FEAR OF CRIME AND ELDERLY PEOPLE: KEY FACTORS THAT DETERMINE FEAR OF CRIME AMONG ELDERLY PEOPLE IN

WEST FLANDERS

LIESBETH DE DONDER, DOMINIQUE VERTE AND ELS MESSELIS

This paper analyses the determinants of fear of crime among elderly people in West Flanders, Belgium. Using data generated from interviews with 4747 men and women aged 60-103, the impact on the level of fear of crime using ten key factors was assessed. The analysis yielded conclusions in three areas. First, demographic vari- ables such as gender, physical vulnerability and income correlate with fear of crime. Women feel less safe than men. Physical vulnerability and a low income increase fear of crime. Second, neighborhood variables play an important role in the genesis of fear of crime. Elderly people who feel that they live in a neighborhood that is adapted to them and who show more neighborhood involvement feel safer than elderly people who do not. Loneliness and lack of participation in both social and cultural life show a strong relationship with fear of crime. Third, it is argued that watching television correlates to an increased fear of crime while the daily reading of a newspaper decreases fear of it.

1. Literature Review

1.1 Fear of Crime

After 30 years of research there is still no broadly accepted definition of 'fear of crime'. While dissatisfaction with the lack of an accurate definition is expressed in the literature, debate continues over the best way to measure fear of crime. Elchardus, De Groof and Smits (2003) argue that much of the em- pirical l i terature concerning ' fear of cr ime' can be grouped into two para- digms, a rationalistic and a symbolic one. The rationalistic paradigm inter- prets fear as a consequence of risk and vulnerability with regard to crime and

Ageing International, Fall 2005, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 363-376.

363

364 Ageing International]Fall 2005

victimization. The symbolic paradigm interprets fear of crime as a consequence of more general feelings of vulnerability and dissatisfaction that become feel- ings of being threatened of crime and victimization. Fear of crime thus can be seen as an emotional response to a perceived threat. That feeling of being threatened however can be influenced by many diverse factors, not only the actual evidence of crime (Elchardus, De Groof and Smits, 2003). Baumer (1985) and Skogan and Maxfield (1981) divide those factors in three fields. First, there is the effect of demographic variables such as psychical and social vulnerability. Second, neighborhood variables influence the feeling of being threatened. Third, we are affected by information we receive about crime from actual victims, from stories by acquaintances whether true or perceived and through television and newspaper reports.

1.2 Fear of Crime and the Elderly

Hough and Mayhew (1983 in Pain, 1997) describe a 'fear-victimization paradox' by which elderly people report a comparatively high level of fear of crime despite low levels of victimization. Much research regarding elderly people and their fear of crime concerns the confirmation or the negation of this paradox and the search for explanations for this 'irrational' fear. Empiri- cal studies show many different results. Ziegler and Mitchell, in a review in 2003, conclude that sixteen studies find that elderly people experience more fear of crime, that two studies do not find a difference between young and elderly people and that seven recent studies find that elderly people are less afraid than younger people. Other researchers (Fattah, 1993; Fattah and Sacco, 1989; Killias and Clerici, 2000; Pantazis, 2000) report that older people have higher levels of fear of crime than younger people while Dammert and Malone (2003) find no difference between elderly and young people. Some (Chadee and Ditton, 2003; Kanan and Pruitt, 2002; Opdebeeck, Vandenberk, and Lammertyn, 1998) even report that elderly people show fewer signs of fear of crime than their younger cohort. Hale (1996) states in his literature review that fear of crime grows as one gets older. This, however, may not mean that the fear of elderly people is irrational as their fear of crime could be caused by something other than actual victimization.

The purpose of this research is further to explore the causes of fear of crime among elderly people by examining the effect of theoretically signifi- cant predictors upon it.

1.3 Demographic Variables

Socio-demographic variables such as gender, income, physical vulnerabil- ity and age were used in this study. Age has already been discussed above. Other variables will now be considered.

