city behavior and precautionary measures

City Behavior and Precautionary Measures

ANN SLOAN DEVLIN’ Connecticut College

In a between-subjects design, a Precautionary Measures Scale was developed to assess the extent to which I21 participants would endorse 19 precautionary behaviors if visiting a small town, a small city, or a metropolis. Results indicated high internal consistency for the scale, and a significant main effect for location. The effect for gender approached significance. Participants in the metropolis condition had significantly higher scores than did those in the small-town condition, and women tended to have significantly higher precautionary scale scores than did men. Further. participants classified as feminine on the Bern (I 98 I ) Sex-Role Inventory tended to have significantly higher scores across locations that did those classified as masculine.

Almost 30 years ago, Stanley Milgram explored the experience of living in cities in an article by that name (1970). Central to his interest was how behavior was affected by overload. Three factors-the heterogeneity of the population, the high density, and the large number of people-were tied to overload theory, explaining how people adapted to the big-city environment. For example, they paid less attention to each input, disregarded inputs of low priority, and redrew the boundaries in social interactions so that others took on the burden of interaction.

The classic example of the difference between small-town and big-city behavior is one’s reaction to an individual lying in the street. In small towns, people may rush to the aid of such an individual; while in the big city, people merely step over what they assume is a drunk or a drug addict lying in the gutter.

The ultimate adaptation to an overloaded social environment is to totally disregard the needs. interests. and demands of those whom one does not define as relevant to the satisfaction of personal needs, and to develop highly efficient perceptual means of deter- mining whether an individual falls into the category of friend or stranger. (Milgram, 1970, p. 1462)

‘Correspondence concernmg thls article should be addressed to Ann Sloan Devlin, Department o f Psychology. Connecticut College. Box 5448, Net+ London, CT 06320-41 96

21 58

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2000, 30, 10, pp. 21 58-21 72 Copyright 0 2000 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

CITY BEHAVIOR 2159

Although Milgram’s theoretical approach to the city is well known, other approaches emphasizing environmental stress, behavior constraint, and behavior setting theory, among others, have been used to explain the same phenomena (see Bell, Greene, Fisher, & Baum, 1996, for a review). Milgram is emphasized here because of the diversity of the experiments that he conducted on city life.

With regard to city behavior, the perception of vulnerability in the city, and cognitive overload, questions arise concerning the kinds of protective measures that people use to ensure their safety in the city. This is particularly relevant for those who may be visitors or tourists and who are concerned with pickpockets, muggings, and other kinds of personal assaults. Who is likely to take such measures? Can a scale of such protective steps be developed?

As Milgram (1970), Barker and Schoggen (1973), and others have pointed out, environments varying in size and scale differ in how they are perceived. The idea of taking precautionary measures reflects the notion that people will avoid or in some way restrict their behavior to increaseiensure their safety in what they perceive to be unsafe environments. Urban environments generally have a poorer reputation than do suburban, small-town, or rural environments in terms of fear of crime, although among residents new to a city, the larger one’s community of origin, the safer one is likely to feel in the city (Kennedy & Krahn, 1984). People in the central city think that crime is more likely to occur there than do suburban or rural residents (Boggs, 1971). Further, altruism is generally higher in small towns (Hansson & Slade, 1977), and strangers receive poorer treatment in urban environments (Korte, 1980). Korte says of Milgram’s work, “The urban environment is viewed by Milgram as affecting urbanites’ behavior in those situations where there is no pre-existing tie to the other person, applicable to social contact with strangers, and possibly, neighbors” (p. 4 1). Many of Milgram’s experiments deal with urban experiences; for example, those on maintaining social norms, mailing a lost letter, or identifying what he calls a “familiar stranger” (Milgram, Sabini, & Silver, 1992).

