or fear of specific crimes. Women consider fear of rape equivalent to fear of murder. Fear is stronger in single as compared to married women. Additionally, experiencing specific offences is better predictor of fear from specific happenings than others. The degree of fear may differ from low to high level. Studies are conducted by providing specific situations to the respondents about the degree of anxiety and fear from the situations. The situations are common in our general routin e e.g. a) walking in their neighborhood at night, b) taking public transport, c) using a parking garage, and d) being home. The response categories are segregated as level of fear as: not at all worried (0), and worried (1). Logistic regression was utilized to determine the effect of demographic, experiential, and behavioral variables on fear in four situations. Majority of women narrated having at least once incidence of violence in last 12 months, approximately two thirds (66.4%) of respondents reported receiving an obscene phone call, while three out of five reported receiving unwanted attention from a stranger. Almost one third (32.4%) reported being followed by a stranger in a way that frightened them. A large proportion of women reported being somewhat or very worried walking in their neighborhood at night (61.0%). Factor of personal income is not significant factor in predicting fear while using public transportation. Women with higher levels of education were 5.2 percent mor e likely to be worried while in the transportation situation, 5.1 percent more likely to report being worried while in a parking garage alone at night, but 3.2 percent less likely to report fear while home alone in the evening (Scott, 2003). Research studies also indicate that women who have already experienced violence, especially victims of domestic violence, become more fearful for crime as against other women. It was surprising to note from the revelations that 58 per cent of female homicide victims have assailants who are intimates/former intimates. These facts provide a strong argument for early intervention to prevent domestic violence and provide assistance to dysfunctional and violent families. In another survey from the sample of 6333 respondents, approximately 70% of the Women felt unsafe when walking alone in their area after dark, which is higher than the percentages reported by the 1996 British Crime Survey (47%) and the 1991 Queensland Crime Victims Survey (45.3%). However, these figures are much lower than the result obtained in a study carried out in Edinburgh in 1992 (Carcarh, Mukherjee, 1999). Fear of Crime in the Home Under the crimes at home, there is important contribution of domestic violence. Under this aspect though domestic violence can impact both genders but the history confirms that chances of crime against women are high. This is mainly due to reason that women may be exposed to domestic violence at home on regular basis. The domestic violence is a crime and involves sexual abuse (whether you are married to the other person or not); physical abuse or assault (for example, slapping, biting, kicking, and threats of physical violence); damage to property or anything you value; economic abuse, that is, when the other person keeps money to which you are legally entitled, emotional abuse (that is, degrading or humiliating behaviour, including repeated insults, belittling, cursing and threats), and any other controlling or abusive behaviour which poses a threat to your safety, health or well-being. It was been amazing to observe that Women living with a partner are likely to experience greater fear of violence. The research shows that even the conclusion drawn by Madrizs (1997) indicated that women victims of domestic violence have to face violence at home and violence on the streets that other women face, which increase their level of fear of crime in the community. Women facing physical violence by males will report fear from crime double than the women who have not experience physical violence at all. These results support Madrizs (1997) finding that women victims of domestic violence have to face violence at home and violence on the streets that other women face, which would increase their level of fear of crime in the community (Carcach, Mukherjee, 1999). The Gender Difference in Fear of Crime Studies have indicated that though both genders are prone to crime but majority of the studies confirm the gender differential is the most consistent finding in the literature on fear of crime. There is reporting of fear of crime by women at levels that are three times that of men (Chan, 2008). Since last three decades, there has been lot of concern about women safety in the police communication in Australia, England, Canada and Wales. Police and local authorities issued safety advice to women. One of the research studies conducted (Grade 1989) focus on crime prevention indicating women as prime consumers of targeted advice about personal safety. However, review of data shows that young men are most at risk to personal violence in public. Despite this, women are considered the most important constituency for guidance about danger. Literature Review The effects of demographic variables on fear are mixed. There may be number of incidents of events which can create fear in the minds. One of such thinking is when people walk alone in ones neighborhood