De Donder, Vert6, and Messelis 365

Gender. Researchers speak of a 'fear-victimization paradox' for women. Most research (Kanan and Pruitt, 2002; Killias and Clerici, 2000; McCoy et. al., 1996; Opdebeeck, Vandenberk and Lammertyn, 1998; Tulloch, 2000) re- ports that women are more likely to fear crime than men. According to Opdebeeck and colleagues (1998) this difference between the sexes can be explained by a higher level of personal fear. Christmann, Rogerson and Walker (2003) write that women are four times more likely to feel unsafe walking alone after dark than men; five times more likely to be worried about rape than men; and three times more likely to be worried about a physical attack. Nevertheless not all researchers have found that women have higher levels of fear of crime than men. Dammert and Malone (2003) find no differences be- tween men and women.

Income. Baldassare (1985) investigated 10 variables relating to fear of crime and the elderly (gender, house ownership, education, income, victimization, health, mental health, social life, living conditions, neighborhood variables). He discovered that only income negates the significant relationship between age and fear of crime. Many researchers agree with Baldassare. In such re- search (Christmann, Rogerson and Waiters, 2003; Hale, 1996; McCoy et al., 1996; Schweitzer, Kim and Mackin, 1999) income is reported to correlate negatively with fear of crime. Poor elderly people are most fearful. Pantazis (2000) finds out that poor people (54%) feel twice as unsafe on the street as rich people (25%). Hale (1996) by way of explanation states that poor people mostly live in unfavorable districts; they cannot protect themselves, have fewer contacts with political networks and have less control over things.

Physical Vulnerability. Killias and Clerici (2000) and McCoy et al. (1996) discovered that people who consider themselves as vulnerable have higher levels of fear of crime. Pantazis (2000) found that some population groups may feel less safe than others because of their physical inability to defend themselves or their social and economic positions. Fear of crime could de- pend on the possible consequences one expects from victimization. Greve (1998) writes that people who are physically vulnerable, are physically weak, fear that they will recover slowly from bodily harm and are experiencing high levels of stress.

1.4 Neighborhood Variables

In the next item we discuss contextual or neighborhood variables. We ex- amine the organization of the neighborhood, neighborhood involvement by elderly people, degree of social networking, quality of the social network, degree of reported loneliness, participation in social life (membership in asso- ciations) and participation in cultural life.

Neighborhood Features. The physical environment has social conse- quences. The relevant literature contains four dominant theories briefly ex-

366 Ageing International/Fall 2005

plained below. The first of these is the theory named 'Disorder of broken windows' by Wilson and Kelling (1982 in Crank, Giacomazzi and Heck, 2003). This model stresses the influence of neighborhood disorder on fear of crime arguing that disorder is an indicator of weakened local control and a lack of concern about the area. Neighborhood deterioration and decay, empty build- ings, open drug use and vandalism all cause fear of crime. Christmann, Rogerson and Waiters (2003) add that we should examine and understand disorder within the specific context of a specific neighborhood. Different types of disorder provoke different reactions from the community.

A second neighborhood theory has been developed by Newman (1972 in Schweitzer, Kim and Mackin, 1999), who formulated a theory of defensible space as a means to reduce crime. Spaces that increase possibilities of obser- vation and difficulty of escape attract fewer criminals and reduce actual crimes as well as the fear of crime. Examples are porches, fences, mailboxes at the street and adequate street lighting.

Jacobs (1961 in Fowler, 1987) argues in the third theory that a lack of physical diversity in the neighborhood discourages people from looking after the area and from keeping it clean. Jacobs states that neighborhoods encom- passing different functions (living, working, leisure) are safer. Schweitzer, Kim and Mackin (1999) discovered, contrary to Jacobs, that the presence of a grocery store (= factor of diversity in a neighborhood) causes higher levels of fear of crime.

Finally there is the social disorganization theory of Shaw and McKay (1942 in Hale, 1996). Social disorganization is the outcome of a community's inabil- ity to realize common values and to solve the problems of its residents, result- ing in the breakdown of social networks within that community. The authors make the distinction between five factors that cause social disorganization: low socio-economic status of the group, high residential mobility, racial het- erogeneity, disrupted families and growing urbanization.