When people consider the attributes of the stranger, one of their primary concerns is the potential that that person presents for crime and violence. As people determine whether others fall into the category of friend or stranger, they may exhibit precautionary behaviors to protect their own safety. In the United States, and also in Canada (Forde, 1993), fear of crime is a significant problem (Berke, 1994; Furstenberg, 1971; Riger, 1985), and gender and city size are good predic- tors of fear (Clemente & Kleiman, 1977). Controlling for victimization, fear tends to be the highest for females, the elderly, non-Whites, the poor, and those who live in urban environments (Liska, Sanchirico, & Reed, 1988). Americans continue to fear crime, despite the fact that the crime rate dropped during the 1990s (Butterfield, 1999; “Crime in America,” 1996; “Defeating the bad guys,” 1998; Gest, 1997). In New York City, for example, there were over 2,000 mur- ders in 1990; but in 1997, fewer than 600 were documented (“The incredible

2160 ANN SLOAN DEVLIN

shrinking crime rate,” 1999). Some have argued that the violence of the crimes that are committed in the United States and their irrationality contribute to Amer- icans’ fears of crime (“Crime in America.” 1996).

Fear of crime is a problem because it changes behavior (e.g., Keane, 1998), and it affects women significantly more than it does men (Ross, 1993), even though men are significantly more likely to have been victims of crime than are women (Clemente & Kleiman, 1977; Franck & Paxson, 1989). Fear leads to constrained social behavior (Liska et al., 1988), which can affect one’s quality of life. In a representational national sample, it was demonstrated that fear of crime was related to a restriction of physical activity, specifically walking (Ross, 1993). Sur- prisingly, these constrained or avoidance behaviors are characteristics of those who have financial means, as well as of those who do not (Gates & Rohe, 1987).

The greater fear of crime among women despite their lower actual risk has been discussed as a paradox in the literature. This victimization-fear paradox (Werner, 1998) also exists for the elderly. Although some research has begun to challenge the stereotype that women are more fearhl (Gilchrist, Bannister, Dit- ton, & Farrall, 1998), the majority of research continues to document this paradox. Women’s greater ecological vulnerability and men’s downplay of risk and fear may contribute to the paradoxical findings (Smith & Torstensson, 1997). The fear of crime among White women in the age bracket 30 to 54 years has been shown to be particularly susceptible to the impact of television and radio news. For them, exposure increases fear, perhaps because of what has been described as the affinity they experience for the people similar to themselves who are depicted in news stories on crime (Chiricos, Eschholz, & Gertz, 1997).

Numerous authors have described the responses to crime that the individual can make. For example, Greenberg (1987) discussed cognitive, affective, and behavioral responses to crime. Within the behavioral category, there are four components: (a) avoidance, (b) self-protection, (c) protecting one’s house, and (d) collective action. The emphasis in the present paper is on avoidance and self- protection outside the home, because the approach concerns tourists and visitors. Typically, the research has focused on residents. Greenberg states,

of the five major behavioral responses to crime, the one that has the closest empirical association with fear is avoidance-not going to certain public places, traveling by car rather than walking or using public transportation, or staying at home. (p. 235)

Avoidance is a very commonly endorsed strategy, especially among women and the elderly, who are the most fearhl (Gordon, Riger, LeBailly, & Heath, 1980; Greenberg, 1987; Lavrakas & Lewis, 1980). But even adolescents ages 12- 19 years said that they had taken precautions because they were concerned about crime (Williams, Singh, & Singh, 1994). And in terms of children’s behavior,

CITY BEHAVIOR 2161

perceptions of danger in the neighborhood have effects far beyond the neighborhood itself (Shumow, Vandell, & Posner, 1998).

Avoidance is an approach that reduces your exposure to risk, according to Greenberg and differs from self-protection, which reduces your chances of being victimized when exposed to risk. Ironically, the same kinds of avoidance strategies undertaken by city residents are used by prison inmates, particularly those who are more fearful, older, and more socially isolated (McCorkle, 1992). For protection, these inmates keep more to themselves, avoid particular areas, spend more time in their cells, and decline to participate in activities.

