URBAN YOUTH, FEAR OF CRIME, AND RESULTING DEFENSIVE ACTIONS

Citation
Js. Williams et al., URBAN YOUTH, FEAR OF CRIME, AND RESULTING DEFENSIVE ACTIONS, Adolescence, 29(114), 1994, pp. 323-330
Citations number
16
Categorie Soggetti
Psychology, Developmental
Journal title
ISSN journal
00018449
Volume
29
Issue
114
Year of publication
1994
Pages
323 - 330
Database
ISI
SICI code
0001-8449(1994)29:114<323:UYFOCA>2.0.ZU;2-1
Abstract
One of the most neglected populations studied in victimology has been juveniles. The present study examines the impact of fear of crime amon g a sample of urban youth on their defensive actions. Studies of urban adult populations have found that a significant number of people fear to venture outside their homes at night. When they do go out, they of ten take defensive measures to insure their safety. Carrying ''mace,'' whistles, guns, knives, and clubs, for example, is not uncommon. Some have indicated that they have undertaken training in a variety of sel f-defensive arts and/or keep dogs to protect themselves from the possi bility of being victimized. Using data collected from a sample of 1,77 5 urban youth in 1986 it was found that this population has taken many of the same defensive actions. Only 11% of the sample indicated that they had not taken any defensive actions as a result of fear of crime. Nearly three-fifths took the precaution of having an escort when they went out at night. Learning a technique of self-defense was reported by 19% of the sample; 10% indicated that they carried ''mace'' or some other type, of repellant. Only 4% reported that they carried a whistl e because of crime concerns. Significant predictors of personal defens ive actions include gender, crime-witnessing status, victimization sta tus and type of victimization (theft vs. violence). Other defensive ac tions taken by members of the respondents' households included install ing a burglar alarm (22%), keeping a ''trained dog'' (17%), keeping li ghts on a night (39%), and installing security locks (38%). Other vari ables in the analysis include neighborhood and school perceptions of s afety and chances of being victimized. Theoretical and policy implicat ions are discussed.