These four theories all suggest that the physical shape of the neighborhood has social consequences. We suggest that neighborhood commitment is also important. After all, being active in the neighborhood makes people familiar with incivilities and diminishes the negative consequences of the physical shape (Hale, 1996). Fear of crime is very strongly related to a lack of commu- nity cohesiveness, which is the most important variable in predicting fear of crime according to Schweitzer, Kim and Mackin (1999). Even so some stud- ies discover no effect (Kanan and Pruitt, 2002). Killias and Clerici (2000) also conclude that social integration yields no meaningful contribution to the re- search on fear of crime.

Social Contacts. Not everyone who has high levels of fear of crime has a reason that is based on an actual threat. Not everyone who has a reason that is based on an actual threat has high levels of fear of crime. According to Greve (1998) it depends on the coping ability and on the social ties and networks. The social networks of elderly people shrink: loved ones die and social activi-

De Donder, Vert~, and Messelis 367

ties decrease. Living alone increases fear of crime. McCoy and colleagues (1996) discover that socially isolated and mentally vulnerable people have the highest levels of fear of crime. According to Pain (2000) literature of fear of crime can be classified in a theoretical framework that centers upon social exclusion. Those who feel at risk will experience certain spaces as threatening and will go out less.

Participation. Hale (1996) states that participation in social life is the most important variable where fear of crime is the lowest. So it can be postulated that if participation in social life increases, fear of crime will decrease. There is however one exception. Participation in neighborhood watch schemes will be developed even if fear of crime increases. According to Elchardus and Smits (2002) participation in cultural life plays an important role. People who participate in cultural life have lower levels of fear of crime.

1.5 Information about Crime

Personal information about crime from personal experience, from acquain- tances and friends, as well as from the media are all important in shaping one's feelings and beliefs about crime and therefore one's perceived fear of crime.

Victimization. The rationalistic paradigm states that fear of crime is inextri- cably linked with victimization as the experience of victimization itself in- creases the fear of crime. Dammert and Malone (2003) and Kanan and Pruitt (2002) have discovered a positive correlation between fear of crime and the experience of victimization, showing that victims of violence have higher levels of fear of crime. Research however does not give unambiguous results. Minnebo (2000) questioned 328 undergraduate students and states that the relationship between personal victimization experience and fear of crime seems to be contingent upon gender. Personal experience with crime is only a pre- dictor for fear of crime for women. Minnebo reports that men who have had a personal experience with crime do not have higher levels of fear of crime than men who have not had a personal experience with crime.

Media. There are several competing theories about the influence of the media on fear of crime. Some theories postulate that watching news reports on television increases the spectator's fear of crime in the neighborhood and fear of crime as a broader, political problem. Other theories suggest that people who are fearful will expose themselves to media content that helps them to reduce this fear. Watching television will decrease fear of crime by offering a feeling of safety at the end of most programs. These theories will be treated below.

The cultivation theory developed by Gerbner and Gross (1976 in Romer, Jamieson and Aday, 2003) is based on the assumption that on television the world is represented in the public's consciousness as extremely dangerous and unsafe. When people are overloaded with messages relating that they live

368 Ageing International/Fall 2005

in a crazy, dangerous, unsafe world, they will become convinced that they actually do and that the world is indeed dangerous and that their fear of it is justified. Hale (1996) however discovered in his study that these results are not obtained when demographic variables and victimization rates are factored in. Romer and colleagues' work (2003) supports this 'television-exposure' hypothesis, which predicts that exposure to local television news heightens the salience of crime. Crime reports have an effect on the perception that people have about certain districts of the city that in the news on TV are described as dangerous and also on the perception people have of the per- ceived offenders who can become stereotyped generally as perpetrators of criminal activities.