The literature clearly shows that women express a greater fear of crime than do men, despite the differences in actual victimization. This analysis in the literature has focused on gender, as opposed to gender role. Might there be characteristics of gender role that predict precautionary behavior? The question is relevant because some recent work has suggested that, under certain conditions, fear in men and fearlessness in women occurs (Gilchrist et al., 1998). Gender-role theory (Bem, 1974) proposes that individuals can be categorized into four groups: masculine, feminine, androgynous, and undifferentiated. Among other characteristics, masculine-typed individuals are hypothesized to be analytical, independent, individualistic, and willing to take risks, whereas feminine-typed individuals are thought to be affectionate, compassionate, tender, and understanding (Bern, 1974). Androgynous individuals possess a high degree of both masculine and feminine qualities, whereas undifferentiated individuals describe themselves as having fewer of either of the masculine and feminine attributes. Masculinity has been compared to Bakan’s (1966) agentic orientation, with the focus on the individual; while femininity has been lined to Bakan’s communal orientation, reflecting a focus on relationships (Bern, Martyna, & Watson, 1976). To further develop our understanding of the fear of crime and precautionary behavior as it relates to masculine and feminine characteristics, the present study incorporates a gender-role assessment.

Methodologically, fear of crime has been assessed in a number of ways. It has been assessed with just a few items (e.g., Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman, & Chavis, 1990) and, according to Gordon et al. (1980), the most common measure of fear of crime is a single item: “How safe do you feel being out alone in your neighborhood at night?” But fear of crime has also been assessed with a more fully developed scale (e.g., Gordon et al., 1980; Norris, 1997). The present research is more in line with the approach of Gordon et al. and Norris.

A number of authors use items that are related to the scale developed in this article, although none of the items was directly incorporated into the present instrument. For example, Shumow et al. (1998) have an eight-item Perceptions of Neighborhood Danger Scale for adults, but the items focus on drug dealers in the neighborhood and the presence of gangs. More similar to the instrument used here is the approach taken by Gordon et al. (1980), who included measures of


self-protective behavior when investigating the perceptions of danger for women who lived in six neighborhoods in Chicago. San Francisco. and Philadelphia. As an introduction to assess precautionary behaviors in cities, they asked respondents,

Sometimes when people live in the city they have ways of trying to prevent uncomfortable situations from happening. There are certain things they do to avoid unpleasant or dangerous situations. I would like you to tell me what things you do to avoid dangerous situations. (p. S147)

Respondents were also asked to indicate how often they undertook a series of protective behaviors. The content of the items most closely represented here is as follows: “How often do you restrict your going out to only during the daytime?,” “How often do you go out with a friend or two as protection?.” and “When on the street. how often do you avoid looking people in the eye whom you don’t know?” (p. S153). However, many of their questions refer to behavior in the home (e.g., checking the identification of a repairperson, or checking who is at the front door before opening it). Other items in their research similar to those used in the current study are, “How often do you cross the street when you see someone who seems strange or dangerous‘?” and “When walking on the street, how often do you make a point of being alert and watchhl?” (p. S154).

There is also some overlap with questions used by Norris (1997). who looked at precautionary behavior across domains. Within a larger set of items, Norris included 16 questions that were related to the prevention of crime and an additional 5 that were related statements of attitude. Of five items that fell under the heading of Person Protection, two were similar to items in the present scale: “Take someone with you,” and “Take extra precautions in a crowd to protect belongings” (p. 569). Other aspects of crime prevention from Norris that were not relevant included residence-related behaviors in the categoiy of Neighborly Cooperation, and Professional Guidance (e.g.. having valuables engraved or a security system installed). The Appendix lists the items in the current scale.

The present study is designed to (a) develop a scale of precautionary measures for visitorshourists, and (b) examine the behavior that one would be likely to exhibit i n three dramatically different environments: a metropolis (Manhattan); an extremely small city geographically, but with “big-city’’ problems (New London, Connecticut); and a small town (Mystic, Connecticut). It is hypothesized that participants filling out the Manhattan and New London ver- sions of the questionnaire will have significantly higher scores on the precautionary measures scale than will participants imagining themselves visiting Mystic. From the standpoint of population, one would predict a continuum of precautionary behaviors, with the greatest number occurring for Manhattan,

CITY BEHAVIOR 2163

followed by New London, and finally Mystic. However, the “big-city’’ problems experienced by New London, which include a history of problems related to drug deals and prostitution, as well as the existence of a large client base served by over 30 social-service agencies, led the author to a different hypothesis. Given New London’s profile, it is hypothesized that an imagined visit to the small city will elicit the same kind of precautionary behavior as would an imagined visit to Manhattan.

