Threats to kill, to injure, or to damage property stimulate fear and anxiety in the victim and his/her immediate human environment. Previous research has used sociodemographic attributes and lifestyle or routine activities measurements to predict crime victimisation rates. The purpose of this study is to examine how personal characteristics are associated with the probability of being threatened. Data from three sweeps of the British Crime Survey (1982, 1984, 1988) are employed. Logistic regression is the main analytic tool used, with some interaction terms entering the set of explanatory variables. Appropriate specification tests for logit models, which are usually neglected, are conducted. The results of the tests confirm the robustness of our models. The present study addresses two questions in particular: (a) which groups of people are most threatened?; and (b) do these groups change over time and, if so, how?
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoxS.HaleC.AndrewsG. (1988). Explaining fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 28, 340–356.
2.
CohenL.E.FelsonM. (1979). Social change and crime rates trends: a routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
3.
CohenL.E. (1981). Modelling crime trends: a criminal opportunity perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 18, 138–162.
4.
DavidsonR.MacKinnonJ.G. (1984). Convenient specification tests for logit and probit models. Journal of Econometrics, 25, 241–262.
5.
EliasN. (1939a). The Civilizing Process, i. The History of Manners, Oxford 1978.
6.
EliasN. (1939b). The Civilizing Process, ii. State Formation and Civilization, Oxford 1989.
7.
FarrellG. (1992). Multiple Victimisation: Its extent and significance. International Review of Victimology, 2, 85–102.
8.
FarrellG.PeaseK. (1993). Once Bitten, Twice Bitten: Multiple Victimisation and its Significance for Crime Prevention, Crime Prevention Unit Paper xx. H.M.S.O; London.
9.
FelsonM. (1986). Linking criminal choices, routine activities, infonnal control, and criminal outcomes. In The Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending (CornishD.B.ClarkeR. V., eds) pp. 119–128. Springer-Verlag; Berlin.
10.
FelsonM.CohenL.E. (1980). Human ecology and crime: a routine activity approach. Human Ecology, 8, 389–406.
11.
GarofaloJ. (1981). The fear of crime: causes and consequences. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 839–406.
12.
GarofaloJ. (1987). Reassessing the lifestyle model of criminal victimisation. In Positive Criminology (GottfredsonM.R.HirschiT., eds) pp. 23–42. Sage; London.
13.
GodfreyL.G. (1988). Misspecification Tests in Econometrics: The Lagrange Multiplier Principle and Other Approaches. Econometric Society Monographs, No 16, Cambridge University Press.
14.
GottfredsonM.R. (1981). On the etiology of criminal victimisation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 714–726.
15.
GottfredsonM.R. (1984). Victims of Crime: The Dimensions of Risk. Home Office Research and Planning Unit, Report no. 81. H.M.S.O.; London.
16.
HindelangM.J.GottfredsonM.R.GarofaloJ. (1978). Victims of Personal Crime: An Empirical Foundation for a Theory of Personal Victimisation. Ballinger Publishing Company; Cambridge Mass.
17.
HoughM. (1990). Threats: findings from the British Crime Survey. International Review of Victimology, 1, 169–180.
18.
HoughM.SheehyK. (1986). Incidents of violence: Findings from the British Crime Survey. Home Office Research and Planning Unit, Research Bulletin no. 20. H.M.S.O.; London.
19.
JohnstonJ. (1985). Econometric Methods. International Student Edition. McGraw-Hill; New York.
20.
KennedyL.W.FordeD.R. (1990). Routine activities and crime: an analysis of victimisation in Canada. Criminology, 28, 137–152.
21.
LiftonR.J. (1974). Home from the war. Vietnam veterans: Neither victims nor executioners. Wildwood House; London.
22.
MaxfieldM.G. (1984). Fear of Crime in England and Wales. Home Office Research and Planning Unit, Report No. 78. H.M.S.O.; London.
23.
MaxfieldM.G. (1987a). Explaining fear of crime: evidence from the 1984 British Crime Survey. Home Office Research and Planning Unit, Paper No. 43. H.M.S.O.; London.
24.
MaxfieldM.G. (1987b). Household composition, routine activity, and victimisation: a comparative analysis. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 301–320.
25.
NOP Market Research Limited (1985). 1984 British Crime Survey Technical Report. NOP; Southampton.
26.
NOP Market Research Limited and Social and Community Planning Research (1989). 1988 British Crime Survey (England and Wales) Technical Report. NOP; Southampton.
27.
OrmeC. (1987). Specification tests for binary data models. Discussion Paper Number 65, Department of Economics; University of Nottingham, UK.
28.
OsbornD.R.TrickettA.ElderR. (1992). Area characteristics and regional variates as detenninants of area property crime levels. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 8, 265–285.
29.
SampsonR.J.GrovesB.W. (1989). Community structure and crime: testing social disorganisation theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774–802.
30.
SampsonR.J.WooldredgeJ.D. (1987). Linking the micro- and macro-level dimensions of lifestyle - routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimisation. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 371–393.
31.
SeligmanM.E.P. (1975). Helplessness on Depression, Development, and Death. W.H. Freeman and Company; New York.
32.
SkoganW.G.MaxfieldM.G. (1981). Coping with Crime: Individual and Neighhorhood Reactions. SAGE Library of Social Research, vol. 124. SAGE Publications; Beverly Hills and London.
33.
SparksR.F. (1981). Multiple victimisation: evidence, theory, and future research. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 762–778.
34.
StaffordM.C.GalleO.R. (1984). Victimisation rates, exposure to risk, and fear of crime. Criminology, 22, 107–185.
35.
TaylorR.B.HaleM. (1986). Testing alternative models of fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77, 151–190.
36.
WoodD. (1984). British Crime Survey, 1982 Technical Report. H.M.S.O; London.