The 'Uses and gratifications' theory of McQuail (1994 in Minnebo, 2000) postulates the opposite of the cultivation theory. In McQuail's theory, fear of crime is seen to motivate people to watch crime on television in order to re- duce this fear. This reduction in fear level is a result of the happy ending that is portrayed as the victory of justice over evil at the conclusion of most crime dramas. This scenario where 'everything turns out well in the end' reassures the viewer whose memory of the good overshadows the memory of the dan- gerous. The feeling of safety offered at the end of the shows leaves the audi- ence feeling secure and reassured that they are safe and that all ends well in this otherwise dangerous world (De Boer and Brennecke, 1999).

2. Data and Method

2.1 Sample

This survey was undertaken to examine several key factors that could re- late to a person's fear of crime. A sample of 4747 residents aged sixty and over living in 10 cities in West-Flanders, Belgium was interviewed between January 2004 and March 2005. Every sample is representative for the specific city. We drew a stratified sample using particular quota where variables as gender and age were matched the makeup of the underlying population.

2.2 Interviews

The interview-design was developed to maximize the response: in every town a steering committee, consisting of a research supervisor, members of the local senior advisory body, an official and a policymaker, was formed. This steering committee was given the responsibility for the development and carrying out of the project. Through a recruitment campaign interviewers were found. Key figures played an important role in that campaign. Key figures are seniors with a wide circle of acquaintances in the elderly population and they searched for elder volunteers who were willing to interview the respondents. It was felt that interviewers who were themselves seniors and who also func-

De Donder, Vert~, and Messelis 369

tioned as respondents would be able to imagine themselves in the situation of the respondents and be more sensitive to their nuances in responses. Inter- viewers employed in the study received a training session. A more complete description of the interview-design can be found in Vert6 and De Witte (2003).

2.3 Dependent Variable: Fear of Crime

The respondents were asked to what extent they agreed with eight items. Possible answers were: completely disagree, disagree, neither agree nor dis- agree, agree, and completely agree.

1. Nowadays it is unsafe to walk on the streets in the evening.

2. Nowadays it is unsafe to let children walk on the streets in the evening.

3. I don't go out that much because I'm afraid to be attacked and robbed.

4. In the evening you should be extra careful on the streets.

5. In the past ten years the streets have become more unsafe.

6. In the evening and at night I don't open when there's a ring at the door.

7. Nowadays an alarm device would be no luxury.

8. When I go on holiday, I don't dare to leave my house unattended.

There are many ideas relating to the best way to measure fear of crime. Previous research has often relied on one particular measure of fear of crime: 'How safe do you feel or would you feel being out alone in your neighbor- hood at night?' . But the prevailing current consensus of researchers is that fear of crime is not a one-dimensional concept/feeling/emotion but instead consists of different dimensions.

Gabriel and Greve (2003) make the distinction between fear of crime as a state of mind and fear of crime as a personal trait. Fear of crime as a state can be furthermore divided into three components: the cognitive perception, the action tendency and the affective experience. The present study follows Gabriel and Greve by asking about the three components. Responses to the three statements 1, 2 and 5 measure the cognitive perception of fear of crime. These Statements express the perception by an individual of a specific situation as threatening or dangerous. Items 4, 6 and 7 measure the action tendency. This action tendency may be reflected in visible behavior like fearful behavior, avoidance behavior or self-protective behavior. Items 3 and 8 measure the

370 Ageing International/FaU 2005

affective experience, the feeling of fear. With Cronbach's alpha being 0.86, we can conclude the items are one-dimensional and we can create one scale: fear of crime. The minimum reading for fear of crime is 8 (= feeling safe) and the maximum 40 (= feeling very unsafe).