at night. Where many demographic variables increase fear while walking in ones neighborhood or being home alone at night (i.e. lower education levels, lower reported personal income, and living in an urban area). Majority of people understand fear of crime centered on findings using respondents feelings of fear or worry while walking in their neighborhood at night. There is another fear i.e fear of strangers which has been suitably referred to as stranger danger. During childhood, all of us are told to be wary of strangers. Women fear the danger posed by strange men even though statistics show that women are more likely to be victimized by individuals they know. It would appear that they are most afraid of the surprise sexual attack by the unknown assailant, despite the fact that stat istics and public service media campaigns are making women aware of dangers of dating and marital situations. Number of survey reports discuss about the fear of crime and indicate relatively small but statistically significant differences between fear rates expressed by men and women. Majority of women are believed to be fearful of crime; and all men fearless (Gilchrist, 1988). Studies are limited to explain why women might harbor anxiety about their personal safety. Skogan and Maxfield (1981) suggest that womens fear of crime is because of their physical and social openness. Womens fear of sexual assault i.e. fear of rape also causes lack of safety amongst the women. Research Questions This research is to assist with the targeting of safety programs and the determination of focus for future community groups and activities. This paper will address the problem of which gender within the local community fears crime, whether actual or perceived, and the times that they feel most unsafe. By understanding this, programs can be directed towards these groups and the understanding of safety and their options when confronted with a situation can be addressed. Based on collected statically data this paper will directly address the aspects of the genders influence of the fear of crime: Do the different genders fear crime differently? What affect does age have on females fear of crime? Do females feel safer at home during the day or evening? Due to the results of the above previous research and general perception within the Westernised Urban Australian culture, it is expected that females will report a higher level of fear of crime. Because of this the second and third questions within this report will focus on the different generations and locations in which females fear crime; including showing the amounts in which it various. If the results unexpectedly show that males are more fearful of crime, then the questions regarding the female generations and locations effects of their perceived fear are still warranted and are able to be used to target female related programs. Method This analysis utilises data collected by previous research groups over the past few years. This offers the advantage of including the indexing of generations over time allowing a slightly more average and round return compared to a frozen snapshot in time. The survey was conducted across all age groups from varying social-economic backgrounds and cultures. Also the location spread of the survey focuses on South East Queensland however reaches into other states and some samples are returned from overseas (Micronesia). Sampling was conducted via a take home survey with instructions included. There was a directed expectation of integrity of answers, which created minimal cross-contamination. Immediately upon completion, surveys were to be returned via either mail or in person allowing coalition and further reducing the possibility of corrupted samples. Fear of crime will be the dependent variable and will indicate the level of felt across the genders in varying situations. The gender of respondent is the independent variable which is being assessed as to whether it relates to the fear of crime and in addition to gender, age  [1]  and time of day will also be independent variables. All these variables will be determined by the survey responses and the dependent variable will be tested for statistical independence. Analytic Techniques Summary of analysis completed The data is presented in tabular format along with graphs and charts. All descriptive statistics is calculated for each variable on interval or ratio scale. Further, data is analysed using statistical techniques such as chi-square test, one- way ANOVA followed by POST HOC tests, Z-test for comparing mean etc. Level of significance is fixed at 5%. All p-value less than 0.05 will be treated as significant. Dealing with missing data Missing data is almost part of every research. In this study, missing data is limited to a small number of subjects. Hence we opted a list-wise deletion of subjects. Only the subjects with missing data will be eliminated from the study. That is if a subject is missing data on any of the variables used in the analysis, it is completed eliminated. Dealing with outliers, errors etc. Dealing with outliers and errors is very difficult. In this study, we found very less outliers and errors. All subjects with outliers or errors are excluded from the study. Since errors are at random, it makes no much effect on study, if we remove them from the study. Any other problems in completing the analysis (e.g. violations of requirements) Before conducting all parametric tests, all the necessary required conditions are checked and further analysis is done. For parametric tests, normality assumption is checked. All data is found to be approximated normally distributed. Age-wise distribution Gender Frequency Percent Male 162 45.6 Female 193 54.4 Total 355 100.0 Findings Question one or Hypothesis One: Does fear of crime differ by gender? Table gender * Afraid group Cross tabulation Afraid Score Total Afraid Score less than 4 Afraid score between 4-6 Afraid Score above 6 gender Male Count 83 61 16 160 % of Total 23.5% 17.3% 4.5% 45.3% Female Count 53 76 64 193 % of Total 15.0% 21.5% 18.1% 54.7% Total Count 136 137 80 353 % of Total 38.5% 38.8% 22.7% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 34.275a 2 .000 Likelihood Ratio 36.068 2 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 33.650 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 353 Conclusion: Parsons Chi-square is found to be 34.275 with p-value Respondents Perceived Level of Unsafety While at Home During the Day and Gender gender * safe day Cross tabulation safe day Total Very Unsafe Unsafe Neither safe nor unsafe Safe Very safe Never home alone during the day gender Male Count 1 3 4 35 111 1 155 % of Total .3% .9% 1.2% 10% 32.3% .3% 451% Female Count 3 7 24 72 83 0 189 % of Total .9% 2.0% 7.0% 20% 24.1% .0% 55% Total Count 4 10 28 107 194 1 344 % of Total 1.2% 2.9% 8.1% 31% 56.4% .3% 100% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 31.670a 5 .000 Likelihood Ratio 33.680 5 .000 Linear-by-Linear Association 24.327 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 344 Conclusion: Parsons Chi-square is found to be 31.670 with p-value Question Two or Hypothesis Two: Are older women more fearful than younger women? Graph age * Fear Group Cross tabulation Fear Group Total Fear Score less than 3 Fear Score between 4 -6 Fear Score above 6 age Age Group 18 -24 Count 12 14 14 40 % of Total 6.3% 7.3% 7.3% 20.8% Age Group 25-34 Count 15 30 13 58 % of Total 7.8% 15.6% 6.8% 30.2% Age Group 34-44 Count 13 14 11 38 % of Total 7.3% 5.7% 19.8% Age Group 45-54 Count 8 9 10 27 % of Total 4.7% 5.2% 14.1% Age Group 55-64 Count 6 6 4 16 % of Total 3.1% 6.8% 2.1% 8.3% Age group 65 and over Count 2 5 6 13 % of Total 1.0% 4.2% 3.1% 6.8% Total Count 56 78 6 192 % of Total 29.2% 40.6% 30.2% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 7.544a 10 .673 Likelihood Ratio 7.512 10 .676 Linear-by-Linear Association .284 1 .594 N of Valid Cases 192 Conclusion: Parsons Chi-square is found to be 7.544 with p-value > 0.05; hence there is no significant association between fear and age group. Hence we can conclude that, age is not associated with fear. Average Score of Female Respondents Fear of Crime and Age e.g. Table or graph, ANOVA Test Descriptive (Fear) N Mean Std. Deviation 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Age Group 18 -24 40 5.1162 2.44853 4.3332 5.8993 Age Group 25-34 58 4.3498 1.91327 3.8468 4.8529 Age Group 34-44 38 4.3447 2.24761 3.6060 5.0835 Age Group 45-54 27 4.8770 2.42666 3.9171 5.8370 Age Group 55-64 16 4.6325 2.57747 3.2591 6.0059 Age group 65 and over 13 6.0692 2.60333 4.4961 7.6424 Total 192 4.7226 2.29671 4.3957 5.0495 ANOVA fear2 Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 44.032 5 8.806 1.700 .137 Within Groups 963.469 186 5.180 Total 1007.500 191 Conclusion: there is no significant difference in fear score among various age groups. F= 1.70, p > 0.05, hence we can conclude that the fear score is almost same among persons of all age groups. Female Respondents Received Level of Unsafety While at Home During the Day and Age e.g. Table or graph, ANOVA Test Descriptive (safe day) N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Age Group 18 -24 39 4.3846 .84652 .13555 4.1102 4.6590 Age Group 25-34 57 4.2456 .66227 .08772 4.0699 4.4213 Age Group 34-44 37 4.0000 1.20185 .19758 3.5993 4.4007 Age Group 45-54 26 4.3846 .75243 .14756 4.0807 4.6885 Age Group 55-64 16 4.0625 1.06262 .26566 3.4963 4.6287 Age group 65 and over 13 3.6923 1.03155 .28610 3.0689 4.3157 Total 188 4.1915 .91074 .06642 4.0605 4.3225 ANOVA safe day Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 7.454 5 1.491 1.838 .108 Within Groups 147.653 182 .811 Total 155.106 187 Conclusion: there is no significant difference in safe day score among various age groups. F= 7.454, p > 0.05, there is no significant difference between feeling safety during day score and age. Female Respondents Perceived Level of Unsafety While At Home Alone After Dark and Age e.g. Table or graph, ANOVA Test N Mean Std. Deviation 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Age Group 18 -24 34 9.1765 2.25637 1.3036 17.0493 Age Group 25-34 46 7.9130 1.94569 2.1351 13.6910 Age Group 34-44 33 3.5758 1.25076 3.1323 4.0193 Age Group 45-54 25 1.1760 2.59700 1.0401 22.4799 Age Group 55-64 16 1.5125 3.23787 -2.1284 32.3784 Age group 65 and over 11 2.6364 .92442 2.0153 3.2574 Total 165 8.2364 2.035861 5.1069 11.3658 ANOVA safenite Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 2166.272 5 433.254 1.047 .392 Within Groups 65807.509 159 413.884 Total 67973.782 164 Conclusion: there is no significant difference in safe night score among various age groups. F= 1.047, p > 0.05, there is no significant difference between feeling safety during night score and age. Question Three or