Further, it is hypothesized that participants classified as feminine on the Bem (198 1 ) Sex Role Inventory will have significantly higher precautionary scores than will participants classified as masculine on the inventory. Gender role, in addition to gender, may influence precautionary behavior in terms of the characteristics possessed by those who are classified as feminine, as opposed to masculine. Finally, it is hypothesized that there will be a negative correlation between taking precautionary measures and internal locus of control. The Locus of Con- trol Scale (Rotter, 1966) is included to assess the extent to which people who have a belief in their ability to determine the outcome of events exhibit precautionary behavior. It is argued that because they possess an internal locus of control, these individuals think that they will be able to handle situations that arise and are therefore less likely to think that they need to take steps to avoid particular situations.

Method

Purticiyants

The study participants were 126 students at a small liberal arts college in New London, Connecticut. Because 5 students had incomplete data, the study yielded a sample of 121 students. There were 93 females and 28 males. Students were recruited in the student union or through psychology classes. Research credit was awarded for students in introductory psychology classes.

Instruments

Precautionary Measures scale. A 19-item scale measuring precautionary behaviors that one might take was developed by the author through discussions with colleagues and students about the kinds of steps they took to prevent being robbed or mugged in the city. The introductory paragraph on the survey states, “The primary purpose of the study is to see what kinds of behaviors people with different personality traits exhibit when they visit different kinds of cities or towns.” The survey instructions state, “Assume you are going to New London” (Mystic, or Manhattan [NYC], depending on the condition). “Which of the following steps might you take in the city? Rate your likelihood to take these steps


on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all likelv to do that) to 5 (dejnitely likelv to do that).” Two items were reverse scored (Appendix). Participants answered the questions on the basis of their own knowledge of these environments. The school is located on a hill overlooking New London; and Mystic is a popular destination for students and is 10 min from campus. Manhattan is known to students through the media and personal experience.

The Bern (198I) Sex Role Inventoiv. This inventory was included to assess the gender-role characteristics of the subjects. The widely used inventory is a 60- item measure that consists of adjectives that participants rate on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (never true [of theirpersonalit-v]) to 7 (always ti-ue [of their personality]). While 20 of the items are keyed as masculine, 20 are keyed as feminine. The remaining 20 are neutral and are not scored. Based on the median-split method (Bem, 1981), participants were placed into one of four groups: masculine (above the median on the masculine dimension, below the median on the feminine dimension), feminine (below the median on the masculine dimension, above the median on the feminine dimension), androgynous (above the median on both the masculine and feminine dimensions), or undifferentiated (below the median on both masculine and feminine dimensions).

Rotter’s (1966) Internal-External Locus of Control scale. The third instrument was the Rotter Internal-External Locus of Control scale. This is a 29-item measure that indicates the degree to which people believe that they control the events in their lives. Higher scores indicate a more external locus of control (a belief that events are controlled by forces outside the self).

Demographic questions assessed age, gender, race, type of environment in which one grew up (rural, small town, suburb of a city, or city), and number of times the individual had visited Manhattan, New London, or Mystic (depending on which version of the questionnaire the individual received).

Procedure

Students were recruited in the college center or signed up on the Psychology Department’s research bulletin board to participate in the study. Participants signed informed-consent documents, completed the measures in a between-subjects design, and received a debriefing statement.

Description of locations. This information is provided to create a context for understanding the three environments. It was not given to participants.

1. Manhattan, New York. The city ofNew York consists of five boroughs, of which Manhattan is the most typical tourist destination. For most nonresidents, New York City is synonymous with Manhattan. Manhattan is 28.4 square miles (73.56 km2) with a population of just under 1.5 million, according to 1990 Cen- sus figures. For the entire city of New York, the crime rates for 1991 were a total of 678,855 incidents, of which 170,390 were violent.