2.4 Independent Variables

We examined three fields of variables in this analysis. First were socio- demographic variables such as gender, physical vulnerability, age and income. The index of physical vulnerability (Cronbach's o~ = 0.89) was developed in accordance with the manual of the 'MOS Short-form General Health Survey' (Kempen, Briiman, Heyink and Ormel, 1995). Second, contextual (neighbor- hood) variables were examined by looking at the organization of the neigh- borhood (Cronbach's o~ = 0.93). A high score on this index would indicate a poor organization of the neighborhood for the elderly. Neighborhood involve- ment (Cronbach's o~ = 0.62), housing satisfaction (Cronbach's ~ = 0.93), quantity of the social network (Cronbach's ~ = 0.63), quality of the social network (Cronbach's a = 0.89) and loneliness (Cronbach's o~ = 0.86) were all evaluated. For the index of loneliness the Manual of the Loneliness Scale from De Jong Gierveld and Van Tilburg (1999) was used. Finally participation in social life (Cronbach's ot = 0.75) and participation in cultural life (Cronbach's

= 0.89) were examined. Third the manner in which elderly people receive information about crime and the frequency of their watching television and reading newspapers was investigated.

3. Results

3.1 Demographic Variables

The results of the investigation reveal, as hypothesized, that women (M=28.58) are more likely to fear crime then men (M=26.09) but that their fear of crime is not explained by a higher physical vulnerability, by their age or their income. Pain (2000) believes it unlikely that fear of crime on the part of women is overestimated but believes on the other hand that fear of crime on the part of men is probably underestimated. Men will seldom answer that they are afraid. Their fear is hidden from others. Hale (1996) adds that often violence perpetrated against women remains unreported and therefore hid- den.

Elderly people of 75 years or more (M=28.35) do not have significant higher levels of fear of crime then the elderly aged 60-74 (M=27.01) (p = 0.1078). As stated above the literature relating to the fear of crime in elderly people addresses the fear-victimization paradox. Researchers who investigate whether older people have higher levels of fear of crime, compare a group of elderly people with a group of younger ones. Comparisons within the elderly

De Donder, Vert~, and Messelis 371

group rarely occur; comparisons are usually made between elderly people and a younger cohort.

The results of this study demonstrate that poor elderly people have signifi- cantly higher levels of fear of crime than the wealthier group of elderly. Poor people are more likely than wealthier ones to report that they feel unsafe (M=28.46 vs. M=26.84). As expected, physical vulnerability strongly influ- ences fear of crime. Elderly people who see themselves as vulnerable (M=28.05) have higher levels of fear of crime than elderly who do not (M=26.36). This difference is not explained by age, gender or income.

3.2 Neighborhood Variables

Dissatisfaction with their neighborhood organization has a positive, statis- tically significant relationship with fear of crime. Those elderly people who live in a neighborhood that is adapted to them (M=26.13) have lower levels of fear of crime than elderly people who live in a neighborhood that is not adapted to their needs (M=28.20). Their strong fear of crime is not explained by differ- ences in neighborhood commitment or housing satisfaction. It concerns the physical environment. Results demonstrate that variety in a neighborhood (buildings, services) diminishes fear of crime. At the same time, no evidence was found that dissatisfaction with housing (p=0.9159) exerts any significant effect.

Neighborhood involvement on the part of elderly people is significantly related to their level of fear of crime. Older people who are not involved in their neighborhood (M=28.64) have higher levels of fear of crime than those who are involved (M=26.98). The rationalistic paradigm offers a possible ex- planation. Neighborhood involvement diminishes social vulnerability. The possible loneliness as a consequence of potential victimization will sharply diminish. Keeping this idea at the back of its minds decreases fear of crime. The symbolic paradigm offers a second explanation. Elchardus, De Groof and Smits (2003) state that fear of crime is caused by an individual's interpre- tation of the world. According to Fattah (1993) when people feel they have little control over their lives, they tend to feel vulnerable and helpless and their fear of crime rises. People who have strong involvement in their neigh- borhoods also feel less vulnerable and more in control of their lives and envi- ronment. These people like living in the area and feel engaged in their neigh- borhoods.

Elderly people who report being lonely (M=31.92) have 23% higher levels of fear of crime than those who do not report such feelings of loneliness (M=25.40). Loneliness in this study was not measured by the number of so- cial contacts, but rather by the reported subjective feeling of loneliness. It is postulated that the feeling of being alone, the feeling of loneliness increases the feeling of vulnerability and also the reported fear of crime. So the feeling of loneliness should be seen as an individual variable and not as a neighbor-

372 Ageing International/Fall 2005

hood variable. Differences in fear of crime due to feelings of loneliness are not explained by the quality of the social network, whether it is measured in number of social contacts or in the reported quality of those contacts. The quantity (p=0.3026) and quality (p=0.7669) of social networks have no sig- nificant relationship with fear of crime.

