Differences in the Utilization of Cues of Danger - The Potential for Rape on a University Campus (A Methodological Review) (From Link Between Crime and the Built Environment, Volume 2, P C190-C199, 1980, by Tetsuro Motoyama et al - See NCJ-79544)

• NCJ Number: 79557
• Author(s): T Motoyama; H Rubenstein; P Hartjens; L Langbein
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 10 pages
• Corporate Author: American Institutes for Research
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Available on microfiche from NCJRS as NCJ-79544.

Annotation

This review assesses a study by C. Tucker, J. C. Baxter, R. M. Rozelle, and J. H. McCreary on agreement among police officers and male and female university students regarding cues of vulnerability to crime (particularly rape) on a university campus.

Abstract

The study involved viewing 68 photographic slides showing various locations on the University of Houston (Texas) campus. The slides showed variations of at least seven structural properties hypothesized in the literature as contributing to or obstructing 'defensible space.' The factors used were amount of lighting, degree of natural visibility, places of possible concealment for attackers, availability of communication means, availability of escape means, type of clothing worn by model, and whether model is alone or accompanied. Forty slides which best exemplified diverse representation of the 7 properties were selected to be shown to 17 male students, 9 police officers, and 40 female students. Each person rated the slides according to a 5-point scale ranging from 'very safe' to 'very dangerous.' Findings showed (1) a significant difference in the cue use between the police officers and both male and female students, (2) agreement among all three groups on the four cues weighted most heavily, and (3) dismissal of the importance of the cue 'dress of model.' Although the study used multiple regression, Hoffman's W, 'T' tests, and correlation, only the correlations were appropriate. The application of multiple regression was inappropriate, since this analytic technique was developed for use with population parameters and not for sample statistics. The same criticism applies to the use of Hoffman's W. Further, the study shows a misunderstanding of the distribution properties associated with estimates derived from the sample. The implication of the study that certain physical characteristics of areas may reduce fear of crime is not necessarily a positive finding, since reducing the fear of crime may increase unwarranted risk-taking.