CITY BEHAVIOR 2165

2. New London, Connecticut. New London is a small city of just over 5.6 square miles (14.50 km*) of land area. It had a 1990 Census population of about 28,000 inhabitants, with a declining population, according to city officials. It has a significant amount of public housing for the elderly and low-income families, and over 30 social-service agencies. Statistics in 1996 indicate 1,133 criminal incidents, of which 126 were violent.

3. Mystic, Connecticut. Mystic is part of two tax towns, Groton and Stoning- ton, Connecticut, and what people conceptualize as the town consists of one main street (Main Street, in fact) about three blocks in length, which crosses the Mys- tic River at the drawbridge. The population for what is considered to be Mystic is about 9,000 (personal communication, Mystic Chamber of Commerce, Novem- ber 1998). Mystic is known for its tourist attractions, including Mystic Seaport and the Mystic Aquarium. Crime statistics are not available for Mystic, per se, but the 1996 figures from neighboring Stonington, with a population of 16,835, show 454 criminal incidents, of which 9 were violent. Local developers state that there has been no violent crime in the downtown Mystic area.

Results

First, the internal consistency of the Precautionary Measures scale was com- puted and yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .89. The scale total for each participant was calculated by adding the values of the 19 items for that participant.

To assess whether students in the three conditions differed significantly from each other in terms of their scale totals, an ANOVA was conducted using the scale total as the dependent measure and condition and gender as the independent variables. The analysis yielded a main effect for location, F(2, 115) = 9 . 6 0 , ~ < .001. A Tukey post hoc test indicated that the scores of the Manhattan participants differed significantly from those of the Mystic participants. The scores of the New London participants fell between those of the Mystic and Manhattan participants. There was also a trend for a main effect for gender, F( 1, 1 15) = 3.06, p = .083. Women tended to have higher precautionary scale scores than did men (Table 1).

To assess the relationship between the number of visits and their precautionary scale scores, a correlation was run. It was significant (r = -.23,p < .05), indi- cating that as the number of visits increased, the precautionary score decreased. However, when these correlations were done separately by location, only the Mystic analysis was significant ( r = -.36, p < .OS). Experience, measured by visits, did not seem to change the precautionary behaviors of those in the New London and Manhattan conditions. An ANOVA was also run using number of visits as the dependent variable and gender and condition (Mystic, New London, Manhattan) as independent variables. The effect for gender approached significance, F( 1, 1 13) = 3.68, p = .058. Men tended to make more visits in general


Table 1

Means (Standard Deviations),for Precautionag~ Scale Scores b>, Gender crnd Location

Location

Mystic New London Manhattan

Females 57.05 ( I 1.76) 63.46 (12.88) 67.82 (12.52)

Males 52.00 (12.33) 57.59 (10.47) 65.50 (8.33) n = 39 n = 26 n = 28

n = 1 1 n = 9 n = 8

( M = 19.90. SD = 28.40) than did women ( M = 11.38, SD = 18.72). There was no difference by condition in terms of the number of visits that participants reported having made to those destinations. The overall mean and standard deviation for the number of trips were 13.45 and 21.66. respectively ( N = 1 19).

To assess whether the kind of environment in which one grew up may have interacted with the experimental condition to affect the precautionary measures score. a 4 x 3 (Environment of Origin: Rural, Small Town, Suburb of a City. City x Experimental Condition: Mystic, New London, Manhattan) ANOVA was conducted. There was no effect of the kind of environment in which one was raised on the precautionary scale score.

To assess the impact of gender role on precautionary measures, an analysis was run on the precautionary measures total (across conditions), using participants classified as either masculine or feminine by the median-split method (Bem, 1981) to create the independent variable category. Gender was also included as an independent variable. The result for gender role approached significance, F(1, 61) = 2.86,~ < .lo. The effect for gender was not significant. Par- ticipants who were categorized as feminine tended to have higher precautionary measure totals ( n = 32, M = 63.72, SD = 12.42) than did those who were classified as masculine ( n = 33, M = 57.73, SD = 13.47).