Participation in social life plays an important role too. People who are mem- bers of an association (M=26.02) report significantly less fear of crime than elderly who are not members (M=27.86). In most literature (Hale, 1996) con- cerning participation in social life and fear of crime researchers define social life often as participation in neighborhood watch schemes. In this study par- ticipation was defined more broadly, as participation in a variety of associa- tions both formal and informal. Participation in all of these groups and asso- ciations tends to diminish the fear of crime. Participation in cultural life reduces feelings of fear of crime too. Elderly people who never participate in cultural life (M=27.94) are more likely to fear crime then elderly who do participate (M=26.82).

3.3 Information about Crime

A review of the scientific literature suggests that a distinction should be made between general television viewing and the watching of TV news pro- grams. Most research (Chiricos, Eschholz, and Gertz, 1997; Chiricos, Padgett and Gertz, 2000; Romer, Jamieson and Aday, 2003) reports that watching television news increases the fear of crime significantly although the num- ber of hours spent watching television in general does not correlate with the level of fear of crime (Chiricos, Padgett and Gertz, 2000; Elchardus and Smits, 2003). In this study however, respondents' ratings indicate that elderly people who watch general television (M=28.20) more than 3.28 hours per week, do have significantly higher levels of fear than elderly who do not (M=26.85).

The amount of time spent in reading a newspaper demonstrates a different correlation. Elderly who read a newspaper everyday (M=27.23) have signifi- cantly lower levels of fear of crime than elderly who do not read a newspaper everyday (M=28.01 ).

As a brief summary Table 2 presents the significance of the relation be- tween the various key-factors and fear of crime. We examined fourteen key- factors of which 4 had no significant effect.

4. Discussion

Despite a review of the literature, it is still not clear what is the cause of an individual's fear of crime. In this study 14 factors were examined, of which 10 appeared to have a significant effect on fear of crime. Some critical consid- erations can be formulated.

De Donder, Vert(~, and Messelis 373

Table 2

Relation between key-factors and fear of crime

p-value Age ns. Gender 0.000 Physical vulnerability 0.0009 Income 0.000 Neighborhood organization 0.0005 Housing satisfaction ns. Neighborhood involvement 0.0011 Loneliness 0.000 Quantity of the social network ns. Quality of the social network ns. Social participation 0.0021 Cultural participation 0.0304 Hours watching television 0.0000 Reading the newspaper 0.0147

Firstly, the literature indicates that the influence of the different variables has been rarely tested in one multivariate model. In this research, multivariate analyses was not used. It would be advisable to test one multivariate model that includes demographic variables, neighborhood characteristics, social con- tacts, participation and information about crime.

Secondly all relevant key factors have not been examined, including ac- tual victimization, nor psychological factors like coping mechanisms. Thirdly, a sample was selected which was representative for that specific town. Be- cause the samples were specific to particular towns, the results cannot be gen- eralized for all of Flanders. In the future it would be interesting to examine more towns for a more complete picture of fear of crime in the elderly.

Fourthly, only quantitative measures were used to examine the key-factors that determine fear of crime among elderly people. Farral, Bannister, Ditton and Gilchrist (1997) conclude that closed-response questions overestimate the incidence of fear of crime. They however do not mean that fear of crime cannot be measured by quantitative analysis. Fear of crime cannot be seen as a one-dimensional concept. It consists of different dimensions. In this study a distinction is made between three components: the cognitive perception, the action tendency and the affective experience. Research findings would be enhanced by a qualitative analysis as fear of crime is a feeling.