Hypothesis Three: Average Score of Female Respondents Fear of Crime and Live Alone E.g. Table or graph, z-test of mean differences Descriptive (Fear) N Mean Std. Deviation 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Live Alone 121 4.6625 2.32150 4.2446 5.0803 Dont live alone 17 6.1000 2.13131 5.0042 7.1958 Total 138 4.8396 2.34008 4.4457 5.2335 ANOVA fear2 Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Groups 30.802 1 30.802 5.823 .017 Within Groups 719.406 136 5.290 Total 750.208 137 Conclusion: there is significant difference in fear score women who live alone and dont live alone at home. F= 5.823, p Female Respondents Received Level of Unsafety While at Home Alone During the Day and Lives Alone E.g. Table or graph, z-test of mean differences Female Respondents Received Level of Unsafety While a Home Alone After Dark and Lives Alone E.g. Table or graph, z-test of mean differences N Mean Std. Deviation 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound safe day Live Alone 119 4.1176 .91296 3.9519 4.2834 Dont live alone 16 3.6875 1.07819 3.1130 4.2620 Total 135 4.0667 .93999 3.9067 4.2267 safenite Live Alone 102 5.5000 13.19747 2.9078 8.0922 Dont live alone 14 2.1429 .77033 1.6981 2.5876 Total 116 5.0948 12.41946 2.8107 7.3789 ANOVA Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. safe day Between Groups 2.610 1 2.610 2.997 .086 Within Groups 115.790 133 .871 Total 118.400 134 safenite Between Groups 138.743 1 138.743 .899 .345 Within Groups 17599.214 114 154.379 Total 17737.957 115 Conclusion: There is no significant difference in fear score of women who live alone and dont live alone at home during day. F= 2.997, p > 0.05, there is significant difference between feeling safety during day score and living alone status. There is no significant difference in fear score of women who live alone and dont live alone at home during day. F= 2.997, p > 0.05, there is significant difference between feeling safety during day score and living alone status. Discussion/Conclusion Summary of Results: how did you answer each question/hypothesis? Each hypothesis is tested for rejection with appropriate test of significance. The level of significance is set at 5%. All p-values greater than 0.05 will be treated as insignificant and the null hypothesis will be accepted. Implications of findings for theoretical explanations In this, out of 355 respondents, 162 (45.4%) are males and 193 (55.6%) are females. This study clearly shows that there is significant association between gender and fear of crime (p 0.05). The level of fear is almost equal among all age groups in women. No significant difference was found in the average score of fear between different age groups of women (p-value > 0.05). There is no significant difference in safe night score among various age groups in women (p-value > 0.05). There is significant difference in fear score among women who live alone and dont live alone at home (p Limitations of the Research There are limitations to this study. Firstly the sample size only pertains to only one country and considering all are local population, the data does not give diversity of opinion. Australia is a country where population has settled form wide range of countries and their cultural differences have not been considered. The survey is conducted only in English and non English speaking women must be unable to report their experiences of victimization. As a result, these indicators lack sufficient data regarding the prevalence of violence against immigrant women as well as some groups of Aboriginal women. Majority of countries are carving out funds for preventing violence against women. The real effect is yet to be seen. Future research is required to look into use of these funds and any improvement the funds could generate. Moreover, due to the different sources of data used in this document, comparisons over time and between jurisdictions have been done. Moreover, quantitative data may have serious limitations. They cannot portray the reality of violence in the lives of individual women the fear such violence instills and the trauma it causes. It is the answers of women themselves that is necessary to provide the context and texture of that reality. Quantitative data always need to be complemented by qualitative data to give an accurate and complete picture of violence against women. The sample sizes do not permit the disaggregation of data on violence against immigrant and refugee women, women of color, women with disabilities, teenage women and girls, older women, women living in poverty, homeless women, women in rural and remote communities and bisexual women. In the absence of sufficient data on women in all their diversity, these indicators cannot provide a complete profile of the experiences of all women in Australia or their experiences of violence through their lifecycles. It was also noted that there is a lack of national data on the individual economic costs of violence against women including costs of the loss of financial supports, legal services, housing, mental and physical health etc. The study has not assumed the percentage of people not reporting crime because of loss of their self reputation. In certain areas, such as violence against women, methodological shortcomings and lack of reporting, or under-reporting, led to inaccurate data collection, and such unreliable or mislea