To examine more closely the contributions of gender role as opposed to gender, a multiple regression was run entering gender, then the Bem masculine raw score, and finally the Bem feminine raw score into the analysis. The result indicated no effect for gender. However, the Bem masculine score approached significance, F(2, 1 18) = 2.90, p = .059 (p = -0.159, p = .08). Entering the Bem feminine score into the equation lowered its significance.

Finally, a correlation between participants’ locus of control scores (a higher score indicates a greater external locus of control) and the precautionary measures score was run. It was not significant.

CITY BEHAVIOR 2167

Discussion

As hypothesized, participants had higher precautionary behavior scores when envisioning themselves visiting Manhattan (NYC) than they did envisioning themselves in Mystic, Connecticut. However, although the scores of participants in the conditions progressed from low to high, as predicted (Mystic, New Lon- don, Manhattan), the scores of New London participants were not significantly different from those of either Mystic or Manhattan participants. Further, there was no relationship between participants’ locus of control and precautionary behavior scores.

This research contributes a Precautionary Behavior scale that reflects the extent to which potential visitors envision the environment as a location in which precaution is needed. Although the scores of New London residents were not significantly different from those of Mystic residents, neither were they significantly different from those of Manhattan participants. Perhaps the scores for New London rest between Mystic and Manhattan because New London is small enough geographically to have the characteristics of a small town, but it shares some characteristics associated with large cities, including its social-service emphasis and its significant low-income housing stock.

While the study does not directly address the way in which perceptions can be changed, perception is an important issue, as fear of crime can constrain behavior and typically is quite different from the actual crime rate in an area (Clemente & Kleiman, 1977; Furstenberg, 1971; Gates & Rohe, 1987; Liska et al., 1988). Danger is negatively related to preference (Herzog & Smith, 1988), and perceptions of danger may influence the likelihood of visiting a particular environment. It is worth noting that while the number of visits was negatively correlated with the precautionary measures score for Mystic (less precaution with more visits), this was not the case for either New London or Manhattan. Perhaps this suggests that the same level of precaution is needed in these two environments, despite the familiarity that accompanies repeated exposure. For Mystic, the trepidation that people may feel because they are newcomers subsides once they experience Mystic as a nonthreatening small town. Although this analysis involved the number of visits, there may be a conceptual difference between that assessment and a judgment of one’s familiarity with a particular environment. The study did not address how rated familiarity with an environment may affect precautionary behavior; this may be a question for further research. Also, in asking participants about visiting Mystic, New London, or Manhattan, the study did not specify a particular section of those environments. While for Mystic there is essentially one main street, New London and especially Manhattan offer numerous options. Future research might specify that participants imagine themselves visiting the central area of the city. For Manhattan, this would probably be “midtown”; while in New London, it would be the State Street-Bank Street area.


Although some research has demonstrated an adaptation-level effect of the environment of origin on judgments made about a new environment (Wohlwill & Kohn, 1973), that was not the case in this study. Wohlwill and Kohn showed that, in general, people from small towns who move to a large city will judge it differ- ently than will those who move there having been raised in a large city. In the study reported here, the self-reported kind of environment in which one grew up (rural, small town, suburb of a city, or city) was not significantly related to the individual’s precautionary measures score. It is possible that simply imaging oneself as a visitor, as opposed to actually moving to a new city, inadequately tests the adaptation-level effect. Interestingly, in the Wohlwill and Kohn research, they report a second study, this one involving New York City, in which the adaptation-level effect did not emerge. In discussing this anomaly, they describe New York City as an “extreme environment,” and one about which they say, “the extreme way in which the New York City environment was perceived leaves no room for the operation of adaptation-level effects” (p. 160). The fact that the present study included New York City as one of the conditions may have mediated the effect of upbringing on the precautionary measures scores, although the lack of an interaction effect between condition and upbringing suggests that upbringing may simply not affect the scenario in which one is a visitor, as opposed to a new resident.