Conclusion

A review of the literature about fear of crime in elderly people was pro- vided including an examination of demographic variables, neighborhood vari-

374 Ageing International/FaU 2005

ables and variables concerning informat ion about cr ime and vict imizat ion. There is no consensus about the key factors that determine fear of crime and this could be due at least in part to methodological differences within research designs. Researchers have in the past tended to examine fear of crime with a one-dimensional question, 'How safe do you feel or would you feel being out alone in your neighborhood at night?' Most researchers now agree that fear of crime comprises different dimensions. The article then focused on the data and method used for its analysis. That analysis showed that, firstly, four socio- demographic var iab les - -gender , income, physical vulnerabi l i ty and loneli- n e s s - a r e significantly related to fear of crime. Secondly, neighborhood vari- ables such as ne ighborhood organiza t ion , ne ighborhood c o m m i t m e n t and participation in both social and cultural life play an important role in the gen- esis of fear of crime. Thirdly reading the newspaper decreases fear of crime. Watching television however increases it.

We would like to suggest ideas for future research design: the use of a mult ivariate model and an examinat ion of more possible key factors in the genesis of fear of crime would further the knowledge in the field of fear of crime in the elderly.

Biographical Notes

Corresponding author: Liesbeth De Donder, Heirstraat 43, 9200 Dendermonde, Belgium. Email: liesbethdedonder @ yahoo.com.

Liesbeth De Donder is a licentiate Social Agogic and has studied at the Free University of Brussels, Belgium. Her research interests are elderly people, fear of crime and vulnerability.

Dominique Vert6 has a doctorate in gerontology and is professor at the Department Agogic, Faculty Psychology and Educational Sciences, Free University of Brussels, Belgium. His fields of re- search are research on the needs of elderly, research on social participation of older people, geron- tology and methodology.

Els Messelis is a social worker and social gerontologist. She is a doctoral candidate at the Department Agogic, Faculty Psychology and Educational Sciences, Free University of Brussels, Belgium. Her expertise and research interests concern age and gender, social participation and learning in later life.

References

Baldassare, M. (1986). The elderly and fear of crime. Sociology and Social Research, 70(3), 218-221.

Baumer, T. L. (1985). Testing a model of fear of crime: Data from a national sample. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 22(3), 239-255.

Chadee, D., and Ditton, J. (2003). Are older people most afraid of crime? British Journal of Criminology, 43, 417-433.

Chiricos, T., Eschholz, S., and Gertz, M. (1997). Crime, news and fear of crime : Toward an identification of audience effects. Social Problems, 44(3), 342-357.

Chiricos, T., Padgett, K., and Gertz, M. (2000). Reality of crime. Criminology, 38(3), 755- 784.

De Donder, Vert~, and Messelis 375

Christmann, K., Rogerson, M., and Waiters, D. (2003, July). Fear of crime and insecurity in new deal for communities partnerships. Sheffield: Sheffield Hallam University, Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research.

Crank, J. P., Giacomazzi, A., and Heck, C. (2003). Fear of crime in a nonurban setting. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 249-263.

Dammert, L., and Malone, M. E T. (2003). Fear of crime or fear of life? Public insecurities in Chile. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 22(1), 79-101.

De Boer, C. and Brennecke, S. I. (1999). Media en publiek: TheorieEn over media-impact [Media and public: Theories on the impact of media]. Amsterdam: Boom.

De Jong Gierveld, J., and Van Tilburg, T. (1999). Manual of the Loneliness Scale 1999. Available at http://home.scw.vu.nl/-tilburg/manual_loneliness_scale_1999.html.

Elchardus, M., and Smits, W. (2002). Anomie en oorzaken van bet wantrouwen [Anomie and causes of distrust]. Brussels: VUB-press.

Elchardus, M., and Smits, W. (2003). Bedreigd, kwetsbaar en hulpeloos: Onveiligheidsgevoelens in Vlaanderen, 1998-2002 [Threatened, vulnerable and help- less: Fear of crime in Flanders, 1998 - 2002]. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel [Free University of Brussels], Research Group TOR, Department of Sociology.

Elchardus, M., De Groof, S., and Smits, W. (2003). Onveil igheidsgevoel--een literatuurstudie. Studie uitgevoerd in opdracht van de Koning Boudewijnstichting [Fear of crime - a literature review. Study made funded by the King Baudouin Founda- tion]. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel [Free University of Brussels], Research Group TOR, Department of Sociology.

Farral, S., Bannister, J., Ditton, J., Gilchrist, E. (1997). Questioning the measurement of the 'fear of crime'. British Journal of Criminology, 37(4), 658-679.

Fattah, E. (1993). Crime and older people, victimization and fear of crime among the elderly: A possible link? Unpublished dissertation, Simon Fraser University.

Fattah, E. and Sacco, V. (1989). Crime and victimization of the elderly. New York: Springer. Fowler, E. P. (1987). Street management and city design. Social Forces, 66(2), 365-389. Gabriel, U., and Greve, W. (2003). The psychology of fear of crime. Conceptual and meth-

odological perspectives. The British Journal of Criminology, 43, 600-614. Greve, W. (1998). Fear of crime among the elderly: Foresight, not fright. International

Review of Victimology, 5, 277-309. Hale, C. (1996). Fear of crime: A review of the literature. International Review of

Victimology, 4, 79-150. Kanan, W. J., and Pruitt, M. V. (2002). Modeling fear of crime and perceived victimization

risk: the (in)signifance of neighborhood integration. Sociological Inquiry, 72(4), 527- 548.

Kempen, G. I. J., Brilman, E. I., Heyink, J. W., and Ormel, J. (1995). Het meten van de algemene gezondheidstoestand met de MOS Short-Form General Health Survey (SF- 20): een handleiding [The MOS short form General Health Survey (MOS-SF20): a manual]. Groningen: University of Groningen, Northern Centre for Healthcare Re- search. Available at www.med.rug.nl/nch/mos20.pdf.

Killias, M., and Clerici, C. (2000). Different measures of vulnerability in their relation to different dimensions of fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 40, 437-450.

Minnebo, J. (2000). Fear of crime and television use: a uses and gratifications approach. Communications, 25, 125-142.

McCoy, H. V., Wool&edge, J. D., Cullen, E T., Dubeck, P. J., and Browning S. L. (1996). Lifestyles of the old and not so fearful: life situations and older persons' fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 191-205.

376 Ageing International]Fall 2005

Opdebeeck, S., Vandenberk, A., and Lammertyn, F. (1998). Geweld en onveiligheidsgevoelens bij ouderen: prevalentie en gevolgen [Violence and fear of crime of the elderly: Prevalence and consequences]. Leuven: University of Leuven - Caritas Cooperation.

Pain, R. (2000). Place, social relations and the fear of crime: review. Progress in Human Geography 24(3), 365-387.

Pain, R. H. (1997). 'Old age' and ageism in urban research: the case of fear of crime. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 21, 117-128.

Pantazis, C. (2000). Fear of crime: Vulnerability and poverty. British Journal of Criminol- ogy, 40, 414-436.

Penning, M. J. (1983). Multiple jeopardy: Age, sex, and ethnic variations. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 15, 81-105.

Romer, D., Jamieson, K. H., and Aday, S. (2003). Television news and the cultivation of fear of crime. Violence and Abuse Abstracts 9, 88-104.

Schweitzer, J. H., Kim, J. W., and Mackin, J. R. (1999). The impact of built environment on crime and fear of crime in urban neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Technology, 6, 59- 73.

Skogan, W. G. and Maxfield, M. G. (1981). Coping with crime. Individual and neighbor- hood reactions. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Tulloch, M. (2000). The meaning of age differences in the fear of crime. British Journal of Criminology, 40, 451-467.

Vertg, D. and De Witte, N. (2003). Draaiboek dataverzameling behoefteonderzoek 2003 [Handbook of data collection, research on the needs of elderly 20031. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel [Free University of Brussels] in collaboration with the provincial consultative body of advisory bodies of seniors Western Flanders.

Ziegler, R., and Mitchell, D. B. (2003). Aging and fear of crime: An experimental approach to an apparent paradox. Experimental Aging Research, 29, 173-187.