In addition to providing a new scale to assess the precautionary behavior of visitors, the study also demonstrated that gender-role characteristics as well as gender may predict the likelihood that one will take precautionary steps. While the literature has repeatedly demonstrated that women are more fearful of crime than are men and are more likely to use avoidance behaviors than are men, the issue of gender role and precautionary behavior as it relates to fear of crime has not been evaluated. It appears that those who endorse feminine-type characteristics are more likely than are those who endorse masculine-type characteristics to exhibit the precautionary behaviors studied here.

The lack of a relationship between locus of control and precautionary behaviors may be interpreted in a number of ways. While i t was hypothesized that a negative relationship would exist between internal locus of control and precautionary measures, it might also be argued that a positive relationship between external locus of control and precautionary behavior should exist. Perhaps those who see their fate as determined by others (those who are high in external locus of control) therefore need to take steps to avoid being at the mercy of dangerous others. Both explanations might be viable, leading to the lack of a consistent relationship. Further, in a telephone survey of about 500 residents of a midwestern city, having a powerful other control expectancy (one of the dimensions of locus of control) was offset by a situational context: having trust in one’s neighbors (Houts & Kassab, 1997). It is likely that the relationship between locus of control and precautionary behavior is more complex than is envisioned in the study here.

CITY BEHAVIOR 2169

While the study has introduced a scale with good internal consistency, draw- backs include the relatively low number of men who participated and the student participant pool. However, young people typically view themselves as invincible, and if they express some concern for their safety by endorsing precautionary behaviors, it is likely that older visitors would do so to an even greater extent. Additional studies could be done to test that assertion.

References

Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston, MA: Beacon.

Barker, R. G., & Schoggen, P. (1973). Qualities of community lfe. San Fran- cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., & Baum, A. (1996). Environmentalpsy- chology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155- 167.

Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem Sex-Role Inventorv: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Bem, S. L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. (1976). Sex typing and androgyny: Fur- ther explorations of the expressive domain. Journal of Personalit?, and Social

Berke, R. L. (1994, January 23). Crime is becoming nation’s top fear. The New Yovk Times, pp. A l , A16.

Boggs, S. L. (1971). Formal and informal crime control: An exploratory study of urban, suburban, and rural orientations. The Sociological Quarterly, 12, 3 19- 327.

Butterfield, F. (1999, March 15). Number of inmates reaches record 1.8 million; data show crime rate continues to decline. The New York Times, p. A14.

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

Clemente, F., & Kleiman, M. B, (1977). Fear of crime in the United States: A multivariate analysis. Social Forces, 56, 5 19-53 1.

Crime in America. (1996, June 8). The Economist, 339, 23-25. Defeating the bad guys. (1998, October 3). The Economist, 348,35-37. Forde, D. R. (1993). Perceived crime, fear of crime, and walking alone at night.

Psychological Reports, 13,403-407. Franck, K. A., & Paxson, L. (1989). Women and urban public space: Research,

design, and policy issues. In I. Altman & E. H. Zube (Eds.), Public places andspaces (pp. 121-146). New York, NY: Plenum.

Furstenberg, F., Jr. (1971). Public reaction to crime in the streets. The American Scholar, 40,60 1-6 10.

Psychology, 34, 1016-1023.


Gates, L. B., & Rohe, W. M. (1987). Fear and reactions to crime: A revised model. Urban Affairs Quarter($>, 22,425-453.

Gest, T. (1997, June 9). Violence takes another beating. U.S. News & World Report, 122,4 1.

Gilchrist, E., Bannister, J., Ditton, J., & Farrall, S. (1998). Women and the “fear of crime”: Challenging the accepted stereotype. British Journal of Criminol-

Gordon, M. T., Riger, S., LeBailly, R. K., & Heath, L. (1980). Crime, women, and the quality of urban life. Signs, 5 , S144-S160.

Greenberg, S. W. (1987). Why people take precautions against crime: A review of the literature on individual and collective responses to crime. In N. D. Weinstein (Ed.), Taking care: Understanding and encouruging self-protective behavior (pp. 23 1-253). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Hansson, R. O., & Slade, K. M. (1977). Altruism toward a deviant in city and small town. Journal ofAppIied Social Psycholog?., 7. 272-279.

Herzog, T., & Smith, G. A. (1988). Danger, mystery, and environmental preference. Environment and Behavior, 20,320-344.

Houts, S., & Kassab, C. (1997). Rotter’s social learning theory and fear of crime: Differences by race and ethnicity. Social Science Quar.ter(i,, 78, 122-136.

The incredible shrinking crime rate. (1999, January 1 I ) . U.S. News & World Report, 126. 25.

Keane, C. (1998). Evaluating the influence of fear of crime as an environmental mobility restrictor on women’s routine activities. Environment and Behavior,

Kennedy, L. W.. & Krahn, H. (1984). Rural-urban origin and fear of crime: The case for “rural baggage.” R u i d Sociolog??, 49. 247-260.

Korte, C. (1980). Urban-nonurban differences in social behavior and social psychological models of urban impact. Journal of Social Issues, 36, 29-5 1.

Lavrakas, P. J., & Lewis, D. A. (1980). The conceptualization and measurement of citizens’ crime prevention behaviors. Jour.nal of Resear-ck in Crime and Delinquencj,, 17, 254-272.

Liska, A. E., Sanchirico, A., & Reed, M. D. (1988). Fear of crime and constrained behavior specifying and estimating a reciprocal effects model. Social Forces, 66, 827-837.

McCorkle, R. C. (1992). Personal precautions to violence in prison. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 19, 160- 173.

Milgram, S. (1970). The experience of living in cities. Science, 167, 1461-1468. Milgram, S., Sabini, J., & Silver, M. (Eds.). (1992). The individual in a social

world: Essays and experiments (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Norris, F. H. (1997). Frequency and structure of precautionary behavior in the

domains of hazard preparedness, crime prevention, vehicular safety, and health maintenance. Health Psjcholog?,, 16. 566-575.

OQ, 38,283-298.

30,60-74.

CITY BEHAVIOR 2171

Perkins, D. D.. Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context. American Journal of Communih9 Psycholog,,

Riger, S. (1985). Crime as an environmental stressor. Journal ofCommuniF P q -

Ross, C. E. (1993). Fear of victimization and health. Journal of Qirantitative

Rotter, J. B. (1 966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psjichological Monographs, 80( 1, Whole No. 609).

Shumow, L., Vandell, D. L., & Posner, J. (1998). Perceptions of danger: A psychological mediator of neighborhood demographic characteristics. Anzericcin Journal of Orthopsychiatrv, 68,468-478.

Smith, W. R., & Tortensson, M. (1997). Gender differences in risk perception and neutralizing fear of crime: Toward resolving the paradoxes. British Jour- nal ofcriminoloa, 37, 608-634.

Werner, G. (1998). Fear of crime among the elderly: Foresight, not fright. Inter- national Review of Victimoloa, 5,277-309.

Williams, J. S., Singh, B. K., & Singh, B. B. (1994). Urban youth, fear of crime, and resulting defensive actions. Adolescence, 29,323-330.

Wohlwill, J. F., & Kohn, I. (1973). The environment as experienced by the migrant: An adaptation-level view. Representative Research in Social Psy-

18, 83-115.

chologv, 13,270-280.

Crit?linolo~+, 9, 159-175.

c h o l o ~ , 4, 135-164.


Appendix A

Precautionary Measures Scale Items

Rate these items on the following scale: 1( not at all likelv to do that) to

1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

*17. 18.

*19.

5 (definitely like!)> to do that).

Carry only those credit cards I need

Duck into a store if I think someone is following me Avoid eye contact with strangers Avoid conversation with strangers Avoid areas where few people seem to be Cross over to the other side of the street if I think someone is following me Never visit a new part of the city unless someone else is with me Stay alert to what is happening around me Avoid contact with the homeless Avoid contact with street vendors Only take cabs, not public transportation Avoid pulling out big bills (“flashing cash”) Always check my purseiwallet after being “bumped’ into Go with two or more people Go with a friend Leave the city before it gets dark

Walk alone after dark Assuming I drove into the city, park my car in a garage Assuming I drove into the city, park my car on the street

*These items are reverse scored.

city behavior and precautionary measures

Documents